Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Open Innovation Networks: The Evolution of Bureaucratic Control

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Collaborative Communities of Firms

Part of the book series: Information and Organization Design Series ((INOD,volume 9))

Abstract

Bureaucratic control may appear to be an oxymoron for open innovation networks. Yet, such networks involve high levels of uncertainty and diverse set of participants with only partial congruence in goals, suggesting a need for bureaucratic control. In Finland, such bureaucratic control shaped collaboration and innovative behaviors in multiple ways in government-initiated open innovation networks. The nature of bureaucratic control matters: In this case, it was highly situational and ever evolving during the formative phases of the networks. Bureaucratic control evolved in response to tensions between both private and public interests in the networks. This chapter contributes to the community-based organization design (OD) literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adler PS (2001) Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organ Sci 12:215–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler PS, Borys B (1996) Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Adm Sci Q 41:61–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler PS, Heckscher C (2006) Towards collaborative community. In: Adler PS, Heckscher C (eds) The Firm as a collaborative community – reconstructing trust in the knowledge economy. Oxford University, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Almirall E, Casadesus-Masanell R (2010) Open versus closed innovation: a model of discovery and divergence. Acad Manage Rev 35(1):27–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astley WG, Van de Ven AH (1983) Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Adm Sci Q 28:245–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autio E, Kanninen S, Gustafsson R (2008) First- and second-order additionality and learning outcomes in collaborative R&D programs. Res Policy 37:59–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailyn L (1985) Autonomy in the Industrial R&D Lab. Hum Resour Manage 24:129–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker JR (1993) Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams. Adm Sci Q 38:408–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney J, McGahan A, Zelner B (2011) Entrepreneurship in the Public Interest, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. Call for papers http://sej.strategicmanagement.net/public_interest.php. Accessed 15 Mar 2011

  • Cardinal LB (2001) Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organ Sci 12(1):19–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinal LB, Sitkin SB, Long CP (2004) Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and evolution of organizational control. Organ Sci 15(4):411–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinal LB, Sitkin SB, Long CP (2010) A configurational theory of control. In: Sitkin SB, Cardinal LB, Bijlsma-Frankema KM (eds) Organizational control. Oxford Press, Oxford, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough HW (2003) Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough HW (2006) Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Harvard Business Review, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough HW, Schwartz K (2007) Innovating business models with co-development partnerships. Res Technol Manag 50:55–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J (2006) Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University, Oxford, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury V, Sabherwal R (2003) Portfolios of control in outsourced software development projects. Inform Syst Res 14(3):291–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin J, Strauss A (2008) Basics of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander L, Gann DM (2010) How open is innovation? Res Policy 39:699–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1985) Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Manage Sci 31:134–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström Y (2007) From communities of practice to mycorrhizae. In: Hughes J, Jewson N, Unwin L (eds) Communities of practice: Critical perspectives. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Enkel E, Gassman O, Chesbrough H (2009) Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Manage 39(4):311–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faems D, Janssens M, Madhok A, Van Looy B (2008) Toward an integrative perspective on alliance governance: connecting contract design, trust dynamics, and contract application. Acad Manage J 51(6):1053–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flamholtz E, Das T, Tsui A (1985) Toward an integrative framework of organizational control. Account Org Soc 10(1):35–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassman O (2006) Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda. R&D Manage 36(3):223–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris ML, Collins RW, Hevner AR (2009) Control of Flexible Software Development under Uncertainty. Inform Syst Res 20(3):400–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson JC, Lee S (1992) Managing I/S design teams: A control theory perspective. Manage Sci 38(6):757–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa S, Wernick A (2011) Exploring paradoxical tensions in open innovation networks. Eur J Innov Manage 14(4):521–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebas M, Weigenstein J (1986) Management control: The roles of rules, markets, and culture. J Manage Stud 23(3):259–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis MW (2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Acad Manage Rev 25(4):760–776

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler U (2010) Technology exploitation in the context of open innovation: Finding the right ‘job’ for your technology. Technovation 20:429–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML (2007) The governance of free/open source software projects: monolithic, multidimensional, or configurational. J Manage Gov 11:151–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles R, Miles G, Snow CC (2005) Collaborative entrepreneurship: how communities of networked firms use continuous innovation to create economic wealth. Stanford University, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles R, Miles G, Snow CC, Blomqvist K, Rocha H (2009) The I-form organization. Calif Manage Rev 51(4):61–76

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony S, Bechky B (2008) Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Adm Sci Q 53(3):422–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony S, Ferraro F (2007) The emergence of governance in an open source community. Acad Manage J 50(5):1079–1106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly C, Chatman J (1996) Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. In: Staw B, Cummings L (eds) Research in organizational behavior. JAI, Stamford, Connecticut

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio W, Wohlgezogen F (2010) Attention and control. In: Sitkin SB, Cardinal LB, Bijlsma-Frankema KM (eds) Organizational control. Oxford, Oxford, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Odasanya L, Vanhaverbeke W, Chesbrough HW (2008) IMEC(A): Creating value through a new approach to IPR management. Case Study. Haas School of Management, University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi WG (1979) A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Manage Sci 25(2):833–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi WG, Price RL (1978) Hierarchies, clans, and theory Z: A new perspective on organization development. Organ Dyn 7:62–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton MG (2002) Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano GP, Verganti R (2008) Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harv Bus Rev 86(12):78–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Borzillo S, Probst G (2010) Who is really in control? The role of community forms in managing knowledge paradoxes. Working Paper, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Rustagi S, King WR, Kirsch LJ (2008) Predictors of formal control usage in IT outsourcing relationships. Inform Syst Res 19(2):126–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin SB (1995) On the positive effect of legalization on trust. In: Bies RJ, Lewicki RJ, Sheppard BH (eds) Research on negotiations in organizations. JAI, Greenwich CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin SB, Bies RJ (1994) The legalization of organizations: a multi-theoretic perspective. In: Sitkin SB, Bies RJ (eds) The legalistic organization. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell SA (1992) Control theory in strategic human resource management: The mediating effect of administrative information. Acad Manage J 35:292–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow CC, Strauss DR, Culpan R (2009) Community of firms: a new collaborative paradigm for open innovation and an analysis of Blade.org. Int J Strategic Bus Alliances 1(1):53–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart KJ, Gosain S (2006) The impact of ideology on effectiveness in open source software development teams. MIS Quart 30(2):291–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum AS (1968) Control in organizations. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner KL, Makhija MV (2006) The role of organizational controls in managing knowledge. Acad Manage Rev 31:197–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhaverbeke W (2006) The interorganizational context of open innovation. In: Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J (eds) Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University, Oxford, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlaar PWL, Van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2006) Coping with problems of understanding in interorganizational relationships: Using formalization as a means to make sense. Organ Stud 17(11):1617–1638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel E, Von Krogh G (2003) Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: issues for organization science. Organ Sci 14(2):209–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weibel A (2010) Managerial objectives of formal control: High motivation control mechanisms. In: Sitkin SB, Cardinal LB, Bijlsma-Frankema KM (eds) Organizational control. Oxford Press, Oxford, England

    Google Scholar 

  • West J (2008) Policy challenges of open, cumulative and user innovation. Presented at conference of open source and proprietary models of innovation, Washington University School of Law, 4 Apr 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • West J, Gallagher S (2006) Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Manage 36(3):319–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West J, O’Mahony S (2008) The role of participation architecture in growing sponsored open source communities. Ind Innov 15(2):15–168

    Google Scholar 

  • West J, Vanhaverkeke W, Chesbrough H (2006) Open innovation: A research agenda. In: Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J (eds) Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University, Oxford, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu B, Lin ZX, Xu Y (2011) A study of open source software development from control perspectives. J Database Manage 22(1):26–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2003) Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Support for this research was provided in part by TEKES Finland to the first author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Business, Technology, and Law, McCombs School of Business, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

    Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa

  2. Simlab, School of Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

    Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa & Alina Wernick

Authors
  1. Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alina Wernick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aarhus School of Business, Dept. Management, University of Aarhus, Haslegaardsvej 10, Aarhus V, 8210, Denmark

    Anne Bøllingtoft

  2. University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia

    Lex Donaldson

  3. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, 78712, Texas, USA

    George P. Huber

  4. Aarhus School of Business, Dept. Management, University of Aarhus, Haslegaardsvej 10, Aarhus V, 8210, Denmark

    Dorthe Døjbak Håkonsson

  5. Dept. of Management & Organization, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 16802, Pennsylvania, USA

    Charles C. Snow

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jarvenpaa, S.L., Wernick, A. (2012). Open Innovation Networks: The Evolution of Bureaucratic Control. In: Bøllingtoft, A., Donaldson, L., Huber, G., Håkonsson, D., Snow, C. (eds) Collaborative Communities of Firms. Information and Organization Design Series, vol 9. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1284-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation