Small Business Economics

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 537–562 | Cite as

Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises

  • André Spithoven
  • Wim Vanhaverbeke
  • Nadine Roijakkers
Article

Abstract

Few studies on open innovation (OI) address OI practices in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and how their use of OI and the resulting benefits differ from those of large enterprises. The lack of resources in SMEs to engage in looking outward is said to be a barrier to OI, but at the same time this shortage is cited as a motive for looking beyond organisational boundaries for technological knowledge. We investigate how OI dimensions impact the innovative performance of SMEs in comparison to large companies. The key finding is that the effects of OI practices in SMEs often differ from those in large firms. SMEs are more effective in using different OI practices simultaneously when they introduce new products on the market, whereas this is less the case for large firms. Turnover from new products in SMEs is driven by intellectual property protection mechanisms, while large firms in this case benefit more from their search strategies.

Keywords

Open innovation SMEs Large enterprises Product innovation Innovative performance 

JEL Classifications

L25 O31 O32 O33 O34 L26 

References

  1. Arora, A. (1997). Patents, licensing, and market structure in the chemical industry. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 391–403.Google Scholar
  2. Arora, A. (2002). Licensing tacit knowledge: Intellectual property rights and the market for know-how. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4(1), 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batterink, M. H. (2009). Profiting from external knowledge: how firms use different knowledge acquisition strategies to improve their innovation performance. PhD thesis. University of Wageningen, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  4. Bianchi, M., Campodall’Orto, S., Frattini, F., & Vercesi, P. (2010). Enabling open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: How to find alternative applications for your technologies. R&D Management, 40(4), 414–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caloghirou, Y., Hondroyiannis, G., & Vonortas, N. S. (2003). The performance of partnerships. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(2–3), 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). Spillovers and R&D cooperation: Some empirical evidence for Belgium. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1169–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external technology acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chesbrough, H. (2003a). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chesbrough, H. (2003b). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: a new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  11. Chesbrough, H. (2011). Open services innovation: Rethinking your business to grow and compete in a new era. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3), 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christensen, J. F., Olesen, M. H., & Kjaer, J. S. (2005). The industrial dynamics of open innovation—evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research Policy, 34(10), 1533–1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective of innovation and learning. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2006). The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: The case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Management, 36(3), 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edwards, T., Delbridge, R., & Munday, M. (2005). Understanding innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: A process manifest. Technovation, 25(10), 1119–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. European Commission. (2009). European innovation scoreboard 2009. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  21. Fosfuri, A. (2006). The licensing dilemma: Understanding the determinants of the rate of technology licensing. Strategic Management Journal, 27(12), 1141–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freel, M. S. (2000). Barriers to product innovation in small manufacturing firms. International Small Business Journal, 18(2), 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freundenberg, M. (2003). Composite indicators of country performance: A critical assessment. STI Working Paper 2003/16. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  24. Gassmann, O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: Towards an agenda. R&D Management, 36(3), 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2005). Ten rules for strategic innovators. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  27. Granstrand, O., Bohlin, E., Oskarson, C., & Sjöberg, N. (1992). External technology acquisition in large multitechnology corporations. R&D Management, 22(2), 111–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greene, W. H. (2005). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  30. Grindley, P. C., & Teece, D. J. (1997). Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review, 39(2), 8–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hausman, A. (2005). Innovativeness among small businesses: Theory and propositions for future research. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(8), 773–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herstad, S. J., Bloch, C., Ebersberger, B., & Van de Velde, E. (2008). Open innovation and globalisation: Theory, evidence and implications. Helsinki: Report Vision ERANET.Google Scholar
  33. Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2008). ‘Low-tech’ innovations. Industry and Innovation, 15(1), 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop: Inside Procter & Gamble’s new model for innovation. Harvard Business Review, 48(3), 58–66.Google Scholar
  35. Jacobides, M. G., & Billinger, S. (2006). Designing the boundaries of the firm: From ‘make, buy or ally’ to the dynamic benefits of vertical architecture. Organization Science, 17(2), 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Katsoulakos, Y., & Ulph, D. (1998). Endogenous spillovers and the performance of research joint ventures. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(3), 333–357.Google Scholar
  38. Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1995). On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24(2), 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovative performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs—an intermediated network model. Research Policy, 39(2), 290–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leiponen, A., & Drejer, I. (2007). What exactly are technological regimes? Intra-industry heterogeneity in the organization of innovation activities. Research Policy, 36(8), 1221–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leiponen, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2010). Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 224–236.Google Scholar
  43. Lichtenthaler, U. (2008a). Open innovation in practice: An analysis of strategic approaches to technology transactions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lichtenthaler, U. (2008b). Externally commercializing technology transactions: an examination of different process stages Journal of Business Venturing 23(4), 445–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lichtenthaler, U. (2010). Open innovation: potential risks and managerial countermeasures. In: Proceedings of the R&D management conference. Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  46. Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2007). Developing reputation to overcome the imperfections in the markets for knowledge. Research Policy, 36(1), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  48. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Marsili, O., & Verspagen, B. (2002). Technology and the dynamics of industrial structures: An empirical mapping of Dutch manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 791–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martin, C. (2002). Technology diffusion within small and medium enterprises in Australia. Report on the effectiveness of dissemination methods. Milestone report to the Department of Industry Tourism and Resources. Adelaide: Department of Industry Tourism and Resources.Google Scholar
  51. Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2008). Innovation and SMEs: Misaligned perspectives and goals among entrepreneurs, academics, and policy makers. Technovation, 28(7), 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Menard, S. W. (2002). Applied logistic regression analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Mesquita, L. F., & Lazzarini, S. G. (2008). Horizontal and vertical relationships in developing economies: Implications for SMEs’ access to global markets. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nagaoka, S., & Kwon, H. U. (2006). The incidence of cross-licensing: A theory and new evidence on the firm and contract level determinants. Research Policy, 35(9), 1347–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Narula, R. (2001). Strategic partnering by EU firms: A rejoinder. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(1), 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Narula, R. (2004). R&D collaboration by SMEs: New opportunities and limitations in the face of globalisation. Technovation, 24(2), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. National Science Foundation. (2006). Science resource studies. Survey of Industrial Research Development. Arlington, VA: National Science FoundationGoogle Scholar
  58. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1990). Applied linear statistical models (3rd ed.). Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar
  59. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). Oslo manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  60. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2008). Globalisation and open innovation. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  61. Papke, L. E., & Wooldridge, J. M. (1996). Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6), 619–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technological change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pisano, G. P., & Teece, D. J. (2007). How to capture value from innovation: Shaping intellectual property and industry architecture. California Management Review, 50(1), 278–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Röller, L. H., Tombak, M., & Siebert, R. (1997). Why firms form research joint ventures: theory and evidence. WZB Working Paper. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin.Google Scholar
  65. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sena, V. (2004). The return of the Prince of Denmark: A survey on recent developments in the economics of innovation. Economic Journal, 114, F312–F332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sivadas, E., & Dwyer, F. R. (2000). An examination of organizational factors influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010a). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Spithoven, A., Frantzen, D., & Clarysse, B. (2010b). Heterogeneous effects of knowledge exchanges on product innovation: Differences between lagging and dynamic product innovators. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(3), 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(1986), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29(6–7), 423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., & Mejer, M. (2010). The London agreement and the cost of patenting in Europe. European Journal of Law and Economics, 29(2), 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & Noorderhaven, N. (2002). External technology sourcing through alliances or acquisitions: An analysis of the application-specific integrated circuits industry. Organization Science, 13(6), 714–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Veugelers, R. (1997). Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research Policy, 26(3), 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vossen, R. W. (1998). Research note—Relative strengths and weaknesses of small firms in innovation. International Small Business Journal, 16(3), 88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. West, J. (2006). Does appropriability enable or retard open innovation? In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Spithoven
    • 1
  • Wim Vanhaverbeke
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Nadine Roijakkers
    • 2
  1. 1.Belgian Science Policy OfficeBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Hasselt UniversityDiepenbeekBelgium
  3. 3.Esade Business SchoolBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.National University of SingaporeSingaporeChina

Personalised recommendations