Open Innovation Networks and the Role of Intermediaries: An Agent-Based Simulation

Chapter

Abstract

This paper builds an agent-based simulation model that illustrates the dynamics of an open innovation (OI) network of firms in search of a technological development partnership. The model simulates an environment populated by innovation seekers and innovation providers. Each of these agents (firms) has half of the final product and has to decide whether to develop the rest internally or seek a partner that developed the other half of the product. Moreover, this paper explores the effects on the innovation network dynamics of the presence of intermediaries that act as brokers between innovation seekers and innovation providers. The results suggest that innovation providers are on average better off when they establish partnerships, especially when their number is limited and intermediaries are present in the market. The model shows that the presence of intermediaries makes the market more efficient by lowering costs of all firms in the network, whether they use an intermediary or not.

Keywords

Open Innovation Network Dynamics Innovation Brokers Innovation Market 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Almirall, E., & Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010). Open versus closed innovation: A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of management review, 35(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bray, M.J., & Lee, J.N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer licensing fees vs. equity positions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carbonara, N. (2004). Innovation processes within geographical clusters: A cognitive approach. Technovation, 24(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003a). The era of open innovation. Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–41.Google Scholar
  6. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003b). The governance and performance of xerox’s technology spin-off companies. Research Policy, 32(3), 403–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesbroug, H.W. (2003c). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, J.F., Olesen, M.H., & Kjær, J.S. (2005). The industrial dynamics of open innovation—Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research Policy, 34(10), 1533–1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowan, R., Jonard, N., Zimmermann, J.B. (2007). Bilateral collaboration and the emergence of innovation networks. Management Science, 53(7), 1051–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahlander, L., & Wallin, M.W. (2006). A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets. Research Policy, 35(8), 1243–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, J.P., Eisenhardt, K.M., & Bingham, C.B. (2007). Developing theory through simulation methods. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Vrande, V.V., Lemmens, C., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing. R&D Management, 36(3), 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fine, C.H. (1998). Clockspeed: Winning industry control in the age of temporary advantage. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  15. Fioretti, G. (2013). Agent-based simulation models in organization science. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fleming, L., Waguespack, D.M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gianiodis, P.T., Ellis, S.C., & Secchi, E. (2010). Advancing a typology of open innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(04), 531–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert, G.N. (2008). Agent-based models. NewYork: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Hansen, M.T., Mors, M.L., & Lovas, B. (2005). Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R.I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Higgins, M.J., & Rodriguez, D. (2006). The outsourcing of r&d through acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Financial Economics, 80(2), 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hippel, E.A.V. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huizingh, E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Janssen, W., Bouwman, H., van Buuren, R., & Haaker, T. (2014). An organizational competence model for innovation intermediaries. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(1), 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Katzy, B., Turgut, E., Holzmann, T., & Sailer, K. (2013). Innovation intermediaries: A process view on open innovation coordination. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(3), 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kauffman, S., Lobo, J., & Macready, W.G. (2000). Optimal search on a technology landscape. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43(2), 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kauffman, S.A. (1993). The origins of order: Self organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Chicago.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Levinthal, D.A. (1997). Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43(7), 934–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Saur-Amaral, I., & Amaral, P. (2010). Contract innovation organisations in action: Doing collaborative new product development outside the firm. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 6(1), 42–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Terwiesch, C., & Xu, Y. (2008). Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Science, 54(9), 1529–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tietze, F., & Herstatt, C. (2009). Intermediaries and innovation: Why they emerge and how they facilitate ip transactions on the markets for technology. Tech. rep., Working Papers/Technologie-und Innovationsmanagement, Technische Universität Hamburg-HarburgGoogle Scholar
  36. West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3), 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Winch, G.M., & Courtney, R. (2007). The organization of innovation brokers: An international review. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(6), 747–763.Google Scholar
  38. Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in mendelian populations. Genetics, 16(2), 97.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lecturer in Supply Chain ManagementUniversity College Dublin Carysfort AvenueCo DublinIreland

Personalised recommendations