Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the Knowledge Space Through Project-Based Sourcing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Project-Based Knowledge in Organizing Open Innovation

  • 1037 Accesses

Abstract

Only recently has open innovation research emphasized the relevance of adopting a project-level contingency approach for explaining inbound sourcing choices. Our research aims to add to this issue by providing new insights on the knowledge-based determinants of sourcing decisions at the project level of analysis. We maintain that a new product development (NPD) project can be conceived as a strategic means not only to explore the knowledge space for the identification of high-value solutions, but also to search the sources that enable the firm to develop the specific knowledge features. We suggest that the knowledge space explored by an NPD project is grounded on the main elements of an industrial innovation system and that it is characterized by two key dimensions, namely knowledge novelty, the knowledge space of the performance features of a product that meet new customer needs, and knowledge breadth, the knowledge space of technological domains to draw on for solving product-related problems. Our research is implemented on a sample of NPD projects carried out by a group of leading Italian firms, operating in the machine tool industry. Findings show that in companies which define sourcing on a project-by-project basis, projects that explore at the frontier of either novel product features or heterogeneous technological domains, spur firms to rely on external sources and to choose R&D development agreements as the governance form to involve partners. Moreover, a high degree of knowledge novelty induces firms to search cognitive distant partners instead of similar ones. Proposing a project-based approach to strategically organize inbound sourcing, the chapter provides evidence on the concept of a company sourcing strategy as a portfolio of decisions across projects.

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
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    A mechatronic machine/component was defined as “a mechanical element controlled by an electronic application that is integrated into it. Control means that the machine/component has the ability to change performance according to a change in external conditions. It is the high level of integration between the different technologies (mechanics, electronics and informatics) that distinguishes a mechatronic device from a mechanical, electronic or informatic one” (Freddi 2009, p. 552).

References

  • Al-Laham, A., Amburgey, T. L., (2011). Staying local or reaching globally? Analyzing structural characteristics of project-based networks in German biotech. In Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L., Täube, F., (eds) Project-Based organizing strategic management (Advances in Strategic Management, Volume 28), (pp. 323–356): Bingley (UK): Emerald Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amara, N., Landry, R., Becheikh, N., Ouimet, M., (2008). Learning and novelty of innovation in established manufacturing SMEs. Technovation 28(7): 450–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asheim, B.T., Coenen L., (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy 34(8): 1173–1190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becerra, M., Lunnan, R., Huemer, L., (2008). Trustworthiness, risk, and the transfer of tacit and explicit knowledge between alliance partners. Journal of Management Studies 45(4): 691–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahemia, H., Squire, B., (2010). A contingent perspective of open innovation in new product development projects. International Journal of Innovation Management 14(4): 603–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederenc, B., Lokshinb, B., Veugelers, R., (2004). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22(8–9): 1237–1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonesso, S., Comacchio, A., Pizzi, C., (2011). Technology sourcing decisions in exploratory projects. Technovation 31(10–11): 573–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R., (2005). Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional Studies 39(1): 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S., Leker, J., (2007). Industry convergence and its implications for the front end of innovation: a problem of absorptive capacity. Creativity & Innovation Management 16 (2): 165–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, A.G., Martin R.D., (1989). Leave-k-Out diagnostics for time series. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 51(3): 363–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., (2006). Making design rules: a multidomain perspective. Organization Science 17(2): 179–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., Sgalari, G., (2006). New combinations in old industries: the introduction of radical innovations in tire manufacturing. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 16(1–2): 25–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunswicker, S., Hutschek, U. (2010). Crossing horizons: leveraging cross-industry innovation search in the front-end of the innovation process. International Journal of Innovation Management 14(4): 683–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S., (2005). Brokerage and closure. An introduction to social capital. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, S.J., Madhok, A., Wu, T., (2006). Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: the effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. Academy of Management Journal 49(5): 1058–1077.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science 52(1): 68–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., Di Guardo, M.C., Valentini, G., (2010). Organizing links with science: cooperate or contract? A project-level analysis. Research Policy 39(7): 882–892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L.C., (2009). Learning through informal local and global linkages: the case of Taiwan’s machine tool industry. Research Policy 38(3): 527–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H.W., (2003). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H.W., (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiaroni D., Chiesa V., Frattini F., (2010). Unravelling the process from closed to open innovation: evidence from mature, asset intensive industries. R & D Management 40(3): 222–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, D., Valikangas, L., (2001). Patterns of strategy innovation. European Management Journal 19(4): 424–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 128–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colarelli O’Connor, G., (1998). Market learning and radical innovation: a cross case comparison of eight radical innovation projects. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 15(2): 151-66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J.L., Holmberg, S.R., (2012). Best-fit alliance partners: the use of critical success factors in a comprehensive partner selection process. Long Range Planning 45(2–3): 136–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, D.W., Moreau, P., (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research 39(1): 47–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E., Kleinschmidt, E.J., (2001). Product degree of novelty of innovation from the firm’s perspective: its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (6): 357–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dittrich, K., Duysters, G., (2007). Networking as a means to strategy change: the case of open innovation in mobile telephony. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 24(6): 510–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong J.P.J., von Hippel, E., (2009). Transfers of user process innovations to process equipment producers: a study of Dutch high-tech firms. Research Policy 38(7): 1181–1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enkell, E., Gassmann, O., (2010). Creative imitation: exploring the case of cross-industry innovation. R&D Management 40(3): 256–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faems, D., Looy, B.V., Debackere, K., (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: toward a portfolio approach. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 22(3): 238–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., Sorenson, O., (2003). Navigating the technology landscape of innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review 44 (2): 15–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freel, M.S., (2003). Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. Research Policy 32(5): 751–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freel, M., de Jong, J.P.J., (2009). Market novelty, competence-seeking and innovation networking. Technovation 29(12): 873–884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freddi, D., (2009). The integration of old and new technological paradigms in low- and medium-tech sectors: the case of mechatronics. Research Polic 38(3): 548–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., Lukas, R., (2001). Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy 30(2): 297–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, A., Torrisi, S., (1998). Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry. Research Policy 27(5): 445–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, H., von Krogh, G., Spaeth, S., (2013). How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strategic Management Journal 34(9): 1134–1144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O., Zeschky, M., (2008). Opening up the solution space: the role of analogical thinking for breakthrough product innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management 17(2): 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation R&D Management 40(3): 213–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7(2): 155–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, G., Kotha, R., Zheng, Y., (2008). Entry into insular domains: A longitudinal study of knowledge structuration and innovation in biotechnology firms. Journal of Management Studies 45(8): 1449–1474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Lavie, D., Singh, H., (2009). The nature of partnering experience and the gains from alliances. Strategic Management Journal 30(11): 1213–1233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagardon, A., Sutton, R. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(4): 716–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. M., Clark, K.B., (1990). Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobday, M., (2000). The project-based organization: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy 29(7–8): 871–893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh K. N., Tidd, J., (2012). Open versus closed new service development: the influences of project novelty. Technovation 32(11): 600–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., Chung, H., Lin, C.H., (2009). R&D sourcing strategies: determinants and consequences. Technovation 29(3): 155–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalogerakis, K., Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C., (2010). Developing innovations based on analogies: experience from design and engineering consultants. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 27(3): 418–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., Ahuja, G., (2002). Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behaviour and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal 45(6): 1183–1194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, E.H., Bierly, P.E., Gopalakrishnan, S., (2000). Internal vs external learning in new product development: effects on speed, costs and competitive advantages. R&D Management 30(3): 213–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen, M.P., Mortensen, T.B., (2011). Some immediate-but negative-effects of openness on product development performance. Technovation 30(1): 54–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, F., (1992). Technology fusion and the new R&D.Harvard Business Review July-August 70-78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., Salter, A., (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal 27(2): 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., Leone, M.I., Torrisi, S. (2010). Technological exploration through licensing: new insights from the licensee’s point of view. Industrial and Corporate Change 19(3): 871–897.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenfle, S., (2008). Exploration and project management. International Journal of Project Management 26(5): 469–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, H.-L., Tang, M.-J., (2010). Vertical integration and innovative performance: the effects of external knowledge sourcing modes. Technovation 30(7–8): 401–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F., (2001). Knowledge codification and the geography of innovation: the case of Brescia mechanical cluster. Research Policy 30(9): 1479–1500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macher, J.T., (2006). Technological development and the boundaries of the firm: a knowledge-based examination in semiconductor manufacturing. Management Science 52(6): 826–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacPherson, A.D., Kalafsky, R.V., (2003). The technological revitalization of a mature US industry. The case of machine tools. The Industrial Geographer 1(1): 16–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F., (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy 31(2): 247–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F., (2004). Sectoral systems of innovation: concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F., (2005). Sectoral systems of innovation: a framework for linking innovation to the knowledge base, structure and dynamics of sectors. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 14(1–2): 63–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsili, O., Salter, A., (2005). Inequality of innovation: skewed distributions and the returns to innovation in Dutch manufacturing. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 14(1–2): 83–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoleni, R., (1999). Innovation in the MT industry: a historical perspective on the dynamics of comparative advantage. In Mowery, D., Nelson, R. (eds), Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Industries. (pp. 169–216). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., Zaheer, A., (1999). Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 20(12): 1133–1156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C., Cardinal, L., Glick, W., (1997). Retrospective reports in organizational research: a reexamination of recent evidence. Academy of Management Journal 40(1): 189–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, M.J., (2005). Does being R&D intensive still discourage outsourcing? Evidence from Dutch manufacturing. Research Policy 34(4): 571–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortara L., Minshall T., (2011). How do large multinational companies implement open innovation? Technovation 31(10–11): 586–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D.C., Oxley, E.J., Silverman, B.S., (1998). Technological overlap and inter-firm cooperation: implication for the resource-based view of the firm. Research Policy 27(5): 507–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R., Hagedoorn, J., (1999). Innovating through strategic alliances: moving towards international partnerships and contractual agreements. Technovation 19(5): 283–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, J.A., Zenger, T. R., (2004). A knowledge-based theory of the firm-The problem-solving perspective. Organization Science 15(6): 617–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B., Haverbeke, W.V., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., van den Oord, A., (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy 36(7): 1016–1034.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD, (2005). Oslo Manual: proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data. Third revisited edition. Paris, OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parida, V., Westerberg, M., Frishammar, J., (2012). Inbound open innovation activities in High-Tech SMEs: the impact on innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management 50(2): 283–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K., (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy 13(6): 343–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D., (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12(4): 531–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintana-García, C., Benavides-Velasco, C.A., (2008). Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification. Research Policy 37(3): 492–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, T.S., Gatignon, H., (1998). Technology development mode: a transaction cost conceptualization. Strategic Management Journal 19(6): 515–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, P.L., Pol, E., Carroll, P., (2003). Receptive capacity of established industries as a limiting factor in the economy’s rate of innovation. Industry and Innovation 10(4): 457–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F.T., Boeker, W., (2008). Old technology meets new technology: complementarities, similarities, and alliances formation. Strategic Management Journal 29(1): 47–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salge, T.O., Farchi, T., Barrett, M.I., Dopson, S., (2013). When does search openness really matter? A contingency study of health-care innovation projects. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 30(4): 659–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandven, T., Pedersen, T.E., Smith, K., (2001). Analysis of CIS data on the impact of innovation on growth in the sector of machinery and equipment and of electrical machinery. Step Group, Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, V.P., (2007). Concept shifting and the radical product development process. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 24(6): 522–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A., (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106(6): 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W.K., Tushman, M.L., (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science 16(5): 522–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Söderlund, J., Vaagaasar, A.L., Andersen, E.S., (2008). Relating, reflecting and routinizing: Developing project competence in cooperation with others. International Journal of Project Management 26 (5): 517–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonali, K.S., Corley, K.G., (2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitativequalitative divide. Journal of Management Studies 43(8): 1821–1835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira, A.A.C., Santos, P., Brochado, A.O., (2008). International R&D Cooperation between Low-tech SMEs: The role of cultural and geographical proximity. European Planning Studies 16(6): 785–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terwiesch, C., Xu, Y., (2008). Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Science 54(9): 1529–1543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tether, B., (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: an empirical analysis. Research Policy 31(6): 947–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranekjer, T.L., Søndergaard, H.A. (2013). Sources of innovation, their combinations and strengths - benefits at the NPD project level. International Journal of Technology Management 61(3–4): 205–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trombini G., Comacchio A., (2012). Cooperative markets for Ideas: when does technology licensing combine with R&D partnerships?, DRUID Conference, Copenhagen Business school, Copenhagen; Denmark, 19–21 June 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, K-H., (2009). Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: toward a contingency perspective. Research Policy 38(5): 765–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ucimu, (2006). Annual report. Milano: Ucimu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R., (1997). Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research Policy 26(3): 303–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R., Cassiman, B., (1999). Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy 28(1): 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Vrande, V., (2013). Balancing your technology-sourcing portfolio: how sourcing mode diversity enhances innovative performance. Strategic Management Journal 34(5): 610–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Vrande, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., (2009). External technology sourcing: The effect of uncertainty on governance mode choice. Journal of Business Venturing 24(1): 62–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., von Tunzelmann, G.N., (2000). Complexity and the function of the firm: breadth and depth. Research Policy 29(7–8): 805–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wengel, J., Shapira, P., (2004). Machine tools: the remaking of a traditional sectoral innovation system. In: Malerba F. (eds), Sectoral systems of innovation. Concepts, issues and analysis of six major sectors in Europe, (pp. 243–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajac E.J., Olsen, C.P., (1993). From transaction cost to transactional value analysis: implications for the study of interorganizational strategies. Journal of Management Studies 30(1): 131–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Baden-Fuller, C., (2010). The influence of technological knowledge base and organizational structure on technology collaboration. Journal of Management Studies 47(4): 679–704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Baden-Fuller, C., Mangematin, V., (2007). Technological knowledge base, R&D organization structure and alliance formation: evidence from the biopharmaceutical industry. Research Policy 36(4): 515–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., Tong, X., Wong, P.K., Zhu, J., (2005). Types of technology sourcing and innovative capability: An exploratory study of Singapore manufacturing firms. Journal of High Technology Management Research 16(2): 209–224.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Ca’ Foscari University of Venezia, San Giobbe Cannaregio, 873, 30121, Venezia, Italy

    Sara Bonesso & Anna Comacchio

  2. Department of Economics, Ca’ Foscari University of Venezia, San Giobbe Cannaregio, 873, 30121, Venezia, Italy

    Claudio Pizzi

Authors
  1. Sara Bonesso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Comacchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claudio Pizzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Bonesso .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Venezia, Italy

    Sara Bonesso

  2. Venezia, Italy

    Anna Comacchio

  3. Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Venezia, Italy

    Claudio Pizzi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bonesso, S., Comacchio, A., Pizzi, C. (2014). Exploring the Knowledge Space Through Project-Based Sourcing. In: Bonesso, S., Comacchio, A., Pizzi, C. (eds) Project-Based Knowledge in Organizing Open Innovation. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6509-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6509-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-6508-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-6509-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation