Advertisement

Open Innovation at Project Level: Key Issues and Future Research Agenda

  • Sara BonessoEmail author
  • Anna Comacchio
  • Claudio Pizzi
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter addresses some key open issues of a project-based approach to open innovation, drawing on the empirical findings and theoretical discussion of the previous chapters. After a brief discussion of the theoretical gaps in the previous literature, we provide arguments in support of the adoption of a project-level of analysis when studying how firms organize open and distributed innovation processes. The chapter tackles two main themes of a project-based approach, identifying fertile avenues for future research. First, it analyzes factors explaining why firms decide to open their boundaries and to organize in-house tasks and outside source activities on a project basis. Antecedents related to the knowledge features of a project are discussed. Second, the chapter draws the attention to the still under-investigated relationship between the project level and the firm level of analysis. It discusses the challenge firms face in managing effectively and efficiently product development projects across boundaries in the short term as well as in building organizational capabilities and knowledge at firm level in the long run.

Keywords

Open Innovation Organizational Boundary Transactive Memory Project Level External Partner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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
  2. Besner, C., Hobbs, B., (2013). Contextualized project management practice: a cluster analysis of practices and best practices. Project Management Journal 44(1): 17–34.Google Scholar
  3. Bonesso, S., Comacchio, A., Pizzi, C., (2011). Technology sourcing decisions in exploratory projects. Technovation 31(10–11): 573–585.Google Scholar
  4. Brady, T., Davies, A., (2004). Building project capabilities: from exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization Studies 25(9): 1601–1621.Google Scholar
  5. Brewer, P. A., (2007). Operationalizing psychic distance: a revised approach. Journal of International Marketing 15(1): 44–66.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., (2006). Making design rules: a multidomain perspective. Organization Science 17(2): 179–189.Google Scholar
  8. Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., Salter, A., (1998). Mapping and measuring innovation in project-based firms. CoPS Working Paper No.46, SPRU, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L., Taube, F., (2011). Project-based organizing and strategic management. Howard House, Wagon Lake, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Christiansen, J.K., Gasparin, M., Varnes, C.J., (2013). Improving design with open innovation a flexible management technology. Research-Technology Management 56(2): 36–44.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, R., Edgett, S., Kleinschmidt, E., (1999). New product portfolio management: practices and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 16(4): 333–351.Google Scholar
  14. Davies, A., Brady, T., (2000). Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: towards repeatable solutions. Research Policy 29 (7–8): 931–953.Google Scholar
  15. Dagenais, M.G., (1969). A threshold regression model. Econometrica 37(2): 193–203.Google Scholar
  16. Dagenais, M.G., (1975). Application of a threshold regression model to household purchases of automobiles. The Review of Economics and Statistics 57(3): 275–285.Google Scholar
  17. Dow, D., Karunaratna, A., (2006). Developing a multidimensional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli. Journal of International Business Studies 37, 578–602.Google Scholar
  18. Du, K.-L., (2010). Clustering: a neural network approach. Neural Networks 23(1): 89–107.Google Scholar
  19. Evans, J., Mavondo, F.T., (2002). Psychic distance and organizational performance: an empirical examination of international ratailing operations. Journal of International Business Studies. 33(3): 515–532.Google Scholar
  20. Faems, D., Van Looy, B., Debackere, K., (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22(3): 238–250.Google Scholar
  21. Gardner, H.K., Gino, F., Staats, B.R., (2012). Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams: transforming resources into performance. Academy of Management Journal 55(4): 998–1022.Google Scholar
  22. Gemünden, H.G., Killen, C., Kock, A., (2013). Implementing and informing innovation strategies through project portfolio management. Creativity and Innovation Management 22(1): 103–104.Google Scholar
  23. Grönlund, J., Sjödin, D.R., Frishammar, J., (2010). Open innovation and the Stage-Gate process: a revised model for new product development. California Management Review 52(3): 106–131.Google Scholar
  24. Gulati, R., Puranam, P., Thusman, M., (2012). Meta-organization design: rethinking design interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal 33(6): 571–586.Google Scholar
  25. Hoang, H., Rothaermel, F.T., (2010). Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation and R&D project performance. Strategic Management Journal 31 (7): 734–758.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Holzmuller, H.H: Kasper, H., (1990). The decision-maker and export activity: a cross-national comparison of the foreign orientation of Austrian managers. Management International Review. 30(3); 217–230.Google Scholar
  28. Hsieh, K. N., Tidd, J., (2012). Open versus closed new service development: the influences of project novelty. Technovation 32(11): 600–608.Google Scholar
  29. Huizing, E.K.R.E., (2011). Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives. Technovation 31(1): 2–11.Google Scholar
  30. Jerry, J., (2008). How project management office leaders facilitate cross-project learning and continuous improvement. Project Management Journal 39(3): 43–58.Google Scholar
  31. Kimura, F., Lee, H., (2006). The gravity equation in international trade in services. Review of World Economics 142(1): 92–121.Google Scholar
  32. Lakhani, K.R., Tushman, M.L., (2012). Open innovation and organizational boundaries: the impact of task decomposition and knowledge distribution on the locus of innovation. HBS Working Paper 12–057.Google Scholar
  33. Laslo, Z., (2010). Project portfolio management: an integrated method for resource planning and scheduling to minimize planning/scheduling-dependent expenses. International Journal of Project Management 28(6): 609–618.Google Scholar
  34. Lenfle, S., (2008). Exploration and project management. International Journal of Project Management 26(5): 469–478.Google Scholar
  35. Lichtenthaler, U., (2011). Open innovation: past research, current debates, and future directions. Academy of Management Perspectives 25(1): 75–93.Google Scholar
  36. Liu, L., Leitner D., (2012). Simultaneous pursuit of innovation and efficiency in complex engineering projects-a study of the antecedents and impacts of ambidexterity in project teams. Project Management Journal 43(6): 97–110.Google Scholar
  37. MacCormack, A., Crandall, W., Henderson, P. and Toft, P., (2012). Do you need a new product-development strategy? Research-Technology Management 55(1): 34–43.Google Scholar
  38. Marjanovic, S., Fry, C., Chataway, J., (2012). Crowdsourcing based business models: in search of evidence for innovation 2.0. Science and Public Policy 39(3): 318–332.Google Scholar
  39. Mina, A., Bascavusoglu-Moreau, E., Hughes, A., (2013). Open service innovation and the firm’s search for external knowledge. Research Policy 43(5): 853–866Google Scholar
  40. Parmigiani, A., (2007). Why do firms both make and buy? An investigation of concurrent sourcing. Strategic Management Journal 28(3): 285–311.Google Scholar
  41. Parmigiani, A., Mitchell, W., (2009). Complementarity, capabilities, and the boundaries of the firm: The impact of within-firm and inter-firm expertise on concurrent sourcing of complementary components. Strategic Management Journal 30(10): 1065–1091.Google Scholar
  42. Perks, H., (2007). Inter-functional integration and industrial new product portfolio decision making: exploring and articulating the linkages. Creativity and Innovation Management 16(2): 152–164.Google Scholar
  43. Picci, L., (2010). The internationalization of inventive activity: a gravity model using patent data. Research Policy 39(8): 1070–1081.Google Scholar
  44. Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W., Smith-Doerr, L., (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1): 116–145.Google Scholar
  45. Prencipe, A., (2003). Corporate strategy and systems integration capabilities - managing networks in complex systems industries, in Prencipe, A., Davies, A., Hobday, M. (eds). The Business of Systems Integration. pp. 114–132, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Reich, B.H., Gemino, A., Sauer, C., (2012). Knowledge management and project-based knowledge in it projects: a model and preliminary empirical results. International Journal of Project Management 30(6): 663–674.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. Turner, N., Maylor, H., Swart, J., 2013. Ambidexterity in managing business projects-an intellectual capital perspective. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 6(2): 379–389.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Vuori, E., Mutka, S., Aaltonen, P. and Artto, K., (2013). That is not how we brought you up: how is the strategy of a project formed? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 6(1): 88–105.Google Scholar
  52. West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., Chesbrough, H., (2014). Open innovation: The next decade. Research Policy 43(5): 805–811.Google Scholar
  53. Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B., (1992). Creating project plans to focus product development. Harvard Business Review March, 70–82.Google Scholar
  54. Zirpoli, F., Becker, M.C., (2011). The limits of design and engineering outsourcing: performance integration and the unfullled promises of modularity. R&D Management 41(1): 21–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementCa’ Foscari University of VeneziaVeneziaItaly
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsCa’ Foscari University of VeneziaVeneziaItaly

Personalised recommendations