Open Innovation and the Core of the Engineer’s Domain

  • Albrecht FritzscheEmail author
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 26)


Engineering as a professional domain is usually understood as the driving force of innovation. Recently, however, various forms of open innovation have become popular that do not necessarily require engineers as contributors. How does this affect the conception of the engineer? This paper assumes that open innovation proceeds as an evolutionary process. Computational models show that such processes need careful design. Even if engineers do not appear explicitly in open innovation, they can nevertheless be considered as parts of it, inasmuch as they provide the framework in which technical progress becomes possible. The engineer’s domain should therefore not be understood as a closed sphere containing innovation, but rather as a surface organizing the environment in ways that makes it possible to address change as innovation.


Open innovation Engineering as a profession Systems theory Evolutionary modeling 


  1. Allen, R. (1983). Collective invention. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 4, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barandiaran, X., Di Paolo, E. A., & Rohde, K. (2009). Defining agency: Individuality, normativity, asymmetry, and spatio-temporality in action. Adaptive Behavior, 17(4), 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks, R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bullinger, A. C., Rass, M., Adamczyk, S., Möslein, K. M., & Sohn, S. (2012). Open innovation in health care: Analysis of an open health platform. Health Policy, 105(2–3), 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. T. (1974). Evolutionary epistemology. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of Karl Popper (Vol. I, pp. 413–463). La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  6. 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 (pp. 1–12). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fritzsche, A. (2014). Cross-fertilization vs. Collaboration in simulations of open innovation. Proceedings of the international symposium on open collaboration (OpenSym’14). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  8. Gamm, G. (1998). Technik als Medium. Grundlinien einer Philosophie der Technik. In M. Hauskeller, C. Rehmann-Sutter, & G. Schiemann (Eds.), Naturerkenntnis und Natursein (pp. 94–106). Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  9. Goldberg, D. E. (2002). The design of innovation: Lessons from and for competent genetic algorithms. Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hodgson, G. M. (1993). Economics and evolution: Bringing life back into economics. Cambridge: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holland, J. H. (1975). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Chicago: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hubig, C. (2006). Die Kunst des Möglichen I. Technikphilosophie als Reflexion der Medialität. Braunschweig: transcript.Google Scholar
  13. Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King, R. (2000). Brunelleschi’s dome: The story of the great cathedral in Florence. London: Random House.Google Scholar
  15. Kolisch, R., & Hartmann, S. (2006). Experimental investigation of heuristics for resource-constrained project scheduling: An update. European Journal of Operational Research, 174(1) 23–37.Google Scholar
  16. Knowles, J., Corne, D., & Deb, K. (Eds.). (2007). Multiobjective problem solving from nature: From concepts to applications. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  17. Lakhani, K. (2013). Contributions by developers. In A. Huff, K. Moeslein, & R. Reichwald (Eds.), Leading open innovation (pp. 155–170). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lindegaard, S. (2010). The open innovation revolution: Essentials, roadblocks, and leadership skills. Hoboke: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Loudon, J. C. (1836). Miscellaneous notices respecting the competition designs for the new houses of parliament. Architectural Magazine, 3, 103–108.Google Scholar
  20. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Möslein, K. (2013). Open innovation: Actors, tools and tensions. In A. Huff, K. Möslein, & R. Reichwald (Eds.), Leading open innovation (pp. 69–86). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap.Google Scholar
  23. Nuvolari, A. (2004). Collective invention during the British Industrial Revolution: The case of the Cornish Pumping Engine. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28, 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenberg, N. (1976). Perspectives on technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schumpeter, J. A. (1912). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot (Reprint 2006).Google Scholar
  27. Sobel, D. (1995). Longitude: The true story of a Lone Genius who solved the greatest scientific problem of his time. New York: Walker and Company.Google Scholar
  28. Trott, P., & Hartmann, D. (2009). Why ‘open innovation’ is old wine in new bottles. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 715–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Delden, K., & Wuenderlich, N. (2013). Viral marketing on facebook for a new open innovation platform. In A. Huff, K. Möslein, & R. Reichwald (Eds.), Leading open innovation (pp. 221–240). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Veblen, T. B. (1898). Why is economics not an evolutionary science? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(3), 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Von Hippel, E. (1994). Sticky information and the locus of problem solving. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Information SystemsFriedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-NürnbergNürnbergGermany

Personalised recommendations