Overcoming Industrial Inertia by Use of Open Innovation Technologies

  • Juho Lindman
  • Tuija Heikura
  • Petra Turkama


Industries develop at different paces. The constant environmental flux of information and communication technology companies becomes especially clear when comparing them with more traditional industries, in our case, the Finnish construction industry. The sector is dominated by a number of large industrial actors with established positions operating predominantly in the domestic or Scandinavian market. Based on our literature review and a round of key person interviews, this chapter categorises the different sources of institutional inertia in this particular industry. We build a research framework for defining the requirements for creating open innovation technologies that could accelerate structural changes in a traditional industry. First, sources of inertia are identified empirically. Second, we discuss a set of requirements for an open innovation technology which would be needed to overcome this inertia.


Open Innovation Construction Industry Life Cycle Cost Construction Company City Planning 
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.


  1. Eccles, R. (1981). The quasifirm in the construction industry. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 2(4), 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed scanning: A third approach to decision making. Public Administration Review, 27, 387–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in a new innovation landscape. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2000). Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: The construction of complex products and systems. Research Policy, 29(7–8), 955–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Geels, F. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lutzenhiser, L., & Biggart, N. (2003). Market structure and energy efficiency: The case of new commercial buildings. Pullman, WA: California Institute for Energy Efficiency.Google Scholar
  7. Scott, R. (1995). Institutions and organisations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Taylor, J. (2005). Three perspectives on innovation in interorganisational networks: systemic innovation, boundary object change, and the alignment of innovations and networks. Doctoral dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  9. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 35–41.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. KTI. (2010). The Finnish property market. KTI: Helsinki.Google Scholar
  4. Kohvakka, A. (2007). What is wrong with real estate and construction productivity. Helsinki: Helsinki University of Technology.Google Scholar
  5. Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and Innovation: systemic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(3–4), 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Rosenberg, N. (1994). Exploring the black box. Technology, economics and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Steinbock, D. (2009). The Vital Cluster: Globalisation, Urbanization and Finland’s Real Estate and Construction Cluster. RAKLI—The Finnish Association of Building Owners and Construction Clients: Helsinki.Google Scholar
  8. Van de Ven, A. H. (1993). Managing the process of organisational innovation. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organisational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving performance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hanken School of EconomicsHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Suomen Teknologiakeskusten Liitto TEKELHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Aalto University School of Economics/CKIRHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations