Determinants of Industry and Region Based Open Innovation in Turkey

Year 2020, Volume: 49 Issue: 1, 1 - 35, 18.08.2020

Ümit K. Seyfettinoğlu Şebnem Arık , Selim Çağatay

https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2020.49.0029

Abstract

The concept of open innovation has emerged from the thought that firms and institutions do not reveal innovation solely through internal processes as in closed innovations. The process of introducing innovation is accelerated by enabling the knowledge inflow to and outflow from the company; and the competitive power is achieved not by producing the best and the greatest number of ideas/projects but by using the inner and outer ideas in the most efficient way. The literature has defined the stages of open innovation throughout the production process as idea generation, idea development, experience, engineering, manufacturing and commercialization. These stages have been labelled the depth of the firm’s openness. Additionally, all possible stakeholders with whom companies can collaborate throughout the production process have been defined as the width of the firm’s openness.
This study econometrically identifies the factors that determine firm openness on the basis of industries and regions in Turkey. The study was conducted across 420 companies, which were among the largest 1000 companies in 2011. The theoretical basis puts forward the characteristics related to the firm’s internal and external environment as well as the firm’s ability to collaborate as the determinants of firm openness. In the analyses, the effects of proximity and distance-relations between regions/provinces on firm openness were determined as well, and how much and in which direction these effects deviated from the general were observed.

Keywords

Inbound open innovation, Outbound open innovation, Open innovation, firm depth, firm width, Geographically weighted

Supporting Institution

The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.

References

• Barge-Gil, A. (2010). Open, semi-open and closed innovators: Towards an explanation of degree of openness. Industry and Innovation, 17(3), 577–607.
• Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), New Frontiers in Open Innovation (pp. 3-28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
• Elmquist, M., Fredberg, T., & Ollila, S. (2009). Exploring the field of open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 326–345.
• Fotheringham, S., Charlton, M., & Brunsdon, C. (1998). Geographically weighted regression: A natural evolution of the expansion method for spatial data analysis. Environment and Planning, 30, 1905–1927.
• Huang, Y., Chung, H., & Lin, C. (2009). R&D sourcing strategies: Determinants and consequences. Technovation, 29, 155–169.
• Huizingh, E.K.R.E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9.
• Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop. Inside Procter and Gamble’s new model for innovation. Harvard Business Review, 85, 58–66.
• 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, 131–150.
• Lazzarotti V., & Manzini, R. (2009). Different models of open innovation: A theoretical framework and an empirical study. Journal of Innovation Management, 13, 1–22.
• Lazzarotti, V., Manzini, R., & Pellegrini, L. (2011). Firm-specific factors and the openness degree: A survey of Italian firms special issue OI. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14, 412–434.
• Lazzarotti, V., Garcia, M., Manzini R., & Sanchez, M. (2012). The open innovation in practice: A survey in the food & drink industry. The XXIII ISPIM Conference, 17-20 June, Barcelona.
• Lichtenthaler, U. (2008). Open innovation in practice: An analysis of strategic approaches to technology transactions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55, 148–157.
• Michelino, F., Caputo, M., Cammarano, A. & Lamberti, E. (2014). Inbound and outbound open innovation: Organization and performance. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 9(3), 65–82.
• Mina, A., Başçavuşoğlu-Moreau, E., & Hughes, A. (2014). Open service innovation and the firm’s search for external knowledge. Research Policy, 43, 853–866.
• Pisano G. P., & Verganti R. (2008). Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harvard Business Review, December, 1–9.
• Schroll, A., & Mild, A. (2011). Open innovation modes and the role of internal R&D. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), 475–495.
• Seyfettinoğlu, Ü., & Taşdoğan C. (2014). The relation between firm performance and open innovation: The food and beverages industry case in Turkey. İktisat, İşletme ve Finans, 29, 9–38.
• Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Van De Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29, 423–437.