Downloaded 12 times
![5
Co-opetition
A firm “is your complementor if
customers value your product
more when they have the other
[firm’s] product than when they
have your product alone.”
- Brandenburger and Nalebuff
(1996)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/euras2016-keynote-160629121343/85/How-Standards-Research-Can-Inform-Open-Innovation-5-320.jpg)
Uploaded byJoel West
How Standards Research Can Inform Open Innovation
The document discusses the intersection of standards research and open innovation, emphasizing that standardization concepts predate the term 'open innovation' itself. It outlines various themes within standards, co-opetition, and open innovation, suggesting research opportunities that can appeal to a broader audience beyond traditional standards scholars. The conclusion highlights the importance of framing research to impact multiple disciplines while maintaining fidelity to the core phenomena being studied.
More Related Content
Similar to How Standards Research Can Inform Open Innovation
How Standards Research Can Inform Open Innovation
- 1. 1 Joel West Professor, KeckGraduate Institute Associate Editor, Research Policy 29 June 2016 How Standards Research Can Inform Open Innovation EURAS 2016
- 2. 2 Overview • Standards andstandardization were open innovation before there was an “open innovation” • Also true for co-opetition • Thus EURAS research is relevant to a broader audience • Publication opportunity: • Beyond focusing on just standards outcomes • Instead addressing broader questions • to be cited by both standards and other researchers
- 3.
- 4. 4 Standards Research • Standardizationactivities, processes • SSOs, SDOs, alliances, consortia • Technical compatibility standards • As artifacts, actors or institutions • Proprietary, open or shades of gray • Technical and organizational modularity • Platforms, ecosystems and third party complements • Shared implementations via open source software (OSS)
- 5. 5 Co-opetition A firm “isyour complementor if customers value your product more when they have the other [firm’s] product than when they have your product alone.” - Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1996)
- 6. 6 Open Innovation • “Openinnovation” coined by Chesbrough (2003) • New paradigm covers both new and existing processes • Considerable interest in research and practice
- 7. 7 Open Innovation (1) “Openinnovation is the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively.” — Chesbrough (2006)
- 8. 8 Open Innovation (2) Notall firms can profit from all innovations Contingent upon creating a business model • Value creation • Sustainable value capture • Embedded in a value network of suppliers, complementors and customers Chesbrough (2003, 2006a, 2006b); Chesbrough & Rosenbloom (2002); Vanhaverbeke & Chesbrough (2014)
- 9. 9 Open Innovation (3) Threemodes of open innovation: 1. Inbound: accessing external innovations to improve a firm’s innovations 2. Outbound: using external markets to commercialize those innovations 3. Coupled: combining inbound & outbound flows to innovate inside (or outside) the firm Gassmann & Enkel (2004), Enkel et al (2009), Piller & West (2014)
- 10. 10 Open Innovation (4) Ourinterest is the network form • Coupled or inbound • Peer-to-peer (Powell 1990) or hub-and-spoke These include • Communities • Consortia • Ecosystems • Platforms West (2014)
- 11. 11 Relates to Standards •Simcoe (2006): open standards have optimal tradeoff between public value creation and private value capture • Vanhaverbeke & Cloodt (2006): managing networks for value creation and capture • West (2006): interdependent networks of complementors and suppliers in systems products • Dittrich & Duysters (2007): leveraging OI networks to define and implement standards • West & Lakhani (2008): communities and open innovation • West & Wood (2013): neglecting complementor value capture leads to collapse of platform ecosystem
- 12.
- 13. 13 Importance of Framing Forreviewers and editors, framing is essential • What is your paper about? • What literature does it build upon? • What do you promise to deliver? You have a choice of framing • Same study can be framed different ways • Framing must align to actual data, findings and contribution • Some ways will have more impact than others
- 14. 14 Narrow Framing This paper“shows how victory in a standards competition can be negated by the introduction of a new architectural layer that spans two or more previously incompatible architectures.”† • Study of IBM’s PC strategy in Japan • Relevant to platforms and standards architectures • Beyond that: ???? † West & Dedrick (2000)
- 15. 15 Broad Framing “This article… describes the use of innovation networks as a means to adapt swiftly to changing market conditions and strategic change.”† • Study of Nokia’s value creation networks • Relevant to alliances, network management, mobile telephony, ecosystems, innovation exploration/exploitation † Dittrich & Duysters (2007)
- 16. 16 Approach Requires joining anotherliterature How could this inform a broader audience? • What research has studied similar phenomena? • What is the same and different? • What terms/concepts are different? • Who are the key authors? Don’t include too many literatures in one study
- 17. 17 Standardization Possible themes • Tensionof public/private gain • Bilateral/multilateral alliances • Creating/joining enduring or ad hoc institutions • Governance, voice, permeability, openness • Knowledge flows • Effects/limits of intellectual property
- 18. 18 Compatibility Standards Possible themes •Modularity • Technical • Organizational: “Mirroring” hypothesis • Refactoring/coordination • Tacit/explicit knowledge • Creating/evolving product architectures • Interdependence of public/private architectures
- 19. 19 Platforms Possible themes • Ecosystems •Identifying, incentivizing complementors • Too much vs. too little friction (excess entry) • Free vs. “free” vs. proprietary complements • Platform evolution • Linkage of technical and interorganizational components • Degrees of openness
- 20. 20 OI Opportunities • Inbound(or coupled) open innovation: evidence of improved firm success • Coupled open innovation: interdependence of inflows and outflows • Network forms: interdependence of partner success • Role of not-for-profit or individual actors Vanhaverbeke et al (2014); West (2014); West & Bogers (2014); West et al (2014)
- 21.
- 22. 22 Conclusions • Standards researchis relevant to a broader audience • It is possible to study standards topics and address multiple audiences • Both greater costs and greater potential rewards • At the same time, it is important to stay true to the phenomenon (an emic perspective) • “To thine own self be true” — Hamlet, Act 1, Scn 3
- 23.