The_process_of_organisational_change_in_open_innov.pdf

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264822902
The process of organisational change in open innovation: Evidence from high
tech ﬁrms
Article in International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management · January 2013
DOI: 10.1504/IJEIM.2013.055251
CITATIONS
10
READS
1,898
4 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Open innovation in SMEs View project
DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN THE BUSINESS MODEL TRANSITION TOWARDS CIRCULAR ECONOMY View project
Davide Chiaroni
Politecnico di Milano
92 PUBLICATIONS 3,748 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Federico Frattini
Politecnico di Milano
162 PUBLICATIONS 7,730 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Federico Frattini on 21 December 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 17, Nos. 1/2/3, 2013 177
Copyright © 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
The process of organisational change in open
innovation: evidence from high tech firms
Lorenzo Boscherini*, Davide Chiaroni,
Vittorio Chiesa and Federico Frattini
Politecnico di Milano,
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale,
Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32,
20133 Milano, Italy
E-mail: lorenzo.boscherini@polimi.it
E-mail: davide.chiaroni@polimi.it
E-mail: vittorio.chiesa@polimi.it
E-mail: federico.frattini@polimi.it
*Corresponding author
Abstract: The open innovation concept has been extensively researched in the
last decade and it still ranks very high in the agenda of technology and
innovation management scholars. There are a number of questions still
unanswered that should be thoroughly addressed to improve our understanding
of this emerging innovation management paradigm. This paper leverages recent
research analysing the organisational change processes followed by low tech
firms to move from closed to open innovation. It adds to this literature by
analysing how the organisational change process is administered in four Italian
companies operating in high tech industries. Thanks to the analysis, we identify
several commonalities between high and low tech firms and we unearth some
relevant differences. In particular, the paper stands for the generalisability of
previous findings regarding the transition towards open innovation and the
potential of reading this process through the lens of Lewin’s theory of
organisational change.
Keywords: innovation management; open innovation; organisational change;
knowledge management; network; intellectual property; high tech; case study;
Italy.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Boscherini, L.,
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V. and Frattini, F. (2013) ‘The process of organisational
change in open innovation: evidence from high tech firms’, Int. J.
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 17, Nos. 1/2/3,
pp.177–205.
Biographical notes: Lorenzo Boscherini has a PhD in Management
Engineering and is a Post-Doctoral Researcher at Politecnico di Milano, where
he teaches business economics and organisation. His research interests are
innovation and technology management, with a particular focus in the
renewable energy industry. He has published several papers in international
conference proceedings and refereed journals such as the International Journal
of Innovation Management.
Davide Chiaroni is an Assistant Professor at Politecnico di Milano and Director
of the Full Time MBA Programme at MIP, the Business School of Politecnico
di Milano. He teaches strategy and financial accounting in both undergraduate

178 L. Boscherini et al.
and post-graduate programmes. His research interests are open innovation and
competitive strategies in the energy industry. He has published several books
and papers in international conference proceedings and refereed journals such
as Technovation, R&D Management and International Journal of Innovation
Management.
Vittorio Chiesa is a Full Professor of R&D Strategy and Organisation at
Politecnico di Milano and Director of the Energy and Strategy Group, a team
which is involved in research and consulting in the area of renewable energies
and energy efficiency. His research interests are R&D management and
innovation management in high tech industries. On these topics, he has
published more than 100 books and papers published in peer-reviewed journals
such as Journal of Product Innovation Management, R&D Management, and
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.
Federico Frattini is an Assistant Professor at Politecnico di Milano and Director
of the Evening Executive MBA Programme at MIP, the Business School of
Politecnico di Milano. He teaches technology strategy in both undergraduate
and post-graduate programmes. His research interests are open innovation,
performance measurement of R&D and innovation in family firms. On these
topics, he has published several books and papers in international conference
proceedings and refereed journals such as Journal of Product Innovation
Management, California Management Review and Technovation.
This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘The process of
organizational change in open innovation models: evidence from a sample of
high-tech firms’ presented at the ISPIM Conference, Vienna, Austria, 21–24
June 2009.
1 Introduction
The open innovation (OI) concept has been extensively researched in the last decade and
it still ranks very high in the agenda of technology and innovation management scholars
(Gassmann, 2006). A huge theoretical and empirical work has been done to characterise
OI as a new management paradigm for industrial innovation (West and Gallagher, 2006).
The external validity of the model has been tested studying whether and how OI practices
are applied in both high and low tech industries (e.g., Christensen et al., 2005;
Chesbrough and Crowther, 2006). The organisational and managerial implications of this
new approach to technological innovation have been investigated thoroughly as well.
That said, there are a number of questions that lie almost unanswered and should be
thoroughly addressed to improve our understanding of this emerging innovation
management paradigm and for giving more accurate practical instruments to R&D and
innovation management practitioners.
With the aim to make a small step in this direction, this paper addresses several
research questions: How does the process from closed to OI unravel in terms of
organisational and managerial levers? Which are the peculiarities that high tech firms
undertake for implementing the OI paradigm?
Besides being under-researched, these question are relevant because, as will discussed
ahead in this article, revolutionising a firm’s approach to innovation management with
the aim to conform to the OI philosophy entails a deep organisational change, with

The process of organisational change in open innovation 179
impacts on almost any aspects of the organisation (organisational structures, performance
management systems, roles and responsibilities, use of ICT, etc.). This paper will adopt a
longitudinal perspective to analyse the impact that OI has on the inter-organisational
relationships, organisational structures, processes and knowledge management systems of
the innovating firm. This will benefit most practitioners in R&D and innovation
managers that will find a number of interesting suggestions and clues about how to
administer the organisational change process from closed to OI in order to reduce
organisational inertia and resistance to change, reduce the time needed to complete the
transformation and ultimately improve the chance of success. The focus is on companies
operating in high technology industry. This choice has been made under the assumption,
corroborated by both extant research and our case studies, that high tech firms have
adopted OI to a larger extent than low tech firms, and therefore they represent a more
appropriate empirical setting for our analysis.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 reviews the relevant literature with
the aim to explain why the research questions tackled in this paper are relevant to look at.
Section 3 develops an interpretative framework that was used as a guide to look into and
interpret the rich empirical basis collected through the case studies. Section 4 explains the
methodology employed in the empirical research, whereas Section 5 presents and
discusses the results of this analysis. Finally, Section 6 concludes and outlines a number
of avenues for future research.
2 Literature review
2.1 Open innovation
In the last few years the OI concept has attracted the attention of many scholars in
innovation management. In particular, this kind of paradigm, initiated by scholars in the
field of technology and innovation management, has developed an alternative approach to
innovation. Actually, the literature stream has not covered with a longitudinal approach,
except some cases of analysis (Chiaroni et al., 2010), the process through firms shift their
organisational and managerial systems from a Closed to an OI model. Only scattered and
anecdotic evidence has described the process of implementing the OI paradigm. For
instance, Kirschbaum (2005) illustrates the case of DSM, the multinational Dutch firm
operating in the life sciences and material sciences industries that created in 2001 DSM
Venturing and Business Development (DV and BD), an internal function whose mission
is to create and nurture new businesses. Huston and Sakkab (2006) describe the different
types of networks used by Procter & Gamble to facilitate innovation activities at the basis
of their ‘connect and develop’ innovation management model. The case of Procter &
Gamble is also analysed by Dodgson et al. (2006) who discuss how ‘innovation
technologies’ help to support the adoption of OI model. Yoo et al. (2008) focus their
attention on the way innovation networks can be classified. They analyse two basic
dimensions:
1 the heterogeneity of knowledge resources
2 the distribution of coordinating and control.

Similarly, Dittrich and Duyster (2007) illustrate the changes in networks for innovation
that the shift from closed to OI entails, analysing the international innovation networks of
Nokia in the period 1985–2002.
Moreover, Di Minin et al. (2010) discuss how Fiat Group has revolutionised its
organisational environment and performance evaluation system to adopt OI practices.
Giannopoulou et al. (2011) identify in
1 organising for openness
2 co-creating value
3 leadership for diversity
4 intellectual property (IP) management, the four major managerial implications for
adopting OI.
Mortara and Minshall (2011) analyse how large multinational companies moved from
practicing closed to OI, classifying the adoption paths according to the impetus for the
adoption of the OI paradigm and the coordination of the OI implementation. Even a
classification of all these different OI approaches has been proposed by Huizingh (2010).
We can conclude underlining that the implementation of the OI paradigm is highly
pervasive and requires a firm to intervene both on the ‘hard’ aspects of its organisation
(e.g., organisational structures or performance evaluation and management systems)
as well as the ‘soft’ ones (e.g., culture, organisational values and individual
competencies).
The largest part of the empirical evidence available on OI is based on cases from high
tech industries (Gassmann, 2006). Indeed, the criteria defined by Shanklin and John Jr.
(1984) to identify high tech industries (i.e., a strong scientific-technical basis, new
technology that can quickly make existing technology obsolete, new technologies that
come on stream revolutionise markets and demand) clearly suggest that companies
belonging to these industries need to find external sources of knowledge and
competencies to manage competitive threats and therefore are more suitable to rely on
OI. Similarly, Miotti and Sachwald (2003) argue that companies in high tech industries
(e.g., semiconductors) have a higher propensity to cooperate, extensively using external
sources to support product development in an environment characterised by rapid
technological change.
As a consequence, only recently scholars have tried to analyse the adoption of OI in
low tech industries, as for example Chesbrough and Crowther (2006). There is only one
contribution (Buganza et al., 2011) thatat tempts to compare the different approaches
used by low and high tech firms to implement OI. Buganza et al. (2011) show that high
tech companies are more focused on establishing explorative strategic collaborations
characterised by strong ties while low tech companies mostly build networks with an
exploitative intent, leverage mainly weak ties and include almost exclusively Universities
in their collaborative network of innovation activities. Finally, Chiaroni et al. (2010)
study the anatomy of the organisational change process through which mature and
asset-intensive firms move towards OI. However, there is no research on whether and
how the anatomy of this process changes between high tech and low tech companies. The
research presented in this paper attempts to fill this gap in OI research.

2.2 OI and organisational change
In this paper we advance that, in order to fully address this question, it is useful to
conceive OI as an organisational change process: “Open Innovation can be considered an
organizational innovation” (Christensen, 2006). In particular, it will be studied by making
use of established organisational change theories and models. An interesting parallel can
be drawn between the dynamics and characteristics of organisational change process and
the challenges firms are confronted with in their journey toward OI:
1 The inertia is a challenging barrier toward effective organisational changes
(Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999). The organisations require the re-assessment and
adjustment of internal values and beliefs in order to integrate change on a personal
level (Moran and Brightman, 2001). Similarly the not invented here and not sold
here syndromes must be overcome with strong internal actions to successfully
introduce the OI paradigm (Chesbrough, 2003).
2 The organisational change involves “an attempt to change current modes of
cognition and action to enable the organization to take advantage of environmental
and internal opportunities” (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). Sastry (1997) suggests that
an organisation could fail to implement the change if the internal variables involved
are not coherent between them and with external variables. Similarly OI requires the
proactive use of the business model as a cognitive instrument that enables the
organisation to evaluate innovation management decisions (Chesbrough, 2003) and
obtains a real competitive advantage from the new paradigm.
3 The adoption of the concept of organisational change is a response to the
opportunities, threats and demands of ever changing environment (Marshak, 1993;
that must be managed with new appropriate instruments (Recardo, 1995; Johnson,
2003). Similarly the paradigm of OI born for a series of factors linked to R&D
theories, evolutions of innovation management and external demands and
opportunities (Chesbrough, 2003) that call the organisations for new ways to manage
the innovation (Gassman et al., 2010).
4 Firms implementing organisational change have to experience a continuous process
of trialling, adaptation and learning to pro-actively define their business environment
and to develop familiar routines with transition procedures in order to link the
present to the future (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997), as it happens in OI models that
are characterised by initial activities that can bring to develop the early wins (Kotter,
2007).
3 Reference framework
Current literature on OI still has two significant gaps:
1 a lack of a comprehensive view of managerial intervention
2 a lack of a coherent view of OI approach within the organisational change theory.

Chiaroni et al. (2010) have already addressed these issues in a previous contribution
where, through exploratory case studies of low tech firms, they developed an
interpretive framework identifying four organisational and managerial dimensions
(namely organisational structures, evaluation processes, networks and knowledge
management systems) a low tech firm leverages on for adopting OI.
We here purposively reviewed the original framework to broaden its scope for the
analysis of high tech firms. In particular, by relying on extant literature on OI in
high tech industries, we have reshaped the original dimensions into three broader
concepts including a wider range of organisational variables that are more suited for
describing organisational phenomena in high tech industries. These three more
dimensions are:
• Organisational structures (Chesbrough, 2003; Giannopoulou et al., 2011;
Kirschbaum, 2005). We introduced in our framework a dimension, named
‘internal organisation’, to study organisational approaches emerging within the
company.
• Different types of collaboration (Huston and Sakkab, 2006; Dodgson et al., 2006;
Dittrich and Duyster, 2007; Giannopoulou et al., 2011). Accordingly, we considered
the external organisation dimension to capture all the collaborations
high tech companies establish to move towards an open approach.
• Knowledge management tools and systems that help companies managing the
transition process and opening up their innovation paradigm.
3.1 Internal organisation
The new paradigm of OI requires that companies, in order to manage and streamline the
flow of knowledge from outside to inside and vice versa, develop new internal structures
and roles and adapt the existing organisation structures to the new concept internally
developed. In particular, the internal reorganisation might concern:
1 new business units and ad hoc structures for assessing and integrating the external
knowledge into the firm’s innovation processes and exploiting internal innovations
through external paths (Chiaroni et al., 2010)
2 dedicated team works within existing organisational units to manage contingent OI
tasks, e.g., the assessment of external sources of knowledge (Gassman, 2006)
3 organisational roles such as the innovation champion, that helps firm in the adoption
of OI model (Chesbrough and Crowther, 2006), the idea generators, giving a
contribution on generating new ideas (Roberts, 2007)
4 spin-offs (Chesbrough, 2007), start-ups and corporate venturing activities
(Gilsing et al., 2008; Enkel et al., 2009) that manage or develop new business
models.
3.2 External organisation
This dimension deals with the way through which firms organise their external
relationships and the new processes emerged with external actors. In particular, empirical

evidences show that a key instrument for adopting the OI model is the establishment of
extensive networks with research institutions (EmdenGrand et al., 2006; Perkmann and
Walsh, 2007), competitors, suppliers (EmdenGrand et al., 2006) and users (Von Hippel,
2005; Simard and West, 2006; Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt, 2006). Specifically, these
networks play a key role in industries where technology changes rapidly and product life
cycles are short (Dittrich and Duyster, 2007) as in the case of high tech firms. Especially
in those sectors with active markets for technologies, this may influence the
establishment of external relationships with the aim of defining strategic collaborations
for licensing technology developed internally or for acquiring strategic partners with the
required complementary assets (Arora et al., 2001).
In particular, Dittrich and Duyster (2007) classify the so called innovation
networks in:
1 exploration network which has the aim to search for new ideas and knowledge
generally establishing no-equity agreements
2 exploitation network with the aim to improve and extend the existing capabilities and
possibilities usually building more stable structures.
In addition, Yoo et al. (2008) classify the innovation networks considering two different
dimensions:
1 the heterogeneity of knowledge resources
2 the distribution of control.
On one end of the extreme, there is a complete centralised control over all actors. On the
other extreme end, we see a decentralised control and coordination.
3.3 Tools and knowledge management systems
The openness of innovation models enhances the general need of Innovation management
to deal with information flows. Implementing OI requires the use of KM systems in order
to support the diffusion, sharing and transfer of knowledge both within the firms and with
the external environment. This managerial lever comprises some application fields, the
most relevant are:
1 Information and communication technology (ICT) platforms that might be a driving
force for innovation and change processes allowing the firms to acquire and
manage efficiently the knowledge flows with external actors such as the innovation
technology (IvT) that include a wide range of different technologies (visual design,
simulation, etc.) that companies use in implementing innovation processes
(Dodgson et al., 2006).
2 IP management systems that must be strategically managed in order to protect on one
hand value added internal innovations and on the other hand to license out innovative
technologies that can be better exploited externally.
IP rights and especially patents protect technological knowledge produced by a firm’s
R&D and innovation activities (Arora et al., 2001). These instruments need to be
carefully managed by firms and therefore IP represents an important dimension of their

knowledge management system (Bianchi et al., 2011). Although unpatented technologies
may also be subject to external commercialisation, patents, of course, make the sale of
technologies easier to pursue (Bianchi et al., 2011).
4 Research methodology
4.1 Research design
The framework provided by Chiaroni et al. (2010) represented the starting point for our
inquiry as it has explored these issues in the context of low tech firms. Some evidences
have reported differences in OI efforts among low tech and high tech organisations.
We moved from Chiaroni et al. (2010) framework and, through field observation, we
come to the proposal of a framework which is specifically aimed at high tech firms
(Glaser and Strauss, 1967), as we have explained previously.
This approach leads us to adopt case studies as the most appropriate methodology.
Coherently with Yin (2003), case studies allow researchers to address both exploratory
(‘what’) question and explanatory (‘how’ and ‘why’) questions, focusing on
contemporary events and not requiring control of behavioural events. The use of case
studies is made even more salient by the relative newness of our area of investigation
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Marschan-Piekkari and Welch, 2004) and by the complexity of the
phenomenon (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007) because they allow identifying insightful
relationships even within small samples. Moreover, the adoption of a quantitative
approach was very difficult because of the problems related to the evaluation of the
firms’ openness level and of the enhancement of the use of managerial levers undertaken
by the firm.
4.2 Sample design
We adopted a theoretical sampling approach for selecting the case studies. We followed a
replication logic since cases were selected based on their relevance rather than their
representativeness (Stake, 1995). A two-step approach was undertaken.
The first step aimed at identifying existing Open Innovating firms in Italy. We carried
out a preliminary screening of Italian newspapers using two professional Italian
web-based databases (LexisNexis and Il Sole 24 Ore). Identifying this population is an
elusive task as there is no objective measure for OI activity readily available. To fulfil
this task, we first selected a sample of Italian companies that participated in joint ventures
for the development of innovative products/processes or that acquired licenses or patents
during the last ten years (from 1999 to 2009). We used LexisNexis and Il Sole24Ore
databases to perform this search. Then we focused on those companies, belonging to the
above mentioned sample, who participated in workshops in the area of innovation and
OI. This step allowed us to better understand the approaches used by the selected
companies in their innovation process and to identify those firms that could be considered
as practicing OI. This first step allowed us to identify about 25 firms.
The second step allowed us to identify the sample of firms to be involved in the case
study. We selected the final sample of four firms listed in Table 1 on the basis of:

1 The degree of openness showed by the firms. This was measured by building an
indicator that took into account the number of times in which the companies were
mentioned in the LexisNexis and IlSole24Ore databases (following the previous
criteria) and the number of workshops on innovation they participated in.
2 The chance of establishing a good collaboration and of identifying a counterpart very
interested in the research, so that we could study the phenomenon in a ‘transparent’
way.
Direct calls were used also to understand if companies were really motivated to take part
in the empirical investigation process.
Table 1 Preliminary information about the firms in the sample
Firm Industry
Revenues
(2009)
Annual investments
in R&D
(% of sales)
Role of interviewed
people
Company A Complex
system
integrators
1.65 bln€ 14.6% • Vice president of
integrated products
• IPR manager
• Head of R&D
Company B Pharmaceutical 0.50 bln€ 15.2% • Director of innovation
and medical science
• Director of category
development and
licensing
Company C Electronic
components
0.16 bln€ 13.1% • Head of R&D
• Knowledge
management manager
• Project manager
Company D Aerospace and
defence
0.29 bln€ 10.2% • Head of R&D
• Project manager
4.3 Data collection
In addition to the information provided by the articles from LexisNexis and IlSole24Ore
databases, we relied on:
1 annual reports (available from the websites) to collect financial data on the firm
2 archival data (i.e., presentations and reports) related to interventions in conferences
that deal with innovation
3 direct interviews on key informants.
This allowed reaching a triangulation of data that is a standard rule for case studies to
improve objectivity (Eisenhardt, 1989) and robustness of results (Yin, 2003). Direct
interviews with key informants were the primary data source. We undertook at least two

interviews for each role, in order to gather multiple perspectives on the same topic and
reduce potential personal biases. In all the firms, the head of corporate R&D (or the head
of functions involved in internal innovation activities) was interviewed and constituted
the main source of information (see Table 1). In addition, other managers were involved
once they were regarded by the head of corporate R&D as key informants.
The interviews were conducted in March–December 2009 by a research team
comprising three investigators and followed a semi-structured replicable guide that
comprised a set of open questions. The use of multiple investigators has several
advantages since it allows gathering different perspectives in an interview, thus,
increasing the richness and confidence in the findings (Eisenhardt, 1989).
5 Results and discussion
Case studies allowed us to analyse the anatomy of the organisational change process
through which firms transform themselves from closed to open innovators. Details about
the studied firms are presented in Table 2, where a rough timeline of the process of
adoption of OI is provided.
5.1 Status of the firm before the implementation of the OI paradigm
On the basis of the chosen sample of firms two remarks have to be made before
discussing in depth the different phases of the process in the light of the reference
framework.
The first remark concerns the status of the firms. They are characterised by three
peculiarities:
1 a strong and leading edge R&D unit, mostly devoted to pursue innovation with
established procedures for evaluating and assessing new projects
2 an IP Office aimed to protect IP generated within the boundaries of the firms
3 a network for innovation, characterised by strong relationships with customers and
suppliers and a lack of maturity in the relationships with universities and research
centres.
The second remark concerns the trigger, i.e., the event that enables the process of
transition from a Closed to an OI approach. Both OI and organisational change literature
have paid a lot of attention to the key role of top management in triggering change. In our
cases, top managers play a pivotal role in creating the needed sense of urgency for
enabling change within organisations. In particular, the intent of top management in
adopting OI becomes since the beginning the subject of a formal strategic plan, explicitly
setting the objectives of increasing the firm’s openness: “People in our company are
accustomed to change – remember that we operate in a very turbulent business
environment – and they are also used to be informed of such changes through the
periodic reviews of the company’s strategic plan” (Director of Innovation and Medical
Science at Company B).

Table 2 Case studies analysis
Company
A
1995–1997
1998–2000
2001–2003
2004–2006
2007–2009
Internal
organisation
Three
sub-units,
under
the
technical
division,
were
established:
•
advanced
projects
devoted
to
the
development
of
nurture
innovation
•
Italian
projects
•
European
projects
that
were
focused
respectively
on
Italian
and
European
funded
projects.
The
company
made
a
series
of
acquisitions
of
firms
in
industries
closed
to
those
where
the
company
operate
to
integrate
complementary
competences.
A
new
organisational
structure
called
‘mind-share’
was
established.
It
was
based
on
an
advanced
IT
platform
allowing
members
of
the
network’s
partners
(particularly
CNR
and
other
universities)
as
well
as
firm’s
employees
to
post,
review
and
collect
new
ideas
or
new
projects
in
the
area
of
interest
of
the
firm.
The
company
merged
with
a
big
company
and
a
reengineering
of
technical
direction
was
carried
out.
The
technical
director
of
the
merged
company
was
appointed
head
of
technical
direction.
He
had
a
great
experience
and
an
open
minded
attitude
and
soon
took
the
lead
of
the
process
of
adoption
of
OI.
Two
sub-units
were
established,
one
located
in
Italy
and
the
other
in
UK,
with
the
aim
to
develop
and
sell
technological
and
scientific
services.

Table 2 Case studies analysis (continued)
Company
A
1995–1997
1998–2000
2001–2003
2004–2006
2007–2009
External
organisation
A
new
set
of
relationships
with
‘high
skilled’
small
firms
coming
from
East
Europe
and
Brazil
was
established.
It
participated
in
European
(sixth
framework
programme),
national
and
regional
programmes.
Regarding
the
aerospace
industry,
the
company
started
to
collaborate
with
European
Space
Agency
(ESA).
The
company
established
strong
relationships
with
Italian
universities
(e.g.,
University
of
Florence;
Sant’Anna
of
Pisa;
Polythecnic
of
Milan),
customers
and
suppliers.
The
firm
established
new
procedures
to
manage
its
existing
network
(in
most
cases
large
defence
firms
or
national
governments).
For
instance,
‘market
place’,
an
intranet
network
that
allowed
to
share
information
about
innovations
and
patents
among
firms
that
belong
to
the
group,
was
opened
to
external
actors.
The
company
established
a
strategic
relationship
with
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology
(MIT).
‘Mind
share’
communities
participated
to
external
projects,
partially
financed
by
the
group
leader
(25%).
The
number
of
co-development
projects
increased
(+40%)
from
the
early
90s.
It
was
established
the
objective
of
obtaining
50
mln
of
Euro
within
2013
from
European
programmes.
Management
tools
The
firm
began
to
adopt
a
pro-active
policy
to
manage
the
internal
knowledge
by.
•
stimulating
creativity
of
human
resources
•
incrementing
brand
attractiveness.
The
company
developed
the
‘CTO
exchange’
project,
an
internal
database
that
gathered
the
information
about
patents
and
research
projects.
The
firm
started
to
search
for
international
companies
performing
brokering
activities
of
intellectual
properties.
A
licensing-out
policy
was
established
to
stimulate
selling
of
soft
resources
rather
than
hard
ones.

Company
B
2000–2002
2003–2005
2006–2008
2009–...
Internal
organisation
It
was
established
a
strategic
plan
to
externalise
R&D
activities
and
increase
the
openness
toward
external
world.
The
company
created
a
small
incubator,
called
‘Z-cube’,
for
nurturing
the
development
of
new
ideas,
usually
academic
spin-offs.
The
main
role
of
the
incubator
was
to
support
small
firms
with
industrial
know-how.
A
new
function,
called
‘business
development
and
licensing’,
was
established
with
the
aim
of
negotiating
and
licensing-in
new
drugs.
A
new
function
called
‘innovation
and
medical
science’
replaced
the
traditional
R&D
function
for
supporting
new
open
processes.
The
head
of
‘innovation
and
medical
science’
became
the
champion
of
innovation.
A
knowledge
management
sub-unit
was
established
within
the
‘innovation
and
medical
science’.
New
roles
were
established:
•
project
planning
portfolio
manager,
focused
on
the
assessment
and
development
of
new
products
•
other
roles
devoted
to
scouting,
screening
and
assessing
of
technologies
and
innovations.
A
new
sub-unit,
called
‘product
development’
was
established
within
the
innovation
direction.
In
particular,
it
was
in
charge
for
the
allocation
of
financial
resources
to
projects
and
for
coordinating
all
organisational
units
involved
in
launching
new
products.
A
new
sub-unit
called
‘product
and
technology
discovery’
was
established
for
coordinating
scouting
activities
and
assessing
pre-clinic
phase.
The
‘business
development
and
licensing’
unit
was
re-organised.
In
particular,
it
changed
name
(‘category
development
and
licensing’)
and
new
activities
were
undertaken.

Company
B
2000–2002
2003–2005
2006–2008
2009–...
External
organisation
The
company
strengthened
relationships
with
international
pharmaceutical
firms
to
commercialise
new
molecules.
A
new
approach
was
established
to
strengthen
the
relationships
with
universities
and
research
institutes.
The
company
began
to
develop
relationships
with
small
firms,
according
to
Z-cube
strategic
objective.
The
company
participate
to
partnering
conference
in
order
to
individuate
new
actors
to
involve
in
non-core
research
areas.
The
company
increased
the
relationships
with
universities’
incubators,
science-parks
and
bio-clusters.
The
number
and
the
depth
of
relationships
with
small-size
innovating
firms
increased.
The
aim
was:
•
supporting
the
development
of
new
drugs
•
finding
suitable
exploitation
channels
for
products
that
were
outside
the
business
scope
of
the
firm.
The
company
developed
exploration
networks
searching
for
technologies
not
directly
linked
to
the
market.
For
instance,
it
established
a
relation
with
a
spin-off
of
Bologna
University.
The
company
developed
a
formal
system
to
contact
start-ups
and
spin-offs.
It
started
a
very
active
involvement
in
national,
regional
and
European
projects.
For
instance,
in
2009
the
firm
participated
in
a
regional
programme
related
to
innovative
projects.
Management
tools
It
was
established
an
in-licensing
strategy
undertaken
by
the
‘business
development
and
licensing’
function.
The
firm
started
to
develop
a
project,
called
‘Zame’,
that
had
the
aim
of
reengineering
ICT
platform.
A
new
database
was
established
with
the
aim
to
track
information
about
deal
flow
processes.
It
was
developed
a
short
term
in-
licensing
strategy
in
order
to
quickly
obtain
new
products
to
enlarge
the
products’
portfolio
of
the
company.
A
new
intranet
was
launched
for
integrating
all
the
ICT
platforms.

Company
C
1999–2001
2002–2004
2005–2007
2008–...
Internal
organisation
Top
management
developed
a
new
corporate
strategy:
•
change
organisation
assigning
a
key
role
to
the
innovation
activities
•
sell
technologies
and
know-how,
in
addition
to
the
traditional
businesses.
A
new
manager
was
appointed
head
of
R&D.
He
had
great
technical
competencies,
a
particular
attention
on
innovation
activities
and
interesting
personal
networks.
A
knowledge
management
sub-unit
was
established
within
the
R&D
unit.
The
company
developed
the
R&D
management
and
control
activities
that
managed
costs
and
efficiency
of
the
R&D
unit.
A
technological
scouting
sub-unit
was
established
with
the
aim
of
implementing
a
new
process
of
technological
exploration.
It
was
established
a
new
role
within
the
R&D
unit
to
exchange
product
information
with
the
customers.
The
collaboration
process
between
marketing
and
R&D
functions
was
consolidated
and
formalised.
It
was
established
a
new
role
with
the
aim
of
integrating
the
activities
undertaken
by
the
two
functions.
A
formal
role
of
funding,
that
had
the
purpose
to
identify
all
the
potential
financing
programmes
for
the
firm,
was
created.

Company
C
1999–2001
2002–2004
2005–2007
2008–...
External
organisation
It
was
established
a
new
type
of
relationship,
called
‘friend
relation’,
based
on
a
proactive
and
constructive
collaboration
with
all
actors
involved
in.
In
particular,
this
new
modus
operandi
was
developed
together
with
research
institutes
and
universities.
The
company
strengthened
the
relationships
with
universities
(e.g.,
Politecnico
di
Torino)
and
abandoned
the
relationships
with
big
companies.
The
company
held
relationships
with
two
typologies
of
actors:
•
start-ups
and
spin-offs
•
big
Far
East
research
institutes.
For
instance,
in
2005
the
company
established
networks
with
a
research
institute
in
Seoul
that
owned
industrial
facilities
to
produce
its
components.
The
company
started
a
strategic
collaboration
with
key
customers
in
the
light
of
the
new
exchange
process
developed
during
the
previous
years.
The
company
developed
a
formal
system
to
utilise
with
new
partners
during
the
first
meetings.
Management
tools
The
intellectual
property
office
developed
two
strategies:
•
patents
that
the
company
could
immediately
exploit
•
patents
that
might
use
in
the
future.
The
company
created
a
technical
library
to
manage
internal
and
external
information.
This
kind
of
ICT
instrument
had
the
aim
of
mapping
the
knowledge
and
the
internal
and
external
competencies.
The
process
of
mapping
and
assessing
firm’s
network
was
established
for
comparing
the
preventive
and
final
evaluation
of
each
relationship.
A
first
case
of
selling
‘indirect’
know-how
was
made.
The
company
acquired
know-how
from
a
European
spin-off
and
sell,
in
2009,
the
same
knowledge
to
another
Italian
company.

Company
D
1997–1999
2000–2002
2003–2005
2006–....
Internal
organisation
The
company
acquired
an
important
firm,
and
became
the
company
leader
in
building
air-trainers
market.
It
was
established
an
internal
committee
that
asses
and
monitor
the
technical
aspects.
The
company
was
acquired
by
Finmeccanica.
It
represents
the
real
trigger
toward
an
OI
process.
This
kind
of
operation
started
the
transition
process
of
becoming
a
public
limited
company.
It
was
established
an
organisation
tool
called
integrated
product
team
(IPT),
a
kind
of
task
force
(along
the
lines
of
American
skunk
works)
with
the
scope
to
develop
a
particular
air-force
project.
The
technical
direction
and
the
research
and
technical
innovation
direction
were
established.
These
rely
on
the
CEO.
The
role
of
the
research
and
technical
innovation
director
was
to
asses
and
individuate
critical
strategies
and
technologies
to
address
the
research
fields
of
the
business
units.
He
became
the
champion
of
innovation.
A
new
team
work
was
established
with
the
aim
of
monitoring
the
flight
of
the
first
prototype
of
M-346
that
completed
the
first
set
of
54
flights
in
March
2005.
The
10th
of
April
2008
has
been
unveiled
the
first
model
of
pre-series.

Company
D
1997–1999
2000–2002
2003–2005
2006–....
External
organisations
The
company
started
to
participate
in
European
project
called
advanced
European
jet
pilot
training
(Eurotraining)
that
had
the
scope
to
create
a
common
Euro-trainer
programme.
The
company
strengthened
the
relationships
with
firms
that
belong
to
the
aerospace
industry.
This
kind
of
relations
allowed
the
firm
in
co-developing
products
and
projects.
The
Company
started
to
participate
to
the
European
Defensing
programme
(dedicated
to
a
particular
component
of
the
aircraft
engine).
Networks
and
relationships
were
established,
after
Finmeccaninca
acquisition,
with
university
research
centre
and
small
skilled
firms
(e.g.,
a
strength
collaboration
with
Tuscan
small
firms
that
has
important
competencies
in
radar
and
infra-red
field.
The
company
established
a
strategic
collaboration
with
Russian
firms
(with
whom
it
had
collaborate
to
develop
the
Yak-130)
in
order
to
create
new
models
derived
from
Yak-130
for
exporting
them
in
other
countries.
At
the
same
time
two
companies
should
join
at
studying
and
promoting
a
new
international
version
of
aircraft.
Management
tools
Before
the
acquisition
by
Finmeccanica,
all
the
technology
innovations
were
created
without
the
necessity
of
patenting
them.
The
firm
began
to
adopt
a
pro-active
IPR
policy
to
manage
the
internal
knowledge.
It
was
established
a
performance
evaluation
electronic
tool
composed
by
a
balanced
scorecard.
The
company
started
to
create
a
formal
out-licensing
process
in
a
technological
advanced
field.
It
was
established
an
internal
database
in
which
all
consolidated
partners
are
listed.
They
were
clustered
by
business
area.

5.2 Dimensions of managerial interventions
The first step of the detailed discussion regards the process that firms undertaken for
implementing the OI model distinguishing between the three managerial levers of the
reference framework.
5.2.1 Internal organisations
The internal organisation is characterised by the following actions:
• Firms re-design the internal organisation structures creating a number of sub-units
within existing R&D function to manage the new procedures related to the OI
approach. Company B and company C, for example, created a technology scouting
sub-unit (‘product and technology discovery’ and ‘technological scouting’
respectively) to explore and assess new products and innovative technologies.
At the same time, Company B restructured also the R&D function creating a new
unit called ‘innovation and medical science’ that replaced the traditional R&D
function with the role of supporting new open processes and established also
a small incubator called ‘Z-Cube’ for nurturing the development of new ideas
(usually academic spin-offs).
All firms established a knowledge management sub-unit to manage the IT based
systems for collecting and sharing knowledge resources. Interestingly, the new
sub-units are under the direct supervision of the head of the R&D unit that in this
respect acts as a truly OI champion, ensuring the adoption of the new OI procedures
and approaches (Chesbrough, 2006; Clark et al., 1997).
• The new heads of R&D function (three of four companies have hired a new R&D
director) or the heads of the new business units have the role of leading the new
processes and act as OI champion or innovation leaders, ensuring the adoption of the
new procedures and approaches in the new structures. Strategic integration across
units is achieved through coordination at the senior management level and a strong
widely shared corporate culture. Firms established also new roles to undertake more
open activities, such as the multi project manager developed by company C that has
to collaborate with key customers in order to exploit all the interesting suggestions
(linked to the potential innovations) coming from them.
• Firms have undergone a deep change in the evaluation metrics adopted to inform the
management activities and resource allocation in R&D new internal budgets and
indicators in order to speed up and motivate the adoption of the OI paradigm.
Company A, for example, defined a new indicator setting that almost 50% of R&D
budget has to be destined to externally generated projects, as in Procter & Gamble
(Dogson et al., 2006) and Company A set the objective of obtaining at least
50 million of euro within 2013 from enlarged European Programmes.

5.2.2 External organisations
Key issues for this lever are the following:
• Firms created structured networks with universities and research centres during the
implementation of the OI paradigm. In particular, some firms that had already
established relationships with universities revised these in the light of the OI
approach. For example Company A passed from financing resource fellowships
without exchanging competencies and skills to establish strong relationships with top
Italian universities (University of Florence; Sant’Anna of Pisa; Politecnico di
Milano) aimed at jointly develop dedicated projects on radar sensors. One of the
projects with Politecnico di Milano is managed by sharing competences, internal
instruments and information: “now we have to face with new macro projects that are
broken down into sub-problems assigned to the several university departments,
according to the competences required, because of the heterogeneity and complexity
of the single projects” (Head of R&D at Company A). Moreover all studied firms
developed relationships with new actors, particularly with start-ups spin-offs and
universities’ incubators with leading-edge technologies. Company B started to
establish relationships with Science Parks and Bio-Clusters with the aim of
supporting the collaborative research for new drugs and finding suitable exploitation
channels for products that were outside the business scope of the firm.
• Firms, during the process of implementing OI paradigm, established new kinds of
networks and in some cases changed the scope of the existing ones. Although the
exploitation networks prevail on exploration networks (March, 1991), all the firms
created networks with the aim to explore new areas of knowledge, different from the
ones they have traditionally mastered. Company B created an ad hoc partnering
conference to individuate potential partners in non-core areas of research. This
instrument allowed the firm to collaborate with a spin-off of Bologna University for
developing new kind of molecules to use in a new research area. Company C
implemented a new internal policy called Seeded Growth aimed to explore the
embryonic technologies near to the ones already developed by the company
collaborating with external specialists (i.e., start-ups and spin-offs) that develop
leading edge technologies in different fields.
The knowledge resources exchanged with external partners evolve toward a
heterogeneous set of knowledge and technological platforms (Yoo et al., 2008). Company
A, for example, established a technology platform called Mind-Share that allow the
members of the network (belonging to different organisations) as well as firm’s
employees to collect and argue ideas on projects belonging to different fields. These
firms established also a set of new instruments to manage external collaborations. For
example, the ‘market place’, an intranet network that allowed sharing information about
innovations and patents among firms of the group developed by Company A, was opened
to external actors.

5.2.3 Tools and knowledge management systems
This managerial instrument was leveraged by acting on the following:
• Firms develop proactive policies for managing the IP. For instance, Company A
exploited the IPs to stimulate creativity of internal human resources and increment
brand attractiveness using the patents as a business card. Even company B, that
belongs to the pharmaceutical industry and is more used to IP trading, used a new
form of co-development of IP that is a sort of mix between traditional approach of
pharmaceutical firms doing joint R&D with small innovative firms and the pure
equity investment of venture capital firms.
In addition to the establishment of IP Office, firms started to undertake licensing-out
activities in order to exploit the un-used value deriving from internal patents and
licenses. For example, company C sells indirect ‘know-how’, that has been acquired
by the company from a European spin-off, to another Italian company belonging to
the firm’s network.
• Firms develop support tools, mainly based on powerful IT systems, for managing
knowledge base. For example, Company A created the CTO Exchange, an internal
database that gathered the information about project results, patents, and networks of
all the firms involved in networking or collaborative processes. Company B started
to develop the Zame project with the aim of reengineering ICT platform establishing
a new database that tracks information about all the deal flow processes.
The following propositions summarise what distinguishes a high tech firm as an open
innovator:
P1 High tech companies purposively re-design internal organisational structures,
creating dedicated sub-units to manage OI projects.
P2 High tech companies establish new organisational roles aimed at leading newly
created sub-units to manage OI projects.
P3 High tech companies define new evaluation metrics and dedicated tools to support
the adoption of the OI paradigm.
P4 High tech companies strengthen their networks for supporting OI projects by
modifying the scope of existing collaborations and exploring with the same partners
new areas of knowledge, different from the ones they have traditionally mastered.
P5 High tech companies expand their exploration networks of strategic collaborations
by purposively including small innovative firms for accessing new external sources
of innovation.
P6 High tech companies develop proactive policies for managing IP for accessing new
external channels of innovation exploitation.
P7 High tech companies purposively develop strong IT systems for managing the
exchange of knowledge with external organisations and for fostering the
development of OI projects.

5.3 OI and organisational change: the implementing process of the OI
paradigm
This paragraph analyses the process of organisational change high tech companies
undertook to pass from closed to open innovators.
There is not a real starting point for high tech firms in the journey from closed to OI.
Only Company D experienced a real trigger toward OI that is represented by an important
acquisition. The high level of commitment of top management (as we described in the
first paragraph of the discussion section) is the pre-requisite for these firms to undertake
an evolutionary process toward OI.
The real implementation process in these firms starts from changing the way that
firms address established networks, defining new exploring processes and creating new
internal policies for managing IP. Firms search for previously untapped innovation
sources and exploitation avenues. The nature of knowledge exchange within the network
is, however, still homogeneous in terms of technological platforms and knowledge
(Yoo et al., 2008). In this initial phase, firms do not access sources of knowledge that can
be properly defined as ‘new’, but they start challenging their existing networks with
‘new’ quests for innovation. “Until now our company (A) was used to establish single
partnerships with key suppliers and customers without developing strategic relationships
in form of structured inter-organizational networks” (Vice President of integrated
Products at Company A). These exploring processes, in the very first years of
implementation of the OI model, take mainly the form of informal procedures easily
manageable and comprising a new way to scout external technology and innovation
potential (Van den Elst, 2006). For example, Company A and Company B established a
process of technological scouting to search for technologies and solutions not directly
applied in the products portfolio of the firm. “What is of interest for our company (C)
was focused on the processes that explore emerging technologies and systems that may
have strategic mid-term impacts on firm’s activities. We needed internal processes
purposively designed for this objective” (Knowledge Management Manager at
Company C).
The adoption of new IP practices is the other managerial lever high tech companies
use for creating the sense of urgency and the right environment of excitement and energy
to nurture change (Chesbrough, 2006). The first step is the establishment of a dedicated
team with the role of defining mechanisms for facilitating knowledge transfer and for
protecting companies from opportunistic behaviours (Chesbrough, 2006). At the same
time they collect also best practices adopted by other firms that operate in the same
industry. Companies begin to undertake these processes and practices with companies
they have been collaborating with for several years. For example, Company B used a new
form of IP’s co-development method which is a sort of mix between traditional
approaches of pharmaceutical firms doing joint R&D with small innovative firms and the
pure equity investment of venture capital firms.
After the first two-three years firms, usually, started to introduce, in a more formal
way, the OI approach creating a number of sub-units within existing R&D
function, expanding the range of actors belonging to existing networks and establishing
formalised evaluation processes and supporting tools mainly based on powerful IT
systems.

The sub-units generated within the R&D function have the objective of structuring
and consolidating new procedures and activities related to new processes emerging with
specific and ‘open-oriented’ tasks: “we need to encapsulate the OI approach in structures
that can be used for strategic projects and for critical research areas and that can be used
by the firm as best practices for the open approach” (Head of R&D at company D).
Although exploration networks prevail on exploitation networks there is a strong shift
from previous years that regards the type of actors involved and the set of knowledge
resources exchanged (Dittrich and Dusysters, 2007). Firms started to explore new areas
for research using both well-established networks and new collaborations with
universities employing a set of heterogeneous instruments that involve not only the
knowledge sharing but also the use of common technological and IT platforms. Company
A, for example established a strategic collaboration with Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) thanks to an American liason officer that have the role to individuate
and coordinate the activities of the company with American research institutions. “In
recent years, a greater openness to the organisation also came from the universities.
Universities have begun to understand, although not completely (only rationally but not
emotionally) that working with large companies can bring them a big advantage”
(IPR Manager at Company A).
At the same time firms started to develop formal and strategic relationships with
small-size innovating firms (start-ups and spin-offs) in high tech industries characterised
by an higher flexibility and an ‘open culture’ that have the capacity to stimulate the
companies and bring them important insights on new products and alternative usage of
existing ones. For example, company D collaborates with a small Tuscan firm that has
developed strong competences in the radar and infra-red field. “The small firm provides
us in-depth competences on dedicated instruments strictly linked to the infra-red field
while we help them to enlarge the vision on the sector and exploit their internal
knowledge” (Project manager at Company D).
Firms started to establish also more formalised evaluation processes and instruments
(Chesbrough, 2006) to monitor new internal processes of innovation and to assess the
potential and the opportunity to access external sources of technologies. Company A
develop a formalised deal flow generation model for monitoring the advances of
innovation projects undertaken with strategic external partners and Company B uses a
project scorecard for evaluating innovation activities that are emerged with the
introduction of the open approach within the company. In particular the scorecard
provided different evaluation criteria depending on the type of innovation developed.
After the implementation process high tech companies usually established new
internal connections and exchange processes among the new sub-units within the R&D
function (created for managing OI projects) and other internal functions, especially
marketing business units. Coordination among different units is now managed at firm
level with the definition of formal procedures for managing input-output relationships
and solving potential conflicts: “before the implementation of the OI model, the
marketing function had the role of generating input for other divisions; now has the role
of creating short-term inputs and it collaborates with R&D unit and scouting sub-unit for
planning strategic activities” (Director of Category Development and licensing at
Company B). Formal procedures and best practices are established by high tech
companies to consolidate the OI approach.

Firms adopt a set of OI oriented performance measurement system through a change
in the evaluation metrics adopted to inform the management on activities and resource
allocation processes in R&D. “We have to motivate activities and people linked to the OI
approach without losing sight on traditional innovation processes” (Head of R&D at
Company A). For example, three of the four companies of our sample developed
indicators to monitor the participation to publicly financed projects (European, National
and Regional). The reason why companies developed these metrics in this phase is rather
evident in managers interviews: “Only at this stage of the process we were actually aware
of the changes we implemented” (Vice President of Integrated Products at Company A).
The following propositions summarise the journey of high tech companies towards
the implementation of OI:
P8 In the process of adoption of OI, high tech firms start by establishing new
explorative networks, exploring processes and creating new internal policies for
managing IP.
P9 High tech firms move themselves in the process of adoption of OI by establishing
sub-units within the existing R&D function, enlarging the type of actors involved
and by developing formalised evaluation systems to monitor the innovation process.
P10 High tech firms consolidate their approach in OI by establishing coordination
mechanisms between new and traditional units and by adopting dedicated
performance measurement systems.
5.4 The peculiarities of high tech companies compared to low tech ones
This paragraph discusses the main differences between low tech and high tech firms in
their journey toward OI.
High tech firms do not show a defined starting point for the implementation of OI, as
in the case of firms that operate in mature industries (Chesbrough, 2006; Chiaroni et al.,
2010). High tech firms, differently from low tech ones, do not require a special event to
trigger the change and overcoming the firms’ organisational inertia (Kaplan et al., 2003)
as they are more used to manage discontinuities: “the attitude towards innovation is far
more developed and has to be continuously strengthened to cope with the high turbulence
of the environment in which firms operate”.
Furthermore, the adoption of OI in high tech companies forces a re-organisation that
starts mainly from the establishment of new processes rather than the re-design of
organisational structures, that represents the first managerial dimension interested by the
implementation of OI in low tech industries (Chiaroni et al., 2010).In particular, while
low tech firms start to establish an independent unit devoted to R&D activities and an IP
Office, aimed at managing the existing and new knowledge basis(Chiaroni et al., 2010),
high tech firms revise the organisational structure only once they have defined new
internal processes that are managed, at first, through the use of inter-organisational teams
or people working in R&D functions. This is easier for high tech firms because they are
more used than low tech companies to manage transition processes by adopting forms of
contextual ambidexterity organisations (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004). Moreover, high
tech companies focus their attention, at first, on changing the established networks,
searching for previously untapped innovation sources and exploitation avenues. In

particular, the low tech approach supports the argument (Gassman and Enkel, 2011) that
the first steps towards OI are usually made by leveraging its inbound dimension.
The role of external collaborations in implementing the OI approach is different
between high tech and low tech companies, not only as regards the timing of adoption
(high tech companies use exploration networks as one of the first lever to adopt the
approach, while low tech firms use them only in the transformation phase), but also for
the types of collaborations that are established. Low tech firms use mainly exploitative
collaborations through firm-level inter-organisational network, by leveraging the personal
socialites of R&D managers. Their preferred partners are universities (Chiaroni et al.,
2011). Relationships with Universities, indeed, are less risky in terms of potential
spill-overs than others involving suppliers, customers or even competitors and this is
therefore consistent with the low attitude of low tech companies towards external
collaborations. On the other hand, high tech firms develop strong and strategic
collaborations with top universities but also with small-size innovating firms
(i.e., start-ups and spin-offs), characterized by an ‘open culture’, that have the capacity to
produce important insights concerning new products and alternative usage of existing
ones. This use of external networks is more familiar for high tech firms that, in
undertaking their traditional processes, had to face with high tech start-ups and small
firms for selling and co-developing technologies and products (Arora et al., 2001).
The consolidation process shows some differences between high tech and low tech
companies. In particular, high tech firms try to consolidate the open approach adopting
formal procedures in terms of coordination mechanisms among new and traditional
business units and adopting a set of performance metrics to monitor the progress of new
processes. Companies need to fix organisational procedures for enabling an effective
adoption of the paradigm. On the other hand, low tech companies adopt new
organisational roles that are in charge of managing the evaluation and development
processes of innovation opportunities generated in an OI environment (Chiaroni et al.,
2010).
It is possible to discuss and identify the peculiarities of high tech firms and compare
them with low tech companies thanks to the revised framework of Chiaroni et al. (2011).
The decrease of the number of variables allow us to focus only on dimensions that are
more relevant for high tech companies, while the use of more general variables helps us
consider a wider set of sub-variables that are able to explain the specificities of these
companies.
The following propositions summarise the main differences between high tech and
low tech firms as it regards the organisational change process underlying the adoption
of OI:
P11 High tech firms consider the adoption of OI as a mandatory but radical
advancement in their approach to innovation management, whereas low tech firms
adopt OI only as consequence of an external trigger challenging their traditional
innovation processes.
P12 In adopting OI, high tech firms start byre-designing their internal processes but
keeping ex ante organisational structures, whereas in low tech firms the change of
organisational structures represents the first step in the adoption of OI.

P13 High tech firms strengthen their networks mostly in an explorative fashion by
searching for potential sources of innovation, whereas low tech firms mainly focus
on exploitative collaborations.
P14 High tech firms consolidate the OI approach mostly by adopting a new formal set of
performance metrics, whereas low tech firms use newly created organisational roles
to manage relationships among different sub-units and to monitor OI projects.
6 Conclusions
This paper by analysing longitudinally selected case studies investigates how a sample of
Italian high tech firms has gone through the process that transformed them from closed to
open innovators. We started from the framework developed by Chiaroni et al. (2010) and
initially used to study the change process from close to OI in low tech firms. We then
used it to carry out a comparison involving four high tech companies in Italy. Through
this comparison we identified several commonalities between high and low tech firms,
but also we revealed some relevant differences.
The paper has relevant research implications as it is one of the first contributions that
comprehensively look at the managerial and organisational implications of adopting OI.
In particular, the paper confirms the generalisability of findings of Chiaroni et al. (2010)
regarding the transition towards OI that can be read through the lens of Lewin’s theory of
organisational change. Indeed, the organisational change promoted in high tech industries
reflected the Lewin’s (1947) three-step model. In the first step studied firms established
early innovation processes and manage in a different way the relationships with external
organisations. These changes at network and internal organisation level were effective in
triggering the change process without interfering with traditional processes and routines.
The second step, the ‘moving’ phase in the words of Lewin, in which firms implemented
in practice the real organisational change is then fundamental to address the human
resources and to seize the open approach. The final step institutionalises the process, with
firms consolidating the new OI procedures in order to avoid a relapse in the previous
status quo.
In this regard, however, it is interesting to notice that low tech firms tend to establish
and create new organisational structures that are in charge of OI projects in the first
stages of the change process, whereas high tech firms focus their attention on improving
established networks of inter-organisational relationships to trigger change towards OI.
The establishment of organisational structures in high tech firms does not have the aim of
leading the OI process as in low tech firms, but rather it is aimed at establishing new
processes for implementing ‘open oriented’ tasks. Also the evolution of collaborations is
different between high and low tech firms. In particular, high tech firms explore new
research areas employing a set of heterogeneous instruments that involve knowledge and
technological platforms. Finally, high tech firms institutionalise the new OI approach by
creating a new set of performance measurement system.
As regards its practical implications, this paper provides practitioners with some
useful insights regarding the successful adoption of OI. In particular, the analysis
suggests that it is of key importance for the transition to take place that managers
contemporarily act on both the organisational structure and the network of relationships

with external subjects of the firm, while improving knowledge management systems
grows in importance in later stages of development.
The paper has obviously also some limitations that call for future research. In
particular, future work aimed at testing this framework should expand both the number of
observations and the geographical coverage of the sample. Using different research
methodologies can also be an interesting area for future research. Due to the nature of this
topic, a longitudinal application of action research (Brydon-Miller et al., 2003) could be
especially useful as it would allow researchers to dwell into the mechanisms that support
the transition towards OI and, most importantly, improve the actionability of these
findings.
References
Armenakis, A.A. and Bedeian, A.G. (1999) ‘Organizational change: a review of theory and
research in the 1990s’, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.293–315.
Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. (2001) Markets for Technology: The Economics of
Innovation and Corporate Strategy, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bianchi, M., Chiesa, V. and Frattini, F. (2011). ‘Selling technological knowledge: managing the
complexities of technology transactions’, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 54, No. 2,
pp.18–26.
Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997) ‘The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory
and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations’, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.1–34.
Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D. and Maguire, P. (2003) ‘Why action research?’, Action
research, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.9–28.
Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004) ‘Building ambidexterity into an organization’, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp.47–55.
Buganza, T., Chiaroni, D., Colombo, G. and Frattini, F. (2011) ‘Organisational implications of
open innovation: an analysis of inter-industry patterns’, International Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.423–455.
Chesbrough, H. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Chesbrough, H. (2006) Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Chesbrough, H. and Crowther, A.K. (2006) ‘Beyond high-tech: early adopters of open innovation
in other industries’, R&D Management, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.229–236.
Chesbrough, H., Lim, K., and Ruan, Y. (2007) Open Innovation and Patterns of R&D Competition,
Working paper.
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V. and Frattini, F (2010) ‘Unravelling the process from closed to open
innovation: evidence from mature, asset-intensive industries’, R&D Management, Vol. 40,
No. 3, pp.222–245.
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V. and Frattini, F. (2011) ‘The open innovation journey: how firms
dynamically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm’, Technovation,
Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.34–43.
Christensen, J.F. (2006) ‘Wither core competency for the large corporation in an open innovation
world?’, in Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.): Open Innovation:
Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Christensen, J.F., Olesen, M.H., and Kjaer, J.S. (2005) ‘The industrial dynamics of open
innovation – evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics’, Research Policy,
Vol. 34, No. 10, pp.1533–1549.

Clark, C.E., Cavanaugh, N.C., Brown, C.V. and Sambamurthy V. (1997) ‘Building
change-readiness capabilities in the IS organization: insights from the Bell Atlantic
experience’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.425–455.
Di Minin, A., Frattini, F. and Piccaluga, A. (2010) ‘Fiat: open innovation in a downturn
(1993–2003)’, California Management Review, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp.132–159.
Dittrich, K. and Duyster, G. (2007) ‘Networking as a means to strategy change: the case of open
innovation in mobile telephony’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 24, No. 6,
pp.510–521.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. and Salter, A. (2006) ‘The role of technology in the shift towards open
innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble’, R&D Management, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.333–346.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) ‘Building theories from case study research’, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.532–550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007) ‘Theory building from case studies: opportunities and
challenges’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.25–32.
EmdenGrand, Z., Calantone, R.J. and Droge, C. (2006) ‘Collaborating for new product
development: selecting the partner with the maximum potential to create value’, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.330–341.
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O. and Chesbrough, H. (2009) ‘Open R&D and open innovation:
exploring the phenomenon’, R&D Management, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.311–316.
Gassmann, O. (2006) ‘Opening up the innovation process: towards and agenda’, R&D
Gassmann, O. and Enkel, E. (2011) ‘constituents of open innovation: three core process
archetypes’, R&D Management.
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E. and Chesbrough, H. (2010) ‘The future of open innovation’, R&D
Giannopoulou, E., Yström, A. and Ollila, S. (2011) ‘Turning open innovation into practice: open
innovation research through the lens of managers’, International Journal of Innovation
Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G. and van den Oord, A. (2008)
‘Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: technological distance,
betweenness centrality and density’, Research Policy, Vol. 37, No. 10, pp.1717–1731.
Gioia, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991) ‘Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change
initiation’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 6, p.21.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Aldine de Gruyter, USA.
Huizingh, E.K.R.E. (2010) ‘Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives’,
Technovation, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.2–9.
Huston, L. and Sakkab, N. (2006) ‘Connect and develop: inside Procter & Gamble’s new model for
innovation’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp.58–66.
Kaplan, S., Murray, F. and Henderson, R. (2003) ‘Discontinuities and senior management:
assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology’, Industrial
and Corporate Change, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.203–233.
Kirschbaum, R. (2005) ‘Open innovation in practice’, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 48,
No. 4, pp.24–28.
Kotter, J.P. (2007) ‘Leading change: why transformation efforts fail’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 85, No. 1, p.96.
Lewin, K. (1947) ‘Frontiers in group dynamics’, Human Relations, Vol. 1, pp.5–41.
March, J.G. (1991) ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science,
Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.71–87.
Marschan-Piekkari, R. and Welch, C. (2004) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for
International Business, Edward Elgar Pub, London, UK.

Marshak, R.J. (1993) ‘Managing the metaphors of change’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22,
No. 1, pp.44–56.
Miotti, L. and Sachwald, F. (2003) ‘Co-operative R&D: why and with whom?: An integrated
framework of analysis’, Research Policy, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp.1481–1499.
Moran, J.W. and Brightman, B.K. (2001) ‘Leading organizational change’, Career Development
International, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.111–119.
Mortara, L. and Minshall, T. (2011) ‘How do large multinational companies implement open
innovation?’, Technovation, Vol. 31, Nos. 10–11, pp.586–597.
Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. (2007) ‘University-Industry relationships and open innovation:
towards a research agenda’, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9, No. 4,
pp.259–280.
Recardo, R.J. (1995) ‘Overcoming resistance to change’, National Productivity Review, Vol. 14,
No. 2, pp.5–12.
Roberts, E.B. (2007) ‘Managing invention and innovation’, Research-Technology Management,
Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.35–54.
Sastry, M.A. (1997) ‘Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp.237–275.
Shanklin, W.L. and John Jr., K. (1984) Marketing High Technology, Lexington Books, Lexington,
MA.
Simard, C. and West, J. (2006) ‘Knowledge networks and the geographic locus of innovation’, in
Tushman, M.L. (1977) (Ed.): ‘Special boundary roles in the innovation process’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp.587–605.
Stake, R.E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research.
Van den Elst, J., Tol, R. and Smits, R. (2006) ‘Innovation in practice: Philips applied technologies’,
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.217–231.
Vanhaverbeke, W. and Cloodt, M. (2006) ‘Open innovation in value networks’, Open Innovation:
Researching a New Paradigm, pp.258–281.
Von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006) ‘challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in
open-source software’, R&D Management, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.319–331.
Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
California.
Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K. and Boland, R.J. (2008) ‘Distributed innovation in classes of networks’, 41st
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE.
View publication stats

The_process_of_organisational_change_in_open_innov.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The_process_of_organisational_change_in_open_innov.pdf

Similar to The_process_of_organisational_change_in_open_innov.pdf (20)

More from SashaKing4

More from SashaKing4 (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The_process_of_organisational_change_in_open_innov.pdf