World Scientific
Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×

System Upgrade on Tue, May 28th, 2024 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at customercare@wspc.com for any enquiries.

A CONTINGENT PERSPECTIVE OF OPEN INNOVATION IN NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919610002799Cited by:88 (Source: Crossref)

Studies of open innovation are predominantly concerned with firm-level strategy development. The result is that the literature has largely ignored the multiple contingencies that influence the implementation of an open strategy at the level of the NPD project. In this paper, we develop a conceptual framework of inbound open innovation at the NPD project level to assess factors that help determine the degree of openness along three dimensions. We argue that the margin of managerial action is not only constrained to the decision to open up the NPD project to a wide range of different types of external parties (breadth dimension), but that it is equally important to consider the depth of the relationships with different types of external parties (depth dimension) and the balance between the development of new and longstanding relationships (ambidexterity dimension). The calibration of these three dimensions represents the levers when managing an inbound open innovation strategy during an NPD project. Finally, we identify a range of contingencies, which potentially have a bearing on the appropriate calibration of the breadth, depth and ambidexterity dimensions of an open innovation strategy. We argue that appropriate calibration of the three dimensions of inbound open innovation is determined by the type of innovation (radical versus incremental), product complexity (discrete versus complex) and the appropriability regime (tight versus weak).

An erratum has been published. .