No Access

INTERMEDIATION FOR OPEN INNOVATION: COMPARING DIRECT VERSUS DELEGATED SEARCH STRATEGIES OF INNOVATION INTERMEDIARIES

KATHLEEN DIENER

Institute for Technology and Innovation Management, RWTH Aachen University, Kackertstr. 7, 52072 Aachen, Germany

E-mail Address: diener@time.rwth-aachen.de

Search for more papers by this author

DIRK LUETTGENS

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8153-735X

Institute for Technology and Innovation Management, RWTH Aachen University, Kackertstr. 7, 52072 Aachen, Germany

E-mail Address: luettgens.time.rwth-aachen.de

Search for more papers by this author

, and

FRANK THOMAS PILLER

Institute for Technology and Innovation Management, RWTH Aachen University, Kackertstr. 7, 52072 Aachen, Germany

E-mail Address: pillerer@time.rwth-aachen.de

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919620500371Cited by:9 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Intermediaries are an inherent part of value creation in open innovation. They connect organisations seeking external solutions for an innovation-related problem (seekers) with potential solution providers (solvers). To bridge between the innovation problem and external knowledge sources, intermediaries deploy different search strategies. This study compares the cost of using two prevalent approaches: direct versus delegated search. Direct search corresponds to the conventional understanding of search by screening a pre-identified set of solution providers that the intermediary has identified as potentially relevant contributors. Delegated search comprises more indirect search such as problem broadcasting or crowdsourcing. Here, the innovation problem is distributed to a large external network of potential solvers, allowing even unobvious outsiders to contribute to its solution. An empirical study of 53 open innovation intermediaries indicates that delegated search outperforms direct search in terms effectiveness. The lower overall effort for intermediation in delegated search mainly arises from decoupling the effort to coordinate the search process by shifting it towards the solution provider.

Keywords:

References

Afuah, A and CL Tucci [2012] Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355–375. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Agogué, M, A Yström and P Le Masson [2013] Rethinking the role of intermediaries as an architect of collective exploration and creation of knowledge in open innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(2), 1–24. Link, Google Scholar
Alexy, O, G George and AJ Salter [2013] Cui Bono? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 270–291. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Antons, D, M Declerck, K Diener, I Koch and F Piller [2017] Assessing the not-invented-here syndrome: Development and validation of implicit and explicit measurements. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8), 1227–1245. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Baron, RM and DA Kenny [1986] The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Baer, M, KT Dirks and JA Nickerson [2013] Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197–214. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Brunswicker, S and U Hutschek [2010] Crossing horizons: Leveraging cross-industry innovation search in the front-end of the innovation process. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), 683–702. Link, Google Scholar
Brusoni, S and A Prencipe [2013] The organization of innovation in ecosystems: Problem framing, problem solving, and patterns of coupling. Advances in Strategic Management, 30, 167–194. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Cassiman, B and R Veugelers [2006] In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Cohen, J [1987] Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum: Hillsdale. Google Scholar
Dahlander, L, JB Jeppesen and H Piezunka [2018] How organizations manage crowds: Define, broadcast, attract and select. Managing Inter-Organizational Collaborations-Process Views. Google Scholar
De Silva, M, J Howells and M Meyer [2018] Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: Knowledge–based practices and internal value creation. Research Policy, 47(1), 70–87. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Diener, K and FT Piller [2010] The Market for Open Innovation: Increasing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Innovation Process. Raleigh: Lulu Inc. Google Scholar
Erat, S and V Krishnan [2012] Managing delegated search over design spaces. Management Science, 58(3), 606–623. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Faul, F, E. Erdfelder, A Buchner and A Lang [2009] Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Felin, T and TR Zenger [2014] Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Research Policy, 43(5), 914–925. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Field, A [2013] Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage. Google Scholar
Giannopoulou, E, A Yström and S Ollila [2011] Turning open innovation into practice: Open innovation research through the lens of managers. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(3), 505–524. Link, Google Scholar
Gulati, R and H Singh [1998] The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 781–814. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Gulati, R, P Puranam and M Tushman [2012] Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571–586. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Harrell Jr, FE (2015). Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. Springer. Google Scholar
Hertog, PD [2000] Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 4(4), 491–528. Link, Google Scholar
Howells, J [2006] Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Hussinger, K and A Wastyn [2016] In search for the not-invented-here syndrome: The role of knowledge sources and firm success. R&D Management, 46(S3), 945–957. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Jeppesen, LB and KR Lakhani [2010] Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Jonassen, DH and H Kwon [2001] Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 35. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Katila, R and G Ahuja [2002] Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Katila, R and EL Chen [2008] Effects of search timing on innovation: The value of not being in sync with rivals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 593–625. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Katzy, B, E Turgut, T Holzmann and K Sailer [2013] Innovation intermediaries: A process view on open innovation coordination. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(3), 295–309. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Kogut, B and U Zander [1992] Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Kozinets, RV [2010] Netnography. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Google Scholar
Lakhani, KR (2006). The core and the periphery in distributed and self-organizing innovation systems. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
Landis, JR and GG Koch [1977] The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159–174. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Laursen, K and A Salter [2006] Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Lazzarotti, V and R Manzini [2009] Different modes of open innovation: A theoretical framework and an empirical study. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 615–636. Link, Google Scholar
Lüttgens, D, P Pollok, D Antons and FT Piller [2014] Wisdom of the crowd and capabilities of a few: Internal success factors of crowdsourcing for innovation. Journal of Business Economics, 84(3), 339–374. Google Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E and Beenen [2015] Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 53–65. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Mohr, J and R Spekman [1994] Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135–152. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Mortara, L (2010). The role of intermediaries. Working Paper, Center for Technology Management, Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge University, Cambridge. Google Scholar
Nambisan, S and M Sawhney [2007] A buyer’s guide to the innovation bazaar. Harvard Business Review, 85(6), 109–118. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Nickerson, J and TR Zenger [2004] A knowledge-based theory of the firm — The problem solving perspective. Organization Science, 15(6), 617–632. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Piezunka, H and L Dahlander [2015] Distant search, narrow attention: How crowding alters organizations’ filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 856–880. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Piller, FT and J West [2014] Firms, users, and innovation: An interactive model of coupled open innovation. in New Frontiers in Open Innovation, HW Chesbrough, W Vanhaverbeke and J West (Eds), pp. 29–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Pisano, G and R Verganti [2008] Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harvard Business Review, 25(4), 78–87. Google Scholar
Podsakoff, PM, SB MacKenzie and JY Lee [2003] Common method biases in behavioral research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Pollok, P, D Lüttgens and FT Piller [2019] Attracting solutions in crowdsourcing contests: The role of knowledge distance, identity disclosure, and seeker status. Research Policy, 48(1), 98–114. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Preacher, KJ and AF Hayes [2004] SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4), 717–731. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Richardson, HA, MJ Simmering and MC Sturman [2009] A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762–800. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Rosenberg, N [1982] Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Rosenkopf, L and P Almeida [2003] Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49(6), 751–766. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Rosenkopf, L and A Nerkar [2001] Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Sanchez, R and JT Mahoney [1996] Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 63–76. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Sawhney, M, G Verona and E Prandelli [2005] Collaborating to create: The internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4), 4–17. Google Scholar
Sheikh, K and S Mattingly [1981] Investigating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 35(4), 293–296. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Shih, T-H and X Fan [2008] Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys. Field Methods, 20(3), 249–271. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Shrout, PE and JL Fleiss [1979] Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Sieg, JH, MW Wallin and G von Krogh [2010] Managerial challenges in open innovation: A study of innovation intermediation in the chemical industry. R&D Management, 40(3), 281–291. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Simon, HA [1989] The scientist as problem solver. in Complex Information Processing: The Impact of Herbert Simon, D Klahr and K Kotovsky (Eds.), pp. 375–398. Hillsdale: Lawrence Publishers. Google Scholar
Terwiesch, C and Y Xu [2008] Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Science, 54(9), 1529–1543. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E [1994] “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E [1998] Economics of product development by users: The impact of “sticky” local information. Management Science, 44(5), 629–644. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Williamson, OE [1979] Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261. Web of Science, Google Scholar
Zahra, SA and G George [2002] Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203. Web of Science, Google Scholar