The attitude of collective benefits leads to exploratory measures on identifying what is the ultimate
meaning and source of benefit for each party. In real business environments, it
is necessary and important to understand that each company tries to perceive
the best possible value which is normally monetized. The key player here is
open innovation. However implementing open innovation means that the individual
company has established all these necessary mechanisms and has created the
required organizational culture and structure which firstly depicts its
organizational trust as an antecedent to open innovation.
It is very important to underline the
following paradox; the importance
of open innovation and the impact that it already has on the business world
affecting, product, process and service innovation is widely accepted. Every executive seems to be
aware of the concept; there is a broad acceptance of the basic premises of open
innovation but the number of examples coming from companies which have actually
implemented projects via an open innovation mindset is extremely small. Hagel
and Brown (2008) presented this paradox and came up with two interrelated
reasons depicting the poor implementation of open innovation. The first reason
is the fact the open innovation still remains a perplexed concept, meaning that
there is a lot of confusion over what open innovation really means and what it
actually involves. The second reason is the fact that there is also great
confusion and lack of understanding on the mechanisms and the management
techniques to be followed to foster open innovation initiatives especially when
this normally involves a great number of diverse parameters and various
partners. In the same paper, Hagel and Brown (2008, p.39) identified a “large and persistent gap between potential
and results”. This means that yes open innovation can improve business performance,
can bring and create value in the market, can bring new ideas, and strengthen
cooperation and partnerships, as long as the right institutional mechanisms are
set in motion.
Blackwell and Fazzina (2008, p.2)
point out four main reasons showing the unwillingness or the suspicion of
organizations towards open innovation; “not-invented
here syndrome, poor management focus and endorsement, lack of process for
finding, vetting and leveraging outside sources of innovation and concerns
about intellectual property”. These
reasons show a substantial disconnection between the theory of open innovation
and its actual implementation and execution by the organizations.
An interesting interrelation between
connective capacity and collaboration can be found in the study of
Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler (2009) who by using the example of Cisco
discuss the way knowledge sharing and connective capacity have helped Cisco
to manage a large alliance portfolio. This leads to the understanding that
collaboration becomes easier when there is substantial knowledge, experience
and ability to value external partners. This is also related to another
important element in the same research i.e. the combination of internal and
external knowledge process with ambidexterity and the formulation of
exploitative and explorative norms of action in terms of strategically
implemented developments.
Lin
and McDonough (2011, p.497) have conducted an empirical analysis on “the role of leadership and organizational
culture in fostering innovation ambidexterity”. The key word here which is
related to thinking and trust is strategic leadership, with the second playing
a highly crucial role since it is called to take up the challenge of mediating
the balance between the forces of exploration and exploitation leading to the
creation of an organizational culture imbued with trust. The study is very
important since it is the first endeavor which empirically investigates the
role of leadership not in terms of balancing exploration and exploitation but
the role of leadership in the creation of an organizational culture which in
turn facilitates exploration and exploitation activities in the form or
incremental, radical and process innovation.
It is important here to
distinguish the knowledge outflows and inflows under the perspective of dual
interests of two firms sharing and exchanging knowledge since in a network of
multiple firms trying to exchange knowledge the dynamic relationships and the
flow of information is more complex (Torkkeli et al., 2009). An interesting
parameter emerging from Torkkeli et al paper (2009) concerning the
interrelation between the perspectives followed in terms of knowledge sharing
and collaboration stems from Nash’s game theory (Torkkeli et al., 2009);
stating that there are reasons and circumstances under which firms would agree
to cooperate, what kind of payoff strategies will be implemented and how the
players attitudes and actions would have a tangible or intangible impact on the
actual result (product, service etc). Furthermore, within cooperation both
partners need to start sharing knowledge in order to contribute to the
establishment of the cooperation and put it motion. This denotes the
willingness of both parties to elaborate further and to make sure that the cooperation
unfolds in order to cater for more knowledge sharing. Trust plays a vital role
here since it leads to the creation of long-term trustworthy relationships,
openness and developed absorptive capacity.
Another
interesting side in the analysis and understanding of the role of ambidexterity
lies within the study of Henri Mintzberg (1994 cited by Aubry and Lièvre, 2010)
who proposes that the analysis and examination of ambidexterity is not only a
matter of organization but also a matter of individual analysis. Mintzberg
introduced a new way of addressing the question of ambidexterity through the
left brain/right brain perspective. Influenced by physiology and psychology
Mintzberg identified that a brain must function under a dual thought formation;
analysis and synthesis. These forms can be translated in terms of ambidexterity
and are reflected in the two forms of action which on the one side is planning
and rationalization and on the other side adaptation and learning. The
difference between the approaches by Mintzberg and March lies within the
importance of knowledge sharing, learning and the level of organization and
individual.
References
Aubry,
M., & Lièvre, P. (2010). Ambidexterity as a competence of project leaders: A case study from two polar expeditions. Project
Management Journal, 41(3), 32–44.
Blackwell,
K., & Fazzina, D. (2008). Open Innovation: Facts, Fiction and Future (p.
15).
John
Hagel, J. S. B. (2008). Creation Nets: Harnessing the Potential of Open Innovation.
Journal of Service Science, 1(2), 27–40.
Lichtenthaler,
U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A Capability-Based Framework for Open
Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity. Journal of Management Studies,
46(8), 1315–1338.
Lin,
H.-E., & McDonough, E. F. (2011). Investigating the Role of Leadership and Organizational
Culture in Fostering Innovation Ambidexterity. Engineering Management,
IEEE Transactions
Marko T.
Torkkeli, Carl Joachim Kock, P. A. S. S. (2009). The “Open Innovation” paradigm:
A contingency perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Managemennt,
2(1), 176–207.
No comments:
Post a Comment