Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Reflections on Potential Challenges of Open Innovation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Debating Innovation

Part of the book series: Palgrave Debates in Business and Management ((PDBM))

  • 398 Accesses

Abstract

Open innovation (OI) has attracted great interest from both scholars and practitioners during the past decades. While the benefits of OI have been examined a lot, the potential challenges of OI have been less noted and studied. This book chapter addresses potential OI challenges in (1) value creation based on knowledge; (2) innovation appropriability and appropriation; and (3) innovation network orchestration. It introduces several “what-if” considerations and discusses some scenarios where open innovation could go wrong. The chapter reminds that open innovation has both the valuable bright side, and the challenging dark side. By recognizing and embracing the challenges, risks, and costs, innovators may be able to find a balance and turn the challenges into opportunities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

REFERENCES

  • Abhari, K., & McGuckin, S. (2022). Limiting factors of open innovation organizations: A case of social product development and research agenda. Technovation, article no. 102526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102526.

  • Alexy, O., George, G., & Salter, A. J. (2013). Cui bono? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 270–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alnuaimi, T., & George, G. (2016). Appropriability and the retrieval of knowledge after spillovers. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1263–1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization science, 20(4), 696–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleyard, M. M., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2017). The dynamics of open strategy: From adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 310–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Athreye, S., & Huang, C. (2016). The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators. Research Policy, 45(7), 1352–1361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–625). New York: Princeton University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., & Nickerson, J. A. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, W., & Stefan, I. (2019). Does asymmetry cause anti-competitive practices? les Nouvelles—Journal of the Licensing. Executives Society, 54(1), 45–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomqvist, K., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2021). Leveraging trust and control in temporary emergency team leadership. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (AOM) Conference, virtual conference, 29 July–4 August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogers, M., Zobel, A.-K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., Frederiksen, L., Gawer, A., Gruber, M., Haefliger, S., Hagedoorn, J., Hilgers, D., Laursen, K., Magnusson, M. G., Majchrzak, A., McCarthy, I. P., Moeslein, K. M., Nambisan, S., Piller, F. T., et al. (2017). The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 8–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1240068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson-Wall, M., Kraus, K., & Lind, J. (2011). The interdependencies of intra-and inter-organisational controls and work practices: The case of domestic care of the elderly. Management Accounting Research, 22(4), 313–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2012). Open innovation: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Research-Technology Management, 55(4), 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2019). Open innovation results: Going beyond the hype and getting down to business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), New frontiers in open innovation (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A., Nightingale, P., Stilgoe, J., & Vezzani, A. (2021). The dark side of innovation. Industry and Innovation, 28(1), 102–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coff, R. W., Coff, D. C., & Eastvold, R. (2006). The knowledge-leveraging paradox: How to achieve scale without making knowledge imitable. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 452–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faullant, R., Füller, J., & Hutter, K. (2017). Fair play: Perceived fairness in crowdsourcing competitions and the customer relationship-related consequences. Management Decision, 55(9), 1924–1941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fixson, S. K., & Marion, T. J. (2016). A case study of crowdsourcing gone wrong. Harvard Business Review, December 15. Digital articles. https://hbr.org/2016/12/a-case-study-of-crowdsourcing-gone-wrong. Accessed 29 May 2022.

  • Foege, J. N., Lauritzen, G. D., Tietze, F., & Salge, T. O. (2019). Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing. Research Policy, 48(6), 1323–1339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, N., Keinz, P., & Klausberger, K. (2013). “Does this sound like a fair deal?”: Antecedents and consequences of fairness expectations in the individual’s decision to participate in firm innovation. Organization Science, 24(5), 1495–1516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J., & Engel, J. S. (2007). Models of innovation: Startups and mature corporations. California Management Review, 50(1), 94–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentile-Lüdecke, S., Torres de Oliveira, R., & Paul, J. (2020). Does organizational structure facilitate inbound and outbound open innovation in SMEs? Small Business Economics, 55(4), 1091–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2014). The challenge of closing open innovation: The intellectual property disassembly problem. Research-Technology Management, 57(5), 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson, H., & Ford, D. (2002). How should companies interact in business networks? Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 133–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, J., Schöberl, S., & Alexy, O. (2014). The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation. Research Policy, 43(5), 879–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., Möller, K., & Nätti, S. (2022). Orchestrating innovation networks: Alignment and orchestration profile approach. Journal of Business Research, 140, 170–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Nätti, S. (2018). Orchestrator types, roles and capabilities: A framework for innovation networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 74, 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., Nätti, S., & Pikkarainen, M. (2021). Orchestrating for lead user involvement in innovation networks. Technovation, 108, article no. 102326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Olander, H. (2014). Coping with rivals’ absorptive capacity in innovation activities. Technovation, 34(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Puumalainen, K. (2013). Innovation performance in the shadow of expropriability - Interplay of the appropriability regime and competitors’ absorptive capacity. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 10(1), article no. 1350002. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877013500028

  • Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Yang, J. (2022a). Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing. Research Policy, 51(1), article no. 104417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Yang, J. (2022b). Long-lasting appropriation success of an innovation? A comparative case study of Bayer’s Aspirin and Roundup. International Journal of Innovation Management, 2240029. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919622400291

  • Kao, P. T. (2013). Institutional change and foreign market entry behaviour of the firm: A longitudinal study of three Swedish firms in China. Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala universitet, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemppainen, L., Pikkarainen, M., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Reponen, J. (2019). Connected health innovation: Data access challenges in the interface of AI companies and hospitals. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(12), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B., Kim, E., & Foss, N. J. (2016). Balancing absorptive capacity and inbound open innovation for sustained innovative performance: An attention-based view. European Management Journal, 34(1), 80–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koput, K. W. (1997). A chaotic model of innovative search: Some answers, many questions. Organization Science, 8(5), 528–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauritzen, G. D., & Karafyllia, M. (2019). Perspective: Leveraging open innovation through paradox. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(1), 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marullo, C., Di Minin, A., De Marco, C., & Piccaluga, A. (2020). Is open innovation always the best for SMEs? An exploratory analysis at the project level. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(2), 209–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, F. A., & French, M. (2016). Organizing the entrepreneurial hospital: Hybridizing the logics of healthcare and innovation. Research Policy, 45(8), 1534–1544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molina-Morales, F. X., Martínez-Fernández, M. T., & Torlò, V. J. (2011). The dark side of trust: The benefits, costs and optimal levels of trust for innovation performance. Long Range Planning, 44(2), 118–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2004). A knowledge-based theory of the firm: The problem-solving perspective. Organization Science, 15(6), 617–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niesten, E., & Stefan, I. (2019). Embracing the paradox of interorganizational value co-creation–value capture: A literature review towards paradox resolution. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(2), 231–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovuakporie, O. D., Pillai, K. G., Wang, C., & Wei, Y. (2021). Differential moderating effects of strategic and operational reconfiguration on the relationship between open innovation practices and innovation performance. Research Policy, 50(1), article no. 104146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peukert, A. (2012). Territoriality and extraterritoriality in intellectual property law. In G. Handl, J. Zekoll, & P. Zumbansen (Eds.), Beyond territoriality: Transnational legal authority in an age of globalization (pp. 189–228). Leiden, Netherlands: Queen Mary Studies in International Law, Brill Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posen, H. E., Ross, J. M., Wu, X., Benigni, S., & Cao, Z. (2022). Reconceptualizing imitation: Implications for dynamic capabilities, innovation, and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Annals. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2021.0044.

  • Purdy, L., Eslami, H., Eshghi, K., & Rod, M. (2022). Technology sourcing and the dark side of open innovation: Evidence from the biopharmaceutical sector. Technovation, article no. 102521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102521.

  • Rerup, C. (2004). Imperfection, transfer failure, and the replication of knowledge: An interview with Gabriel Szulanski. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492604265220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritala, P., & Stefan, I. (2021). A paradox within the paradox of openness: The knowledge leveraging conundrum in open innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salter, A., Criscuolo, P., & Ter Wal, A. L. (2014). Coping with open innovation: Responding to the challenges of external engagement in R&D. California Management Review, 56(2), 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefan, I., & Bengtsson, L. (2016). Appropriability: A key to opening innovation internationally? International Journal of Technology Management, 71(3–4), 232–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefan, I., & Bengtsson, L. (2017). Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 252–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefan, I., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2021). Trajectories towards balancing value creation and capture: Resolution paths and tension loops in open innovation projects. International Journal of Project Management, 39(2), 139–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefan, I., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Oikarinen, E. L. (2022). The dark side of open innovation: Individual affective responses as hidden tolls of the paradox of openness. Journal of Business Research, 138, 360–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trimble, M. (2015). Advancing national intellectual property policies in a transnational context. Maryland Law Review, 74(2), 203–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trott, P., & Hartmann, D. A. P. (2009). Why “open innovation” is old wine in new bottles. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 715–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vafeas, M., Hughes, T., & Hilton, T. (2016). Antecedents to value diminution: A dyadic perspective. Marketing Theory, 16(4), 469–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veer, T. H., Lorenz, A., & Blind, K. (2012). How open is too open? The “dark side” of openness along the innovation value chain. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2148399.

  • Yang, H., Phelps, C., & Steensma, H. K. (2010). Learning from what others have learned from you: The effects of knowledge spillovers on originating firms. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 371–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J., Chesbrough, H., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2021). How to appropriate value from general-purpose technology by applying open innovation. California Management Review, 64(3), 24–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256211041787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2022). Evolving appropriability–Variation in the relevance of appropriability mechanisms across industries. Technovation, 118, article no. 102593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102593

  • Yu, K. H., & Kohane, I. S. (2019). Framing the challenges of artificial intelligence in medicine. BMJ Quality & Safety, 28(3), 238–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oulu Business School, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen & Jialei Yang

  2. School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University, Eskilstuna, Sweden

    Ioana Stefan

Authors
  1. Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ioana Stefan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jialei Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Innovation and Technology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Alf Rehn

  2. Department of Working Life and Innovation, School of Business and Law, University of Agder, Grimstad, Norway

    Anders Örtenblad

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., Stefan, I., Yang, J. (2023). What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Reflections on Potential Challenges of Open Innovation. In: Rehn, A., Örtenblad, A. (eds) Debating Innovation. Palgrave Debates in Business and Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16666-2_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation