You are here

Home » Content

Open innovation and service dominant logic: application of foundational premises to innovative firms

Journal Name:

  • Harvard Deusto Business Research

Publication Year:

  • 2013

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Firms have been modifying their innovation management processes to generate, implement and exploit new technological knowledge. A gradual shift from a closed to an open model of technological innovation has been the recurring pattern of this change, which has also induced firms to a modification of managerial procedures and business models. The Service-Dominant (SD) logic can offer a useful guideline to firms in the implementation of an Open Innovation (OI) model. In this paper we analyze the bases of the OI paradigm by means of the SD logic mindset. Each of the ten foundational premises (FP) of the SD logic are described, interpreted for high-tech firms and analyzed to suggest how they translate to the OI approach with the help of real world examples.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Las empresas han estado modificando sus procesos de gestión de la innovación para generar, implementar y explotar el nuevo conocimiento tecnológico. Estamos evidenciando un cambio constante, de un modelo cerrado a un modelo abierto de la innovación tecnológica, lo cual ha inducido a las empresas a modificar también sus procesos y modelos de gestión. La lógica dominante de servicio (DS) puede ofrecer una guía útil para que las empresas implementen sus modelos de innovación abierta (IA). En este artículo analizamos las bases del paradigma de la IA por medio del marco de la lógica DS. Las diez premisas fundamentales de la lógica DS son descritas, interpretadas para las empresas de alta tecnología y analizadas para sugerir cómo deberían trasladarse al enfoque de la IA utilizando ejemplos reales.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon 29-218-2-pb.pdf
  • 1
17-34
  • Russian

REFERENCES

References: 

Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review,
37(3), 355-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0146 Arora, A. (1995). Licensing tacit knowledge: Intellectual property rights and the market for know-how.
Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 4, 41-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10438599500000013
Arora, A (1996). Contracting for tacit knowledge: The provision of technical services in technology licensing
contracts. Journal of Development Economics, 50(2), 233-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-
3878(96)00399-9
Arora, A., & Fosfuri, A. (2003). Licensing the market for technology. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 52(2), 277-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00002-7
Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology. The economics of innovation and
corporate strategy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1994). The changing technology of technological change: General and abstract
knowledge and the division of innovative labor. Research Policy, 23, 523-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-
7333(94)01003-X
Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. J. (2008). The service-dominant logic and the future of marketing. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 11-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0075-8
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2008). Patent failure: How judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers put innovators at risk.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bianchi, M., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). Organizing for external technology
commercialization: Evidence from a multiple case study in the pharmaceutical industry. R&D
Management, 41(2), 120-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00632.x
Blazevic, V., & Lievens, A. (2008). Managing innovation through customer coproduced knowledge in
electronic services: An exploratory study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 138-151. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0064-y
Bogers, M., Afuah, A., & Bastian, B. (2010). Users as innovators: A review, critique, and future research
directions. Journal of Management, 36(4), 857-875. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309353944
Cesaroni, F., Di Minin, A., & Piccaluga, A. (2004). New Strategic Goals and Organizational Solutions in Large
R&D Labs: Lessons from Centro Ricerche Fiat and Telecom Italia Lab. R&D Management, 34(1), 45-56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2004.00321.x
Cesaroni, F., Di Minin, A., & Piccaluga, A. (2005). Exploration and exploitation strategies in industrial R&D.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3), 222-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00342.x
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. The Economic
Journal, 99(397), 569-596. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2233763
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003a). The governance and performance of xerox’s technology spin-off companies.
Research Policy, 32(3), 403-421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00017-3
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003b). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006a). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006b). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In
H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2007). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2011). Open services innovation: Rethinking your business to grow and compete in a new era.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-1980-5
Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2006). The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: The
case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Management, 36(3), 333-346. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00429.x
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the
determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147-162. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the
phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00570.x
Enkel, E., Kausch, C., & Gassmann, O. (2005). Managing the risk of customer integration. European
Management Journal, 23(2), 203-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2005.02.005
Harvard Deusto Business Research
Open innovation and service dominant logic: application of foundational premises to innovative firms
33
Harvard Deusto Business Research. Volumen II. Número 1. Páginas 17-34. ISSN: 2254-6235
Fosfuri, A. (2006). The licensing dilemma: Understanding the determinants of the rate of technology
licensing. Strategic Management Journal, 27(12), 1141-1158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.562
Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1997). The economics of industrial innovation. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for ‘ideas’: Commercialization strategies
for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32(2), 333-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-
7333(02)00103-8
Granstrand, O., Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Multi-technology corporations: Why they have ‘distributed’ rather
than ‘distinctive core’ competencies. California Management Review, 39(4), 8-25. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/41165908
Guo, L., & Ng, I. C. L. (2011). The co-production of equipment-based services: An interpersonal approach.
European Management Journal, 29(1), 43-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2010.08.005
Helpman, E. (1998). General purpose technologies and economic growth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Herzog, P. (2008). Open and closed innovation. Different cultures for different strategies. Wiesbaden: Gabler-Verlag.
Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 58-66.
Lakhani, K. R. (2008). InnoCentive.com (A). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Boston.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2007). The drivers of technology licensing: An industry comparison. California Management
Review, 49(4), 67-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41166406
Lichtenthaler, U. (2008). Leveraging technology assets in the presence of markets for knowledge. European
Management Journal, 26(2), 122-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.09.002
Lorenzoni, G., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1995). Creating a strategic center to manage a web of partners. California
Management Review, 37(3), 146-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165803
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2008). The service-dominant mindset. Service Science. Management and
Engineering Education for the 21st Century, 1, 89-96.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant
logic. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 5-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2006.10.002
Lusch, R. F., & Webster, F. E. (2011). A stakeholder-unifying, cocreation philosophy for marketing. Journal of
Macromarketing, 31(2), 129-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0276146710397369
Maklan, S., & Knox, S. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: the missing link in CRM investments. European Journal
of Marketing, 43(11/12), 1392-1410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560910989957
Melancon, J. P., Griffith, D. A., Noble, S. M., & Chen, Q. (2010). Synergistic effects of operant knowledge
resources. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(5), 400-411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041011060693
Ng, I. C. L., Maull, R., & Yip, N. (2009). Outcome-based contracts as a driver for systems thinking and servicedominant
logic in service science: Evidence from the defence industry. European Management Journal,
27(6), 377-387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2009.05.002
Normann, R., & Ramírez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy.
Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 65-77.
Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: Complex and pathdependent,
but not much variety. Research Policy, 26(2), 141-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-
7333(97)00005-X
Poetz, M. K., & Schreier, M. (forthcoming). The value of crowdsourcing: Can users really compete with
professionals in generating new product ideas. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 245-
256.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 90(3),
79-91.
Rivette, K. G., & Kline, D. (1999). Rembrandts in the attic: Unlocking the hidden value of patents. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Roberts, E. B. (2001). Benchmarking global strategic management of technology. Research-Technology
Management, 44(2), 25-36.
Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Research Policy, 19(2), 165-174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(90)90046-9
Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horsley, A., Jervis, V., Robertson, A., & Townsend, J. (1974). SAPPHO updated –
project SAPPHO phase II. Research Policy, 3(3), 258-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(74)90010-9
Rumelt, R. P. (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In R. B. Lamb (Ed.), Competitive strategic
management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on ‘profiting from innovation’. Research Policy, 35(8), 1131-1146. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.009
Harvard Deusto Business Research
Open innovation and service dominant logic: application of foundational premises to innovative firms
34
Harvard Deusto Business Research. Volumen II. Número 1. Páginas 17-34. ISSN: 2254-6235
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing,
68(1), 1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and
service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
emj.2008.04.003
Von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation.
Management Science, 40(4), 429-439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.4.429
Von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management Science, 48(7), 821-833.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.7.821.2817
Von Hippel, E., & Von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model:
Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.14.2.209.14992
Von Krogh, G., & Von Hippel, E. (2006). The promise of research on open source software. Management
Science, 52(7), 975-983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0560
Winter, S. G. (2006). The logic of appropriability: From Schumpeter to Arrow to Teece. Research Policy, 35(8),
1100-1106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.010
Ziedonis, R. H. (2008). On the apparent failure of patents: A response to bessen and meurer. The Academy of
Management Perspectives, 22(4), 21-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2008.35590351

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com