La innovación abierta y la comparación entre las startups y las empresas establecidad en españa

  1. Elena M Gimenez-Fernandez
  2. Karin Beukel
Revista:
Universia Business Review

ISSN: 1698-5117

Año de publicación: 2017

Número: 55

Páginas: 18-33

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Universia Business Review

Resumen

Este estudio compara la estrategia de innovación abierta entre startups y empresas establecidas por un periodo de diez años (2004-2013). Usando una muestra española de startups y empresas establecidas, encontramos que difieren considerablemente, y ello tiene implicaciones para la dirección de empresas. Las empresas establecidas y las startups se diferencian en términos de su uso de las actividades de cooperación externas como fuente de innovación. La falta de recursos financieros y humanos de las startups les lleva a abrir sus fronteras más que las empresas establecidas, y las startups se benefician de ser flexibles porque no han implementado rutinas todavía. Esto impulsa el resultado de innovación de las startups.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Acciona. (2015). Open innovation to solve social challenges. Retrieved April 28, 2017, from https://www.acciona.com/pressroom/news/2015/october/open-innovation-solve-social-challenges/
  • Adelino, M., Ma, S., & Robinson, D. T. (2014). Firm Age, Investment Opportunities, and Job Creation (Working Paper No. 19845). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19845
  • Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention (NBER Chapters) (pp. 609–626). National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. Retrieved from http://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/nbrnberch/2144.htm
  • Barge-Gil, A. (2010). Open, Semi-Open and Closed Innovators: Towards an Explanation of Degree of Openness. Industry and Innovation, 17(6), 577–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2010.530839
  • Bogers, M. (2011). The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(1), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061111104715
  • Boyer, T., & Blazy, R. (2013). Born to be alive? The survival of innovative and non-innovative French micro-start-ups. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 669–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9522-8
  • Chesbrough, H. (2012). Open Innovation: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going. Research-Technology Management, 55(4), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5504085
  • Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). The Open Innovation Journey: How firms dynamically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm. Technovation, 31(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.007
  • Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 66–76.
  • Colombo, M. G., Grilli, L., & Piva, E. (2006). In search of complementary assets: The determinants of alliance formation of high-tech start-ups. Research Policy, 35(8), 1166–1199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.002
  • Criscuolo, P., Nicolaou, N., & Salter, A. (2012). The elixir (or burden) of youth? Exploring differences in innovation between start-ups and established firms. Research Policy, 41(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.001
  • Eftekhari, N., & Bogers, M. (2015). Open for Entrepreneurship: How Open Innovation Can Foster New Venture Creation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(4), 574–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12136
  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-Based View of Strategic Alliance Formation: Strategic and Social Effects in Entrepreneurial Firms. Organization Science, 7(2), 136–150.
  • Elfring, T., & Hulsink, W. (2003). Networks in Entrepreneurship: The Case of High-technology Firms. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026180418357
  • Emiliejessula. (2016, November 30). Amadeus’s Open Innovation Strategy and Collaboration with Startups. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from http://www.innovation-prime.com/shaping-the-future-of-travel-amadeus-and-open-innovation/
  • Everis. (2017, March 30). Two Spanish companies will compete in the NTT DATA start-up final in Tokyo. Retrieved April 28, 2017, from https://www.everis.com/united-kingdom/en/news/newsroom/two-spanish-companies-will-compete-ntt-data-start-final-tokyo
  • FECYT, & INE. (2016). Panel de Innovación Tecnológica (PITEC).
  • Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2004). A Knowledge Accessing Theory of Strategic Alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00421.x
  • Hite, J. M., & Hesterly, W. S. (2001). The evolution of firm networks: from emergence to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.156
  • Hyytinen, A., Pajarinen, M., & Rouvinen, P. (2015). Does innovativeness reduce startup survival rates? Journal of Business Venturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.10.001
  • INE. (2016). Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (National Statistics Institute). Retrieved January 18, 2017, from http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=%2Ft37%2Fp204&file=inebase&L=0
  • Katila, R., & Shane, S. (2005). When Does Lack of Resources Make New Firms Innovative? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 814–829. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803924
  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.004
  • Nesta, Founders Intelligence, & Startup Europe Partnership. (2015). Winning together: a guide to successful corporate-startup collaborations. United Kingdom: Nesta.
  • Neyens, I., Faems, D., & Sels, L. (2010). The impact of continuous and discontinuous alliance strategies on startup innovation performance. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3/4), 392–410. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2010.035982
  • OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data (3rd ed.). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
  • Opinno. (2016, February 5). Endesa Energy Challenges incubates the future of energy [Text]. Retrieved April 29, 2017, from http://www.opinno.com/en/content/endesa-energy-challenges-incubates-future-energy?language=es
  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Transaction Publishers.
  • Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Organizations and social structure. Handbook of Organizations, 44(2), 142–193.
  • Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: a study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8), 791–811. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200008)21:8<791::AID-SMJ121>3.0.CO;2-K
  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2
  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
  • Wallin, M. W., & von Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for Open Innovation:: Focus on the Integration of Knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2010.01.010
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet