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

Any de publicació: 2017

Número: 55

Pàgines: 18-33

Tipus: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Altres publicacions en: Universia Business Review

Resum

This study compares the open innovation strategy between startups and incumbent firms over a period of ten years (2004-2013). Using a sample of startups and incumbent Spanish firms, we find that they differ considerably, and that this has implications for management. Incumbent firms and startups differ in terms of their use of external cooperation activities as a source of innovation. The lack of financial and human resources of startups leads them to open their borders more than incumbent firms, and startups benefit from being flexible, as they have yet to implement routines. This boosts startups’ innovation performance

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • 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