Publication: Profundizando en la paradoja de la apertura: Evidencias sobre el efecto del temor a la imitación
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2022
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales (ICEI)
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
Varios estudios han confirmado que debido a la tensión existente entre la necesidad de abrir los procesos de innovación y a la vez proteger los conocimientos claves de posibles comportamientos oportunistas, la estrategia de apropiación es un determinante importante de la decisión de las empresas de cooperar con agentes externos. Sin embargo, algunas investigaciones recientes han sugerido que la relación entre estas dos estrategias está condicionada por una serie de contingencias que puede afectar su comportamiento. Con el objetivo de profundizar en esta discusión, este estudio propone que la percepción que tienen las empresas sobre la posibilidad de ser imitadas, es una contingencia que afecta la conformación de su estrategia de apropiación, y afecta la relación que hay entre esta estrategia y el grado de apertura de las empresas. Nuestros resultados, basados en una muestra de empresas manufactureras de Colombia, indican que, ante el temor a ser imitadas, las empresas aumentan el número de mecanismos de apropiación, pero este temor impulsa principalmente el uso de mecanismos estratégicos. Además, el análisis muestra que, aunque el mayor uso de mecanismos estratégicos incentiva la mayor apertura de las empresas, debido al menor grado de divulgación de la información que los caracteriza, sus efectos positivos decrecen antes que en el caso de los mecanismos formales.
Several studies have confirmed that due to the tension between the need to open innovation processes and at the same time protect key knowledge from possible opportunistic behavior, the strategy of appropriation is an important determinant of the decision of companies to cooperate with external agents. However, some recent research has suggested that the relationship between these two strategies is conditioned by a series of contingencies that can affect their behavior. To deepen on this discussion, this study proposes that the perception that companies have about the possibility of being imitated is a contingency that affects the conformation of their appropriation strategy, and affects the relationship between this strategy and the degree of business openness. Our strategic results, based on a sample of manufacturing companies in Colombia, indicate that faced with the fear of being imitated, companies increase the number of appropriation mechanisms, but this fear mainly drives the use of strategic mechanisms. In addition, the analysis shows that, although the greater use of strategic mechanisms encourages the greater opening of companies, due to the lower degree of disclosure of the information that characterizes them, their positive effects decrease before that in the case of formal mechanisms.
Several studies have confirmed that due to the tension between the need to open innovation processes and at the same time protect key knowledge from possible opportunistic behavior, the strategy of appropriation is an important determinant of the decision of companies to cooperate with external agents. However, some recent research has suggested that the relationship between these two strategies is conditioned by a series of contingencies that can affect their behavior. To deepen on this discussion, this study proposes that the perception that companies have about the possibility of being imitated is a contingency that affects the conformation of their appropriation strategy, and affects the relationship between this strategy and the degree of business openness. Our strategic results, based on a sample of manufacturing companies in Colombia, indicate that faced with the fear of being imitated, companies increase the number of appropriation mechanisms, but this fear mainly drives the use of strategic mechanisms. In addition, the analysis shows that, although the greater use of strategic mechanisms encourages the greater opening of companies, due to the lower degree of disclosure of the information that characterizes them, their positive effects decrease before that in the case of formal mechanisms.
Description
UCM subjects
Unesco subjects
Keywords
Citation
Alexy, O., Criscoulo, P., & Salter, A. (2009). Does IP Strategy Have to Cripple Open Innovation ? Does IP Strategy Have to Cripple Open Innovation ? Management Intellectual Property, 51(1), 70–77.
Aloini, D., Lazzarotti, V., Manzini, R., & Pellegrini, L. (2017). IP, openness, and innovation performance: an empirical study. Management Decision, 55(6), 1307–1327. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2016-0230
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.019
Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (2010). Ideas for rent: An overview of markets for technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(3), 775–803. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq022
Arundel, A. (2001). The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy, 30(4), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00100-1
Baldwin, C. Y., & Henkel, J. (2015). Modularity and intellectual property protection. Strategic Management Journal Strat. Mgmt. J, 36, 1637–1655. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2303
Barros, H. M. (2021). Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy. Research Policy, 50(1), 104097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104097
Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477–1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2004.07.003
Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2006). Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy, 35(5), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2006.03.002
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
Campi, M., Antonio, M., & Esterling, D. (2018). ¿El fortalecimiento de los derechos de propiedad intelectual estimula la innovación? Un análisis exploratorio de la dinámica de patentamiento por sectores industriales en Colombia, 1980- 2010. Cuadernos de Administracion, 33. doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.cao33.fdpi
Capponi, G., Criscuolo, P., Martinelli, A., & Nuvolari, A. (2019). Profiting from innovation: Evidence from a survey of Queen’s Awards winners. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 49, 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2019.02.002
Castillo-Vergara, M., & Torres Aranibar, E. (2019). El papel de la Cooperación para Desarrollar Innovación Tecnológica en la PYME. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 14(4), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242019000400041
Chen, H., Zeng, S., Yu, B., & Xue, H. (2020). Complementarity in Open Innovation and Corporate Strategy: The Moderating Effect of Ownership and Location Strategies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 67(3), 754–768. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2018.2889804
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press
Chesbrough, H., Lettl, C., & Ritter, T. (2018). Value Creation and Value Capture in Open Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 930–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12471
Cohen, W. M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). RandD spillovers, patents, and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1349–1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00068-9
Colombelli, A., Grilli, L., Minola, T., & Mrkajic, B. (2020). To what extent do young innovative companies take advantage of policy support to enact innovation appropriation mechanisms? Research Policy, 49(10), 103797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.05.006
Corral de Zubielqui, G., Jones, J., & Audretsch, D. (2019). The influence of trust and collaboration with external partners on appropriability in open service firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 540–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9696-y
DANE. (2019). Boletín Técnico EDIT 2017 - 2018. 1–60. https://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/boletines/edit/boletin_EDIT_manufacturera_2017_2018.pdf
De Beer, J., & Armstrong, C. (2015). Open innovation and knowledge appropriation in African micro y small enterprises ( MSEs ). The African Journal of Information and Communication, 16, 60–71. 10.23962/10539/19315
De León, I., Fernandez, J. (2015). El costo de uso de los sistemas de propiedad intelectual para pequeñas empresas innovadoras. El caso de Chile, Colombia y México. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Documento de discusión No IDB-DP-373.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.013
Foege, J. N., Piening, E. P., & Salge, T. O. (2017). Don’t get caught on the wrong foot: A resource- based perspective on imitation threats in innovation partnerships. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617500232
Freel, M., & Robson, P. J. (2017). Appropriation strategies and open innovation in SMEs. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 35(5), 578–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616654957
González-Álvarez, N., & Nieto-Antolín, M. (2007). Appropriability of innovation results: An empirical study in Spanish manufacturing firms. Technovation, 27(5), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.12.004
Hagedoorn, J., & Zobel, A. K. (2015). The role of contracts and intellectual property rights in open innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 27(9), 1050–1067. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1056134
Hall, B., Helmers, C., Rogers, M., & Sena, V. (2014). The choice between formal and informal intellectual property: A review. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(2), 375–423. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.52.2.375
Henttonen, K., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Ritala, P. (2016). Managing the appropriability of R&D collaboration. R & D Management, 46, 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12121
Hertzfeld, H. R., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2006). Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships. Research Policy, 35(6), 825–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.006
Holgersson, M., Granstrand, O., & Bogers, M. (2018). The evolution of intellectual property strategy in innovation ecosystems: Uncovering complementary and substitute appropriability regimes. Long Range Planning, 51(2), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.08.007
Hurmelinna-laukkanen, P. (2009). The availability, strength, and efficiency of appropriability mechanisms – protecting investments in knowledge creation. International Journal Technology Management, 45 (3-4), 282–290. 10.1504/IJTM.2009.022653
Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Puumalainen, K. (2007). Nature and dynamics of appropriability: Strategies for appropriating returns on innovation. R and D Management, 37(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2007.00460.x
James, S. D., Leiblein, M. J., & Lu, S. (2013). How Firms Capture Value From Their Innovations. In Journal of Management (Vol. 39, Issue 5). https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313488211
Jugend, D., Jabbour, C. J. C., Alves Scaliza, J. A., Rocha, R. S., Junior, J. A. G., Latan, H., & Salgado, M. H. (2018). Relationships among open innovation, innovative performance, government support and firm size: Comparing Brazilian firms embracing different levels of radicalism in innovation. Technovation, 74–75(February), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.02.004
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
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2005). Environmental hostility, strategic orientation and the importance of management accounting - An empirical analysis of new technology-based firms. Technovation, 25(7), 725–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.01.007
Lorenz, A., & Veer, T. (2019). Once bitten, less shy? The influence of prior misappropriation experience on R&D collaboration. Industry and Innovation, 26(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1403891
Milesi, D., Petelski, N., & Verre, V. (2013). Innovation and appropriation mechanisms: Evidence from Argentine microdata. Technovation, 33(2–3), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.12.001
Miozzo, M., Desyllas, P., Lee, H. F., & Miles, I. (2016). Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms. Research Policy, 45(7), 1337–1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.018
Neuhäusler, P. (2012). The use of patents and informal appropriation mechanisms - Differences between sectors and among companies. Technovation, 32(12), 681–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.07.004
Olander, H., Vanhala, M., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2014). Reasons for choosing mechanisms to protect knowledge and innovations. Management Decision, 52(2), 207–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2012-0791
Ordover, J. A. (1991). A patent system for both diffusion and exclusion. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 43–60.
Pollok, P., Lüttgens, D., & Piller, F. T. (2019). Attracting solutions in crowdsourcing contests: The role of knowledge distance, identity disclosure, and seeker status. Research Policy, 48(1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2018.07.022
Ray, S., & Ray, P. K. (2021). Innovation strategy of latecomer firms under tight appropriability regimes: The Indian pharmaceuticals industry. Journal of International Management, 27(1), 100820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2020.100820
Salazar-Elena, J. C., López, A., Guimón De Ros, J., & Cancino, C. A. (2020). Sincerity is a dangerous thing: On how appropriability regimes shape innovation strategies. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 38(5), 5521–5528. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-179643
Stefan, I., & Bengtsson, L. (2016). Appropriability: A key to opening innovation internationally? International Journal of Technology Management, 71(3–4), 232–252. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2016.078570
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(February), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812833181_0005
Yacoub, G., Storey, C., & Haefliger, S. (2020). Appropriability mechanisms for manufacturing and service firms: the contingencies of openness and knowledge intensity. R & D Management, 50(5), 551–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12411
Yu, M. J., Chuang, H. J., Hsu, M. Y., & Lin, P. F. (2020). Firm heterogeneity, appropriability, and innovation collaboration. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 32(10), 1156–1168. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1747609
Zhang, J., & Groen, A. (2021). Informal and formal open activities: Innovation protection methods as antecedents and innovation outputs as consequences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167(August 2019), 120696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120696
Zobel, A. K., Lokshin, B., & Hagedoorn, J. (2017). Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness. Technovation, 59(October 2014), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.10.001