Gadgets

THE (CCP) FRAMEWORK TO MULTI-LEVEL OI: TOWARD A NEW PARADIGM AND RESEARCH AGENDA International Conference on Research in Innovation and Technology (ICRIT) THE (CCP) FRAMEWORK TO MULTI-LEVEL OI: TOWARD A NEW PARADIGM AND RESEARCH AGENDA

Description
THE (CCP) FRAMEWORK TO MULTI-LEVEL OI: TOWARD A NEW PARADIGM AND RESEARCH AGENDA International Conference on Research in Innovation and Technology (ICRIT) THE (CCP) FRAMEWORK TO MULTI-LEVEL OI: TOWARD A NEW PARADIGM AND RESEARCH AGENDA
Categories
Published
of 23
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
    THE (CCP) FRAMEWORK TO MULTI-LEVEL OI: TOWARD A NEW PARADIGM AND RESEARCH AGENDA International Conference on Research in Innovation and Technology (ICRIT)   To cite this article: [Jaafar, M.A., & Rezaeian, A., (2019). The CCP framework to multi-level open innovation: toward a new paradigm and research agenda . Proceedings of     International Conference on  Research in Innovation and Technology , 2 (1), 62  –  83.]   M.A. Jaafar & A. Rezaeian   Vol. 2, No. 1, 62-83  Proceedings of (ICRIT), June 2019   62   THE (CCP) FRAMEWORK TO MULTI-LEVEL OI: TOWARD A NEW PARADIGM AND RESEARCH AGENDA  Mohammad Ali Jaafar  1   and Ali Rezaeian    Department of Policy Making and Governance School of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University G.C Tehran, Iran   ABSTRACT The current debate on open innovation (OI) as a multi-level phenomenon is one of the most important issues in OI management. The current study investigates the limits in the understanding of multi-level OI phenomenon. The authors  placed the content, context and process (CCP) elements, within an interpretive methodology, to define the interlinking of OI appropriate factors. Supported by current thinking on OI research and relying upon recent theoretical propositions, the proposed (CCP) framework integrates the elements that will contribute to achieve optimal understanding of multi-level OI phenomenon. The consideration of internal and external OI context aspects and the use of holistic  perspective supports innovation decision-makers and policymakers in public and  private sectors with a relevant analytical tool for making decisions on OI  policies. As   This paper proposes a multi-level framework to spread conceptual themes and experiences of OI in modern society; it suggests new paradigm and research agenda for new theoretical and empirical formulations for OI as a part of the field of innovation.  Keywords:  Open innovation, Multi-level open innovation; CCP framework, Interpretive case; Open innovation policy; Open innovation Transformation. 1.   INTRODUCTION The current debate on open innovation (OI) as a multi-level phenomenon is one of the most important issues in OI management. As a part of innovation management, the rich fi eld of OI literature, has experienced several arguments supporting di ff  erent methods and approaches for conducting e ff  ective OI processes. Chesbrough and Bogers (2014) redefine OI as ‘a distributed innovation process based on purposively managed knowledge flows 1  Corresponding Author, Email: m_jaafar@sbu.ac.ir      M.A. Jaafar & A. Rezaeian   Vol. 2, No. 1, 62-83  Proceedings of (ICRIT), June 2019   63   across organizational boundaries’. Bogers et al. (2017) framework addressed OI as a multi-level phenomenon by proposing a multi-level classification of OI research that can be considered as a base for exploring the limits in the understanding of multi-level OI and helps in creating interconnections between its various levels (Jaafar & Rezaeian, 2019). Therefore, in OI, the adoption of a broader view that would interpret the rationales supporting OI strategies at multiple levels has become yet more important. Where a new trend in the OI  process does exist, it is supposed that conditions were generated - that is, a transformation took place to allow practicing OI at different levels to become the norm. Such a wide embrace of OI research grants opportunities for a further conception of OI processes and advocates the essential reasons that encourage the notion of this paper. First of all, as Chesbrough allotted OI concept to a set of developments, the literature shows that OI field contains a range of views that connect to different forms of OI (H. Chesbrough, 2010; Chiaroni, Chiesa, & Frattini, 2011; De Beer, 2015; Bogers et al., 2017; Jaafar & Rezaeian, 2019) making OI field highly context sensitive. Second, as OI processes  became more complex and interrelated, the need for better understanding that allows for recognising OI has increased. This reevaluation of the OI process has agreed with a transformation in the way the OI process is envisioned. (Bogers et al., 2017). The broader  perspective of multi-level OI in Bogers’ (2017) framework address that OI is a socio -technical process within various contexts (Jaafar & Rezaeian, 2019). Identifying the multiple contexts of OI and the role of the stakeholders requests an interpretive approach to strengthen the understanding of multi-level OI process. Finally, as OI field of study is evolving, the rationale for promoting OI at the meso and macro levels has remained an under-researched topic (António Bob Santos & Mendonça, 2017), coinciding with the current interest of OI scholars in determining a clear understanding of the multi-level OI  process and that can facilitate adopting OI processes and provide policymakers with a relevant analytical tool for making decisions on OI policies (Bogers et al., 2017), these reasons confirm the need for academics, practitioners and policymakers to rethink the design of multi-level OI processes (Jaafar & Rezaeian, 2019). Current  paper’s contribution is a multi-level framework exploring the limits in the understanding of multi-level OI that considers what is under transformation in OI (content), why this transformation is being done and who are the stakeholders that are involved (context), and how the multi-level OI process is to be carried out (process). These areas are  barriers for both OI researchers and practitioners as they express less understood areas and need policymaker’s consideration and present prolific notion s for further academic research. 2.   MULTI-LEVEL OI UNDERSTANDING The need for interpretive approaches to OI, that recognize OI processes as social-technical entities, have increased (Geels, 2004; H. Chesbrough & Crowther, 2006; Dodgson, Gann, & Salter, 2006; Henry William Chesbrough, 2006; Rothaermel & Hess, 2007; Markard &   M.A. Jaafar & A. Rezaeian   Vol. 2, No. 1, 62-83  Proceedings of (ICRIT), June 2019   64   Truffer, 2008; Veugelers, Bury, & Viaene, 2010; Huff, Möslein, & Reichwald, 2013; H. Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014; Bogers et al., 2017; Bogers, Foss, & Lyngsie, 2018; Jaafar & Rezaeian, 2019). The literature argues that there is a need to consider the social activity inherent in the OI process and the social-technical environment of the organization in which the process is centered. These arguments reflect the broader perspective of multi-level OI in Bogers’ (2017) and Jaafar & Rezaeian (2019) frameworks that address OI as a socio-technical process within various contexts. Identifying the multiple contexts of OI and the role of the stakeholders requests an interpretive approach to strengthen the understanding of multi-level OI process. This paper follows (CCP) approach to strategic change developed and utilized by Pettigrew (1985) in his discussion of organization change, and later applied to shape strategic transformation in systems like i.e. national health systems (A. Pettigrew, Ferlie, & McKee, 1992), Information systems (Symons, 1991); and also used for exploring the limits in the understanding of innovation concept (Hamel, 2006; Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, & Sanders, 2007; Huizingh, 2011) and in OI (Jaafar & Rezaeian, 2019). This study also assumes that organizational change is fundamental to the achievement of ongoing success of practicing OI at different levels (Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014 ; West, Salter, Vanhaverbeke, & Chesbrough, 2014; Bogers et al., 2017). As such new trend in the OI process does exist, it is supposed that conditions were generated - that is, a transformation took place to allow  practicing OI at different levels to become the norm. (West, Vanhaverbeke, & Chesbrough, 2006; H. Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014; Bogers et al., 2017). Where such a transformation is highly complex, significant dynamics within the transformation process, relative to various levels under inquiry by OI research, must be considered. There are two advantages to the selection of CCP perspective. First, CCP elements are broad enough to harmonize the  plentiful notions and themes in OI well- documented field and to provide pa rameters for re-evaluating them. Second, believing that current research on OI involves adopting a cross-level approach, taking into consideration the more complex interaction of multiple levels at which OI develops (Bogers et al., 2017), to promote a form of research which is processual and contextual in character, is a one way to respond to the weaknesses and limits in this understanding (A. M. Pettigrew, 1985), and is an approach that offers multi-level analysis (A. M. Pettigrew, 1987). In short, this study proposes a multi-level framework that addresses the content of multi-level OI (the question of what, Section 3.1), the context of multi-level OI (the question of why and who, Section 3.2) and the process of multi-level OI (the question of how, Section 3.3). This study ends with a concise conclusion and future outlook. Based on our focus in formulating and presenting our framework is primarily on theoretical and empirical research on OI, and is intended to highlight key concepts and themes that have emerged from this research related to OI, in none of the three areas is the literature reviewed exhaustively; it is only to interpret potential important variables and relationships.   M.A. Jaafar & A. Rezaeian   Vol. 2, No. 1, 62-83  Proceedings of (ICRIT), June 2019   65   3.   THE (CCP) FRRAMEWORK TO MULTI-LEVEL OI A literature review has identified the possible factors that affect content, context and  process of multi-level OI and thus supports developing a framework to brace multi-level OI understanding. The comprehensive classification of the relevant literature of OI is based on the framework presented by Bogers et al. 2017, and is expanded to explain the important constructs of multi-level OI. The characteristics of the CCP viewpoint are tested to identify the factors that influence the conduct of multi-level OI and to consider the interrelation  between them.  3.1   CONTENT An understanding of what is under transformation regarding OI process is a critical element in this study. While multi-level OI is a new and rich notion, relevant studies on OI acknowledge that researchers tend to explore different aspects inspecting a rising number of contexts and using multiple levels of analysis, creating an internally disconnected literature and making it hard to shape a clear body of knowledge (Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Von Hippel, 2010; Huizingh, 2011; H. Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014; Bogers et al., 2017; Bogers, Chesbrough, & Moedas, 2018). The changing nature of OI and its practices (West et al., 2006) mean that the content factors have changed, which requires new methods and techniques. While Chesbrough (2003) paradigm offers plentiful opportunities for expanding OI process, Bogers et al. (2017) framework present opportunities for OI future research demonstrating that OI research examines a broad set of multi-level contexts, that requires considering OI tools and measurements versus a set of standards. Bogers et al. (2017) framework, recognize the multiple levels of OI complexity and claim that the OI level dictates the OI process approach. Furthermore, recognizing the stakeholder perspective, addressing their various needs, roles and contributions in the OI process, supports the interpretive approach that does not limit the understanding to one group. Investigating what is under transformation regarding OI process, demands more definite, less complex taxonomies, within the context of a CCP framework. The use of acknowledged success measures within a holistic interpretive framework supports policymakers to build on accepted research by OI practitioners and academics and to contribute to a cumulative body of work within the OI field. As recent studies on OI already initiated the idea that multi-level OI is not a clear-cut concept analyzing an increasing number of contexts of multi-level OI , Boger’s work   (2017) is the only proposed integrated framework that classifies new research categories regarding multi-level OI. These categories can be addressed as the what areas of OI transformation.   Table 1 summarises these categories and shows their related concepts and gives some comments addressing their relation to multi-level OI effectiveness.
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x