Open Innovation Management on Crowd-based Platforms: An Analysis of Managerial Approaches to Knowledge Sharing, Crowd Control and Intellectual Property Protection
Birgelyte, Birute (2019)
Birgelyte, Birute
2019
All rights reserved. This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-201904114884
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-201904114884
Tiivistelmä
This study examines open innovation (OI) management practices on 3 crowd-based innovation management platforms: Imaginatik, Spigit and 100%Open. The main aim of this study is to analyze managerial approaches to knowledge sharing, crowd control and intellectual property (IP) protection on the platforms in the context of the theories of open innovation, innovation management and collective intelligence (CI). The main research method was qualitative content analysis. The study used the non-probability purposive sampling technique to highlight the individual character of managerial approaches to knowledge sharing, crowd control and IP protection on the selected platforms. The research data were collected during semi-structured interviews with 4 platform management representatives. The interviews were conducted online, and then transcribed. The study has found that the platforms take various approaches to
knowledge sharing / information exchange, crowd control and IP protection. There is no
one-size-fits-all approach: the network-based business model of the platforms determines the complexity of managing crowd-based innovation projects. To facilitate knowledge sharing / information exchange between firms and the crowd (RQ1), the platforms take various approaches, and structure project-related communications through different mechanisms. To strike a balance between crowd control and creative autonomy (RQ2), the platforms balance their crowd control mechanisms with crowd self-control. If intrinsically motivated external professionals are given enough freedom to explore their creative ideas within the limits of project objectives, balancing crowd control and creative autonomy becomes a viable option as well (RQ2). To protect firms’ IP during their cooperation with the crowd (RQ3), the platforms use different IP protection mechanisms. In each case, firms also need to carefully consider how much they should open up their innovation process to third parties, as recommended by Lee et al. (2010), in order to control access to their IP. In addition, they should allow the platforms to balance their IP protection measures with their efforts to facilitate the exchange of relevant knowledge between all parties involved in co-innovation, to refer to Lakhani and Panetta (2007). Finally, the study discusses practical implications of the research for managers of diverse open innovation projects, addresses research limitations, and raises questions for further research.
knowledge sharing / information exchange, crowd control and IP protection. There is no
one-size-fits-all approach: the network-based business model of the platforms determines the complexity of managing crowd-based innovation projects. To facilitate knowledge sharing / information exchange between firms and the crowd (RQ1), the platforms take various approaches, and structure project-related communications through different mechanisms. To strike a balance between crowd control and creative autonomy (RQ2), the platforms balance their crowd control mechanisms with crowd self-control. If intrinsically motivated external professionals are given enough freedom to explore their creative ideas within the limits of project objectives, balancing crowd control and creative autonomy becomes a viable option as well (RQ2). To protect firms’ IP during their cooperation with the crowd (RQ3), the platforms use different IP protection mechanisms. In each case, firms also need to carefully consider how much they should open up their innovation process to third parties, as recommended by Lee et al. (2010), in order to control access to their IP. In addition, they should allow the platforms to balance their IP protection measures with their efforts to facilitate the exchange of relevant knowledge between all parties involved in co-innovation, to refer to Lakhani and Panetta (2007). Finally, the study discusses practical implications of the research for managers of diverse open innovation projects, addresses research limitations, and raises questions for further research.