Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Open Innovation Networks and the Role of Intermediaries: An Agent-Based Simulation

  • Chapter
Agent-Based Simulation of Organizational Behavior

Abstract

This paper builds an agent-based simulation model that illustrates the dynamics of an open innovation (OI) network of firms in search of a technological development partnership. The model simulates an environment populated by innovation seekers and innovation providers. Each of these agents (firms) has half of the final product and has to decide whether to develop the rest internally or seek a partner that developed the other half of the product. Moreover, this paper explores the effects on the innovation network dynamics of the presence of intermediaries that act as brokers between innovation seekers and innovation providers. The results suggest that innovation providers are on average better off when they establish partnerships, especially when their number is limited and intermediaries are present in the market. The model shows that the presence of intermediaries makes the market more efficient by lowering costs of all firms in the network, whether they use an intermediary or not.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Almirall, E., & Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010). Open versus closed innovation: A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of management review, 35(1), 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, M.J., & Lee, J.N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer licensing fees vs. equity positions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonara, N. (2004). Innovation processes within geographical clusters: A cognitive approach. Technovation, 24(1), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H.W. (2003a). The era of open innovation. Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H.W. (2003b). The governance and performance of xerox’s technology spin-off companies. Research Policy, 32(3), 403–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbroug, H.W. (2003c). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J.F., Olesen, M.H., & Kjær, J.S. (2005). The industrial dynamics of open innovation—Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research Policy, 34(10), 1533–1549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R., Jonard, N., Zimmermann, J.B. (2007). Bilateral collaboration and the emergence of innovation networks. Management Science, 53(7), 1051–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, L., & Wallin, M.W. (2006). A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets. Research Policy, 35(8), 1243–1259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J.P., Eisenhardt, K.M., & Bingham, C.B. (2007). Developing theory through simulation methods. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vrande, V.V., Lemmens, C., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing. R&D Management, 36(3), 347–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, C.H. (1998). Clockspeed: Winning industry control in the age of temporary advantage. New York: Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Fioretti, G. (2013). Agent-based simulation models in organization science. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., Waguespack, D.M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gianiodis, P.T., Ellis, S.C., & Secchi, E. (2010). Advancing a typology of open innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(04), 531–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, G.N. (2008). Agent-based models. NewYork: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M.T., Mors, M.L., & Lovas, B. (2005). Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R.I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, M.J., & Rodriguez, D. (2006). The outsourcing of r&d through acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Financial Economics, 80(2), 351–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hippel, E.A.V. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huizingh, E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, W., Bouwman, H., van Buuren, R., & Haaker, T. (2014). An organizational competence model for innovation intermediaries. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(1), 2–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzy, B., Turgut, E., Holzmann, T., & Sailer, K. (2013). Innovation intermediaries: A process view on open innovation coordination. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(3), 295–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S., Lobo, J., & Macready, W.G. (2000). Optimal search on a technology landscape. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43(2), 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S.A. (1993). The origins of order: Self organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in smes—An intermediated network model. Research Policy, 39(2), 290–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D.A. (1997). Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43(7), 934–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saur-Amaral, I., & Amaral, P. (2010). Contract innovation organisations in action: Doing collaborative new product development outside the firm. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 6(1), 42–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terwiesch, C., & Xu, Y. (2008). Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Science, 54(9), 1529–1543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tietze, F., & Herstatt, C. (2009). Intermediaries and innovation: Why they emerge and how they facilitate ip transactions on the markets for technology. Tech. rep., Working Papers/Technologie-und Innovationsmanagement, Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3), 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winch, G.M., & Courtney, R. (2007). The organization of innovation brokers: An international review. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(6), 747–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in mendelian populations. Genetics, 16(2), 97.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lecturer in Supply Chain Management, University College Dublin Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock, Co Dublin, Ireland

    Enrico Secchi

Authors
  1. Enrico Secchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enrico Secchi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Slagelse, Denmark

    Davide Secchi

  2. Koblenz University, Koblenz, Germany

    Martin Neumann

Appendix

Appendix

See Table A.1.

Table A.1 Results of the simulation runs (N = 2,000 per scenario)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Secchi, E. (2016). Open Innovation Networks and the Role of Intermediaries: An Agent-Based Simulation. In: Secchi, D., Neumann, M. (eds) Agent-Based Simulation of Organizational Behavior. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18153-0_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation