Advertisement

The Perils of Innovation Communities

Chapter
  • 833 Downloads
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

This last chapter starts with a brief summary of this book’s findings. Furthermore, it wraps up its key contributions in conceptual, theoretical, and practical terms. The final section concludes with an outlook on how the principles of innovation communities extent their reach to processes that foster hardware innovation in rather competitive business realms. Drawing on two related examples, I reconsider how my analytical concept of innovation communities can nurture a more elaborated understanding of open and distributed innovation.

References

  1. Bort J (2015) How facebook is eating the $140 billion hardware market. Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-open-compute-project-history-2015-6. Accessed 5 May 2016
  2. Chen KK, O’Mahony S (2006) The selective synthesis of competing logics. Acad Manag Proc 2006(1):L1–L6. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2006.27176323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chesbrough H (2003) Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Chesbrough H (2006) Open business models: how to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Friedland R, Alford R (1991) Bringing society back in: symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In: Powell W, Dimaggio P (eds) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 232–263Google Scholar
  6. Füller J, Bartl M, Ernst H, Mühlbacher H (2006) Community based innovation: how to integrate members of virtual communities into new product development. Electron Commer Res 6(1):57–73. doi: 10.1007/s10660-006-5988-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society. University of California Press, BerkleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Gläser J (2001) Producing communities’ as a theoretical challenge. Proceedings of the Australian Sociological Association, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  9. Gläser J (2006) Wissenschaftliche Produktionsgemeinschaften: Die soziale Ordnung der Forschung. Campus Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Green E (2015) Open Compute Project U.S. Summit 2015 – Facebook News Recap. Facebook Code. https://code.facebook.com/posts/1538145769783718/open-compute-project-u-s-summit-2015-facebook-news-recap/. Accessed 5 May 2016
  11. Heckscher C, Adler PS (eds) (2006) The firm as a collaborative community: the reconstruction of trust in the knowledge economy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee GK, Cole RE (2003) From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: the case of the Linux kernel development. Organ Sci 14(6):633–649. doi: 10.1287/orsc.14.6.633.24866 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Metz C (2016) Google and Facebook Team Up to open source the gear behind their empires. WIRED. http://www.wired.com/2016/03/google-facebook-designing-open-source-data-center-gear-together/. Accessed 5 May 2016
  14. Musk E (2014) All our patent are belong to you. Blog Teslamotors.com. https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you. Accessed 5 May 2016
  15. O’Mahony S, Lakhani KR (2011) Organizations in the shadow of communities. Res Sociol Organ 33:3–36. doi: 10.1108/S0733-558X(2011)0000033004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Open Compute Project (2016) “About.” Open Compute Project – About. http://www.opencompute.org/about/. Accessed 4 Apr 2016
  17. Pache A-C, Santos F (2013) Inside the hybrid organization: selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Acad Manag J 56(4):972–1001. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seidel M-DL, Stewart KJ (2011) An initial description of the C-form. Res Sociol Organ 33:37–72. doi: 10.1108/S0733-558X(2011)0000033005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shah, Sonali. 2003. “Community-based innovation and product development: findings from open source software and consumer sporting goods.” Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  20. Solomon B (2014) Tesla Goes Open Source: Elon Musk Releases Patents To ‘Good Faith’ Use – Forbes. Forbes/Investing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2014/06/12/tesla-goes-open-source-elon-musk-releases-patents-to-good-faith-use/#177bdf4918e4. Accessed 5 May 2016
  21. Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):571–610. doi: 10.2307/258788 Google Scholar
  22. von Hippel E (1986) Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Manag Sci 32(7):791–805. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Westenholz A (2011) Hybridization as an organizational response to widespread institutional logics. Paper presented at ABC Network 2011, Boston. http://openarchive.cbs.dk/handle/10398/8417
  25. Wharton (2014) What Tesla Gains from Giving Out Its Patents -- K@W. Knowledge@Wharton. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/whats-driving-teslas-open-source-gambit/. Accessed 5 May 2016

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technische UniversitätBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations