Skip to main content

Distributed Innovation in the Education of Future Entrepreneurs

  • Chapter
Business Excellence in technologieorientierten Unternehmen

Abstract

Information technologies have facilitated distributed and collaborative forms of innovation over the last decades. It has become increasingly easier to share information at low costs and to search for information with high accuracy, including matching people, projects, and resources. The training of entrepreneurs and managers should reflect these developments by incorporating the concepts associated with distributed innovation into the curricula of management schools. Open innovation (Chesbrough 2003, 2006) advocates business models that in-license and out-license technologies, knowledge, and ideas, while external sources play an equal role to internal sources in the organization, and the research and development departments in particular. The private-collective model of innovation (von Hippel and von Krogh 2003) explains the emergence of knowledge as a public good and recognizes that a distributed group of individuals (such as users) can contribute to a common goal and innovate, given that their benefits from the innovation exceed their private efforts. While the open innovation model focuses on firms and the private-collective innovation model on the broader market or institutional environment, these concepts share the conviction that knowledge can and will cross organizational boundaries at different stages of development towards a final product or service and that key contributions to an innovation may originate from outside the firm.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Baker, T., & Nelson, R.E. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 329–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesly, D. T. 2003. Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy, 32: 255–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C., K. Clark. 2000. Design Rules, Volume 1, The Power of Modularity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., & von Hippel, E. 2006. How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study. Research Policy. Forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. 1996. The rise of the network society. Second edition. Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaddus, B. 2006. Six Apart Leads With Vox. Wired Magazine. November 7. Retrieved on April 17, 2007 from URL: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2006/11/72072.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open innovation. The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. 2006. Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J.F. 2006. Wither core competency for the large corporation in an open innovation world? In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press, 35–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K.B. 1985. The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy. 14 235–251.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMonaco, H.J., Ali, A., von Hippel, E. 2006. The major role of clinicians in the discovery of off-label drug therapies. Pharmacotherapy, 26(3) 323–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrni, F. 2000. Unternehmerausbildung im Spannungsfeld Technologie, Oekonomie, Oekologie. Einführungsvorlesung. Archiv der ETH Zürich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrni, F., Schreiner, M. 2001. Indikatorensystem für die Berufsbildung Schweiz. Eine Studie erstellt im Auftrag des Leistungsbereichs Bildungscontrolling BBT durch das Institut für Technologiemanagement ITEM, Universität St. Gallen. Verlag QTOP/MST Meilen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, N., Shah, S. 2003. How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy. 32(1) 157–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, N. and E. von Hippel. 2003. Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: The case of Apache security software. Research Policy. 32(7) 1199–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerwin, D. 2004. Coordinating new product development in strategic alliances. Academy of Management Review. 29(2) 241–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, R., Glott, R., Krieger, B., G. Robles. 2002. Free/Libre and Open Source software: Survey and Study. University of Maastricht. URL: http://www.infonomics.nl/FLOSS/report/

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, J. 2006. Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux. Research Policy, 35: 953–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hienerth, C. 2006. The commercialization of user innovations: The development of the rodeo kayak industry. R&D Management, 36: 273–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honan, M. 2007. At the Vox launch party. Wired Magazine Blog. March 15. Retrieved on April 17, 2007 from URL: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/posts.html?pg=3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeppesen, L.B. & L. Frederiksen, 2006. Why Do Users Contribute to Firm-Hosted User Communities? The Case of Computer-Controlled Music Instruments. Organization Science, 17: 45–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R., Allen, T.J. 1982. Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome – A look a the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R-and-D project groups. R&D Management. 12(1) 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., I. Nonaka, 2000. Enabling Knowledge Creation. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh, G., S. Spaeth, K.R. Lakhani. 2003. Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: A case study. Research Policy. 32(7) 1217–1241.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh, G. 2006. Customers demand their slice of IP. Harvard Business Review. February, 45–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakhani, K.R., E. von Hippel. 2003. How open source software works: “Free” user-to-user assistance. Research Policy. 32(6) 923–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G.K., Cole, R.E. 2003. From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: The case of the Linux kernel development. Organization Science, 14 633–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lettl, C., Herstatt, C., Gemuenden, H.G. 2006. Users’ contributions to radical innovation: Evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology. R&D Management. 36(3), 251–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lévi-Strauss, C. 1964. La pensée sauvage. Plon: Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, G. 2001. Rebel code. Perseus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J.Y., L. Sproull. 2000. Essence of distributed work: The case of the Linux Kernel. First Monday. 5(11).

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. 1992. The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3: 398–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarasvathy, S. D. 2001. Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26: 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11: 448–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. 1969. The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, H.H., Jarillo, J.C. 1990. A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management. Strategic Management Journal. 11: 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomi, I. 2002. Networks of innovation. Change and meaning in the age of the Internet. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J.M. 1994. Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhaverbeke W., Cloodt, M. 2006. Open innovation in value networks. In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press,

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H. 2005. Running in packs to develop knowledge-intensive technologies. MIS Quarterly, 29: 365–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. 1976. Dominant role of users in scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy. 5(3) 212–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. 1988. Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. 1990. Task partitioning: An innovation process variable. Research Policy. 19 407–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. 1994. “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science. 40(4) 429–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E., G. von Krogh. 2003. The Private-Collective Innovation Model in Open Source Software Development: Issues for organization science. Organization Science 14(2) 209–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press. URL: http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasko, M.M., Faraj, S. 2005. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly. 29(1) 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. 2006. Open innovation: A research agenda. In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press, 285-308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiertz, C., de Ruyter, K. 2007. Beyond the call of duty: Why customers contribute to firm-hosted commercial online communities. Organization Studies. 28(3) 347–376.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

von Krogh, G., Haefliger, S. (2008). Distributed Innovation in the Education of Future Entrepreneurs. In: Business Excellence in technologieorientierten Unternehmen. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73881-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73881-7_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-73880-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-73881-7

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics