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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
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.
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.
Baldwin, C., K. Clark. 2000. Design Rules, Volume 1, The Power of Modularity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., & von Hippel, E. 2006. How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study. Research Policy. Forthcoming.
Castells, M. 1996. The rise of the network society. Second edition. Blackwell Publishers.
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.
Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open innovation. The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
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.
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.
Clark, K.B. 1985. The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy. 14 235–251.
Dahlander, L., Wallin, M. 2006. A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets. Research Policy. 35(8) 1243–1259.
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.
Fahrni, F. 2000. Unternehmerausbildung im Spannungsfeld Technologie, Oekonomie, Oekologie. Einführungsvorlesung. Archiv der ETH Zürich.
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.
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.
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.
Gerwin, D. 2004. Coordinating new product development in strategic alliances. Academy of Management Review. 29(2) 241–257.
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/
Henkel, J. 2006. Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux. Research Policy, 35: 953–969.
Hienerth, C. 2006. The commercialization of user innovations: The development of the rodeo kayak industry. R&D Management, 36: 273–294.
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.
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.
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.
von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., I. Nonaka, 2000. Enabling Knowledge Creation. Oxford University Press.
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.
von Krogh, G. 2006. Customers demand their slice of IP. Harvard Business Review. February, 45–46.
Lakhani, K.R., E. von Hippel. 2003. How open source software works: “Free” user-to-user assistance. Research Policy. 32(6) 923–43.
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.
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.
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1964. La pensée sauvage. Plon: Paris.
Moody, G. 2001. Rebel code. Perseus Publishing.
Moon, J.Y., L. Sproull. 2000. Essence of distributed work: The case of the Linux Kernel. First Monday. 5(11).
Orlikowski, W. 1992. The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3: 398–427.
Sarasvathy, S. D. 2001. Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26: 243–263.
Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11: 448–469.
Simon, H.A. 1969. The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press.
Stevenson, H.H., Jarillo, J.C. 1990. A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management. Strategic Management Journal. 11: 17–27.
Tuomi, I. 2002. Networks of innovation. Change and meaning in the age of the Internet. Oxford University Press.
Utterback, J.M. 1994. Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
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,
Van de Ven, A. H. 2005. Running in packs to develop knowledge-intensive technologies. MIS Quarterly, 29: 365–378.
von Hippel, E. 1976. Dominant role of users in scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy. 5(3) 212–239.
von Hippel, E. 1988. Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press.
von Hippel, E. 1990. Task partitioning: An innovation process variable. Research Policy. 19 407–418.
von Hippel, E. 1994. “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science. 40(4) 429–439.
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.
von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press. URL: http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ.htm.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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)