Innovative Strategies to Knowledge Transfer in a Context of Open Innovation

  • Angela Sansonetti
  • Alessandro D’Atri
Conference paper


In a conventional way, we refer to “open source” as the set of tools achieved without licensing, and available to every user in open environments oriented toward democratization of innovation. In another meaning, it is possible to assume open sources as the set of material and immaterial resources shared in open environments to produce innovation. Thus, the open innovation phenomenon is multifaceted and may be used to explain various issues related to the sharing of knowledge, know-how and competencies in a lot of contexts. In this new framework, this paper explores the open innovation paradigm as an innovative and pervasive method to transfer knowledge from research organizations to industrial world. Among the different ways to transfer innovative knowledge, this paper focuses on spin-off phenomenon, as one of the most effective and suitable approach to transfer innovation from research organizations to industrial world and to capitalize on tangible and intangible outcomes. The main attention concerns inter−intra organizational issues of IT spin-offs created within European cooperative research projects


Knowledge Transfer Open Innovation Innovative Strategy Technology Transfer Office Academic Spinoff 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    European Commission (2007) Improving knowledge transfer between research institutions and industry across Europe: embracing open innovation. COM(2007) 182 finalGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation: the evolving phenomenon of user innovation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sansonetti A, D’Atri A (2009) IT spin-offs into the European research framework: an innovative configuration. In Proceedings of the Americas conference on information systems 2009, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chesbrough HW, Appleyard M (2007) Open innovation and strategy. Calif Manage Rev 50:1Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    European Commission (2006) Putting knowledge into practice: a broad-based innovation strategy for the EU. COM(2006) 502Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dodgson M (1993) Technological collaboration in industry. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Siegel DS, Waldman D, Link A (2003) Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Res Policy 32:27–48Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Degroof J, Roberts EB (2004) Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spinoff ventures.J Technol Transfer 29(3–4):327–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O'Shea RP, Allen TJ, O'Gorman C, Roche F (2007) Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial University: the MIT experience. R&D Manage 37(1):1–16Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jonnansen JA, Olsen B, Olaisen J (1999) Aspects of innovation theory based on knowledge-management. Int J Inf Manage 19:121–139Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Drucker PF (1993) Post-capitalist society. Butterworth Heineman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thurow LC (1996) The future of capitalism. Nicolas Brealey Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Freeman C (1995) The national system of innovation in historical perspective. Cambridge J Econ 19:5–24Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grant R (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manage J Winter special issue 17:109–122Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sveiby KE (1997) The new organizational wealth: managing and measuring knowledge-based assets. Berrett-Koehler. San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Archibugi D, Michie J (1995) Technology and innovation: An introduction. Cambridge J Econ 19:1–4Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ahuja G, Lampert CM (2001) Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strateg Manage J 22:521–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fleming L, Sorenson O (2001) Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Res Policy 30:1019–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sidhu S, Commandeur HR, Volberda HW (2007) The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation. Organ Sci 18(1):20–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leavy B (1998) The concept of learning in the strategy field, review and outlook. Manage Learn 29(4):447–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dewett T, Jones GR (2001) The role of information technology in the organization: A review, model and assessment. Manage 27:313–346Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prahalad CK, Hamel C (1990) The core competence of the corporation. Harv Bus Rev 3:79–91Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chiesa V, Piccaluga A (2000) Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the case of academic spinoff companies in Italy. R&D Manage 30(4):329–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Proton Europe (2006) ProTon Europe. Fourth Annual Survey Report, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sapienza HJ, Parhankanga A, Erkko A (2004) Knowledge relatedness and post-spin-off growth. J Bus Venturing 19:809–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liebeskind J (1996) Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strateg Manage J Winter issue17:93–107Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zahra S, George G (2002) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad Manage Rev 27(2):185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cohen M, Levinthal D (1990) Absorptive capacity: a perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Levinthal DA (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Manage Sci 43(7):934–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LUISS Guido Carli UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations