See the complete CFP for full detailsSpecial Issue on Collaboration and Value Creation in Online CommunitiesIn the past two decades, a range of new information technologies, broadly characterized as Web 2.0, have fundamentally altered the nature of community building, collaboration, and organizing in economic and social life. Technology-enabled collectives in the form of online communities (OC) bring together large numbers of geographically dispersed individuals in support of an activity, interest, or identity. Starting with Armstrong and Hagel’s early work conceptualizing the value of online communities for firms, and concomitant with the explosion of OCs in number and membership, academic interest in these collectives has accelerated. Researchers have investigated a range of issues in the context of OCs, from organization and governance, to what motivates people to participate and contribute volitionally to relative strangers, to the economic and social value created by these collectives.
Special Issue Editors: Samer Faraj, Georg von Krogh, Karim Lakhani, and Eric Monteiro
The goal of this special issue is to both take stock of and chart new directions for OC research in the information systems (IS) discipline. In particular, it seeks to encourage novel theorizing and research that enriches our understanding of the practices and dynamics at play in OCs. Many important questions related to OCs remain under-studied. …
Research that goes beyond the application of a few select social psychological theories and the routine application of network analysis tools to explain complex online actions and organizing is needed. Consistent with recent advances in the science of networks, new ways of representing action, actors, artifacts, and outcomes are called for. Above all, new theorizing that crosses levels of analysis, does not blackbox technology, and does not conflate OC activities with aspects such as the use of social media tools warrants attention. Central to new modes of theorizing is a stronger, perhaps constitutive, role of technology in the very phenomenon under study. By taking stock of drivers for action, the emergent practices, and the evolving form of OC organizing, the IS field has the potential to advance new views on change and adaptation of organizations, thereby claiming a central position in the discourse on the new realities.
This special issue seeks papers that help the field to understand community dynamics, collaborative practices, and value-creation processes in OCs in order to both improve and move beyond traditional views of the online phenomena. All theoretical and methodological perspectives are welcomed, and novel and original perspectives are especially sought. Topics of interest include but are not limited to the following:
Varieties of multilevel theorizing cutting across individual and aggregate levels
- Sociomaterial accounts of OCs
- The technology infrastructures undergirding OCs
- Roles, governance structure, authority relations, and community boundaries
- Lessons for organizational collaboration from OCs
- Psychological tensions between the demands by formal organization and the role expectations expressed by the community
- Implications for our understanding of how groups share knowledge
- Characteristics of value-creation processes in OCs
- Managing the process of innovation with OC boundary fluidity
- Firm and OCs interaction in innovation and collaboration
- Social identity building from interactions between organizations and OCs
- Community-based modes of governance and organizing
- May 30, 2014: Researchers interested in submitting papers are invited to submit their paper ideas to the Guest Editors for early reactions.
- November 1, 2014: Submissions due
- February 2015: First round of editorial decisions (reviews, desk rejections)
- May 2015: Special issue workshop
- August 30, 2015: Resubmissions due
- November 2015 :Second round of editorial decisions (rejections, second review)
- January 4, 2016: Final resubmissions due
- January 30, 2016: Final editorial decision
- 2016: Publication
February 21, 2014
February 2, 2014
I am always sad to hear of someone dying before their time, thinking of the loss to their family and friends. Wikipedia asserts that she died a week after her 64th birthday, while Gans reports it was due to cancer. An Alaska native and UW Seattle grad, she died a few days before her Seahawks won their first Super Bowl ever.
From a more self-centered perspective, I am sorry to lose the opportunity to read new work, although (as with all in our profession) her prior work will stand as a permanent legacy of her contribution to the field. The appeal of that work wasn’t immediately obvious. I started my career very phenomenon-driven and applied, whereas Scotchmer was more theoretical and abstract. Still, she was very concerned with real world problems, and wrote clearly (usually without greek letters). More importantly, she asked novel, important questions and achieved major success in moving the field forward.
I believe that her work was highly influential on open innovation in two ways: on cumulative innovation and on alternative incentives for innovation.
Innovation Drag and Cumulative Innovation
Reconstructing the trail from my hard disk, I first learned of Scotchmer’s work in November 2005, when I received an early draft of Murray & O'Mahony (2007) — a paper that cited her seminal 2004 book, Innovation and Incentives. That same month, I added citations to her work to a paper that I was writing on 3G cellphone standards, a paper that co-author Rudi Bekkers presented at a workshop four months later.
Both the Murray-O'Mahony and Bekkers-West interest in her work was due to her studies of patent drag. Like the weather, this is something that everyone complains about but nobody does anything about it.
As I found out, this was a question that Scotchmer had been thinking about since the early 1990s. She had a series of papers on the allocation of returns between initial and subsequent patenters (e.g. Green and Scotchmer, 1995; Scotchmer, 1996) as well as fine-tuning the right to exclude (Scotchmer 1991, 1999). (Related work has been done by Nancy Gallini of UBC). Chapters 4 and 5 of Innovation and Incentives also bears on this question.
In our paper, Rudi and I were concerned narrowly with patent drag. (In fact, by the time the paper was published, the patent story was narrowed so much as to eliminate this discussion).
However, the focus of Murray & O'Mahony was much broader. As regular readers know, Fiona and Siobhan synthesized the modern conception of cumulative innovation, the idea that many innovations require the cumulative efforts of multiple actors. If IP policies discourage such cumulative efforts, the rate of innovative progress will be slowed.
The paper is obviously heavily influenced by Scotchmer's work, citing four of them. The linkage is particularly direct to Scotchmer (1991), the Journal of Economic Perspectives article entitled “Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law.” As Murray & O'Mahony (2007: 1014) wrote
Last, for cumulative innovation to occur, innovators need assurance of some form of reward, encouraging them to disclose their ideas and provide access to others. Such rewards may be intrinsic but can also include remunerative or reciprocal rewards from follow-on innovators. A system that allows for a flow of rewards between first- and second-generation innovators is necessary but without some ease in distributing rewards among different generations, innovators will have difficulty accumulating knowledge (Scotchmer 1991).Not surprisingly, this message about the negative impact of IP drag also resonates with open source and other advocates of collaborative innovation.
While I read the 2004 book for its work on drag, its main focus — and most innovative contribution — was to step back and ask whether patents are the most appropriate incentive to encourage innovation. The fact that she asks the question suggests the answer might be “no.”
Chapter 2, in particular, considers the role of prizes as an alternative to temporary IP monopolies as an incentive, as with the 18th century English example of the Board of Longitude prize. She considers the deadweight loss of the alternative mechanisms, and extends the ideas in the earlier Gallini & Scotchmer (2002) book chapter.
This idea of structuring incentives (particularly in contests) to maximize innovation is an obvious antecedent to current research on Innocentive and other open innovation tournaments and other contests. As such, it clearly informs (and is cited in) the recent work on contests by Karim Lakhani and Kevin Boudreau.
Scotchmer's citations in innovation studies are much scarcer than the caliber of her contributions would warrant. I’m guessing that was because her orientation was so strongly towards economics (she served as AE of AER, JEP and JEL) unlike those many innovation economists who attend innovation and business conferences, promoting their work to multiple audiences.
Since I don’t attend the AEA (or NBER) conferences, I guess that’s why we never met. I found out today that one of her last publications — Maurer and Scotchmer 2006 — cites me extensively.
Not knowing her personally, I gained a few insights from the Gans and Gandal obit. I learned even more from her CV, which helpfully begins
Suzanne grew up in Alaska, where her grandparents homesteaded after failing as gold rushers.(Note to Europeans: the California gold rush was 1848-1850 while the Alaska gold rush was 1896-1899.)
The link goes to a page labelled “Suzanne Anderson: Stories of Alaska,” which says
daughter of a fisherman.
In retrospect, the most poignant piece was a 1996 article was about an tea made from devil’s club, a spiny rhubarb-like plant found in Alaska. The story focused on her friend Clarence, who from his Tlingit ancestors believed the tea would cure his cancer. As she wrote:
I wish the end of this story was that the devil’s club tea saved my friend Clarence from his cancer. It didn’t, but neither did the medical profession.Scotchmer’s death reminds us that cancer still kills more than a half-million Americans every year, a close second to heart disease (and more than the next three causes combined).
Suzanne Scotchmer, Rest in Peace.
Scotchmer, Suzanne. "Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law." Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, 1 (1991): 29-41.
Green, Jerry R., and Suzanne Scotchmer. "On the division of profit in sequential innovation." RAND Journal of Economics 26, 1 (1995): 20-33.
Scotchmer, Suzanne. "Protecting early innovators: should second-generation products be patentable?" Rand Journal of Economics 27, 2 (1996): 322-331.
Scotchmer, Suzanne. "On the optimality of the patent renewal system." RAND Journal of Economics 30, 2 (1999): 181-196.
Gallini, Nancy, and Suzanne Scotchmer. "Intellectual Property: when is it the best incentive system?" In Adam Jaffe and Josh Lerner, eds., Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, MIT Press, 2002, pp. 51-78.
Scotchmer, Suzanne. Innovation and Incentives. MIT Press, 2004.
Maurer, Stephen M. and and Suzanne Scotchmer. "Open Source Software: The New Intellectual Property Paradigm." In Terrence Hendershott (ed.) Economics and Information Systems, Volume 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2006, pp. 285-322.
January 25, 2014
The lead editorial in the March 2014 issue of the Journal of Product Innovation Management was entitled simply “Plagiarism.” It was written by Gloria Barczak, who became editor a year ago. According to Wiley, it was posted to the JPIM website on Friday.
After noting the journal’s concern with plagiarism and providing a definition, Barczak moved on to the issue that (regular readers will recall) cancelled five JPIM articles related to open innovation:
An even thornier issue concerns self-plagiarism. Some argue that self-plagiarism is not real. How can one plagiarize her/himself if s/he wrote the original text and includes it in a new work? iThenticate (2013) defines self-plagiarism as: “a type of plagiarism in which the writer republishes a work in its entirety or reuses portions of a previously written text while authoring a new work.” There is an ethical issue here, in that in many cases, authors have signed copyright agreements that give the publisher ownership of the material. Thus, reusing large portions of text from a previously published work, even if written by you, can be viewed as copyright infringement.Since August 1, JPIM has checked for plagiarism and self-plagiarism via CrossCheck iThenticate. As with a professor using Turnitin for student papers, the editor manually reviews any paper where the software identifies a high degree of reuse.
And as with student plagiarism — a subject where I’ve had more experience that I’d like over the past 15+ years — there is a need to assess what degree of reuse is acceptable and what is not. Barczak writes:
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE; Wager, 2011) has developed a typology of different types of plagiarism from less severe (e.g., a few words copied, source cited, no intention to deceive) to most severe (e.g., several paragraphs/whole paper copied, source not referenced, intention to deceive). Thus, an editor has to use her/his judgment as to how to deal with a particular situation. To date, I have desk-rejected papers for high levels of similarity that copy generously from published sources and that don’t reference those sources. In a few cases, I have sent queries to several authors asking for an explanation of their high similarity rating and advised them of how to fix the issue.In addition to her own efforts, Barczak called upon JPIM reviewers to help detect plagiarism.
While the journal will reject papers that fail its standards, the consequences for later detection are much more severe:
Our policy for plagiarism or other academic misconduct discovered after the article in question has been accepted or published in this journal is as follows:In an era where a few journals seem uninterested in investigating (let alone sanctioning) probable cases of academic misconduct, the clarity of JPIM’s leadership (like that of Research Policy) is refreshing.
1st offense – 5-year ban from publishing in JPIM
2nd offense – 10-year ban from publishing in JPIM
3rd offense – lifetime ban
If I have any criticism of either journal, it’s that Wiley and Elsevier have (respectively) hidden these important policy statements behind a paywall, valuing their business model over wide dissemination of their stance on academic integrity.
December 18, 2013
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief of Academy of Management Journal.This retraction marks 13 retracted articles by Lichtenthaler.
Formal investigations by the Academy of Management Journal and an affiliated university of Professor Ulrich Lichtenthaler have revealed ethical violations in research practices. Those violations center on the larger data collection effort that forms the foundation for this article as well as the empirics and reporting in the article itself. Independent re-analysis has been unable to replicate the findings as reported in this article and other journals have retracted other published pieces from the larger data collection effort.
The "affiliated university” is not specified, but would presumably be WHU (his PhD institution) — which announced its own sanctions last summer — as opposed to Mannheim (his current employer) which seems to have said nothing.
With the AMJ retraction, there are five journals who have not yet retracted their suspect papers. Since AMJ retracted its suspected papers while the others have not, this suggests that AMJ has either a more rigorous vetting process or higher standards than the other journals.
I received four notifications this morning: two personal emails, a Google news watch and a Facebook posting — all referring to this morning’s Retraction Watch article by Ivan Oransky. Oransky said the AMJ article has 97 citations in Web of Knowledge, which would make it one of his most cited articles.
Fortunately, the article was on my suspect list. This means it is not cited in our new edited book, nor in our open innovation special issue.
The full list of Lichtenthaler (or Holger Ernst) retracted papers (not including the three withdrawn papers):
- Lichtenthaler, Ulrich & Holger Ernst (2009). “Technology licensing strategies: the interaction of process and content characteristics,” Strategic Organization, 7 (2): 183-221. doi:10.1177/1476127009102672 (Retracted by the authors and editor, June 2012)
- Lichtenthaler, Ulrich (2009). “The role of corporate technology strategy and patent portfolios in low-, medium- and high-technology firms,” Research Policy, 38 (3): 559-569. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.009 (Retracted by the editors, July 2012)
- Lichtenthaler, Ulrich (2010). “Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective,” Research Policy, 39 (1): 55-66. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.011 (Retracted by the editors, July 2012)
- Lichtenthaler, Ulrich & Holger Ernst (2012). “Integrated knowledge exploitation: The complementarity of product development and technology licensing,” Strategic Management Journal, 33 (5): 513-534. doi: 10.1002/smj.1951 (Retracted by the authors, August 2012)
- Lichtenthaler, Ulrich (2009). “Product business, foreign direct investment, and licensing: Examining their relationships in international technology exploitation,” Journal of World Business, 44 (4): 407-420. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2009.01.003 (Retracted by the editor and author, August 2012)
- Ernst, Holger, Ulrich Lichtenthaler & Carsten Vogt (2011). “The Impact of Accumulating and Reactivating Technological Experience on R & D Alliance Performance,” Journal of Management Studies, 48 (6): 1194-1216. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00994.x (Retracted by the authors, editors and publisher, August 2012)
- Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, Holger Ernst & Martin Hoegl (2010). “Not-Sold-Here: How Attitudes Influence External Knowledge Exploitation,” Organization Science, 21 (5): 1054-1071. 10.1287/orsc.1090.0499 (Retracted by the editors, November 2012)
- Lichtenthaler, Ulrich (2008). “Externally commercializing technology assets: An examination of different process stages,” Journal of Business Venturing, 23 (4): 445-464. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.06.002 (Retracted by the editor and author, November 2012)
- Holger Ernst, James G. Conley, Nils Omland (2012). “How to create commercial value from patents: The role of patent management,” Research Policy, published online 21 May 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.012 (Retracted by the authors and editor prior to print publication, February 2013)
- Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, Eckhard Lichtenthaler & Johan Frishammar (2009). “Technology commercialization intelligence: Organizational antecedents and performance consequences,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76 (3): 301-315. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2008.07.002 (Retracted at the request of the authors, March 2013)
- Lichtenthaler, Ulrich & Johan Frishammar (2011). “The Impact of Aligning Product Development and Technology Licensing: A Contingency Perspective,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (S1): 89-103. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00863.x (Retracted by the authors, editor and publishers, May 2013)
- Lichtenthaler, Ulrich (2012). “The Performance Implications of Dynamic Capabilities: The Case of Product Innovation,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, published online 12 June 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00957.x (Retracted by the author, editor and publisher prior to print publication, May 2013; originally published online with Holger Ernst as co-author)
- Lichtenthaler, Ulrich (2010). “Outward knowledge transfer: the impact of project-based organization on performance,” Industrial & Corporate Change, 19 (6): 1705-1739, doi: 10.1093/icc/dtq041 (Retracted by the editors, publishers and author after an investigation by the editors, May 2013)
- Lichtenthaler, Ulrich (2009). "Absorptive Capacity, Environmental Turbulence, and the Complementarity of Organizational Learning Processes," Academy of Management Journal, 52 (4): 822-846, doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670902 (Retracted by the editor-in-chief, December 2013)
November 4, 2013
Other than a few corrections introduced with the typesetting, there’s one change from the version posted to SSRN (and already cited): we changed Table 3 to Figure 2. By having to summarize the paper to ACAC last May, I found that I had trouble understanding the table (that I’d made) and found the Venn diagram approach much less ambiguous: hence the new Figure (designed in color for my ACAC talk, but printed in B&W in the journal).
The second is the process model, separating how firms handle their use of external innovation into four phases. Those phases are summarized below (as excerpted from Table 4):
Open Innovation Topic
· Technology scouts
· Incentives to share
· Nature of the innovation
· Absorptive capacity
· Culture and “Not Invented Here”
· Incentives to cooperate
· Commercialization process
· Value creation
· Value capture
· R&D feedback
· Customer/market feedback
· Value networks
Finally is the conclusion that research is particularly light on the second and third phase: how external innovations get into firms, and how these innovations are commercialized differently (or similarly) to internal innovations. We are already seeing research agendas influenced by the latter findings.
This version of the article also has the online appendix, which lists all 151 inbound or coupled articles used in preparing this literature review. We asked JPIM to let us publish this online (which is not something we’d seen in this particular journal before). We felt this was important to share with future researchers, both so they would know what inbound (and coupled) literature was written during the period in review (2003-2010), and so everyone see which research we classified as falling in these categories.
We started working on the paper in June 2010: it’s hard to explain to a non-academic why it will be more than four years from when we started the project to when it was published (some of that, of course, being due to deficiencies in the early drafts). Still, it’s gratifying to have the paper out there and being read by those we hope will find it valuable.
West, Joel and Bogers, Marcel, “Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 4 (July 2014). DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12125, available on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2195675