tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9155427933166618966.post8854119171220859228..comments2007-10-04T05:56:59.945-07:00Joel Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03837038327488766775noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9155427933166618966.post-65251890682989216252007-10-04T05:56:00.000-07:002007-10-04T05:56:00.000-07:00I think this claim, "firms that embrace open innovation employ markets rather than hierarchies to obtain and commercialize innovations", covers the field of open innovation quite well. However, given its pithiness, it might also be unclear, in the sense that it might not be that different from other definitions and that it is a very (too?) general definition. Also, it seems to suggest that hierarchies are not important at all, which is probably misleading as it can be required to capture the value of open innovation. <BR/><BR/>Still, I think two observations are important here. First of all, it is important to link the literature on open innovation to other fields, such as TCE. So, from that point of view, this is a good starting point. Second, the fact that it is such a general definition (one which nevertheless sounds good) seems to suggest that everything (outside a firm's boundary) is about open innovation. Although this might be true according to many people, it is not the most valuable way to define the field. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, I think it is important to focus more specifically on sub-fields in the open innovation paradigm. (I think the field of entrepreneurship, for example, has been going through a similar process.) The full overview and exact definition of open innovation can only be complete by identifying and investigating the parts of which it consists. Perhaps, there should be more attempts on defining what is part of open innovation (and what open innovation is not). I personally think that the book <A HREF="http://www.openinnovation.net/Book/NewParadigm/" REL="nofollow">"Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm"</A> by Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke and West provides a good starting point for this because it distinguishes various aspects of open innovation. <BR/><BR/>In conclusion, I agree with the suggested definition, which is indeed pithier, and I embrace such an attempt. But at the same time, it seems important to build some kind of a clearer framework (or even taxonomy) of what open innovation is. This will increase its practical value as a concept. Perhaps just adding some clear examples to the concise definition proposed above might work, although this does not solve the problem of how open innovation is different from or relates to other fields. While this might be a rather basic issue, I think it is still a major challenge for open innovation as a field (see also <A HREF="http://blog.openinnovation.net/2007/05/cumulative-open-and-user-innovation.html" REL="nofollow">another part of this blog</A>).Marcel Bogershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09367255235682024512noreply@blogger.com