Difference between revisions of "Hagedoorn and Ridder (2012)"
(Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Link=http://collections.unu.edu/view/UNU:164 | |Link=http://collections.unu.edu/view/UNU:164 | ||
|Reference=Chesbrough (2003); Dahlander and Gann (2010); Lichtenthaler and Ernst (2009); Enkel, Gassmann and Chesbrough (2009); Graham and Mowery (2006); | |Reference=Chesbrough (2003); Dahlander and Gann (2010); Lichtenthaler and Ernst (2009); Enkel, Gassmann and Chesbrough (2009); Graham and Mowery (2006); | ||
| + | |Plain Text Proposition=*Our findings show that firms active in open innovation see both the legal (control) | ||
| + | perspective and the practical (monitoring) perspective as quite relevant. On average, firms in | ||
| + | our sample perceive contracts as an important legal mechanism to control their collaboration | ||
| + | with open innovation partners, as indicated by an average score of 5.42 on a 7 point Likert | ||
| + | scale (see table 3). The perceived importance of formal contracts as a means to monitor the | ||
| + | progress of collaboration is somewhat lower with an average score of 5.10 on a 7 point Likert | ||
| + | scale. These different scores for the use of contracts for control or monitoring purposes turned | ||
| + | out to be only marginally statistically significant. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Firms active in open innovation seem to have a very strong preference for | ||
| + | (renewable) contracts to govern their relationship with their partners when they engage in | ||
| + | joint R&D, joint product and process development, and joint design. Not using contracts is | ||
| + | 15 very much rather the exception than the rule. Also, open innovation firms value these | ||
| + | contracts from both a legal control perspective as well as a more practical process monitoring | ||
| + | perspective. | ||
|Description of Data=For the data collection the authors applied two distinct methods that follow a two-phase design with separate qualitative field research and a quantitative survey of firms. During the period from January | |Description of Data=For the data collection the authors applied two distinct methods that follow a two-phase design with separate qualitative field research and a quantitative survey of firms. During the period from January | ||
to February 2011 they conducted a series of interviews with representatives of five large firms | to February 2011 they conducted a series of interviews with representatives of five large firms | ||
| Line 16: | Line 31: | ||
|Data Type=Primary and Secondary data | |Data Type=Primary and Secondary data | ||
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting), Qualitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences), Semi-Structured Interview | |Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting), Qualitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences), Semi-Structured Interview | ||
| − | |Method of Analysis=Qualitative Analysis Methods | + | |Method of Analysis=Qualitative Analysis Methods, Quantitative Analysis Methods, Qualitative Coding / Sorting (e.g. of interview data) |
|Cross-country=No | |Cross-country=No | ||
|Comparative=No | |Comparative=No | ||
| Line 23: | Line 38: | ||
}} | }} | ||
|Dataset={{Dataset | |Dataset={{Dataset | ||
| + | |Sample Size=5 | ||
| + | |Level of Aggregation=Company, | ||
| + | |Data Material Year=2011 | ||
| + | }}{{Dataset | ||
|Sample Size=5 | |Sample Size=5 | ||
|Level of Aggregation=Company, | |Level of Aggregation=Company, | ||
Revision as of 21:06, 28 June 2016
Contents
Source Details
| Hagedoorn and Ridder (2012) | |
| Title: | Open innovation, contracts, and intellectual property rights: an exploratory empirical study |
| Author(s): | Hagedoorn, J., Ridder, A.K. |
| Year: | 2012 |
| Citation: | Hagedoorn, J., & Ridder, A. K. (2012). Open innovation, contracts, and intellectual property rights: an exploratory empirical study. |
| Link(s): | Definitive , Open Access |
| Key Related Studies: | |
| Discipline: | |
| Linked by: | |
| About the Data | |
| Data Description: | For the data collection the authors applied two distinct methods that follow a two-phase design with separate qualitative field research and a quantitative survey of firms. During the period from January
to February 2011 they conducted a series of interviews with representatives of five large firms that can be seen as open innovators. |
| Data Type: | Primary and Secondary data |
| Secondary Data Sources: | |
| Data Collection Methods: | |
| Data Analysis Methods: | |
| Industry(ies): | |
| Country(ies): | |
| Cross Country Study?: | No |
| Comparative Study?: | No |
| Literature review?: | No |
| Government or policy study?: | No |
| Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
| Funder(s): | |
Abstract
Our exploratory empirical study, based on a series of in-depth interviews and a survey of firms, searches for answers on a number of questions that deal with the role of formal contracts and intellectual property rights in the context of open innovation. We find that firms active in open innovation have a strong preference for the governance of their open innovation relationships through formal contracts. These contracts are relevant from both a control and a process monitoring perspective. Also, despite the open nature of open innovation, firms still see intellectual property rights as highly relevant to the protection of their innovative capabilities. In a first attempt to explain this preference for intellectual property rights by open innovation firms, we find the degree of openness of firms, their legalistic attitude, and the competitive dynamics of their product market environment to be related to this preference.
Main Results of the Study
- Our findings show that firms active in open innovation see both the legal (control)
perspective and the practical (monitoring) perspective as quite relevant. On average, firms in our sample perceive contracts as an important legal mechanism to control their collaboration with open innovation partners, as indicated by an average score of 5.42 on a 7 point Likert scale (see table 3). The perceived importance of formal contracts as a means to monitor the progress of collaboration is somewhat lower with an average score of 5.10 on a 7 point Likert scale. These different scores for the use of contracts for control or monitoring purposes turned out to be only marginally statistically significant.
- Firms active in open innovation seem to have a very strong preference for
(renewable) contracts to govern their relationship with their partners when they engage in joint R&D, joint product and process development, and joint design. Not using contracts is 15 very much rather the exception than the rule. Also, open innovation firms value these contracts from both a legal control perspective as well as a more practical process monitoring perspective.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
Coverage of Study
Datasets
| Sample size: | 5 |
| Level of aggregation: | Company |
| Period of material under study: | 2011 |
| Sample size: | 5 |
| Level of aggregation: | Company |
| Period of material under study: | 2011 |
