The role of public open innovation intermediaries in local government and the public sector

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 311-327

  Bakici, Tuba ^a   Almirall, Esteve ^a   Wareham, Jonathan ^a  

^a ESADE BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Spain)

Author keywords

innovation; local governments; public open innovation intermediaries; public sector

Indexed keywords

COGNITION; COMPETITIVENESS; INNOVATION; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC SECTOR;

FINLAND; GERMANY; NETHERLANDS; SPAIN;

EID: 84874455770     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: 14653990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2013.764983     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Aoki, M. 2001. "Types of relational financing and the value of tacit knowledge". In Toward a comparative institutional analysis, Edited by: Aoki, M., Greif, A. and Milgrom, P. 307-309. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Braun, D. 1993. Who governs intermediary agencies? Principal-agent relations in research policy-making. Journal of Public Policy, 13: 135-62. (doi:10.1017/S0143814X00000994)
3. Burt, R. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110: 349-99. (doi:10.1086/421787)
4. Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44: 35-41.
5. Chesbrough, H. 2006. Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
6. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. 2006. Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Dosi, G., Llerena, P. and Sylos-Labini, M. 2005. Evaluating and comparing the innovation performance of the United States and the European Union. Report presented at Trend Chart Policy Workshop on European Innovation Scoreboard, Brussels, 15-16 November 2005.
8. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532-50.
9. Elmquist, M., Fredberg, T. and Ollila, S. 2009. Exploring the field of open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12: 326-45. (doi:10.1108/14601060910974219)
10. Fung, A. and Weil, D. 2010. "Open government and open society". In Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice, Edited by: Lathrop, D. and Ruma, L. 105-12. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
11. Galbraith, B. and McAdam, R. 2011. The promise and problem with open innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23: 1-6. (doi:10.1080/09537325.2011.537084)
12. Galliers, R. D. 1992. "Choosing appropriate information systems research approaches". In Information systems research: Issues, methods and practical guidelines, Edited by: Galliers, R. D. 144-62. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
13. Gassmann, O., Daiber, M. and Enkel, E. 2011. The role of intermediaries in cross-industry innovation processes. R&D Management, 41: 457-69.
14. Gassmann, O., Enkel, E. and Chesbrough, H. 2010. Editorial: The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40: 231-21.
15. Giaglis, G. M., Klein, S. and O'Keefe, R. M. 2002. The role of intermediaries in electronic marketplaces: Developing a contingency model. Information Systems Journal, 12: 231-46. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.2002.00123.x)
16. Hargadon, A. 2003. How breakthroughs happen: The surprising truth about how companies innovate, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
17. Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 716-49. (doi:10.2307/2393655)
18. Hargadon, A. B. Knowledge brokers: Afield study of organizational learning and innovation. 1998 Academy of Management Proceedings. San Diego, CA.
19. Hinloopen, J. 2004. The market for knowledge brokers. Small Business Economics, 22: 407-15. (doi:10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000022210.10016.28)
20. Howells, J. 1999. Research and technology outsourcing and innovation systems: An exploratory analysis. Industry and Innovation, 6: 111-29. (doi:10.1080/13662719900000007)
21. Howells, J. 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35: 715-728. (doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005)
22. Hussler, C., Muller, P. and Rondé, P. 2010. University knowledge networks in space: Are far-reaching scientists also international knowledge brokers?. International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Innovation, 11: 307-20. (doi:10.5367/ijei.2010.0003)
23. Katila, R. 2002. New product search over time: Past ideas in their prime?. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 995-1010. (doi:10.2307/3069326)
24. Lakhani, K. R., Jeppesen, L. B., Lohse, P. A. and Panetta, J. A. 2007. The value of openness in scientific problem solving. HBS Working Paper No. 07-050, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.
25. Laursen, K. and Salter, A. 2006. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 131-50. (doi:10.1002/smj.507)
26. Lichtenthaler, U. 2005. External commercialization of knowledge: Review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7: 231-55. (doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00115.x)
27. Lichtenthaler, U. and Ernst, H. 2008. Innovation intermediaries: Why internet marketplaces for technology have not yet met the expectations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17: 14-25. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00461.x)
28. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, M. 1984. Qualitative data analysis, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29. Nambisan, S., Bacon, J. and Throckmorton, J. 2012. The role of the innovation capitalist in open innovation. Research Technology Management, 55(3): 49-57. (doi:10.5437/08956308X5503031)
30. Nooteboom, B. 2000. Learning by interaction: Absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 4: 69-92. (doi:10.1023/A:1009941416749)
31. Parkinson, M., M. Hutchins, J. Simmie, G. Clark, and H. Verdonk. 2004. Competitive European cities: Where do the core cities stand? A report to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.
32. Punch, K. F. 1998. Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches, London: Sage.
33. Ramirez, M. and Dickens, P. 2010. Gatekeepers, knowledge brokers and inter-firm knowledge transfer in Beijing's Zhongguancun Science Park. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(1): 93-122. (doi:10.1142/S1363919610002568)
34. Rosenkopf, L. and Nerkar, A. 2001. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 287-306. (doi:10.1002/smj.160)
35. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 2003. Research methods for business students, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36. Seaton, R. A.F. and Cordey-Hayes, M. 1993. The development and application of interactive models of industrial technology transfer. Technovation, 13: 45-53. (doi:10.1016/0166-4972(93)90013-L)
37. Sieg, J. H., Wallin, M. W. and von Krogh., G. 2010. Managerial challenges in open innovation: A study of innovation intermediation in the chemical industry. R&D Management, 40: 281-91.
38. Stankiewicz, R. 1995. "The role of the science and technology infrastructure in the development and diffusion of industrial automation in Sweden". In Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The Case of Factory Automation, Edited by: Carlsson, B. 165-210. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
39. Stewart, J. and Hyysalo, S. 2008. Intermediaries, users and social learning in technological innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12: 295-325. (doi:10.1142/S1363919608002035)
40. Tran, Y., Hsuan, J. and Mahnke, V. 2011. How do innovation intermediaries add value? Insight from new product development in fashion markets. R&D Management, 41: 80-91.
41. Trott, P. and Hartmann, D. 2009. Why open innovation is old wine in new bottles. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4): 1-22. (doi:10.1142/S1363919609002509)
42. Tuomi, I. 2002. Networks of innovation: Change and meaning in the age of the Internet, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. Työ-ja Elinkeinoministeriö. 2010. Demand and user-driven innovation policy, framework and action plan. Publications of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, Helsinki, Finland. http://www.tem.fi/files/27547/Framework_and_Action_Plan.pdf (accessed June, 2011).
44. Verona, G., Prandelli, E. and Sawhney, M. 2006. Innovation and virtual environments: Towards virtual knowledge brokers. Organization Studies, 27: 755-88. (doi:10.1177/0170840606061073)
45. Watkins, D. and Horley, G. 1986. "Transferring technology from large to small firms: the role of intermediaries". In Small Business Research, Edited by: Webb, T., Quince, T. and Watkins, D. 215-51. Gower: Aldershot.
46. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. and Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16: 409-21. (doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133)
47. Yin, R. K. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods, 3, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.