RT Report
T1 Profundizando en la paradoja de la apertura: Evidencias sobre el efecto del temor a la imitación
A1 Castillo Molina, Yury
AB Varios estudios han confirmado que debido a la tensión existente entre la necesidad de abrir los procesos de innovación y a la vez proteger los conocimientos claves de posibles comportamientos oportunistas, la estrategia de apropiación es un determinante importante de la decisión de las empresas de cooperar con agentes externos. Sin embargo, algunas investigaciones recientes han sugerido que la relación entre estas dos estrategias está condicionada por una serie de contingencias que puede afectar su comportamiento. Con el objetivo de profundizar en esta discusión, este estudio propone que la percepción que tienen las empresas sobre la posibilidad de ser imitadas, es una contingencia que afecta la conformación de su estrategia de apropiación, y afecta la relación que hay entre esta estrategia y el grado de apertura de las empresas. Nuestros resultados, basados en una muestra de empresas manufactureras de Colombia, indican que, ante el temor a ser imitadas, las empresas aumentan el número de mecanismos de apropiación, pero este temor impulsa principalmente el uso de mecanismos estratégicos. Además, el análisis muestra que, aunque el mayor uso de mecanismos estratégicos incentiva la mayor apertura de las empresas, debido al menor grado de divulgación de la información que los caracteriza, sus efectos positivos decrecen antes que en el caso de los mecanismos formales.
AB Several studies have confirmed that due to the tension between the need to open innovation processes and at the same time protect key knowledge from possible opportunistic behavior, the strategy of appropriation is an important determinant of the decision of companies to cooperate with external agents. However, some recent research has suggested that the relationship between these two strategies is conditioned by a series of contingencies that can affect their behavior. To deepen on this discussion, this study proposes that the perception that companies have about the possibility of being imitated is a contingency that affects the conformation of their appropriation strategy, and affects the relationship between this strategy and the degree of business openness. Our strategic results, based on a sample of manufacturing companies in Colombia, indicate that faced with the fear of being imitated, companies increase the number of appropriation mechanisms, but this fear mainly drives the use of strategic mechanisms. In addition, the analysis shows that, although the greater use of strategic mechanisms encourages the greater opening of companies, due to the lower degree of disclosure of the information that characterizes them, their positive effects decrease before that in the case of formal mechanisms.
PB Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales (ICEI)
YR 2022
FD 2022
LK https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/4320
UL https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/4320
LA spa
NO Alexy, O., Criscoulo, P., & Salter, A. (2009). Does IP Strategy Have to Cripple Open Innovation ? Does IP Strategy Have to Cripple Open Innovation ? Management Intellectual Property, 51(1), 70–77.Aloini, D., Lazzarotti, V., Manzini, R., & Pellegrini, L. (2017). IP, openness, and innovation performance: an empirical study. Management Decision, 55(6), 1307–1327. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2016-0230Arora, A., Athreye, S., & Huang, C. (2016). The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators. Research Policy, 45(7), 1352–1361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.019Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (2010). Ideas for rent: An overview of markets for technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(3), 775–803. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq022Arundel, A. (2001). The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy, 30(4), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00100-1Baldwin, C. Y., & Henkel, J. (2015). Modularity and intellectual property protection. Strategic Management Journal Strat. Mgmt. J, 36, 1637–1655. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2303Barros, H. M. (2021). Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy. Research Policy, 50(1), 104097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104097Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477–1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2004.07.003Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2006). Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy, 35(5), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2006.03.002Bogers, M. (2011). The open innovation paradox: Knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(1), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061111104715Campi, M., Antonio, M., & Esterling, D. (2018). ¿El fortalecimiento de los derechos de propiedad intelectual estimula la innovación? Un análisis exploratorio de la dinámica de patentamiento por sectores industriales en Colombia, 1980- 2010. Cuadernos de Administracion, 33. doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.cao33.fdpiCapponi, G., Criscuolo, P., Martinelli, A., & Nuvolari, A. (2019). Profiting from innovation: Evidence from a survey of Queen’s Awards winners. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 49, 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2019.02.002Castillo-Vergara, M., & Torres Aranibar, E. (2019). El papel de la Cooperación para Desarrollar Innovación Tecnológica en la PYME. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 14(4), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242019000400041Chen, H., Zeng, S., Yu, B., & Xue, H. (2020). Complementarity in Open Innovation and Corporate Strategy: The Moderating Effect of Ownership and Location Strategies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 67(3), 754–768. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2018.2889804Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business PressChesbrough, H., Lettl, C., & Ritter, T. (2018). Value Creation and Value Capture in Open Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 930–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12471Cohen, W. M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). RandD spillovers, patents, and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1349–1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00068-9Colombelli, A., Grilli, L., Minola, T., & Mrkajic, B. (2020). To what extent do young innovative companies take advantage of policy support to enact innovation appropriation mechanisms? Research Policy, 49(10), 103797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.05.006Corral de Zubielqui, G., Jones, J., & Audretsch, D. (2019). The influence of trust and collaboration with external partners on appropriability in open service firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 540–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9696-yDANE. (2019). Boletín Técnico EDIT 2017 - 2018. 1–60. https://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/boletines/edit/boletin_EDIT_manufacturera_2017_2018.pdfDe Beer, J., & Armstrong, C. (2015). Open innovation and knowledge appropriation in African micro y small enterprises ( MSEs ). The African Journal of Information and Communication, 16, 60–71. 10.23962/10539/19315De León, I., Fernandez, J. (2015). El costo de uso de los sistemas de propiedad intelectual para pequeñas empresas innovadoras. El caso de Chile, Colombia y México. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Documento de discusión No IDB-DP-373.Foege, J. N., Lauritzen, G. D., Tietze, F., & Salge, T. O. (2019). Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing. Research Policy, 48(6), 1323–1339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.013Foege, J. N., Piening, E. P., & Salge, T. O. (2017). Don’t get caught on the wrong foot: A resource- based perspective on imitation threats in innovation partnerships. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617500232Freel, M., & Robson, P. J. (2017). Appropriation strategies and open innovation in SMEs. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 35(5), 578–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616654957González-Álvarez, N., & Nieto-Antolín, M. (2007). Appropriability of innovation results: An empirical study in Spanish manufacturing firms. Technovation, 27(5), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.12.004Hagedoorn, J., & Zobel, A. K. (2015). The role of contracts and intellectual property rights in open innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 27(9), 1050–1067. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1056134Hall, B., Helmers, C., Rogers, M., & Sena, V. (2014). The choice between formal and informal intellectual property: A review. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(2), 375–423. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.52.2.375Henttonen, K., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Ritala, P. (2016). Managing the appropriability of R&D collaboration. R & D Management, 46, 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12121Hertzfeld, H. R., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2006). Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships. Research Policy, 35(6), 825–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.006Holgersson, M., Granstrand, O., & Bogers, M. (2018). The evolution of intellectual property strategy in innovation ecosystems: Uncovering complementary and substitute appropriability regimes. Long Range Planning, 51(2), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.08.007Hurmelinna-laukkanen, P. (2009). The availability, strength, and efficiency of appropriability mechanisms – protecting investments in knowledge creation. International Journal Technology Management, 45 (3-4), 282–290. 10.1504/IJTM.2009.022653Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Puumalainen, K. (2007). Nature and dynamics of appropriability: Strategies for appropriating returns on innovation. R and D Management, 37(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2007.00460.xJames, S. D., Leiblein, M. J., & Lu, S. (2013). How Firms Capture Value From Their Innovations. In Journal of Management (Vol. 39, Issue 5). https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313488211Jugend, D., Jabbour, C. J. C., Alves Scaliza, J. A., Rocha, R. S., Junior, J. A. G., Latan, H., & Salgado, M. H. (2018). Relationships among open innovation, innovative performance, government support and firm size: Comparing Brazilian firms embracing different levels of radicalism in innovation. Technovation, 74–75(February), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.02.004Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search, and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.004Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2005). Environmental hostility, strategic orientation and the importance of management accounting - An empirical analysis of new technology-based firms. Technovation, 25(7), 725–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.01.007Lorenz, A., & Veer, T. (2019). Once bitten, less shy? The influence of prior misappropriation experience on R&D collaboration. Industry and Innovation, 26(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1403891Milesi, D., Petelski, N., & Verre, V. (2013). Innovation and appropriation mechanisms: Evidence from Argentine microdata. Technovation, 33(2–3), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.12.001Miozzo, M., Desyllas, P., Lee, H. F., & Miles, I. (2016). Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms. Research Policy, 45(7), 1337–1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.018Neuhäusler, P. (2012). The use of patents and informal appropriation mechanisms - Differences between sectors and among companies. Technovation, 32(12), 681–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.07.004Olander, H., Vanhala, M., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2014). Reasons for choosing mechanisms to protect knowledge and innovations. Management Decision, 52(2), 207–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2012-0791Ordover, J. A. (1991). A patent system for both diffusion and exclusion. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 43–60.Pollok, P., Lüttgens, D., & Piller, F. T. (2019). Attracting solutions in crowdsourcing contests: The role of knowledge distance, identity disclosure, and seeker status. Research Policy, 48(1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2018.07.022Ray, S., & Ray, P. K. (2021). Innovation strategy of latecomer firms under tight appropriability regimes: The Indian pharmaceuticals industry. Journal of International Management, 27(1), 100820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2020.100820Salazar-Elena, J. C., López, A., Guimón De Ros, J., & Cancino, C. A. (2020). Sincerity is a dangerous thing: On how appropriability regimes shape innovation strategies. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 38(5), 5521–5528. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-179643Stefan, I., & Bengtsson, L. (2016). Appropriability: A key to opening innovation internationally? International Journal of Technology Management, 71(3–4), 232–252. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2016.078570Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(February), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812833181_0005Yacoub, G., Storey, C., & Haefliger, S. (2020). Appropriability mechanisms for manufacturing and service firms: the contingencies of openness and knowledge intensity. R & D Management, 50(5), 551–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12411Yu, M. J., Chuang, H. J., Hsu, M. Y., & Lin, P. F. (2020). Firm heterogeneity, appropriability, and innovation collaboration. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 32(10), 1156–1168. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1747609Zhang, J., & Groen, A. (2021). Informal and formal open activities: Innovation protection methods as antecedents and innovation outputs as consequences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167(August 2019), 120696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120696Zobel, A. K., Lokshin, B., & Hagedoorn, J. (2017). Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness. Technovation, 59(October 2014), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.10.001
DS Docta Complutense
RD 1 sept 2024