Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Research Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/respol
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: In spite of increasing interest in open innovation, discussion about the concept and its potential applica-
Received 7 August 2008 tion to the SME sector has been excluded from mainstream literature. However, given that the argument
Received in revised form about the effect of rm size on the effectiveness of innovation is still ongoing, it is worth addressing the
29 November 2009
issue from an SME perspective. That is the focus of this article, which seeks, rstly, to place the concept of
Accepted 14 December 2009
open innovation in the context of SMEs; secondly to suggest the input of an intermediary in facilitating
Available online 12 January 2010
innovation; and nally to report accounts of Korean SMEs success in working with an intermediary.
The research results support the potential of open innovation for SMEs, and indicate networking as one
Keywords:
Open innovation
effective way to facilitate open innovation among SMEs.
SME 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Network
Intermediary
Case study
1. Introduction from the mainstream (West et al., 2006) for the following reasons.
Firstly, open innovation is more easily studied in larger rms, as
Innovation is traditionally viewed as taking place mostly within SMEs have less ability to access external resources and fewer tech-
a single rm. But the increasing availability and mobility of knowl- nological assets that they can exchange than larger rms (Narula,
edge workers, the ourishing of the internet and venture capital 2004). However, considerations about open innovation also need
markets, and the broadening scope of possible external suppli- differentiating between SMEs and large rms, since it is gener-
ers in the present age have undermined the effectiveness of the ally recognised that they are good at different types of innovation
traditional innovation system (Chesbrough, 2003). In the wake of (Vossen, 1998). Secondly, SMEs use non-internal means of innova-
these changes, the concept of open innovation has emerged, with tion more than large rms, as they consider alliances or network
processes that are characterised as spanning rm boundaries. Com- as ways to extend their technological competences (Edwards et
panies now want to include in their business model not only the al., 2005; Rothwell, 1991), which means that innovation in SMEs
commercialisation of their own ideas, but also of external ideas. The is already has an external focus, and the concept is not new to
analysis of open innovation has subsequently been extended to var- them. However, their collaborations tend to be limited to strate-
ious perspectives, e.g. studies on the industrial dynamics of open gic alliances with larger rms (Rothwell and Dodgson, 1994) and
innovation (Christensen et al., 2005), on the open innovation pro- outsourcing, mainly via other SMEs (Rothwell, 1991). Considering
cesses in a particular industry sector (Cooke, 2005; Henkel, 2006), the fact that rms involved in multiple types of ties are more inno-
or on ways in which to boost open innovation (Lichtenthaler, 2008). vative than those which only utilise one type of tie (Baum et al.,
In spite of the increasing interest in open innovation research, 2000; Powell and Owen-Smith, 1999), it is important to investi-
most previous studies have been intended for managers in large gate the potential of different types of SME ties in the context
technology-based companies, where the notion of open innova- of open innovation. Finally, SMEs consider external sources as a
tion rst started. Discussions about the concept of open innovation means of getting access to marketing and sales channels at the
in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have been excluded later stages of innovation (especially the commercialisation stage),
while open innovation normally focuses more on the early stages of
innovation, addressing external technology sourcing and network-
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 0 2 2260 8659; fax: +82 0 2 878 3511.
ing with technology providers and innovative, upstream companies
E-mail addresses: sungjoo@ajou.ac.kr (S. Lee), gwangman@etri.re.kr (G. Park),
(Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt, 2006). Though open innovation at the
postman3@dongguk.edu (B. Yoon), autofact@snu.ac.kr (J. Park). commercialisation stage has not been considered seriously in the
0048-7333/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.12.009
S. Lee et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 290300 291
existing literature, it can be an important topic, since economic Apart from this argument, SMEs have an obvious role in innova-
values of innovation at the commercialisation stage are to a large tion: UK gures, for instance, show that (including sole traders)
extent towards other downstream players. SMEs account for 99% of business, 55% of non-governmental
While the argument on the effect of rm size on the effec- employment and 51% of turnover (SBS, 2001). Naturally, encourag-
tiveness of innovation is still ongoing, it is worth addressing the ing innovation in SMEs is central to policy initiatives for stimulating
particularities of open innovation from the perspective of SMEs economic development at the local, regional, and even national
which are nevertheless major actors in innovation (Maula et al., levels (Jones and Tilley, 2003). The question then becomes how
2006). This article therefore focuses on open innovation strategies to facilitate innovation in SMEs, trying to discover which factors
in SMEs, rstly seeking to place the concept of open innovation contributed to the success (or failure) of their innovation efforts.
in the context of SME, and secondly to encourage innovation by Specically, as technology becomes so complex that it cannot
suggesting a network model that emphasises the role of inter- be handled by one rm alone, and relevant knowledge is ever-
mediaries in linking SMEs. Finally, it introduces some stories of more scattered across various rms, collaboration between rms
open innovation success in Korean SMEs that have owed from is increasingly regarded as an important factor for success. SMEs
the intermediary activities of the Korean Integrated Contract Man- also have engaged in various modes of collaboration (Kleinknecht
ufacturing Service (KICMS), which was established to facilitate and Reijnen, 1992), and SME networking and alliances have
innovation in Korean SMEs. The research results support the notion attracted considerable research attention. Here, common collab-
of open innovation in SMEs, by proposing intermediation as one oration modes are based on bi-rm networks and include alliances
way of facilitating this strategy, and by suggesting an intermedi- with and outsourcing to other rms. For example, Mangematin
ated network as an effective model to enable their collaboration et al. (2003) show that biotechnology SMEs typically enter into
and specialisation. contracts with big industrial groups or run small projects, man-
The rest of this paper consists of four parts. The following sec- ufacturing their own products and marketing them. Networking
tion briey reviews the characteristics of innovation in SMEs, while represents another possible form of collaboration, and its grow-
Section 3 discusses how those characteristics can be reected and ing use by SMEs reects a possible catch-up of large rms (Narula,
facilitated by proposing an open innovation model for SMEs. To ver- 2004), with many researchers claiming that the success of SMEs in
ify this discussion, open innovation efforts among Korean SMEs are comparison to their larger competitors is based on their ability to
introduced in Section 4. For this purpose, we analysed the report, utilise external networks more efciently (Rothwell and Dodgson,
Koreas Technology Innovation completed in 2005 and published 1994). Mytelka (1991) even suggests that a rms competitiveness
by the Survey Science and Technology Policy Institute (STEPI) to is determined more by its external networks than its size. SMEs
understand the nature of innovation activities in Korean SMEs, have been noted to use external resources to (among other things)
and conducted a case study of KICMS activities. The nal section shorten innovation time, reduce risk and cost and increase the ex-
presents some conclusions and notes on limitations. ibility of their operation (Hagedoorn, 1993), but their use must be
carefully considered in strategic terms, as inter-rm collaboration
2. Open innovation in SMEs can also lead to new risks and threats as well as transaction cost.
Nevertheless, inter-rm collaboration is particularly important for
2.1. Nature of innovation in SMEs SMEs with limited complementary assets who need to leverage
their technology externally (Lichtenthaler, 2005).
There is considerable literature about innovation, and vari- We argue that a necessary focus for future research is the nature
ous models have been suggested to describe its nature, such as of innovation in SMEs, and the extent to which open innovation is
product innovation and process innovation; radical innovation embedded in such rms. Open innovation in SMEs will be different
and incremental innovation; systemic innovation and component from that in larger rms, since innovation processes differ between
innovation; technology-push and market-pull; and more recently the two (Vossen, 1998). But innovation processes have not been
closed innovation and open innovation. Models can also be divided explicitly analysed within the context of open innovation (West
according to their innovation processes (linear models, chain- et al., 2006), despite the fact that moving from a relatively closed
linked models, etc.), or according to the tness for developed or world to a very open one has posed important challenges for SME
developing countries, etc. (Maranto-Vargas and Gmez-Tagle Rangel, 2007).
However, strangely, there have been very few studies regarding
an innovation model specialised for SMEs. The majority of literature 2.2. Concept of open innovation in SMEs
limits its focus to the study of entrepreneurial traits or structural
characteristics (Hoffman et al., 1998), but there is little examination Open innovation is an emerging paradigm based on the follow-
of the embeddedness of innovation in SMEs (Shaw, 1998; Paniccia, ing assumption:
1998). According to Laursen and Salter (2004), it is not statistically
Valuable ideas can come from inside or out of the company and
evident that larger rms are better than SMEs in new-to-the-world-
can go to market from inside or outside the company as well. This
type innovation, meaning that SMEs may well have capacity for
approach places external ideas and external paths to market on
innovation, especially radical innovation. It is agreed that, while
the same level of importance as that reserved for internal ideas and
SMEs exibility and specicity can be advantages in accelerating
paths to market during the Closed Innovation era (Chesbrough,
innovation, few of them have sufcient capacity to manage the
2003).
whole innovation process by themselves, and this encourages them
to collaborate with other rms (Edwards et al., 2005). They can As the prevailing literature indicates, the possibilities for open
lack the resources and capabilities in manufacturing, distribution, innovation in SMEs also lie with external sources, which are often
marketing and extended R&D funding, which are essential for trans- critical to the innovation process in any type of organisation (Cohen
forming inventions into products or processes. As a result, while and Levinthal, 1990). Where large rms focus mainly on R&D in
many studies have shown that SMEs tend to have a higher R&D open innovation efforts, SMEs focus more on commercialisation
productivity than larger rms (although there is considerable vari- because, while many of them have superiorities in technology for
ation by industry, see Audretsch and Vivarelli, 1996), there is still invention, they often lack the capacity in terms of manufactur-
much debate on assessing the innovativeness of SMEs because of ing facilities, marketing channels and global contacts to introduce
their material or resource factor disadvantages. them effectively to the innovation market (Narula, 2004). Consid-
292 S. Lee et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 290300
While alliances with large rms have often beneted SMEs, they Particularly for start-ups, the networking model of investing jointly
can also oblige SMEs to share their technological competence with to share risks and prots can help SMEs develop further business
the large rms, leading to increased exibility for the large rms, opportunities.
thus negating a major comparative advantage of the SMEs. As a
result, as SMEs gain opportunities to collaborate with large rms, 3.2. Intermediation of collaboration
they lose opportunities to compete against them (Narula, 2002).
SMEs may also be required to produce a cheap product to meet the How can a network best be constructed to obtain a desired out-
large rms lowest specications, thus delaying further innovation come? Resource-based theory suggests the decision as to selection
on the part of the SMEs. is predicated the partners potential to provide additional resources
An alternate model is a network, which has been described to their mutual benet (Kogut et al., 1992). But searching for and
as a specic type of relationship linking a set of persons, objects deciding on who to collaborate with to create an effective net-
or events (Knoke and Kuklinski, 1983). Well-constructed and work can be difcult for SMEs, who may have limited information
managed networks can offer clear benets to SMEs (Inkpen and sources, and lack the nancial resources to gather vital informa-
Tsang, 2005), helping them decode and appropriate ows of tion (Julien, 2002) compared to larger rms, who can often afford
information such as technological change, sources of technical professional intelligence processes for scanning and monitoring
assistance, market requirements and strategic choices by other their technological environments (Lichtenthaler, 2003) to search
rms, thus strengthening their competitive advantage (Bougrain for competitors, potential collaborators and customers in the mar-
and Haudeville, 2002). In addition to efcient co-development of kets for their technology (Makadok and Barney, 2001). Due to these
products and services for innovation (Gulati, 1998), network mem- difculties, SMEs are likely to build only deep and lasting ties once
bers are affected by each others experience, yielding learning they organise a network (Simard and West, 2006). To solve the
effects for future innovation (Argote and Ingram, 2000). SMEs usu- problem of nding a suitable partner, we suggest a collaboration
ally specialise in a specic area, and involvement in a network may model that emphasises the role of an intermediary in supporting
be an effective way to successfully enter wider markets and acquire SMEs ability to make a collaboration network and eventually work
complementary resources, and of increasing core competencies to together more effectively. An intermediary can help SMEs max-
improve their chances of competing against their large competitors. imise their chances of innovation and increase their likelihood of
Table 3
Information sources for technology innovation in SMEs.
From other rms and market Customer and user 59% 3.59
Competitors in the industry 56% 3.22
Suppliers (raw materials/SW) 49% 3.06
Suppliers (machine/facilities) 48% 2.98
Non-competitors in industry 43% 2.88
Business service provider 40% 2.73
Afliates 31% 3.31
by adding up the values of 17 variables, we could get a value for than major product innovation, which means that major product
breadth. On the other hand, the depth of information is dened innovation may require not only getting information from external
as the extent to which rms use the information intensively from channels but also applying it actively to their innovation pro-
different sources. In the similar way, the 17 external sources were cess. Another interesting nding is that service innovation is more
coded as a binary variable, 1 being used to a high level and 0 to a closely related to the depth than breadth. It seems that customer
low or medium level. Again by summing up the values of 17 vari- needs of target markets, as external information sources, should be
ables, we could get a value for depth. Here, it is assumed that rms considered carefully and so having a deep relationship with a few
using more sources more intensively are more open. Finally, using external sources are critical for service innovation. Unlike other
the variables, the correlation between the number of innovation types of innovation, process innovation is not signicantly linked
and the external information usages in SMEs was calculated (see to external information usages. To summarise, the analysis results
Table 4). indicate that both the depth and breadth of external information
The table shows that three types of innovation, major product is linked to innovation in SMEs, which might be based on the fact
innovation, minor product innovation and service innovation, are that a rm that is more interested in innovation is more likely to
related to the depth and breadth of external information usages be involved in active information usages, but the role of external
at the signicance level of 0.01. Process innovation is related only channels might be different by innovation types.
to the breadth at the signicant level of 0.05. In general, therefore,
effective and broad use of external information is signicantly asso- 4.1.3. Collaboration patterns in SMEs
ciated with the number of innovation. In particular, the breadth The patterns of collaboration between SMEs and other organisa-
is more closely linked to the product innovation than the depth, tions belonging to the other rms and markets and university and
though the coefcient of depth and breadth is high corresponding research centre categories were analysed to identify the inuence
to 0.697. Little differences in the correlation with external infor- of other actors on SMEs innovation. The levels of collaborations
mation usages are found between major product innovation and for technology purchasing, and of strategic alliances (other than
minor product innovation. Intensive use of external information outsourcing), were measured, and the contribution of each organ-
seems to be slightly more related to major product innovation than isation in the collaboration to innovation evaluated (see Table 5).
minor product innovation while searching information from vari- To list a few distinguished features, technology purchasing
ous external channels is more linked to minor product innovation appears to be more prevalent than strategic alliances among SMEs.
In addition, while SMEs prefer collaborating with other rms
for technology purchasing (where there is no danger of technol-
Table 4
Correlation analysis between innovation and external information usages in SMEs. ogy exposure), they prefer universities and research centres to
other rms for strategic alliances relatively, though the number
Innovation performance External information usages
of alliances is fairly low. The reason seems to be that SMEs usually
Depth Breadth adopt acquisition strategies when they need quick access to the
Coefcient p-value Coefcient p-value
technology involved (Radnor et al., 1970) and/or where the tech-
value value nology developed by other rms offers the best option and they
do not have enough R&D capabilities or experiences for the tech-
Major product innovation 0.065** 0.001 0.091** 0.000
Minor product innovation 0.063** 0.002 0.106** 0.000 nology considering their limited resources (Hamel et al., 1989). On
Service innovation 0.099** 0.000 0.074** 0.000 the other hand, where SMEs plan longer-term technology develop-
Process innovation 0.029 0.160 0.047* 0.021 ment in strategic alliance situations, collaborations with university
*
p-value less than 0.05. and research centres focusing on more fundamental research are
**
p-value less than 0.01. more likely to be indicated. Another nding is that many SMEs
296 S. Lee et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 290300
Table 5
Collaboration patterns in SMEs.
have experienced technology purchasing from collaborations with The table shows that the difculties in SMEs are quite differ-
industry non-competitors and business service providers (49% ent from those in large rms. SMEs suffer from labour shortages,
and 40% respectively), and while their evaluation of contribution lack of information, lack of infrastructure and lack of nan-
to innovation reported are relatively low in each case (2.95 and cial resources, while large rms indicates such difculties as
2.86 respectively), the degree of satisfaction increases to 3.10 and oligopolists, needlessness of innovation, R&D department with-
3.03 respectively where the collaboration type was the more active out power. The difculties in labour shortage, lack of information,
strategic alliance form (see texts in bold). It seems that when SMEs and nancial resources can be relived by collaboration, and those
collaborate with others who are not in their eld, greater efforts are with lack of information and lack of infrastructure could be allevi-
required if the collaboration is to yield the desired benets. ated to some extent by the action of an intermediary to help them
complete innovation activities more effectively.
Table 6
Barriers to innovation in SMEs compared to large rms.
Table 7
KICMS collaboration facilitating activities.
networking mode where network members share funding and risks Table 8
Summary of SMEs in network M.
to help realise rapid and exible production and open new mar-
kets. By 2007, 4415 rms and other organisations, ranging from Firm Role Previous main business Sizea
non-prot organisations to very large rms, had become KICMS type
members. M R&D (marketing) Satellite dish 27
KICMSs intermediary activities can be classied into four (manufacturing)
categories. The rst is collaboration research to discover effec- H Marketing, distribution Transportation service 145
(export/import agency)
tive ways to facilitate collaboration; the second is to support
C Components Telecommunications 15
construction of collaboration structures by collecting data about components
members, training staff, designing geographical clusters, mak- (wholesale-retail trade)
ing connections with international collaboration partners, etc.; K1 Manufacturing Electronics 10
(manufacturing)
the third is to provide consulting services during collaboration,
K2 Manufacturing Moulding (manufacturing) 10
regarding the match between SMEs, SWOT analysis, process
a
innovation, conict resolution, advice on law/tax/accountancy, Size is measured by the number of employers.
etc.; and the fourth is open markets for SMEs, which has been
the area that causes SMEs most difculty in their attempts to
consisting of ve rms that have collaborated to commercialise
successfully commercialise and diffuse their innovative technolo-
a Flat Satellite Dish (FSD) embodying Wave Guide Horn (WGH)1
gies. These innovation-encouraging activities are summarised in
antenna technology to verify the feasibility of suggested model.
Table 7.
WGH antenna technology is regarded as an incomplete technol-
Through KICMSs intermediation, a number of CF2 s have
ogy, only previously used for military purposes in a few advanced
been organised and led on to successful business collabora-
countries. However, one Korean SME possessed the technology
tions. Theoretically, various networking models can be designed
sufciently for civil application, and developed the worlds rst
but we nd the following four presented in 51 consortia are
antenna embodying WGH technology. Despite the considerable
the dominant collaborative structures: (1) R&D-focused CF2 s; (2)
potential of its innovation, however, rm M had cost and quality
manufacturing-focused CF2 s; (3) marketing-focused CF2 s; and (4)
problems in seeking to commercialise the WGH antenna by itself.
new business-focused CF2 s. 15 consortia were R&D-focused CF2 s,
To solve these difculties, rm M decided to collaborate with other
where the R&D-specic rm took the main role in the network
specialised rms, contacted KICMS for help, and nally organised
with their core technology and pursued opportunities for radical
a collaboration network. It hoped that would allow it to construct
innovation by forming a network with others who are specialised
a stable and price-competitive production system: the other col-
in manufacturing and marketing. The largest number of cases (30)
laborators expected that participation in the commercialisation
involved manufacturing-focused CF2 s, most of which focused on
of such a promising innovation would lead to increases in their
incremental innovation. In these consortia, the manufacturing rm
sales.
organised networks with an R&D and marketing rms for new
Examining briey the role of each actor in the network (see
product development, product improvement or new market devel-
also Table 8): KICMS helped to construct the network and provided
opment. An alternative type of network was composed of several
the consulting service during collaboration; Leading rm M mainly
manufacturing rms, aiming to co-develop, co-manufacture and
focused on R&D, determining specications for the antenna and the
co-sell multi-technology products. Neither marketing-focused CF2 s
system, developing a computer program, and designing produc-
nor new business-focused CF2 s were so common, with only three
tion procedures, and managing the overall collaboration process.
cases of each type. In the former, a marketing rm which has
Firm K1 was in charge of managing the FSD products production
received an order may play the leading role in a network with
process and of manufacturing electric circuits and gears, a function
an R&D rm and a manufacturing rm (usually for incremental
that had previously been outsourced, leading to frequent problems.
innovation), or a manufacturing rm takes full responsibility for
Firm K2 took charge of the casing, injection moulding and plating of
manufacturing, while other, marketing, rms concentrate their
the antenna. The rm suggested various ideas for customising the
efforts on sales through their business connections or open a new
antennae for customers and also contributed to reducing costs by
market. By contrast, in the latter, all rms were involved in the
suggesting a cheaper and better way injection moulding method.
whole process of identifying new products and services, manu-
Firm C supplied all except core components at lower wholesale
facturing and marketing them to realise radical innovations. A
prices, leading to savings on previous purchasing costs of over 15%.
graphical description of each model is presented in Fig. 4.
Firm H played a central role in distribution, especially for the cus-
toms procedures and delivery of overseas orders, contributing to
4.2.2. A successful collaboration case
As KICMS has only been established for three years, it is not
easy to evaluate nal success or failure of CF2 s, but many of the 1
A Wave Guide Horn is a pipe made by an electric conductor like copper which
CF2 s have been doing satisfactory business. From amongst them, acts as a transmitter to transfer electronic energy or high frequency (more than
this paper presents the case of network M, and R&D-focused CF2 , Microwave i.e. above 1 GHz) signals.
298 S. Lee et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 290300
increased expertise and cost reductions in distribution. Particularly 4.4. Managerial implications
in this case, the rm M also needed to participate in marketing,
since an entirely new technology was involved in the product, and Several points arise from the analysis of the activities of KICMS. It
potential customers needed to understand the technology and the is almost impossible for SMEs to have a complete set of expertise in
product fully explained to them. Therefore, the network model is a technology (ideas), funding (products), and marketing (distribution
slightly modied version of an R&D-focused CF2 . channels) and so their ability to commercialise their innovation is
too often limited. However, the case in this research indicates that
4.3. Advantages SMEs can also commercialise competitively if they work together in
a exible and more open structure that can build on their individ-
The intermediated networking model causes transaction cost
ual competitive advantages. Nevertheless, SMEs should be cautious
but gives more benets if well organised and operated properly.
about networking: it is only one of the options they can take, and
Firstly, networking cuts the time to market for its idea. In the case
depending on the nature of the technology, of the market and of
of M, the CF2 was organised in February 2004, product planning
many other factors, keeping the technology inside the rm or com-
started in April, prototyping was completed in September, and
mercialising in partnership with a large rm may be better options.
nal sales contracts were achieved in December of the same year.
The CF2 -M case studied here indicates how a collaboration
It took only eight months from product planning to building the
network beneted SMEs in transforming an invention into an inno-
production systems: this swift construction of such an effective
vation. The SMEs in the network were all specialists in their areas,
production system based on the joint efforts of specialised SMEs to
but, more importantly, they made considerable efforts in terms of
overcome their limitations in commercialising a competitive tech-
trust creation, information networking, procedural learning and
nology shows the clear benets of the collaboration. Secondly, SMEs
know-how transfer, which contributed greatly to the networks
can access complementary assets without the participation of any
success. Mutual trust in a cooperative relationship is essential to
large rms. In the case of M, the network model provided a basis
its ultimate success, and, while an intermediary can provide a basis
for moving from invention to innovation based on its own compet-
itive advantages. The results of this collaboration for the leading
SME M, in terms of its total sales, sales of the collaboration product, Table 9
Results of collaboration case as reported by M.
cost reductions and working ratio of facilities, are summarised in
Table 9. Before (2003) After (2004) Change
Thirdly, beside those short-term results, the model enables Sales (total) 1 443 000a 7 752 000a 437% increase
SMEs to reinforce their strength. In the case of M, the rm was Sales (collaboration item) 865 000a 4 652 000a 438% increase
able to concentrate their capacity just on its R&D and marking Cost
efforts, which strengthened the market acceptance and diffusion of Vehicles use 300a 255a 13% decrease
its products. Finally, the network helps to create a number of inno- Domestic use 23a 19.55a 15% decrease
vative ideas by beneting from the active technological discussion Working ratio
and knowledge exchange with collaborative rms, which should Antenna test chamber 60% 70% 10% increase
provide it with several possibilities for future business diversity. Near eld system 65% 80% 15% increase
Network analyser 65% 85% 20% increase
Rapidly increasing sales are expected with the introduction of fur-
a
ther new models, which was also reported by the case. All gures in thousands of Korean Won.
S. Lee et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 290300 299
for this trust, each member must make continued efforts to develop provided the information that they need together with the basis of
it. trust, helping to organise their collaboration networks effectively.
How best to construct a network is also a signicant issue. For This research supports the concept of open innovation in SMEs by
a successful collaboration, network rms must understand each indicating effective networking as one possible way to facilitate
other and each others needs. KICMS does not have an advanced their innovation capabilities.
system for recommending suitable members based on partner Nevertheless, future research is still needed to improve our cur-
selection criteria, and while it supports a consulting service to rent understanding of open innovation in SMEs as a whole. Firstly,
evaluate suitability, as more SMEs join the association, a more sys- we have indicated several possibilities of facilitating innovation in
tematic evaluation process will be needed, involving not just lists of SMEs, and then restricted our focus to the collaboration network
SMEs, but also data on various aspects of their operations includ- model. However, other possibilities could be fruitfully examined
ing their strengths and weaknesses, and their capacity, vision and through a framework encompassing the concept of open innova-
characteristics to be used as criteria for organising the best net- tion and using quantitative data. Secondly, the several terms used to
works. Another issue is an appropriate number of collaboration describe this collaboration mode, such as strategic alliance, collab-
partners. External search breadth and depth are related to innova- oration, co-operation, networking, etc. which are used together
tive performance, taking an inverted U-shape (Laursen and Salter, to point the same or different patterns and thus are quite confus-
2006). If rms use too many sources of external knowledge for their ing need to be clearly dened. Finally, based on the literature
innovative activities, negative returns might set in. These phenom- review and the KICMS case, this paper tries to dene the role of
ena can be applied to networking and thus careful consideration is intermediary and more research using survey or interview meth-
needed when networks are organised. ods will statistically support the ndings of this paper. For example,
Finally, we did observe cases of CF2 failures even where a col- future research can focus on analysing more CF2 cases in terms of
laboration network had been successfully organised. One critical their ratios of success and failure and the factors behind these out-
problem was lack of nancial resources: in spite of the joint invest- comes, and investigating how to improve the role of intermediary
ment of members rms, CF2 s can still lack sufcient funds in in terms of the matching algorithms and policy support. Also, the
production, operational or R&D areas, which can halt the progress future research is needed to nd the characteristics of SMEs that
of the collaboration. Recognising this problem, KICMS is attempt- are more likely to benet from collaboration and collaboration via
ing, as one solution, to incorporate more SMEs with substantial an intermediary in particular.
funds into the networks they help to set up another solution
could be institutional support at the government level. Korea pri-
Acknowledgements
oritises collaborative SMEs as beneciaries of government funding,
but the evaluation criteria currently depend mainly on the indi-
The authors are greatly indebted to KICMS for its case study
vidual rms past business results, whereas it might be better to
results and valuable comments on this research. Also STEPI, which
base the evaluation process and estimates of likely future success
published technology innovation survey results and allowed us to
on the business validity, growth potential and expected sales of the
use them for research, is greatly acknowledged. We appreciate the
collaboration.
editor and anonymous reviewers giving valuable comments on the
earlier versions of this paper. This work is supported by the Dong-
5. Conclusion guk University research fund.
At the stage that a movement from a relatively closed busi-
ness model to a very open one has posed challenges for SMEs, it References
is important to address their innovatory capabilities in the context
of open innovation. This paper attempts to identify the potential Argote, L., Ingram, P., 2000. Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage
in rms. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 82, 150169.
of open innovation for SMEs, and to develop collaboration models
Audretsch, D., Vivarelli, M., 1996. Firm size and R&D spillovers: evidence from Italy.
to enhance this potential. These models are classied into several Small Business Economics 8, 249258.
modes, according to the actors in the models, and each actors role Barney, J., Clark, D., 2007. Resource-based Theory: Creating and Sustaining Compet-
itive Advantage. Oxford University Press, NY.
is dened. On the premise that commercialisation after invention
Baum, J.A.C., Calabrese, T., Silverman, B.S., 2000. Dont go it alone: alliance network
is essential for innovation, and that SMEs are good at inventions composition and starups performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic
but lack adequate resources for commercialisation, we suggest that Management Journal 21 (3), 267294.
one possibility to boost open innovation in SMEs lies in collabora- Bougrain, F., Haudeville, B., 2002. Innovation, collaboration and SMEs internal
research capacities. Research Policy 31, 735747.
tion with other rms at the commercialisation stage. Of various Chesbrough, H., 2003. Open Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
collaboration modes, an intermediated network model is inves- Christensen, J.F., Olsesen, M.H., Kjr, J.S., 2005. The industrial dynamics of open inno-
tigated, which reects the open innovation concept, and the role vation evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research
Policy 34, 15331549.
of an intermediary in organising the network is examined, which Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learn-
takes account of SMEs limited ability in searching for partners and ing and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1), 128152.
contributes to building trust between network members. Cooke, P., 2005. Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation.
Research Policy 34, 11281149.
We also analysed technology innovation survey data to under- Davenport, S., Davies, J., Grimes, C., 1999. Collaborative research programmes: build-
stand the current condition of innovation activities among Korean ing trust from difference. Technovation 19, 3140.
SMEs. From this analysis, we explored the role of external actors in Edwards, T., Delbridge, R., Munday, M., 2005. Understanding innovation in small and
medium-sized enterprises: a process manifest. Technovation 25, 11191120.
their innovation process, and also identied the barriers to inno-
Fontana, R., Geuna, A., Matt, M., 2006. Factors affecting university-industry R&D
vation, based on which a network model is suggested and the projects: the importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research Policy
necessity of an intermediary is highlighted. To verify the feasibility 35, 309323.
Gulati, R., 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal 19, 293317.
of the model, we introduce the case of KICMS, which was estab-
Hagedoorn, J., 1993. Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partner-
lished to support the virtual organisation of Korean SMEs and has ing: interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic
encouraged them to establish cross-functional collaborative net- Management Journal 14, 371385.
works. With the help of KICMS a number of consortiums (called Hamel, G., Doz, Y., Prahalad, C., 1989. Collaborate with our competitors and win.
Harvard Business Review 68, 7991.
CF2 s) have been organised to compete against large rms. KICMS Henkel, J., 2006. Selective revealing in open innovation processes: the case of embed-
has introduced the collaboration models actively to the SMEs and ded Linux. Research Policy 35, 953969.
300 S. Lee et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 290300
Hoffman, K., Parejo, M., Bessant, J., Perren, L., 1998. Small rms R&D, technology and Narula, R., 2002. R&D collaboration by SMEs: some analytical issues and evidence. In:
innovation in the UK: a literature review. Technovation 18 (1), 3955. Contractor, F., Lorange, A. (Eds.), Cooperative Strategies and Alliances. Pergamon
Inkpen, A.C., Tsang, E.W.K., 2005. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Press.
Academy of Management Review 30 (1), 146165. Narula, R., 2004. R&D collaboration by SMEs: new opportunities and limitations in
Jones, O., Tilley, F. (Eds.), 2003. Competitive Advantage in SMEs: organizing for the face of globalisation. Technovation 25, 153161.
Innovation and Change. Wiley, Chichester. Paniccia, I., 1998. One, a hundred, thousands of industrial districts. Organizational
Julien, P.A., 2002. Les P.M.E.: Bilan et Perspectives. Economica, Paris. variety in local networks of small and medium-sized enterprises. Organization
Kleinknecht, A., Reijnen, J.O.N., 1992. Why do rms co-operate on R&D? An empirical Studies 19 (4), 667699.
study. Research Policy 21, 347360. Powell, W.W., Owen-Smith, J., 1999. Network position and rm performance: orga-
Knoke, D., Kuklinski, J., 1983. Network Analysis. Sage, LA. nizational returns to collaboration in the biotechnology industry. Research in
Kogut, B., Shan, W., Walter, G., 1992. The make-or-cooperate decision in the con- the Sociology of Organizations 16, 129159.
text of an industry network. In: Nohria, N., Eccles, R.G. (Eds.), Networks and Radnor, M., Rubenstein, A.H., Tansik, D.A., 1970. Implementation in operations
Organizations: Structure, Form and Action. HBS Press, Boston. research and R&D in government and business organization. Operations
Laursen, K., Salter, A.J., 2004. Searching high and low: what type of rms use uni- Research 18 (6).
versities as a source of innovation? Research Policy 33 (8), 12011215. Rosenberg, N., Mowery, D., 1978. The inuence of market demand upon innova-
Laursen, K., Salter, A.J., 2006. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining tion: a critical review of some recent empirical studies. Research Policy 8 (2),
innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing rms. Strategic Manage- 102153.
ment Journal 27, 131150. Rosenfeld, S., 1996. Does co-operation enhance competitiveness? Assessing the
Lee Jr., K.B., Burrill, G.S., 1994. Biotech 95 Reform, Restructure, Renewal. Ernst & impacts of inter-rm collaboration. Research Policy 25, 247263.
Young, Palo Alto, CA. Rothaermel, F.T., Deeds, D.L., 2004. Exploration and exploitation alliance in biotech-
Lee, C., 2007. Strategic alliances inuence on small and medium rm performance. nology: a system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal
Journal of Business Research 60, 731741. 25 (3), 201222.
Lichtenthaler, U., 2003. Third generation management of technology intelligence Rothwell, R., 1991. External networking and innovation in small and medium-sized
processes. R&D Management 33, 361375. manufacturing rms in Europe. Technovation 11 (2), 93112.
Lichtenthaler, U., 2005. External commercialization of knowledge: review and Rothwell, R., Dodgson, M., 1994. Innovation and size of rm. In: Dodgson, M. (Ed.),
research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 7, 231255. Handbook of Industrial Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Aldershot,
Lichtenthaler, U., 2008. Leveraging technology assets in the presence of markets for pp. 310324.
knowledge. European Management Journal 26, 122134. SBS, 2001. Small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) statistics for the UK. Small
Luukkonen, T., 2005. Variability in organisational forms of biotechnology rms. Business Service, press release, 21 June.
Research Policy 34, 55570. Shaw, E., 1998. Social networks: their impact on the innovative behaviour of
Makadok, R., Barney, J.B., 2001. Strategic factor market intelligence: an application small service rms. International Journal of Innovation Management 2 (2),
of information economics to strategy formulation and competitor. Management 201222.
Science 47, 16211638. Simard, C., West, J., 2006. Knowledge networks and locus of innovation. In: Ches-
Mangematin, V., Lemari, S., Boissin, J.-P., Catherine, D., Corolleur, F., Corolini, R., brough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. (Eds.), Open Innovation: Researching a
Trommetter, M., 2003. Development of SMEs and heterogeneity of trajectories: New Paradigm. Oxford University Press, NY.
the case of biotechnology in biotechnology rms. Research Policy 32, 737750. Tidd, J., Trewhella, M., 1997. Organizational and technological antecedents for
Maranto-Vargas, D., Gmez-Tagle Rangel, R., 2007. Development of internal knowledge creation and learning. R&D Management 27, 359375.
resources and capabilities as sources of differentiation of SME under increased Vanhaverbeke, W., Cloodt, M., 2006. Open innovation in value networks. In: Ches-
global competition: a eld study in Mexico. Technological Forecasting and Social brough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. (Eds.), Open Innovation: Researching a
Change 74, 9099. New Paradigm. Oxford University Press, NY.
Maula, M.V.J., Keil, T., Salmenkaita, J.P., 2006. Open innovation in systemic inno- Vossen, R.W., 1998. Research note-relative strengths and weaknesses of small rms
vation context. In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. (Eds.), Open in innovation. International Small Business Journal 16 (3), 8894.
Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford University Press, NY. West, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., Chesbrough, H., 2006. Open innovation: a research
Mytelka, L., 1991. Crisis, technological change and the strategic alliance. In: Mytelka, agenda. In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. (Eds.), Open Innovation:
L. (Ed.), Strategic Partnerships and the World Economy. Printer, London, pp. Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford University Press, NY.
734.