Manufacturing and open innovation

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139192255.009

8 - Manufacturing and open innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2014

Olli Ikkala and

F. Livesey ,

L. Mortara ,

J. Napp ,

Y. Shi and

Y. Zhang

Show author details

Tapani Ryhänen: Affiliation:
Nokia Research Center, Cambridge
Mikko A. Uusitalo: Affiliation:
Nokia Research Center, Helsinki
Olli Ikkala: Affiliation:
Helsinki University of Technology
Asta Kärkkäinen: Affiliation:
Nokia Research Center, Cambridge
T. Minshall: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
F. Livesey: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
L. Mortara: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
J. Napp: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Y. Shi: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Y. Zhang: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter discusses the changing ways by which value can be created and captured from nanotechnologies for future mobile devices. These issues are discussed from three perspectives. Firstly, attention is focused on how advanced technologies emerging from public and private laboratories can be transformed into products and services. Secondly, we look at how new, “open” models of innovation are emerging and discuss the opportunities and challenges this new approach presents for firms. Thirdly, we examine the changing ways in which manufacturing activities are coordinated and, in particular, the emergence of value creation networks as illustrated by changes in the mobile communications sector.

To allow discussion of these wide-ranging and interlinked activities, in this chapter we apply a broad definition of “manufacturing” as follows [1]:

Manufacturing is the full cycle of activity from understanding markets through design and production, to distribution and support, including after sales services and end of life management.

In this chapter, we will use the concept of the manufacturing value chain (see Figure 8.1) which allows us to consider the individual activities, the linkages between the activities, and also the manufacturing operation as a whole.

Commercialization of nanotechnologies

Commercialization of basic research outputs is typically a high-cost, long-timeframe, and high-risk activity. Such research outputs face numerous technological and market uncertainties. Basic research outputs are typified by being at a low level of “readiness” [2] but can be radical or incremental, disruptive or sustaining, and generic or specific in application.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Nanotechnologies for Future Mobile Devices , pp. 229 - 249

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192255.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

[1] M., Gregory, P., Hanson, A. J., van Bochoven, and F., Livesey, Making the Most of Production. University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing, 2003.Google Scholar

[2] J. C., Mankins, Technology Readiness Levels: A White Paper. 1995, NASA. From: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/trl/trl.pdf.

[3] J. D., Linton and S. T., Walsh, A theory of innovation for process-based innovations such as nanotechnology, Technol. Forecasting Social Change, 75, 583-594, 2008.Google Scholar

[4] S., Lubik and E. W., Garnsey, Commercializing nanotechnology innovations from university spin-out companies, Nanotechnol. Perceptions, 4, 225-238, 2008.Google Scholar

[5] E., Maine and E. W., Garnsey, Commercializing generic technology: The case of advanced materials, Res. Policy, 35, 375-393, 2006.Google Scholar

[6] J., Chen, H., Doumanidis, K., Lyons, J., Murday, and M. C., Roco, Manufacturing at the nanoscale: National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop Report. National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology, 2007.Google Scholar

[7] H., Chesbrough, W., Vanhaverbeke, and J., West, eds. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press, 2006.

[8] H., Chesbrough, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Press, 2003.Google Scholar

[9] M., Docherty, Primer on ‘Open Innovation’: Principles and Practice, pp. 13-17, Vision (Product Development and Management Association), 2006.Google Scholar

[10] E., von Hippel, The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar

[11] E., von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation, The MIT Press, 2005.Google Scholar

[12] C., Hienerth, The commercialization of user innovations: the development of the rodeo kayak industry, R&D Management, 36, no. 6, 273-294, 2006.Google Scholar

[13] F. T., Piller and D., Walcher, Toolkits for idea competitions: anovel method to integrate users in new product development, R&D Management, 36, no. 3, 307-318, 2006.Google Scholar

[14] J. D., Blascovich and W., Markham, How procurement excellence creates value, Supply Chain Management Rev., 9, no. 5, 44-52, 2005.Google Scholar

[15] R. L., Chapman and M., Corso, From continuous improvement to collaborative innovation: the next challenge in supply chain management, Production Planning & Control, 16, no. 4, 339-344, 2005.Google Scholar

[16] Procurement Strategy Council, First Among Equals – Using Customer of Choice Strategies to Capture Supplier Innovation, 2006.

[17] S. A., Alvarez and J. B., Barney, How entrepreneurial firms can benefit from alliances with large partners, Acad. Management Executive, 15, no. 1, 139-148, 2001.Google Scholar

[18] A., De Meyer, Using Strategic partnerships to create a sustainable competitive position for high tech start-up firms, R&D Management, 29, no. 4, 323-328, 1999.Google Scholar

[19] T. H. W., Minshall, L., Mortara, and J. J., Napp. Implementing open innovation: challenges in linking strategic and operational factors for HTSFs working with large firms. In Proceedings of the 15th High Tech Small Firms Conference (2007), Manchester Business School, 2007.Google Scholar

[20] T. H. W., Minshall, L., Mortara, S., Elia, and D., Probert, Development of practitioner guidelines for partnerships between start-ups and large firms, J. Manufacturing Tech. Management, 19: 3, 391-406, 2008.Google Scholar

[21] W. M., Cohen, R. R., Nelson, and J., Walsh, Links and impacts: the influence of public research on IndustrialR&D, Management Sci., 48, no. 1, 1-23, 2002.Google Scholar

[22] K., Laursen and A., Salter, Searching high and low: what type of firms use universities as a source of innovation?, Research Policy, 33, no. 8, 1201-1215, 2004.Google Scholar

[23] M., Abreau, V, Grinevich, A., Hughes, M., Kitson, and P., Ternouth, Universities, Business and Knowledge Exchange. Council for Industry and Higher Education, University of Cambridge Centre for Business Research, 2008.Google Scholar

[24] H., Chesbrough, Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape, Harvard Business School Press, 2006.Google Scholar

[25] J., de Wit, B., Dankbaar, and G., Vissers, Open innovation: the new way of knowledge transfer?, J. Business Chemistry, 4, no. 1, 11-19, 2007.Google Scholar

[26] R., Lambert, Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration: Final Report. HM Treasury, www.lambertreview.org.uk, 2003.Google Scholar

[27] I., Drejer and B. H., Jørgensen, The dynamic creation of knowledge: analysing public private collaborations. Technovation, 25, no. 2, 83-94, 2005.Google Scholar

[28] J. S., Gans and S., Stern, The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs, Res. Policy, 32: 2, 333-350, 2003.Google Scholar

[29] S., Nambisan and M., Sawhney, A buyer's guide to the innovation bazaar. Harvard Business Rev., 85:6, 109-118, 2007.Google Scholar

[30] V., van de Vrande, C., Lemmens, and W., Vanhaverbeke, Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing, R&D Management, 36, no. 3, 347-363, 2006.Google Scholar

[31] B., Kogut, Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives, Strategic Management J., 9, 319-332, 1988.Google Scholar

[32] O. E., Williamson, Comparative economic organisation: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives, Administrative Sci. Quart., 36, 269-296, 1991.Google Scholar

[33] D., Leonard-Barton, Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining Sources of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, 1995.Google Scholar

[34] F., Bidault and T., Cummings, Innovating through alliances: experiences and limitations, R&D Management, 24, no. 1, 1994.Google Scholar

[35] F., Chiaromonte, Open innovation through alliances and partnership: theory and practice, Int. J. Technol. Management, 33, no. 2/3, 111-114, 2006.Google Scholar

[36] R. N., Osborn and J., Hagedoorn, The institutionalization and evolutionary dynamics of interorganizational alliances and networks. Acad. Management J, 40, no. 2, 261-278, 1997.Google Scholar

[37] U., Lichtenthaler, Corporate technologyout-licensing: motives and scope, World Patent Information, 29: 2, 117-121, 2007.Google Scholar

[38] S., Vishwasrao, Royalties vs. fees: how do firms pay for foreign technology?, Intl. J. Ind. Organization, 25, no. 4, 741-759, 2007.Google Scholar

[39] C., Tomkins, Interdependencies, trust and information in relationships, alliances and networks, Accounting, Organisations and Society, 26, no. 2, 161-191, 2001.Google Scholar

[40] R., Agarwal, R., Echambadi, A. M., Franco, and M. B., Sarkar, Knowledge transfer through inheritance: spin-out generation, development, and survival, Acad. Management J., 47, no. 4, 501-522, 2004.Google Scholar

[41] M., Swink, Building collaborative innovation capability, Research Technology Management, 49, no. 2, 37-47, 2006.Google Scholar

[42] A., Cosh, A., Hughes, and R. K., Lester, UK plc: Just How Innovative Are We?, Cambridge MIT Institute, www.cambridge-mit.org, 2006.Google Scholar

[43] C. I. V., Kerr, L., Mortara, R., Phaal, and D. R., Probert, A conceptual model for technology intelligence, Intl. J. Technol. Intelligence and Planning, 2, no. 1, 73-93, 2006.Google Scholar

[44] J. J., Quinn, How companies keep abreast of technological change, Long Range Planning, 18, no. 2, 69-76, 1985.Google Scholar

[45] E., Lichtenthaler, Technological change and the technology intelligence process: acase study, J. Eng. Technol. Management, 21, no. 4, 313-348, 2004.Google Scholar

[46] R., Schwartz and J., Mayne, Assuring the quality of evaluative information: theory and practice. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, no. 1, 1-14, 2005.Google Scholar

[47] J., Hogan, Open innovation or open house: how to prototect your most valuable assets, Medical Device Technology, 16, no. 3, 30-31, 2005.Google Scholar

[48] G., Slowinski, E., Hummel, and R., Kumpf, Protecting know-how and trade secrets in collaborative R&D relationships, Research Technol. Management, 49, no. 4, 30-38, 2006.Google Scholar

[49] M. O. L., Collins, Venturing a solution. British J. Administrative Management, 49, 26-27, 2005.Google Scholar

[50] H., Ernst, P., Witt, and G., Brachtendorf, Corporate venture capital as a strategy for external innovation: an exploratory empirical study, R&D Management, 35, no. 3, 233-242, 2005.Google Scholar

[51] S. K., Markham, S. T., Gentry, D., Hume, et al., Strategies and tactics for external corporate venturing, Research Technol. Management, 48, no. 2, 49-59, 2005.Google Scholar

[52] W., Vanhaverbeke and N., Peeters, Embracing innovation as strategy: corporate venturing, competence building and corporate strategy making. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, no. 3, 2005.Google Scholar

[53] V., van de Vrande, C., Lemmens, and W., Vanhaverbeke, Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing, R&D Management, 36, no. 3, 247-363, 2006.Google Scholar

[54] Lux_Research, The Nanotech Report Investment Overview and Market Research for Nanotechnology, Lux Research Inc., 2007.

[55] Nokia, Open Threads: Nokia Open Innovation Newsletter, Nokia Research Centre, 2009.

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.