Blog Allagi Open Innovation

2 Comments Add your own

• 1. Bruno Rondani  |  16/11/2008 at 00:07

  Com relação ao estudo da OCDE, o que mais me chamou a atenção foram os seguintes pontos:

  1) É muito comum o comentário de acadêmicos e pessoas ligadas ao tema da inovação: “Mas o que o OI trás de novo? Tudo já foi tratado anteriormente por outros autores”

  Para o que responde o trabalho da OCDE na página 24:

  “Open innovation in the innovation literature
  The trend towards more openness in innovation has become more prominent but it is not new. The innovation literature has long recognised that companies do not innovate in isolation but co-operate with external partners throughout the innovation process. The emphasis on open innovation primarily reflects greater awareness of the organisation of innovative activities (technological as well as non-technological) across firm boundaries with a more equal balance of internal and external sources (Acha, 2007). The novelty of the concept of “open innovation”, coined by Chesbrough (2003), lies especially in the fact that the open innovation process has become an integral part of companies’ innovation strategy and business model. Additionally, the concept draws attention not only to the importance of knowledge sourcing but also to the exploitation of internal innovation together with external partners (the so-called inside-out process)”.

  2) Outro comentário muito comum que as pessoas fazem ao tormar contato com o conceito de OI: “Ao referir-se ao modelo tradicional de inovação como modelo fechado, Chesbrough não acaba incorrendo em uma dicotomia perigosa. Tratar o processo de inovação interno como algo ‘old fashioned’ por que é velho e o externo como algo ‘cool’ por que é novo’, pode ser muito perigoso”.

  No trabalho da OCDE na página 37:

  “Modes of open innovation
  The “old” closed and “new” open models of innovation are typically presented as two extremes of a spectrum ranging from doing everything in house (vertical integration) to outsourcing everything to external partners. However, Dahlander and Gann (2007) explore different degrees and types of openness and convincingly argue that the dichotomy is artificial. Chesbrough and Teece (1996) reported that most companies use a mix of approaches: they purchase some technologies from other companies, acquire others through licences, partnerships and alliances, and develop still other critical technologies internally. Companies’ innovation strategies combine characteristics of both innovation models and the degree of openness depends on factors such as the importance of the technology, the firm’s business strategy, the industry’s characteristics, etc. Companies traditionally seek to retain their core capabilities and decide what to outsource or with whom to collaborate on innovation on that basis”.

  3) Alguns indagam por que OI teria relevância em um país como o Brasil, se tão poucas empresas por aqui criaram ‘grandes centros de P&D interno’. Ou seja, como o país pode adotar práticas de OI sem a condição básica que é ter atividades de P&D nas empresas estabelecidas:

  Na pág 129 do estudo há um comentário interessante:

  “There is also a north-south dimension: globalisation and open innovation provide opportunities for developing countries to access research and innovation networks to accelerate their own development but it also creates a risk that national resources may be shifted away from country needs to meet the short term objectives of foreign-based platforms.”

  4) Sobre a participação das universidades no processo de OI:

  Na página 116:

  “Universities have learned the value of protecting IP generated with public research funds but the management of IP in an open innovation context – as opposed to the technology transfer approach of licensing patents – remains a challenge, especially in their interactions with firms. Universities may also tend to overvalue or undervalue their IP, which can lead to difficulties in collaborating with industry”

  Esse desafio, ao meu ver ainda está sendo muito pouco tratado na literatura, e pode ser um excelente problema de pesquisa.

  Finalmente, deixo o quadro final sobre as conclusões do excelente trabalho da OCDE:

  “Box 4.1. Policy lessons from the case studies on globalization and open innovation
  The case studies on open innovation have provided a better understanding of the impact of globalisation and open innovation at the level of firms. This understanding is critical to improve the design of innovation policies and instruments. Among the policy-relevant findings that emerged are the following:
  ● The technology life cycle matters. The case studies on firms in a broad range of sectors and industries have shown that the incidence of open innovation is related not only to the size of the company but also to its position in the technology life cycle. When the technology is rather new and explorative, companies and other research organisations actively collaborate to find solutions in the market. This has implications for public research institutes.
  ● Open innovation requires a differentiated approach to knowledge sourcing and development. The emphasis on external co-operation and in-house knowledge diffusion varies. With regard to external linkages, the nature of knowledge and customer bases is important for shaping structure and strategy. Consequently, openness towards various external actors also varies.
  ● University knowledge plays a key role in the exploration phase of open innovation. Large firms in the case studies were especially concerned by access to public research upstream. CIS-4 data on collaboration show that collaboration between universities and small firms remains weak.
  ● A pro-active strategy towards management and use of intellectual property rights (IPR) is important for open innovation. Universities tend to be less well equipped in this area, however, making collaboration with firms difficult.
  ● Trust matters. The case study exercise identified trust and commitment as especially important for the success of open innovation strategies.
  ● There are organisational limitations to open innovation and there are often trade-offs between different approaches, resulting in experimentation through trial and error. Increased networking also generates greater costs.
  ● Building a culture of open innovation in companies requires rewarding teamwork and organisational changes that foster internal and external collaboration. This requires work arrangements that encourage and reward risk taking.
  ● Small firms’ participation in open innovation is limited owing to internal resource constraints.
  ● Technology markets matter in helping foster open innovation. The ability to use inside-out and outside-in strategies is facilitated by frameworks that allow for the purchase or sale of intellectual assets that can create value and opportunities for firms inside or outside their core businesses”.

• 2. Gandhi e a inovação em tempos de Obama « Blog Allagi Open Innovation  |  03/12/2008 at 19:00

  [...] de integrar os EUA às redes globais de inovação (global innovation networks, já abordadas em outro post deste blog). O autor [...]

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed