The 'Three archetypes of the Open Innovation Process' (Gassmann and Enkel, 2004) is a theory that identifies with my organisation problem.
Why is this theory useful for understanding the problem you have identified?
Three Archetypes of the Open Innovation Process (Gassmann and Enkel, 2004, p. 13) is an incredibly useful theory for my organisational problem. Here it argues that a 'closed' innovation approach, where, in terms of my organisation, all engineering solutions are developed in house, is fine if high risk is involved and you have a unique product. In terms of my organisation there is already technology out there that could be used to speed our innovation process up and reduce cost (an 'open approach'). Using a 'coupled approach' (aspects of in house development and partnerships) is something my organisation could use to make engineering delivery more efficient.
What does this theory not tell you about your problem?
The theory is written as if buy-in and resource is freely available. It also perceives that an explicit R&D process is in force, which again, is not the case within my organisation. Although the theory would work well within my organisation, it is the culture, the lack of buy-in, the influence of senior management that may make this theory more difficult to sell, as well as there only being an implicit R&D strategy and process.
What other areas of literature might you search for to help you in addressing the shortcomings you have identified?
Other literature could be:
'Achieving synergy between strategy and innovation' Dobni, 2010 which addresses not just the technological aspect, but the infrastructure, market and the culture.
'Foundations of dynamic capabilities and business performance' Teece, 2009, which addresses the threats associated with making such a change.
Critical Thinking (Literature review)
The 'Three archetypes of the Open Innovation Process' (Gassmann and Enkel, 2004) is a theory that identifies with my organisation problem.
Three Archetypes of the Open Innovation Process (Gassmann and Enkel, 2004, p. 13) is an incredibly useful theory for my organisational problem. Here it argues that a 'closed' innovation approach, where, in terms of my organisation, all engineering solutions are developed in house, is fine if high risk is involved and you have a unique product. In terms of my organisation there is already technology out there that could be used to speed our innovation process up and reduce cost (an 'open approach'). Using a 'coupled approach' (aspects of in house development and partnerships) is something my organisation could use to make engineering delivery more efficient.
- What does this theory not tell you about your problem?
The theory is written as if buy-in and resource is freely available. It also perceives that an explicit R&D process is in force, which again, is not the case within my organisation. Although the theory would work well within my organisation, it is the culture, the lack of buy-in, the influence of senior management that may make this theory more difficult to sell, as well as there only being an implicit R&D strategy and process.Other literature could be:
'Achieving synergy between strategy and innovation' Dobni, 2010 which addresses not just the technological aspect, but the infrastructure, market and the culture.
'Foundations of dynamic capabilities and business performance' Teece, 2009, which addresses the threats associated with making such a change.