Birth and expansion of innovation ecosystems: A case study of copper production

Despite the growing attention innovation ecosystems have received from scholars and practitioners, rather little is known about the crucial birth and expansion phases that these ecosystems experience. Through a single case in the complex product system (CoPS) environment, this paper investigates the development of an innovation ecosystem between 1980 and 2007. The findings demonstrate that the ecosystem’s birth phase includes sub-phases, namely, invention and start-up, where the ecosystem is reconfigured to find the appropriate form and the proper actors to satisfy the first customer’s requirements. Moreover, the duration of the expansion phase is found to be remarkably long, suggesting that within the CoPS setting, expansion may also include two or more sub-phases.

Do SMEs cluster around innovation activities? Discovering active, incremental and opportunistic innovators

Do SMEs cluster around different types of innovation activities? Are there patterns of SME innovation activities? To investigate we develop a taxonomy of innovation activities in SMEs using a qualitative study, followed by a survey. First, based upon our qualitative research and literature review we develop a comprehensive list of innovation activities SMEs typically engage in. We then conduct a factor analysis to determine if these activities can be combined into factors. We identify three innovation activity factors: R&D activities, incremental innovation activities and cost innovation activities. We use these factors to identify three clusters of firms engaging in similar innovation activities: active innovators, incremental innovators and opportunistic innovators. The clusters are enriched by validating that they also exhibit significant internal similarities and external differences in their innovation skills, demographics, industry segments and family business ownership. This research contributes to innovation and SME theory and practice by identifying SME clusters based upon their innovation activities.

Technology management tools: Generalization, integration and configuration

Managers in technology-intensive businesses need to make decisions in complex and dynamic environments. Many tools, frameworks and processes have been developed to support managers in these situations, leading to a proliferation of such approaches, with little consistency in terminology or theoretical foundation, and a lack of understanding of how such tools can be linked together to tackle management challenges in an integrated way. As a step towards addressing these issues, this paper proposes the concept of an integrated 'toolkit', incorporating generalized forms of three core technology management tools that support strategic planning (roadmapping, portfolio analysis and linked analysis grids). © 2006 World Scientific Publishing Company.

Why, how, what for? : motivations, actions and expectations in habitual entrepreneurship

Principal topic: Is habitual entrepreneurship different? Answering this is important to the field, however there is little systematic evidence, thus far. We addresses this by examining the role experience plays at three possible points of difference: motivations, actions and expectations; and by comparing those currently in the process of starting a business with those who have recent success in business creation. Firstly, we assess the balance of opportunity versus necessity motivation, internally versus externally stimulated decision processes and future growth aspirations. Literature suggests novices are more likely motivated to nascency out of necessity, and favour a manageable business size, while habitual entrepreneurs are more likely motivated by internally stimulated or idea driven processes. Secondly, we examine actions undertaken by successful experienced founders during gestation, contrasting ‘information collection’ and ‘opportunity definition’. Drawing on prior research we expect novices more likely to have enacted ‘information search’ while habitual entrepreneurs enact ‘opportunity definition’. Thirdly, we examine perceptions of venture success, where findings on overconfidence suggest that habitual entrepreneurs expect a higher chance of success for their ventures, while inexperience leads novices to underestimate the difficulty of entrepreneurial survival. Method: Empirical evidence to test these conjectures was drawn from a screened random sample of over 1100 Australian nascent and newly started business ventures. This information was collected during 2007/8 using a telephone survey. Results and Implications: Why do habitual entrepreneurs keep coming back? Findings suggest that while the pursuit of opportunity is shared by novice and experienced entrepreneur alike, consideration of repeat entrepreneurship may be motivated by a desire for growth. While idea driven motivations might not delineate a distinction during nascency, it does seem to be a factor contributing to the success of young firms. This warrants further research. How do habitual entrepreneurs behave differently? It seems they act to clearly define market opportunities as a matter of priority during venture gestation. What effect does entrepreneurial experience have on future expectations? Clearly a sense of realism is drawn over the difficulties that might be faced, and accords more circumspect judgements of venture survival. This finding informs practitioners considering entrepreneurship for the first time.

A review of models of spatial innovation infrastructures in support of high growth SMEs

This Paper first provides a review and analysis of the recent trends on innovation infrastructures developed in industrialised countries to promote innovation and competitiveness for high growth SMEs. It specifically aims to examine various spatial models developed to support provision of innovation infrastructure for high growth sector.

Value creation and value capture fro open source software publisher : a new business model based on mutualisation

Key topics: Since the birth of the Open Source movement in the mid-80's, open source software has become more and more widespread. Amongst others, the Linux operating system, the Apache web server and the Firefox internet explorer have taken substantial market shares to their proprietary competitors. Open source software is governed by particular types of licenses. As proprietary licenses only allow the software's use in exchange for a fee, open source licenses grant users more rights like the free use, free copy, free modification and free distribution of the software, as well as free access to the source code. This new phenomenon has raised many managerial questions: organizational issues related to the system of governance that underlie such open source communities (Raymond, 1999a; Lerner and Tirole, 2002; Lee and Cole 2003; Mockus et al. 2000; Tuomi, 2000; Demil and Lecocq, 2006; O'Mahony and Ferraro, 2007;Fleming and Waguespack, 2007), collaborative innovation issues (Von Hippel, 2003; Von Krogh et al., 2003; Von Hippel and Von Krogh, 2003; Dahlander, 2005; Osterloh, 2007; David, 2008), issues related to the nature as well as the motivations of developers (Lerner and Tirole, 2002; Hertel, 2003; Dahlander and McKelvey, 2005; Jeppesen and Frederiksen, 2006), public policy and innovation issues (Jullien and Zimmermann, 2005; Lee, 2006), technological competitions issues related to standard battles between proprietary and open source software (Bonaccorsi and Rossi, 2003; Bonaccorsi et al. 2004, Economides and Katsamakas, 2005; Chen, 2007), intellectual property rights and licensing issues (Laat 2005; Lerner and Tirole, 2005; Gambardella, 2006; Determann et al., 2007). A major unresolved issue concerns open source business models and revenue capture, given that open source licenses imply no fee for users. On this topic, articles show that a commercial activity based on open source software is possible, as they describe different possible ways of doing business around open source (Raymond, 1999; Dahlander, 2004; Daffara, 2007; Bonaccorsi and Merito, 2007). These studies usually look at open source-based companies. Open source-based companies encompass a wide range of firms with different categories of activities: providers of packaged open source solutions, IT Services&Software Engineering firms and open source software publishers. However, business models implications are different for each of these categories: providers of packaged solutions and IT Services&Software Engineering firms' activities are based on software developed outside their boundaries, whereas commercial software publishers sponsor the development of the open source software. This paper focuses on open source software publishers' business models as this issue is even more crucial for this category of firms which take the risk of investing in the development of the software. Literature at last identifies and depicts only two generic types of business models for open source software publishers: the business models of ''bundling'' (Pal and Madanmohan, 2002; Dahlander 2004) and the dual licensing business models (Välimäki, 2003; Comino and Manenti, 2007). Nevertheless, these business models are not applicable in all circumstances. Methodology: The objectives of this paper are: (1) to explore in which contexts the two generic business models described in literature can be implemented successfully and (2) to depict an additional business model for open source software publishers which can be used in a different context. To do so, this paper draws upon an explorative case study of IdealX, a French open source security software publisher. This case study consists in a series of 3 interviews conducted between February 2005 and April 2006 with the co-founder and the business manager. It aims at depicting the process of IdealX's search for the appropriate business model between its creation in 2000 and 2006. This software publisher has tried both generic types of open source software publishers' business models before designing its own. Consequently, through IdealX's trials and errors, I investigate the conditions under which such generic business models can be effective. Moreover, this study describes the business model finally designed and adopted by IdealX: an additional open source software publisher's business model based on the principle of ''mutualisation'', which is applicable in a different context. Results and implications: Finally, this article contributes to ongoing empirical work within entrepreneurship and strategic management on open source software publishers' business models: it provides the characteristics of three generic business models (the business model of bundling, the dual licensing business model and the business model of mutualisation) as well as conditions under which they can be successfully implemented (regarding the type of product developed and the competencies of the firm). This paper also goes further into the traditional concept of business model used by scholars in the open source related literature. In this article, a business model is not only considered as a way of generating incomes (''revenue model'' (Amit and Zott, 2001)), but rather as the necessary conjunction of value creation and value capture, according to the recent literature about business models (Amit and Zott, 2001; Chresbrough and Rosenblum, 2002; Teece, 2007). Consequently, this paper analyses the business models from these two components' point of view.

Drivers of technology substitution : successive generations of high tech products

Principal Topic High technology consumer products such as notebooks, digital cameras and DVD players are not introduced into a vacuum. Consumer experience with related earlier generation technologies, such as PCs, film cameras and VCRs, and the installed base of these products strongly impacts the market diffusion of the new generation products. Yet technology substitution has received only sparse attention in the diffusion of innovation literature. Research for consumer durables has been dominated by studies of (first purchase) adoption (c.f. Bass 1969) which do not explicitly consider the presence of an existing product/technology. More recently, considerable attention has also been given to replacement purchases (c.f. Kamakura and Balasubramanian 1987). Only a handful of papers explicitly deal with the diffusion of technology/product substitutes (e.g. Norton and Bass, 1987: Bass and Bass, 2004). They propose diffusion-type aggregate-level sales models that are used to forecast the overall sales for successive generations. Lacking household data, these aggregate models are unable to give insights into the decisions by individual households - whether to adopt generation II, and if so, when and why. This paper makes two contributions. It is the first large-scale empirical study that collects household data for successive generations of technologies in an effort to understand the drivers of adoption. Second, in comparision to traditional analysis that evaluates technology substitution as an ''adoption of innovation'' type process, we propose that from a consumer's perspective, technology substitution combines elements of both adoption (adopting the new generation technology) and replacement (replacing the generation I product with generation II). Based on this proposition, we develop and test a number of hypotheses. Methodology/Key Propositions In some cases, successive generations are clear ''substitutes'' for the earlier generation, in that they have almost identical functionality. For example, successive generations of PCs Pentium I to II to III or flat screen TV substituting for colour TV. More commonly, however, the new technology (generation II) is a ''partial substitute'' for existing technology (generation I). For example, digital cameras substitute for film-based cameras in the sense that they perform the same core function of taking photographs. They have some additional attributes of easier copying and sharing of images. However, the attribute of image quality is inferior. In cases of partial substitution, some consumers will purchase generation II products as substitutes for their generation I product, while other consumers will purchase generation II products as additional products to be used as well as their generation I product. We propose that substitute generation II purchases combine elements of both adoption and replacement, but additional generation II purchases are solely adoption-driven process. Extensive research on innovation adoption has consistently shown consumer innovativeness is the most important consumer characteristic that drives adoption timing (Goldsmith et al. 1995; Gielens and Steenkamp 2007). Hence, we expect consumer innovativeness also to influence both additional and substitute generation II purchases. Hypothesis 1a) More innovative households will make additional generation II purchases earlier. 1 b) More innovative households will make substitute generation II purchases earlier. 1 c) Consumer innovativeness will have a stronger impact on additional generation II purchases than on substitute generation II purchases. As outlined above, substitute generation II purchases act, in part like a replacement purchase for the generation I product. Prior research (Bayus 1991; Grewal et al 2004) identified product age as the most dominant factor influencing replacements. Hence, we hypothesise that: Hypothesis 2: Households with older generation I products will make substitute generation II purchases earlier. Our survey of 8,077 households investigates their adoption of two new generation products: notebooks as a technology change to PCs, and DVD players as a technology shift from VCRs. We employ Cox hazard modelling to study factors influencing the timing of a household's adoption of generation II products. We determine whether this is an additional or substitute purchase by asking whether the generation I product is still used. A separate hazard model is conducted for additional and substitute purchases. Consumer Innovativeness is measured as domain innovativeness adapted from the scales of Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) and Flynn et al. (1996). The age of the generation I product is calculated based on the most recent household purchase of that product. Control variables include age, size and income of household, and age and education of primary decision-maker. Results and Implications Our preliminary results confirm both our hypotheses. Consumer innovativeness has a strong influence on both additional purchases (exp = 1.11) and substitute purchases (exp = 1.09). Exp is interpreted as the increased probability of purchase for an increase of 1.0 on a 7-point innovativeness scale. Also consistent with our hypotheses, the age of the generation I product has a dramatic influence for substitute purchases of VCR/DVD (exp = 2.92) and a strong influence for PCs/notebooks (exp = 1.30). Exp is interpreted as the increased probability of purchase for an increase of 10 years in the age of the generation I product. Yet, also as hypothesised, there was no influence on additional purchases. The results lead to two key implications. First, there is a clear distinction between additional and substitute purchases of generation II products, each with different drivers. Treating these as a single process will mask the true drivers of adoption. For substitute purchases, product age is a key driver. Hence, implications for marketers of high technology products can utilise data on generation I product age (e.g. from warranty or loyalty programs) to target customers who are more likely to make a purchase.