Managing a portfolio of corporate venture units : challenges in achieving within-unit focus and between-unit coordination

Principal Topic: There is increasing recognition that the organizational configurations of corporate venture units should depend on the types of ventures the unit seeks to develop (Burgelman, 1984; Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008). Distinction have been made between internal and external as well as exploitative versus explorative ventures (Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008; Narayan et al., 2009; Schildt et al., 2005). Assuming that firms do not want to limit themselves to a single type of venture, but rather employ a portfolio of ventures, the logical consequence is that firms should employ multiple corporate venture units. Each venture unit tailor-made for the type of venture it seeks to develop. Surprisingly, there is limited attention in the literature for the challenges of managing multiple corporate venture units in a single firm. Maintaining multiple venture units within one firm provides easier access to funding for new ideas (Hamel, 1999). It allows for freedom and flexibility to tie the organizational systems (Rice et al., 2000), autonomy (Hill and Rothaermel, 2003), and involvement of management (Day, 1994; Wadwha and Kotha, 2006) to the requirements of the individual ventures. Yet, the strategic objectives of a venture may change when uncertainty around the venture is resolved (Burgelman, 1984). For example, firms may decide to spin-in external ventures (Chesbrough, 2002) or spun-out ventures that prove strategically unimportant (Burgelman, 1984). This suggests that ventures might need to be transferred between venture units, e.g. from a more internally-driven corporate venture division to a corporate venture capital unit. Several studies suggested that ventures require different managerial skills across their phase of development (Desouza et al., 2007; O'Connor and Ayers, 2005; Kazanjian and Drazin, 1990; Westerman et al., 2006). To facilitate effective transfer between venture units and manage the overall venturing process, it is important that firms set up and manage integrative linkages. Integrative linkages provide synergies and coordination between differentiated units (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). Prior findings pointed to the important role of senior management (Westerman et al., 2006; Gilbert, 2006) and a shared organizational vision (Burgers et al., 2009) to coordinate venture units with mainstream businesses. We will draw on these literatures to investigate the key question of how to integratively manage multiple venture units. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: In order to seek an answer to the research question, we employ a case study approach that provides unique insights into how firms can break up their venturing process. We selected three Fortune 500 companies that employ multiple venturing units, IBM, Royal Dutch/ Shell and Nokia, and investigated and compared their approaches. It was important that the case companies somewhat differed in the type of venture units they employed as well as the way they integrate and coordinate their venture units. The data are based on extensive interviews and a variety of internal and external company documents to triangulate our findings (Eisenhardt, 1989). The key proposition of the article is that firms can best manage their multiple venture units through an ambidextrous design of loosely coupled units. This provides venture units with sufficient flexibility to employ organizational configurations that best support the type of venture they seek to develop, as well as provides sufficient integration to facilitate smooth transfer of ventures between venture units. Based on the case findings, we develop a generic framework for a new way of managing the venturing process through multiple corporate venture units. ---------- Results and Implications: One of our main findings is that these firms tend to organize their venture units according to phases in the venture development process. That is, they tend to have venture units aimed at incubation of venture ideas as well as units aimed more at the commercialization of ventures into a new business unit for the firm or a start-up. The companies in our case studies tended to coordinate venture units through integrative management skills or a coordinative venture unit that spanned multiple phases. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we extend prior venturing literature by addressing how firms manage a portfolio of venture units, each achieving different strategic objectives. Second, our framework provides recommendations on how firms should manage such an approach towards venturing. This helps to increase the likelihood of success of their venturing programs.

External corporate venture capital investment: Towards a framework for capturing and measuring strategic value

This paper presents the initial results of on-going research in the field of external Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) investments, i.e. equity investments of large corporations in entrepreneurial ventures which originated outside the corporation. The research is motivated by the fact that external CVC plays an increasingly important role within the strategy of corporations. Driven by a general trend towards a more open approach to innovation, companies see particular value in external corporate venturing as a tool to gain, for example, access to complementary technologies and a general window on technology developments. The review of literature in the field of external corporate venturing clearly reveals that theoretical gaps exist in understanding mechanisms for capturing value and measurements of this value. To help close these gaps, the research addresses the underlying question "How do corporations and start-ups capture and measure strategic value through external CVC investments" by using embedded, multiple case studies. Following an initial set of case studies, steps towards the development of a framework for capturing and measuring strategic value from CVC investments are outlined within this paper and the resulting preliminary framework is presented. The paper closes with an outlook on ongoing and future research steps. © 2009 PICMET.

Avaliação estratégica do desenvolvimento de corporate venture : um estudo de caso em uma multinacional no Brasil

Devido as constantes mudanças nos setores industriais e nas organizações, se tornou extremamente importante estar adaptado estrategicamente e estruturalmente. Estratégias de investimento e inovação são fundamentais para o sucesso corporativo, que não pode contar mais apenas com o aumento da eficiência operacional. O Corporate Venture pode ser esta alternativa estratégica e elevar a performance das empresas quando executado com sucesso e alinhado com a estratégia corporativa. Este estudo inicia-se com uma revisão da literatura sobre o corporate venture, estratégias deliberadas e emergentes e a organização empreendedora, que fornece subsídios para a pesquisa empírica realizada na empresa multinacional Whirlpool. Após a revisão e consolidação da base teórica em um framework, utilizou-se o método de estudo de casos para aprofundar a compreensão do tema no Brasil, buscando identificar sua importância estratégica para a empresa e quais os elementos influenciadores do desenvolvimento do novo negócio estavam presente e como eles se modificaram ao longo da jornada. Este estudo observou evidências que o desenvolvimento de novos negócios é uma alternativa estratégica não somente para o crescimento dos lucros econômicos da empresa, mas também uma alternativa para desenvolver novas competências e diversificar os negócios para uma empresa que enfrentava baixas taxas de crescimento em seu principal mercado de atuação. Observou-se a presença de diversos elementos influenciadores do corporate venture, com destaque para a disponibilidade de recursos fornecidos pela empresa-mãe (marca, financiamento e pessoas), suporte do top management e sistema de recompensas. Os resultados deste estudo são uma contribuição tanto acadêmica quanto executiva, possibilitando que gestores de novos negócios e altos executivos possam enriquecer seu conhecimento sobre a gestão e estratégia de novos negócios em organizações estabelecidas.

Do firms always want to learn from corporate venture capital investments?

In this paper, the learning intentions and outcomes for corporate venture capital are questioned. Through qualitative research in the oil and gas sector, we identified a desire to control the direction and pace of innovation as the main driver for this type of investments. A new model and framework for CVC are presented. Contrary to the traditional model of CVC, which features a dyadic relation between corporate investor and venture entrepreneur, our model shows that CVC investments create a more complex conjoint of relations between multiple stakeholders. These relations challenge the neo-Schumpeterian model of competition. Using the grounded theory approach, we created a theoretical framework explaining and predicting outcomes of corporate venture capital other than learning. At firm level, our framework conceptualizes CVC programs as dynamic capabilities, and suggests a competitive advantage for the corporate investor through its ability to faster and better integrate the new technology. At market level, we proposed that CVC investments positively affect the pace of innovation in the market through an increased speed of acceptance of technologies supported by corporate investors.

Corporate Venture Capital: How established firms use external resources to create new competencies

This Doctoral Dissertation is triggered by an emergent trend: firms are increasingly referring to investments in corporate venture capital (CVC) as means to create new competencies and foster the search for competitive advantage through the use of external resources. CVC is generally defined as the practice by non-financial firms of placing equity investments in entrepreneurial companies. Thus, CVC can be interpreted (i) as a key component of corporate entrepreneurship - acts of organizational creation, renewal, or innovation that occur within or outside an existing organization– and (ii) as a particular form of venture capital (VC) investment where the investor is not a traditional and financial institution, but an established corporation. My Dissertation, thus, simultaneously refers to two streams of research: corporate strategy and venture capital. In particular, I directed my attention to three topics of particular relevance for better understanding the role of CVC. In the first study, I moved from the consideration that competitive environments with rapid technological changes increasingly force established corporations to access knowledge from external sources. Firms, thus, extensively engage in external business development activities through different forms of collaboration with partners. While the underlying process common to these mechanisms is one of knowledge access, they are substantially different. The aim of the first study is to figure out how corporations choose among CVC, alliance, joint venture and acquisition. I addressed this issue adopting a multi-theoretical framework where the resource-based view and real options theory are integrated. While the first study mainly looked into the use of external resources for corporate growth, in the second work, I combined an internal and an external perspective to figure out the relationship between CVC investments (exploiting external resources) and a more traditional strategy to create competitive advantage, that is, corporate diversification (based on internal resources). Adopting an explorative lens, I investigated how these different modes to renew corporate current capabilities interact to each other. More precisely, is CVC complementary or substitute to corporate diversification? Finally, the third study focused on the more general field of VC to investigate (i) how VC firms evaluate the patent portfolios of their potential investee companies and (ii) whether the ability to evaluate technology and intellectual property varies depending on the type of investors, in particular for what concern the distinction between specialized versus generalist VCs and independent versus corporate VCs. This topic is motivated by two observations. First, it is not clear yet which determinants of patent value are primarily considered by VCs in their investment decisions. Second, VCs are not all alike in terms of technological experiences and these differences need to be taken into account.

The Life Cycle of Corporate Venture Capital

This paper establishes the life-cycle dynamics of Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) to explore the information acquisition role of CVC investment in the process of corporate innovation. I exploit an identification strategy that allows me to isolate exogenous shocks to a firm's ability to innovate. Using this strategy, I first find that the CVC life cycle typically begins following a period of deteriorated corporate innovation and increasingly valuable external information, lending support to the hypothesis that firms conduct CVC investment to acquire information and innovation knowledge from startups. Building on this analysis, I show that CVCs acquire information by investing in companies with similar technological focus but have a different knowledge base. Following CVC investment, parent firms internalize the newly acquired knowledge into internal R&D and external acquisition decisions. Human capital renewal, such as hiring inventors who can integrate new innovation knowledge, is integral in this step. The CVC life cycle lasts about four years, terminating as innovation in the parent firm rebounds. These findings shed new light on discussions about firm boundaries, managing innovation, and corporate information choices.

Is the sum more than the corporate entrepreneurship parts? the different effects of social capital on innovation, venturing, and renewal processes

Principal Topic Although corporate entrepreneurship is of vital importance for long-term firm survival and growth (Zahra and Covin, 1995), researchers still struggle with understanding how to manage corporate entrepreneurship activities. Corporate entrepreneurship consists of three parts: innovation, venturing, and renewal processes (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990). Innovation refers to the development of new products, venturing to the creation of new businesses, and renewal to redefining existing businesses (Sharma, and Chrisman, 1999; Verbeke et al., 2007). Although there are many studies focusing on one of these aspects (cf. Burgelman, 1985; Huff et al., 1992), it is very difficult to compare the outcomes of these studies due to differences in contexts, measures, and methodologies. This is a significant lack in our understanding of CE, as firms engage in all three aspects of CE, making it important to compare managerial and organizational antecedents of innovation, venturing and renewal processes. Because factors that may enhance venturing activities may simultaneously inhibit renewal activities. The limited studies that did empirically compare the individual dimensions (cf. Zahra, 1996; Zahra et al., 2000; Yiu and Lau, 2008; Yiu et al., 2007) generally failed to provide a systematic explanation for potential different effects of organizational antecedents on innovation, venturing, and renewal. With this study we aim to investigate the different effects of structural separation and social capital on corporate entrepreneurship activities. The access to existing and the development of new knowledge has been deemed of critical importance in CE-activities (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1999; Covin and Miles, 2007; Katila and Ahuja, 2002). Developing new knowledge can be facilitated by structurally separating corporate entrepreneurial units from mainstream units (cf. Burgelman, 1983; Hill and Rothaermel, 2003; O'Reilly and Tushman, 2004). Existing knowledge and resources are available through networks of social relationships, defined as social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Yiu and Lau, 2008). Although social capital has primarily been studied at the organizational level, it might be equally important at top management level (Belliveau et al., 1996). However, little is known about the joint effects of structural separation and integrative mechanisms to provide access to social capital on corporate entrepreneurship. Could these integrative mechanisms for example connect the separated units to facilitate both knowledge creation and sharing? Do these effects differ for innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Are the effects different for organizational versus top management team integration mechanisms? Corporate entrepreneurship activities have for example been suggested to take place at different levels. Whereas innovation is suggested to be a more bottom-up process, strategic renewal is a more top-down process (Floyd and Lane, 2000; Volberda et al., 2001). Corporate venturing is also a more bottom-up process, but due to the greater required resource commitments relative to innovation, it ventures need to be approved by top management (Burgelman, 1983). As such we will explore the following key research question in this paper: How do social capital and structural separation on organizational and TMT level differentially influence innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Methodology/Key Propositions We investigated our hypotheses on a final sample of 240 companies in a variety of industries in the Netherlands. All our measures were validated in previous studies. We targeted a second respondent in each firm to reduce problems with single-rater data (James et al., 1984). We separated the measurement of the independent and the dependent variables in two surveys to create a one-year time lag and reduce potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results and Implications Consistent with our hypotheses, our results show that configurations of structural separation and integrative mechanisms have different effects on the three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship. Innovation was affected by organizational level mechanisms, renewal by integrative mechanisms on top management team level and venturing by mechanisms on both levels. Surprisingly, our results indicated that integrative mechanisms on top management team level had negative effects on corporate entrepreneurship activities. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we provide more insight in what the effects of ambidextrous organizational forms (i.e. combinations of differentiation and integration mechanisms) are on venturing, innovation and renewal processes. Our findings show that more valuable insights can be gained by comparing the individual parts of corporate entrepreneurship instead of focusing on the whole. Second, we deliver insights in how management can create a facilitative organizational context for these corporate entrepreneurship activities.

An Examination of How Entrepreneurs Can Improve Their Position in Relation to Investors

Previous research has been inconclusive regarding the impact of those who invest in entrepreneurs. Consider for a moment how potentially important they are to entrepreneurs. They for example decide who deserves funding, how much time they contribute to their portfolio firms, how they grant entrepreneurs access to their networks, and help entrepreneurs acquire additional funding. In sum, investors potentially have a great impact on the success of entrepreneurs. It is therefore important that we better understand the environment, relationships and context in which parties operate. This thesis contains five articles that explore investors’ and entrepreneurs’ relationships from various viewpoints, in theoretical frameworks, and use a variety of data and research methods. The first article is a literature review that summarises what we know of venture capital, business angel and corporate venture capital funding. The second article studies the entrepreneurs’ investor selection process, its consequences, and identifies key factors that influence the process. Earlier, the common approach has been to concentrate research on the investors’ selection policy, not the entrepreneurs’. The data and conclusions are based on multiple case studies. The article analyses how entrepreneurs can ensure that they get the best possible investor, when it is possible for an entrepreneur to select an investor, and what are the consequences of investor selection. The third article employs power constructs (dependency, power balance/imbalance, power sources) and analyses their applicability in the investor-entrepreneur relationship. Power constructs are extensively studied and utilised in the management and organisation literature. In entrepreneur investor relationships, power aspects are rarely analysed. However, having the ability to “get others to do things they would not otherwise do” is a very common factor in the investor-entrepreneur relationship. Therefore, employing and analysing the applicability of power constructs in this setting is well founded. The article is based on a single case study but suggests that power constructs could be applicable and consequently provide additional insights into the investor-entrepreneur relationship. The fourth article studies the role of advisors in the venture capital investment process and analyses implications for research and practice, particularly from the entrepreneurs’ perspective. The common entrepreneurial finance literature describes the entrepreneur-investor relationship as linear and bilateral. However, it was discovered that advisors may influence the relationship. In this article, the role of advisors, operating procedures and advisors’ impact on different parties is analysed. The fifth article concentrates on investors’ certification effect. The article measures and demonstrates that venture capital investment is likely to increase the credibility (in terms of media attention) of early stage firms, those that most often need additional credibility. Understanding investor certification can affect how entrepreneurs evaluate investment offers and how investors can make their offers appear more lucrative.

Start-up acquisition: motivations, difficulties and lesson learned

Em um esforço continuo de sobrevivência, corporações buscam meios para expandir seus negócios, seja dentro de seus mercados atuantes, ou na exploração de novos mercados. Para alcançar esse objetivo, inovações são realizadas pelos funcionários que, por meio de suas iniciativas, praticam o empreendedorismo coorporativo. São diversas formas em que o empreendedorismo corporativo se manifesta, dentre elas por meio de aquisições. Ao comprar uma outra empresa, a empresa compradora tem como motivação a busca de alguns atributos que complementem seus objetivos iniciais. Após a compra, o processo de integração entre as duas empresas é, por muitas vezes, complicado e penoso. O objetivo desse estudo é o de identificar quais são essas motivações de compra, os problemas enfrentados durante a integração entre as duas empresas, e quais são as lições aprendidas por grandes/médias corporações quando adquirem Start-ups. Muitos estudos atualmente tratam de temas relacionados à aquisição de empresas, porém, quando se trata de Start-ups, pouca literatura é encontrada. Os resultados dessa pesquisa são fruto de entrevistas com os gestores e empreendedores que participaram do processo de aquisição da SAMURAI pela Momentum e da Save-me pela Buscapé – empresas brasileiras. Os resultados são seis sugestões que devem ser consideradas por grandes/medias corporações antes e durante o processo de aquisição de uma strat-up: (i) A base de clientes da empresa comprada deve ser cuidadosamente considerada; (ii) um contato muito próximo entre os gestores das duas empresas é crucial antes da realização da aquisição; (iii) a contratação de uma empresa de consultoria em aquisições pode ser primordial durante o processo de integração; (iv) o empreendedor tem um papel de central importância para o future da nova empresa formada após a aquisição; (v) a forma como a integração entre as duas empresas ocorrerá após a compra deve ser cuidadosamente escolhida e (iv) a criação de uma corporate venture deve ser levada em consideração.

Un modelo de relación entre los programas de innovación abierta y la creación de valor

En un mundo donde el cambio es constante y cada vez más vertiginoso, la innovación es el combustible que utilizan las empresas que permite su renovación constante y, como consecuencia, su supervivencia en el largo plazo. La innovación es sin dudas un elemento fundamental para determinar la capacidad de las empresas en crear valor a lo largo del tiempo, y por ello, las empresas suelen dedicar esfuerzos considerables y recursos de todo tipo para identificar nuevas alternativas de innovación que se adapten a su estrategia, cultura, objetivos y ambiciones corporativas. Una forma específica para llevar a cabo la innovación es la innovación abierta. Esta se entiende como la innovación que se realiza de manera conjunta con otras empresas o participantes del ecosistema. Cabe la aclaración que en este documento se toma la definición de ecosistema referida al conjunto de clientes, proveedores, competidores y otros participantes que interactúan en un mismo entorno donde existen posiciones de liderazgo que pueden cambiar a lo largo del tiempo (Moore 1996). El termino de innovación abierta fue acuñado por Henry Chesbrough hace algo mas de una década para referirse a esta forma particular de organizar la innovación corporativa. Como se observa en el presente trabajo la innovación abierta es un nuevo paradigma que ha capturado el interés académico y empresarial desde algo más de una década. Se verán varios casos de innovación abierta que se están llevando a cabo en diversos países y sectores de la economía. El objetivo principal de este trabajo de investigación es el de desarrollar y explicar un modelo de relación entre la innovación abierta y la creación de valor en las empresas. Para ello, y como objetivos secundarios, se ha investigado los elementos de un Programa de Innovación Abierta, los impulsores 1 de creación de valor, el proceso de creación de valor y, finalmente, la interacción entre estos tres elementos. Como producto final de la investigación se ha desarrollado un marco teórico general para establecer la conexión entre la innovación abierta y la creación de valor que facilita la explicación de la interacción entre ambos elementos. Se observa a partir de los casos de estudio que la innovación abierta puede abarcar todos los sectores de la economía, múltiples geografías y empresas de distintos tamaños (grandes empresas, pequeñas y medianas empresas, incluso empresas de reciente creación) cada una de ellas con distinta relevancia dentro del ecosistema en el que participan. Elementos de un Programa de Innovación Abierta La presente investigación comienza con la enumeración de los distintos elementos que se encuentran presentes en los Programas de Innovación Abierta. De esta manera, se describen los diversos elementos que se han identificado a través de la revisión de la literatura académica que se ha llevado a cabo. En función de una serie de características comunes, los distintos elementos se agrupan en cuatro niveles diferentes para lograr un mejor entendimiento de los Programas de Innovación Abierta. A continuación se detallan estos elementos § Organización del Programa. En primer lugar se menciona la existencia de una estructura organizativa capaz de cumplir una serie de objetivos establecidos previamente. Por su naturaleza de innovación abierta deberá existir cierto grado de interacción entre los distintos miembros que participen en el proceso de innovación. § Talento Interno. El talento interno asociado a los programas de innovación abierta juega un rol fundamental en la ejecución y éxito del programa. Bajo este nivel se asocian elementos como la cultura de innovación abierta y el liderazgo como mecanismo para entender uno de los elementos que explica el grado de adopción de innovación en una empresa. Estrechamente ligados al liderazgo se encuentran los comportamientos organizacionales como elementos diferenciadores para aumentar las posibilidades de creación de innovación abierta. § Infraestructura. En este nivel se agrupan los elementos relacionados con la infraestructura tecnológica necesaria para llevar a cabo el programa incluyendo los procesos productivos y las herramientas necesarias para la gestión cotidiana. § Instrumentos. Por último, se mencionan los instrumentos o vehículos que se utilizan en el entorno corporativo para implementar innovación abierta. Hay varios instrumentos disponibles como las incubadoras corporativas, los acuerdos de licenciamiento o las áreas de capital de riesgo corporativo. Para este último caso se hará una mención especial por el creciente y renovado interés que ha despertado tanto en el entorno académico como empresarial. Se ha identificado al capital de riesgo corporativo como un de los elementos diferenciales en el desarrollo de la estrategia de innovación abierta de las empresas ya que suele aportar credibilidad, capacidad y soporte tecnológico. Estos cuatro elementos, interactuando de manera conjunta y coordinada, tienen la capacidad de crear, potenciar e incluso desarrollar impulsores de creación de valor que impactan en la estrategia y organización de la empresa y partir de aquí en su desempeño financiero a lo largo del tiempo. Los Impulsores de Creación de Valor Luego de identificar, ordenar y describir los distintos elementos presentes en un Programa de Innovación Abierta se ha avanzado en la investigación con los impulsores de creación de valor. Estos pueden definirse como elementos que potencian o determinan la capacidad de crear valor dentro del entorno empresarial. Como se puede observar, se detallan estos impulsores como punto de interacción entre los elementos del programa y el proceso de creación de valor corporativo. A lo largo de la presente investigación se han identificado 6 impulsores de creación de valor presentes en un Programa de Innovación Abierta. § Nuevos Productos y Servicios. El impulsor de creación de valor más directo y evidente en un Programa de Innovación Abierta es la capacidad de crear nuevos productos y servicios dado que se relacionan directamente con el proceso de innovación de la empresa § Acceso a Mercados Adyacentes. El proceso de innovación también puede ser una fuente de valor al permitir que la empresa acceda a mercados cercanos a su negocio tradicional, es decir satisfaciendo nuevas necesidades de sus clientes existentes o de nuevos clientes en otro mercado. § Disponibilidad de Tecnologías. La disponibilidad de tecnologías es un impulsor en si mismo de la creación de valor. Estas pueden ser tanto complementarias como de apalancamiento de tecnologías ya existentes dentro de la empresa y que tengan la función de transformar parte de los componentes de la estrategia de la empresa. § Atracción del Talento Externo. La introducción de un Programa de Innovación Abierta en una empresa ofrece la oportunidad de interactuar con otras organizaciones del ecosistema y, por tanto, de atraer el talento externo. La movilidad del talento es una característica singular de la innovación abierta. § Participación en un Ecosistema Virtuoso. Se ha observado que las acciones realizadas en el entorno por cualquiera de los participantes también tendrán un claro impacto en la creación de valor para el resto de participantes por lo tanto la participación en un ecosistema virtuoso es un impulsor de creación de valor presente en la innovación abierta. § Tecnología “Dentro--‐Fuera”. Como último impulsor de valor es necesario comentar que la dirección que puede seguir la tecnología puede ser desde la empresa hacia el resto del ecosistema generando valor a partir de disponibilizar tecnologías que no son de utilidad interna para la empresa. Estos seis impulsores de creación de valor, presentes en los procesos de innovación corporativos, tienen la capacidad de influir en la estrategia y organización de la empresa aumentando su habilidad de crear valor. El Proceso de Creación de Valor en las Empresas Luego se ha investigado la práctica de la gestión basada en valor que sostiene la necesidad de alinear la estrategia corporativa y el diseño de la organización con el fin de obtener retornos financieros superiores al resto de los competidores de manera sostenida, y finalmente crear valor a lo largo del tiempo. Se describe como los impulsores de creación de valor influyen en la creación y fortalecimiento de las ventajas competitivas de la empresa impactando y alineando su estrategia y organización. Durante la investigación se ha identificado que las opciones reales pueden utilizarse como una herramienta para gestionar entornos de innovación abierta que, por definición, tienen altos niveles de incertidumbre. Las opciones reales aportan una capacidad para la toma de decisiones de forma modular y flexible que pueden aplicarse al entorno corporativo. Las opciones reales han sido particularmente diseñadas para entender, estructurar y gestionar entornos de múltiples incertidumbres y por ello tienen una amplia aplicación en los entornos de innovación. Se analizan los usos potenciales de las opciones reales como complemento a los distintos instrumentos identificados en los Programas de Innovación Abierta. La Interacción Entre los Programas de Innovación Abierta, los Impulsores de Creación de Valor y el Proceso de Creación de Valor A modo de conclusión del presente trabajo se puede mencionar que se ha desarrollado un marco general de creación de valor en el entorno de los Programas de Innovación Abierta. Este marco general incluye tres elementos fundamentales. En primer lugar describe los elementos que se encuentran presentes en los Programas de Innovación Abierta, en segundo lugar como estos programas colaboran en la creación de los seis impulsores de creación de valor que se han identificado y finalmente en tercer lugar como estos impulsores impactan sobre la estrategia y la organización de la empresa para dar lugar a la creación de valor de forma sostenida. A través de un Programa de Innovación Abierta, se pueden desarrollar los impulsores de valor para fortalecer la posición estratégica de la empresa y su capacidad de crear de valor. Es lo que denominamos el marco de referencia para la creación de valor en un Programa de Innovación Abierta. Se presentará la idea que los impulsores de creación de valor pueden colaborar en generar una estrategia óptima que permita alcanzar un desempeño financiero superior y lograr creación de valor de la empresa. En resumen, se ha desarrollado un modelo de relación que describe el proceso de creación de valor en la empresa a partir de los Programas de Innovación Abierta. Para ello, se han identificado los impulsores de creación de valor y se ha descripto la interacción entre los distintos elementos del modelo. ABSTRACT In a world of constant, accelerating change innovation is fuel for business. Year after year, innovation allows firms to renew and, therefore, advance their long--‐term survival. Undoubtedly, innovation is a key element for the firms’ ability to create value over time. Companies often devote considerable effort and diverse resources to identify innovation alternatives that could fit into their strategy, culture, corporate goals and ambitions. Open innovation refers to a specific approach to innovate by collaborating with other firms operating within the same business ecosystem.2 The term open innovation was pioneered by Henry Chesbrough more than a decade ago to refer to this particular mode of driving corporate innovation. Open innovation is a new paradigm that has attracted academic and business interest for over a decade. Several cases of open innovation from different countries and from different economic sectors are included and reviewed in this document. The main objective of this study is to explain and develop a relationship model between open innovation and value creation. To this end, and as secondary objectives, we have explored the elements of an Open Innovation Program, the drivers of value creation, the process of value creation and, finally, the interaction between these three elements. As a final product of the research we have developed a general theoretical framework for establishing the connection between open innovation and value creation that facilitates the explanation of the interaction between the two. From the case studies we see that open innovation can encompass all sectors of the economy, multiple geographies and varying businesses – large companies, SMEs, including (even) start--‐ups – each with a different relevance within the ecosystem in which they participate. Elements of an Open Innovation Program We begin by listing and describing below the items that can be found in an Open Innovation Program. Many of such items have been identified through the review of relevant academic literature. Furthermore, in order to achieve a better understanding of Open Innovation, we have classified those aspects into four different categories according to the features they share. § Program Organization. An organizational structure must exist with a degree of interaction between the different members involved in the innovation process. This structure must be able to meet a number of previously established objectives. § Internal Talent. Internal talent plays a key role in the implementation and success of any Open Innovation program. An open innovation culture and leadership skills are essential for adopting either radical or incremental innovation. In fact, leadership is closely linked to organizational behavior and it is essential to promote open innovation. § Infrastructure. This category groups the elements related to the technological infrastructure required to carry out the program, including production processes and daily management tools. § Instruments. Finally, we list the instruments or vehicles used in the corporate environment to implement open innovation. Several instruments are available, such as corporate incubators, licensing agreements or venture capital. There has been a growing and renewed interest in the latter, both in academia and business circles. The use of corporate venture capital to sustain the development of the open innovation strategy brings ability, credibility, and technological support to the process. The combination of elements from these four categories, interacting in a coordinated way, makes it possible to create, enhance and develop value creation drivers that may impact the company’s strategy and organization and affect its financial performance over time. The Drivers of Value Creation After identifying describing and categorizing the different elements present in an Open Innovation Program our research examines the drivers of value creation. These can be defined as elements that enhance or determine the ability to create value in the business environment. As can be seen, these drivers can act as interacting points between the elements of the program and the process of value creation. The study identifies six drivers of value creation that might be found in an Open Innovation Program. § New Products and Services. The more direct and obvious driver of value creation in any Open Innovation Program is the ability to create new products and services. This is directly related to the company’s innovation process. § Access to Adjacent Markets. The innovation process can also serve as a source of value by granting access to adjacent markets through satisfying new needs for existing customers or attracting new customers from other markets. § Availability of Technologies. The availability of technology is in itself a driver for value creation. New technologies can either be complementary and/or can leverage existing technologies within the firm. They can partly transform certain elements of the company’s strategy. § External Talent Strategy. Incorporating an Open Innovation Program offers the opportunity to interact with other organizations operating in the same ecosystem and can therefore attract external skilled resources. Talent mobility is a unique feature of open innovation. § Becoming Part of a Virtuous Circle. The actions carried out in the environment by any of its members will also have a clear impact on value creation for the other participants. Participation in a virtuous ecosystem is thus a driver for value creation in an open innovation strategy. § Inside--‐out Technology. Value creation may also evolve by allowing other firms in the ecosystem to incorporate internally developed under--‐utilized technologies into their own innovation processes. These six drivers that are present in the innovation process can influence the strategy and the organization of the company, increasing its ability to create value. The Value Creation Process Value--‐based management is the management approach that requires aligning the corporate strategy and the organizational design to create value and obtain sustained financial returns (at least, higher returns than its competitors). We describe how the drivers of value creation can enhance corporate advantages by aligning its strategy and organization. During this study, we were able to determine that real options can be used as managing tools in open innovation environments which, by definition, have high uncertainty levels. Real options provide capability for flexible and modular decision--‐making in the business environment. In particular, real options have been designed for uncertainty management and, therefore, they may be widely applied in innovation environments. We analyze potential uses of real options to supplement the various instruments identified in the Open Innovation programs. The Interaction Between Open Innovation Programs, Value Creation drivers and Value Creation Process As a result of this study, we have developed a general framework for value creation in Open Innovation Programs. This framework includes three key elements. We first described the elements that are present in Open Innovation Programs. Next, we showed how these programs can boost six drivers of value creation that have been identified. Finally, we analyzed how the drivers impact on the strategy and organization of the company in order to lead to the creation of sustainable value. Through an Open Innovation Program, value drivers can be developed to strengthen a company’s strategic position and its ability to create value. That is what we call the framework for value creation in the Open Innovation Program. Value drivers can collaborate in generating an optimal strategy that helps foster a superior financial performance and a sustained value creation process. In sum, we have developed a relationship model that describes the process of creating value in a firm with an Open Innovation Program. We have identified the drivers of value creation and described how the different elements of the model interact with each other.