Abstract:
There are two narratives of open source innovation. First, it is a collective mechanism for self-motivated and self-organized individuals to innovate collaboratively among communities and to contribute towards a common goal (von Hippel, 2005; von Hippel & von Krogh, 2006). Second, it is a practice and a strategy for firms to expand the boundaries of their innovation activities (Chesbrough, 2003; Chesbrough et al., 2006). These views are not mutually exclusive; they are the two sides of the same coin. Since innovation happens inside and outside of firms (Goldman & Gabriel, 2005; Lee & Cole, 2003), any individual involved could be an employee, a community member, or both (Dahlander & Wallin, 2006); who may work with others across borders (Brown & Duguid, 1991), even among competitors (von Hippel, 1987). A firm can be part of a community (West & Lakhani, 2008) and vice versa (Dahlander & Magnusson, 2008; DiGangi & Wasko, 2009). The key requirement of open source innovation is to engage in knowledge sharing with outsiders (Cummings, 2003; Foss et al., 2010) under the same protocol behind open source activities (Maxwell, 2006; O'Mahony, 2003). Yet, the literature focuses on explaining why and how firms should practice open source innovation different from that norm (Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Grand et al., 2004; von Krogh & von Hippel, 2006; West & Gallagher, 2006). Despite the benefits of revealing knowledge freely (Baldwin & von Hippel, 2011), firms tend to pay more attention to the inflow rather than the outflow of knowledge (Fey & Birkinshaw, 2005; Spaeth et al., 2010). This doctoral thesis investigates how firms practice open source innovation by committing to the open source principle (Raymond, 2001); and innovation openness as an organizational construct may offer explanations to such commitment (Pénin, 2011; Pykalainen, 2007). It argues that firms do not share knowledge efficiently and effectively with outsiders due to a lack of openness; and openness is not necessarily a tradeoff as implied from traditional wisdom (Teece, 1986). Building up openness is a challenge. It involves establishing an identity of openness that represents the firm internally and externally; nurturing an attitude of openness that defines their innovation and knowledge sharing behaviour; and developing a capability of openness to carry out the actual work. Each dimension of openness is studied separately in three research papers that form the core of the thesis, under the guidance of the research question of how innovation openness in firms facilitates the practice of open source innovation.