PARADIGM USE "OPEN INNOVATIONS" AT CREATION OF CORPORATE INNOVATIVE SYSTEMS OF HOLDING: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.17747/2311-7184-2015-7-6
Abstract
The purpose of the paper is to illuminate the costs and benefits of crossing firm boundaries in inbound open innovation (OI) at creation of corporate innovative systems, determining thus the relations among types of partners and possibility of an exchange by knowledge between them. The empirical part of research is based on the analysis of poll of heads of holding structures and R&D - managers concerning cooperation of external and internal partners of holding. Results show that depth of cooperation with various partners (universities, consultants, partners in a chain of creation of value, competitors and the firms working in other industries) it is positively connected with innovative activity whereas the number of various partners has negative effects. The main result consists that transfer of knowledge at cooperation softens negative impact of existence of too many different types of partners. The analysis of data confirmed that from what share of the companies attracting internal and external interested parties in processes of innovative activity and what level of intensity of their interaction, depends overall performance of holding.
About the Authors
A. B. Kuryatnikov
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation; Federal State Unitary Enterprise «Goznak»
Russian Federation
Cand.Tech.Sci., the associate professor «Strategic and anti-recessionary management»; Deputy General Director (Research and Development)
Russian Federation
Cand.Tech.Sci., the associate professor «Strategic and anti-recessionary management»; Deputy General Director (Research and Development)
N. V. Linder
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand.Econ.Sci., the associate professor "Strategic and anti-recessionary management", the deputy dean of Faculty of management
Russian Federation
Cand.Econ.Sci., the associate professor "Strategic and anti-recessionary management", the deputy dean of Faculty of management
References
1. Инновационная активность крупного бизнеса в России: механизмы, барьеры, перспективы. Исследование Российской экономической школы, PricewaterhоuseCoopers в России и Центра технологий и инноваций PwC // Российский журнал менеджмента. 2010. Том 8. № 4. С. 81–112.
2. Ребязина В.А. Инновационная деятельность российских компаний: результаты эмпирического исследования / В.А. Ребязина, С.П. Кущ, А.В. Красников, М.М. Смирнова // Российский журнал менеджмента. 2011. Том 9. № 3. С. 29–54.
3. Трачук А.В. Инновационная стратегия компании/Трачук А.В. Проблемы теории и практики управления. 2013, № 9 с. 75–83.
4. Трачук А.В. Формирование инновационной стратегии компании/Трачук А.В. Управленческие науки. 2013, № 3(8) с. 16–25.
5. Трачук А.В. Инновационная стратегия компании. Проблемы теории и практики управления/Трачук А.В. Управленческие науки. 2013, № 3(8) с. 75.
6. Трачук А.В., Саяпин А.В. Практика формирования инновационной стратегии в российских компаниях. Опыт вовлечения сотрудников/ Трачук А.В., Саяпин А.В. // Эффективное антикризисное управление. 2014. № 1 с. 64–73.
7. Трачук А.В., Корнилов Г.В. Динамика процессов внедрения инноваций в области производства банкнот/ Трачук А.В., Корнилов Г.В. //Деньги и кредит. 2013. № 9, с.3–9.
8. Линдер Н.В. Стратегии диверсифицированного роста и определение оптимальных границ крупных промышленных структур// Эффективное антикризисное управление. 2014. № 1 с. 90–99.
9. Колмаков В.В., Коокуева В.В. Чапкина Е.Г., Линдер Н.В., Трачук А.В. Теория и практика управления финансовой деятельностью Под ред. Поляковой А.Г., Москва, 2013.
10. M. Chacko, W. J. Johnston. Product customization, product complexity and Interaction Intensity in Industrial Markets, in the 2nd IMP Group in Asia Proceedings//Building Social Capital in Networks, Phuket, Thailand, December 11-14, 2005.
11. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
12. Chesbrough, H.W. (2007) Why Companies Should Have Open Business Models. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48, 22–28.
13. M. Johanson. Networks in Transition//Proceedings of the 23th IMP Conference, Manchester Business School, UK, 2007.
14. Grant, R.M. and Baden-Fuller, C. (2004) A Knowledge Accessing Theory of Strategic Alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 61–84.
15. C. Kock, M. Torkkeli. Open innovation: a ́swingers ́ club ́ or ́going steady?//Working paper series of IE Business School, 2008.
16. Trott, P. and Hartmann, D. (2009) Why ‘Open Innovation’ Is Old Wine in New Bottles. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13, 715–36.
17. Teece, D.J. (2007) Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Microfoundations of (Sustain- able) Enterprise Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319–50.
18. West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Chesbrough, H. (2014) Open Innovation: The Next Decade. Research Policy, 43, 805–11.
Review
For citations:
Kuryatnikov A.B., Linder N.V. PARADIGM USE "OPEN INNOVATIONS" AT CREATION OF CORPORATE INNOVATIVE SYSTEMS OF HOLDING: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH. Business Strategies. 2015;(7):6. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17747/2311-7184-2015-7-6
Views:
772
Email this article 