Browse by title
John D. Graham
Edited by Diane Nijs
Open innovation has developed into a bourgeoning area of innovation management research. Yet, despite the success of open innovation, research in that area has a much larger potential as an innovation framework if we broaden the scope of open innovation research. More specifically, I argue that open innovation practices should not only be related to new product development but to all possible strategic drivers such as new product development is less obvious in several businesses. Next, there is an increasing need to connect and integrate open innovation literature to new developments in other segments of the management literature: More specifically, I try to match open innovation to “The End of Competitive Advantage” of Rita McGrath.
Creativity and innovation are central to the competiveness of businesses and nations in the current era. Social interaction embedded in communities is increasingly recognized as a rich source of creative activity. Hence, communities are being nurtured and adopted by business organizations with the purpose of promoting and appropriating the creative and innovative potential that they offer. This chapter aims to critically examine the relationship between community, creativity and innovation to reveal how community can facilitate creative and innovative activity. The chapter begins by considering the concepts of community, creativity and innovation before going on to explore the creative potential of community through a review of the communities of practice approach to understanding and facilitating learning and knowledge generation. This is followed by an examination of different types of community as sites of creativity and innovation. The potential of communities to inhibit creativity and innovation is then considered before brief conclusions are drawn.
Patrick Cohendet and Laurent Simon
As a general paradigm for society, a dominant model of innovation drives and shapes the behaviours and decisions of policy-makers, economists, entrepreneurs, business managers and all sorts of economic agents. In the present contribution, to focus on the relationships between dominant models and constitutive disciplines, we have purposefully reduced the sequence of generations of dominant models to three main generations: 1) the linear and closed model of innovation (from World War I to the mid-1980s); 2) the interactive and closed model of innovation (from the mid-1980s to the first decade of the 21st century); and 3) the interactive and open model of innovation (starting from the first decade of the 21st century, which in our view has not yet reached its mature stage). For each generation of dominant model, we will summarise the main characteristics of the dominant model, to assess the contribution of each of the constitutive disciplines to the model, and to understand the replacement of a model by a new one.