Implications of Open Innovation for Organizational Boundaries and the Governance of Contractual Relations

REFERENCES

• Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. Google Scholar
• Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37, 355–375.Link , Google Scholar
• Ahn, J. M., Minshall, T., & Mortara, L. (2017). Understanding the human side of openness: The fit between open innovation modes and CEO characteristics. R&D Management, 47(5), 727–740. Google Scholar
• Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., & Salter, A. J. (2009). Does IP strategy have to cripple open innovation? MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(1), 71–77. Google Scholar
• Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., & Salter, A. (2012). Managing unsolicited ideas for R&D. California Management Review, 54(3), 116–139. Google Scholar
• Alexy, O., George, G., & Salter, A. J. (2013). Cui bono? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 270–291.Link , Google Scholar
• Andrews, C. J. (2010). Bridging the divide: An exploration of Ian Macneil’s relational contract theory and its significance for contract scholarship and the lived world of commercial contract (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Birkbeck, University of London. Google Scholar
• Antons, D., & Piller, F. T. (2015). Opening the black box of “not-invented-here”: Attitudes, decision biases, and behavioral consequences. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(2), 193–217.Link , Google Scholar
• Argyres, N., & Mayer, K. L. (2007). Contract design as a firm capability: An integration of learning and transaction cost perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1060–1077.Link , Google Scholar
• Arora, A., Athreye, S., & Huang, C. (2016). The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators. Research Policy, 45(7), 1352–1361. Google Scholar
• Ashfort, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39. Google Scholar
• Auster, E. R. (1992). The relationship of industry evolution to patterns of technological linkages, joint ventures, and direct investment between U.S. and Japan. Management Science, 38, 778–792. Google Scholar
• Berchicci, L. (2013). Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy, 42(1), 117–127. Google Scholar
• Bhaskarabhatla, A., & Hegde, D. (2014). An organizational perspective on patenting and open innovation. Organization Science, 25(6), 1744–1763. Google Scholar
• Bianchi, M., Cavaliere, A., Chiaroni, D., Frattini, F., & Chiesa, V. (2011). Organisational modes for open innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical industry: An exploratory analysis. Technovation, 31(1), 22–33. Google Scholar
• Bianchi, M., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). Selling technological knowledge: Managing the complexities of technology transactions. Research Technology Management, 54(2), 18–26. Google Scholar
• Bianchi, M., Croce, A., Dell’Era, C., Di Benedetto, C. A., & Frattini, F. (2016). Organizing for inbound open innovation: How external consultants and a dedicated R&D unit influence product innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(4), 492–510. Google Scholar
• Bianchi, M., Frattini, F., Lejarraga, J., & Di Minin, A. (2014). Technology exploitation paths: Combining technological and complementary resources in new product development and licensing. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(S1), 146–169. Google Scholar
• Bianchi, M., & Lejarraga, J. (2016). Learning to license technology: The role of experience and workforce’s skills in Spanish manufacturing firms. R&D Management, 46, 691–705. Google Scholar
• Blomqvist, K., Hurmelinna, P., & Seppänen, R. (2005). Playing the collaboration game right—balancing trust and contracting. Technovation, 25, 497–504. Google Scholar
• Bogers, M., et al.. (2017). The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 8–40. Google Scholar
• Bogers, M., Foss, N. J., & Lyngsie, J. (2018). The human side of open innovation: The role of employee diversity in firm-level openness. Research Policy, 47, 218–231. Google Scholar
• Bogliacino, F., & Pianta, M. (2016). The Pavitt taxonomy, revisited: Patterns of innovation in manufacturing and services. Economics and Politics, 33, 153–180. Google Scholar
• Bonn, R. L. (1972). Arbitration: An alternative system for handling contract related disputes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 254–264. Google Scholar
• Burcharth, A. L. A., Knudsen, M. P., & Søndergaard, H. A. (2014). Neither invented nor shared here: The impact and management of attitudes for the adoption of open innovation practices. Technovation, 34(3), 149–161. Google Scholar
• Chen, J., Chen, Y., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011). The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms. Technovation, 31, 362–373. Google Scholar
• Chen, J., Zhao, X., & Wang, Y. (2014). A new measurement of intellectual capital and its impact on innovation performance in an open innovation paradigm. International Journal of Technology Management, 67(1), 1–25. Google Scholar
• Chen, Y., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Du, J. (2016). The interaction between internal R&D and different types of external knowledge sourcing: An empirical study of Chinese innovative firms. R&D Management, 46, 1006–1023. Google Scholar
• Cheng, C. C. J., & Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2014). When is open innovation beneficial? The role of strategic orientation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(6), 1235–1253. Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Christensen, J. F., Olesen, M. H., & Kjær, J. S. (2005). The industrial dynamics of open innovation: Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research Policy, 34(10), 1533–1549. Google Scholar
• Dahlander, L., & Piezunka, H. (2014). Open to suggestions: How organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention. Research Policy, 43(5), 812–827. Google Scholar
• de Figueiredo, J. M., & Silverman, B. S. (2017). On the genesis of interfirm relational contracts. Strategy Science, 2(4), 234–245. Google Scholar
• Denicolai, S., Ramirez, M., & Tidd, J. (2016). Overcoming the false dichotomy between internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition: Absorptive capacity dynamics over time. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 57–65. Google Scholar
• Dingler, A., & Enkel, E. (2016). Socialization and innovation: Insights from collaboration across industry boundaries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 109, 50–60. Google Scholar
• Dong, J. Q., & Netten, J. (2017). Information technology and external search in the open innovation age: New findings from Germany. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 223–231. Google Scholar
• du Chatenier, E., Verstegen, J. A. A. M., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Omta, O. S. W. F. (2010). Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams. R&D Management, 40(3), 271–280. Google Scholar
• Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D. (2004). Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Science, 50(2), 159–173. Google Scholar
• Faems, D., Janssens, M., Madhok, A., & van Looy, B. (2008). Toward an integrative perspective on alliance governance: Connecting contract design, trust dynamics, and contract application. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1053–1078.Link , Google Scholar
• Felin, T., & Zenger, T. R. (2014). Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Research Policy, 43(5), 914–925. Google Scholar
• Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 393–420.Link , Google Scholar
• Fjeldstad, O. D., Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E., & Lettl, C. (2012). The architecture of collaboration. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 734–750. Google Scholar
• Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618–635. Google Scholar
• Frishammar, J., Ericsson, K., & Patel, P. C. (2015). The dark side of knowledge transfer: Exploring knowledge leakage in joint R&D projects. Technovation, 41, 75–88. Google Scholar
• Fu, X. (2012). How does openness affect the importance of incentives for innovation? Research Policy, 41(3), 512–523. Google Scholar
• Gambardella, A., & Panico, C. (2014). On the management of open innovation. Research Policy, 43(5), 903–913. Google Scholar
• Garcia Martinez, M., Zouaghi, F., & Sanchez Garcia, M. (2017). Capturing value from alliance portfolio diversity: The mediating role of R&D human capital in high and low tech industries. Technovation, 59, 55–67. Google Scholar
• Garriga, H., von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. (2013). How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1134–1144. Google Scholar
• Gesing, J., Antons, D., Piening, E. P., Rese, M., & Salge, T. O. (2015). Joining forces or going it alone? On the interplay among external collaboration partner types, interfirm governance modes, and internal R&D. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 424–440. Google Scholar
• Gianiodis, P. T., Ettlie, J. E., & Urbina, J. J. (2014). Open service innovation in the global banking industry: Inside-out versus outside-in strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(1), 76–91.Link , Google Scholar
• Gibbons, R., & Henderson, R. (2012). Relational contracts and organizational capabilities. Organization Science, 23(5), 1350–1365. Google Scholar
• Gil, N. (2009). Developing cooperative project client-supplier relationships: How much to expect from relational contracts. California Management Review, 51, 144–169. Google Scholar
• Gil, R., & Zanarone, G. (2017). Formal and informal contracting: Theory and evidence. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 141–159. Google Scholar
• Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2014). The challenge of closing open innovation: The intellectual property disassembly problem. Research Technology Management, 57(5), 19–25. Google Scholar
• Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 571–586. Google Scholar
• Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships–An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31, 477–492. Google Scholar
• Hagedoorn, J., & Hesen, G. (2007). Contract law and the governance of inter-firm technology partnerships: An analysis of different modes of partnering and their contractual implications. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 342–366. Google Scholar
• Hagedoorn, J., & Wang, N. (2012). Is there complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D strategies? Research Policy, 41(6), 1072–1083. Google Scholar
• Hagedoorn, J., & Zobel, A.-K. (2015). The role of contracts and intellectual property rights in open innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 27(9), 1050–1067. Google Scholar
• Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review, 30, 58–77.Link , Google Scholar
• Hatten, K. J., James, W. L., Fink, R. C., & Keeler, J. P. (2012). Macneil’s relational norms and his non-mirrored ends propositions. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 1–16. Google Scholar
• Heger, T., & Boman, M. (2015). Networked foresight: The case of EIT ICT Labs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 147–164. Google Scholar
• Helfat, C., et al.. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Google Scholar
• Henkel, J., Baldwin, C. Y., & Shih, W. (2013). IP modularity: Profiting from innovation by aligning product architecture with intellectual property. California Management Review, 55(4), 65–82. Google Scholar
• Herzog, P., & Leker, J. (2010). Open and closed innovation: Different innovation cultures for different strategies. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3/4), 322–343. Google Scholar
• Huang, F., Rice, J., Galvin, P., & Martin, N. (2014). Openness and appropriation: Empirical evidence from Australian businesses. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 61(3), 488–498. Google Scholar
• Hurmelinna, P., Kyläheiko, K., & Jauhiainen, T. (2007). The Janus face of the appropriability regime in the protection of innovations: Theoretical re-appraisal and empirical analysis. Technovation, 27(3), 133–144. Google Scholar
• Katkalo, V. S., Pitelis, C. N., & Teece, D. J. (2010). Introduction: On the nature and scope of dynamic capabilities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1175–1186. Google Scholar
• Kokshagina, O., Masson, P. L., & Bories, F. (2017). Fast-connecting search practices: On the role of open innovation intermediary to accelerate the absorptive capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 232–239. Google Scholar
• Lakemond, N., Bengtsson, L., Laursen, K., & Tell, F. (2016). Match and manage: The use of knowledge matching and project management to integrate knowledge in collaborative inbound open innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(2), 333–352. Google Scholar
• Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.Link , Google Scholar
• Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 131–150. Google Scholar
• Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867–878. Google Scholar
• Leten, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Roijakkers, N., Clerix, A., & Van Helleputte, J. (2013). IP models to orchestrate innovation ecosystems: IMEC, a public research institute in nano-electronics. California Management Review, 55(4), 51–64. Google Scholar
• Lumineau, F., & Oxley, J. E. (2012). Let’s work it out (or we’ll see you in court): Litigation and private resolution in vertical exchange relationships. Organization Science, 23, 820–834. Google Scholar
• Luo, Y. (2002). Contract, cooperation, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 903–919. Google Scholar
• Macaulay, S. (1963). Non-contractual relations in business: A preliminary study. American Sociological Review, 28, 1–19. Google Scholar
• Macneil, I. R. (1978). Contracts: Adjustment of long-term economic relations under classical, neoclassical, and relational contract law. Northwestern University Law Review, 72, 854–905. Google Scholar
• Malhotra, D., & Lumineau, F. (2011). Trust and collaboration in the aftermath of conflict: The effects of contract structure. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 981–998.Link , Google Scholar
• Manzini, R., & Lazzarotti, V. (2016). Intellectual property protection mechanisms in collaborative new product development. R & D Management, 46(S2), 579–595. Google Scholar
• Mehlman, S. K., et al.. (2010). Better practices for managing intellectual assets in collaborations. Research Technology Management, 53(1), 55–66. Google Scholar
• Mellewigt, T., Madhok, A., & Weibel, A. (2007). Trust and formal contracts in interorganizational relationships—Substitutes and complements. Managerial and Decision Economics, 28, 833–847. Google Scholar
• Minshall, T., Mortara, L., Valli, R., & Probert, D. (2010). Making “asymmetric” partnerships work. Research Technology Management, 53(3), 53–63. Google Scholar
• Miozzo, M., Desyllas, P., Lee, H. F., & Miles, I. (2016). Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms. Research Policy, 45(7), 1337–1351. Google Scholar
• Mody, A. (1993). Learning through alliances. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 20, 151–170. Google Scholar
• Müller-Seitz, G. (2012). Absorptive and desorptive capacity-related practices at the network level—The case of SEMATECH. R&D Management, 42(1), 90–99. Google Scholar
• Munsch, K. (2009). Open model innovation. Research Technology Management, 52(3), 48–52. Google Scholar
• Ollila, S., & Yström, A. (2017). An investigation into the roles of open innovation collaboration managers. R&D Management, 47(2), 236–252. Google Scholar
• Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 794–829.Link , Google Scholar
• Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343–373. Google Scholar
• Pedrosa, A. D. M., Välling, M., & Boyd, B. (2013). Knowledge related activities in open innovation: Managers’ characteristics and practices. International Journal of Technology Management, 61(3/4), 254–273. Google Scholar
• Pisano, G. P., & Teece, D. J. (2007). How to capture value from innovation: Shaping intellectual property and industry architecture. California Management Review, 50(1), 278–296. Google Scholar
• Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. (2002). Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23, 707–725. Google Scholar
• Porter, A. L., & Newman, N. C. (2011). Mining external R&D. Technovation, 31(4), 171–176. Google Scholar
• Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25, 18–42.Link , Google Scholar
• Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2016). A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(6), 750–772. Google Scholar
• Reuer, J. J., & Ariño, A. (2007). Strategic alliance contracts: Dimensions and determinants of contractual complexity. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 313–330. Google Scholar
• Robertson, P. L., Casali, G. L., & Jacobson, D. (2012). Managing open incremental process innovation: Absorptive capacity and distributed learning. Research Policy, 41, 822–832. Google Scholar
• Rohrbeck, R. (2010). Harnessing a network of experts for competitive advantage: Technology scouting in the ICT industry. R&D Management, 40(2), 169–180. Google Scholar
• Root, F. R. (1988). Some taxonomies of international cooperative agreements. In F. L. ContractorP. Lorange (Eds.), Cooperative strategies in international business (pp. 69–80). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Google Scholar
• Rosenkopf, L., & Schilling, M. A. (2007). Comparing alliance network structure across industries: Observations and explanations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 191–209. Google Scholar
• Salter, A., Criscuolo, P., & Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2014). Coping with open innovation: Responding to the challenges of external engagement in R&D. California Management Review, 56(2), 77–95. Google Scholar
• Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2005). Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science, 16, 491–508. Google Scholar
• Schepker, D. J., Oh, W.-Y., Martynov, A., & Poppo, L. (2014). The many futures of contracts: Moving beyond structure and safeguarding to coordination and adaptation. Journal of Management, 40, 193–225. Google Scholar
• Schilke, O. (2014). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2), 179–203. Google Scholar
• Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 390–439.Link , Google Scholar
• Sikimic, U., Chiesa, V., Frattini, F., & Scalera, V. G. (2016). Investigating the influence of technology inflows on technology outflows in open innovation processes: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(6), 652–669. Google Scholar
• Smith, D. G., & King, B. G. (2009). Contracts as organizations. Arizona Law Review, 51, 1–45. Google Scholar
• Snow, C. C., Fjeldstad, Ø. D., Lettl, C., & Miles, R. E. (2011). Organizing continuous product development and commercialization: The collaborative community of firms model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(1), 3–16. Google Scholar
• Somaya, D. (2012). Patent strategy and management: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1084–1114. Google Scholar
• Spaeth, S., Stuermer, M., & von Krogh, G. (2010). Enabling knowledge creation through outsiders: Towards a push model of open innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3/4), 411–431. Google Scholar
• Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2011). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 31(1), 10–21. Google Scholar
• Spitsberg, I., Brahmandam, S., Verti, M. J., & Coulston, G. W. (2013). Technology landscape mapping at the heart of open innovation. Research Technology Management, 56(4), 27–35. Google Scholar
• Stefan, I., & Bengtsson, L. (2016). Appropriability: A key to opening innovation internationally? International Journal of Technology Management, 71(3/4), 232–252. Google Scholar
• Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305. Google Scholar
• Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. Google Scholar
• Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. Google Scholar
• Ter Wal, A. L. J., Criscuolo, P., & Salter, A. (2017). Making a marriage of materials: The role of gatekeepers and shepherds in the absorption of external knowledge and innovation performance. Research Policy, 46, 1039–1054. Google Scholar
• Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37(6–7), 1079–1095. Google Scholar
• Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Chichester, UK: John Wiley. Google Scholar
• Todeva, E., & Knoke, D. (2005). Strategic alliances and models of collaboration. Management Decision, 43, 123–148. Google Scholar
• Trantopoulos, K., von Krogh, G., Wallin, M. W., & Woerter, M. (2017). External knowledge and information technology: Implications for process innovation performance. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 41(1), 287–300. Google Scholar
• Veer, T., Lorenz, A., & Blind, K. (2016). How open is too open? The mitigating role of appropriation mechanisms in R&D cooperation settings. R&D Management, 46, 1113–1128. Google Scholar
• Veugelers, M., Bury, J., & Viaene, S. (2010). Linking technology intelligence to open innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2), 335–343. Google Scholar
• von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. (2006). Free revealing and the private-collective model for innovation incentives. R & D Management, 36(3), 295–306. Google Scholar
• Wadhwa, A., Bodas Freitas, I. M., & Sarkar, M. B. (2017). The paradox of openness and value capture protection strategies: Effect of extramural R&D on innovative performance. Organization Science, 28(5), 873–893. Google Scholar
• Wang, T., Libears, D., & Park, H. D. (2017). The paradox of openness: How product and patenting experience affect R&D sourcing in China. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(3), 250–268. Google Scholar
• West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 814–831. Google Scholar
• Whelan, E., Parise, S., De Valk, J., & Aalbers, R. (2011). Creating employee networks that deliver open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(1), 37–44. Google Scholar
• Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press. Google Scholar
• Williamson, O. E. (1986). Economic organization: Firms, markets, and policy control. New York: New York University Press. Google Scholar
• Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 269–296. Google Scholar
• Wincent, J., Anokhin, S., & Boter, H. (2009). Network board continuity and effectiveness of open innovation in Swedish strategic small-firm networks. R&D Management, 39(1), 55–67. Google Scholar
• Woolthuis, R. K., Hildebrand, B., & Nooteboom, B. (2005). Trust, contract and relationship development. Organization Studies, 26, 813–840. Google Scholar
• Xia, T. (2013). Absorptive capacity and openness of small biopharmaceutical firms: A European Union–United States comparison. R&D Management, 43(4), 333–351. Google Scholar
• Yeung, J. F. Y., Chan, A. P. C., & Chan, D. W. M. (2012). Defining relational contracting from the Wittgenstein family-resemblance philosophy. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 225–239. Google Scholar
• Zaheer, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 373–392. Google Scholar
• Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model, and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955. Google Scholar
• Zenger, T. R., Felin, T., & Bigelow, L. (2011). Theories of the firm–market boundary. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 89–133.Link , Google Scholar
• Zobel, A.-K. (2017). Benefiting from open innovation: A multidimensional model of absorptive capacity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(3), 269–288. Google Scholar
• Zobel, A.-K., Balsmeier, B., & Chesbrough, H. (2016). Does patenting help or hinder open innovation? Evidence from new entrants in the solar industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(2), 307–331. Google Scholar
• Zobel, A.-K., Lokshin, B., & Hagedoorn, J. (2017). Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness. Technovation, 59, 44–54. Google Scholar