2019 Volume 18 Issue 2 Pages 51-63
The open innovation proposed by Chesbrough (2003a) had a heavy impact on practical business, and not just academia. However, the definition of open innovation is broad and ambiguous, with Chesbrough himself not providing a clear, specific example of open innovation practice (OIP). Thus, practitioners interpret it in many ways. Accordingly, to accurately measure the impact of open innovation, OIP must be classified into several types. This paper proposes two methods for classification. The first is whether the OIP of Chesbrough and that of the practitioner are aligned. From this perspective, OIP can be categorized in three ways: (a) what both Chesbrough and the practitioner call OIP; (b) what Chesbrough calls OIP, but not the practitioner; and (c) what a practitioner calls OIP but not Chesbrough. (a) can be clearly evaluated as the impact of open innovation, while more attention is required when interpreting (b) and (c). Second is the differentiation of whether activities that are currently implemented as OIP were started (i) before or (ii) after Chesbrough (2003a). (ii) can be seen as the impact of open innovation, though (i) is nothing more than changing the name of something that was previously just a “practice” into “OIP.” If (i) is included in the impact of open innovation, there is a risk of exaggerating the assessment of open innovation.
ABAS is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Publication of Scientific Research Results from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.