Classification for Measuring the Impact of Open Innovation on Practice

: 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.


Introduction
The concept of open innovation as proposed by Chesbrough (2003a) has had a major impact on academic research (Bogers et al. 2017;Elmquist, Fredberg, & Ollila, 2009;Lichtenthaler, 2011 (Dahlander & Gann, 2010;Trott & Hartmann, 2009). Further, Chesbrough himself did not provide a clear and specific example of open innovation practice (OIP), and thus, practitioners interpret OIP in many different ways. Accordingly, OIP must be categorized into several different types in order to accurately measure the impact of open innovation on practical business, that is, what practices of firms were prompted by Chesbrough (2003a) and done as open innovation. The purpose of this paper is to propose such a classification method.

What is Open Innovation Practice?
The definition of open innovation proposed by Chesbrough is broad and ambiguous. Many researchers quote the following as a definition of open innovation (Elmquist et al., 2009;Kuwashima, 2018a;Lichtenthaler, 2011).
Open innovation is a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology (Chesbrough, 2003a) Open innovation is the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively (Chesbrough, 2006a) According to these definitions, technological practices that a firm Since the term has become much more widespread since the publication of the book 8 years ago, the term has acquired other meanings, some of which are not consistent with the meaning given at the inception of the term. Open innovation is not simply outsourcing innovation or R&D. It is not simply a restatement of open source software development. (Chesbrough, 2010a) In other words, the phrase "open innovation" generally used by practitioners does not necessarily match the definition of Chesbrough. Open innovation practices (OIP) envisioned by Chesbrough are more specific (Chesbrough, 2010a).  (Chesbrough, 2003b(Chesbrough, , 2012 and three books (Chesbrough, 2003a;Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke & West, 2006. Table 1 shows OIPs that appear in the figures of the funnel model of each literature.

Research-Technology Management
be referred by practitioners have increased significantly.
What must be noted here is the method used by Chesbrough and Brunswicker (2014) to identify the 17 OIP in   Table 2. These were what Chesbrough himself identified as OIP (in other words, those that Chesbrough formally recognized as OIP). However, they include the following two types.
(1) Practices implemented by practitioners as OIP

Classification of Open Innovation Practice
Based on the above, this paper proposes the following two ways to classify OIP to more accurately measure the impact of "open innovation" (Chesbrough, 2003a).

First is whether Chesbrough, the proponent of open innovation,
and practitioners (or firms) call a certain practice OIP (Table 3) Kuwashima (2003Kuwashima ( , 2015Kuwashima ( , 2016 for more information on the characteristics of pharmaceutical research and development. 7 See Takahashi and Nakano (2003) for more information on general technology transfers in Japanese firms. 8 According to a press release from the three firms (Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma), this alliance created for the three companies to jointly create a chemical library and put it to use in promoting open innovation to increase the potential for new drug development (October 11, 2017 press release). How to treat (i) depends on the purpose of the analysis, but to more closely measure the impact of open innovation it is reasonable to limit analysis target to (ii).
9 See Yoda and Kuwashima (2019) for more information on the history of university-industry collaboration in Japan. However, in the end, what this paper proposes is only a conceptual classification, and it is necessary for analysts to make their own judgments and operations when actually using these methods. For example, the classifications in Table 4 (Classification of OIP (2)) as to whether an OIP started before or after Chesbrough (2003a) (Kuwashima, 2018a). Accordingly, if a determination is made with a focus on characteristics at a more specific level than the highly abstract "university-industry collaborative research," the new type of university-industry collaborative research can be viewed as a "new practice" ((ii) in Table 4) that appeared after Chesbrough (2003a). Whether it is reasonable to classify at a certain level will depend on the purpose of analysis and the intent of the analyst.
When measuring and analyzing the impact of open innovation on practice, sufficient care must be given to the impact of this determination on the results of the analysis.