Technological Forecasting & Social Change 119 (2017) 128–138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Open innovation and company culture: Internal openness makes

the difference
Jan Kratzer a,b, Dirk Meissner b,⁎, Vitaly Roud b
a
Technische Universtitaet Berlin, Moscow, Germany
b
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russian Federation

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: There is a common agreement that innovation is driven by the people that form the heart of any company's in-
Received 7 February 2017 novation activity. Still, people perform innovation in a special institutional environment characterized by rules
Received in revised form 13 March 2017 and regulations that might support or impede innovation. The open innovation paradigm expects companies
Accepted 15 March 2017
to engage in external relationships for innovation; however companies often neglect the actual internal openness
Available online 1 April 2017
of employees, which is an absolute must before partnering with external partners. The article finds that company
Keywords:
innovation culture comes in five main forms: closed innovation (driven by internal capabilities); doing, using,
Open innovation interacting (ad hoc processes, no link to knowledge providers); outsourcing innovation capabilities; extramural
Company culture innovation, no matching internal culture/procedures and proactive innovation (match of internal and external
Human resource for innovation openness). The empirical analysis shows that the closed innovation behavior is by far the most widespread
Innovation climate among Russian companies whereas proactive innovation behavior remains an exception in the overall sample.
Innovation culture © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction innovators need to accumulate competences and resources to ex-

ploit the opportunities that arise from multi-faceted demands.
The term “open innovation” (OI) has been discussed in the litera- Although the required knowledge increases exponentially, the
ture for over a decade. This term encompasses the most important opportunities for innovative responses to more diverse demands
changes in company innovation activities, which can be character- have grown even more rapidly (Ferrary, 2011). This, however, re-
ized as more distributed, multidisciplinary, trans-border, cross- quires different competences and perceptions of innovation by inno-
institutional and inter-temporal processes than in the 20th century, vators, which share the common features of complex underlying
all contained in one conceptual framework (Bianchi et al., 2011; user needs and the respective application (market knowledge) and
Chiaroni et al., 2011; Dahlandera and Gann, 2010; Huizingh, 2011). technological knowledge. In this respect, the open innovation para-
This framework postulates that innovation is significantly beyond digm emphasizes a two-directional knowledge and technology
R&D activities alone, instead it views innovation as a result of the transfer by simultaneously opening the innovation process inward
smart and targeted combined use and application of knowledge and outward instead of either in-source knowledge and technologies
and competences with special emphasis on the willingness to inte- (inward) or the use of multiple exploitation paths for innovation,
grate third parties' knowledge and abilities into one organizations' knowledge and technology, and thus inventions (Brunswicker and
activities (Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt, 2014). In such a broad sense Vanhaverbeke, 2015). However, it is important to recall the basics
the main understanding of ‘open innovation’ implies that innova- features of almost any kind of innovation: this means the combina-
tions result from the sharing of competences between different tion of knowledge and technologies that exist or are developed and
players along and beyond the value chain, with deep implications generated for special purposes (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Doz
for a company's external relationships (Chesbrough, 2003; et al., 2004). Knowledge and technology in turn are developed and
Chesbrough et al., 2006). In particular, new forms of complements generated by people, which highlights the centrality and importance
between private and public research arise as a result of the need to of the human factor within the innovation process and hence for in-
reconcile speed in the commercial exploitation of new ideas on high- novation management. Innovative efforts are typically executed
ly competitive global markets with continuous investments and long using a project-management approach, with teams as the organiza-
lead-times to develop radical innovation capabilities. Therefore, tional nucleus (Griffin, 1997; Leenders et al., 2007). Like other crucial
organizational outcomes, innovative outcomes of the teams stem not
only from overall firm strategy and access to resources but, more
⁎ Corresponding author. fundamentally, from the minds of the individual employees who,
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Meissner). with others, carry out the work on a daily basis (Amabile et al.,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.022
0040-1625/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 J. Kratzer et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 119 (2017) 128–138 129

2004; Kratzer et al., 2008). The extent to which they will produce in- 2010). In such situations, knowledge holders with different
novative – novel and useful – ideas during their everyday work de- educational, professional and cultural backgrounds must be brought
pends not only on their individual characteristics, but also mainly together by adjusting individuals' knowledge to the specific institu-
on the work environment around them (Amabile et al., 2004; tional and local environments, which is a time-consuming yet neces-
Gavrilova et al., 2014; Miles, 2011; Perry-Smith and Shalley, 2003; sary process and hence must be incorporated into any innovation
Reiter-Palmon and Illies, 2004). project from the very beginning (Kesidou and Szirmai, 2007).
“Innovation culture” and “innovation openness” are crucial for The described features of innovation management impose addition-
teams when it comes to striving for innovation. Although many papers al challenges to the abilities and qualifications of people by also
have been written on open innovation and the importance of human re- stressing soft skills for management of the activities. These soft skills
sources for innovation activities, a significant gap in the understanding can be considered a reasonable determinant of the company innovation
of soft factors, hence company innovation culture and openness, re- culture. However, although thought to have a reasonable impact on the
mains. The paper therefore attempts to deliver empirical evidence of innovation performance of individuals, teams, departments and organi-
the features of company innovation culture and openness, which in- zations innovation culture remains a broad and vague term (Mancusi,
tends to explain how open innovation is implemented at the operation- 2008). Furthermore, it requires a more systemic understanding and ap-
al level. With this the paper aims to synthesize research efforts in proach towards the company's internal framework conditions including
theorizing on human resources and studies that describe practical incentive systems, innovation culture and an organization supportive of
methods. innovation.
The main challenges in building and developing an innovation
2. Innovation culture and openness culture are the changes in the organization's mindset, in mobilizing
organizations as teams to bring new products and services to the
Labor mobility and widely dispersed knowledge across multiple market quickly, and in bringing an organization together to translate
public and private organizations force companies to reconsider the product and service initiatives into sustained results (Angel, 2006).
spectrum of innovation activities they can deliver independently, The underlying challenge is that companies need to incorporate a
and rather consider the need to engage in alternative innovation view on innovation shared not only by the company leaders but
practices. However, the opportunities for innovation from teams de- also by employees (Carayannis and Meissner, 2016; Gershman and
pend on overcoming obstacles. First, competition within teams Kuznetsova, 2012). However, making innovation ‘alive’ in em-
about an individual's knowledge advantage is important. Human re- ployees' mindsets risks making innovation misunderstood: em-
source (HR) strategies often place a special emphasis on knowledge ployees may be enthusiastic about generating ideas and engaging
generated and used by individuals, which in the long term does not in innovation related projects but they may lose sight of the end
support knowledge sharing. Simultaneously, HR strategies formulate goal of the project to apply the innovation in multiple ways. This im-
incentive schemes to encourage knowledge sharing between plies that innovation culture has to span the full innovation process,
team members. Second, team members' educational and pro- emphasizing especially the use and application of original ideas for-
fessional backgrounds are important. Successful teamwork involves mulated by the company's employees regardless of the ideas' source
integrating complementary knowledge and competences to leverage (Kotsemir and Meissner, 2013). Furthermore, cultural thinking is
the innovation potential from teams with diverse community back- strongly associated with peoples' behavior and attitudes, which are
grounds (Doz et al., 2004). But the difficulty of integrating diverse important elements in shaping a corporation's work culture and in-
kinds of knowledge remains a challenge because the complementary novation culture and therefore make the innovation process ‘open’.
elements between different knowledge communities are not guar- By that definition, ‘openness’ includes the corporations' openness to-
anteed; on the contrary, a mismatch is likely (Fallick et al., 2004). wards employees' attitudes about innovation, frequently expressed
Communities can vary in terms of the degree of formalization, open- as innovation culture and the institutional openness towards exter-
ness, and mechanisms employed for operations and communities' nal relationships and partnerships.
strategic intentions, thus, corporations tend to create and influence To make the term ‘innovation openness’ more clear, we argue that
communities according to their interests and ambitions (Almirall, the following features are reasonable for describing and eventually
2008; West and Lakhani, 2008). In a broader community sense, it measuring innovation culture and openness:
can be argued that suppliers are becoming ever more important
not only as sources but also contributors to innovation and commer-
1. Risk feature
cial success (Chiaroni et al., 2011; Dahlandera and Gann, 2010;
It's a commonly understood fact that innovation is inherently risky
Harison and Koski, 2009; Huizingh, 2011; Lee et al., 2010; Van den
especially at the early stages, e.g. financial risks, technical risks and
Biesen, 2008). Consequently, although the innovation process of
the risk of rejection by the market. Therefore, we argue that corpo-
combining knowledge and information towards use and application
rate openness needs to provide opportunities for employees to per-
may initially seem easy to manage, it becomes more complex when
form risky projects which aim at innovation.
integrating market and customer knowledge.
Accordingly, quite recently, intra-company innovation processes 2. Belief feature
show a shift from stage gate to ‘probe and learn’ processes Successful innovation projects require strong beliefs of the people in-
(Gassmann et al., 2010) which lay the ground for inward and out- volved in the project and recognition in the organization. According-
ward knowledge transfer. Still, the transfer of knowledge and tech- ly, management needs to encourage individuals to find ways to solve
nology is only one part of innovation activity embedded in the non-standard problems.
overall management of knowledge and innovation (Abd Razak 3. Exchange and share feature
et al., 2016; Gokhberg and Meissner, 2013). The latter develops in a In line with the ever-increasing scope and complexity of science,
more challenging and complex manner, especially when it comes technology and innovation, challenges arise to detect special compe-
to a remote market and technological knowledge, because the need tences and knowledge that need to be aligned and focused on a solu-
arises to transfer and incorporate knowledge into the place (loca- tion and application. Since these abilities are often also of a rather
tion) and the team (or individual), which are removed from the tacit nature, the exchange and sharing of knowledge between indi-
place of origin (Bondarenko, 2015; Cooke, 2005; Döring and viduals, units and the outside world is essential for sustainable inno-
Schnellenbach, 2004; Fritsch and Franke, 2004; Kotsemir and vation performance. Knowledge and information sharing is done
Meissner, 2013; Kuemmerle, 1997; Simmie, 2003; Spithoven et al., voluntarily instead of by management order.
130 J. Kratzer et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 119 (2017) 128–138

4. Governance feature 3. Methodology and approach

Innovation strategies are often developed and approved by dedicated
company innovation councils (sometimes also called the innovation Along with the existing body of literature, this study relies on a spe-
board or similar), including R&D strategies, in-sourcing and out- cialized innovation survey as a source of empirical evidence for testing
sourcing. Under the open innovation paradigm, these councils will the described structural relationships between the dimensions of open
involve third parties, such as external companies and expertise in innovation (see e.g. Schroll and Mild, 2012 for a discussion of data
strategy making and respective decisions. sources for open innovation studies). The specialized surveys usually
5. Partner feature extend the conventional design (widely referenced as the Community
Innovation activities are frequently carried out as part of multi- Innovation Surveys) with a number of open innovation-relevant dimen-
facetted cooperation with external partners. Although this is often sions. Still being compliant with the general Oslo Manual (OECD, 2005)
in the interest of involved researchers, engineers and related staff, framework, these surveys introduce the missing dimensions, particular-
it challenges the company's management to support these external ly, the measures for outbound knowledge flows or specificities of the
relations and it requires a shift in the management of interactions measurement of open innovation. Notable examples of such surveys in-
with external partners. Moreover, the search for partners and the se- clude “New Modes of Innovation: Managerial and Strategic Business
lection process need to take a form that provides opportunities for Practice and Open Innovation” executed by the UK-Innovation Research
testing the creative and intellectual fit of partners while being struc- Centre in 2010–20121; “Managing open innovation in large firms” by
tured and limiting individual biases. the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering and UC Berkeley in
6. Training feature 20132; the Global Open Innovation Survey – 2014 by Arthur D. Little
Openness is not limited to the actual innovation activities of compa- and Bluenove.3
nies but also includes professional development of human resources, The hypotheses were tested with a standardized, questionnaire-
i.e., further education in different forms and internal competitions for based survey among Russian companies. This study uses the data de-
research and innovation excellence. rived from the Monitoring of Innovation Process Actors Survey executed
In this light, management must establish and maintain a culture sup- by National Research University Higher School of Economics4 in the
portive of innovation and use management tools to detect, describe and framework of the European Manufacturing Survey.5 The data encom-
operationalize innovation culture. A more organized approach to devel- passes results from the structured interviews of more than 1000 execu-
op openness includes the removal of constraints by sharing knowledge tives at Russian manufacturing firms. The stratified sample is
and decision-making, expanding horizons, shaping an environment of representative by size, industry and innovation activity and covers
creativity and intellectual satisfaction by identifying those who fit, and over 40 regions of Russia. The questionnaire follows the Oslo Manual
by setting up benchmarks for performance, action and continuous im- definitions of innovation and introduces a number of OI-relevant indica-
provement (Angel, 2006). However, to maintain openness, the environ- tors, particularly with regard to the internal openness of the innovation
ment and organizational procedures must be continuously assessed and processes.
improved with a special emphasis on the interfaces between units and External sourcing of knowledge was tested within the standard set
departments (Gassmann, 2006; Luoma et al., 2010; Zaytseva et al., of statements presented in Table 1 below. The respondents were to de-
2013). fine the importance of internal and external sources of information
Based on this discussion, the paper tests the following hypotheses: through a unified set of rankings (5-grade Likert scale).
The innovation culture and openness features outline were test-
1. There is strong reason to assume that the organizations' internal
ed with a questionnaire using the statements shown in Table 2.
openness culture becomes manifest when looking at the typical ob-
Respondents were asked to assess the statements on a 5 grade Likert
stacles to innovation in companies. Among the frequently quoted
scale.
and discussed barriers are the insufficient quality of management ac-
The combination of these two sets of variables was used to explore
tivities at a company, a cut of experimental work from the latest sci-
the actual configurations of the innovation-related practices from the
entific and technological achievements together with a shortage of
perception of the open innovation paradigm. The overall analysis was
skilled personnel (engineers, technicians) at the company and a
done in three stages: 1) constructing the key dimensions of openness;
lack of information about new technologies at the company.
2) identifying the patterns of internal and external openness; and 3)
Therefore, hypothesis 1
emphasizing the variation within the patterns.
H1. The company's innovation climate is clearly expressed in the expe- Stage one employed factor analysis for the available dimensions
rienced barriers to innovation. described in the two tables treated as independent statements on
the features of companies' innovation management and culture. All
2. Company culture supporting innovation requires a pro-active human variables were measured in the unified scale. After applying the fac-
resource management approach, which is dedicated to further devel- tor analysis (specifically, the principle component analysis) five
oping the abilities of employees and create space for idea elaboration major components were identified (using the criterion of the magni-
and follow up. Therefore, hypothesis 2 tude of the relevant eigenvalues). The contributions to components
H2. Companies focus on internal sources of innovation to build and were orthogonalized using the VARIMAX method to improve the
maintain innovative capabilities. interpretation.
Stage two revealed the actual profiles of innovation openness and
3. Open innovation-driven companies encourage employees to use a culture within the representative sample of the manufacturing and ser-
multitude of information sources for their innovation activities, vice companies in Russia. The clustering procedure used the latent class
i.e., finding ideas and factual development takes place over the analysis method (Hagenaars and McCutcheon, 2002) to categorize the
course of the overall innovation process. Therefore, hypothesis 3

H3. There is a strong difference in the use of internal and external infor-
mation sources between companies with explicit innovation culture 1
http://www.uk-irc.org/research/open-innovation/.
and those with less developed innovation culture. 2
http://corporateinnovation.berkeley.edu/research-report-on-managing-open-
innovation-in-large-firms/.
The hypotheses are tested by factor and cluster analysis, which aim 3
http://www.adlittle.com/oib_home.html.
to identify the main features of innovation cultures and propose a 4
https://www.hse.ru/en/monitoring/innproc/.
grouping of companies. 5
http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-en/i/projekte/fems.php.
 J. Kratzer et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 119 (2017) 128–138 131

Table 1 Table 3
Information sources for innovation. Sample description.

Type of source Information sources Industry Innovation-active enterprises

Internal sources Own research and development Food and beverages 83

Manufacturing departments Textiles, clothing and shoes 58
Marketing departments Wood and paper 50
Technology trend monitoring departments Printing and publishing 47
Client service Petro chemistry, coal and nuclear fuel 21
Top management Rubber, plastics and nonmetallic goods 55
Owners and shareholders Chemical production 54
Market actors Clients Pharmaceuticals 41
Suppliers Metallurgy 51
Related industry actors Metallic products 60
Competitors Machinery and equipment 94
Research and Russian R&D organizations Precision instruments and computers 44
development Russian institutions of higher education, universities Railway transport and shipbuilding 43
Universities and R&D organizations abroad Automobiles 27
Other sources Consulting companies Aircraft and space 23
Engineering companies Other manufacturing 54
Scientific literature, patents, professional conferences Total 805
and fares
Communication platforms, initiated / supported by the
state
Other

means) as it employs the maximum-likelihood framework accounting

for the distribution properties of the factors (see further discussion in
observations according to the values of the factors derived from the pre- Magidson and Vermunt, 2002). Key criteria for clustering implied the
vious stage. Latent class analysis brings certain advantages over other robustness of the constructed classes.
clustering algorithms based on the non-statistical principles (e.g. k- Stage three explored the specificities of the revealed profiles in terms
of modeled variables. For exploring the profile differences in terms of
constructed factors the one-way ANOVA test was used.
This study used the data on 805 innovation-active manufacturing
Table 2 companies (see Table 3).
Innovation management and culture. The specific features of the innovation in the Russian manufacturing
Feature Statement as well as the broader context of the national innovation system have
Risk Management provides opportunities to perform risky
been explicitly addressed by recent literature (see e.g. Gokhberg and
innovation projects. Kuznetsova, 2015; Gokhberg and Roud, 2016a,b). Key features include
There are specifically reserved funds for risky innovation the low propensity of companies to engage innovation (less than 10%
projects. of the companies are innovation-active), bias towards imitation and
Belief The management encourages self-organizing teams to solve
technology adoption as opposed to R&D-driven innovation, insufficient
non-standard problems.
There are specific practices in the promotion of successful linkages with the R&D sector, both universities and R&D organizations.
innovation projects. However, the firm-level studies of the heterogeneity of companies' be-
Exchange and The exchange of ideas is practiced among various units of the havior (Gokhberg and Roud, 2016b) demonstrate the presence of highly
sharing company without the direct involvement of management. efficient, innovative companies (less than 1%) in line with the general
Governance Strategic decisions are mainly made with the involvement of
company specialists of different levels (outside the narrow circle
body of the less advanced innovation strategies. This appears to be a
of the first persons). suitable setting in order to explore the diversity of the innovation strat-
Executives and management welcome the involvement of egies with regard to openness.
external partners and cooperation at various stages of the
development and implementation of innovations.
4. Findings
Partner The enterprise has developed standard procedures for
interaction with R&D partners (including the regulatory
framework, the criteria for assessing the quality of results, etc.). A factor analysis delivered a clear result shown in Table 4. The factors
The company conducts a targeted search for potential R&D determining openness can be summarized as follows:
partners by analyzing scientific and technical information
(publications, conferences, seminars, etc.). • Internal capabilities
The company conducts a targeted search for R&D partners with • Link to knowledge providers
the involvement of academic (university) consultants, or
• Innovation management culture
organizations specializing in these searches.
The company conducts a search for R&D partners based on a • Institualization of cooperation
study of the experience and success stories of other businesses • Market awareness
(including direct recommendations from businesses).
The company chooses R&D partners on the basis of information
obtained on specialized communications platform created by
The factor internal capabilities includes company internal sources of
the initiative (supported by) the state (for example, technology innovation namely intramural R&D, production departments, market-
platforms). ing departments, technology trend monitoring departments, client ser-
Training Specialists of the company participate in academic events vices and top management as well as company owners and clients. Links
(seminars, conferences) in order to communicate with the
to knowledge providers are meant to define the relationship with R&D
scientific community about applications that are relevant to the
enterprise. organizations, national universities, foreign universities and R&D orga-
The company holds open contests related to the selection of the nisations, consulting and engineering companies. Moreover, scientific
best researchers and developers. literature, patents, professional conferences and fairs and communica-
Major cooperative ties with R&D partners have been established tion platforms initiated by the state form the knowledge provider factor.
before 1990.
Innovation management culture is demonstrated by the degree to which
132 J. Kratzer et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 119 (2017) 128–138

Table 4
Factors determining openness.

Component

Link to Innovation Institualization

Internal knowledge management of Market
Indicators capabilities providers culture cooperation awareness

Source: internal — intramural R&D 0.837 −0.023 0.067 0.065 −0.093

Source: internal — production departments 0.802 0.028 0.094 −0.049 0.103
Source: internal — marketing departments 0.756 0.159 0.112 −0.081 0.239
Source: internal — technology trend monitoring departments 0.676 0.263 0.095 −0.190 0.283
Source: internal — client services 0.543 0.125 0.286 −0.260 0.403
Source: internal — top management 0.848 −0.164 0.135 0.021 −0.010
Source: internal — owners 0.773 −0.101 0.185 0.006 0.037
Source: external — clients 0.715 −0.180 −0.143 0.187 0.306
Source: external — R&D organizations 0.069 0.769 −0.114 0.211 0.007
Source: external — national universities −0.030 0.797 −0.068 0.223 0.078
Source: external — universities and R&D organizations abroad −0.301 0.749 0.022 0.109 0.211
Source: external — consulting companies −0.202 0.783 0.073 −0.017 0.287
Source: external — engineering companies −0.022 0.758 0.127 −0.012 0.204
Source: external — scientific literature, patents, professional conferences and fares 0.488 0.555 0.048 −0.013 −0.183
Source: external — communication platforms initiated by the state 0.247 0.747 0.113 −0.050 −0.026
Culture: management encourages to perform risky innovation projects 0.098 0.018 0.800 0.025 0.027
Culture: management encourages self-organization for solving complex problems 0.133 0.002 0.682 0.162 −0.158
Culture: there is an institutionalized practice to merit successful innovation 0.135 −0.002 0.734 0.229 −0.082
Culture: horizontal exchange of ideas without direct involvement of management 0.081 0.082 0.693 0.249 −0.097
Culture: a special fund was created to support innovation projects 0.016 0.012 0.699 0.094 0.129
Culture: strategic decision-making engages broad range of specialists beyond top −0.056 0.191 0.246 0.710 −0.036
management
Culture: management encourages engagement of external partners in the innovation 0.040 0.158 0.276 0.720 0.036
process
Culture: standard procedures to support cooperative partners engagement −0.071 0.001 0.252 0.684 0.193
Source: external — suppliers 0.494 0.038 −0.190 0.065 0.554
Source: external — companies in value chain 0.176 0.350 −0.027 0.075 0.766
Source: external — competitors 0.301 0.310 −0.132 0.265 0.532

Note: derived using principle component analysis with VARIMAX orthogonalization. 5 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 explain 68% of total variance.
Bold figures indicate that the indicator belongs to one component.

management encourages risky innovation projects and self- 3- outsourcing innovation capabilities
organization for solving complex problems, an institutionalized practice 4- extramural innovation, no matching internal culture/ procedures
to encourage successful innovation, a horizontal exchange of ideas 5- proactive innovation (match of internal and external openness)
without the direct involvement of management and the existence of a The latent class analysis helps to reveal 5 major portfolios of the
special fund for the support of innovation projects. The institutionaliza- company behaviour. Table 5 presents the cluster shares as well as the
tion of cooperation involves strategic decision-making which engages a values of the factors for the cluster centroids. ANOVA test identifies
broad range of specialists beyond top management, while management the significant variation of the factors between the portfolios (see
encourages the engagement of external partners in the innovation pro- Appendix 1, Tables 1 and 2).
cess and standard procedures to support cooperation. Eventually market The closed innovation (driven by internal capabilities) behaviour
awareness brings together suppliers, other companies in the value chain and the doing, using interacting (ad hoc processes, no link to knowl-
and competitors as external innovation sources. edge providers) approach dominate. Both approaches indicate a lack
The five factors perform different behaviours for different compa- of market and competition awareness by companies which allows
nies. This becomes evident from a cluster analysis which delivers 5 them to remain in the comfort zone of doing everything indepen-
main clusters of company behaviour: dently in a mainly ad hoc manner but hardly strategic. A very small
share of companies understands innovation as a strategic invest-
1- closed innovation (driven by internal capabilities) ment which requires a thorough balance of in-house and external ac-
2- doing, using, interacting (ad hoc processes, no link to knowledge tivities (cluster 5 — proactive innovation). A remarkable 13% of
providers) companies are outsourcing innovation to the fullest extent possible,

Table 5
Portfolios of the company behaviour.

Cluster 1: closed Cluster 2: doing using Cluster 3: outsourcing innovation Cluster 4: extramural Cluster 5: proactive
innovation interacting capabilities innovation innovation

Factors Internal capabilities 0.5843 0.3281 −0.4328 0.041 0.517

Link to knowledge providers 0.0205 −0.4907 0.0356 0.4194 0.0823
Innovation management culture −0.0828 −0.2049 0.1071 −0.2121 0.3912
Institutionalized cooperation 0.1302 −0.0048 0.1248 −0.3325 0.2096
Link to value chain/market players 0.1007 0.1915 0.0246 0.248 0.4977
Cluster size (share of all companies) 38.0% 27.3% 13.2% 12.3% 9.3%
 J. Kratzer et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 119 (2017) 128–138 133

but it remains doubtful whether or not these companies possess the 4.2. Cluster 2: doing, using, interacting (DUI, ad hoc processes, no link to
ability to bring an innovation to market. A similar situation can be knowledge providers)
observed for another 10% of the companies who run extramural in-
novation without having absorptive capacities. DUI-style companies face more challenges with the operative busi-
This also explains companies' attitudes toward innovation and ness, which implies a shortcoming in the overall long-term strategic
provides a plausible explanation as to why Russian companies are focus (Fig. 2).
rarely engaged in innovation activities overall. It is clear that innova- This becomes evident from the relatively weak focus on market
tion is not high on companies' agendas for varied reasons. One strong awareness and related innovation management. Internal capabilities
argument is the lack of a positive attitude toward innovation and the are considered to be sufficient to meet the market requirements,
resulting inclusion of this sentiment in companies' mission state- which is typical of companies who react to the market but who take lit-
ments. Therefore this attitude is put into the mind-set of companies' tle action by themselves. Accordingly, external partnerships do have
employees. This becomes evident by the large share of purely some contribution and importance which is also reflected in the average
outsourcing companies and purely closed innovation companies. level of institutionalized cooperation.
Both forms prove that companies have little understanding or will-
ingness to tackle the challenges inherent in innovation projects but 4.3. Cluster 3: outsourcing innovation capabilities
rely either fully on their own abilities without allowing outside
views or assume that everything can be purchased. Both attitudes The third cluster features companies which demonstrate a slightly
are debatable. The different behaviour schemes can be characterized above average institutionalized cooperation but have less of a focus on
as follows. internal capabilities (Fig. 3). (See Figs. 4 and 5.)
Although the focus on links to knowledge providers and market
awareness remains at average level these companies evidently have
4.1. Cluster 1: closed innovation an innovation culture which stresses the active encouragement of em-
ployees to perform risky innovation projects and self-organization for
The closed innovation type of company demonstrates a strong focus solving complex problems. At first sight, this behaviour is promising
on internal capabilities. They maintain an average level of links to with regard to achieving sustainable innovation performance, but the
knowledge providers and perform moderate innovation management. missing focus on internal capabilities justifies doubts about the long-
Innovation cooperation is less institutionalized, which is presumably term performance. The reason is that although external relations and
one explanation for the limited cooperation activities and market partnerships are important, they can only be effective and efficient if
awareness (Fig. 1). the outsourcing organization possesses internal capabilities to absorb
Since these companies do not view institutionalized cooperation as a the results from outsourced (external) activities.
component of innovation activities, it is hardly surprising that links to
external knowledge providers are missing. This might be due to either 4.4. Cluster 4: extramural innovation, no matching internal culture/
a lack of awareness of innovation-related developments outside the procedures
company regardless of the place of origin, but also due to the company's
internal values which do not prioritize innovation to a reasonable A reasonable share of companies show features of outsourcing inno-
extent. vation activities only when ready-made solutions are developed

Fig. 1. “Closed innovation” profile. Note: The box plots show the mean (cross), median (horizontal line), upper and lower 25% quartiles (top and bottom of the bar), maximum and
minimum values as well as the outliers (dots) for each of the factors within the portfolio.
134 J. Kratzer et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 119 (2017) 128–138

Fig. 2. “Doing using interacting” profile. Note: The box plots show the mean (cross), median (horizontal line), upper and lower 25% quartiles (top and bottom of the bar), maximum and
minimum values as well as the outliers (dots) for each of the factors within the portfolio.

externally and companies focus on commercialization, only taking ad- institutionalized cooperation modes which brings the danger of the
vantage of expected revenues while completely giving away the risk mismanagement of external relations.
and uncertainty inherent in innovation activities. Accordingly, internal
capabilities receive less attention instead the focus is strongly on link-
ages to knowledge providers and market awareness. This leads to the 4.5. Cluster 5: proactive innovation (match of internal and external
conclusion that these companies do screen the markets carefully and openness)
derive conclusions about innovation projects from their market knowl-
edge, hence acting in more or less user-driven innovation modes. How- Whereas companies in clusters 1 to 4 are either oriented towards in-
ever, at the same time they lack innovation management and ternal innovation activities or fully outsourcing, proactive, innovative

Fig. 3. “Outsourcing innovation capabilities” profile. Note: The box plots show the mean (cross), median (horizontal line), upper and lower 25% quartiles (top and bottom of the bar),
maximum and minimum values as well as the outliers (dots) for each of the factors within the portfolio.
 J. Kratzer et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 119 (2017) 128–138 135

Fig. 4. “Extramural innovation” profile. Note: The box plots show the mean (cross), median (horizontal line), upper and lower 25% quartiles (top and bottom of the bar), maximum and
minimum values as well as the outliers (dots) for each of the factors within the portfolio.

companies combine internal and external activities including developed far, literature and practice have discussed open innovation mainly
management schemes, e.g., they put a strong focus on internal capabil- from the point of companies' external collaboration in innovation ac-
ities, innovation management and market awareness while maintaining tivities, the use of external information sources and competences.
an average focus on links to knowledge providers and an above average However, little attention has been paid to the company's internal
focus on institutionalized cooperation. conditions, which are a precondition for permitting and supporting
external relations.
5. Discussion and conclusions Innovation culture is found only in a small share of companies in the
sample as an important feature of innovation (a proactive innovation
The analysis has demonstrated the diverse approaches of compa- style). Companies implementing these features in their routines and op-
nies towards an internal openness of their innovation activities. Thus erations frequently consider the innovation management culture as an

Fig. 5. “Proactive innovation” profile. Note: The box plots show the mean (cross), median (horizontal line), upper and lower 25% quartiles (top and bottom of the bar), maximum and
minimum values as well as the outliers (dots) for each of the factors within the portfolio.
136 J. Kratzer et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 119 (2017) 128–138

enabler for value chain and market player linkages and institutional- special fund to support such innovation projects. Consequently, there
ized cooperation modes. Furthermore, internal capabilities are is an institutionalized practice to promote successful innovation and
developed and maintained as the underlying basis for external rela- the horizontal exchange of ideas without direct management involve-
tions in all forms. Therefore, we argue that hypothesis 1 (H1) is ment. Furthermore, strategic decision-making engages a broad range
approved. of specialists beyond top management and external partners are fre-
For many companies, idea generation remains an internal process quently involved in innovation activities. The latter are characterized
which involves different departments such as production, marketing, by standard procedures to support cooperation and signed agreements
client service and in some cases technology trend monitoring units between the parties.
and top management together with the owners. This is found in almost The current article has explored the dimensions of innovation
all companies and can be interpreted as internal capability develop- culture at Russian companies. However, on the basis of statistical
ment. Therefore, hypothesis 2 (H2) “Companies focus on internal data it is not possible to measure the impact of a company's internal
sources for innovation to build and maintain innovation capabilities” innovation openness on the resulting innovations and their eventual
is confirmed. Proactive innovators are using a broad range of informa- economic impact. Hence, the analysis has provided a possible taxon-
tion sources for their innovation activities and engage in numerous col- omy of companies' innovation behaviour but thus far a discussion of
laborative activities with external partners. This behaviour is supported the underlying management concepts and approaches that steer
and encouraged by a clear internal innovation climate at the company. company innovation culture has not been possible with this dataset.
Therefore hypothesis 3 (H3) “There is a strong difference in the use of Furthermore, the taxonomy provides a framework for countries with
internal and external information sources between companies with ex- emerging economies. The insights into internal company openness
plicit innovation culture and those with less developed innovation cul- drawn from the study are important for companies and policy
ture” is confirmed. makers who aim at boosting innovation performance to understand.
The diverging innovation behaviour of companies is observed in Until recently, there was an attempt to implement the open innova-
five main forms. There is still the widespread and familiar closed in- tion paradigm at companies who were less innovative and experi-
novation paradigm, which is driven by the company's internal capa- enced which had until then completely neglected this concept.
bilities with little account for external activities. Next the doing, Accordingly, the measures taken by management and policy makers
using, interacting type aims at ad hoc processes mainly but less on to enhance companies' innovative potential had to demonstrate the
linkages to external knowledge providers. Furthermore two types limited impact because these measures were mostly borrowed
of openness are identified, which include the almost complete from experienced innovators located in highly developed countries
outsourcing of innovation capabilities and a strong extramural inno- which show an organic internal openness.
vation which demonstrates a limited match between internal culture For these reasons, the authors propose that future conceptual and
and corresponding procedures. Finally, the proactive innovation empiric work be done that elaborates upon the elements and views
type demonstrates a strong match between internal and external concerning company innovation culture, internal innovation openness
openness. and respective management concepts.
For all of the features, the management's attitude towards risky in-
novation projects is one of many key factors. However, the attitude to- Acknowledgement
wards risk is especially important as it correlates strongly with the
central features of the innovation concept, namely the newness of the The article was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research
solutions and the willingness to change. Accordingly, the related atti- Program at the National Research University Higher School of Econom-
tude involves the encouragement and active promotion of conducting ics (HSE) and supported within the framework of the subsidy granted to
risky innovation projects and similarly the self-organization for solving the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the imple-
complex problems. This is often demonstrated in the availability of a mentation of the Global Competitiveness Program.

Appendix A. Factor variation between the portfolios of open innovation strategies

Table 1
Significance of the mean differences between portfolios.

Factors Sum of squares Mean square F Sig.

Internal capabilities Between groups 96.165 24.041 448.030 0.000

Within groups 42.660 0.054
Total 138.825
Link to knowledge providers Between groups 77.331 19.333 258.264 0.000
Within groups 59.511 0.075
Total 136.842
Innovation management culture Between groups 27.769 6.942 71.185 0.000
Within groups 77.531 0.098
Total 105.300
Institutionalized cooperation Between groups 21.099 5.275 68.597 0.000
Within groups 61.130 0.077
Total 82.229
Link to value chain/market players Between groups 13.406 3.351 40.749 0.000
Within groups 65.385 0.082
Total 78.790

Note: derived from one-way ANOVA of 5 factors and 5 portfolios.

Table 2
Significance of the mean differences between portfolios: multiple comparisons.

Closed innovation Doing Using Interacting Outsourcing innovation capabilities Extramural innovation Proactive innovation
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Std. Error Sig. Std. Error Sig. Std. Error Sig. Std. Error Sig. Std. Error Sig.

J. Kratzer et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 119 (2017) 128–138
Difference Difference Difference Difference Difference
Internal capabilities 0.282 0.020 0.000 1.069 0.027 0.000 0.580 0.027 0.000 0.089 0.030 0.025
Link to knowledge providers 0.554 0.024 0.000 –0.021 0.032 0.962 –0.432 0.032 0.000 –0.034 0.035 0.874
Closed innovation Innovation management culture 0.135 0.027 0.000 –0.193 0.036 0.000 0.140 0.037 0.002 –0.498 0.040 0.000
Institutionalized cooperation 0.144 0.024 0.000 0.002 0.032 1.000 0.492 0.033 0.000 –0.085 0.036 0.117
Link to value chain/market players –0.107 0.025 0.000 0.078 0.033 0.135 –0.163 0.034 0.000 –0.410 0.037 0.000
Internal capabilities –0.282 0.020 0.000 0.787 0.028 0.000 0.298 0.029 0.000 –0.194 0.031 0.000
Link to knowledge providers –0.554 0.024 0.000 –0.575 0.033 0.000 –0.986 0.034 0.000 –0.588 0.037 0.000
Doing Using Interacting Innovation management culture –0.135 0.027 0.000 –0.328 0.038 0.000 0.005 0.039 1.000 –0.633 0.042 0.000
Institutionalized cooperation –0.144 0.024 0.000 –0.142 0.034 0.000 0.347 0.034 0.000 –0.230 0.037 0.000
Link to value chain/market players 0.107 0.025 0.000 0.184 0.035 0.000 –0.056 0.036 0.510 –0.304 0.038 0.000
Internal capabilities –1.069 0.027 0.000 –0.787 0.028 0.000 –0.489 0.034 0.000 –0.980 0.036 0.000
Link to knowledge providers 0.021 0.032 0.962 0.575 0.033 0.000 –0.411 0.040 0.000 –0.012 0.042 0.998
Outsourcing innovation
Innovation management culture 0.193 0.036 0.000 0.328 0.038 0.000 0.333 0.045 0.000 –0.304 0.048 0.000
capabilities
Institutionalized cooperation –0.002 0.032 1.000 0.142 0.034 0.000 0.490 0.040 0.000 –0.087 0.043 0.244
Link to value chain/market players –0.078 0.033 0.135 –0.184 0.035 0.000 –0.241 0.042 0.000 –0.488 0.044 0.000
Internal capabilities –0.580 0.027 0.000 –0.298 0.029 0.000 0.489 0.034 0.000 –0.491 0.036 0.000
Link to knowledge providers 0.432 0.032 0.000 0.986 0.034 0.000 0.411 0.040 0.000 0.399 0.043 0.000
Extramural innovation Innovation management culture –0.140 0.037 0.002 –0.005 0.039 1.000 –0.333 0.045 0.000 –0.637 0.049 0.000
Institutionalized cooperation –0.492 0.033 0.000 –0.347 0.034 0.000 –0.490 0.040 0.000 –0.577 0.043 0.000
Link to value chain/market players 0.163 0.034 0.000 0.056 0.036 0.510 0.241 0.042 0.000 –0.248 0.045 0.000
Internal capabilities –0.089 0.030 0.025 0.194 0.031 0.000 0.980 0.036 0.000 0.491 0.036 0.000
Link to knowledge providers 0.034 0.035 0.874 0.588 0.037 0.000 0.012 0.042 0.998 –0.399 0.043 0.000
Proactive innovation Innovation management culture 0.498 0.040 0.000 0.633 0.042 0.000 0.304 0.048 0.000 0.637 0.049 0.000
Institutionalized cooperation 0.085 0.036 0.117 0.230 0.037 0.000 0.087 0.043 0.244 0.577 0.043 0.000
Link to value chain/market players 0.410 0.037 0.000 0.304 0.038 0.000 0.488 0.044 0.000 0.248 0.045 0.000

Note: Derived using Turkey post-hoc test for multiple comparisons after the one-way ANOVA of 5 factors and 5 portfolios.
Differences significant at 5% level marked in bold.

137
138 J. Kratzer et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 119 (2017) 128–138

References Kotsemir, M., Meissner, D., 2013. Conceptualizing the innovation process — trends and
outlook. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No WP BRP 10/STI/2013.
Abd Razak, A., Rowling, M., White, G., Mason-Jones, R., 2016. Public sector supply chain Kratzer, J., Leenders, R.Th.A.J., van Engelen, J.M.L., 2008. The social structure of leadership
management: a triple helix approach to aligning innovative environmental initia- and creativity in engineering design teams. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 269–286.
tives. Foresight and STI Governance vol. 10, no 1:pp. 43–52. http://dx.doi.org/10. Kuemmerle, W., 1997. Building effective R&D capabilities abroad. Harvard Business Re-
17323/1995-459x.2016.1.43.52. view (March-April 1997).
Almirall, E., 2008. Living labs and open innovation: roles and applicability. Electron. Lee, S.P., Gwangman, Y., Byungun, P.J., 2010. Open innovation in SMEs—an intermediated
J. Virtual Organ. Netw. 10 (Special Issue on Living Labs) (August 2008). network model. Res. Policy 39 (2010), 290–300.
Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B., Kramer, S.J., 2004. Leader behaviors and the Leenders, R.Th.A.J., van Engelen, J.M.L., Kratzer, J., 2007. Systematic design methods and
work environment for creativity: perceived leader support. Leadersh. Q. 15, 5–32. the creative performance of new product teams: do they contradict or compliment
Angel, R., 2006. Putting an Innovation Culture Into Practice. Ivey Business Journal January/Feb- each other. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 24, 166–179.
ruary 2006, pp1-5, Reprint # 9B06TA08. available online. http://www.gilfordgrp.com/ Luoma, T., Paasi, J., Valkokari, K., 2010. Intellectual property in inter-organisational rela-
articles/Ivey%20Innovation%20Culture.pdf (last accessed 05 September 2013-09-05). tionships: findings from an interview study. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 14 (3), 399–414.
Bianchi, M., Cavaliere, A., Chiaroni, D., Frattini, F., Chiesa, V., 2011. Organisational modes Magidson, J., Vermunt, J., 2002. Latent class models for clustering: a comparison with K-
for open innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical industry: an exploratory analysis. means. Can. J. Mark. Res. 20 (1), 36–43.
Technovation 31 (2011), 22–33. Mancusi, M.L., 2008. International spillovers and absorptive capacity: a cross-country
Bondarenko, N., 2015. The role of companies in human capital accumulation: cross- cross-sector analysis based on patents and citations. J. Int. Econ. 76 (2008), 155–165.
country analysis. Foresight-Russia 9 (2):22–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.17323/1995- Miles, I., 2011. Service innovation in the twenty first century. Foresight-Russia 5 (2), 4–15
459x.2015.2.22.37. (in Russian).
Brunswicker, S., Vanhaverbeke, W., 2015. Open innovation in small and medium-sized OECD, 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data
enterprises (SMEs): external knowledge sourcing strategies and internal organiza- (Paris).
tional facilitators. J. Small Bus. Manag. 53 (4), 1241–1263. Perry-Smith, J.E., Shalley, C.E., 2003. The social side of creativity: a static and dynamic so-
Carayannis, E.G., Meissner, D., 2016. Glocal targeted open innovation: challenges, oppor- cial network perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28, 89–107.
tunities and implications for theory, policy and practice. J. Technol. Transf. 2016. Reiter-Palmon, R., Illies, J.J., 2004. Leadership and creativity: understanding leadership
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9497-0. from a creative problem-solving perspective. Leadersh. Q. 15, 55–77.
Chesbrough, H., 2003. The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. Calif. Schroll, A., Mild, A., 2012. A critical review of empirical research on open innovation adop-
Manag. Rev. 45 (3), 33–58. tion. J. Betriebswirt. 62 (2), 85–118.
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J., 2006. Open Innovation: Researching a New Simmie, J., 2003. Innovation and urban regions as national and international nodes for the
Paradigm. Oxford University Press on Demand. transfer and sharing of knowledge. Reg. Stud. 37 (6–7), 607–620.
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., Frattini, F., 2011. The open innovation journey: how firms dynam- Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., Knockaert, M., 2010. Building absorptive capacity to organise
ically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm. Technovation 31 inbound open innovationin traditional industries. Technovation 30 (2010), 130–141.
(2011), 34–43. Van den Biesen, J., 2008. Open Innovation @ Philips Research; Presentation at the Business
Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning Symposium “Open Innovation in Global Networks” Organised by the OECD and the
and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 35 (1990), 128–152. Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority, Copenhagen, February 25–26, 2008.
Cooke, P., 2005. Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation Ex- Vanhaverbeke, W., Cloodt, M., 2014. Theories of the firm and open innovation. New Fron-
ploring ‘Globalisation 2’—a new model of industry organization. Res. Policy 34 tiers in Open Innovation, pp. 256–278.
(2005), 1128–1149. West, J., Lakhani, K.R., 2008. Getting clear about communities in open innovation. Ind.
Dahlandera, L., Gann, D.M., 2010. How open is innovation? Res. Policy 39 (2010), Innov. 15 (2):223–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13662710802033734.
699–709. Zaytseva, A., Shuvalova, O., Meissner, D., 2013. User innovation — empirical evidence from
Döring, T., Schnellenbach, J., 2004. What do we know about geographical knowledge spill- Russia. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP 08/STI/2013 (avail-
overs and regional growth? — a survey of the literature. Deutsche Bank Research, Re- able at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2246685).
search Notes, Working Paper Series, October 12, 2004, No. 14.
Doz, Y., Santos, J., Wiliamson, P., 2004. Is your innovation process global? INSEAD Work- Prof. Dr. Jan Kratzer is chair of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management at TU Ber-
ing Paper Series 2004/09/SM lin. He studied sociology and business administration at University Leipzig and wrote his
Fallick, B., Fleischman, C.A., Rebitzer, B., 2004. Job-hopping in Silicon Valley: the micro- PhD. about ‘Communication and Performance: An Empirical Study in Innovation Teams
foundations of a high technology cluster. The National Bureau of Economic Research at Interuniversity Centre of Social Science Theory and Methodology’ (The Netherlands).
(6/14/2004). After his PhD he had worked as assistant and later associate professor at University of Gro-
Ferrary, M., 2011. Specialized organizations and ambidextrous clusters in the open inno- ningen (The Netherlands). He has published several books and research articles in the
vation paradigm. Eur. Manag. J. 29, 181–192. fields of innovation management, innovation marketing, entrepreneurship, social net-
Fritsch, M., Franke, G., 2004. Innovation, regional knowledge spillovers and R&D cooper- works, and network methodology. Jan Kratzer is coordinating the Entrepreneurship
ation. Res. Policy 33. School and together with Agnes von Matuschka managing director of the Center for Entre-
Gassmann, O., 2006. Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda. R&D Manag. preneurship (CfE) at TU Berlin. In addition, Jan Kratzer is dean for Research and Interna-
36 (3), 2006. tionalization at the Faculty of Economics & Business at TU Berlin and member of the
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., Chesbrough, H., 2010. The future of open innovation. R&D Manag. Academic Board of TU Berlin. Further, he is department editor for “Creativity and Innova-
40 (3), 2010. tion Management” and member of the editorial board of “Journal of Product Innovation
Gavrilova, T., Alsufyev, A., Yanson, A.-S., 2014. Modern notation of business models: visual Management”. In the last years Prof. Dr. Jan Kratzer played a significant role in designing
trend. Foresight-Russia 8 (2), 56–70. the education programs of EIT Climate KIC and EIT ICT Labs.
Gershman, M., Kuznetsova, T., 2012. Specificities of involving small enterprises into inter-
national S&T co-operation: evidence from the linkages between Russia and Germany. Dr. Meissner has 15 years experience in research and teaching technology and innovation
Foresight-Russia 6 (3), 51–61 (in Russian). management and policy. He has strong background in science, technology and innovation
Gokhberg, L., Kuznetsova, T., 2015. Chapter 13. Russian Federation. UNESCO Science Re- for policy making and industrial management with special focus on Foresight and
port: Towards 2030. UNESCO, pp. 343–363. roadmapping, science, technology and innovation policies, funding of research and prior-
Gokhberg, L., Meissner, D., 2013. Innovation: superpowered invention. Nature 501 ity setting. Prior to joining the HSE Dirk was responsible for technology and innovation
(7467), 313–314. policy at the presidential office of the Swiss Science and Technology Council. Dirk also
Gokhberg, L., Roud, V., 2016a. How to design a national innovation system in a time of has long experience in top level consulting to key decision makers in industry as manage-
global innovation networks: a Russian perspective. In: Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., ment consultant for technology and innovation management with Arthur D. Little. He is
Wunsch-Vincent, S. (Eds.), The Global Innovation Index 2016: Winning with Global and was member of international working groups on technology and innovation policy.
Innovation. Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO, Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva, Dirk represented Switzerland and now the Russian Federation at the OECD Working Party
pp. 159–169. on Technology and Innovation Policy.
Gokhberg, L., Roud, V., 2016b. Structural changes in the national innovation system: lon-
gitudinal study of innovation modes in the Russian industry. Econ. Chang. Restruct. Vitaliy Roud is researcher and scientific coordinator at the Laboratory for Economics of In-
49 (2), 269–288. novation of the National Research University Higher School of Economics and at the HSE
Griffin, A., 1997. PDMA research on new product development practices. J. Prod. Innov. Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Manag. 14, 429–458. Vitaliy has participated in a number of research and policy advice projects initiated by the
Hagenaars, J.A., McCutcheon, A.L. (Eds.), 2002. Applied Latent Class Analysis. Cambridge Russian state bodies and enterprises including several national-level foresight initiatives.
University Press. His academic interests include empirical studies of innovation, evidence-based innovation
Harison, E., Koski, H., 2009. Applying open innovation in business strategies: evidence policy, methodology of innovation surveys, Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) sta-
from Finnish software firms. Res. Policy 39 (2010), 351–359. tistical indicators, STI policy design and evaluation. He holds lecturer position in the Mas-
Huizingh, E.K.R.E., 2011. Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives. ter's Programme ‘Governance of Science, Technology and Innovation’ in NRU HSE.
Technovation 31 (2011), 2–9.
Kesidou, E., Szirmai, A., 2007. Local knowledge spillovers, innovation and economic per-
formance in developing countries: empirical evidence from the Uruguay software
cluster. UNU-MERIT conference on “Micro Evidence on Innovation in Developing
Economies”, Maastricht (Netherlands), May 31 & June 1, 2007.