The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 30 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms
Open accessAbstract
Abstract A central part of the innovation process concerns the way firms go about organizing search for new ideas that have commercial potential. New models of innovation have suggested that many innovative firms have changed the way they search for new ideas, adopting open search strategies that involve the use of a wide range of external actors and sources to help them achieve and sustain innovation. Using a large‐scale sample of industrial firms, this paper links search strategy to innovative performance, finding that searching widely and deeply is curvilinearly (taking an inverted U‐shape) related to performance. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
41 Own result · 15 Own method · 13 Sources not found · 13 Own interpretation · 4 No full text of the sources · 3 Not checked yet · 1 Partly supported · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that firms who have open search strategies-those who search widely and deeply-tend to be more innovative.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > INTRODUCTION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“finding that searching widely and deeply is curvilinearly (taking an inverted U-shape) related to performance.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · hedged
“However, we find that the benefits to openness are subject to decreasing returns, indicating that there is a point where additional search becomes unproductive.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of our control variables, the parameters for R&D intensity (RDINT), the scope of the market (GEOMARKET), and collaboration in innovative activities (COLLAB) are consistently positive and significant in explaining the proportion of sales due Strat.Mgmt.J., 27: 131-150 (2006) to novel products no matter the degree of novelty of the product.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Chemicals, electrical and machinery industries exhibit the highest level of external search breath, indicating that firms in industries with medium to high levels of scientific and technological activity search widely.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Descriptive results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether or not the firm is a start-up has no positive influence on innovative performance, no matter whether or not this is conditional on the R&D intensity of the firm.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results show that in the case of INNWORLD (Model I) the parameter for DEPTH is significantly larger than for INNIMP (Model III) at the 5 percent level.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The finding is the same when INNFIRM and INNIMP are included as dependent variables (the results of these estimations are not displayed for reasons of space).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in the case of the DEPTH variable, we detect a curvilinear relationship with INNWORLD, since the DEPTH COLLAB variable and the squared term are both significant and have the expected signs.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The outcome of this exercise shows that the size of the parameter in Model I (where the dependent variable is INNWORLD) for BREADTH is significantly smaller than the parameter in Model III (where the dependent variable is INNIMP) at the 1 percent level”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but the parameter in Model I is not significantly larger than the parameter in Model II.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
- Probably not a substantial claim. 34
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These studies are largely based on analysis of patent citation data and patents have several serious shortcomings as indicators of innovation and innovative search.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Teece, 1986 source
- Partly supportedcites Levin et al., 1987 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (page unavailable) says industries differ substantially in patents generated per dollar of R&D and discusses the need to improve research that uses patent counts to measure innovative activity. This supports a limitation of patents as indicators of innovation, but our copy does not establish the claimed shortcomings of patent citation data as indicators of innovative search. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not matchedcites Alcacer and Gittelman, 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results indicate that while there are decreasing returns in innovation for increased openness in terms of breadth, no negative returns are to be detected.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results show that the dummies below the benchmark all have a negative sign-as expected-but only the dummy for the value of 0 is significant.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, the results indicate that while there are decreasing returns in innovation for increased openness in terms of external search depth, there are negative returns for 9-16 sources only.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while 4.94 percent of firms' turnover pertain to innovations new to the firm (INNFIRM)”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the level of external search breadth and depth are highest in industries with high levels of R&D intensity and rates of innovation.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Descriptive results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, on average, firms use about seven sources of knowledge for their innovative activities”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The parameters for lead users (USER) are significant for radical and well as for incremental innovation, but not for the intermediate category (INNFIRM).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The dummy above the benchmark is positive but insignificant.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the table it can be seen that on, average, 2.81 percent of firms' turnover can be attributed to products new to the world (INNWORLD)”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, from Model VII in Table 5, it can be seen that the interaction effects between R&D intensity and both BREADTH and DEPTH are significant at the 5 percent level, but they have negative signs, indicating a substitution effect between internal R&D and openness.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The parameter for DEPTH of openness is the highest in the case of INNWORLD, while INNFIRM is lower and the parameter for INNIMP is the smallest to the extent that it is insignificant.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
In the paper
“This model suggests that the advantages that firms gain from internal R&D expenditure have declined.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chesbrough, 2003a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It received a response rate of 41.7 percent (Stockdale, 2002).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Sample
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Stockdale, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In contrast, Cohen andLevinthal (1989, 1990) argue that R&D has two faces: not only does R&D generate genuinely new knowledge; it also enhances the firm's ability to assimilate and exploit existing knowledge from the”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Openness and absorptive capacity
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, Chesbrough's work on the 'open innovation' model has not yet been empirically examined using a large-scale dataset and the previous literature on innovative search has not yet investigated the role of search among external actors and sources.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > INTRODUCTION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“New models of innovation have suggested that many innovative firms have changed the way they search for new ideas, adopting open search strategies that involve the use of a wide range of external actors and sources to help them achieve and sustain innovation.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · hedged
“Chesbrough (2003a) suggests that many innovative firms have shifted to an 'open innovation' model, using a wide range of external actors and sources to help them achieve and sustain innovation.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chesbrough, 2003a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · hedged
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample was stratified by 12 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) classes and includes all main sectors of the U.K. economy, excluding public bodies, retail, and hotels and restaurants.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Sample
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interpretability, reliability, and validity of the survey were established by extensive piloting and pre-testing before implementation within different European countries and across firms from a variety of industrial sectors, including services, construction and manufacturing.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Sample
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The response rates for different sectors, regions, and size are largely consistent with the overall response pattern (Stockdale, 2002).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Sample
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Stockdale, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our subsample of the survey includes 2707 manufacturing firms and draw from the entire U.K. manufacturing sector.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Sample
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“CIS data offer 'a direct measure of success in commercializing innovations for a broad range of industries . . .that more traditional measures may not capture' (Leiponen and Helfat, 2003).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Sample
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Leiponen and Helfat, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A further limitation of the present paper has to do with the fact that we have focused on the distinction between incremental and radical innovations only.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the list of sources on the questionnaire is not fully comprehensive, it is extensive and the items are not mutually exclusive.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Independent variables
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The variables reflecting the innovative performance of firms are highly skewed and, accordingly, the pattern observed in the empirical distribution is better represented by lognormal distributions.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the present study examined different external search strategies for innovative ideas across different knowledge sources, it did not investigate the role of the type and nature of the technological trajectory that a firm may be exploring (as in the case of Katila and Ahuja) and how its approach to this trajectory may influence its innovative performance.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in the case of BREADTH and DEPTH, the eight dummies are subsequently added up so that each firm gets a score of 0 when no partners are used, while the firm gets a value of 8 when the firm is collaborating with all potential collaboration partners (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.83).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Independent variables
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lack of openness of firms to their external environment may reflect an organizational myopia, indicating that managers may overemphasize internal sources and under emphasize external sources.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although our variable is a relatively simple construct, it has a high degree of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.93).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Independent variables
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The sources listed in the survey overlap with the resources and institutions that are considered part of the national innovation system (Lundvall, 1992;Nelson, 1993;Spencer, 2001).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Independent variables
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As Chesbrough suggests, firms that are too internally focused may miss opportunities, as many knowledge sources necessary to achieve innovation can only be found outside the firm.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chesbrough
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This finding is consistent with the findings from previous studies (see Cohen, 1995;Laursen and Foss, 2003).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cohen, 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Laursen and Foss, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in the case of BREADTH, the 16 sources are subsequently added up so that each firm gets a score of 0 when no knowledge sources are used to a high degree, while the firm gets the value of 16 when all knowledge sources are used to a high degree (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.76).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Independent variables
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Past research suggests that firms producing simple or discrete technologies that are artefactually simple, that is, they involve relatively few components and clear interfaces between modules, or that rely on a small number of knowledge bases, will tend to search more narrowly than firms involved in the design and development of complex technologies (Nelson and Winter, 1982).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nelson and Winter, 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Openness to external sources allows firms to draw in ideas from outsiders to deepen the pool of technological opportunities available to them.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“However, a very similar variable to that of the variable measuring search breadth has been used byLaursen and Salter (2003) as a predictor of the propensity of firms to use knowledge developed at universities.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Laursen and Salter (2003)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our approach focuses on innovative search and performance in one period and this remains a severe limitation of the study.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, it may also be the result of an additional attention allocation problem, since ideas are produced both internally and externally.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other studies, facing similar problems in terms of similar characteristics of skewness and departure from normality, have proposed a log-transformation of the Tobit model with a multiplicative exponential error term (Filippucci, Drudi, and Papalia, 1996;Papalia and Di Iorio, 2001).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Filippucci, Drudi, and Papalia, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Papalia and Di Iorio, 2001 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One likely interpretation of this result is that it is the product of the NIH syndrome-that greater attention to openness for external sources confronts internal resistance from some of the company's technical staff.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Complex technologies, such as aeroengines, often require firms to master a wide number of different knowledge bases and to understand the interfaces and integration of a range of different components (Brusoni, Prencipe, and Pavitt, 2001).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brusoni, Prencipe, and Pavitt, 2001 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As pointed out earlier in this paper, a limitation of the framework proposed here is that it does not allow for the analysis of the importance of breadth and depth of external search to innovative performance within each individual knowledge channel.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the introduction of any variable into a well-established area of research is always contentious, the introduction of the two new variables to reflect the openness of innovative search does enable researchers to better explore the link between innovative search and innovative performance.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Independent variables
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“AlsoLeiponen and Helfat (2003) use a similar search breadth variable.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Leiponen and Helfat (2003)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Given that many studies of innovation have found that a key source for innovations are lead users, we include a variable reflecting the use of lead users in innovation (Rothwell et al., 1974;Urban and von Hippel, 1988;von Hippel, 1988).”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Control variables
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The residuals of the Tobit model follow a lognormal distribution.
“We apply this approach to the study of innovative performance and assume a lognormal distribution for the residuals of the Tobit model.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The latent variable of innovative performance of a firm is a function of a number of explicative variables.
“It is then assumed that the latent variable of innovative performance of a firm i is a function of a number of explicative variables.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Firms are increasingly drawing in knowledge from external sources in their innovative activities.
“Firms are increasingly drawing in knowledge from external sources in their innovative activities.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Modern innovation processes require firms to master highly specific knowledge about different users, technologies, and markets.
“Modern innovation processes require firms to master highly specific knowledge about different users, technologies, and markets.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Statistical method and results
“In a similar fashion, we create dummies for the ranges of 0 sources; 1-4 sources; 5-8 sources; and for 9-16 sources.”
§ OPEN FOR INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF OPENNESS IN EXPLAINING INNOVATION PERFORMANCE AMONG U.K. MANUFACTURING FIRMS > Limitations and future research
“| DUM BREADTH, 9-14 sources Benchmark | | | | | | | | | | | DUM BREADTH, 15-16 sources | 0.166 | 0.347 | | | | | | | |”
Citations
Cites
Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393553 · Cited by 35,728
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Loasby, B. J., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1983) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2232409 · Cited by 21,426
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
Fukuyama, F., & Schumpeter, J. A. (1997) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20048211 · Cited by 15,349
Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance
Porter, M. E. (1985) · Cited by 14,725
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393549 · Cited by 8,563
Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393988 · Cited by 8,499
Teece, D. J. (1986) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2 · Cited by 7,842
Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm
Szulanski, G. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105 · Cited by 7,839
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250141009 · Cited by 7,646
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Chesbrough H, 2003, Open Innovation
- Filippucci C, 1996, Testing the relevance of Tobin's approach for modelling consumption, Economic Notes, 25, 225
- Greene WH, 2000, Econometric Analysis
- LaursenK SalterAJ.2003.Searching low and high: why do firms cite universities as a source of innovation?Paper presented at the EMAEE 2003 Conference on the ‘Knowledge‐Based Economies: New Challenges in Methodology Theory and Policy’ Augsburg Germany.
- Pavitt KLR, 1989, Accumulation, diversification and organization of technological activities in U.K. companies, 1945–83, Management Science, 35, 81
- von Hippel E, 1988, The Sources of Innovation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 4,901–5,000 of 6,332
Fostering Collaborative Innovation: Fraunhofer’s Participatory Methodology
Best, K., Rehberg, M., & Schraudner, M. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49923-9_8 · Cited by 1
Kaur, M., & Mehta, S. (2024) · African Journal of Science Technology Innovation and Development · doi:10.1080/20421338.2024.2403812 · Cited by 1
“It was found that the means of ‘ learning ’ differ between developed and developing countries and more so between frontier and laggard fi rms (Bell and Albu 1999; Laursen and Salter 2006; Lundvall 2007).”
Shahid, S., Ashraf, N., & Khan, R. N. (2025) · International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research · doi:10.1108/ijebr-06-2024-0578 · Cited by 1
Plottu, B., & Widehem, C. (2014) · Management & Avenir · doi:10.3917/mav.073.0015 · Cited by 1
Governance Choice in Open Innovation
Bagherzadeh, M., & Brunswicker, S. (2017) · Advances in human resources management and organizational development book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2956-9.ch010 · Cited by 1
La orientación emprendedora como fuente de innovación para las empresas. Un análisis aplicado
Sánchez‐García, E., Marco‐Lajara, B., & Martínez‐Falcó, J. (2023) · Brazilian Journal of Development · doi:10.34117/bjdv9n5-141 · Cited by 1
Pallayil, B., Ambrammal, S. K., & Ramachandran, R. (2023) · Studies in Microeconomics · doi:10.1177/23210222231154056 · Cited by 1
Process Perspective on Entrepreneurship
Gertsen, F., Lassen, A. H., Haase, L. M., et al. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91611-8_10 · Cited by 1
The Effectiveness of Public R&D Subsidies and the Role of Collaboration
Beck, M., Bento, C. L., & Schenker‐Wicki, A. (2015) · Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) · doi:10.5167/uzh-111031 · Cited by 1
What Type of Companies Benefits from University Spillovers?
Ebersberger, B., Altmann, A., & Herstad, S. J. (2012) · Innovation, technology and knowledge management · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4590-6_19 · Cited by 1
Student-oriented Teaching by Using an Open Innovation Game
Bogers, M. L. A. M. (2011) · University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) · Cited by 1
Kijek, T. (2016) · Equilibrium Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy · doi:10.12775/equil.2016.018 · Cited by 1
A framework to evaluate customer knowledge co-creation capacity for new product development
Mohaghar, A. (2012) · AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT · doi:10.5897/ajbm11.2392 · Cited by 1
Nguyet, P. T. A., & Tinh, D. T. (2025) · Journal of Social and Economic Development · doi:10.1007/s40847-025-00459-4 · Cited by 1
Teachers' Technological Innovation Intention and Performance in the E-Learning Context
Zhang, X. Q., Shao, X., Hu, C., Dong, R. K., & Wu, C. (2025) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.379724 · Cited by 1
Serial and persistent innovation in UK small companies
Corradini, C. (2013) · Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) · Cited by 1
Safdar, U., Sajid, I., & Badir, Y. F. (2018) · IEEE Technology and Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON) · doi:10.1109/temscon.2018.8488384 · Cited by 1
Chung, D. B., & Kim, B. (2016) · Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) · doi:10.1109/picmet.2016.7806515 · Cited by 1
ORGANISING FOR INNOVATION IN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRMS: ECONOMETRIC EVIDENCE FROM THE UK
Bourke, J., Roper, S., & Love, J. H. (2021) · International Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1142/s1363919621500857 · Cited by 1
Knowledge mobility and appropriability in the context of value co-creation
Rudny, W. (2017) · Ekonomiczne Problemy Usług · doi:10.18276/epu.2017.126/2-14 · Cited by 1
Communities for Innovation as Enablers of Cyclical Ambidexterity in SMEs
Danzinger, F., & Dumbach, M. (2011) · GI-Jahrestagung · Cited by 1
Oliveira, L. F. B., Pitassi, C., & Gonçalves, A. A. (2015) · Brazilian Business Review · doi:10.15728/bbr.2015.12.3.3 · Cited by 2
Crowdsourcing without profit: The role of seeker motivation and strategies
Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & West, J. (2017) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2017.14684abstract · Cited by 1
Assessing the Effect of Innovative Performance on Firm Performance: The Case of Footwear Industry
Gelmez, E., Öztürk, M., & Özbey, D. Ö. (2017) · International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · doi:10.6007/ijarbss/v7-i7/3074 · Cited by 1
Asiedu, M. A. (2023) · doi:10.11648/j.edu.20231204.21 · Cited by 1
Toldbod, T., & Laursen, L. N. (2026) · Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management · doi:10.1108/qram-02-2025-0048 · Cited by 2
SEARCHING FOR INNOVATION IN MARKET AND TRANSITION ECONOMIES: EVIDENCE ACROSS EUROPE.
Grimpe, C. (2009) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2009.44256506 · Cited by 1
Co-Evolution between Open Innovation and Absorptive Capacity in Korean SMEs
Sohn, D. (2012) · Korean Management Science Review · doi:10.7737/kmsr.2012.29.3.169 · Cited by 1
Zajkowska, M. (2017) · Zeszyty Naukowe SGGW Polityki Europejskie Finanse i Marketing · doi:10.22630/pefim.2017.17.66.17 · Cited by 1
Innovation and absorptive capacity: What is the role of technological frontier?Preprint
Gombau, V., & Blasco, A. S. I. (2011) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
Evaluation Processes in All Aspects of EKDDA’s Open Innovation Project
Dramalioti, P., & Kousina, E. (2024) · The political economy of Greek growth up to 2030 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-60721-9_17 · Cited by 3
The distribution of innovation activity across UK industry: final report
Adams, R. J. (2011) · Figshare · Cited by 1
Wu, J., Liu, M., Li, Z., et al. (2010) · International Conference on Management and Service Science (MASS) · doi:10.1109/icmss.2010.5575520 · Cited by 1
Herrera, J., Lorenzo, A. M. C., & Veiga, P. M. (2026) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-10-2025-1385 · Cited by 2
Interfirm knowledge transfer in joint patenting: a technological distance analysis
Malacina, I., & Kimpimäki, J. (2021) · Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.24840/2183-0606_008.004_0006 · Cited by 1
Roeckle, F. (2013) · Cited by 1
Banga, K., & Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2025) · Environment Technology Resources Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference · doi:10.17770/etr2025vol1.8625 · Cited by 1
“While firms increasingly adopt OI strategies, national innovation measurement models remain largely firm-centric, failing to account for inter-organizational knowledge flows and open collaboration mechanisms [23].”
Intellectual Capital Impact on Open Innovation: The Case of Technology-Based Sectors in Tunisia
Najar, T., Dhaouadi, K., & Zammel, I. B. (2020) · Journal of Innovation Economics & Management · doi:10.3917/e.jie.032.0075 · Cited by 1
Carlos, V. S., Almeida, J. R., Rodrigues, F., et al. (2025) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci15120475 · Cited by 1
“…when dimensions are conceptually related but not hierarchically ordered, and it is consistent with prior innovation studies that operationalise the breadth of external linkages as a simple count of cooperation or search channels (Nardo et al., 2008; Greco et al., 2019; Laursen & Salter, 2006).”
Bittencourt, P. F., Signor, D., Catela, E. Y. D. S., et al. (2018) · Revista de Economia Contemporânea · doi:10.1590/198055272227 · Cited by 1
Performance expectation fallout, knowledge search, and corporate dual innovation
Zheng, L., Wang, Y., & Fang, K. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40540 · Cited by 1
“Acquiring knowledge, information, and opportunities from many sources has impacted a company ’ s strategic decision-making processes [8].”
InfluentialZhang, B., & Zhu, Y. (2024) · Advances in Economics and Management Research · doi:10.56028/aemr.9.1.98.2024 · Cited by 1
“Over the years, this concept has been further refined and enriched by scholars such as Laursen[2], Guo[5], Jiang[11], Ren[3], Huang[6], Yang[12], and others.”
BackgroundZbiory rozmyte w ocenie innowacyjności europejskich grup telekomunikacyjnych
Jonek-Kowalska, I., & Nawrocki, T. L. (2013) · Organization and Management · Cited by 1
Ahmed, M. A. O., Zhang, J., Nour, H. M., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia230731 · Cited by 1
Organizing Product Innovation: Hierarchy, Market or Triple Helix NetworksPreprint
Gjelsvik, M., Fitjar, R. D., & Rodríguez‐Pose, A. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2804525 · Cited by 1
Inbound and Outbound Open Innovation in Clusters
Xu, Y.-J., & Zheng, J. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38427-1_71 · Cited by 1
Stay or go? Exogenous shocks and small and medium‐sized enterprises ' export market portfolios
Meschi, M., Majocchi, A., & Mayrhofer, U. (2026) · Global Strategy Journal · doi:10.1002/gsj.70006 · Cited by 1
The Effect of Innovation Cooperation on Innovation Performance of Start-Ups in Vietnam
Huong, T. L., Ha, D. T. H., Tran, T. V. H., et al. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-7301-9_10 · Cited by 1
Ford, J. A. (2015) · The University of Queensland · doi:10.14264/uql.2015.1068 · Cited by 1
UM ESTUDO SOBRE OPEN INNOVATION E SUA RELAÇÃO COM INOVAÇÃO E ORIENTAÇÃO PARA O MERCADO
Santos, M. A., Zilber, M. A., & Toledo, L. A. (2011) · Future Studies Research Journal Trends and Strategies · doi:10.7444/future.v3i2.82 · Cited by 1
The Open Innovation Team:An Independent Evaluation of a Cabinet Office Initiative
Ford, C. J., & Mason, K. J. (2018) · Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · Cited by 1
Gupta, A. K., & Wolf, J. R. (2018) · Journal of Cybersecurity Education Research and Practice · doi:10.62915/2472-2707.1042 · Cited by 1
A Study on The Effect of Big Data Analytics on Product Innovation Performance
Cheng, C.-H. A., Hong, M. Y. S., & Cheng, C. C. J. (2022) · Journal of Student Research · doi:10.47611/jsrhs.v11i4.3225 · Cited by 1
Teixeira, A. A. C., & Teixeira, R. (2025) · Strategic Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.sbr.2025.100021 · Cited by 1
Social networking platforms as creativity fostering systems: research model and exploratory study
Schaarschmidt, M., & von Kortzfleisch, H. F. O. (2008) · Cited by 1
Knowledge sources, innovative activity and the performance of UK new technology based firms
Ganotakis, P., & Love, J. H. (2010) · doi:10.1109/ieem.2010.5674438 · Cited by 1
COOPERATION FOR INNOVATION: THE IMPACT ON INNOVA- TORY EFFORT
González, G. S., & Herrera, L. (2008) · Documentos de Trabajo FUNCAS · Cited by 1
Palmeira, E. P., de Lima, R. T., de Oliveira, E. R., et al. (2014) · Revista Brasileira de Administração Científica · doi:10.6008/spc2179-684x.2014.001.0014 · Cited by 1
Errotabehere, M. (2018) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/d0fa6dd4zc239z4db7z9e0bz53842853b6cf · Cited by 1
Market Testing Procedures for B2C and B2B in Perspective of Radical Innovation
Iqbal, M. (2016) · International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management · doi:10.4018/ijcrmm.2017010102 · Cited by 1
The Role of Promoter in the Context of University-Industry Cooperation
Valentín, E. M. M., & Perez-Astray, B. (2013) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-341-6.ch008 · Cited by 1
How much innovation is enough? The case of Australian small firms
Gronum, S., & Verreynne, M. (2011) · Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) · doi:10.25916/sut.26273014 · Cited by 1
Is more always better? External consultants and firm innovation in emerging markets
Giebel, M. (2023) · Applied Economics · doi:10.1080/00036846.2023.2277690 · Cited by 1
GenAI investment in the industrial chain and firm breakthrough innovation
Yao, Y. F., & Zhang, K. (2025) · Finance research letters · doi:10.1016/j.frl.2025.109343 · Cited by 1
Incubateurs, start-up et partenariats
Dalex, K. (2020) · doi:10.70675/c51e5e39z6c4az4225z9db2z1ff807050df1 · Cited by 1
A case study on partner heterogeneity in open innovation: Evidence from Haier Group
Liang, L., Chen, J., & Wu, H. (2013) · Cited by 1
Technology Intelligence Practice for NTBFs in Developing Countries
Htun, T. H., Fang, W., & Zheng, Y. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-49788-0_6 · Cited by 1
Investigating the Sensing Activities in Strategic Planning with Multi-Dimensional Aspects: Timo
Cho, Y. J., & Daim, T. U. (2020) · International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management · doi:10.1142/s0219877020500340 · Cited by 1
Product innovation performance: Analysis of measures and measurement scales applied to SMES.
Manthey, N. B., Cancellier, É. L. P. D. L., & Tezza, R. (2021) · REGEPE Entrepreneurship and Small Business Journal · doi:10.14211/regepe.e1892 · Cited by 1
The Mixed Blessings of Openness in Creative Industries – The Case of European Chefs de Cuisine
Braun, A., & Ihl, C. (2013) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2013.16637abstract · Cited by 1
Collaborative Network and Firm Performance: Moderating Role of Information System Integration
Wang, N., & Lee, V. C. S. (2014) · Tuwhera (Auckland University of Technology) · Cited by 1
When regulation meets innovation: A contingent institutional model of cannabis legalization
Hallaj, H. A., Barakat, Z., & Blind, K. (2026) · Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity · doi:10.1016/j.joitmc.2026.100746 · Cited by 1
Open design and medical products
Dexter, M. (2014) · SHURA (Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive) (Sheffield Hallam University) · Cited by 1
Intelligent manufacturing and green innovation along the supply chain
Mao, Q., & Shi, B. (2025) · Economic Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2025.107386 · Cited by 1
Biehl, E., Fehre, K., & Tietze, M. (2018) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-78769-431-620181004 · Cited by 1
Holubčík, M., Soviar, J., Lendel, V., et al. (2024) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems12050144 · Cited by 1
“The main ways in which an enterprise can develop and support innovation activities are: investing in research and development [29], acquiring knowledge from multiple stakeholders [30], market-oriented development and culture [31], promoting knowledge sharing within the organization [32],…”
BackgroundLeite, M. V., Lenhari, L. C., & Lizarraga, M. G. (2014) · Cited by 1
How Do Dynamic Capabilities Drive Adoptive Management Innovation?
Lin, H. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-7712-8_6 · Cited by 1
Innovation networks: Exploring inter-organizational dynamics in open innovation environments
Muñoz, P., & Lu, L. (2011) · IEEE International Technology Management Conference · doi:10.1109/itmc.2011.5996065 · Cited by 1
Creating and Capturing Value in the Biopharmaceutical Sector
Rasmussen, B. (2010) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781849805513.00026 · Cited by 1
Theoretical Framework and Proposed Model
Leitão, J. C. C. (2018) · Contributions to management science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91282-0_1 · Cited by 1
The role of industry and economic context in open innovation: Evidence from NigeriaPreprint
Egbetokun, A., Oluwatope, O. B., Adeyeye, D., et al. (2014) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
Ahmad, S., Halim, H. A., Khan, M. J., & Ahmad, N. H. (2020) · Advances in business strategy and competitive advantage book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2577-7.ch007 · Cited by 1
Enkel, E., Lenz, A., & Prügl, R. (2009) · VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-531-91680-4_8 · Cited by 1
Ayerbe, C., & Mitkova, L. (2021) · Technology Analysis and Strategic Management · doi:10.1080/09537325.2021.2014447 · Cited by 1
“More fundamentally, this should be put into perspective with the research by Laursen and Salter (2006) showing that these openness logics should be considered through two dimensions: scope ( ‘ search breadth ’ ), which corresponds to the number of external sources mobilized, and depth ( ‘ search…”
BackgroundRullani, F., Becker, M. C., & Zirpoli, F. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2343917 · Cited by 1
Unpacking Exploratory Innovation: Search Practices, Organizational Context and Performance
Martini, A., & Aloini, D. (2013) · Series on technology Management · doi:10.1142/9781848167810_0005 · Cited by 1
Cooperation Behaviour and Innovation Performance in the Nigerian Manufacturing IndustryPreprint
Egbetokun, A. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2162434 · Cited by 1
Nieves, J. (2013) · Acceda (Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria) · Cited by 1
Un análisis empírico sobre la capacidad de absorción tecnológica de la industria brasileña
Bittencourt, P. F., & Giglio, R. (2013) · Revista de la CEPAL · doi:10.18356/d46d6b75-es · Cited by 1
The renewal and transformation of high, medium and low tech: a comparative approach
Rotaba, Z., & Beaudry, C. (2009) · International Journal of Technology Marketing · doi:10.1504/ijtmkt.2009.032178 · Cited by 1
MIDEVA, B., & Moronge, M. (2019) · Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management · doi:10.61426/sjbcm.v6i1.1084 · Cited by 1
Brandt, C., & Dimberg, C. (2015) · Lund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University) · Cited by 1
Mapping the Knowledge Supply Chain to Foster Innovation
Bellantuono, N., Pontrandolfo, P., & Scozzi, B. (2015) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8468-3.ch030 · Cited by 1
Knowledge Sharing and Creation Through Social Media in Organizations
Hwang, E. H. (2015) · Figshare · doi:10.1184/r1/6720317 · Cited by 1
Sahami, E., Safari, A., Ansari, R., & Barzoki, A. S. (2021) · VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems · doi:10.1108/vjikms-08-2020-0150 · Cited by 1
Rahim, R. A., Salleh, N. F., Ahmad, S. F. S., et al. (2012) · International Conference on Innovation Management and Technology Research · doi:10.1109/icimtr.2012.6236371 · Cited by 1
Knowledge Sources: Key Factors for an Organization in Creating New Invention and Innovation
Abdullah, I. D., Yatin, S. F. M., Anam, N. K., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · doi:10.6007/ijarbss/v10-i11/8187 · Cited by 1
“In some previous studies (Chiang and Hung, 2010; Henttonen and Ritala, 2013; Katila and Ahuja, 2002; Laursen and Salter, 2006) had showed that there are in-depth linkage between the external knowledge and their effects on the revolution proficiency within the organizations.”
BackgroundInfluentialKim, S., & Bae, K. Y. (2014) · Productivity Review · doi:10.15843/kpapr.28.4.201412.33 · Cited by 1
Petti, C., Hu, X., Tang, Y., & Schiuma, G. (2025) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scaf001 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Laursen, K., & Salter, A.
- Affiliations
- Copenhagen Business School (DK)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Salter, Ammon
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-11-21
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 131-150
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W2087712586
- Cited by
- 6,324
- References
- 82
- Citations by year
- 2026: 336 · 2025: 337 · 2024: 357 · 2023: 381 · 2022: 423 · 2021: 406 · 2020: 430 · 2019: 424 · 2018: 444 · 2017: 438 · 2016: 366 · 2015: 373 · 2014: 383 · 2013: 313 · 2012: 276
- FWCI
- 178.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Strategic Management Journal (publishedVersion)
- CBS Research Portal (Copenhagen Business School) (publishedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Copenhagen Business School
- Imperial College London
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- Economic and Social Research Council (RES-331-27-0005)
- Intelligent Manufacturing Research Center
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Firm Innovation and Growth
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategy and Innovation
- Keywords
- open innovation, innovation performance, external knowledge sources, search strategies, manufacturing companies, curvilinear relationship, inverted U-shaped relationship
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
