CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 497Open Source Software InnovationsInnovation and Knowledge ManagementDigital Platforms and Economics

Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation

Open access
West, Joel, Lakhani, Karim R.·2008·Industry and Innovation
DOI 10.1080/13662710802033734
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Research on open source software, user innovation and open innovation have increasingly emphasized the role of communities in creating, shaping and disseminating innovations. However, the comparability of such studies has been hampered by the lack of a precise definition of the community construct. In this paper we review prior definitions (implicit and explicit) of the community construct, and other suggestions for future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13662710802033734

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Development of innovative digitalization solutions requires significant investment, appropriate staff, and time, which may be difficult for SMEs to overcome.

    “It is obvious that the development of innovative solutions in the field of digitalization requires significant investment, appropriate staff, and time, which may prove to be difficult to overcome for SMEs [75,76].”

    From Digitalization of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and Economic Growth: Evidence for the EU-27 Countries (2022) · cites this paper as [76]

    The paper’s ‘Firms and Communities’ section discusses how firms interact with innovation communities, including why those efforts may fail. Neither that section nor the passages retrieved by searching for SME resource constraints address whether developing digitalization solutions requires substantial investment, staff, and time that SMEs may struggle to provide. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Allen, R. C. (1983) Collective invention, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 4(1), pp. 1-24.
  2. Brint, S. (2001) Gemeinschaft revisited: a critique and reconstruction of the community concept, Sociological Inquiry, 19(1), pp. 1-23.
  3. Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991) Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation, Organization Science, 2(1), pp. 40-57.
  4. Chesbrough, H. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).
  5. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds) (2006) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, pp. 82-106 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  6. Corlett, W. S. (1989) Community Without Unity: A Politics of Derridian Extravagance (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
  7. Crowston, K., Wei, K., Li, Q. and Howison, J. (2006) Core and periphery in free/libre and open source software team communications, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p. 118A.
  8. Dahlander, L. and Magnusson, M. G. (2005) Relationships between open source software companies and communities: observations from Nordic firms, Research Policy, 34(4), pp. 481-493.
  9. Fleming, L. and Waguespack, D. M. (2007) Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities, Organization Science, 18(2), pp. 165-180.
  10. Franke, N. and Shah, S. (2003) How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end- users, Research Policy, 32(1), pp. 157-178.
  11. Gassmann, O. (2006) Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda, R&D Management, 36(3), pp. 223-226.
  12. Gla ¨ser, J. (2001) ''Producing communities'' as a theoretical challenge, Proceedings of The Australian Sociological Association (TASA 2001), pp. 1-11.
  13. Hienerth, C. (2006) The commercialization of user innovations: the development of the rodeo kayak industry, R&D Management, 36(3), pp. 273-294.
  14. Jeppesen, L. B. and Frederiksen, L. (2006) Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? The case of computer controlled music instruments, Organization Science, 17(1), pp. 45-63.
  15. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
  16. Lakhani, K. R. and Panetta, J. A. (2007) The principles of distributed innovation, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 2(3), pp. 97-112.
  17. Lakhani, K. R. and von Hippel, E. (2003) How open source software works: free user to user assistance, Research Policy, 32(6), pp. 923-943.
  18. Lerner, J. and Tirole, J. (2002) Some simple economics of open source, Journal of Industrial Economics, 52(2), pp. 197-234.
  19. Lynn, L. H., Reddy, N. M. and Aram, J. D. (1996) Linking technology and institutions: the innovation community framework, Research Policy, 25(1), pp. 91-106.
  20. Mollick, E. (2005) Tapping into the underground, Sloan Management Review, 46(4), pp. 21-24.
  21. O'Mahony, S. (2003) Guarding the commons: how community managed software projects protect their work, Research Policy, 32(7), pp. 1179-1198.
  22. O'Mahony, S. (2007) The governance of open source initiatives: what does it mean to be community managed?, Journal of Management and Governance, 11(2), pp. 139-150.
  23. Powell, W. W. (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization, in: B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press).
  24. Raynor, M. E. and Panetta, J. A. (2005) A better way to R&D?, Strategy & Innovation: A Newsletter from Harvard Business School Publishing and Innosight, 3(2), pp. 14-16.
  25. Rosenkopf, L., Metiu, A. and George, V. P. (2001) From the bottom up? Technical committee activity and alliance formation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), pp. 748-772.
  26. Shah, S. and Tripsas, M. (2007) The accidental entrepreneur: the emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1), pp. 123-140.
  27. Stein, J. (1997) How institutions learn: a socio-cognitive perspective, Journal of Economic Issues, 31(3), pp. 729-740.
  28. Va ¨lima ¨ki, M. (2003) Dual licensing in open source software industry, Systemes d'Information et Management, 8(1), pp. 63-75.
  29. Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006) The inter-organizational context of open innovation, in: H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, pp. 205-219 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  30. von Burg, U. and Kenney, M. (2003) Sponsors, communities, and standards: ethernet vs. token ring in the local area networking business, Industry and Innovation, 10(1), pp. 351-375.
  31. von Hippel, E. (1988) The Sources of Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press).
  32. von Hippel, E. (2001) Open source shows the way: innovation by and for users-no manufacturer required, Sloan Management Review, 42(4), pp. 82-86.
  33. von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing Innovation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
  34. West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006) Patterns of open innovation in open source software, in: H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, pp. 82-106 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  35. West, J., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Chesbrough, H. (2006) Open innovation: a research agenda, in: H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, pp. 285-307 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
West, J., & Lakhani, K. R.
Affiliations
  • San Jose State University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
West, Joel
ORCID
Venue
Industry and Innovation
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2008-04
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
223-231
ISSN
  • 1366-2716 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8390
DOI
10.1080/13662710802033734
OpenAlex
W2110707085
Cited by
497
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 32
FWCI
48.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Industry and Innovation (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
Keywords
open innovation, open source software, user innovation, innovation communities, community definition

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.

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