The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the paradox that arises when firms simultaneously share and protect their knowledge in an alliance with other organizations. The goal of this paper therefore is to explore this tension field in such a coupled open innovation process and to identify which strategies can be developed to cope with this tension. Design/methodology/approach: The study was initially guided by a literature review and exploratory interviews, and it ultimately develops an inductive framework based on a multiple case study approach. The paper presents eight cases of a focal firm involved in a particular R&D collaboration. The case studies are based on a variety of data sources, including a number of semi‐structured interviews. Findings: This paper unravels the tension field of knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations, with the knowledge characteristics at the core and with the knowledge embodiment and relational dimension as mediating factors. These forces are in turn influenced by the collaboration characteristics and environment. Moreover, the case studies show different ways to cope with the tension between knowledge sharing and protection, such as an open knowledge exchange strategy and a layered collaboration scheme with inner and outer members. Licensing is moreover presented as a concrete way to implement such coping strategies. Originality/value: This paper provides an holistic perspective on the knowledge paradox in R&D collaborations as a coupled process of open innovation. Moreover, it describes two concrete strategies to cope with the tension field as well as the role and implications of licensing as a particular mechanism to overcome the open innovation paradox.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage
Barney, J. (1991) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639101700108 · Cited by 48,334
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942 · cited 2×
“whether it is pro- or pre-competitive, or exploratory (research-orientated) or exploitative (see Lavie and Rosenkopf, 2006; March, 1991; Rothaermel and Deeds, 2004; Vanhaverbeke et al., 2007).”
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Nonaka, I. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · Cited by 17,809 · cited 3×
“The dynamic and personal nature of knowledge can furthermore give it a certain degree of tacitness (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Nonaka, 1994; Polanyi, 1958; Winter, 1987).”
Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm
Grant, R. M. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110 · Cited by 16,157
Hartley, J. (2004) · Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research · doi:10.4135/9781446280119.n26 · Cited by 15,461
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939 · cited 1×
“Characteristics such as teachability, complexity and specificity shape the relation between the partners (e.g. Dodgson, 1993; Kogut and Zander, 1992; Winter, 1987).”
Organizing and the process of sensemaking
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 · Cited by 6,943
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.2.136 · Cited by 2,672 · cited 1×
“In the resource-based view, on the other hand, collaborations can be used to exploit resource complementarities (Barney, 1991; Das and Teng, 2000; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1996; Hitt et al., 2000; Lavie, 2006; Mowery et al., 1996).”
Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges
van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & de Rochemont, M. (2009) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.001 · Cited by 2,184
Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science
Hippel, E. V., & Krogh, G. V. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.2.209.14992 · Cited by 2,145
Cited by
Startups and open innovation: a review of the literature
Spender, J.-C., Corvello, V., Grimaldi, M., & Rippa, P. (2017) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-12-2015-0131 · Cited by 432
How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a strategic research agenda
von Krogh, G. (2012) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2012.04.003 · Cited by 414
Testing the fluctuations of oil resource price volatility: A hurdle for economic recovery
Xiuzhen, X., Zheng, W., & Umair, M. (2022) · Resources Policy · doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102982 · Cited by 407
Open innovation in SMEs: Exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem
Radziwon, A., & Bogers, M. (2019) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.021 · Cited by 382
Self-citationWhy Do Companies Pursue Collaborative Circular Oriented Innovation?
Brown, P., Bocken, N., & Balkenende, R. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11030635 · Cited by 249
Metadata
- Authors
- Bogers, M.
- Venue
- European Journal of Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2011-01-25
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 93-117
- ISSN
- 1460-1060 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3122030209
- Cited by
- 442
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 53.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/14601061111104715
- The paper
- Bogers, M. (2011). The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061111104715
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.