Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

ISSN 2189-9592

Open Innovation University-Industry Collaboration: Student
Idea Contests and Exit Strategy in Japan
Hiroko Kawai

Takasaki University of Commerce, Japan
Nippon Academy of Management E-mail: h-kawai@uv.tuc.ac.jp
Abstract
Open Innovation in the University-Industry Collaboration (OI-UNIC) is increasingly
important globally for researchers and practitioners. As a coupled-type OI, students contests
have become one of the most important elements for the creation of regional business in Japan. OI-UNIC, lab teams of university students from all over Japan, use patents from large
firms, exchange knowledge, brush the ideas up with the help of SMEs and regional institutions, and compete to commercialize their product. However, the existing literature has notrevealed how the collaborative team stakeholders can promote an “exit strategy” and commercialization through knowledge exchange channels. This study fills in the gaps. Applying
creative problem solution theory, intellectual property management, patent management,
and exit strategy methods, this study extends the concept of OI to the research frame. The
survey method is a qualitative analysis based on observations by the author, reflections by
the students, and interviews with the stakeholders. The research result shows that the teamthat commercialized their product had properly used the multiple channels adequately, but
the teams that created only prototypes, while they understood the importance of the channels,
did not take full advantage of them. The main conclusion of this study is formulated as ahypothesis and suggests further study of the effectiveness of innovation education and thepossibility of small-scale innovation of regional revitalization.
Keywords:
Open Innovation University-Industry Collaboration, Creative problem solving, Patent, Exit
strategy, Student idea contest(1) Introduction and Overview
1. Open Innovation University–Industry Collaboration
Open Innovation University–Industry
Collaboration (OI-UNIC), which is oriented
toward student contests, is recognized as
one of the most important elements for thecreation of regional business in Japan.
Many relevant initiatives and knowledge
channels that support innovative activities
in various ways have been developed. The
student idea contest (2015/2016),“Fostering
student’ ideas using published patents andthe OI platform,”1 aimed to develop a physical and virtual environment for generating, developing, and commercializing university students’ innovative ideas throughrelevant training and mentoring. Following
the entrepreneurial or open innovationroute, it fosters collaboration between universities and enterprises, enhances the employment potential of graduates and promotes innovation in companies.
2. The rising role of university in the

1 Detail

information: http://opi.innovations-i.com/idea/report/

31

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

knowledge–based society2
As Peter Drucker noted about innovation and entrepreneurship3 in the mid-1980s,
the pervasiveness of information and communication technologies, globalization, and thedevelopment of knowledge society have led to
the growth of knowledge and its redistribution and supply of knowledge-absorbing
worker. In the era of continuous developmentof the knowledge–based society, where thevalue of university-industry collaboration(UNIC) gained a greater recognition 4 , theUNIC consequently became a more significant subject of study5.
For large sized firms that are looking toenhance and maintain their competitiveness,knowledge has become a decisive factor. The
foundation of competitiveness in the world is
now more dependent on valuable knowledge
resources that are widely distributed acrossthe globe, across the value chains, acrossR&D and across individuals with highknowledge absorption in multi organizations.
Against this situation, the paradigm of open
innovation (OI) has emerged as a new response to manage the increased amount ofboundary–knowledge flows both in and out of
the innovation process.
To overcome the limitations of closed innovation processes, such as increasing R&D
costs, insufficient resources, and unsatisfactory levels of competence, companies may
choose to outsource their innovation work
and invite external contributors to develop
ideas or solutions to specific, predefined problems.

ISSN 2189-9592

results of a complex interaction of various actors and institution. Universities (students’idea), large firms (licenser), SMEs (licensee),City industry policy divisions and financial
institutions (“Shinkin” credit bank or localbank) play crucial roles in accelerating innovation. Technological innovation is a result ofinteraction and feedback among all elements
within the system, rather than an occurrence
in a complete linear system (OECD, 1977)6.
The core of the UNIC system is corporations and universities, which manages andorganizes knowledge channels accessing thesource of external knowledge. However, several factors can lead to the failure of collaboration projects. Universities emphasizes not
only research, but also human resource development and the significance of knowledgetransfer and application to a large extent.
Corporations, however, emphasize patent
exit strategies.
However, while many innovation education programs have focused on proposing
creative ideas, the methodology of innovation
education in an “OI” is still controversial. Innovation education plays a crucial role in developing “creative problem-solving skills 7 ”
and “collaborative behaviors8”for students tocreate a new path towards a desirable future.
On the other hand, companies evaluate
utility that is intended to create profits rather than education. Japanese firms have external novelty and fresh knowledge sources
for their IP exit strategy. According to theSurvey on R&D Collaboration by RIETI9, theshare of firms with R&D collaboration withother firms, universities, or public research
institutions have increased in the past five
years, and is expected to increase in future as
well. (RIETI, 2004)10.

3. Dilemma of innovation education and corporate strategy in Japan
Japanese regional open innovation is theomy, Trade and Industry refers to as fundamental
competencies for working persons and what the Ministry of Education Culture, Sports, Science and Technology refers to as bachelor’s competencies and “21st century skill.
8 Ibid.
9 RIETI Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry)
10 Motohashi (2011), p16, p.23.

2 P.F.Drucker(1985).Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Principles and Practices, pp.58-80.
3 Ibid.
4 Studies increased in development of industry aca-

demic society, Japan Society for Intellectual Production, etc.
5 Region creation policy by METI, etc.
6 OECD, 1977 innovation report.
7 This skill is manifest in what the Ministry of Econ

32

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

ISSN 2189-9592

The study of open innovation has primarily focused on the benefits and consequences of inbound or outbound innovationexchange between firms; however, increasingly firms may be engaged in simultaneous
inbound and outbound exchange forming a“coupled11” approach.
Furthermore, firms increasingly collaborate with university and regional SMEs assources of innovation, but how does such coupled open innovation affect idea create, information flows, commercialization? Is a coupled open innovation applicable as a formal
university education program?
Through an exploratory study of student idea contest, this paper shows how thisapproach incorporates not only the patentand idea but also the provision of technology
and market information using multiple
knowledge channels.
For the above reasons, the author believes that incorporating the practice of collaborations between Japanese universities
and industries into the open innovation literature is important from the aspect of firm patent exit strategies and the aspects of university education for innovation, both theoretically and practically can lead to regional economic development.
Section 2 of this paper reviews the relevant literature about the concept of outbound, inbound and coupled types of OI, success factors, university-industry collaboration, and patent exit strategy. Section 3 presents an analytical framework of the OIUNIC. Understanding the knowledge channels in the UNIC context of the entire innovation process requires a framework for understanding the structure of team’s innovation activities. Section 4 explains the methodology: A) CPS project; and B) OI-UNIC
project with qualitative analysis ofknowledge channels. Finally, this paper conclude and discusses the managerial and educational implications.

11 One of Open innovation modes. Section 2 discusses

14 One of the core of the innovation approach, and it focuses

more details.
12 Schumpeter presented the following five types as
innovation, rather than innovation, (neue Kombination)"new combination” in the first edition of his greatclassic, The Theory of Economic Development (1911).
13 The definition here means an innovation is the result of the successful commercialization of an invention.

on human experience.

(2) Literature review
In this section, I briefly review the literature on the open innovation evolutionary
approach, the success factors, the openness ofintellectual property, and collaborative innovation
1. Open innovation evolutionary approach
Innovation12 is defined here as “creating new value by adding values through new
ideas, methods, directions, opportunities,
and solutions that meet new needs throughmore effective products, processes, services,and business models up to commercialization13”. Innovation also, means not only conventional technology-driven innovation, butalso “human-driven14” innovation, which focuses on creating products that people want
to use.
The concept of “open innovation” is defined as “the use of purposive inflows andoutflows of knowledge to accelerate internalinnovation and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively”(Chesbrough, 2003, p1; Chesbrough,2006a) 15 . Open innovators have a specificmindset and disposition to co-evolve ideas
and co-create new products and services inelaborateinnovation
ecosystems(Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke and West,2014) 16 . Open innovation requires a supportive environment. (Salter, Crscuolo, and
Ter Wal, 2014)17. It was observed that, although an organization may encourage its
staff to be more open, individuals often shy
away from these efforts (Salter, Crscuolo,
and Ter Wal, 2014). In addition, a recent em-

15 Chesbrough(2003).Open Innovation: The new im-perative for creating and profiting from technology.
16 Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke and West(2014)17 Salter, Crscuolo, and Ter Wal (2014)33

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

pirical research implies that students theoretically understand the advantage of openness, but do not apply it to their own behavior (Oganisjana, 2015)18.
Following these initial insights, more
research from different settings arose, causing the definition of OI to be refined. Following the original and more recent conceptualizations (Chesbrough, 2003 p.43, 2006a;
Gassmann and Enkel, 2004; Dahlander and
Gann, 2010; West and Bogers, 2014),
Chesbrough and Bogers (2014) define OI as
a distributed innovation process based on
purposively managed knowledge flows
across organizational boundaries, using
pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with the organization’s
business model. These flows ofknowledge may involve knowledge inflows to the focal organization (leveraging
external knowledge sources through internal processes), knowledge outflows from a
focal organization (leveraging internal
knowledge through external commercialization processes), or both (coupling external
knowledge sources and commercialization
activities). The latter perspective of coupled
OI has recently been used to also connect
the literature on OI with research on user
innovation (Piller and West, 2014), a stream
in the literature focusing on the contributions of users and customers for the innovation process.
Open innovation means that valuableideas can come from inside or outside thecompany and can go to market from inside oroutside the company as well. This approach
places external ideas and external paths tomarket on the same level of importance asthat reserved for internal ideas and paths(Chesbrough, 2006, p.1).

ISSN 2189-9592

Figure 1. Three Archetypes of Open innovation processes19
Source: Towards a Theory of Open Innovation: Three Core Process Archetypes by
Gassmann & Enkel (2004), author applied

may engage with them—which the open innovation literature has termed inbound,
outbound, and coupled processes. (West andGallagher, 2006a; West and Lakhani 2008;
Vanhaverbeke et al., 2008; Enkel et al.,2009; Tucci et al., 2016).
Through the inbound process, firms
import external knowledge or resources todevelop internal innovations. This is, themost commonly researched process (Westand Bogers, 2014) building on related bodies
of work such as absorptive capacity (Cohenand Levinthal, 1990). In the outbound process, firms’ patent license or transfer internally developed innovations outside the firm
(Chesbrough, 2003). Finally, the coupledprocess is defined as “coupling the inboundand outbound processes by working in alliances with complementary partners”(Gassmann and Enkel, 2004). That is, it has
been assumed students idea contest assumed as Coupled innovation mode.

2. Three types of OI
Figure 1 shows the three archetypes ofopen OI.
As firms collaborate with universities,
there are three different ways in which they

3. Success factors of OI
Systematically reviewed the successfactors of the open innovation process asof Open Innovation: Three Core Process Archetypes'
done by Gassmann and Enkel, University of St.
Gallen, Switzerland.

18 Oganisjana (2015).A study at Riga Technical Uni-

versity in Latvia, p.1.
19
Gassmann & Enkel(2004), p7. Gassmann & Enkel(2001). According to the research 'Towards a Theory

34

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017derived from the empirical research literature (2003-2012) 20 . These success factors
are grouped into nine factors: 1) the people
involved in the process, 2) partners relationship aspect, 3) facilitators, 4) supplies andequations of resources, 5) Leadership, 6)
process management, 7) culture, 8) governance, 9) IP patent management.

ISSN 2189-9592

knowledge spillovers or increased demand forthe firm’s own goods and services.
Intellectual property managing can beused in two ways to help manage open innovation. First, the necessary codification of an
invention or technology which occurs when apatent application is successful, helps tostructure collaboration agreements (Hall,2010, p.4). Although, uncertainty and imprecision are inherent in the definition and scopeof any piece of knowledge or technology thatis to be licensed to another party, this imprecision can be mitigated if the description isalready subject to the standards imposed bypatent offices. In addition, because the patent is a legal document, in principle the language of the document is already suitable foruse referenced in a different legal document,such as a license. Second, IP rights can beused defensively to negotiate cross-licenses
with others in the industry that hold complementary technologies, thus avoiding mutual
litigation. Many firms in the semiconductor
and computing hardware/software industries
pursue this strategy (Hall, 2010, p.5).

4. Discussion on published patents for exit
strategyIntellectual property rights21 (IPRs) are
generally designed to exclude others from using a firm’s ideas and inventions. Hall (2010)
argued that, at first glance, open innovation
and IPR protection are irreconcilable. Openinnovation implies a willingness to allowknowledge produced within the firm to spillover to others (possibly with the expectationof receiving knowledge spillovers from others
in return) whereas IPR protection enables afirm to exclude others from using thatknowledge (Hall 2010, p1).
Despite this contradiction, some of Japan’s largest patent holders, including Fujitsu, Panasonic, and Osaka Gas, have embraced the open innovation model. Motohashi(2006)22 investigated the role of patent system in innovation at the firm level, and foundthat open strategy firm with active licensing
spends more on R&D.
Some SMEs doubt that the IP being
given up by these large firms is very valuable
to them. Indeed, the technology they offer to
the OI will not be their most valuable. Instead, it will be a technology for which they
have no further development plans but thatthey think can be developed by others in amanner that may ultimately benefit them via

5. Creative Problem Solving 23 and Analogical Thinking24
Fisher argued that creative problem
solving is a proven model for driving innovation when implemented as an organization
wide business process (Basadur, 2001; Basadur & Gelade, 2003). Figure 4 is an adaptation of Basadur’s Simplex model25 (Basadur,
2001). In the Simplex framework, creative
problem solving follows three distinct
phases: problem formulation, solution find

20 To determine the current research status and an-

22 Motohashi (2006), p.1.

swer the research question, the criteria for inclusionand exclusion was selected. The inclusions were published in 2006-2017 as empirical papers and peer reviewed ProQuest ABI/Inform, Web of Science and EBSCO were accessed, and searched for materials using
the keywords “open innovation process,” “open innovation activities” “open innovation,” combined with “University–Industry collaboration” or patent”. This wasdone from June 2016 to January 2017.
21 Source: Japan Paten Office Asia-Pacific Industrial
Property Center, JII

23 Fisher (2011),p.71
24 Kima &Horiia (2016). A Study on an Assessment

Framework for the Novelty of Ideas Generated by Analogical Thinking. Their research method was threeworkshops and a questionnaire survey.
25 This model has been used successfully in hundredsof innovation workshops at Procter & Gamble’s innovation studio; the GYM.

35

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

ing, and execution (Fisher, 2010).

ISSN 2189-9592

and Horiia argued that as an ideation tool,
analogical thinking enables conceptualchange, which is seen as a crucial aspect of
creativity. In this regard, the use of analogy
can be an important instrument to facilitate
novel idea generation (Kima and Horiia,
2016, p.201).
6. Research questions
Previous theoretical and experimental
literature lead the following questions.
 To what degree do university students
use knowledge channels of collaboration
in OI-UNIC? OI? (Knowledge channels
are places where internal or external
ideas or knowledge flow)
To what degree do the students thinkknowledge channels of collaboration in OIUNIC are valuable for innovation elaboration with open innovation?
The goal of this research was to determine if certain teaching and learning
methods and approaches-students not
only create ideas and write business plans
but also make prototypes of new products,
and test the prototypes with potential
business partners-can be applied to university study practices.

Figure 2. Creative Problem Solving
Source: Basadur, Basadur’s Simplex model 2001.
Adapted by author.

Each phase includes a divergent step(in which all options are explored) followed bya convergent step (in which the most promising options are carried forward to the next
step in the process). Basadur’s researchshows that organizations with a culture ofcontinuous problem finding, problem solving,and implementation — along with requisite
attitudinal, behavioral, and cognitive skills— have the greatest long-term innovation
success (Basadur and Gelade, 2003). Kima

Figure 3. Research framework
Source: Author illustrated and adapted the concept of coupled type innovation to the student idea
contest. “Three Archetypes of Open innovation processes” (Gassmann & Enkel, 2004) andChesbrough’s Open Innovation Model (2003a, 2003b,2006）to the OI-UNIC.

36

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017(3) Research framework
Figure 3 shows the research framework for study of the knowledge exchange
channels between students and collaborators.
Japanese regional open innovation is
the results of a complex interaction of various actors and institutions. Universities(students) large firms (licenser), SMEs (licensee), City industry policy divisions, andfinancial institutions (“Shinkin” credit bankor local bank) play crucial roles in accelerating innovation. Human-driven innovation
using ICT and patent is a result of interaction and feedback among all elements
within the system rather than an occurrence
in a complete linear system (OECD, 1977).
Project (A) 2015-2016: University –Industry
collaboration was an innovation teaching including creative problem solving and analogicalthinking.
Then
Project(B)
2015/2016: Open Innovation- University–
Industries collaboration was an innovation
training: knowledge channels, performance
exit strategy and commercialization

ISSN 2189-9592

The CPSs operated as follow:

Figure 4. CPSs works
Figure 4. The 5 steps of CPS
Source: Author (2016,p.74)

2. How CPS series work28 2016
CPSs began with class instruction (1class), followed by lectures about ICT (4 lectures), CPS lectures and workshops using
the Active Learning method (10 lectures/workshops). The participants were
Sophomore enrolled in TUC and auditors.

Step 1: A pre-task given to participants
one week before. The pre-task consisted ofanswering questions about a current issue
related to the innovator’s business mode,
viewing YouTube videos and searching for
information on websites.
Step2: During group discussions
about the business mechanism, small
teams of students (five or six students) absorbed information and opinions from others.
Step 3: The innovation tried to visualize the sophisticated complex issues inherent in their business and explained thepath to solutions incorporating the viewpoints of various users. A method of designing a product or service system withthe latest technical system that provides
new functions from creative problem solvers were presented. In some classes, the Innovation Project Leader explained the
management of complex and mediumsized projects with the stakeholders. In order to cope with uncertainty and high-liquidity environment and social problems,innovative business system development
was explained.
Step 4: After each lecture, the students"CPS" project started in 2013 and ran for 4 years.
ICT means Information Communication Technologies
28 The CPSs implemented at the Takasaki Universityof Commerce, during the months of April-July in theyears 2013-2016 (Number of Participants were including
auditor of class who registered from high school etc.
N=80 in 2013, N=80 in 2014, N=190 in 2015, N=160
in 2016). 2 credit course, 15 hours classes for 2ndyear students and above.

(4) CPS Project 2013-201626
1. Overview
The CPS project was implemented
from 2013 to 2016 under the theme "Welfare
business and ICT27". The CPS project provided training in innovating the design ofproducts, services and other systems using
the Creative Problem Solving model, analogical thinking, and innovation management
approaches developed collaboratively TUC
University and private companies or public
institutions.

26
27

37

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

submitted self-assessment and reflection
sheets.
Step 5: As a final assessment, students
selected one topic, identified the problem,and proposed a new business utilizing the
CPS method and analogical thinking.

ISSN 2189-9592

Table 1. Innovators/Themes/ 2015-201629
2016
May 9
May 18

3. Proposal of a new business solution by analogical thinking

Jun 6
Jun 13Innovators
IPA, Mr. Komon
Nomura HD, Mr.Sakai
DentsuPR ,Dr.Kitami
System alfa,
Mr.Okada
Nihon Kohden,
Mr.Tanaka
Yomiuri, Mr. Orita

As shown in Table 1., CPS examinedinnovation examples in three area: 1) products and processes (anti-aging cosmetics,
pharmaceuticals, automobiles and equipment, AED, biotechnology, etc.); 2) operation
system (efficient production management bytablet, cabin service, smartphone security);and 3) social issues (such as disaster / emergency medical care, tablet education, entertainment, communication, and food in spacedevelopment, forest management, etc.).The
final task for the students was to apply analogical thinking, creative problem solving
skills, and the proposed business solutions.
Data was collected from the 60 to 80 participants who participated in this study.

Jun 20

JAXA, Dr.Nakazara

Jun 27Maebashi red crosshospital, Dr.Nakamura
Fujitsu, Mr. Mizutani
ANA, Ms.Kawamoto

4. Method and results
Data was collected from the student’s
reflection sheets and final test according to
the 5-steps. The qualitative contents analysis was based on the CPS learning model(Figure 4).
The following four questions were used
to evaluate the students in the course．
・Did you fully understand the issue?
・Did you improve your ability to find andresolve problems?
・Did you actively work on the CPS task?
・Did you create an idea using information
technology?
The student reflection papers received

May 23
May 30July 4
July 112015
May 11

Theme
Smartphone security
Net equity investment
Digital PR& Social
Media Flames
Cognitive elderly
wandering with GPS
Automatic external
defibrillator R&D
Newspaper new Technology
Space food & Satellite
Communication
Disaster, Life Saving
by Doctor Heli
Sensor system in automobile
Cabin Service

Innovators
Cyber Police agt. expert
Senior Life Association, Mr.Hirai

Theme
Cyber Criminal

May 25Gain, Mr.Miura

Jun 1
Jun 8

Panasonic, Mr.Takeyasu
Shiseido, Dr. Amano

Internet Businessrisk & chance
New Business ModelJun 15NARO, Mr. Hayashi

Jun 22

LINE Mr. Eguchi

Jun 29Maebashi red crosshospital, Dr.Nakamura
Fujitsu, Mr. Kouketsu
Mitsubishi UFJ
Lease & Cyubu Forest Management,
Mr.Kizuka et al.

May 18July 6
July 13

Web platform of Senior Life

Anti-aging cosmetics
Automated Agriculture Machine with
GIS
Communication &security
Emergency, Life Saving by Doctor Heli
Leaner centric education
Forest Business

Source: Author.

high scores (4 or 5 on a 5-point scale). However, they chose problems that were closely
related to everyday life experiences because
it was difficult to apply an analogy to business problems in areas where they lacked"social media analysis" by "NTT Comware".
2013 Cases: TV commercial data transfer system by"IMD Japan", Operation of doctor helicopter in case ofdisaster. Hospital network system by NEC, user experience value products by "LION Corp.", production
management with WIFI tablet by EXE, large-scaledata analysis of smart society by OKI, information security system of Canon MJ, regenerative medicine ofAdvanced Medical Ltd. etc.

29 Themes in the past: 2014 Cases: Regeneration of re-gional economy by comedy project of "Yoshimoto
Kogyo". A robust solution for cybercriminal by IPA.
Promotion of local souvenirs by "International Tourism Association". "NARO" solution of agriculturalbusiness with GPS equipped agricultural machines,
World Heritage and tourism policy of Tomioka City.
Doshisha University exercise for anti-aging. Medical
efficiency by SAP Japan. Tourism insight solution by38

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017business knowledge and experience.

ISSN 2189-9592

promoting 'co-innovation' using our open patents selected among from own holding approximately 95,000 patents32 to support new
businesses through the SMEs”33.

(5) OI-UNIC 2015/2016
1. Overview
Open innovation in the university–industry collaboration is one of the most important elements for fostering innovation inregional economies. Many initiatives exist to
support these activities in different ways.
This section presents OI–UNIC cases in Japan, in 2015 and 2016. It presents the idea,
published patent, multiple channels ofknowledge flows and first results in open collaborative innovation particularly those related to student’ contests.

Author: What is the significance of using patents?
Fujitsu: The mission of the Fujitsu Limited
Business Development Department is to develop the business of the SMEs through patent licenses as an published patent that are
not utilized within our company, or newly
use her own business model.34
Author: How far can you offer support?
Fujitsu: Even without introducing new technologies, small businesses can create highly
competitive products and services in themarket with innovative concepts. Nonetheless, the use of new technology increases thepossibility of creating innovative products
and services that are not in the world, and if
the new technology is patented as a patent,
the market competitiveness of the product ismarkedly improved. Therefore, it is possible
to prevent a competitor from entering themarket in an uncontrollable way35”

2. Innovation's-i30” idea platform
The core idea behind the idea contest
project is to create innovative ideas by proactively exploiting the company's publishedpatents and the student's intellectual potential. “Innovations-i” office launched the Open
Innovation Gateway (OIG) for the Student
Idea Contest on the website in 2015. The
OIG is a platform where organizations as patent license), student’ teams (as idea creators), and SMEs (as entrepreneurs) utilize
patent information and applied product.

Author: What is different from technology
transfer?
Fujitsu: We consistently support what weneed for commercialization until commercialization. Such a technology transfer
method is distinguished from an act ofsimply selling patent licenses and placing alist of published patents on the public
shelf36.

3. Interview with Fujitsu mission and patent division exit strategy
Author: What is the mission of Fujitsu, specifically, the patent division?
Fujitsu: Through the OIG, Fujitsu Inc. 31
works to activate innovative drivers faster,
both inside and outside the company, and,based on collaborations between internaland external partners, verifies and transforms them into practical businesses. We are

Author: Can the business plans of university
students be commercialized?
Fujitsu: Business proposals and consistent

30 Its’ role was context organizer and intermediary.

32 Intellectual Property Report for FY 2014.

Interview with Mr. Kudo, innovation director (January, 4, 2017)31 Fujitsu Inc. headquarter is located in Kawasaki
city, is a leading ICT total-solution company in Japanthat provided a published patent. Fujitsu Ltd.
launched Open Innovation Gateway (OIG) in Kawasaki city in Japan. It is a platform to connect andgrow ideas, and based on the collaboration of internaland external partners, to verify and transform theminto practical businesses.

33 Author Interviewed Masatoshi Nishida, Vice Presi-dent, (January 4, 2017) Intellectual Property innovation Division, Headquarters of Fujitsu Legal, Compliance and Intellectual Property Unit.
34 Ibid.
35 Author Interviewed Masatoshi Nishida, Vice President, (January 4, 2017)36 Ibid.

39

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017support are products rather than patent licenses. By utilizing Fujitsu’s patents to create a business plan for university students,
universities, local governments, financial institutions jointly create a place to create new
businesses that are not bound by existing
concepts. I believe that human resources canbe raised through social learning.37”

ISSN 2189-9592

4) To propose the following related
ideas leading to the business of the SMEs.
*Product or service must be related to: a) Revitalization support. b)Tokyo Olympic
Games, Paralympic Games 2020. c) To contribute to the regional economy.
5) To utilize one of the six Fujitsu patents.
6) To assume an annual turnover ofabout 10 million yen to 100 million yen.

4. Contest start

6. Type of patent
The OI-UNIC 2015 began in June witha total of 71 student teams from around Japan and 12 types of published patents offered by three organizations (JAXA, NHK
E.S., and Fujitsu38), and finished the national competition in January of the following year. The OI- UNIC 2016 project started
in June with19 types of published patents offered by five organizations (Fujitsu, NHK
E.S., AIST, Fujitsu-ten, and Panasonic39,andended in December 2017 in Tokyo. Table 2
and Table 3 list the available types of patentand team selections.

Figure 5. Participants Location of the OpenUNIC 2016

7. OI gate, knowledge route and knowledge
exchange channels

Source: The author edited data from http://opi.innovations-i.com/idea/purport/

Figure 5 shows images of the locationof participants and the TUC University,
SMEs in Maebashi City of Gunma Prefecture in the northern Kantō region of Japan.
5. Rules of contest
Six requirements and problems to solve
were given to each team.
1) To create idea from the viewpointthat you want to purchase yourself, or you
want to use (useful / interesting / surprised).
2) To identify differentiation from similar products.
3) To add ideas as patents are a part ofthe information on some products and services.

Figure 6. OI 6 gate and assessments
Source: Author.

Figure 6 describes the gates and assessment of the OI. During the kick-off mee-

JAXA= Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
39 AIST =National Institute of Advanced Industrial
Science and Technology.

37 Ibid
38 Formal name is as follows. Fujitsu = Fujitsu Lim-

ited, HKE E.S.= NHK Engineering System Inc.,

40

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

ISSN 2189-9592

Table 2. Number of Team and Published Patents in 2015.

Type of published patent

License
ProviderNumbers ofTeamsFujitsu

9

FujitsuFujitsuFujitsuFujitsu

5
11
8
8

2
3
4
5

Sales support technology using transmission type liquid crystal and half
mirrorScreen display control technology of vending machines according to users
Product suggestion technology considering remaining budget
Capture and play equipment technology
Article inspection technology by hammering analysis

6

Contact sensor technology using air bag

Fujitsu

6

7

Metallic coloring technology without paintFujitsu

14

8

CG character control technology
Image retrieval technology by drawing requested image using image elements in database
Tactile presentation technology to convey diagrams and graphs
Flexible solar cellTwo-dimensional actuator
Total

NHK E.S.

1

NHK E.S.

1

NHK E.S.
JAXA
JAXA
3

0
5
3
71

1

9
10
11
12

Source: Author edited data from http://opi.innovations-i.com/idea/purport/

Table 3. Number of team & Published Patents in 2016
Type of published patent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

License
ProviderFujitsuFujitsuFujitsuFujitsuFujitsuFujitsu
NHK E.S.

Numbersof Teams
28
24
11
5
11
19
0

NHK E.S.

0

NHK E.S.
NHK E.S.
AIST
AIST
AIST

0
0
1
3
0

9
10
11
12
13

Code embedding technology using light emitting diode: LED
Gaze detection technology
Behavior state detection technology
Direction guidance technology
Temperature difference power generation technology
Advertisement related technology
Three-dimensional sound reproduction technology with headphones
Television system applying the AR (Augmented Reality) technology "Augmented TV"
CG character animation production technology
Inflection conversion technology
Two-dimensional code easy to understand with dot picture
Two-dimensional actuator
Switchable light control mirror with gas

14

Photo synthesis system considering size

AIST

1

15

Electric switched dimmer mirror

AIST

1

16

Door auto-lock technology

Fujitsu-ten

017

Door unlock warning technology

Fujitsu-ten

018

Mike picking up tweets

Panasonic

0

19Super directional speaker

Panasonic

3

Total

3

107

8

Source: Author edited data from http://opi.innovations-i.com/idea/purport/ting (Gate 1) the team carefully chose a published patent, defined the current problem,
created and brushed up an idea (Gate 2),
proposed a business model (Gate 3), createda prototype and tested it with users (Gate 4),

further brushed up the idea (Gate 5), andpresented their plan in the business contest(Gate 6). The team can work with their collaborators through multiple knowledge

41

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

route (Figure 7) based on their businessmodel through the project.

ISSN 2189-9592

Table 4. Knowledge Exchange Channels

1

Figure 7. Kowledge Route with Collaborators

2

studentteacher

3

team otherteam4

team-mentor coordinator outside5

team-firm 1
engineerteam-firm 2
engineerteam-firm 3
partner

Source: Author.

6
8

Figure 8. OI- UNIC licensing 2016
Source: Author illustrated (2016) and adapted
Chesbrough’s Open Innovation Model (2003a,
2003b,2006）to the OI-UNIC students idea contest.

9

team-stafflicenser

10

team-staff
city administrator
team-staff
investor
teamfinal users

11
12

Figure 8 ilustrates team innovation
performance on OI process. Blue marked
team ~ Top Winner team has exit.

Knowledge
multi-channel
within teamType of collaboration (Ba)Kick off, brushing up, selecting published property. Students divided their responsibilities for product concept,
design, solution, finance,
market research by exchanging findings and discussing
further activities with theirteammate.
Teacher open to discuss, advice and facilitate students
learning theory and practiceboth at individual and teamlevel. (encourage)
Kick off, brush up, intermediate phase. Team present
their idea done and discuss
the challenges faced with theother teams.
Coordinator visiting, telephoning, or meeting at city
office, recommending particular SMEs to realize andneed specific experience andknowledge.
Presentation, discuss, advice
regarding hardware
presentation, discuss, advice
regarding software
Presentation, discuss, advice
regarding business model,
marketing
Brash up, intermediatephase, Team present theiridea done and discussed thechallenges faced with the license
Advice regarding contact toSMEs, scheduling.
Advice regarding financial
information
Interview, questionnaire, observation

Source: Author’s observations40 (2016)degree do university students use multiple
channels of collaboration in OI-UNIC?” wasexplored based on qualitative analyses (author’s observations, student reflection papers, and interviews with potential partners

8. Methods and results
8.1. RQ 1 methods and results
The first research question, “To what
40 Author researched type of collaboration channels

are researched, revised, and modified based on thework of Oganisjana (2015).

42

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

outside the university), according to theknowledge exchange channels (Table 4), OIUNIC steps (Figure 6) and the knowledgeroute (Figure 7). Figure 8 compares winner
team.
Results of R1: Partly applicable but not
all (Table 5). The proposed assessment
framework for collaborative behavior is inapplicable to the “one size fits all” type ofstudents. It does overcome some of the limitations of current evaluation methods.

ISSN 2189-9592

Table 6. Value Lists and Categories

Table 5. RQ1: Result 412015 and 2016

Source: Author (2016)43.

8.2. RQ 2 methods and results
The second research question, “To
what degree do the students think multiple
channels of collaboration have value for
their practical studies of OI,” was exploredaccording to the Value List (Table 6).
Unlike in previous studies (Oganisjana,2015), the author considered technical information about the published patent. Although Oganisjana (2015) categorized (IN, OUT,

IN-OUT-IN) as a “fragment of the qualitative content analysis and labeling of the categories,” the author included technology information about the published patent andredesigned the study.
The qualitative content analyses accounted for the three possible categories ofaction.
A) IN (inflow): students get an idea (theyjudge useful) from collaboration partners related to the category.
B) OUT (outflow): students give an idea
(they judge useful) to collaboration partners related to the category.
C) IN-OUT-IN (inflow–outflow): students
exchange ideas (they judge useful) withcollaboration partners related to the category. The student reflection papers and

41 The 2015 top winner was Showa Women's Univer-

42 Type of collaboration channels revised and modi-

Source: Author’s observations42 (2016).

sity team-"Small Drone Gate Passing Game supported by Showa Shinkin (Tokyo). Team A created a
prototype and just won at regional stage. http://opi.innovations-i.com/feature/idea/re/20151217/.
The 2016 top winner was university of Shizuoka
team-“Spot with spots!” supported by Seishin Shinkin. http://opi.innovations-i.com/idea/report/.
Team B lost game at the regional competition.

fied the work of Oganisjana (2015).
43 Compared Team A (prize) with Team B (no prize).
Team A was participated in CPS Project (innovation
training), value information patent, and criticalthinking more than team B.

43

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

ISSN 2189-9592

as shows how study courses and projects
can foster greater innovation by students.
The study revealed several problems forfurther research.
The main conclusion of this study formulated as a hypothesis, is that: when clear
guidelines for innovation management andindication of innovation performance, in OI
are prepared, university students can become more collaborative and motivated towork with potential business partners outside the university, the effect of active learning can be further enhance.

the author’s observations of student behaviors revealed that the students highly
value the potential for intergenerational
collaboration outside formal university
frames.
However, the student reflection also revealed that while some students are aware of
the value of studying in collaboration channels, they did not active and full use the open
channels.
(6) Findings
In this section, we present the ﬁndings
from the systematic review.
Management point of view:① Reliable goals and time schedules seem
necessary to build the credibility of the collaboration.
②Initial ideas don’t generate much value inthemselves. There needs to be professional
guidance for creative problem solving
and discussion of the idea.
③ Companies often have tended to claim
openness, while knowingly concealing certain information, such as patents or possible sources of competitive advantage.
④ Clear prizes for innovation challenges
are necessary. For example, a career-related reward is much more fulfilling andmotivating. Other rewards include internships, monetary prizes, and presenting the winner’s name on a website.
⑤Face-to-face is good for the initial phase
where different concepts and processes
are tested, but in the long run, online
channels are more useful for the entire
innovation process.
⑥Building trust and collaborating on an
idea takes times. Financial institutions
play a role in building trust.

(8) Limitations and future researchThis study of innovation education in
an OI required students to pose a theoreticalframework of innovation education in OI andtest it empirically. Future investigations
should note the limitations of this study.
First, the data source was limited to the author’s university students. Second, the research conducted using qualitative content
analysis.
Acknowledgements
Project (A) was partly supported by the
Telecommunications Advancement Foundation (2013-2016). Project (B) was partly assisted by the Community Center at Takasaki
University of Commerce, the Industry Policy
Division of Maebashi City and the staff of related organizations and facilities in Gunma.
Special Lecture and workshops were assisted by many industries. I deeply appreciate their cooperation.
References
Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., Kitson M., and Savona, M. (2010). Policies to enhance the‘hidden innovation’ in services: evidence
and lessons from the UK. The Service
Industries Journal, 30(1), pp.99-118.
Bianchi, M., Cavaliere, A., Chiaroni, D.,
Frattini, F., and Chiesa, V. (2010). Organisational modes for Open Innovationin the bio-pharmaceutical industry: An
exploratory analysis. Technovation,31(1), pp.22-33.

(7) Conclusion and hypothesis
Although the findings suggest thatthe proposed method of innovation education is inapplicable to the “one size fits all”
type of students, the method does overcome some of the limitations of current
evaluation methods. This study shows that
universities can play an active role in promoting innovation in an OI activity, as well

Bogers, Marcel. (2011). The open innovation

44

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

ISSN 2189-9592

Open innovation: Researching a newparadigm. Oxford: Oxford University

paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. European
Journal of Innovation Management,
14(1), pp.93-117.
Boldwin, C., and von Hippel, E.A. (2011).
Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation. Organization Science, 22(6), pp.1399-1477.
Buganza, Tomoso and Verganti, Roberto.
(2009). Open innovation process to inbound knowledge. Collaboration with
universities in four leading firms. Euro-pean Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), pp.306-325.

Buganza, T., Chiaroni, D., Colombo G., andFrattini, F. (2011). Organizaitonal Implications of open innovation: an analysis of inter-industry patterns. Interna-

tional Journal of Innovation Management, 15(2), pp.423-455.

Bullinger, A. C., Rass, M., Adamczyk, S.,
Moeslein, K. M., and Sohn, S. (2012).
Open innovation in healthcare: analysisof an open health platform. Health Policy,
105(2-3), pp.165-175.
Chadderton, C. and Orrance, H. T. (2011).
Case Study, In Somekh, B. and Lewin,
C. (2nd Eds.), Theory and Methods in
Social Research. London: Sage, pp.5360..
Chatenier, E. du Verstegen, J. A. A. M., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder M., and Omta, O.
S. W. F. (2010).Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams, R&D Management, 40(3),pp. 271-280.
Chesbrough, Henry.W. (2003).Open Innova-

tion: The new imperative for creating
and profiting from technology, Boston,

MA: Harvard Business School Press.
___ (2003). The Era of Open Innovation.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3),pp.35-41.
___ (2004). Managing Open Innovation. Research Technology Management, 47(1),pp.23-26.
___ (2006).Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation, In Chesbrough, H. W.,
Vanhaverbeke and West, J. (Eds.)

Press, pp.1-12.
___ (2011).Bringing Open Innovation toServices. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(2), pp.85-90.
Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, and Joel,
W.(2014) (Eds.). New Frontiers in Open
Innovation. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Chez Panisse. (2014). Building an Open Innovation Ecosystem. California Management Review, 56(4), pp.144-171.
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., and Frattini, F.
(2010).Unravelling the process from
Closed to Open Innovation: evidence
from mature, asset-intensive industries.
R&D Management, 40(3), pp. 222-245.
Colombo, G. Dell’era C., and Frattini, F.
(2011). New Product Development(NPD) Service Suppliers in Open Innovation Practices: Processes and Organization for Knowledge Exchange and Integration. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(1), pp.165-204.
Djellal F. and Gallouj, F. (2007).Innovationand Employment Effects in Services: A
Review of the Literature and an Agenda
for Research. The Service Industries
Journal, 27(3), pp.193-213.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D., and Salter, A.
(2006). The role of technology in theshift towards open innovation: the caseof Procter & Gamble. R&D Management, 36(3), pp.333-346.
Elmquist, M., Fredberg, T., and Ollila, S.
(2009). Exploring the field of open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), pp. 326-345.
Eveleens, Chris. (2010). Innovation management; a literature review of innovation
process models and their implications,pp.1-16 (View article Google Scholar).
Feller, J., Finnegan, P., and Nilsson, O.
( 2011).Open innovation and public administration: transformational typologies and business model impacts. Eu-

ropean Journal of Information
tems, 20(3), pp.358-374.

Sys-

Feller, J., Finnegan, P., Hayes, J., O’Reilly,

45

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

ISSN 2189-9592

Kawai H. (2016).A Study on Active Learn
ing Methods and Effects –Information
Network Technology and Business
Practices by Industries–University Cooperation. Japanese Society for Infor-

P.(2009). Insti-tutionalising information asymmetry: governance structures for open innovation. Information
Technology & People, 22(4), pp.297316.
Fisher Wayne. (2011). Applying the Creative Problem Solving Process to Open
Innovation, In Arthue, B. Markman,(Ed.) Open Innovation: Acedemic andmation and Systems in Education 41th
national convention, 29, August (Japa-

nese)
Kamekawa, Masato (2015)(Ed). EconomicsFocusing on Governance and profit (Gabanansu to Rijun no Keizaigaku). Tokyo:
Souseisha.
Kim, Clark B., and Fujimoto, Takahiro(1991). Product Development Perfor-

Practical Perspectives on the Journeyfrom Idea to Market. Oxford Univer-sity Press. Kindle Version, pp.71-89.
Gassmann, O., and Enkel, E.(2004). Towards a Theory of Open Innovation:
Three Core Process Archetypes. In:
R&D
Management
Conference.
Lisabon, Portugal, pp.1-18.
Griffin R.W., and Pusta, M. W. (2011).International Business. (Sixth ed.), Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Hall, Bronwyn, H., (2010) Open Innovation
and Intellectual Property Rights-The
Two–edge Sword. Paper prepared forJapan Spotlight. (January/February).
http://eml.berkeley.edu/~bhhall/papers/BHH09_IPR_openinnovation.pdf.
(Accessed Jan 12, 2017)
Hayashi, Takabumi (2008). Knowledge
Creation and Multi-Cultural Management in the New Product Development
Process, Rikkyo Business Review, 1(1),pp.16-32.
Himmelberg, Charles, P., and Petersen,
Bruce, C. (1994).R&D and Internal Finance: A Panel Study of Small Firms in
High-Tech Industries. The Review of
Economics and Statistics, 76(1),pp.38-51.
Igartua, J. I., Garrigós, J.A., and HervasOliver, J. L. (2010). How Innovation
Management Techniques Support anOpen Innovation Strategy. ResearchTechnology Management, 53(3), pp.4152.
Jesson, J. K., Matheson L., and Lacey, F.
M. ( 2011). Doing your literature re-mance: Strategy, Organization, andManagement in the World Auto Industry. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press.
Kim, E., and Horii, H. (2016). Analogicalthinking for generation of innovativeideas: An exploratory study of influential factors. Interdisciplinary Journal of

Information Knowledge and Management, 11, pp.201-214.

Lakemond, N., Bengtsson, L., Laursen, K.,
and Tell, F. (2016). Match and manage:
the use of knowledge matching and project
managementtointegrate
knowledge in collaborative inboundopen innovation Industrial and Corporate Chang, 25(2), pp333-352.
Lee, S. M., Hwang T., and Choi. D. (2012).
Open innovation in the public sector ofleading countries. Management Decision,50(1), pp.147-162.
Lichtenthaler, Ulrich. (2009). Outboundopen innovation and its effect on firm
performance: examining environmental
influences. R&D Management, 39(4),pp.317-330.
___ (2011). Open Innovation: Past Research,
Current Debates, and Future Directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), pp.75-93.
Lindegaard. Stefan. (2010). The Open Inno

vation Revolution: Essentials, Roadblocks, and Leadership skills. Hoboken,

view: Traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles: Sage.

New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Markman, A.B. (2016). Open Innovation:

Johnson, G., Whittington R., and Scholes.
K. (2012).Fundamentals of Strategy.
(Third ed.), Harlow: Pearson.

Academic and Practical Perspectives on

46

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

the Journey from idea to market. Ox-

ISSN 2189-9592

effect of employee diversity on innovation. Research Policy, 40(3), pp.500509.

ford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Motohashi, Kazuyuki. (2006). Licensing or
Not licensing? Empirical Analysis on
Strategic use of Patent in Japan. RIETI
Discussion Paper Series 06-E-021.
Motohashi, Kazuyuki and Muramatsu,
Shingo. (2011).Examining the University Industry Collaboration Policy in Japan: Patent analysis. RIETI Discussion
Paper Series 11-E-008, 2011/02.

Puck, J., Rygl, D., and Kittler. M. (2006).
Cultural antecedents and performance
consequences of open communicationand knowledge transfer in multicultural process-innovation teams. Jour-nal of Organisational Transformationand Social Change, 3(2), pp.223-241.

Pullen, A.J.J., Weerd-Nederhof, P. C.,
Groen, A.J., and Fisscher, O.A.M.
(2012). Open Innovation in Practice:
Goal Complementarity and Closed
NPD Networks to Explain Differences.
in Innovation Performance for SMEs in
the Medical Devices Sector. Journal of
product innovation management, 29(6),pp.917- 934.
Sjödin, D.R., Eriksson, P. E., and Fri
shammar, J. (2011). Open innovationin process industries: a lifecycle perspective on development or processequipment. International Technology
Management, 56(2/3/4), pp. 225-240.
Rufat-Latre, J., Muller A., and Jones, D.
(2010). Delivering on the promise ofopen innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 38(6), pp.23-28.
Sako, Mari.(1998). The Information Requirements of Trust in Supplier Relations:
Evidence from Japan, Europe and theUnited States. In Lazaric, N. and Lorentz, E.(Eds.).Trust and Economic
Learning. Cheltenham: Elgar, pp.2347.
Salter, A., Crscuolo, P., and Ter Wal, A.L.J.
(2014). Coping with open innovation:
responding to the challenges of external engagement in R&D. California
Management Review, 56(2), pp.77-94.
Schiele, Holger. (2012).Accessing SupplierInnovation by Being Their Preferred
Customer. Research- Technology
Management, 55(1), pp. 44-50.
Schumpeter, Joseph A.(1934). The Theory of

Muller A. and Hutchins N. (2012).Case:
Open innovation helps Whirlpool Corporation discover new market opportunities. Strategy & Leadership, 40(4),pp. 36-42.
Nakagaki, P., Aber, J., and Fetterhoff, T.
(2012). The Challenges in Implementing Open Innovation in a Global Innovation-Driven Corporation. ResearchTechnology Management, 55(4), pp.
32-38.
Niehaves. Björn. (2000). Open process innovation: The impact of personnel
resorce scarcity on the involvement ofcustomers and consultants in public
sector BPM. Business Process Management, 16(3), pp.377-393.
Nonaka, Ikujiro and Takeuchi, Hirotaka.
(1995). The Knowledge-Creating Com-pany: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Ox-

ford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka,Ikujiro and Konno, Noboru. (1998).
The Concept of ‘ ba’ : Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(30), pp.4054.
Oganisjana, Karine.(2015). Promotion ofuniversity students’ collaborative skills
in open innovation environment. Jour-nal of Open Innovation: Technology,
Market, and Complexity, 1(18), pp.1-17.

Ollila S. and Elmquist, M. (2011). Managing Open Innovation: Exploring Challenges at the Interfaces of an Open Innovation Arena. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(4), pp.273-283.
Østergaard, Christian, R., Timmerm, B.,
and Kristinsson, K. (2011). Does a different view create something new? The

Economic Development An Inquiry into
Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, andthe Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

47

Journal of Japanese Management Vol.1, No.2, May 2017

Shamah, R. A. M. and Elsawaby, S. (2014)
Trust as a nucleus key for open innovation. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, 9(1),pp.110-124.
Sieg, J. Henrik., Wallin, J., Martin, W., andvon Krogh, G. (2010). Managerial challenges in open innovation: A Study ofInnovation Intermediation in theChemical Industry. R&D Management,
40(3), pp. 281-291.
Simard C. and West. J. (2006). Knowledge
networks and the geographic locus ofinnovation. In Chesbrough, H.W.,
Vanhaverbeke, W., and West, J. (Eds.)

ISSN 2189-9592

The (Unknown) Providers to Other
Firms' New Product Development:
What's in It for Them? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6),pp.986-999.
Trott. P. (2012).Innovation Management
and New Product Development. (Fifthed.), Harlow: Pearson,
Westergren, Ulrika, H. (2011).Opening up
innovation: The impact of contextual
factors on the co-creation of IT-enabledvalue adding services within the manufacturing industry. Information Systems and e-Business Management,
9(2), pp.223-245.
Whelan, E., Parise, S., de Valk J., and Aalbers. R. (2011).Creating Employee Networks That Deliver Open Innovation.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 53,(1),pp.37-44.

Open innovation: Researching a newparadigm. Oxford, NY: Oxford Univer-sity Press, pp.220-240.
Sims, Jonathan and Seidel, V. P. (2016).Or-

ganizations coupled with communities:
the strategic effects on firms engaged incommunity-coupled open innovation, Industrial and Corporate Change. Oxford

University Press, pp.1-19.
Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., and Knockaert,
M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity
to organise inbound open innovation in
traditional industries. Technovation,30(2), pp.130-141.
Ståhle, Pirjo. (2008). The dynamics of selfrenewal: A systems thinking to understanding organizational challenges indynamic environments. In Bonfour, Ahmed (Ed.). Organisational Capital: Modelling, measuring and contextualizing.
London: Routledge, pp.119-146.

(Received: January 31, 2017)(Accepted: May 23, 1017)

Takagaki, Yukio. (2016). Case of Innovation
among Firms. Surugadai Economic
Studies, 26 (1), pp.111-126.
Tucci,C.L.,Chesbrough, H.W., Piller,F., andJowl, W. (2016). When do firms undertake open, collaborative activities? Introduction to the special section on open
innovation and open business models.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(2),pp.283-288.
Tidd, J. and Bessant.i J. (2009).Managing

Innovation: Integrating Technologycal,
Market and Organizational Change(Fifth ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
Tranekjer T. L. and Knudsen. M. P. (2012).

48