Case studies on open innovation in ICT.
Date: 2017-06-09
Institutions: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
Subjects: case study, information technology, innovation, new technology, research report, type of business

Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Case Studies  
on Open Innovation in ICT 

Authors: Alberto Di Minin,  
Chiara  Eleonora  De  Marco,  Cristina  Marullo, 
Andrea Piccaluga, Elena Casprini,  
Maral Mahdad, Andrea Paraboschi 

Editors: Garry Gabison, Annarosa Pesole 

2016 

EUR 27911 EN 

 
 
 
This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house 
science  service.  It  aims  to  provide  evidence-based  scientific  support  to  the  European  policy-making  process. 
The  scientific  output  expressed  does  not  imply  a  policy  position  of  the  European  Commission.  Neither  the 
European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might 
be made of this publication. 

Contact information 
Address: Edificio Expo, C/ Inca Garcilaso, 3. E-41092 Seville (Spain) 
E-mail: jrc-ipts-secretariat@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +34 954488318 
Fax: +34 954488300 

JRC Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC100823 

EUR 27911 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-58231-8 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2791/433370 

LF-NA-27911-EN-N 

© European Union, 2016 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

How to cite: Alberto Di Minin, Chiara Eleonora De Marco, Cristina Marullo, Andrea Piccaluga, Elena Casprini, Maral 
Mahdad,  Andrea  Paraboschi  (2016)  ’Case  Studies  on  Open  Innovation  in  ICT’;  Institute  for  Prospective 
Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre. JRC Science for Policy Report; EUR 27911 EN; doi:10.2791/433370 

All images © European Union 2016 

Abstract 
This  report  synthesizes  the  results  of  13  case  studies  on  innovative  ICT  and  ICT-enabled  companies  across 
Europe. It aims to assess the impact of Open Innovation strategies (OISs) on their innovation processes and to 
highlight the role played by ICT. 

Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Table of Contents 

Preface ........................................................................................................... 2 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 3 

1. 

Introduction ......................................................................................... 12 
1.1 Open business models ..............................................................................13 
1.2 Methodology and companies investigated ....................................................15 
1.3 Roadmap ................................................................................................18 

2.  Open Innovation in Europe: Motives and Challenges ............................ 20 
2.1  The  main  motivations  for  adopting  Open  Innovation  practices:  benefits  and 
challenges ....................................................................................................20 
2.2  Large  companies’  competitive  advantage  in  implementing  Open  Innovation 
strategies .....................................................................................................25 
2.3 Opportunities for SMEs in implementing Open Innovation strategies ...............27 

3.  Open Innovation Models ...................................................................... 32 
3.1 Observed modes of Open Innovation ..........................................................32 
3.2 Main characteristics of the companies' Innovation ecosystem .........................36 

4. 

Drivers and Barriers to Open Innovation Strategies ............................. 38 

5.  Open Innovation Process Management Findings .................................. 43 

6. 

Policy Implications ............................................................................... 45 

References.................................................................................................... 53 

Annex – Company Cases ............................................................................... 58 
Loccioni ................................................................................................58 
BlaBlaCar .............................................................................................61 
Graphenea SA .......................................................................................64 
Guger Technologies OG (g.tec)................................................................68 
Celoxica Ltd. .........................................................................................71 
Zappar Ltd. ...........................................................................................75 
ENTRANET Ltd.......................................................................................78 
Primo 1D ..............................................................................................81 
IBSENtelecom .......................................................................................84 
STMicroelectronics .................................................................................87 
BCB Informática y Control ......................................................................90 
Philips ..................................................................................................93 
Supponor OY ........................................................................................97 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Preface 

This report was prepared in the context of the three-year research project on 
European Innovation Policies for the Digital Shift (EURIPIDIS) jointly launched 
in  2013  by  JRC-IPTS  and  DG  CONNECT  of  the  European  Commission.  This 
project  aims  to  improve  understanding  of  innovation  in  the  ICT  sector  and 
ICT-enabled innovation in the rest of the economy.   

The purpose of the EURIPIDIS project is to provide evidence-based support to 
the  policies,  instruments  and  measurement  needs  of  DG  CONNECT  for 
enhancing  ICT  Innovation  in  Europe,  in  the  context  of  the  Digital  Agenda  for 
Europe and of the ICT priority of Horizon 2020. It focuses on the improvement 
of the transfer of best research ideas to the market.   

EURIPIDIS aims to:  
1. 

better  understand  how  ICT  innovation  works,  at  the  level  of  actors 
such as firms, and also of the ICT “innovation system” in the EU;  
assess the EU's current ICT innovation performance, by attempting to 
measure  ICT  innovation  in  Europe  and  measuring  the  impact  of 
existing policies and instruments (such as FP7 and Horizon 2020); and  
explore and suggest  how policy makers could make ICT innovation  in 
the EU work better. 

2. 

3. 

Within EURIPIDIS, the present report offers the synthesis of the results of 13 
case  studies  conducted  on  innovative  ICT  and  ICT-enabled  companies  across 
Europe.  

It aims to assess the impact of open innovation strategies on their innovation 
procedure and also to highlight the role of ICT in the open innovation process. 

In particular, this report strives to: 

  Provide  a  better  understanding  of  the  key  organizational  dimensions 

and the evolution of their innovation models.  

  Define  the  main  dimensions  related  to  open  innovation  and  Open 

Innovation 2.0 strategies. 

  Highlight  the  drivers  and  barriers  of  open  innovation  strategies  in  ICT 

and ICT-enabled industries in Europe. 

  Assess  and  evaluate  the  differences  in  the  way  large  companies  and 
small  and  medium  enterprises  pursue  open  innovation  strategies  in 
Europe. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Executive Summary 

The  study  builds  upon  13  case  studies  of  innovative  ICT  and  ICT-enabled 
European companies. These 13 case studies include four large companies and 
nine  SMEs.  The  aim  of  the  study  is  to  assess  the  impact  of  Open  Innovation 
strategies on companies’ innovation procedures and to highlight the role of ICT 
in Open Innovation processes. 

The Open  Innovation  (OI)  paradigm is broadly defined as the shift from a 
traditional  closed  and  controlled  R&D  and  innovation  environment  towards 
open and flexible models (Chesbrough 2003, Chesbrough and Crowther, 2006; 
Gassman and Enkel, 2004; Enkel et al. 2009). An Open Innovation strategy 
(OIS)  aims  to  redefine  the  boundaries  between  the  company  and  its 
surrounding  environment,  making  the  firm  more  porous  and  embedded  in 
loosely-coupled  networks  of  different  actors,  collectively  and  individually 
working towards creating and commercializing new knowledge. 

Furthermore,  the  concept  of  Open  Innovation  is  related  to  that  of  the  open 
business model, since the link between technology and new business models 
is  strengthened  by  the  intensive  use  of  Open  Innovation.  With  the  rise  of 
Web  2.0,  a  new  generation  of  business  models  has  emerged,  and 
converged  in  the  new  paradigm  of  Open  Innovation  2.0  (Curley  and 
Salmelin,  2013).  This  new  paradigm  involves  “principles  of  integrated 
collaboration,  co-created  shared  values,  cultivated  innovation  ecosystem, 
unleashed exponential technologies, and extraordinarily rapid adoption” (Alexy 
et al., 2013).  

Open Innovation is a strategy that extends well beyond the R&D department, 
and  embraces  many  company  functions.  Large  companies  implement  Open 
Innovation strategies in a very different way to SMEs.  

In particular, all the large companies in our sample are:  

  Better positioned -than smaller companies- to orchestrate research 
partnerships,  by  setting  the  agenda  of  large  consortia,  identifying 
clear benefits for partners, and boosting and spreading the OIS attitude 
throughout the industry.  

  More likely to give a central role to Human  Resources  Management 

in order to achieve OIS goals. 

  More  likely  to  adopt  a  long–term  perspective,  focusing  not  only  on 
the  short-term  benefits  of  technology  alliances  but  also  identifying 
future objectives to be achieved along the road. 

A comparative review of the main strategic elements that characterize OIS in 
the SMEs in our sample leads us to the following conclusions: 

  Opening  up  through  business  model  innovation  represents  a 
strong  opportunity  for  SMEs  to  extract  value  from  internally  developed 
technologies through strategic partnerships and external collaborations.  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

  Participation  in  large  R&D  networks  and  strong  engagement  in 
academic  ecosystems  help  SMEs  to  gain  visibility  and  reputation, 
foster  expertise  exchange,  and  gather  new  knowledge  and  information 
on R&D priority setting.  

  OI  culture  and  strong  appropriability  strategies  allow  SMEs  to 
open  up  their  R&D  strategies  successfully,  without  running  the  risks 
related  to  rising  knowledge  search  costs  in  inbound  search  strategies 
and  the  loss  of  business-critical  knowledge  (reduced  value  capture)  in 
external collaborations. 

In  general,  Open  Innovation  proved  to  be  prevalent  in  many  innovation 
processes. However, in all our 13 cases, the type of Open Innovation that we 
observed was part of an “open but controlled”  innovation strategy. That  is to 
say,  it  was  open  in  the  sense  that  it  was  collaborative,  and  controlled  in  the 
sense that companies tried to implement strategies to ensure a proper return 
on their investment.  

While  we  do  not  claim  that  our  investigation  was  comprehensive,  it  has 
identified  a  series  of  drivers  and  barriers  for  an  Open  Innovation  strategy  in 
Europe (and indeed innovation in general).  

Drivers:  

  Large  EU  consortia  can  play  an  important  role  in  enabling  Open 
Innovation  Strategies  (OISs),  particularly  as  regards  explorative  R&D 
activities.  

  When  implementing  OI  2.0  strategies,  companies  claimed  to  build 
communities  and  platforms  using  the  assets  that  they  best 
control. 

  The  control  secured  thanks  to  IP  makes  companies  more  prone  to 
build  alliances  and  collaborate  when  they  can  protect  their  own 
technologies and knowledge. 

  The  Horizon  2020  SME  Instrument  was  seen  by  the  SMEs  in  our 
sample  as  offering  a  boost  for  business  development  of  innovative 
propositions.  

  Embeddedness  in  a  rich  ecosystem,  i.e. being a player in a cluster 
characterized  by  easy  access  to  complementary  assets,  and  by  an 
intense  flow  of  knowledge  and  information,  was  seen  as  leading  to 
significant advantages and more effective OISs. 

Barriers: two different groups of obstacles stand out.  They refer to: 

i.  Internal management. OIS requires the coordination of resources and 
is  a  complex  strategy  to  implement.  Companies  in  the  sample  suggest 
that  reaching  the  right  balance  between  internal  R&D  and  external 
sourcing  of  knowledge  and  technology  remains  a  serious  barrier  for 
implementation of OIS. 

ii.  European and national innovation systems. Despite the critical role 
played  by  EU  and  national  programmes,  various  companies  still  report 
that  the  lack  of  institutional  support  and/or  the  presence  of  rules  and 
regulations  that  prevent  innovation  constitute  a  considerable  barrier. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Companies  in  the  sample  lament  the  rigidities  of  policymakers  and  the 
public sector, which hinders innovation dynamics in Europe.   

The study identifies seven policy implications for Open Innovation: 

  Local  ecosystems  built  for  Open  Innovation.  Innovation  does  not 
happen in isolation. Innovators are often working in rich ecosystems. These 
ecosystems  have  to  be  specialized  and  well  connected.  The  locus  of 
innovation  is  no  longer  in  individual  large  companies,  but  in  innovation 
networks 
labs,  start-up 
companies,  SMEs,  multinationals,  and  governments.  Policymakers  have  a 
dual  role  to  play:  i)  they  can  support  the  creation  of  large  research 
campuses  as  key  infrastructures  for  local  innovation  ecosystems;  ii)  they 
can help SMEs, entrepreneurs, and other institutions to connect and enrich 
innovation ecosystems.  

involving  a  mix  of  partners:  universities, 

  Orchestrating a global ecosystem through open relationships. While 
physical  interaction  plays  an  important  role,  competitive  advantage  needs 
to be achieved on a  global scale. Policymakers can play an  important role 
in  encouraging  partnerships  through  projects  and  between  regions.  Open 
Innovation  has  demonstrated  the  benefits  of  these  connections  and 
exchanges: most of the companies in our sample have found that groups of 
industrial  allies  can  represent  a  formidable  competitive  asset  for  any 
innovative  enterprise.  Therefore,  public  authorities  should  make  sure  that 
their programmes encourage the right type of partnerships, which optimize 
the potential of participants through the alliance. 

  Intellectual  property  helping  Open  Innovation.  The  case  studies 
suggest  that  formal  intellectual  property  (IP)  protection  mechanisms  are 
tools that facilitate collaboration. However, SMEs often struggle to find the 
appropriate  partners.  Companies  need  to acknowledge  the  complexities  of 
IP  management  and  to  develop  effective  appropriation  strategies  in  order 
to successfully take their technologies to the market. Policy can also play a 
role  here.  First  of  all,  it  is  important  to  acknowledge  the  limits  of  the 
patenting  system  and  explore  alternatives  to  formal  tools  of  protection. 
Second,  forms  of  support  could  be  envisioned  that  help  SMEs  to  secure 
proper  IP  access  to  external  technology.  In  more  general  terms,  patent 
offices  could  ease  the  patent  search  processes  and  attempt  to  diminish 
search costs for SMEs. 

  Facilitating users’ involvement for OI 2.0. The involvement of users is 
crucial  for  Open  Innovation  2.0  communities.  The  diffusion  of  ICT  and 
social media during the last two decades has increased the opportunities to 
create new businesses based on communities and the potential of engaging 
users  in  the  innovation  process.  Policy  makers  can  facilitate  the  dynamics 
of  user-led  and  user-made  innovation  by  supporting  crowdsourcing 
mechanisms.  They  can  also  promote  innovation  by  awarding  prizes  for 
innovative  solutions  to  societal  challenges  (e.g.  inducement  prizes 1).  In 

1    “Challenge  prizes  (also  called  ‘inducement’  prizes)  offer  a  reward  to  whoever  can  first  or 
most  effectively  meet  a  defined  challenge.  They  act  as  an  incentive  for  meeting  a  specific 
challenge, rather than being a reward for past achievements (prizes that do this, such as the 
Nobel Peace Prize, are referred to as ‘recognition’ prizes).” (Nesta, 2014) 

5 

 
 
 
                                           
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

addition, they can make sure that European industry is capable of reaping 
the  benefits  generated  by  user  communities  and  monitor  how  users’ 
contributions are taken into consideration and rewarded.   

  Policymakers  should  strike  a  balance  between  encouraging  basic 
research,  applied  research,  and  innovation  models.  The  companies 
interviewed  acknowledged  that  with  Horizon  2020,  the  EU  investment  in 
research  and  innovation  is  becoming  more  oriented  towards  supporting 
applied  research  and  commercialization  projects.  However,  some  of  these 
companies, and in particular companies that have more experience with EU 
funding,  emphasized  that  public  investment  should  continue  to  support 
basic  research.  According  to  this  limited  sample,  European  industry  is 
requesting policymakers to balance their investment in support of activities 
across the entire value chain, from basic research to commercialization and 
business  expansion.  In  designing  any  new  research  and  innovation  policy, 
policymakers  should  adopt  an  approach  that  balances  support  for 
basic/applied research with support for the commercialization of research. 
  Remaining open to new forms of Open Innovation and other growth 
models. The European economy is extremely diverse and characterized by 
multiple  drivers  of  growth.  Encouraging  entrepreneurs  to  apply  Open 
Innovation can help, but the model itself is evolving and different wherever 
applied.  When  designing  policy  measures  to  support  entrepreneurial 
commercialization  of  science  and  technology,  policymakers  need  to 
acknowledge  that  exponential  growth  is  not  the  only  form  of  business 
development that leads to new jobs and wealth. Different forms of growth 
have  different  limitations.  For  instance,  when  growth  happens  through 
acquisition and rapid expansion, access to risk finance can be a bottleneck 
for  further  development.  The  availability  of  venture  capital  funding  is 
crucial  to  allow  companies  to  grow  and  innovate,  especially  for  start-ups 
and innovative SMEs. In more general terms, consistent with the presence 
of different modes of growth described in this study, policy can play a role 
in “bridging” industries (within high-tech sectors or between high-tech and 
traditional sectors). Policymakers can use their grant systems to encourage 
cross-sectorial innovation (a pillar of OI 2.0) and ICT-enabled innovation. 
  Policymakers  can  contribute  to  creating  the  conditions  for  the 
growth  and  the  diffusion  of  a  strong  Open  Innovation  culture. 
Companies  experience  Open  Innovation  strategies  differently,  and  their 
understanding  of  how  to  implement  OI  Strategies  matures  at  different 
rates.  The  most  experienced  OI  companies  in  our  sample  emphasized  the 
need  to  educate  staff  in  OI.  They  also  organized  initiatives  to  prepare 
engineers,  doctoral  students  and  managers  for  the  implementation  of  OI 
strategies,  such  as  alliances,  technological  co-development  and  the  like. 
Policy  can  play  a  role  here,  supporting  initiatives  that  enhance  the  OI 
capabilities of people within an organization.  

6 

 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Résumé 

Cette  étude  se  fonde  sur  13  études  de  cas  d'entreprises  européennes 
innovatrices  dans 
technologies  de 
le  secteur  économique  des 
l'information  et  de  communication  (TIC)  ou  qui  exploitent  les  TIC.  Ces 
13  études  incluent  quatre  grandes  entreprises  et  neuf  PMEs.  L’objectif 
est  d’évaluer  l’impact  des  stratégies  de  l'innovation  ouverte  (Open 
Innovation)  sur  les  processus  d’innovation  et  de  mettre  en  évidence  le 
rôle des TIC dans le processus d’innovation ouverte.   

Les  principes  d’innovation  ouverte  sont  généralement  définis 
comme le passage d'un environnement de  Recherche & Développement 
(R&D)  fermés  et  contrôlés  vers  des  modèles  flexibles  et  ouverts 
(Chesbrough  2003,  Chesbrough  and  Crowther,  2006;  Gassman  and 
Enkel, 2004; Enkel et al. 2009). Une stratégie d’Innovation Ouverte 
(SIO)  vise  à  redéfinir  les  frontières  entre  l’entreprise  et  son 
environnement  proche.    Une  SIO  encourage  les  entreprises  à  adopter 
une  approche  plus  ouverte  et  intégrée  dans  des  réseaux  librement 
associés  avec  des  acteurs  divers,  qui  travaillent  individuellement  ou 
collectivement  vers 
commercialisation  de 
création  et 
connaissances.  

la 

la 

En outre, le concept de l’Innovation Ouverte est lié au modèle d’affaires. 
Avec  l’arrivée  du  Web  2.0,  de  nouveaux  modèles  d’affaires  ont 
émergés. Ils convergent vers le nouveau concept de l’Innovation 
Ouverte  2.0  (Curley  and  Salmelin,  2013).  Ce  nouveau  concept 
intégrée,  des  valeurs 
implique  « des  principes  de  collaboration 
partagées  et  co-crées,  des  écosystèmes  développés  d’innovation,  des 
technologies au potentiel exponentiel, et  une adoption particulièrement 
rapide » (Alexy et al., 2013).  

L’innovation  ouverte  est  une  stratégie  qui  s’étend  bien  au-delà  du 
département de R&D, et englobe plusieurs fonctions de l’entreprise. Les 
grandes  entreprises  mettent  en  œuvre  les  stratégies  de  l’innovation 
Ouverte de manière différente des PMEs. 

En particulier, les grandes entreprises dans notre échantillon sont: 

  Mieux  positionnées – que  les petites entreprises – pour  orchestrer  
les  partenariats  de  recherche,  en  établissant  l’agenda  de  grands 
consortiums, et identifiant clairement les avantages des partenaires, et 
stimulant  et  diffusant  l’attitude  de  stratégie  d’innovation  ouverte  dans 
toute l’industrie.  

  Plus  susceptibles  de  donner  un  rôle  central  à  la  Gestion  des 

Ressources Humaines  afin d’atteindre les objectifs de la SIO. 

  Plus susceptible d'adopter une  perspective  de  long  terme  avec  ses 

partenaires.  

Après  avoir  comparé  les  principaux  éléments  stratégiques  des  SIOs 
dans les PMEs, nous concluons: 

  L’ouverture  du  modèle  d’affaires  représente  une  occasion  pour  les 
PME  d'extraire  la  valeur  de  technologies  développées  en  interne  à 
travers les partenariats stratégiques et les collaborations externes. 

7 

 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

  Une  participation  aux  grands  réseaux  de  R&D  et  un  fort 
engagement  dans  les  écosystèmes  académiques aident les PME à 
conquérir  une  visibilité  et  une  réputation,  à  promouvoir  l’échange 
d’expertise, à recueillir des connaissances et des informations nouvelles 
sur les priorités R&D de leurs écosystèmes.  

  Une culture IO et des stratégies d’appropriation fortes permettent 
aux PME d’ouvrir leurs stratégies de R&D, sans prendre de risques liés à 
l’augmentation  des  coûts  de 
la  recherche  pour  acquérir  cette 
connaissance, et à la perte de connaissance critique aux affaires suite à 
des collaborations externes. 

En  général,  l'Innovation  ouverte  s’est  répandue  dans  de  nombreux 
processus  d'innovation,  mais  le  type  d'innovation  ouverte  que  nous 
avons  observé  fait,  dans  toutes  nos  études  de  cas,  partie  d'une 
stratégie d'innovation "ouverte mais contrôlée". Autrement dit, ouverte 
dans  le  sens  de  la  collaboration  et  contrôlée  dans  le  sens  que  les 
entreprises  utilisent  des  stratégies  qui  assurent  un  retour  sur  leur 
investissement. 

Bien  que  cette  analyse  ne  prétende  pas  être  complète,  elle  a  identifié 
une  série  de  moteurs  et  d'obstacles  pour  une  stratégie  de  l'innovation 
ouverte en Europe (et de l'innovation en général). 

Du côté des moteurs: 

o  Notre échantillon identifie un rôle pour les  grands  consortiums 
de  l'UE.    Ces  consortiums  permettent  la  mise  en  œuvre  des 
stratégies  d'innovation  ouverte  (SIO)  et  en  particulier  d'activités 
exploratoires de R&D. 

o  Pour  les  stratégies  IO  2.0,  les  entreprises  ont  indiqué  avoir  bâti 
des collectivités et des plates-formes – en partant des atouts 
qu'elles peuvent mieux contrôler. 

o  A  propos  de  la  propriété  intellectuelle,  les  entreprises  ont 
tendance  à  construire  des  alliances  et  collaborer  quand  elles 
peuvent  assurer  le  contrôle  de  leurs  propres  technologies  et 
connaissances. 

o  Les PMEs de notre échantillon ont souligné que leur participation 
à l'Instrument  PME  Horizon  2020 fut en un moteur pour leur 
développement de leurs innovations. 

o  Enfin,  un  autre  moteur  identifié  est  l'intégration  dans  un 
écosystème  riche:  la  participation  dans  un  cluster  régional 
facilite  l'accès    à  des  actifs  complémentaires  et  le  transfert 
conséquent  des  connaissances  conduit  à  des  avantages 
significatifs et des SIO plus efficaces. 

Du  côté  des  obstacles,  deux  groupes  différents  d'obstacles  se 
démarquent.  Le  premier  concerne  la  gestion  interne  et  le  second 
concerne les systèmes d'innovation européens et nationaux: 

o  La  gestion 

interne.  Les  SIO  exigent  la  coordination  de 
ressources.  C’est  une  stratégie  parfois  difficile  à  mettre  en 
œuvre.    Les  entreprises  analysées  dans  nos  études  de  cas 

8 

 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

indiquent  qu’atteindre  le  juste  équilibre  entre  la  R&D  interne  et 
l’acquisition  externe  des  connaissances  et  technologies  reste  un 
sérieux problème pour les SIO. 

o 

les  systèmes  d'innovation  européens  et  nationaux.  Malgré 
le  rôle  essentiel  joué  par  l'UE  et  les  programmes  nationaux, 
diverses  entreprises  indiquent  encore  que  le  manque  de  soutien 
institutionnel  et/ou  la  présence  de  règles  et  de  règlements  qui 
contrarient  l'innovation  représentent  un  obstacle  majeur.  Elles 
déplorent  les  rigidités  des  décideurs  politiques  et  du  secteur 
public, qui entravent le dynamisme de l'innovation en Europe. 

Dans  cette  étude,  nous  identifions  sept  implications  politiques  pour 
l’Innovation Ouverte: 

Des  écosystèmes  locaux  construits  pour  l’Innovation  ouverte. 
L'innovation ne se fait pas  dans  l'isolement. Les  innovateurs travaillent 
souvent  au  sein  d’écosystèmes  riches.  Ces  écosystèmes  doivent  être 
spécialisés  et  bien  reliés.  L'innovation  se  fait  désormais  au  sein  de 
réseaux  d'innovation  avec  des  partenaires  variés:  universités, 
laboratoires,  start-ups,  PME,  multinationales,  et  les  décideurs  publics. 
Ces  décideurs  ont  un  double  rôle  à  jouer:  i)  ils  peuvent  soutenir  la 
création de grands campus de recherche comme infrastructures clés au 
centre  d'écosystèmes  locaux;  ii)  ils  peuvent  aider  les  PME,  les 
entrepreneurs,  et  d'autres  institutions  à  se  connecter  et  à  enrichir  les 
écosystèmes d'innovation. 

Orchestrer  un  écosystème  mondial. Alors que l'interaction physique 
joue  un  rôle  important,  l'avantage  concurrentiel  doit  être  atteint  à 
l'échelle mondiale. Les pouvoirs publics peuvent jouer un rôle important 
intra-régions. 
et  encourager  des  partenariats  entre 
L’Innovation Ouverte a démontré les avantages de ces connexions et de 
ces échanges: la plupart des entreprises dans notre étude ont démontré 
que des groupes de partenaires industriels peuvent représenter un atout 
innovante.  Par 
concurrentiel 
conséquent,  les  pouvoirs  publics  devraient  faire  en  sorte  que  leurs 
programmes  encouragent  des  partenariats  adéquats  en  sorte 
d'optimiser leur potentiel. 

toute  entreprise 

formidable  pour 

les  projets 

La  protection  de  la  propriété  intellectuelle  aide  l’Innovation 
Ouverte. Les cas étudiés suggèrent que des mécanismes de protection 
de la propriété intellectuelle (PI) formelle sont des outils qui facilitent la 
collaboration.  Cependant,  les  PMEs  ont  souvent  du  mal  à  trouver  les 
partenaires  appropriés.  Les  entreprises  ont  besoin  de  reconnaître  la 
complexité  de  la  gestion  de  la  PI  et  de  développer  des  stratégies 
d'appropriation efficaces afin d'optimiser le retour de leurs technologies 
sur  le  marché.  Les  décideurs  publics  peuvent  également  jouer  un  rôle. 
Tout d'abord, il est important de reconnaître quelles sont les limites du 
système  des  brevets  et  d'explorer  des  alternatives  à  cette  protection 
formelle. Deuxièmement, les formes de soutien peuvent être envisagées 
pour  soutenir  les  PMEs  qui  essayent  d'importer  à  l'intérieur  la  PI  dont 
elles  ont  besoin  et  qui  a  été  créée  à  l'extérieur.  D’une  manière  plus 
générale, les bureaux de brevets pourraient améliorer la façon dont les 

9 

 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

brevets sont consultables et essayer de diminuer les coûts de recherche 
pour les PMEs. 

Innovation ouverte 2.0: faciliter la participation des utilisateurs. 
L’implication  des  utilisateurs  est  un  élément  crucial  des  communautés 
de l'innovation ouverte 2.0. La diffusion des TIC et des médias sociaux 
au cours des deux dernières décennies a amplifié l’opportunité de créer 
de nouvelles entreprises fondées sur l'engagement les utilisateurs dans 
le  processus  d'innovation.  Que  ce  soit  une  innovation  dirigée  ou  crée 
par les utilisateurs, les décideurs politiques peuvent faciliter le dialogue 
entre  utilisateurs  et  décideurs  en  soutenant  des  mécanismes 
d’externalisation  (par  exemple,  le  «crowdsourcing»).    Par  exemple,  ils 
peuvent créer des compétitions et des prix, mais doivent s’assurer que 
l'industrie  européenne  est  capable  d'obtenir  les  bénéfices  générés  par 
les  utilisateurs  et  observer  comment  leurs  contributions  sont  prises  en 
considération et récompensées. 

Les  décideurs  publics  doivent  trouver  un  compromis  entre 
l’encouragement  de  la  recherche  fondamentale,  la  recherche 
appliquée,  et  les modèles  d'innovation.  Les entreprises interrogées 
ont  admis  qu’avec  l'Horizon  2020,  l'investissement  de  l'UE  dans  la 
recherche  et  l'innovation  soutiendra  davantage  la  recherche  appliquée 
et  la  commercialisation  des  projets.  Cependant,  certaines  de  ces 
entreprises, et en particulier des entreprises plus expérimentées avec le 
financement de la R&D par l'UE, ont soutenu que l'investissement public 
doit  aussi  soutenir  la  recherche  fondamentale.  Selon  notre  échantillon 
limité, 
l'industrie  européenne  demande  aux  décideurs  publics 
d'équilibrer  leur  investissement  à  l'appui  d'activités  couvrant  toute  la 
chaîne  de  valeur,  depuis  la  recherche  fondamentale  jusqu’à  la 
commercialisation  et  à  l'expansion  des  marchés.  Ces  entreprises 
pensent  que  les  décideurs  publics  devraient  adopter  une  approche 
équilibrée  entre  le  soutien  à  la  recherche  fondamentale/appliquée  et  le 
soutien à la commercialisation de la recherche. 

Restant  ouvert  à  de  nouvelles  formes  d'innovation  ouvert  et 
d'autres  modèles  de  croissance.  L'économie  européenne  est 
extrêmement  diversifiée  et  caractérisée  par  de  multiples  moteurs  de 
croissance.  Encourager  les  entrepreneurs  à  appliquer  l’Innovation 
Ouverte peut aider, mais le modèle lui-même est en constante évolution 
et  il  n'est  pas  appliqué  d'une  même  manière  partout.  Lors  de  la 
conception  de  mesures  pour 
commercialisation 
entrepreneuriale  de  la  science  et  technologie,  les  décideurs  publics 
doivent  prendre  en  compte  que  la  croissance  exponentielle  des 
entreprises  n’est  pas  l'unique  forme  de  développement  qui  mène  à  la 
création  de  nouveaux  emplois  et  de  richesse.  Différentes  formes  de 
croissance  ont  des  limites  diverses.  Par  exemple,  lorsque  la  croissance 
passe  par  l'acquisition  et  par  une  expansion  rapide,  la  difficulté  de 
l’accès  au  capital-risque  et  aux  fonds  d'investissement  peut  être  un 
obstacle.  La  disponibilité  de  ces  fonds  est  cruciale  pour  permettre  aux 
entreprises  de  grandir  et  d'innover,  en  particulier  pour  les  start-ups  et 
les  PMEs  innovantes.  En  général,  suivant  les  différents  modes  de 
croissance décrits dans cette étude, les décideurs publics peuvent jouer 

soutenir 

la 

10 

 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

un  rôle  dans  les  industries  "passerelles"  (au  sein  de  la  haute-
technologie ‘high-tech’ ou entre high-tech et les secteurs traditionnels). 
Les  décideurs  publics  peuvent  utiliser  les  dispositifs  de  subventions 
publiques  afin  d'encourager  l'innovation  intersectorielle  (un  pilier  d’OI 
2.0) et l'innovation facilitée par les TIC. 

Les  décideurs  publics  peuvent  contribuer  à  créer  des  conditions 
pour  la  croissance  et  la  diffusion  d'une  solide  culture  de 
l'innovation  ouverte.  Les  entreprises  expérimentent  de  façons 
différentes  la  mise  en  œuvre  de  stratégies  de  l'innovation  ouverte,  et 
elles arrivent à des taux différents de mise en œuvre à maturité, selon 
leur  compréhension  de  l'IO.  Dans  notre  étude,  les  entreprises  les  plus 
matures en terme de mise en œuvre de l’IO ont souligné la nécessité de 
former  les  ressources  humaines  à  l’IO.    Elles  ont  également  organisé 
des initiatives pour préparer les ingénieurs, doctorants et gestionnaires 
sur  la  mise  en  œuvre  des  stratégies  d'IO,  comme  les  alliances,  le  co-
développement  technologique  et  autres.  Les  décideurs  publics  peuvent 
jouer  un  rôle  en  soutenant  les  initiatives  dont  l'objectif  est  d'améliorer 
les capacités d'OI au sein d'une organisation. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

1. Introduction 

This report synthesises the results of 13 case studies of innovative ICT 
and ICT-enabled companies across Europe. 

It assesses the impact of Open Innovation strategies (OISs) on the innovation 
processes  of  these  companies  and  highlights  the  role  of  ICT  in  the  open 
innovation process. 

The report strives to: 

  Provide  a  better  understanding  of  the  key  organizational  dimensions 

and the evolution of their innovation models.  

  Define  the  main  dimensions  of  open  innovation  and  Open  Innovation 

2.0 strategies. 

  Highlight  the  drivers  and  barriers  of  Open  Innovation  strategies  in  ICT 

and ICT-enabled2 industries in Europe. 

  Evaluate  the  differences  in  the  ways  open  innovation  strategies  are 
pursued  in  large  companies  and  in  small  and  medium  enterprises  in 
Europe. 

The  Open  Innovation  paradigm  is  broadly  defined  as  the  shift  from  a 
traditional  closed  and  controlled  R&D  and  innovation  environment  towards 
open  and  flexible  models,  in  which  new  value  is  captured  along  the  whole 
value  chain  from  “purposive  inflows  and  outflows  of  knowledge  to  accelerate 
innovation  and  to  expand  the  markets  for  external  use  of  innovation, 
respectively”  (Chesbrough  2003,  Chesbrough  and  Crowther,  2006;  Gassman 
and Enkel, 2004; Enkel et al. 2009). 

At  the  most  fundamental  level,  the  Open  Innovation  concept  is  embedded  in 
the  notion  that  the  sources  of  knowledge  for  innovation  and  technological 
advance  are  widely  distributed  in  the  economy.  In  his  first  seminal  work, 
Henry Chesbrough emphasized the strong interdependencies that occur in the 
innovation  process,  in  order  to  demonstrate  that  the  decline  in  the  strategic 
advantage  of  closed  innovation  models,  based  on  internal  R&D,  is  related  to 
the  greater  range  of  knowledge  producers  and  to  the  increased  mobility  of 
knowledge  workers.  This  makes  it  more  difficult  for  firms  to  appropriate  and 
control their R&D investments and IPs.  

An  Open  Innovation  strategy aims to redefine the boundaries between the 
company and its surrounding environment, making the firm more porous and 
embedded  in  loosely-coupled  networks  of  different  actors,  collectively  and 
individually  working  towards  creating  and  commercializing  new  knowledge. 
Chesbrough  also  suggests  there  are  many  innovative  solutions  developed  at 
the  boundaries  between  disciplines.  Therefore  the  new  model  of  innovation 

2   ICT-enabled  companies  apply  digitalization  processes  to  non-digital  production  processes, 

mainly in services and in manufacturing traditional industries. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

needs  to  find  ways  for  leveraging  these  solutions  when  it  is  not  possible  to 
own all the capabilities in-house.  

Central to the reason why the Open Innovation model reflects a paradigm shift 
is  the  concept  of  “erosion  factors”.  These  factors  undercut  the  logic  of  the 
earlier  “closed  innovation”  model  of  R&D  and  changed  the  conditions  under 
which  firms  innovate  by  increasing  the  potential  and  decreasing  the  costs  of 
searching for external innovation.  

As  Chesbrough  and  Bogers  pointed  out  (2014),  one  of  the  most  important 
‘erosion’ 
increasingly  distributed 
knowledge  sources  by  enabling  the  use  of  external  innovation  is  the  growing 
availability of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). 

factors  that  allow 

firms  to 

leverage 

New  Information  and  Communication  Technologies  have  reduced  the 
perceived distances between the actors in the innovation process. At the same 
time,  they  have  enabled  the  integration  of  customers  and  suppliers  into  the 
design  and  development  process.  As  a  result,  the  mobility  of  knowledge  has 
increased over the last few decades (Gassman, 2006). Thanks to modern ICT, 
virtual  teamwork  on  a  global  scale  has  changed  from  a  rather  exceptional 
working mode to a standard one.  

Moreover, West and Bogers (2011) argue: “the rise of the Internet has played 
an  important  role  in  enabling  searches  for  external  innovation,  by  facilitating 
intelligence  (Veugelers  et  al.,  2010),  online  communities 
technology 
(Dahlander  and  Wallin,  2006),  crowdsourcing  or  broadcast  search  (Ebner  et 
al.,  2009;  Jeppesen  and  Lakhani,  2010),  and  Internet  platforms  (Vickery  et 
al.,  2010)”.  Open-source  software  development  became  possible  because  of  
two special characteristics of software: high separability and codability, and its 
high knowledge intensity.  

Furthermore, the concept of Open Innovation is related to the concept 
of  the  open  business  model,  since  the  link  between  technology  and 
new  business  models  is  strengthened  by  the  intensive  use  of  Open 
Innovation 
(Chesbrough,  2003;  Chesbrough  and  Crowther,  2006; 
Chesbrough and Schwartz, 2007; Chesbrough 2012; 2013). 

1.1   Open Business Models 

Open  business  models  are  based  on  a  significant  division  of  labour  among 
partners.  These  models  have  two  alternative  strategic  objectives.  The  first  is 
to  get  access  to  external  ideas;  the  second  is  to  use  internal  key  assets, 
resources,  or  technology  in  other  companies'  businesses  (Chesbrough,  2003, 
2006,  2007).  From  this  perspective,  open  business  models  are  strictly  linked 
to the innovation activities of the firm, or to its external innovation partners.  

Business  models  determine  which  external  technologies  have  to  be  sourced 
(because  they  are  indispensable  for  the  business  model)  and  which 
technologies  have  to  be  monetized  externally  (because  they  are  not  aligned 
with  the  business  model).  In  recent  works  on  open  innovation  and  open 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

business  models,  Vanhaverbeke  (2012)  and  Vanhaverbeke  and  Chesbrough 
(2014) point out that these models may lead to better financial performance. 
On the one hand, they can reduce the costs of innovation. On the other hand, 
they can generate extra revenues through monetizing technologies, by means 
of  licensing  agreements  and  spin-off  activities,  when  a  technology  cannot  be 
adopted profitably in the product markets of the company.  

Several  scholars  agree  that  the  Internet  and  the  related  advances  in 
Information  and  Communication  Technologies  (ICTs)  act  as  catalysts  for 
business  model  experimentation  and  innovation  (Timmers,  1998,  Massa  and 
Tucci,  2013).  They  have  disclosed  new  opportunities  for  organizing  business 
activities.  Entire 
industrial  sectors  have  evolved  along  radically  new 
trajectories of innovation and offer new logics of value creation. 

With  the  rise  of  Web  2.0,  a  new  generation  of  business  models  has 
emerged  and  converged  in  the  new  paradigm  of  Open  Innovation  2.0 
(Curley  and  Salmelin,  2013).  This  new  paradigm  involves  “principles  of 
integrated  collaboration,  co-created  shared  values,  cultivated  innovation 
ecosystems,  unleashed  exponential  technologies,  and  extraordinary  rapid 
adoption” (Alexy et al., 2013). This means that Open Innovation 2.0 is based 
on openness to change rather than resistance to it. Moreover, innovation is a 
relational activity, which involves not only different sectors and functions, but 
also  different  people  and  teams  working  in  collaboration  to  achieve  common 
goals.  

This  understanding  shaped  the  spirit  of  a  recent  paper,  promoted  by  the 
European  Commission  and  released  by  the  EU  Open  Innovation  Strategy  and 
Policy  Group  (OISPG)  at  the  conclusion  of  the  Open  Innovation  2.0 
Conference,  held  in  Dublin  in  2013.  The  paper  (Curley  and  Salmelin,  2013) 
highlights the new paradigm of Open Innovation 2.0 as a wide networking and 
co-creative  collaboration  that  involves  all  the  actors  of  modern  society  in  co-
generating  and  enabling 
innovation  and  creating  shared  competitive 
advantages.  

To deploy this new model, Open Innovation 2.0 refers to the “quadruple helix” 
(Asplund,  2012),  a  model  that  involves  the  participation  of  government, 
academia,  industry  and  people  in  order  to  create  structural  changes  and 
shared  value  that  could  not  be  achieved  by  actors  working  alone.  Moreover, 
the Internet and the phenomenon of globalization has led to a growing level of 
connectivity  that  influences  companies’  models  of  innovation,  making  them 
shift away from  the traditional R&D-led models toward  more distributed ones 
(Alexy et al. 2013). 

In  this  context,  inter-organizational  collaboration  plays  an  important  role  in 
collaborative R&D and product development (Faems, Van Looy and Debackere, 
2005). 

Depending  on  how  consistent  they  are  with  firms’  existing  business  models, 
ICTs  can  be  seen  as  either  disruptive  or  sustaining  (Christensen  and  Raynor, 
2003). Furthermore, the shift away from the enhanced role of knowledge and 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

information  in  transactions,  and  the  exponential  increase  in  the  degree  of 
interaction  between  innovation  actors,  has  forced  firms  to  move  from  a 
transactional paradigm to a relational one (Kalayanam and McIntyre, 2002). 

Customers  and  web  users  play  a  greater  role  and  the  environment  for 
knowledge exchange is wider as a result of the interaction of Open Innovation 
strategies  and  new  technologies.  This  has  forced  firms  in  most  industries  to 
rethink their existing business models. 

Social  ICTs  (SICTs)  play  an  important  role  in  the  Open  Innovation 
paradigm.  The  growing  phenomenon  of  Web  2.0  is  the  latest  result  of  a 
gradual  evolution  towards  enriched  transactions  and  a  variety  of  knowledge 
sources.  SICTs  broaden  the  relevant  sources  of  knowledge 
involved 
(university,  competitors,  government,  users,  etc.).  In  addition,  SICTs  enrich 
the  depth  of  knowledge  interactions  between  firms  and  the  external 
environment. 

1.2   Methodology and Companies Investigated 

The  13  companies  included  in  the  research  project  whose  results  are 
summarized  in  this  report  were  selected  from  a  list  of  40  candidate 
European ICT and ICT-enabled companies.  

Candidate  companies  were  identified  through  a  variety  of  sources:  academic 
networks,  Open  Innovation  2.0  networks,  R&D  Management  Conference 
Network,  partnerships  in  other  European  projects,  and  informal  professional 
contacts  of  the  team  supervisors.  The  selection  further  benefited  from  the 
professional contacts of the researchers in the network of European delegates 
in Horizon 2020 Committees.  

into 

consideration 

We selected the final 13 companies using a multi-dimensional approach which 
took 
(ICT/ICT-enabled, 
product/services),  the  size  of  the  company,  and  the  different  market 
approaches  (B2C/B2B),  in  order  to  capture  heterogeneity  and  increase  the 
significance of the findings. 

company 

industry 

the 

The company selection procedure aimed to ensure that the various dimensions 
of  EU  countries,  industries  and  firms  were  fully  represented,  taking  into 
account the evidence resulting  from the mapping of previous case studies on 
open innovation in ICT. 

Moreover,  one  of  the  rationales  of  the  selection  was  that  of  “tell  us  a  story”; 
not  only  relevant  from  a  business  perspective  but  also  to  highlight  the 
obstacles  that  these  companies  faced  in  pursuing  OI  and  developing  open 
business  models  in  new  technological  environments.  Every  case  was  chosen 
for  the  potentially  relevant  information  it  might  add  to  the  research 
framework. 

In-depth  desk  research  on  the  selected  companies  allowed  us  to  collect  four 
main blocks of information, related to: 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

 
 
 
 

the relevance of ICT in the company’s open innovation strategy,  
the company’s business model, 
the company structure, 
the latest financial performance figures available3. 

Table 1 provides the basic company-level data for the year 2014.  

3   Companies’ key financial information was collected from reported official data from balance 

sheets (Source: Bureau Van Dijk Amadeus database) 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

e
m
a
n

y
n
a
p
m
o
C

y
n
a
p
m
o
C

e
p
y
t

i

n
g
i
r
o

f
o

y
r
t
n
u
o
C

E
D
O
C
E
C
A
N

n

i
a
m
(
N
O
I
T
P
I
R
C
S
E
D

)
y
t
i
v
i
t
c
a

f
o
s
e
i
r
t
n
u
o
c

f
o

.
o
N

a
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
o

a
s
e
e
y
o
p
m
e

l

f
o

.
o
N

s
e
u
n
e
v
e
r
g
n
i
t
a
r
e
p
O

)
r
e
v
o
n
r
u
t
(

y
t
i
s
n
e
t
n

i

D
&
R

)
r
e
v
o
n
r
u
t

f
o
%

(

)
s
t
n
e
t
a
p

f
o

.
o
n
(
R
P
I

BlaBlaCar 

Private  

FR 

Zappar Ltd. 

Private  

UK 

ST 
Micro-
electronics 

Publicly 
Quoted  

CH 

IBSEN Telecom 

Private  

NO 

Celoxica Ltd. 

Private  

UK 

BCB 

Private  

ES 

Supponor OY 

Private  

FI 

Loccioni 

Private  

IT 

Guger Technolo-
gies OG 

Private  

AT 

ENTRANET 

Private  

GR 

Graphenea 

Private  

ES 

Primo 1D 

Private  

FR 

63.12 - Web 
portals 
Development 
of augmented 
reality-
enabled 
products  
721909 - 
Experimental 
R&D in 
natural 
sciences and 
engineering 
7219 - 
Research and 
experimental 
development 
in natural 
sciences and 
engineering 

26.2 -
 Manufacture 
of computers 
and peripheral 
equipment 
ICT (software 
development) 

73.119 - 
Other 
advertising 
activities 
32.7 - 
Mechanical 
Engineering 

25.6 - 
Machining 

45.34 - Other 
building 
installation 

72.19 - 
Research and 
experimental 
development 
in natural 
sciences and 
engineering 
Micro-
electronics 

14 

1 

250 

21 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

€867.000 
(2013) 

6% 
(intangi-
bles) 

1 

12 

43600 

US$7.4B 
(2014) 

21% 
(expendi-
ture) 

15.00
0 

1 

3 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

4 

2 

1 

5 

3 

3 

3 

32 

10 

19 

€2.628.000 
(2013) 

37.5% 
(expendi-
ture) 

€1.000.000 
(2014) 

€1.352.000 
(2013) 

6% 
(intangi-
bles) 
N.A. 

382 

€70.500.00
0 (2013) 

40 

8 

8 

€30.000.00
0 (2013) 

€100.000 
(first 
product in 
2015) 
€500.000 
(2013) 

5% 
(intangi-
bles) 

40% 
(employ-
ees) 
90% 
(employ-
ees) 

30% 
(expendi-
ture) 

1 

8 

N.A. 

N.A. 

PHILIPS  

Publicly 
Quoted  

NL 

2790 - 
Manufacture 
of electrical 
equipment 

28 
(plants) 
150 
(sales 
outlets) 

120000 

€23,452M 
(2013) 

36% 
(intangi-
bles) 

a(worldwide) 

Table 1: Basic company-level data 

24 

1 

20 
pat-
ent 
fam. 
2 

- 

4 

18 
pat-
ent 
fam. 

80.00
0 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

An  explorative  case  study  analysis  (Eisenhardt,  1989)  was  conducted  in 
order  to  shape  hypotheses  and  to  further  verify  them  through  recursive 
cycling  techniques  (Eisenhardt  and  Graebner,  2007).  At  the  end  of  the 
research, emblematic cases or observed cross-case patterns were used to fully 
describe  the  underlying  relations  between  emerging  new  models,  in  order  to 
add  further  theoretical  contributions  to  the  research  framework.  Cross  case 
study  results  were  delivered  by  building  an  innovation  strategy  roadmap  for 
each company. The roadmap emphasizes the following dimensions: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Originality of the idea/nature of the technology,  
Early technology development,  
Advanced technology and/or product development,  
Commercialization strategy, 
Business model evolution. 

Moreover, in line with relevant studies on company approaches to technology 
transactions  (Van  De  Vrande  et  al.  2009;  Brunswicker  and  Vanhaverbeke, 
2011,  2014;  Parida  et  al.  2012),  two  important  activities  that  form  part  of 
firms’ approaches to Open Innovation were investigated:  

  Knowledge  exploration  activities:  “innovation  activities  that  aim  to 
benefit  from  external  sources  of  knowledge  in  enhancing  current 
technological  development”  (e.g.  new  ideas/technologies  discovered  in 
partnership  with  suppliers,  direct  customers,  and  users  involved  in  the 
definition of the product concept).  

  Technology  exploitation  activities: “innovation activities that aim to 
leverage existing technological capabilities outside the boundaries of the 
organization and to discover new paths to the market through access to 
complementary  resources  and  capabilities”  (e.g.  strategic  partnerships 
for product co-development, manufacturing, and commercialization). 

1.3   Roadmap 

This report is structured as follows. 

Chapter  2  provides  an  overview  of  the  main  reasons  the  interviewed 
companies  had  for  adopting  open  innovation  practices.  Cross  case  study 
results highlight the main benefits and challenges arising from open innovation 
practices in Europe. 

Chapter  3  describes  the  interviewed  companies’  different  innovation  models, 
based  on  information  gathered  at  the  interviews.  It  considers  the  level  of 
adoption  of  open  innovation  practices  by  the  various  companies  by  mapping 
their  different  approaches  to  open  innovation.  In  addition,  it  looks  at  the 
specific issues that characterize the main strategic aspects of the relationship 
between the companies and their innovation ecosystem. 

Chapter  4  summarizes  the  findings  about  drivers  and  barriers  to  open 
innovation in Europe and offers conclusions according to relevant dimensions, 
such  as  the  company’s  industry  (ICT/ICT-enabled,  product/services),  its  size 
and its marketing approach (B2C/B2B). 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Chapter  5  and  Chapter  6  provide  general  conclusions  from  the  study,  and  in 
particular  those  related  to  innovation  process  management  and  policy 
implications, respectively. 

For detailed information about the companies, please refer to the Annex. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

2. Open 

Innovation 

in  Europe:  Motives  and 

Challenges 

“Open innovation is about involving far more actors in the innovation 
process, from researchers, to entrepreneurs, to users, to governments 
and civil society. We need open innovation to capitalize on the results of 
European research and innovation. This means creating the right 
ecosystems, increasing investment, and bringing more companies and 
regions into the knowledge economy. I would like to go further and 
faster towards open innovation. 
We owe it to the European Citizens. 
We owe it to the future generations. 
Let's dare to make Europe open to innovation, open to science and open 
to the world.”  

Carlos Moedas 
Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation 
Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World 
June 22, 2015 

The  Blueprint  of  the  High  Level  Group  on  Innovation  Policy  Management4,  in 
Recommendation  1.3,  suggests  that,  in  order  to  compete  in  a  globalized  and 
ever  more  competitive  environment, 
large  and  small  companies  are 
increasingly  cooperating.  They  are  entering  into  partnerships,  often  with 
academia, public authorities or user groups. 

Open  Innovation  2.0  identifies  the  priorities  for  Open  Innovation  that  will  be 
illustrated in the following paragraphs.  

2.1   The  main  motivations  for  adopting  Open  Innovation 

practices: benefits and challenges 

Open Innovation is not only a strategic option available to companies but it is 
also  –  more  and  more  often  -  a  necessity,  an  indispensable  way  of  bringing 
innovation to the market.  

The cases described in this study present  different situations, but for each of 
them  innovation  took  place  with  some  level  of  collaboration  with  external 
players.  In  this  first  part  of  the  document,  we  describe  the  different  reasons 
that  led  companies  in  our  sample  to  engage  in  some  form  of  open  strategy. 
These  reasons  have  to  do  with  the  execution  of  a  business  plan,  specific 
innovation  sourcing  strategies,  and  precise  positioning  choices.  We  also 
indicate when unexpected benefits and challenges were identified.  

4   High  Level  Group  on  Innovation  Policy,  Inspiring  and  Completing  European  Innovation 

Ecosystems - the way forward to improve people’s lives, Blueprint, August 2014. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Open  Innovation  Strategies  (OIS)  take  different  forms.  We  will  discuss  them 
later  on  but,  independently  from  the  different  forms  of  OIS  adopted  by 
companies  in  our  sample,  the  main  reasons  for  employing  an  OIS  can  be 
grouped into five categories. The first has to do with the commercialization of 
research  and  technology  developed  in  academic  institutions.  The  remaining 
four unlock market potential through business alliances. 

Research institute spin-off to commercialize a technology. Some of the 
companies  in  our  sample  have  come  out  of  a  pure  research  setting  and  are 
taking  their  technologies  to  the  market.  Their  very  existence,  therefore, 
represents  the  manifestation  of  the  OIS  of  the  research  institute  that 
generated  the  science  and  technology  behind  the  spin-off  process.  In  most 
cases,  these  companies  maintain  close  ties  with  the  academic/scientific 
communities  they  were  part  of,  contributing  to  research  projects  and  hiring 
qualified  people  from  academic  institutions.  This  is  the  case  for  g.tec, 
Graphenea,  and  Primo1D.  It  is  also  worth  mentioning  that  Celoxica,  Zappar 
and  IBSENtelecom  originally  developed  their  technologies  as  part  of  doctoral 
research projects.  

Sharing  qualified  resources. In a few cases, the goal of an OIS was not so 
much  the  development  of  products  or  services,  but  rather  the  sharing  of 
qualified  resources  over  a  longer  time  horizon,  and  without  a  clear 
product/service  already  in  mind.  This  is  the  case  for  Graphenea,  Entranet, 
Philips, and in part STM and BCB Informática y Control.  

Technological  co-development. This is the most typical reason for an OIS. 
Companies  with  different  and  synergic  technological  competences  create 
technological partnerships not only to share qualified resources on a long-term 
basis, but also to develop and bring to the market new products and services. 
The exchange of technical knowledge is motivated by the need to design and 
commercialize  new  solutions.  See  Loccioni,  Zappar,  STM,  IBSENtelecom  and, 
in part, Graphenea. 

Business  model  co-development.  Some  companies  enter  into  alliances  in 
downstream phases, towards commercialization. From a technical perspective, 
these alliances provide not much more than a “customization” of the solution 
with respect to product/services. However, according to the interviewees, they 
were  significant  in  shaping  the  development  of  the  business  models  that 
ultimately  were  adopted  to  commercialize  the  developed  solution.  In  other 
words,  while  these  partnerships  were  not  particularly  relevant  for  the 
development  of  a  specific  technology,  they  were  very  important  for  the 
identification  of  the  most  appropriate  business  case/application  of  the 
technology  already  developed.  See  the  cases  of  Primo1D,  BCB  Informática  y 
Control, Supponor and Celoxica. 

Engage  a  community  of  users. ICT often enables an interaction between a 
producer  and  a  community  of  users.  Companies  in  our  sample  have  used  an 
Open Innovation 2.0 strategy to engage with users, or communities of users, 
in  order  to  enrich  their  offering,  grow  their  dimension,  and  expand  into  new 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

markets.  See  the  cases  of  BlaBlaCar,  Zappar,  and  in  part  STM  (Arduino 
compliant products) and g.tec (BCI labs). 

According  to  business  literature,  most  partnerships  underperform  or  do  not 
perform  as  expected.  In  the  same  way,  when  companies  attempt  to 
implement  OIS,  results  can  differ  from  expectations.  OIS  may  indeed 
underperform or deliver unexpected positive outcomes.  

We  summarize  five  different  categories  of  unexpected  benefits  and  problems 
that deviated from the initial reasons for engaging in an OIS. Below is a brief 
description of the issues, and a list of unexpected benefits and challenges can 
be found in Table 2. 

  Collaboration  may  cause  distraction.  Opening  up  a  company’s 
knowledge  base  to  external  ideas  and  possible  contamination  has  the 
undoubted  benefit  of  leading  to  new  opportunities  and  enriching  the 
knowledge base of the company. However, such openness can result in 
greater  distraction  of  resources,  lack  of  focus,  and  failed  attempts  to 
find  synergies  between  a  new  project  and  the  core  business  of  a 
company. This may become a problem, particularly for SMEs engaged in 
OIS, such as BCB and Celoxica. Still, as the case of STM shows, this is 
an issue that large companies know they have to face and solve. 

  Underestimation of cost/time. Planning the appropriate resources to 
dedicate  to  any  innovation  project  is  not  easy  and  requires  some 
tolerance for unexpected problems. In some cases, OIS implementation 
required  more  resources  and  time  than  companies  had  originally 
planned.  The  main  problems  faced  were:  a)  underperformance  of 
partners (IBSENtelecom), b) increased complexity due to the mismatch 
of  goals  in  alliances  of  universities/industries  (g.tec);  c)  dimensions  of 
costs  beyond  the  control  of  individual  companies  (standard  setting  for 
online  identity  checks  for  BlaBlaCar,  confidentiality  within  consortia  for 
Graphenea);  d)  trial  and  error  processes/long  learning  curve  (Loccioni, 
Philips). 

  Eat or be eaten. This issue regards unexpected exit strategies. In fact, 
engaging  in  collaboration  for  a  precise  set  of  reasons  may  result  in 
unexpected and positive results. The most obvious one is when an SME 
enters  into  an  alliance  with  a  larger  company  (see  the  Celoxica  case), 
since  this  alliance  can  turn  into  an  acquisition.  Vice-versa,  when 
engaging  in  a  significant  number  of  technological  alliances,  a  company 
(such  as  STM)  might  realize  the  need  to  establish  a  more  structured 
programme of corporate venturing.  

  Evolution  of  alliance.  Quite  often  when  alliances  meet  their  original 
expectations  they  subsequently  evolve 
into  more  complex  and 
ambitious  partnerships,  to  achieve  faster  time  to  market  and  more 
intense  knowledge  exchange.  The  main  aspect  that  characterizes  this 
evolution  relates  to  the  definition  of  a  new  avenue  of  collaboration 
between involved partners. OIS studied in this sample follow this same 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

pattern:  Graphenea  (through  their  participation  in  the  Graphene  EU 
Flagship  Initiative),  Loccioni,  Primo1D  and  BCB  (as  these  companies 
started to learn from their customers about possible new applications). 
This supports the idea that initial successful implementation of OIS may 
lead to more ambitious goals.  

  From  OI1  to  OI2.  Most  of  the  companies  in  our  sample  engaged  in 
OIS to develop their knowledge base through interactions with industrial 
partners  and  technology/knowledge  providers,  based  on  a  one-to-one 
relationship.  Only  BlaBlaCar  emphasized  the  need  to  engage  the 
community  of  users  in  the  development  of  their  offering  from  the  very 
beginning. The active participation of users is a fundamental dimension 
for  Open  Innovation  2.0  strategies.  In  various  cases  in  our  sample, 
companies  evolved  or  are  planning  to  evolve  their  innovation  strategy 
to  include  the  active  contribution  of  general  users  or  lead  users,  for 
example,  Zappar  (through  the  diffusion  of  the  Zapcode  creator 
platform)  and  STM  (via  the  Arduino-based  offering).  Loccioni  is  also 
trying to engage in close co-development activities with certain specific 
lead users. 

BlaBlaCar 

Loccioni 

G.Tec 

• Motivations: engage a 
community of users 
• Acquihiring to scale up visibility 
• Copies the best solutions 
• Unexpected benefits: new 
avenues of collaboration 
• Faster than expected scale-up 
• Quicker development and 
adaptation of existing solutions 
• Challenges: underestimation of 

cost/time  
• Difficulty in guaranteeing the 
identity checks online  

• Motivations: Co-development 

• Motivation: spin-off 

• DNA of a research-intensive 
company coming out of research 
and continuing to contribute to 
academic areas 

• Unexpected benefits: engage a 

community of users 
• Visibility within the scientific 
community and keeping in tune 
with the development of 
technology 
• BCI labs 

• Challenges: underestimation of 

cost/time 

• Entering into a deep 
understanding of customers’ 
processes 
• Multiple sources of creativity 

• Unexpected benefits: new 
avenues of collaboration 
• Project goals focus on transfer 
of competitiveness to clients 
• Intimate understanding of 
clients' processes 
• Cross-fertilization of ideas 

• Unexpected benefits: from OI1 

to OI2 
• Identification of key lead users 
to co-develop new service 
offering 

• Challenges: underestimation of 

cost/time 
• Finding the right partner 
• Significant investment in order 
to align language/procedures 
• Selection and prioritization 
among diverging opportunities 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Celoxica 

Graphenea 

Zappar 

• Motivations: spin-off/business 

model co-development 
• Target of corporate venturing 
• Integration with customer’s 
offering 
• Focus on a market niche 
• Maintained ties with academic 
community only for new FPGA 
modules prototyping 

•  Unexpected benefits: eat or be 

eaten. Exit strategies:  
• Investment by customer  
• Exit: be acquired?  

• Challenges: collaboration 

causes distraction 
• Too many external knowledge 
sources may represent a 
disadvantage and lead to less 
reliance on these external 
knowledge sources 

• Motivations: sharing qualified 
resources/Technological co-
development 
• Sharing/proximity of highly 
qualified resources 
• Networking and first-hand 
knowledge developed in large 
consortia 

• Unexpected benefits: new 
avenues of collaboration 
• Significant learning 
opportunities from EU flagship 
initiative 

• Challenges: underestimation of 

cost/time 
• Problems with confidentiality 
and rules of engagement within 
large consortia 

• Motivation: technological co-

development 

• Unexpected benefits: from OI1 

to OI2 
• Evolution from a closed 
business model to an OI 1.0 to 
an OI 2.0 business model 
relying on users involvement 
• Challenges: underestimation of 

cost/time 
• Challenging to find the right 
balance between internal and 
external resources/activities in 
innovation mix 

Entranet 

STM 

IBSENtelecom 

• Motivations: technological co-

• Motivations: technology co-

• Motivation: sharing qualified 

resources 

• Unexpected benefits 
• Challenges: underestimation of 

cost/time 
• Fragility of OIS as partners face 
difficulties 

development 
• Technology in-licensing 

• Unexpected benefits: 

technological co-development 
• ICT and non-ICT knowledge 
integration  

• Challenges: collaboration 

causes distraction 
• Difficulties in identifying the 
right business model 
• Risk of lack of focus, 
distraction 
• Risk of not being able to move 
away from a non-scalable 
business model 

development/ engage 
community of users  
• Co-development and sharing of 
the technology roadmap  
• Engage with the community of 
users/developers (Arduino-
compliant products) 

• Unexpected benefits: exit 

strategies  
• Development of corporate 
venturing strategy (with quite 
some difficulties) 

• Unexpected benefits: from OI1 

to OI2 
• Reaching out to the Arduino 
community of developers 
• Challenges: collaboration 

causes distraction 
• The company has had problems 
engaging with an ecosystem 
when there is no clear 
“common interest” that the 
group of partners can agree 
upon. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Primo1D 

Philips 

BCB 

• Motivations: spin-off / business 

• Motivations: sharing of 

• Motivation: business model co-

model co-developemnt 
• The company was a “spin-off” 
of a research centre 
• Identification of the right 
application for the technology 

• Unexpected benefits: new 
avenues of collaboration  
• Going from technology push to 
business pull, through opening 
process 

resources 
• HR: selection and hiring of 
qualified people at entry level. 
• Joint development: work with 

external partners  

• Challenges: underestimation of 

cost/time  
• Very long learning process not 
in line with expectations. 

development 
• Educate customers about 
technology  
• Sharing of resources 
• Joint participation with SMEs 
instruments in H2020 for the 
development of longer-term 
projects 

• Unexpected benefits: new 
avenues of collaboration  
• Learn from customers the “next 
areas” of application of 
technology 

• Challenges: collaboration 

causes distraction 
• Risk of lack of focus, 
distraction, not being able to 
move away from a non-scalable 
business model 

Supponor 

• Motivation: business model co-

development 
• Identifying a sustainable business 
model for application of a 
potentially disruptive technology 

Table 2: Benefits and challenges arising from the adoption of Open Innovation 

2.2   Large  companies’  competitive  advantage  in  implementing 

Open Innovation strategies 

In our sample, we had four large companies, which are defined as companies 
employing  250  or  more  people  (BlaBlaCar,  Philips,  STM  and  Loccioni). 
Examining these cases, it became obvious that Open Innovation is a strategy 
that extends well beyond the R&D department and embraces many (if not all) 
company  functions.  Three  of  the  large  companies  interviewed  explicitly 
recognized  that  they  apply  an  OIS.  BlaBlaCar  does  not  explicitly  refer  to  an 
OIS, even though the company has rapidly grown through acquisition and has 
quickly identified and integrated groups of people and specific competences in 
the acquired firms. 

As  regards  the  three  other  large  companies  (Philips,  STM  and  Loccioni),  we 
find  interesting  similarities  that  suggest  that  large  companies  may  be  in  a 
position to implement OIS that are different from those adopted by SMEs.  

In particular, we can claim that all the large companies in our sample are: 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

  Better  positioned 

research 
partnerships,  by  setting  the  agenda  of  large  consortia,  identifying 
clear benefits for partners, and boosting and spreading the OIS attitude 
throughout the industry.  

to  orchestrate 

-than  SMEs- 

  More 

likely  to  give  a  central  role  to  Human  Resources 

Management in order to achieve OIS goals5. 

  Likely  to  adopt  a  long–term  perspective:  they  focus  on  the  short-
term  benefits  of  technology  alliances  but  also  identify  objectives  to  be 
achieved in the future. 

BlaBlaCar (ICT) 
•BlaBlaCar does not explicitly implement an OIS. The company grows 
through an "acquihiring" model. Acquihiring consists of absorbing  start-
up competitors into the parent’s company brand, hiring existing teams. 
Mastering acquihiring strategies and complexities related to integration of 
new businesses has been cited by the company as a source of 
competitive advantage. 

Loccioni (ICT-Enabled) 
•The company case study shows that learning by doing is a significant 
component of OIS. The result is that the company is very good at 
identifying partners, determining the correct alliance structure, choosing 
the right projects where OIS is necessary or where alternatively it is not 
feasible.  

STM (ICT) 
•The products that STM has developed are in general platforms that 
integrate many components, and are also component modules of larger 
platforms. Being open is in the DNA of the company. The case of this 
large company shows that this OIS in ICT is indeed scalable through the 
module/platform architecture. STM shows that OIS has scale advantages, 
as the company was able to leverage its global presence and connect 
pieces of knowledge from various ecosystems. 

Philips (ICT/ICT-Enabled) 
•The company gives a lot of attention to accountability of OIS, considering 
dynamic checks and balances of opportunities and costs. The other lesson 
arising from the history of Philips is that the implementation of OIS 
happens gradually. Philips moved step by step, evolving from past 
mistakes and incrementally adopting OI. 
•Philips leveraged their big company name/reputation to establish long-
term relationships/integration with Universities and Public Research Labs 

Table 3: The advantages of Open Innovation in large companies 

5   Business  literature  and  practitioners  emphasize  that  implementation  of  OIS  encompasses 
various  company  functions;  the  two  most  obvious  are  R&D/technology  management  and 
business  development.  Still,  various  other  functions  need  to  get  involved  in  order  to 
implement OIS strategy. One of the least obvious is HRM (Human Resource  Management), 
considering that,  quite  often,  OIS leads  to higher  degrees of experts’  turnover.  They enter 
the  company  at  various  stages  of  project  development  and  might  leave  as  projects  and 
technologies get transferred. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

2.3   Opportunities  for  SMEs  in  implementing  Open  Innovation 

strategies 

OI in SMEs is substantially different to OI in large companies, as it is always a 
consequence of a radical change in their strategic objectives. The need for fast 
decision-making, the general absence of a portfolio of innovation projects and 
the  short  organizational  distance  between  R&D  objectives  and  management 
objectives (as, for example, in the case of “academic entrepreneurs”) give the 
entrepreneur a central role in managing different forms of OI.  

SMEs’  “entrepreneurial”  attitude  to  OIS  leads  to  a  huge  heterogeneity  of 
approaches.  The  identification  of  relevant  external  knowledge  sources,  the 
incorporation  and  adaptation  of  external  knowledge  domains  in  the  firm’s 
context,  and  the  transfer  of  knowledge  to  external  recipients  are  the  key 
processes  in  which  most  managerial  challenges  in  OI  governance  are  found. 
SMEs’  OI  models  can  be  described  as  a  sequence  of  flexible  and  rather 
unstructured  entrepreneurial  attitudes,  due  to  the  counterbalance  of  the 
opportunities  and  costs  of  collaborative  R&D  for  OI  projects.  Moreover, 
performance  determinants  are  significantly  different  according  to  the  model 
applied  by  each  company  (Di  Minin  et  al.,  2014).  We  envisage  the  role  of 
policy  makers  in  designing  flexible  measures  to  reduce  the  costs  of 
collaborative innovation in SMEs as crucial to exploit their growth potential6. 

SMEs  in  our  sample  (Graphenea,  g.tec,  Primo1D,  Supponor,  Entranet,  BCB 
Informática  y  control,  IBSENtelecom,  Zappar,  Celoxica)  have  three  to  40 
employees, and most of them are “one-project companies” with a high level of 
R&D  commitment.  They  pursue  a  variety  of  OI  approaches,  both  in  the 
inbound and the outbound perspectives.  

The  inbound  strategic  dimension  of  OI  is  undoubtedly  a  significant  source  of 
opportunities for all the companies. SMEs in our sample benefit from external 
explorative  learning  through  participation  in  large  R&D  networks  (research 
consortia, as in the cases of g.tec, BCB Informática y Control, IBSENtelecom), 
and/or the active involvement in local research ecosystems (as in the cases of 
g.tec, Graphenea, Primo 1D, and IBSENtelecom). 

Our  data  also  confirm  the  relevance  of  outbound  OI  practices  for  SMEs  in 
technology  development  and 
commercialization  phases.  Cooperation 
agreements  for  product  development  (Entranet,  Primo1D,  IBSENtelecom), 
purposive  alliances  (BCB  Informática  y  Control,  Primo1D,  Supponor, 
Graphenea),  corporate  VC  (Celoxica),  and  customer  and  user  community 
involvement  through  platforms  (Supponor,  Zappar)  are  the  most  effective 
approaches.  

The  advantages  of  pursuing  outbound  OI  strategies  for  SMEs  relate  to  the 
opportunity  of  combining  internally-developed  knowledge  with  external 
technological  knowledge  and  complementary  assets  (market/  product/ 

6 See infra, Section 6. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

knowledge). In most cases, the reasons for adopting OIS are co-development 
with customers for technology exploitation and user involvement in the phases 
of creation and scale-up of an open business model. 

A comparative review of the main strategic elements that characterize OIS in 
SMEs in our sample leads us to the following conclusions: 

  Opening  up  through  business  model  innovation  is  an  opportunity 
for  SMEs  to  extract  value  from  internally-developed  technologies 
through  strategic  partnerships  and  external  collaborations.  We  observe 
an evolution of OI strategies through BMI in:  

-  Companies  that  evolve  from  closed  innovation  models  based  on 
proprietary  technologies  to  OI  2.0  models  based  on  platforms  and 
ecosystems. In these companies, the balance between appropriation 
strategies  and  community 
involvement  represents  a  critical 
governance choice.  

-  Companies  operating  in  ICT-enabled  industries  and  pursuing  OI  in 
internally-developed  knowledge  with  new 
order 
knowledge  in  the  technology  exploitation  and  product  development 
phase. 

integrate 

to 

  Participation  in  large  R&D  networks  and  strong  engagement  in 
academic  ecosystems  help  SMEs  (and  especially  science-based 
companies, as in the case of g.tec and Graphenea) to gain visibility and 
reputation,  foster  expertise  exchange,  and  gather  new  knowledge  and 
information  on  R&D  priority  setting.  Collaboration  with  universities  and 
Public  Research  Centres  is  a  very  strong  driver  for  “academic” 
companies.  It  helps  SMEs  to  overcome  the  main  barriers  to  entering 
into  science-based  industries  (e.g.  reaching  the  scale  benefits  of  large 
R&D investments, sharing the risk of scientific knowledge revealing and 
basic research exploitation).  

  Open  Innovation  culture  and  strong  appropriability  strategies 
allow  SMEs  to  open  up  successfully  their  R&D  strategies,  without 
running  the  risks  related  to  increasing  knowledge  search  costs  in 
inbound  search  strategies  and  the  loss  of  business-critical  knowledge 
(reduced value capture) in external collaborations. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

G.Tec (ICT-Enabled) 
•The company grew organically out of a science-based market through 
active participation in EU projects (reputation building, opportunities for 
scientific knowledge sharing) and a strong linkage with the academic 
community it came from. 

Celoxica (ICT) 
•Corporate VC helped the company to innovate its business model by 
focusing on a specific value proposition (financial market applications) in 
the exploitation phase of a very transversal knowledge solution. 

Graphenea (ICT-Enabled) 
•The company's embeddedness in the local HT cluster helped create trust 
and synergies to get access to high-quality HR and infrastructures. The 
company benefited from participation in the Graphene Flagship initiative 
and the H2020 program while initiating co-development with key 
partners/clients. 

IBSENtelecom (ICT) 
•Market pull technology collaborations (through requests from key potential 
client) helped the company to open up its innovation process, by creating 
the need to supplement internal know-how and external technological 
expertise to establish a technology alliance. 

Entranet  (ICT-Enabled) 
•Internal expertise and a strong OI culture proved fundamental for a 
successful search strategy, aimed at the recombination of internally 
developed technologies in the construction industry with external ICT 
knowledge (speech recognition software). This transition enabled BMI 
through the recombination of technologies into a new value proposition. 

Supponor (ICT) 
•The company developed a sustainable 2.0 OIS by effectively managing 
appropriability in knowledge revealing, through the integration of the main 
stakeholders in the advertisement industry. The company shifted from a 
product-centered offering in a closed setting to a service-based open one 
through BMI. 

BCB (ICT) 
•Large EU framework projects and H2020 SMEs instrument program helped 
the company to focus on BMI and on a specific value proporition in order to 
pursue effective exploitation strategies for its general-purpose technology.  

Zappar (ICT) 
•The company evolved to an OI 2.0 strategy starting from a proprietary 
technology. The company created a new and high scalable BM by balancing 
the need to keep close control of its technology with the engagement of a 
large community of users, in order to set up a new industry standard. 

Primo 1D (ICT Enabled) 
•The company was able to extract value from its technology through a 
business pull approach (identification of the market application, working 
with potential clients), and a successful search strategy, in order to 
integrate microelectronics into textile products. 

Table 4: The advantages of Open Innovation in SMEs 

29 

 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Box 1: Open Innovation in SMEs 

Based  on  Di  Minin  A.,  Marullo,  C.,  Piccaluga  A.  (2014)  “Heterogeneous  determinants  of  SMEs 
growth:  A  comparative  look  at  open,  closed  and  user-led  innovation  strategies  in  Technology-
Based Firms” – 1st World Open Innovation Conference, Dec. 5-7 2014 Napa (CA) 

Although  Open  Innovation  is  a  well-developed  business  practice  in  large 
corporations,  how  it  is  managed  in  SMEs  is  still  underexplored.  Despite  the 
recent  surge  of  empirical  research  on  Open  Innovation  in  SMEs  (Van  De 
Vrande et al., 2009; Parida et al. 2012; Brunswicker and Vanhaverbeke, 2011, 
2014;  Chesbrough  and  Bogers,  2014),  mixed  evidence  has  been  provided 
about the “creative use of OI that many innovating SMEs around the globe are 
implementing”  (Vanhaverbeke  et  al.,  2012:  9).  The  way  SMEs  manage  and 
organize OI strategies is very different with respect to large corporations as a 
result of multiple elements that at the same time may represent opportunities 
and risks (Spithoven et al., 2012; West and Bogers, 2011). 

Empirical  studies  on  Open  Innovation  in  SMEs  agree  that  collaborative  R&D 
and  open  innovation  strategies  represent  a  strong  opportunity  for  SMEs  to 
overcome their structural limitations (“liability of smallness”): namely, the lack 
of  financial  resources,  low  market  influence,  less  formalized  R&D  procedures, 
small innovation portfolio and limited ability in R&D planning and management 
compared  to  large  firms  (Acs  and  Audretsch,  1988;  Vossen,  1988;  Van  De 
Vrande  et  al.  2009;  Brunswicker  and  Vanhaverbeke,  2011,  2014).  In 
particular, undeveloped internal capabilities (e.g. the capabilities necessary to 
transform  inventions  into  products  and  processes)  and  the  absence  of  a 
multidisciplinary  competence  base  lead  SMEs  to  take  rather  unstructured 
approaches  to  the  organization  of  innovation  processes  compared  to  large 
firms (Vossen, 1998; Chesbrough and Crowther, 2006; Bianchi et al., 2011). 

Open  Innovation  is  a  multidimensional  phenomenon.  As  Dahlander  and  Gann 
(2010)  put  it:  light,  multiple  and  different  forms  of  openness  emerge  from 
evidence of empirical research in the field. 
As regards the implementation of OIS by SMEs, empirical studies show: 
-   the  importance  of  non-pecuniary  (but  strategic)  interactions  with  network 
partners  in  inbound  open  innovation  (Van  de  Vrande  et  al.,  2009; 
Brunsvicker and Vahaverbeke, 2011);  

-   the  beneficial  effects  of  outbound  open  innovation  for  SMEs  in  the 

commercialization phase (Spithoven et al., 2012);  

-   the  role  of  open  business  models 

innovative  entrepreneurship 
(Vanhaverbeke,  2012;  Massa  and  Tucci,  2013;  Vanhaverbeke  and 
Chesbrough, 2014);  

in 

-   an 

increasing  convergence  between  open 

innovation  and  user-led 
innovation,  where  users  play  a  central  role  in  open  innovation  strategies 
(Bogers et al., 2010; Bogers and West, 2012).  

Spithoven et al. (2012) highlight the fact that, as regards inbound innovation, 
SMEs  can  engage  in  long-term  external  R&D  collaborations  with  research 
partners. These often lead to a recombination of the internal knowledge base 
with the externally-developed knowledge. In this sense, “smaller firms have to 
open up more than their large counterparts” (:540). The outbound OI process 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

is  still  considered  crucial  in  SMEs’  OI  strategies.  Indeed,  the  market  is 
important  in  giving  value  to  technology  (Lee  et  al.,  2010;  Spithoven  et  al., 
2012;  Vanhaverbeke  and  Cloodt,  2014).  Vanhaverbeke  et  al.  (2012)  present 
evidence  that  the  way  SMEs  engage  with  OI  is  often  the  result  of  a  strategic 
choice that can lead to major changes in a firm’s business model (Chesbrough, 
2003; Vanhaverbeke  and Chesbrough, 2014). Based on these considerations, 
recent  research  agendas  claim  that  OI  has  to  be  considered  a  specific 
characteristic of SME entrepreneurship. Vanhaverbeke (2016 forthcoming) lists 
the  most  interesting  elements  that  differentiate  SMEs’  entrepreneurial 
approach  to  OI  from  OI  management  in  Large  Enterprises  (LEs):  the 
substantial  absence  of  a  portfolio  of  innovation  projects;  the  role  of  the 
founder/entrepreneur in developing OI; the importance of boundary spanning 
linkages  in  innovation  strategies,  and  the  characteristics  of  SMEs’  value 
network governance 

31 

 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

3. Open Innovation Models 

The  cases  observed  provided  examples  of  various  innovation  strategies  and 
different approaches to Open Innovation.  

The  companies  emphasized  the  importance  of  the  inflow  of  information,  and 
their  participation  in  the  information  flows  of  other  companies.  They  also 
suggested that participation in platforms (including EU projects, local clusters, 
communities,  etc.)  was  a  very  effective  tool,  which  goes  beyond  one-to-one 
partnerships.  We  also  found  evidence  of  the  increasing  importance  of 
collaboration with user communities, supported in many cases by the diffusion 
of key enabling ICT and digital business processes. We also found evidence of 
Open Innovation that became manifest when we looked at the development of 
business  models  rather  than  technological  projects.  Collaborations  and 
alliances  also  proved  fundamental  in  taking  to  market  key  technologies  that 
required an innovative approach to commercialization.  

Open Innovation is frequently an aspect of innovation processes, but the type 
of Open Innovation that we observed in all our cases was part of an “open but 
controlled” strategy. That is to say, open in the sense that it was collaborative, 
and  controlled  in  the  sense  that  companies  tried  to  implement  strategies  to 
ensure a proper return on their investment.  

All  the  cases  we  analysed  emphasised  the  need  to  exploit  an  innovative 
solution  to  identifying  the  right  avenues  for  commercialization.  They  stressed 
the importance of opening up to ideas and alliances, and also of paying close 
attention  to  the  appropriation  strategy  to  be  adopted  in  order  to  take 
advantage of the new value generated. 

All our case studies are producers or expert adopters of ICT systems. As such, 
in many cases they interact in business-to-business contexts. As part of their 
product offering, they need to customize their solutions to serve the individual 
needs  of  their  customers.  Co-development  and  customization  were  indeed  a 
central focus for most of the innovation strategies that we observed. It is easy 
to  speculate  that  the  very  nature  of  ICT  has  led  to  this  high  level  of 
customization and co-development.  

3.1   Observed modes of Open Innovation 

Open  Innovation  literature  traditionally  recognizes  three  modes  of  Open 
Innovation  -  Inbound,  Outbound  and  Coupled.  Scholars  also  tend  to 
distinguish  between  Open  Innovation  that  is  developed  through  traditional 
business  partners  and  Open  Innovation  which  is  developed  with  the 
involvement  of  users.  We  therefore  divide  the  13  cases  analysed  into  four 
different categories.  

  Inbound  Open  Innovation  “[…]  is  the  practice  of  leveraging  the 
discoveries  of  others:  companies  need  not  and  indeed  should  not  rely 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

IP 

exclusively on their own R&D”  (Chesbrough and Crowther, 2006: 229). 
Inbound  Open  Innovation  activities,  then,  refer  to  the  acquisition  and 
transfer  of  external  knowledge,  ideas  and  technologies  into  a  firm 
through  stable  partnerships,  R&D  agreements, 
in-licensing, 
technology  acquisition,  and  customer/user  involvement  in  the  product 
concept  definition  (Gassman  and  Enkel,  2004;  Van  de  Vrande  et  al., 
2009).  The  emphasis  is  on  the  information,  knowledge  and  technology 
that  are  brought  into  the  company,  which  combines  these  new 
developments  with  its  existing  knowhow  and  technology  portfolio  to 
bring  to  market  new  products  and  services  through  its  own  business 
models.  Knowledge  can  be  brought  into  the  design  phase  of  new 
products through formal partnerships with academic/research institutes 
and  other  companies.  This  was  the  strategy  chosen  by  most  of  the 
companies studied (Loccioni, g.tec, Entranet, Graphenea, Philips, BCB). 
Most of them said that it was a fundamental way of engaging clients in 
co-development  and  joint-design  of  new  products.  We  also  considered 
the case of BlaBlaCar, which integrated knowledge and markets through 
acquisitions,  and  that  of  Celoxica,  the  target  of  an  acquisition  by  its 
clients  who  wanted  to  reach  higher  levels  of  integration  and  co-
development.  

  Outbound  Open  Innovation  “[…]  suggests  that  rather  than  relying 
entirely  on  internal  paths  to  market,  companies  can  look  for  external 
organizations  with  business  models  that  are  better  suited 
to 
commercialize  a  given  technology”.  (Chesbrough  and  Crowther,  2006: 
229).  Outbound  Open  Innovation  activities  refer  to  the  transfer  of 
technology,  ideas  and  knowledge  outside  the  firm’s  boundaries  for 
external  exploitation,  strategic  alliances,  joint  ventures;  IP  out-
licensing,  technology  selling,  and  venture  spin-outs  (Gassman  and 
Enkel,  2004;  Van  de  Vrande  et  al.,  2009).  The  emphasis  is  on  the 
development  of  new  open  business  models  and  new  ventures  in  take-
to-market technologies. Zappar and STM scaled up their business model 
in  order  to  engage  with  a  community  of 
through  platforms, 
users/partners  for  the  development  of  new  solutions.  Other  companies 
in our sample, such as Supponor and Loccioni, innovate their offering by 
opening up their business models and building  inclusive interfaces with 
partners.  Some  of  the  large  companies  that  we  considered  also 
mentioned  the  use  of  programmes  to  encourage  managers  to  spin  out 
their  activities  into  new  and  controlled  ventures  (Loccioni  and  Philips), 
while other SMEs were established as part of spin-off programmes from 
their own institutions (Primo 1D, g.tec, Celoxica). 

  Coupled  innovation is the combination of both inbound and outbound 
innovation processes. The large companies in our sample (STM, Loccioni 
and  Philips)  participate  in  both  inbound  and  outbound  innovation 
activities.  IBSENtelecom  also  provided  evidence  of  both  inbound  and 
outbound  innovation  activities,  even  though  the  company’s  open 
business model has not reached maturity. Managing these flows can be 
complex, and we can talk about a coupled OIS only in the presence of a 

33 

 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

comprehensive strategic approach, which was clearly emphasized in the 
large companies in our sample. 

  User-Led  Innovation.  There  is  increasing  evidence  in  the  ICT  sector 
that  users  are  becoming  part  of  the  innovation  process.  User 
involvement in innovation should be considered part of an OIS. This is a 
phenomenon  that  has  been  widely  recognized  by  scholars,  and  more 
recently  by  policymakers  (see  the  work  of  the  Open  Innovation  2.0 
community). In our sample, we have companies such as BlaBlaCar that 
base  their  offering  on  the  contribution  of  user-generated  content  and 
activities, and that innovate this offering in the light of the suggestions 
and requests of users. Other companies create user-oriented platforms 
around  their  technologies  (Zappar),  products  (STM)  and  services 
(Loccioni)  to  orchestrate  a  community  of  users,  making  use  of  their 
contribution in a process of co-development. 

34 

 
 
 
 
Industry 

Company 

MODES OF OI MODELS 

ICT 

BlaBlaCar 
Zappar 

Inbound 
Acquihiring 
Product co-development with clients 

STM 

IBSEN-
telecom 

Partnerships  
IP in-licensing for reinvention 

Leveraging a network of complementary 
capabilities for new product development 

Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Outbound 

Coupled 

User/Customer-led 

Integration of Zapcode in clients’ platforms 

With users  
With customers and in 
perspective with 
community of users 
With customers and lead 
users 

Open (but 
controlled) platform 
architecture 
Experimentation and 
development of new 
business models 
within a closed 
ecosystem 

Celoxica 

BCB 

Supponor 

ICT 
ENABLED 

Loccioni 

g.tec 

Entranet 

Graphenea 

Primo 1D 

Philips 

Technology Spinout from Oxford 
Modules to university 

R&D networking new tech knowledge in-
sourcing 

Partnership for new product co-development 

Client co-development 

Integration among partners to balance IP 
management and BM evolution 

Selective OI strategy “governing the 
dialogue” 

Development of open business models with 
partners and Corporate Spin-Offs 

ONLY within the 
Ecosystem 

With selected customers 

Appropriation (patents) 
Retention (HR) 
Close links with academic communities 
A model of “intense research-based 
organization”  
Technology In-licensing  
High relevance of users’ feedback in 
product development 

Co-development with partners and clients 
(very weak) 
Confidentiality  
Close links with academia  
Technology spinout from the 
CEA/MINATEC open ecosystem 

Co-development with partners and 
Selective OI strategy 

Tools for clients’ customization -marketing- 
(very weak outbound open innovation) 

Product testing with clients  

With community of users 

Collaboration in networks 

Corporate Spin-Offs 

ONLY within the 
Ecosystem 

Integration with 
universities 

Table 5: Modes of Open Innovation models

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

We looked at the level of adoption of Open Innovation strategies in the various 
companies,  and  mapped  their  different  approaches.  We  ranked  these 
approaches  on  an  “openness”  scale,  from  closed  -  i.e.  very  little  evidence  of 
any OIS, either inbound or outbound - to fully open, with significant levels of 
collaboration,  co-development,  insourcing  and  outsourcing  of  technologies, 
and users’ engagement. The following can be used as a guide for examples of 
companies that are adopting a more or less collaborative innovation strategy. 
In  our  ranking,  g.tec  is  the  company  that  presents  the  least  evidence  of  an 
open  innovation  strategy.  At  the  other  end  of  the  scale,  Loccioni  and  Philips 
have explicitly implemented an OIS. 

In  order  to  elaborate  this  ranking  we  took  into  account  the  following 
dimensions: 

  Type of OI: inbound, outbound, coupled, 
  Partners/entities involved: companies, universities/public research labs, 

users, 

  Depth of each involvement/interaction,  
  Explicit reference to OIS during the interview or in company’s material. 

Closed                                                                                                     Open 

g.tec 

Celoxica 

BlaBlaCar  Graphenea 

Entranet 
Primo1D 

Supponor  BCB 

IBSEN 
Telecom 

STM  
Zappar 

Loccioni 
Philips 

Figure 1: Open Innovation depth in the interviewed companies 

3.2   Main characteristics of the companies' innovation 

ecosystem 

The  companies  that  were  considered  for  this  study  were  part  of  different 
innovation  ecosystems  and  interacted  with  different  partners.  The  following 
table  summarizes  the  type  of  partnerships  that  the  companies  established  in 
order to develop their solutions. Universities and public research organizations 
were the most common research partners for inbound OIS. Half the companies 
in  our  sample  said  they  collaborated  with  these  institutions.  Many  of  the 
companies  also  discussed  the  centrality  of  co-development  partnerships, 
either  within  their  value  chain,  with  other  industries  or  with  users.  Investors 
also  played  a  role  in  this  process,  providing  not  only  financial  resources,  but 
also ideas and competences.  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

INDUSTRIES & FORM OF RELATIONSHIPS 

ICT-Enabled 

g.tec 
Loccioni 
Philips 
g.tec 
Graphenea 
Entranet 
Philips 
Loccioni 
Graphenea 
Primo1D 
Philips 

ICT-Enabled 

Loccioni (investing in 
corporate spin-offs) 

Type of non-
industrial partners 

Spin-Offs 

ICT 

STM 

Universities 

HT Clusters 

Type of industrial 
partners 

Corporate Venturing 

Venture Capitalists 

Beneficiaries of 
significant public 
investment 

Celoxica 
BCB 
STM 
IBSENtelecom 

BCB 
STM 

ICT 

Celoxica (being invested by 
Credit Suisse  
Graphenea (being invested by 
Repsol) 
STM (establishing a corporate 
investment fund)  
BlaBlaCar 
Celoxica 
Supponor 

INDUSTRIES & FORM OF RELATIONSHIPS 

BCB, Supponor (H2020 SME 
Instruments) 

g.tec, Graphenea (H2020 SME 
Instruments) 

IBSENtelecom 
(Regional/National 
programmes) 

Entranet, Primo1D 
(Regional/National 
programmes) 

BCB, STM (European 
Programmes FP7/Structural) 

Industrial Partners in 
the same value 
chain7 

IBSENtelecom 
Supponor 
STM 

Industrial Partners 
not in the same value 
chain 
Co-development with 
customers 

Final 
Users/crowdsourcing 

BCB 
Celoxica 
Zappar 
Zappar 
BCB 
STM 
Celoxica 
BlaBlaCar 
Zappar 

Entranet, Graphenea, 
Primo1D, g.tec, Loccioni, 
Philips (European 
Programmes - FP7/Structural) 
Loccioni 

Entranet 
Loccioni 
Primo1D 
Loccioni 
Primo1D 

Entranet  

Table 6: Nature of companies’ relations in the open innovation ecosystem 

7   A  value  chain  is  a  set  of  activities  that  a  firm  operating  in  a  specific  industry  performs  in 

order to deliver a valuable product or service for the market (Porter, 1985). 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

4. Drivers and Barriers to Open Innovation Strategies 

This  study  provides  a  snapshot  of  the  different  approaches  adopted  by 
companies  to  innovate  in  ICT  sectors  or  to  take  to  market  ICT-enabled 
products/services.  

Different  strategic  choices  obviously  led  to  different  obstacles  and  vectors  of 
growth.  While  we  cannot  claim  that  this  analysis  is  comprehensive,  it  has 
identified  a  series  of  drivers  and  barriers  for  open  innovation  strategies  (and 
innovation  in  general)  in  Europe.  Here  we  try  to  generalize  some  of  our 
findings  regarding  different  managerial  strategies  and  cluster  companies 
according  to  their  commonalities.  For  a  detailed  description  of  the  findings 
regarding  different  managerial  strategies 
for  each  of  the  companies 
considered, please refer to the Annex. 

Below we list the main drivers and barriers highlighted by the majority of the 
companies in our sample (see Table 7).  
Drivers:  

  The sample identifies the clear role that large EU consortia can play in 
enabling  Open  Innovation  Strategies  (OISs),  in  particular  regarding 
explorative  R&D  activities.  G.Tec  declared  that  EU  consortia  represent 
the  backbone  of  its  development  because  they  provide  a  source  of 
inspiration,  knowledge  and  new  expertise.  Primo1D  acknowledged  the 
role of European PASTA Project (FP7) in boosting the development of its 
technology. Graphenea considered that its participation in the European 
Graphene Flagship was a milestone in the history of the company. Being 
a  partner  of  the  Flagship  gave  the  company  access  to  high-quality 
knowledge  and  helped  it  to  evolve  according  to  the  changing  needs  of 
the graphene marketplace. 

  Furthermore,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  where  the  companies 
implemented OI 2.0 strategies, they claimed they had built communities 
and  platforms  starting  from  the  assets  that  they  could  best 
control.  For  example,  Zappar  is  building  an  Augmented  Reality  (AR) 
distributed  ecosystem  around  a  platform  based  on  its  proprietary 
technology. 

  Another important driver of OI identified is control through IP assets. 
We  found  evidence  that  companies  tend  to  build  alliances  and 
collaborate when they can secure control of their own technologies and 
knowledge.  While  companies  are  likely  to  recognize  the  importance  of 
collaborations  to  boost  their  R&D  capacity,  they  also  want  control 
mechanisms  to  ensure  a  proper  return  on  investment  in  innovation. 
Supponor explicitly said that working openly and collaborating with the 
other  stakeholders  operating  in  its  market  sector  was  essential  in 
developing its business. Nevertheless, the company pointed out that the 
only  way  to  implement  an  open  and  cooperative  innovation  strategy  is 
by controlling the technology through an effective IP strategy. 

  The  SMEs  in  our  sample  attributed  significant  importance  to  the 
Horizon  2020  SME  Instrument  because  it  provides  a  booster  for 

38 

 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

business  development  of  innovative  propositions.  Thanks  to  an  SME 
Instrument  (Phase  2)  award,  Supponor  now  has  the  opportunity  to 
develop  a  new  product  ,  starting  from  its  expertise  and  expanding  its 
business towards new market. It can also enter a potentially huge new 
dimension  of  business  and  growth.  Participation  in  an  SME  Instrument 
project made BCB shift from a general research guidelines approach to 
bottom-up  approach,  based  on  market  implementation  of  technology 
and  on  business  model  innovation.  BCB  declared  that  participating  in 
this  project  helped  the  company  to  set  the  right  priorities  to  go  to 
market. 

  Finally,  another  driver  identified  is  embeddedness 

in  a  rich 
ecosystem. Being a player in a cluster characterized by easy access to 
complementary  assets,  and  by  an  intense  flow  of  knowledge  and 
information,  leads  to  significant  advantages  and  OISs  that  are  more 
effective.  Graphenea  reported  that  CIC  nanoGune,  the  nanoscience 
research  centre  in  which  it  is  located,  played  a  fundamental  role.  This 
ecosystem  gave  Graphenea  access  to  essential  high  quality  human 
resources and infrastructures at a relatively low price. Furthermore, the 
company  benefits  from  knowledge  sharing,  synergies  and  trust  among 
the  members  of  the  cluster.  Primo1D  grew  up  in  the  CEA  (French 
Commission on Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy - Commissariat 
à  l'énergie  atomique  et  aux  énergies  alternatives),  an  ecosystem 
conducive to creating innovative breakthroughs.  

Barriers:  
Two  different  groups  of  obstacles  stand  out.  The  first  refers  to  internal 
management and the second to European and national innovation systems:  

  Internal management. An OIS requires coordination of resources and 
is  complex  to  implement.  Companies  in  the  sample  suggest  that 
achieving the right balance between internal R&D and external sourcing 
of  knowledge  and  technology  remains  a  serious  barrier  for  the 
implementation  of  OIS.  In  implementing  an  OI  strategy,  it  was 
necessary for Zappar to find the right balance between what is internal 
and proprietary, and what is external and the object of co-development 
with partners. Currently, Zappar is working closely with its customers to 
co-develop  AR  contents  and  applications,  but  the  technology  is  still 
developed internally by Zappar employees exclusively. 

  European and national innovation systems. Despite the critical role 
played  by  EU  programmes,  various  companies  still  report  that  a  large 
barrier  is  the  lack  of  institutional  support  and/or  the  presence  of  rules 
and  regulations  that  prevent  innovation.  Companies  in  the  sample 
complain that the rigidity of policymakers and the public sector hinders 
innovation  dynamics  in  Europe.  Loccioni  highlighted  the  bureaucratic 
difficulties  in  European  project  development:  they  delay  the  speed  of 
innovation  and  complicate  collaboration.  Concerning  the  rise  of  a 
European “sharing economy”, BlaBlaCar noted that the absence of some 
key  infrastructures  and  regulations  (such  as  digital  identity  standards) 
prevent  Europe  from  turning  into  a  truly  unique  digital  market. 
Graphenea  and  g.tec  lamented  the  lack  of  industrial  integrators  in 

39 

 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

European  innovation  ecosystems.  This  lack  prevents  companies  from 
developing  technological  excellence  and  from  establishing  strong 
collaboration with big industrial players.  

Drivers 

General Ranking 
Barriers 

Establishing the right Innovation 
Mix 
Institutional Barriers 

Large EU Consortia 
(Explorative R&D) 
OI 2.0 Starting from 
proprietary technologies 
IP Protection 

SME Instrument - H2020 

Embeddedness in  
Innovation Ecosystems 

Table 7: Drivers and Barriers to Open Innovation: general overview 

For a better understanding of how different drivers and barriers affect different 
typologies of companies, we split the sample into four groups. Table 8 shows 
which  barriers  and  drivers  are  relevant  for:  i)  academic  spin-offs/science-
based companies; ii) ICT companies; iii) SMEs; and iv) large enterprises (LEs). 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Spin-offs/Science-Based Companies 

ICT Companies 

Drivers 

Barriers 

Drivers 

Participation in 
Large EU Consortia 

Establishing the 
right Innovation 
Mix 

Participation 
in/Coordination of 
Networks 
Business 
Innovation 

Model 

Institutional 
Barriers 

Distraction 
Resources 

of 

IP Protection 

Embeddedness in 
Innovation 
Ecosystems 

Barriers 

Establishing the 
right Innovation 
Mix 

Institutional 
Barriers 

SMEs 

Large Enterprises 

Barriers 

Establishing the 
right Innovation 
Mix 
Difficulties in 
Establishing 
Partners 

Distraction of 
Resources 

Institutional 
Barriers 

Drivers 

Barriers 

Integration of 
Existing Teams 

Institutional 
Barriers 

Embeddedness in 
Innovation 
Ecosystems 

Large EU Consortia 

Establishing the 
Right Innovation 
Mix 
Long Learning 
Curve 

OI 2.0 Starting 
from proprietary 
technologies 
IP Protection 

Internal OI Culture 

Drivers 

SME Instrument – 
H2020 

Participation in 
Large EU Consortia 

Business Model 
Innovation 
OI 2.0 Starting 
from proprietary 
technologies 
IP Protection 
Embeddedness in 
Innovation 
Ecosystems 
Co-development 
with customers 

Table 8: Drivers and Barriers to Open Innovation: groups of companies 

Spin-offs  and  science-based  companies  in  our  sample  reported  that  two 
very  important  drivers  in  the  implementation  of  their  OISs  are  (1) 
participation  in  EU  consortia,  and  (2)  participation  in  and  coordination  of 
networks.  This  is  consistent  with  the  fact  that  this  category  of  companies 
needs  to  find  strong  partnerships  to  get  to  market.  Quite  often,  these 
companies  are  the  result  of  EU  projects,  and  are  embedded  in  research-
intensive  settings.  Therefore,  they  must  quickly  identify  research,  industrial, 
and  commercial  partners.  In  addition,  these  companies  suggest  that 
identifying the right business model is a critical step for the implementation of 
their  OIS.  Without  a  proper  business  model,  science-based enterprises  fail  to 
move out of their original purely academic setting.  

Concerning  the  barriers,  spin-offs  and  science-based  companies  identify 
obstacles  that  are  similar  to  those  experienced  by  the  general  sample.  They 
cite  the  challenge  of  finding  the  right  innovation  mix  between  internal  R&D 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

and  the  external  sourcing  of  knowledge  and  technology,  and  the  presence  of 
institutional  barriers  to  the  profitable  implementation  of  OISs.    They  also 
suggest that another barrier for the implementation of an OIS is distraction of 
resources.  Lacking  managerial  focus,  distracting  resources  from  the  main 
project,  and  spending  too  much  time  and  energy  while  searching  for  useful 
information  and  knowledge,  are  seen  as  serious  obstacles  for  this  group  of 
firms as they try to establish themselves on the market. 

The  ICT companies in our sample, i.e. those companies that serve a digital 
market,  recognize  the  relevance  of  IP  protection  for  their  OISs.  They  also 
identify proximity to a rich ecosystem as a useful driver, and agree that local 
connections  are  relevant  even  for  the  ICT  industry.  Regarding  barriers,  ICT 
companies  are  most  affected  by  institutional  obstacles:  rigid  policies  and 
public  programmes,  and  rules  and  regulations  that  do  not  adapt  fast  enough 
for a rapidly evolving industry.  

Considering the traditional distinction between SMEs and large enterprises:  
  Drivers identified by SMEs overlap with those identified by spin-offs and 
science-based companies in our sample. Small companies need partners 
and to be part of a network to bring their new technologies to market.  
  Also,  for  nearly  all  the  SMEs  in  the  sample,  institutional  barriers  were 

among the obstacles to the implementation of OIS. 

  For most of the large companies in our sample, proprietary assets were 
the  starting  point  for  the  design  of  an  OIS  2.0.  These  strategies  were 
based  on  the  idea  that  “you  share  what  you  can  control”.  Due  to  their 
size,  these  companies  are  likely  to  orchestrate  new  platforms  and 
collaborative forms of interaction with users, leveraging assets that they 
can firmly control.  

  Quite interestingly, large companies do not consider “search costs” as a 
burden for an OIS. On the contrary, they think that a search strategy is 
one of the drivers for their approach to innovation.  

  The  main  barriers  identified  by  large  companies  are  found  in  the 
implementation  phase  of  an  OIS.  Once  a  strategy  for  partnership, 
technological acquisition, or licensing is designed, companies struggle to 
carry  out  the  various  stages  to  fully  accomplish  the  plan.  In  other 
words, companies face difficulties when shifting from the theory of OI to 
its practice. This implies a pattern of trial and error in which they learn 
the right steps to take in a gradual implementation of OISs.  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

5. Open Innovation Process Management Findings 

We list below 11 management findings from the cases analysed, of interest to 
managers  of  open  innovation  processes  in  Europe.  We  mention  which  cases 
relate to each finding. 

i.  Balancing  the 

internal  and  external 

in  Open  Innovation. 
Companies  entering  into  partnerships  need  to  select  and  nurture 
relevant  and  synergic  internal  capabilities  to  benefit  from  a  joint 
development  with  external  partners.  Open  Innovation  is  not  about 
simply  outsourcing  R&D  processes.  Companies  failing  to  pay  attention 
to  the  development  of  internal  knowhow  may  lack  the  relevant 
absorptive  capacity  to  engage  in  fruitful  open  innovation  strategies 
(Zappar, Loccioni, g.tec, Philips). 

ii.  Business  models matter. The development of key technologies is not 
enough  to  go  to  market.  As  companies  identify  ways  to  exploit  their 
own  technologies,  they  need  to  adapt  their  business  models.  Applying 
the  right  business  model8 will  give  them  a  competitive  advantage.  In 
partnerships,  business  models  need  to  align  partners’  incentives 
towards  a  win-win  solution.  Not  having  a  suitable  business  model  may 
prevent  the  alliance  from  being  successful  (Zappar,  Celoxica,  BCB, 
Supponor).  

iii. Experience  matters.  The  case  studies  presented  a  vast  amount  of 
evidence  that  first  attempts  at  commercialization  of  new  technologies 
were  doomed  to  fail.  Companies  of  various  dimensions  experienced 
significant  levels  of  trial  and  error.  Building  resilience  (and  internal 
consent)  to  an  initial  failure  is  fundamental  in  order  to  give  business 
developers the opportunity to try again (IBSENtelecom, Loccioni, g.tec, 
Graphenea, Primo1D, Philips). 

8   According  to  Chesbrough  (2006),  a  business  model  embeds  two  essential  functions:  the 
creation  of  value  and  the  capture  of  a  portion  of  the  value  created.  On  one  hand,  the 
creation  of  value  refers  to  a  company’s  activity  (providing  services  or  products);  on  the 
other hand, capturing value consists in gaining competitive advantage from  the  company’s 
activity. “Open  business  models enable  an  organization to  be more  effective  in  creating as 
well as capturing value. They help creating value by leveraging many more ideas because of 
their  inclusion  of  a  variety  of  external  concepts.  They  also  allow  greater  value  capture  by 
utilizing  a  firm’s  key  asset,  resource  or  position  not  only  in  that  organization’s  own 
operations  but  also  in  other  companies’  businesses”  (Chesbrough,  2012).  Open  business 
models regulate the flow of ideas from  the invention to the market between, at least, two 
companies  that  shared  the  work  of  innovation.  The  open  business  model  provides  the 
structure and the guidance to the flow, through the orchestration of the activities developed 
by actors involved and through the effective management of the IP, bringing to the market 
the  innovation  (Chesbrough,  2006).  Development  costs  and  time  of  innovation  decrease, 
and companies are not limited to act in the single market they serve, as they might be able 
to penetrate different segments through OI means (licensing, joint ventures, spin-offs, etc.) 
(Chesbrough, 2012). 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

iv. Human  resources  management  matters.  Successful  business 
development  is  the  result  of  combining  a  great  technology  with  a 
business model. A range of conditions needs to be met to achieve these 
combinations, but ultimately success is about engaging the right people 
to work on the right projects. Still, little attention is paid to the way that 
internal  incentives,  instructions  and  procedures  are  presented  to  staff 
(technical, operational, managerial), how to manage turnover, and how 
to  preserve  tacit  knowledge.  Savvy  management  of  HR  is  found  to  be 
critical  for  the  successful  implementation  of  technology  transfer, 
commercialization and partnerships (BlaBlaCar, IBSENtelecom, Loccioni, 
g.tec, Graphenea, Philips).  

v.  Organizational  culture  matters.  Within  a  company  a  common 
language  needs  to  be  developed.  Managers  need  to  be  actively 
encouraged  to  take  up  initiatives  that  deviate  from  business-as-usual, 
and to cross functional barriers. A common language, shared values and 
the  definition  of  clear  measurements  of  success  are  also  vital  between 
partnering  institutions  for  the  successful  implementation  of  an  OIS. 
Organization  studies  have  emphasized  that  shared  cultures  are 
extremely  difficult  to  achieve  and  preserve.  This  study  presents 
evidence of the importance of organizational culture in open innovation 
(BlaBlaCar, Loccioni, g.tec, Entranet, Philips, Primo1D). 

vi. Accountability matters. The importance of accountability is connected 
to  organizational  culture  and  the  building  up  of  experience  for 
successful OIS. Investing resources in innovation is, by definition, risky. 
Companies  follow  standard  control  procedures  for  project  management 
that  mitigate  risk  and  keep  performance  under  control  in  business-as-
usual  settings.  These  control  procedures  need  to  be  adapted  for 
business  development,  internal  entrepreneurial  activities  and  strategic 
partnerships.  For  these  types  of  activities,  clear  accounting  procedures 
also  lead  to  better  allocation  of  resources,  and  prevent  waste  of 
precious resources (IBSENtelecom, Celoxica, Loccioni, g.tec, Philips). 

vii. 

Unfocused  innovation  may  cause  distraction.  Lack  of  focus 
can  be  a  risk,  as  the  development  of  enabling  ICT  opens  various 
avenues,  not  all  of  which  will  be  profitable.  "Falling  in  love"  with  the 
technical characteristics of a technology and lacking a sense of direction 
to  go 
the  development  of  unsuccessful 
commercialization.  The  cases  presented  here  suggest  that  a  pivotal 
moment  in  the  innovation  life  cycle  is  the  identification  of  a  possible 
commercial  application,  and  the  focalization  of  resources  (Celoxica, 
BCB, Primo1D).  

to  market 

leads 

to 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

6. Policy Implications 

“Open innovation is about involving far more actors in the innovation 
process, from researchers, to entrepreneurs, to users, to governments 
and civil society. We need open innovation to capitalize on the results of 
European research and innovation. This means creating the right 
ecosystems, increasing investment, and bringing more companies and 
regions into the knowledge economy. I would like to go further and 
faster towards open innovation.”  

Commissioner Carlos Moedas, June 22 2015 

We  identify  here  below  seven  policy  implications  for  Open  Innovation,  based 
on the cases analysed, that could be valuable for policymakers and managers 
dealing with ICT innovation in Europe.  

i. 

Local ecosystems built for open innovation 

Innovation  does  not  happen  in  isolation.  Innovators  are  often  working  within 
rich  ecosystems,  such  as  clusters.  These  ecosystems  have  to  be  specialized 
and  well-connected.  The  locus  of  innovation  is  no  longer  in  individual  large 
companies,  but  in  innovation  networks,  which  involve  a  mix  of  partners: 
universities, 
companies,  SMEs,  multinationals,  and 
governments.  The  relationships  between  these  players  largely  determine  the 
overall performance of an innovation ecosystem. Open innovation is essential 
to the correct functioning of these ecosystems, as it relies on the exchange of 
ideas and  inside/outside exploitation of resources.  These exchanges function 
better  when  Open  Innovation  participants  are  in  close  proximity  and  can 
physically communicate and share.  

start-up 

labs, 

Being  located  and  interacting  within  a  “rich”  and  specialized  ecosystem  can 
provide  companies  of  all  dimensions  with  key  competitive  advantages.  Large 
multinationals are able to create their own physical campus where they invite 
other companies to come and be part of this ecosystem. For instance, Philips 
was  not  only  a  participant  in  an  ecosystem,  but  also  the  main  actor  and  the 
orchestrator.  It  opened  its  research  campus  to  other  companies  to  join  its 
research;  it  invited  public  actors  (government)  and  helped  them  open  their 
own  centre  (e.g.,  the  Holst  Centre,  set  up  by  IMEC  and  TNO),  and  actively 
cooperated with universities locally and abroad.  

On  the  flipside,  smaller  companies  may  not  be  able  to  orchestrate  their  own 
local  ecosystems.    However,  they  may  be  able  to  join  or  locate  within  rich 
ecosystems.    For  instance,  Primo1D  resulted  from  the  endeavours  of  an 
employee  of  one  of  the  larger  entities  on  a  research  campus  of  this  kind.  Its 
founder  worked  for  the  CEA,  the  French  Commission  on  Alternative  Energies 
and  Atomic  Energy  (Commissariat  à  l'énergie  atomique  et  aux  énergies 
alternatives). Graphenea represents another example in which close proximity 
to a research lab mattered a lot. On the other hand, not being able to connect 
to  the  right  ecosystem  (IBSENtelecom,  Entranet)  may  compromise  the 
effectiveness  of  OISs.  Companies  must  coordinate  and  network  with  the 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

appropriate  foci  in  order  to  grow.  The  co-location  of  companies  at  different 
stages  of  research,  technology  exploitation  and  commercialization  enables 
cooperation  for  knowledge-sharing  activities,  enhancing  open  innovation 
effectiveness.  For  instance,  some  of  the  case  studies  failed  in  their  first 
attempts  at  the  commercialization  of  new  technologies  or  did  not  succeed  as 
planned; but through trial and error and resilience they were able to find new 
paths  to  growth.  For  example,  Loccioni  benefited  from  its  association  with 
much  larger  companies  for  the  application  of  existing  technologies  in  new 
markets. 

Policymakers  can  play  a  dual  role  in  the  development  of  rich  ecosystems:  i) 
they  can  encourage  the  creation  of  large  research  campuses  as  key 
infrastructures  for  local  innovation  ecosystems;  ii)  they  can  help  SMEs, 
entrepreneurs,  and  other  institutions  to  connect  and  enrich  innovation 
ecosystems. Building large infrastructures often requires a large fixed cost and 
low  variable  costs  that  any  company  would  find  difficult  to  afford  without 
coordination. Moreover, SMEs can struggle to develop their technologies in an 
isolated  and  poor  innovation  ecosystem.  They  may  find  their  business 
development process rather difficult.   

ii. 

Orchestrating a global ecosystem through open relationships 

While  physical  and  local  interactions  play  an  important  role,  competitive 
advantage  needs  to  be  achieved  on  a  global  scale.  Here,  policymakers  can 
indeed  play  an  important  role  in  encouraging  partnerships  through  projects 
and between regions.  

A  number  of  the  companies  included  in  our  sample  were  involved  in  EU 
Projects  such  as  FP7  and  Horizon2020.  These  companies  highlighted  the  fact 
that  EU-financed  initiatives  played  a  significant  role  in  empowering  and 
connecting  innovation  ecosystems.  Open  innovation  is  a  strategy  for  reaping 
the  benefits  of  connection  and  knowledge  exchanges  at  the  local  level  on  a 
global  scale.  On  one  side,  participation  in  large  R&D  networks  and  research 
consortia with public clients and partners (FP7) as in the cases of Graphenea, 
g.tec,  Loccioni  and  BCB  enables  external  knowledge  in-flows  (inbound  open 
innovation9), and provides opportunities to: 
Gain visibility and reputation,  
• 
Foster expertise exchange,  
• 
Gather new scientific knowledge, and  
• 
Define priorities for internal R&D processes. 
• 

On  the  other  side,  EU-financed  projects  reduce  the  risks  of  external 
technology  exploitation  through  outbound  open  innovation 10 .  Proactive 
technology alliances (e.g. partnerships funded by the H2020 SME Instrument) 
help SMEs to pursue a bottom-up approach to technology exploitation through 

9 For a definition of inbound open innovation, please refer to section 3.1, pp.28-29. 
10 For a definition of outbound open innovation, please refer to section 3.1, pp.28-29 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

access to complementary innovation assets (external technological knowledge, 
product/market  knowledge,  financial  resources,  shared  risks,  access  to 
professional  coaching).  Engaging  in  alliances  for  the  purpose  of  technology 
exploitation  enables  SMEs  to  focus  on  a  specific  value  proposition  and  to  set 
priorities to go to the market. 
Policymakers  can  play  a  pivotal  role  by  sponsoring  conglomerates  and 
projects,  which  act  as  hubs  where  companies  can  meet.  The  orchestration  of 
this kind of intervention needs to find a fine balance:  

  First  of  all,  to  avoid  public  funds  crowding  out  other  partners,  risk-
sharing  is  fundamental  in  order  to  have  engaged  and  committed 
enterprises  on  board,  and  the  current  forms  of  co-investment  (rather 
than  100  percent  public  funding)  should  be  encouraged.    For  instance, 
after receiving venture capital funding in 2015, Supponor was awarded 
a  €1,207,500  grant  through  the  Horizon  2020  SME  Instrument  (Phase 
2)  to  carry  out  a  three-year  project  on  augmented  reality  cameras.  
These  grants  act  as  signals:  they  provide  winners  with  visibility  and 
reputation, and recipients seem to be able to attract further funding. 
  Second,  public  authorities,  such  as  the  EU,  national  or  regional 
authorities, as orchestrators, should ensure that big industry players are 
also  involved  in  the  public-led  initiatives.  Their  presence  facilitates  the 
growth of the SMEs that apply to these co-investment instruments. For 
instance,  Graphenea  benefited 
from  the  EU  Graphene  Flagship 
Initiative, that included a number of larger companies. One of these was 
Repsol, which ended up investing in Graphenea.   

  Third, 

to  allow 

rules  and 

regulations  need 

flexibility  and 
experimentation. A significant aspect of open innovation has to do with 
the ability to coordinate research and innovation consortia, as the large 
companies  in  our  sample  (such  as  Loccioni  and  Philips)  revealed.  The 
case studies present evidence for the claim that successful management 
of  partners  represents  a  delicate  and  fundamental  component  of  any 
strategy.  Companies  need  to  identify  searching  criteria  and  incentives, 
align  capabilities  and  recognize  a  common  language.  Once  the  proper 
characteristics  of  partnerships  have  been  identified,  a  lot  of  trial  and 
error  (such  as  can  be  seen  in  the  cases  of  Philips,  Loccioni,  Supponor 
and IBSENtelecom) and significant reputation building is involved.  

In conclusion, most of the companies in our sample demonstrate that groups 
of  industrial  allies  can  represent  a  formidable  competitive  asset  for  any 
innovative enterprise. Therefore, public authorities should make sure that their 
programmes  encourage  the  right  type  of  partnerships  that  will  optimize  the 
potential of their participants.  

iii. 

Intellectual property helping open innovation 

The  case  studies  suggest  that  formal  intellectual  property  (IP)  protection 
mechanisms  are  tools  that  facilitate  collaboration.  For  instance,  Entranet  was 
able  to  license-in  and  bring  in  knowledge  and  software  from  Nuance 
Communication  on  their  speech  recognition  technology,  while  Celoxica  was 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

able  to  sell  part  of  its  business  to  raise  funds  in  order  to  exploit  its  IP  and 
grow another section of its business. 

However,  patents,  trademarks  and  copyrights  provide  protection  that  is  far 
from perfect. In addition, when trade secrets and retention of key employees 
are the only tools for effective protection of core technological assets (see for 
example g.tec), sharing knowledge with partners and co-developing solutions 
with external players may prove to be extremely difficult. Companies need to 
be  aware  of  the  complexities  of  IP  management  and  develop  effective 
appropriation  strategies.  Only  thus  can  they  take  their  technologies 
successfully to market and overcome the issue of IP protection as an obstacle 
to  the  scope  and  potential  success  of  research  consortia  (Zappar,  STM, 
Celoxica, Supponor, g.tec, Graphenea, Primo1D, Philips). 

Policy  could  also  play  a  role  here.  First  of  all,  it  is  important  to  acknowledge 
the  limits  of  the  patenting  system  and  explore  alternatives  to  formal  tools  of 
protection. Second, SMEs often face significant search costs when looking for 
the  right  technology  to  exchange  and  partners  to  interact  with.  Therefore, 
support could take the form of providing help to SMEs that are trying to secure 
proper  IP  access  to  external  technology.  More  generally,  patent  offices  could 
improve the way patents are made searchable and attempt to diminish search 
costs for SMEs.  

Third, various companies in our sample rely on OI intermediaries to take their 
know-how  and  technologies  to  the  market.  For  science-based  companies,  for 
instance,  these  intermediaries  are  universities  (in  the  cases  of  g.tec  and 
Celoxica),  public  research  centres  and  incubators  (Graphenea  and  Primo1D). 
These  intermediaries  are  responsible  for  helping  companies  to  identify  the 
right  appropriation  strategies.  Therefore,  public  programmes  should  continue 
to enhance the professionalization of IP  intermediaries, and  monitor or assist 
the creation of IP marketplaces. 

Finally,  companies  such  as  g.tec  rely  on  trade  secrets  and  retention  of  key 
employees  for  protection  because  IP  protection  can  be  expensive  and  often 
hard  to  enforce.  These  obstacles  make  core  technological  assets  difficult  to 
share with partners and make it difficult to co-develop solutions with external 
players.  Policymakers  may  wish  to  promote  easier  ways  of  enforcing  IP 
protection when formal IP tools are not suitable. 

iv. 

Facilitating users’ involvement for OI 2.0 

The  involvement  of  users  is  a  pivotal  component  of  Open  Innovation  2.0 
communities.  The  diffusion  of  ICT  and  social  media  during  the  last  two 
decades  has  increased  opportunities  to  create  new  businesses  based  on 
communities and the potential of engaging users in the innovation process.  

Cases  in  our  sample  such  as  Zappar  and  BlaBlaCar  suggest  that  ICT 
companies  are  increasingly  developing  new  and  highly  scalable  business 
models  based  on  platforms  and  collaborative  communities,  where  producers 
and  users  emerge  in  very  diverse  industries  at  an  incredible  speed.  Policy 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

makers  can  promote  the  emergence  of  these  dynamics  in  both  user-led  or 
user-made innovation by promoting crowdsourcing mechanisms and challenge 
prizes, making sure that European industry is capable of reaping the benefits 
generated by users’ communities and monitoring how users’ contributions are 
taken into consideration and rewarded.  

In addition, policymakers should keep up with a fast-changing digital industry. 
They should monitor very closely, regulate when necessary, and support when 
desirable new standards for user-producer interaction. For instance, BlaBlaCar 
raised  issues  of  ID  verification  and  asked  for  the  development  of  a  common 
European  standard  to  help  online  communities  like  BlaBlaCar  expand  in  the 
common digital single market. 

v. 

Policymakers  should  strike  a  balance  between  encouraging 
basic research, applied research, and innovation models 

The companies interviewed acknowledged that the EU investment in research 
and  innovation  is  becoming  more  oriented  towards  applied  research  and 
commercialization  projects.  However,  some  of  these  companies,  particularly 
those  which  have  more  experience  with  EU  funding,  emphasized  that  public 
investment should continue to secure support for basic research.  

According to our limited sample, European industry would like policymakers to 
balance their investment in promoting activities across the entire value chain, 
from basic research to commercialization and business expansion.  

In  addition,  policymakers  should  encourage  companies  to  focus  on  profitable 
technologies  to  remain  competitive  in  the  global  market.    Companies,  and  in 
particular  high  technology  SMEs  (where  often  the  entrepreneur  personally 
developed  the  technology)  may  lack  complementary  innovation  assets  (e.g. 
product/market  knowledge),  which  are  important  to  pursue  successful 
commercialization strategies.  

In designing a new research and innovation policy, policymakers should adopt 
an  approach  that  balances  support  for  basic/applied  research  and  the 
commercialization of research.  

vi.  Remaining  open  to  new  forms  of  Open  Innovation  and 

emerging growth models 

The  European  economy  is  extremely  diverse  and  characterized  by  multiple 
drivers  of  growth.  Encouraging  entrepreneurs  to  apply  Open  Innovation  can 
help, but the Open Innovation model itself is evolving and different wherever 
applied. As discussed in the various cases presented in this study, companies 
keep  developing  business  models  that  are  very  different  and  often  unique. 
When designing policy measures to boost entrepreneurial commercialization of 
science  and  technology,  policymakers  need  to  acknowledge  that  exponential 
growth  is  not  the  only  form  of  business  development  that  leads  to  new  jobs 
and wealth. Different forms of growth have different limitations. For instance, 
when  growth  happens  through  acquisition  and  through  rapid  expansion, 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

access  to  risk  finance  can  be  a  bottleneck  for  further  development.  In  our 
sample,  BlaBlaCar  relied  on  venture  capital  markets  to  grow  through 
"acquihiring"  (see  annex  for  more  details)  and  on  occasion  had  to  seek 
financing  abroad.  Policymakers  should  continue  to  support  access  to  risk 
finance, in order to assist the development of a lively venture capital industry 
in  Europe.  The  availability  of  venture  capital  funding  is  crucial  to  allow 
companies to grow and innovate, especially for start-ups and innovative SMEs, 
e.g. Celoxica.  

On the other hand, some companies prefer to opt for organic growth and self-
financed  incremental  expansion.  In  this  case,  access  to  key  competences 
(rather  than  financing)  and  industrial  partners  may  become  the  most 
important  areas  for  policy  intervention.  Graphenea  had  these  needs  when  it 
joined  the  EU  Graphene  Flagship  Initiative  and  benefited  from  what  this 
conglomerate  of  companies  could  offer.  Policymakers  could  organize  more 
conglomerates, 
to  encourage 
cooperation and open innovation.  

to  anti-competition  scrutiny, 

immune 

Finally, policymakers should not discard gradual changes as valueless.  Linear 
and  slow-paced  maturation  of  a  business  is  consistent  with  the  go-to-market 
process of cutting-edge and enabling technologies. For instance, Celoxica had 
to reinvent itself before it became the successful and growing company that it 
is now. Loccioni’s growth is an example of expansion of a family-based, highly 
innovative  company.  Policy  makers  should  consider  offering  direct 
encouragement  for  the  reinvestment  of  profits  into  innovative  activities  or  in 
the definition of OI strategies.  

More  generally,  consistent  with  the  presence  of  different  modes  of  growth 
described  in  this  study,  policy  can  play  a  role  in  “bridging”  industries  (within 
high-tech or between high-tech and traditional sectors). Policymakers can use 
their grant programmes to encourage cross-sectorial innovation (a pillar of OI 
2.0)  and  ICT-enabled  innovation.  For  instance,  Primo1D  benefited  from  the 
backing of CEA in introducing an ICT-enabled e-thread that can be used in the 
more traditional laundry and textile industries.  

vii.  Policymakers  can  contribute  to  creating  the  conditions  for  the 

growth and diffusion of a strong Open Innovation culture  

Companies  experience  Open  Innovation  strategies  differently,  and  their  ideas 
on  how  to  implement  OI  strategies  mature.  The  most  experienced  OI 
companies in our sample, such as Philips or Loccioni, emphasized the need to 
educate  human  resources  in  OI.  They  also  organized  initiatives  to  prepare 
engineers,  doctoral  students  and  managers  in  the  implementation  of  OI 
strategies, such as alliances, technological co-development and the like. Policy 
can support these initiatives to enhance the OI capabilities of people within an 
organization.  

Moreover, various cases such as Primo1D and Supponor agreed that OI is the 
result of an integration of various competences, and that OI strategies should 
implemented  by  people  who  have  mastered  these  competences. 
be 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Policymakers  could  promote  industrial  doctorates  or  executive  training  that 
can  contribute  to  the  blending  of  different  competences  and  the  creation  of 
conglomerates  or  corporate-campuses.  Companies  need  to  identify  ways  to 
exploit  their  own  technologies,  business  models  need  to  be  adapted,  and 
competitive  advantage  is  the  result  of  exploiting  scientific  and  technological 
knowledge  through  an  open  business  model.    Exposing  students  and  junior 
employees  to  new  business  models  and  business  practices,  and  also  co-
development and technology transfer initiatives early on in their education will 
help  them  become  better  integrated  in  environments  where  an  Open 
Innovation model is applied. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

List of Figures 

Figure 1:   Open Innovation depth in the interviewed companies ........................... 36 

List of Tables 

Table 1:   Basic company-level data ................................................................. 17 

Table 2:   Benefits and challenges arising from the adoption of Open Innovation .... 25 

Table 3:   The advantages of Open Innovation in large companies ........................ 26 

Table 4:   The advantages of Open Innovation in SMEs ....................................... 29 

Table 5:   Modes of Open Innovation models ..................................................... 35 

Table 6:   Nature of companies’ relations in the open innovation ecosystem .......... 37 

Table 7:   Drivers and Barriers to Open Innovation: general overview ................... 40 

Table 8:   Drivers and Barriers to Open Innovation: groups of companies .............. 41 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

References 

Acs,  Z.J.  ,Audretsch,  D.B.  (1988),  “Innovation  in  Large  and  Small  Firms:  An 
Empirical Analysis”. The American Economic Review, 78(4), 678–690.  

Alexy, O., George, G., Salter, A. J. (2013). “Cui bono? The selective revealing 
of  knowledge  and  its  implications  for  innovative  activity”.  Academy  of 
Management Review, 38(2), 270-291. 

Asplund,  C.(2012)  "Beyond  ‘Triple  Helix’—towards  ‘Quad  Helix’."  The  Bearing 
Wave, Bearing Consulting Ltd. March 22/2012. 

Bianchi,  M.,  Campo  dall'  Orto,  S.,  Frattini,  F.,  Vercesi,  P.  (2010),  “Enabling 
open  innovation  in  small-  and  medium-sized  enterprises:  how  to  find 
alternative applications for your technologies”. R&D Management, 40(4), 414–
431. 

Bogers,  M.,  Afuah,  A.,  Bastian,  B.  (2010),  “Users  as  Innovators:  A  Review, 
Critique,  and  Future  Research  Directions”.  Journal  of  Management,  36(4), 
857–875.  

Bogers,  M.,  West,  J.  (2012),  “Managing  Distributed  Innovation:  Strategic 
Utilization  of  Open  and  User  Innovation”.  Creativity  and  Innovation 
Management, 21(1), 61–75.  

Boutellier,  R.,  Gassmann,  O.,  Von  Zedtwitz,  M.  (2008).  “Managing  global 
innovation:  uncovering  the  secrets  of  future  competitiveness”.  Springer 
Science & Business Media. 

Brunswicker, S., Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011), “Beyond open innovation in large 
enterprises :  How  do  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  open  up  to 
external innovation sources?” Available at SSRN 1925185.  

Brunswicker,  S.,  Vanhaverbeke,  W.  (2014)  “Open  Innovation  in  Small  and 
Medium-Sized  Enterprises  (SMEs):  External  Knowledge  Sourcing  Strategies 
and Internal Organizational Facilitators”. Available at SSRN 2351047.  

Casprini  E.,  Di  Minin  A.  (2015)  “How  are  companies  facing  the  social  media 
(r)evolution?”. Mercati & Competitività, (2), 65-84. 

Chesbrough,  H.  W.  (2003).  “Open  Innovation:  The  New  Imperative  for 
Creating  and  Profiting  from  Technology”.  Harvard  Business  School  Press: 
Boston (MA). 

Chesbrough,  H.  W.  (2012)  "Why  companies  should  have  open  business 
models." MIT Sloan Management Review 48(2).  

Chesbrough,  H.  W.  (2013)  “Open  business  models:  How  to  thrive  in  the  new 
innovation landscape”. Harvard Business Press. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Chesbrough,  H.  W.,  Bogers,  M.  (2014),  “Explicating  Open  Innovation : 
Clarifying  an  Emerging  Paradigm  for  Understanding  Innovation  Keywords”,  in 
Chesbrough,  H.  W.,  Vanhaverbeke,  W.,  West,  J.  New  Frontiers  in  Open 
Innovation. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK 

Chesbrough, H. W., Schwartz, K. (2007) "Innovating business models with co-
development partnerships." Research-Technology Management 50 (1), 55-59. 

Chesbrough,  H.,  Crowther,  A.K.,  (2006)  “Beyond  high  technology:  early 
adopters  of  open  innovation  in  other  industries”.  R&D  Management  36(3), 
229–236. 

Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E. (2003). “Why hard-nosed executives should 
care about management theory.” Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 66-75. 

Curley, M., Salmelin, B. (2013). “Open Innovation 2.O: A New Paradigm”. 

Dahlander  L.,  Wallin  M.  W.  (2006)  "A  man  on  the  inside:  Unlocking 
communities as complementary assets." Research Policy 35(8), 1243-1259. 

Dahlander, L., Gann, D.M. (2010), “How open is innovation?” Research Policy, 
39(6), 699–709.  

Di  Minin,  A.,  Marullo,  C.,  Piccaluga,  A.,  “Heterogeneous  determinants 
“Heterogeneous  determinants  of  SMEs  growth:  A  comparative  look  at  open, 
closed  and  user-led  innovation  strategies  in  Technology-Based  Firms”  –  1st 
World Open Innovation Conference, Dec. 5-7 2014 Napa (CA) 

Eisenhardt,  K.  M.  (1989).  “Building  theories  from  case  study  research”. 
Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. 

Eisenhardt,  K.  M.,  Graebner,  M.  E.  (2007).  “Theory  building  from  cases: 
opportunities  and  challenges”.  Academy  of  Management  Journal,  50(1),  25-
32. 

Enkel,  E.,  Gassman,  O.,  Chesbrough,  H.W.  (2009)  “Open  R&D  and  Open 
Innovation: exploring the phenomenon”. R&D Management 39(4), 311-316. 

Faems,  D.,  Van  Looy,  B.,  Debackere,  K.  (2005),  “Interorganizational 
Collaboration and Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach”. Journal of Product 
Innovation Management, 22(3), 238–250. 

Gassmann,  O.  (2006),  “Opening  up  the  innovation  process:  towards  an 
agenda”. R&D Management, 36(3), 223–228. 

Gassmann,  O.  Enkel,  E.  (2004)  “Towards  a  theory  of  open  innovation:  three 
core process archetypes”. R&D Management Conference proceedings. 

Gassmann, O., Von Zedtwitz M. (2003) "Trends and determinants of managing 
virtual R&D teams." R&D Management 33, 243-262. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Henkel,  J.,  Schoberl  S.,  Alexy  O.  (2013)  “The  Emergence  of  Openness:  How 
and  Why  Firms  Adopt  Selective  Revealing  in  Open  Innovation.”  Research 
Policy 43(5), 79–90. 
Hienerth,  C.,  Keinz  P.,  Lettl  C.  (2011)  “Exploring  the  Nature  and 
Implementation  Process  of  User-Centric  Business  Models.”  Long  Range 
Planning 44(5-6d), 344–374. 

Jeppesen, L., Lakhan K. (2010) "Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness 
in broadcast search." Organization Science 21(5), 1016-1033. 

Kalyanam,  K.,  McIntyre,  S.  (2002).  “The  e-marketing  mix:  a  contribution  of 
the e-tailing wars”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30(4), 487-
499. 

Lee,  S.  Park,  G.,  Yoon,  B.,  Park,  J.  (2010),  “Open  innovation  in  SMEs:  An 
intermediated network model”. Research Policy, 39(2), 290–300. 

Lopez-Vega,  H.,  Vanhaverbeke  W.  (2009)  “Connecting  Open  and  Closed 
Innovation  Markets:  A  Typology  of 
Intermediaries”.  27017.  MPRA. 
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/27017/. 

Massa,  L.,  Tucci,  C.L.  (2013),  “Business  Model  Innovation”,  in  Dodgson,  M., 
Gann,  D.M.,  Phillips,  N.  Oxford  Handbook  of  Innovation  Management,  Oxford 
University Press: Oxford, UK.  

Nesta (2014) “Challenge Prizes, A Practice Guide”, Centre for Challenge Prizes, 
London, UK. 

Parida, V., Westerberg, M., Frishammar, J. (2012), “Inbound Open Innovation 
Activities in High-Tech SMEs: The Impact on Innovation Performance”. Journal 
of Small Business Management, 50(2), 283–309. 

Porter,  M.  E.  (1985).  “Competitive  advantage:  creating  and  sustaining 
superior performance”. New York. 

Scupola,  A.,  Tuunainen,  V.  (2011)  “Open  innovation  and  the  role  of  ICT  in 
business-to-business  services:  empirical  evidence  from  Facility  Management 
Services”,  Proceedings  of  SIGSVC  Workshop.  Sprouts:  Working  Papers  on 
Information Systems, 11(158). Available at: http://sprouts.aisnet.org/11-158. 

Spithoven,  A.,  Vanhaverbeke,  W.,  Roijakkers,  N.  (2012),  “Open  innovation 
practices  in  SMEs  and  large  enterprises”.  Small  Business  Economics,  41(3), 
537–562. 

Timmers,  P.  (1998)  “Business  models  for  electronic  markets”.  Electronic 
Markets 8(2), 3-8. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., De Rochemont, M. (2009) 
“Open  innovation  in  SMEs:  Trends,  motives  and  management  challenges”. 
Technovation 29 pp.423–437. 

Vanhaverbeke,  W.  (2012)  “How  SMEs  build  new  business  models  through 
open  innovation”,  in  V.  B.  School  (ed.)  “Open  innovation  in  SMEs:  How  can 
small  companies  and  start-ups  benefit  from  open  innovation  strategies?” 
Commissioned by Flanders District of Creativity, Brussels, BE. 

Vanhaverbeke,  W.  (2016, 
innovation in SMEs”. Cambridge University Press. 

forthcoming)  “Successfully  managing  open 

Vanhaverbeke,  W.,  Chesbrough,  H.  W.  (2014)  “A  Classification  of  Open 
Innovation and Open Business Models”. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, 
and  J.West  (eds.)  New  Frontiers  of  Open  Innovation,  Oxford:  Oxford 
University Press: 1–18. 

Vanhaverbeke,  W.,  Chesbrough,  H.W.  (2014),  “Open  Innovation  and  Open 
Business  Models”,  in  Chesbrough,  H.  W.,  Vanhaverbeke,  W.,  West,  J.  New 
Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. 

Vanhaverbeke,  W.,  Cloodt,  M.  (2014),  ‘Theories  of  the  firm  and  open 
innovation’. in Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J.  New Frontiers 
in Open Innovation. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. 

Vanhaverbeke, W., Vermeersch, I. & De Zutter, S., 2012. “Open Innovation in 
SMEs:  How  can  small  companies  and  start-ups  benefit  from  open  innovation 
strategies?” Commissioned by The Flanders District of Creativity, Brussels. 

Vickery,  S.  K.,  Droge  C.,  Setia  P.,  Sambamurthy,  V.  (2010)  "Supply  chain 
information technologies and organisational initiatives: complementary versus 
independent effects on agility and firm performance." International Journal of 
Production Research (48)23, 7025-7042. 

Vossen,  R.  (1988),  “Relative  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  small  firms  in 
innovation”. International Small Business Journal, 16(3), 88–94. 

West, J. (2006). “Does appropriability enable or retard open innovation? Open 
Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm”, 109-133. 

West,  J.,  Bogers,  M.  (2011),  “Profiting  from  external  innovation:  a  review  of 
research  on  open  innovation”.  9th  International  Open  and  User  Innovation 
Workshop, Vienna, AU. 

West,  J.,  Salter,  A.,  Vanhaverbeke,  W.,  Chesbrough,  H.  W.  (2014)  “Open 
Innovation: The Next Decade.” Research Policy 43(5): 805–11. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Wirtz, B. W., Schilke O., Ullrich S. (2010) “Strategic Development of Business 
Models: Implications of the Web 2.0 for Creating Value on the Internet.” Long 
Range Planning 43(2-3), 272–90. 

Zott, C., Amit A., Massa L. (2011) “The Business Model: Recent Developments 
and Future Research.” Journal of Management 37(4), 1019–42. 

57 

 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Annex – Company Cases 

1.  Loccioni  

Via Fiume, 16 
60030 Rosora, Ancona (IT) 
Web: www.loccioni.com 

Company  description  -  Loccioni  is  an  ICT-enabled  company  established  in 
1968  by  Enrico  Loccioni.  Growing  up  around  its  core  competence  of 
measurement, the company offers technology-tailored solutions. The company 
has  five  main  business  units,  namely  Energy,  Environment,  Industry, 
Healthcare,  and  Mobility,  and  two  emerging  ones,  Train  &  Transport  and 
Electronics.  Loccioni  has  two  branches  in  Italy  and  three  around  the  world: 
Shanghai  (China),  Washington  D.C.  (United  States),  and  Calw  (Germany). 
Loccioni  provides  customized,  customer-tailored  solutions  in  the  field  of 
productivity  management  and  quality  control.  The  company  conducts 
integration activities in which ICTs play an essential role: sensors and robotics 
enable  the  company  to  collect  data  more  precisely  and  accurately  in  many 
different  environments.  Loccioni  uses  ICT  to  produce  smarter  solutions  and 
reduce  its  costs,  integrating  products  with  sensors  and  managing  data  that 
these sensors produce. “We give value to data” is the motto of the company: 
Loccioni  applies  its  technologies  to  collect  precise  data,  and  its  knowhow  to 
extract information from them. 

Company  Status  -  Loccioni  has  about  400  employees  (2014)  distributed  in 
five branches (two in Italy, three in the rest of the world). Loccioni has a long 
term R&D function, called RforI (Research for Innovation), and one R&D within 
each  business  unit.  Loccioni  recurs  to  multiple  external  sources  of  creativity, 
but it also benefits from a cross-fertilization of ideas within the firm. Almost 50 
percent of the collaborators have a Bachelor’s Degree or a PhD, and the RforI 
team has more than 40 researchers.  

Financial Results - In 2013, Loccioni’s turnover was about €70.5M, and R&D 
expenditure  was  about  five  percent  of  the  sales  turnover.  Nine  percent  of 
direct personnel costs were allocated to train internal human resources. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation Roadmap 

Value 
Proposition 

 The  core  competence  is  the  “measurement”  and  the 
motto is “to give value to data”. 

Loccioni provides solutions about quality measurement 
systems. 

Innovation 
Processes 

Commercialization  
Strategy 

Ideas for product development come from both inside 
and outside the company. 

The company has one R&D function for each business 
unit  and  one  corporate  long-term  oriented  R&D 
(named RforI).  

The company co-develops with strategic suppliers and 
clients. 

For  projects  developed  within  each  single  business 
unit,  the  business  unit  interacts  with  clients.  For 
projects  developed  within  RforI, 
the  Business 
Development  function  is  in  charge  of  looking  at  new 
market opportunities. 

Loccioni  attributes  to  its  employees  the  key  role  of 
promoters of company solutions. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation Strategy - Since its establishment, Loccioni has followed an open 
innovation  strategy.  Company  top  managers  explicitly  mention  open 
innovation  as  one  of  the  drivers  of  their  R&D  and  business  development 
activities.  Loccioni  co-develops  with  clients  through  a  flexible  organization, 
which  allows  the  Group  to  adapt  to  different  environments  and  make  quick 
changes,  often  needed  when  implementing  innovation  strategies  that  involve 
cooperation with external partners, clients and universities.  

Open  Innovation  Relevance  -  Loccioni’s  growth  relies  not  on  acquisition, 
but  on  organic  growth:  the  company  devotes  a  lot  of  attention  to  human 
resources  and  strongly  promotes  the  entrepreneurial  activities  of  its  own 
employees. Employees often develop projects and ideas then start up spin-off 
companies that share Loccioni’s values. 

Loccioni faces its major challenges in selecting key clients and finding the right 
partners  for  efficient  cooperation,  re-using  unexpected  results  of  R&D 
activities  to  avoid  resource  waste,  and  improving  internal  communication  to 
align internal collaborators.  

The company has a long and strong experience with European Projects, which 
feed company’s creativity and allow Loccioni to work on long-term solutions. 

Drivers  -  Open  innovation  as  the  main  strategic  approach  for  business 
development. Open innovation is a pervasive aspect of corporate culture. 

Significant  emphasis  on  application  of  core  competences  through  scouting  of 
opportunities in other areas. 

High  absorptive  capacity  towards  Open  Innovation  opportunities.  High 
capability  to  identify  new  innovation  opportunities  and  to  redesign  and  apply 
specific  open  innovation  strategies  to  exploit  them.  High  level  of  co-
development with a subset of partners is identified as strategic. 

Barriers  - Attention to detail. Implementation of an OI strategy is extremely 
demanding.  There  is  no  easy  way,  no  fast  track  to  open  innovation  (it  takes 
time  to  develop  a  common  language,  set  the  right  incentives,  set  the 
reputation, and choose the right partners). 

Interviewee: Cristina Cristalli, Chief Technology Officer (CTO) 
Cristina Cristalli graduated in Electronic Engineering at University of Ancona in 
1990 and got a Ph.D. in Bioengineering at University of Bologna in 1995. She 
worked  for  the  Electronic  Design  Centre  of  the  Case  Western  Reserve 
University  of  Cleveland  (1994-1995)  and  for  the  Instrumentation  Laboratory 
S.p.A.  in  Milan  (1996-1998).  Since  1998  she  has  worked  in  AEA-Loccioni  as 
the responsible of Research and Development (CTO). 

60 

 
 
 
 
2.  BlaBlaCar 

Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

32 rue Blanche 
75009 Paris (FR) 
Web: www.blablacar.com 

Company  description  -  BlaBlaCar  is  a  two-sided  web  platform  for  long-
distance  ridesharing  founded  in  France  in  2006.  The  company’s  business 
model  focuses  on  two  types  of  users:  drivers  offering  rides,  and  passengers 
submitting trip requests.  

BlaBlaCar creates value by connecting drivers with empty seats to passengers 
who  are  looking  for  a  ride.  The  revenue  model  is  based  on  a  commission 
fee/lift  applied  to  each  ride.  This  revenue  model  works  once  the  Platform 
becomes rooted in one country (i.e. a critical mass of customers is reached). 
Like  many  Internet  start-ups,  the  company  is  currently  scaling  up  new 
markets all over the world. 

Company  status  –  BlaBlaCar  has  a  community  of  20  million  people  who 
travel  across  Europe  and  beyond.  The  company’s  market  growth  has  been 
impressive.  Today,  it  operates  in  14  countries  with  300  employees  and  12 
offices  worldwide:  Paris,  Madrid,  Milan,  Hamburg,  Moscow,  London,  Warsaw, 
Istanbul,  Budapest,  Mexico  City,  Munich,  and  New  Delhi.  In  October  2014, 
BlaBlaCar counted more than two million rides per month. 

Financial  results  -  The company is not  publicly traded and,  by policy, does 
not give financial results. However, BlaBlaCar’s increasing market value is well 
described  by  the  considerable  amount  of  funding  the  company  raised  in  the 
last few years. 

BlaBlaCar’s first round of funding—US$600K in 2009—aimed at making  it the 
first  ride-sharing  service  in  France.  Subsequent  rounds—US$1.2M  from  ISAI 
(in  2010)  and  US$10  million  from  Accel  Partners,  ISAI,  and  Cabiedes  & 
Partners  (in  2012)  were  targeted  at  proving  the  reliability  of  the  business 
model for revenue and replicating  its model  in other European countries. The 
latest round of US$100M from Index Ventures (2014) with the participation of 
existing investors Accel Partners, ISAI, and Lead Edge Capital is the next step 
to globalize the operations and enable further expansion. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation Roadmap 

Original 
Idea 

A  two-sided  web  platform  for  long-distance 
ridesharing.  Connecting  drivers  with  empty 
seats  to  passengers  who  are  looking  for  a 
ride. 

Early 
Development 

fostering 

The  diffusion  of  smartphones  and  SICTs 
(Social-ICTs, 
identity, 
interaction 
feedbacks  mechanisms,  and 
among 
enabled 
community  members) 
BlaBlaCar  to  rapidly  succeed  in  the  early 
development phase.  

social 

Advanced 
Development 

Acquihiring  strategy  when  BlaBlaCar  goes 
international. 
Diffusion  of  platform-related  codes  to  the 
community  through  the  Tech  Blog  in  order  to 
attract new talented employees. 

Commercialization  
Strategy 

Web platform (marketing tools linked to word 
of mouth and links with other social networks) 

Business Model 
Evolution 

The revenue model is based on a commission 
fee/lift applied to each ride. This model works 
once  the  Platform  becomes  rooted  in  one 
country  (i.e.  a  critical  mass  of  customers  is 
reached).  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation  Strategy  -  The  core  technology  of  BlaBlaCar  consists  in  a  two-
sided web platform for long-distance ridesharing. 

As with all technological platforms, BlaBlaCar has a front-end component and 
a  back-end  component.  The  former  is  what  users  see  and  with  which  they 
interact:  it  is  the  BlaBlaCar  website,  with  people  profiles,  feedback, 
information, usability features, etc. The latter is made by the systems, IT and 
technological  solutions  that  support  the  operations.  BlaBlaCar  considers  both 
of  them  as  fundamental  for  its  development.  As  an  example,  the  company 
created  its  own  blog  (BlaBlatech)  that  integrates  back-end  contents  in  the 
front-end  component.  Through  the  blog,  the  company  shares  relevant 
information (platform-related codes) on the technological solutions that it has 
developed.  Through  the  blog,  the  company  builds  communities  of  early 
users/developers  (potential  new  talented  employees)  when  entering  a  new 
market. 

innovation  strategy:  BlaBlaCar  bases 

Open  Innovation  Relevance  -  BlaBlaCar  is  an  example  of  business  model 
innovation  that  applies  Social  ICTs  features  (network  economies,  feedback 
mechanisms,  high  customization,  and  social  identity)  to  optimize  idle 
resources  (empty  seats  in  cars)  and  create  a  new  mobility  segment.  
BlaBlaCar  does  not  explicitly  refer  to  an  open  strategy,  but  it  is  possible  to 
spot some open innovation practices. A community of users is at the centre of 
BlaBlaCar’s 
its  offering  on  the 
contributions  of  user-generated  contents,  and  innovates  its  offering  on  the 
basis  of  users’  suggestions.  The  company  is  rapidly  growing  at  the 
international  level  through  an  “acquihiring”  strategy.  Acquihiring  consists  of 
absorbing  (when  possible)  start-up  competitors  into  the  parent’s  company 
brand,  hiring  existing  teams,  and  thus  integrating  specific  contextual 
competences,  complementary  market  assets,  visibility,  and  scale.  Acquihiring 
allows BlaBlaCar to start with a solid user-base and valuable knowledge of the 
new market, once the culture and vision are aligned. 

Drivers - Acquihiring for non-organic growth. Integration of various platforms 
through “acquihiring” (innovation through M&A); integration of existing teams 
(emphasis  on  HR);  fast  absorption  of  knowledge  on  local  culture,  traditions, 
regulations. 

Barriers  -  Institutional barriers to the development of an EU Market. The rise 
of  an  EU  “sharing  economy”  is  slowed  down  by  the  absence  of  some  key 
infrastructures  and  regulations  (such  as  a  common  digital  identity  among 
countries), to turn the European Union into a fully integrated digital market. 

Interviewees:  Francis  Nappez, Co-founder  and  Chief  Technical  Officer 
(CTO),LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/fnappez;  
Nicolas  Brusson,  Co-founder  and  Chief  Operation  Officer  (COO), 
LinkedIn profile: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/nicolasbrusson/it  

63 

 
 
 
 
3.  Graphenea SA 

Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Avenida de Tolosa, 76 
20018 Donostia/San Sebastián (ES) 
Web: www.graphenea.com 

Company  description  –  Graphenea  SA  is  a  Spanish  company  founded  in 
2010,  with  a  subsidiary  location  in  Cambridge  (MA  -  United  States). 
Graphenea  is  currently  operating  in  the  B2B  market  with  two  main  lines  of 
products:  a)  Graphene  oxides:  this  product  line  is  the  result  of  strong 
investments  in  R&D  for  chemically  exfoliated  graphene  to  meet  the  global 
demand  for  high  quality,  cost-effective  graphene.  b)  Graphene  films: 
Graphene  films  are  used  in  R&D  for  electronics,  solar  cells,  ultra-capacitors, 
batteries, membranes, touch screens, and others. Main clients are universities, 
research centres, and industries. 

Company  status  -  Graphenea directly employs 12 people in three operating 
offices, and exports graphene materials to 40 countries through more than 10 
local distributors. The company is characterized by a strong R&D commitment: 
the  share  of  intangibles  over  total  assets  is  almost  30  percent.  The  company 
has four patents: one granted, two filed, and one pending. 

Financial results - In 2013, Repsol invested €1M in Graphenea, entering the 
equity  with  10  percent  of  shares  to  bring  more  financial  capacity  to  the 
company.  The  company’s  turnover  was  about  €500K  in  2013  (last  available 
year); it almost doubled with respect to 2012 (€270k). 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation Roadmap 

Original 
Idea 

Graphene is a material that does not exist in nature: when 
it has been isolated and characterized, exceptional 
properties have been found, but the method of adoption 
was valid only for lab and not for industrial applications. 
Graphenea made this step possible by bringing this material 
to the market for industrial and research uses. 

Early 
Development 

Pioneering research and 
advancing state-of-the-art 
graphene production (films and 
optimized materials for 
industrial and research needs). 

“Chemical of exfoliation”, 
a top-down approach to 
produce graphene oxide 
that changes the purest 
properties of graphene 
and has many kinds of 
applications, such as 
batteries, composites, 
polymers, metals, etc. 

Advanced 
Development 

Growing standard material for the scientific community and 
universities. 

Commercialization  
Strategy 

Graphenea started selling graphene material to industries 
and research centres, then expanded its market by selling 
to universities and scientific communities (B2B) 

Business Model 
Evolution 

As a startup, Graphenea is 
located in a large 
Nanotechnology centre. This 
helped the company to benefit 
most from its network and 
scientific ecosystem.  

Graphenea started 
operating deploying an 
open business model 
since the beginning of its 
activity. Cooperation is 
the main element of 
Graphenea’s success 
story.  

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation  Strategy  -  Graphenea is one of the main European producers of 
graphene, and is part of a growing cluster of nanotechnology companies based 
at the CIC nanoGUNE research centre in Donostia – San Sebastian. Graphenea 
participates  in  five  European  projects  and  is  a  partner  of  the  Graphene 
Flagship  Initiative,  one  of  the  biggest  EU  investments  in  R&D  for  the 
development  of  graphene  applications.  At  the  end  of  2013,  Repsol,  a 
petrochemical  company  engaged  in  the  production  of  polymers,  entered  the 
equity of Graphenea with 10 percent of shares. The partnership developed the 
polymer  composite;  it  is  one  of  the  key  products  that  Graphenea  foresees  in 
the midterm future will hit the market. Within the partnership, one of the main 
issues that Graphenea had to address in implementing its innovation strategy 
concerned confidentiality in product development. In particular, big companies 
are  not  usually  willing  to  share  their  knowledge  and  contribute  to  material 
development. 

Open  Innovation  Relevance  -  Graphenea  collaborates  with  its  clients  and 
partners  in  order  to  develop  customized  nanotechnology  applications  in  the 
ICT sector. It cooperates within the CIC nanoGUNE nanotechnology cluster on 
R&D  projects.  Moreover,  Graphenea  can  rely  on  both  internal  research 
capabilities  and  a  scientific  advisory  panel,  comprising  six  graphene  experts 
who work part-time for the company. 

Furthermore, Graphenea closely works with its partners and clients in the co-
development  of  the  products  and  customization  according  to  customers’ 
specific  needs:  the  company  cooperates  with  universities,  which  are  both 
partners  and  clients,  and  that  allows  it  to  develop  widespread  knowledge 
about the material.  

The  case  of  Graphenea  shows  that  cooperation  is  essential  for  a  start-up, 
especially  when  technology  is  at  its  early  stage  of  development.  Start-ups 
often have to operate in a very difficult market in which they have to build the 
market  themselves  for  a  new  material.  Graphenea  benefits  from  European 
projects  and  from  the  role  they  play  in  the  development  of  graphene.  The 
Graphene  Flagship,  in  particular,  represents  an  excellent  example  of 
cooperation  among  small  companies,  universities,  and  big  players  in  the 
development of an actual niche product. 

Drivers  -  Embeddedness  in  local  innovation  ecosystem:  participation  of  SME 
in  activities  of  local  high-tech  cluster  creates  trust  and  synergies  and  is  very 
important  to  get  access  to  high-quality  HR  and  infrastructures  at  a  relatively 
low price. 

Participation  of  SME  in  large  research  consortia/EU  initiatives:  the  company 
benefited from participation in the Graphene Flagship initiative, where EU had 
initiating  co-
leadership.  This  participation  was  key  to 
technological 
development with partners/clients. 

H2020  SME  instrument  provided  the  company  with  further  visibility  and 
improved the company’s reputation. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Barriers  -  Lack of a clear IP strategy within a research/business partnership 
slows  down  OIS  implementation.  Because  of  this,  key  players  stayed  out  of 
the EU Graphene Flagship Initiative. 

EU  ecosystem  lacks  industrial  integrators:  an  SME  developing  technological 
excellence  in  materials  needs  to  work  closely  with  large  industrial  leaders 
downstream.  The  case  suggests  that  the  EU  lacks  the  significant  presence  of 
such players. 

Interviewee: Iñigo Charola, Business Development Director. 
Charola  joined  Graphenea  as  Business  Development  Director  in  September 
2013.  He  has  an  extensive  experience  in  industrial  related  products  at 
marketing  and  sales  positions.  15  years  ago  he  started  his  career  at  ASSA 
ABLOY,  a  global  leader  in  security  products,  then  as  Sales  and  Marketing 
Director at an industrial processes private company. Before joining Graphenea 
he  is  been  working  in  the  Electronic  Manufacturing  Services  industry  as  a 
Sales Director. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration from 
University of Wales, a Master in Marketing and Sales Management from ESIC 
Business  &  Marketing  School  and  an  Executive  MBA  from  Deusto  Business 
School. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

4.  Guger Technologies OG (g.tec)  

Sierningstraße 14 
4521 Schiedlberg (AT) 
Web: www.gtec.at 

Company  description  -  Guger  Technologies  OG  (g.tec)  is  a  medical 
engineering  company  founded  in  1999  as  a  university  spin-off  around  the 
development  of  Brain  Computer  Interface  (BCI)  systems.  BCI  is  a  direct 
communication  pathway  between  the  brain  and  an  external  device.  BCIs  are 
often  directed  at  assisting,  augmenting,  or  repairing  human  cognitive  or 
sensory-motor  functions.  The  idea  of  g.tec’s  technology  started  from 
developing a conceptual design and real-time processing environment, that is, 
an operating system (OS) intended to serve real-time application process data 
as  it  comes  in,  typically  without  buffering  delays.  G.tec  developed  the  first 
commercially available BCI system in 1999 and now sells this system in more 
than  60  countries.  The  company’s  products  work  with  all  major  BCI 
approaches (motor imagery, P300, SSVEP, and slow cortical potentials). From 
1999  to  2002,  g.tec  developed  a  very  flexible  platform  to  fit  the  needs  of 
customers,  who  are  mainly  hospital  patients.  The  g.tec  team  tests  different 
BCI  technologies  on  more  than  500  subjects  internationally  to  guarantee  a 
perfect working system. The company is progressively expanding its business 
model  from  the  B2B  to  the  B2C  (business-to-consumer)  market;  its  main 
customers  are  universities,  hospitals,  research  centres,  companies,  and  end-
users (patients). 

Company  Status  –  G.tec  currently  employs  40  people:  12  of  them  work  in 
the  R&D  departments.  Because  of  its  high  R&D  commitment,  the  company 
currently  holds  two  registered  patents.  g.tec  has  two  branches  in  Austria 
(Guger  Technologies  OG,  research  development  and  production,  and  g.tec 
Medical Engineering GmbH, sales, marketing/PR and research) and one branch 
in Spain (g.tec Medical Engineering LC, sales and research). Moreover, g.tec is 
establishing a new branch in the United States.  

Financial  results  -  The  only  available  information  about  g.tec’s  operating 
revenue  refers  to  2013  (€30.000.000).  The  company  experienced  a  huge 
turnover increase in the first three years of its life (+50 percent between 2008 
and  2010),  as  a  result  of  an  organic  growth  path  (i.e.  the  evolution  of  a 
university spin-off towards a mid-sized company). 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation Roadmap 

Original 
Idea 

Early 
Development 

Advanced 
Development 

Commercialization  
Strategy 

Business Model 
Evolution 

The idea of g.tec’s technology started 
from developing a conceptual design 
and real-time processing environment 
that was part of the founders’ PhD 
theses. 

While presenting their research in 
international conferences and receiving 
feedback and input, the company 
founders came up with the idea of 
setting up as a spin-off. 
IntendiX was the first commercially 
available BCI system for home use, and 
developed to detect different brain 
signals with an accuracy of 99 percent. 
In 2014, g.tec started developing the 
first end-user product for patients. 
In the beginning, g.tec started to 
commercialize its technologies by 
selling to other enterprises such as 
research centres, universities, and 
large firms (B2B).  
G.tec started to sell its offerings also to 
individual customers in the later phases 
of development (B2C). 
G.tec has seemingly shifted its 
business model – from targeting 
businesses to targeting consumers. 
However, this shift should be seen as a 
move to create more opportunities for 
g.tec to capture values from different 
sources. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation  Strategy  -  G.tec evolved into a mid-sized company that has not 
abandoned  its  academic  DNA:  it  not  only  successfully  commercializes  its 
products  but  also  contributes  to  the  production  of  knowledge  through 
publications and teaching activities. The company owns two patents. The team 
of  researchers,  engineers,  and  developers  does  all  hardware  and  software 
development in-house. G.tec internally creates its designs and inventions, and 
relies on trade secrets. The main risk for g.tec's innovation strategy concerns 
the low appropriability of scientific knowledge. 

Open  Innovation  Relevance  -  The  company  is  very  active  in  international 
research projects, developing new technology through scientific knowledge in-
sourcing  in  many  different  fields,  including  BCI,  physiology,  virtual  reality, 
real-time processing, and spike analysis. G.tec is also a member of a number 
of  national  and  international  research  projects  and  is  very  active  in  scientific 
publishing. Publications are the company’s side products of collaboration with 
universities  and  European  projects.  G.tec 
together  with 
international  partners  to  push  the  technology  exploitation  phase  in  order  to 
offer  state-of-the-art  equipment.  Moreover,  the  company  performs  open 
innovation  practices  through  different  forms  of  collaboration  with  clients. 
Product  co-design  projects  are  mainly  devoted  to  technological  knowledge 
sharing,  while  product  customization  projects  benefit 
from  external 
product/market knowledge. G.tec’s open innovation strategy relies strongly on 
formal IP protection and human resources retention. 

is  working 

Drivers  -  Marketing/promotion through academic engagement.  The company 
keeps  publishing  and  remains  engaged  in  conversation  with  the  scientific 
community, but primarily as a strategy for marketing and visibility. 

Active  participation  in  EU  projects  to  build  reputation,  find  new  OIS  partners 
and strategic resources. 

Barriers  -  Appropriation  strategy  based  on  confidentiality/retention. 
Confidentiality  problems  related  to  the  low  appropriability  of  scientific 
knowledge make it difficult to collaborate in an OIS perspective. 

Coordination  with  academic/scientific  partners  is  difficult  to  achieve,  because 
of the mismatch of goals and priorities.  

Interviewee: Christoph Guger, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 
Christoph  Guger,  CEO  of  Guger  technologies,  studied  biomedical  engineering 
at  the  University  of  Technology  Graz  and  Johns  Hopkins  University  in 
Baltimore,  USA  and  received  his  MSc.  in  1997.  From  1997  he  carried  out 
research  work  at  the  Department  of  Medical  Informatics  at  the  University  of 
Technology  Graz  and  received  his  PhD  degree  in  1999.  The  topic  of  his  PhD 
work  was  the  design  of  an  EEG-based  brain-computer  interface.  He  is  co-
founder  of  g.tec  where  he  works  since  1999.  2004  he  founded  g.tec  medical 
engineering  GmbH,  which  is,  situated  in  Upper  Austria  and  sells  the  Guger 
Technologies  products  on  the  international  market.  Research  interests  are 
invasive  and  non-invasive  brain-computer  interfaces,  real-time  place  cell 
analysis, high-altitude medicine, sport medicine and monitoring of neonates. 

70 

 
 
 
 
5.  Celoxica Ltd. 

Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

20 Craven Terrace 
London, W2 3QH (UK) 
Web: www.celoxica.com 

Company  description  -  Celoxica  is an ICT company established in 2000 by 
incorporating  Embedded  Solutions  Ltd.  (ESL),  a  technology  spin-out  from 
Oxford  University.  Based  on  previous  ESL  research  and  development  of 
HANDELC  language,  Celoxica  developed  hardware  acceleration  solutions 
targeted  to  the  global  financial  services  industry.  Celoxica's  products  (FPGA11 
applications) optimize the performance of trading applications across multiple 
asset classes (Equities, Futures, Options, FX, and Fixed income). 

Company  Status  -  The  group  had  32  employees  at  the  end  of  2013,  with 
independent  branches  in  Paris  (Celoxica  EURL,  engineering  R&D  with  seven 
employees),  Chicago,  and  New  York  (Celoxica  Inc.,  commercial  offices).  In 
Celoxica’s  R&D  branch  (Celoxica  EURL,  seven  employees),  R&D  expenses  for 
the last available year (2012) account for 37.5 percent of the total revenues. 
The company owns 24 patents based on FPGAs programming technologies. In 
2013, intangibles represented 98 percent of the company’s total fixed assets. 

Financial  results  -  From 2000 to 2014, the company received US$34.4M in 
eight funding rounds. The most recent funding round (US$1.5M) was secured 
in  September  2014  from  Beringea  Growth  Finance.  Furthermore,  two  major 
clients  and  former  partners  invested  in  the  company  to  develop  their  own 
market  information  access  solutions:  Goldman  Sachs  and  Credit  Suisse  (10 
percent of equity each).  

11   FPGA integrated circuits are designed to be configured by a customer firm and/or a designer 
after  manufacturing  (hence,  "field-programmable").  The  FPGA  modules  configuration  is 
generally  specified  using  a  hardware  description  language  (HDL),  needed  to  build  the 
system  architecture  and  to  develop  language  protocols  needed  in  the  specific  application 
field. Specific applications of FPGAs include digital signal processing, software-defined radio, 
ASIC  prototyping,  medical  imaging,  computer  vision,  speech  recognition,  cryptography, 
bioinformatics,  computer  hardware  emulation,  radio  astronomy,  metal  detection  and  a 
growing range of other areas. (Source: “History of FPGAs” at the Wayback Machine Stored 
on April 12, 2007). 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation Roadmap 

Original 
Idea 

Early 
Development 

1st phase: Embedded 
Solutions Ltd (ESL) 

Development of the Host 
Data Collector (HDC) 
language, at Oxford 
University 

FPGA programming 
hardware configurations 
(modules) based on HDC 

Advanced 
Development 

Internal 

2nd phase: Celoxica 

Hardware acceleration 
solutions for ultra-low 
latency FPGA-based 
architectures for the financial 
industry and electronic 
trading community. 
Embedded Solutions Ltd 
(ESL) IP on the Host Data 
Collector (HDC) language 
Research market 
(universities) for the 
development of prototypes of 
new FPGA modules 

Clients co-development 
enabled by corporate 
venturing 

Commercialization  
Strategy 

Research market and a 
variety of industries (IT 
hardware, 
telecommunications, and 
the oil, gas and satellite 
industries) 

A limited but highly 
customizable product 
portfolio for financial 
markets worldwide 

Business Model 
Evolution 

Not focused 

Strongly focused on financial 
markets (high scalability in 
terms of number of assets 
classes and geographical 
markets) 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation  Strategy  -  Celoxica’s innovation strategy evolved from a closed 
to an open setting, across two phases of the company’s life. In a first phase, 
the  model  was  typical  of  a  science-based  spin-off  company.  It  was 
characterized  by  the  participation  in  multiple  R&D  projects  for  FPGA 
exploitation,  rather  than  being  focused  on  a  specific  market.  The  ESL  model 
ignored the need of complementary knowledge and expertise needed to build 
FPGA  system  architectures  in  each  partner  industry.  This  lack  of  focus  in  the 
ESL innovation model and the missing internal expertise required the company 
to redesign its innovation model in order to find more areas of application for 
the  technology.  Nevertheless,  ESL’s  R&D  costs  increased,  leading  to  almost 
negative  operating  margins  from  single  products.  The  evolution  of  the 
innovation  strategy  in  the  second  phase  of  the  life  of  Celoxica  was  a  direct 
consequence of the first strategic mistake that led to the decision to focus just 
on one application of FPGA technology. A strongly focused strategy based on a 
single FPGA application for the financial industry characterized the new round. 
The  company 
that  complementary  external  product/market 
knowledge  was  essential  to  successfully  exploit  transversal  technologies 
(FPGA).  Consequently,  Celoxica’s  business  model  shifted  from  products  to 
specific  services  solutions  (ultra-low  latency  solutions)  for  the  electronic 
trading  community  based  on  FPGA  technology.  With  the  management  team 
renewal, the composition of the company’s internal capabilities fundamentally 
changed:  technological  competences  arising  from  15-year  R&D  on  FPGA 
technologies  were  balanced  with  a  new  management  team  coming  from  a 
financial  market  environment.  A  deep 
technical 
background and trading expertise was the key to develop the new business.  

integration  between 

realized 

Open  Innovation  Relevance  -  Co-development  remained  a  pivotal  part  of 
Celoxica’s  innovation  strategy,  but  given  the  critical  need  to  know  its  clients’ 
processes and systems, the relationship  had to become much more  intimate. 
Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse, two of the most important clients, decided 
that  a  direct  investment  in  Celoxica  was  appropriate  to  enable  even  more 
significant interaction in product co-development. In turn, the company gained 
important  expansion  opportunities  through  the  development  of  one  product 
portfolio  based  on  needs/standards  of  a  great  variety  of  markets  (e.g. 
equities,  futures,  options,  FX  and  fixed  income  for  different  countries.).  The 
shift  to  a  more  focused  innovation  strategy  allowed  Celoxica  to  redefine  its 
business  model  as  a  first  mover  in  its  sector  and  portray  themselves  as 
“creating  the  worldwide  standard  for  reliable,  proven  and  ultra-low  latency 
electronic trading”. The active role of key partners and investors in the GMAC 
(Generalized Market Accelerator product series) early co-development enabled 
the company to rapidly scale up the new business model. The combination of 
internal  technical  expertise  with  partners’  (and  investors’)  knowledge  in  the 
functionalities  design  phase  allowed  the  new  product  to  match  the  huge 
variety of protocols that characterize exchange markets across multiple asset 
classes and geographic communities. 

Drivers - Clients became investors. Co-development with key clients matured 
the  conditions  for  clients  to  become  investors.  Corporate  VC  helped  the 
company to focus on a specific value proposition and, consequently, to build a 
new high-scalable business model. 

73 

 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Barriers  -  Lack of focus. The former Celoxica (ESL) risked not finding its way 
to  market.  A  potentially  disruptive  and  transversal  technology  is  not  enough. 
The  company  struggled  to  find  market  application,  in  spite  of  cutting-edge 
technology. 

Interviewee:  Antoine  Rescourio,  Company  Secretary  and  Chief 
Operating Officer (COO) 
Antoine  Rescourio  joined  Celoxica  in  May  2008.  He  combines  more  than  20 
years’  experience  working  at  an  executive  management  level,  in  both  capital 
markets  (for  the  buy  side,  sell  side  and  exchanges)  and  financial  technology 
providers.  Previously  Antoine  was  Chief  Operating  Officer  at  a  leading  hedge 
fund;  Senior  Vice  President  at  AEMS;  and  Vice  President  at  Morgan  Stanley, 
where  he  spent  eight  years  managing  technology  in  continental  Europe  and 
implementing the European e-Trading platform. His earlier career includes ten 
years in technology and operations management with Reuters. 

74 

 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

6.  Zappar Ltd. 

20 Forth Street 
Edinburgh, EH1 3LH (UK) 
Web: www.zappar.com 

Company  description  -  Zappar Limited is a British company started in 2011 
and operating in the ICT sector. Born as a spin-off from Cambridge University 
(UK),  it  develops  augmented  reality  (AR)  applications  for  smartphones, 
tablets,  and  wearables.  AR  is  a  technology  that,  through  a  camera  or  head-
mounted display, connects digital contents to real images in the field of vision, 
making  the  virtual  elements  part  of  the  real  world.  Zappar  is  a  free-to-
download application for iOS and Android devices using AR. The app, launched 
on  the  market  in  2013,  allows  the  user  to  “zap”  things  in  the  real  world  and 
explore  hidden  virtual  content,  which  brings  things  to  life.  The  company 
invested in becoming the market leader for a community of content creators. 
Today,  it  is  pioneering  the  development  of  market-leading  tools  that  will 
enable  both  technically  gifted  and  unskilled  users  to  create  their  own  AR 
contents independently. This is already evident through the Zapcode Creator, 
launched  in  January  2014.  Zapcode  Creator  is  an  online  tool  offering  the 
simplest, most detailed, and cost-effective AR creation tool on the market for 
big corporates, small businesses, and individuals. 

Company  Status  -  The  company  currently  has  21  employees  and  its 
operating  revenue  in  2014  was  €867K,  which  almost  doubled  the  operating 
revenue  of  2011.  The  share  of  intangibles  over  total  assets  is  six  percent.  A 
US patent on Zapcode technology was filed in December 2012. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation Roadmap 

Original 
Idea 

Adding Augmented Reality contents to everyday objects 

Zapcode: the 
evolution of the QR 
code that, when 
“zapped” shows AR 
content 

Early 
Development 

Advanced 
Development 

Zapcode Creator Platform: 
individuals create AR contents by 
cooperating with Zappar’s experts. 
Pro Editor: individuals can create 
AR contents autonomously. 

Commercialization  
Strategy 

One to One 
contracts 

Revenue-sharing contracts on new 
sales 

Business Model 
Evolution 

Closed consulting-
based business 
model 

Open business 
model: customer 
co-development 

AR 
Distributed 
ecosystem: 
Democratizing 
AR. 

Innovation  Strategy  -  Throughout  the  entire  company  life,  Zappar  was 
aware of owning a technology able to overcome issues that other AR systems 
are  still  facing.  Therefore  the  company  decided  to  keep  the  technology 
proprietary  and  to  develop  it  internally.  In  doing  so,  Zappar  was  still  able  to 
advance  its  business  model.  Expanding  from  the  entertainment  industry  to  a 
wider  spectrum  of  possible  markets,  Zappar  keeps  re-inventing  its  business 
model, shifting from a closed to an open business model.  

Open  innovation  relevance  -  The  company  started  to  work  in  the 
entertainment sector with a closed business model, implementing a traditional 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

advertising  agency  model.  This  closed  approach  changed  when  Zappar 
expanded  to  additional  businesses  and  started  to  involve  customers,  coming 
from a variety of sectors,  in the development of the products. In this second 
phase  of  the  company’s  evolution,  Zappar  worked  under  revenue-sharing 
contracts on new sales. Finally, developing the Zapcode Creator platform, the 
company decided to open up the world of AR (including to technically unskilled 
people). In this process, Zappar’s final goal is to become the central engine of 
an  ecosystem  in  a  democratized  AR,  in  which  this  small  company  enables 
operations  of  aggregation  and  crowd-sourced  AR  through  its  own  proprietary 
technology around the world. 

Drivers  -  Business model innovation matters. Even when the technology was 
developed,  the  company  gained  significant  experience  and  grew  through  the 
evolution of its business model. 

OI  strategy  starting  from  a  proprietary  enabling  technology.  Keeping  close 
control of the Zapcode and promoting it as an industry standard, the company 
planned to expand its business by engaging a large community of users. 

Barriers - Establishing the right innovation mix. The case shows how complex 
it can be to balance internal R&D activities and external co-development. 

Interviewee: Max Dawes, Marketing & Partnership Director 
Max started his working life as an account man in the world of advertising, at 
the boutique agency Campbell Doyle Dye on brands including Mercedes Benz, 
Invesco Perpetual and The Macallan whiskey. Learning the trade from Caspar 
Thykier  (now  Zappar  Co-founder  and  MD),  Walter  Campbell  (now  Creative 
Director  at  TBWA),  Tom  Ewart  (Founder  of  The  Corner),  and  Gav  Thompson 
(Director of Marketing Innovation at O2). He joined Freud Communications in 
2008  to  work  on  what  was  then  called  "digital",  across  the  Freud  stable. 
Highlights  included  managing  the  social  media  outreach  for  the  T-Mobile 
Dance and Sing campaigns. An internal move at Freud saw him join a team to 
deliver  the  events  celebrating  the  250th  anniversary  of  Arthur  Guinness 
signing  the  lease  at  St  James's  Gate  Brewery.  This  became  an  annual  event 
and went on to be one of the most awarded marketing platforms  in Diageo's 
history,  with  Max  heading  up  the  talent  procurement  side  of  the  activity  and 
running  the  budgets  for  four  years  across  five  territories.  Leaving  Freud  in 
2012, Max re-joined long-term collaborator Caspar to take the role of Head of 
Partner  Relations  at  Zappar.  Since  joining  Zappar  he  has  managed  and 
developed  the  Asda  partnership,  as  well  as  working  across  business 
development with brands including Nissan, Sony Music, Sony Pictures, Warner 
Brothers, Universal, Disney, Dunkin' Donuts and many more. In January 2014 
he was promoted to Partnerships Director at Zappar and the focus for the year 
will  be  on  launching  the  self-serve  Zapcode  Creator  system,  the  Zappar  for 
Broadcast  proposition  as  well  as  overseeing  Zappar's  global  expansion  and 
continuing to work with their partners (both existing and new). 

77 

 
 
 
 
7.   ENTRANET Ltd. 

Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

44 Plataion Str. 
54249, Thessaloniki (GR) 
Web: www.entranet.gr 

Company  description  -  Entranet  Ltd.  is  an  IT  research  and  development 
company  founded  in  2009  in  Thessaloniki  (GR)  to  design  and  develop 
innovative  embedded  systems,  enhanced  by  Automated  Speech  Recognition 
(ASR)  and  Speech  Synthesis  Technologies  (SST).  Entranet’s  core  business  is 
filling  the  usability  gap  between  buildings  and  technologies.  The  company  is 
developing  new  products  for  the  Smart  Home  System:  (1)  Talk2lift™  is  the 
first  device  worldwide  enabling  passengers  to  voice-control  an  elevator;.(2) 
Housemate™ is a device that provides complete smart home control to users 
through  voice  commands;  (3)  MyCane™  (to  be  released  in  2018)  is  a  voice-
controlled “smart” white cane for blind or partially-sighted people. 

Company  status  -  Entranet  currently  employs  10  people,  five  of  whom  are 
shareholders.  Nine  people  work  in  R&D,  including  interns  from  Greek  and 
Macedonian  universities.  The  company  operates  in  three  countries:  in  2014, 
Entranet Inc. was established in Florida (US) to commercialize their product in 
the  US  market;  Entranet  Ltd.  was  established  in  London  (UK)  to  address  the 
needs  of  the  European  market.  Moreover,  Entranet  has  built  a  network  of 
manufacturing  partner  companies  around  the  world.  Its  main  production 
partners are located in China and Germany (board manufacturing), Poland and 
the  US  (chip  manufacturing),  while  software  development  and  the  final 
product assembly are performed in Greece and commercialized through offices 
in the UK and the US. 

Financial  results  -  Talk2lift™  was  commercialized  in  2015.  Currently,  the 
product is generating approximately €100K in turnover. Sales growth forecasts 
for Talk2lift™, HouseMate™ and MyCane™ are expected to increase to US$3M 
in  the  next  five  years.  In  the  first  months  of  2015  Entranet  Inc.  has  started 
the process of going public on the OTC (Over The Counter) stock market, both 
in Europe and the US. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation Roadmap 

Integration of Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) and 
Speech  Synthesis  Technology  (SST)  technologies  in  the 
construction industry 

Original 
Idea 

Early 
Development 

IP in-licensing and Internal R&D. 

Advanced 
Development 

Development  of  a  new  system  of  use  for  the  assisted-
living  market  based  on  co-development  with  customers 
(e.g.  manufacturers  of  elevators,    associations  for 
visually impaired people)  

Commercialization  
Strategy 

Identification  of  potential  applications  in  niche  markets 
(e.g. elderly individuals). Creation of new business units 
to differentiate products’ commercialization strategy 

Business Model 
Evolution 

Value  generation  from  the  integration  of  ICTs  into  a 
non-ICT  knowledge  base  (construction  industry)  for  the 
assisted-living market 

Innovation  Strategy  -  Entranet  pursued  an  inbound  open  innovation 
strategy  based  on  IP  in-licensing  from  Nuance,  an  American  pioneering  firm 
leader in speech recognition technologies. The company licensed the ASR and 
SST  technologies  and  combined  them  with  the  internal  R&D  to  develop  noise 
reduction algorithms and integrate ICTs into its own products. After four years 
of R&D, the company acquired sufficient knowledge to integrate ASR and SST 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

into  its  hardware  and  software  systems.  Entranet  used  public  funding  to 
finance  internal  R&D  activity  (European  Regional  Development  Fund,  Greek 
funds  through  the  Competitiveness  and  Entrepreneurship 
Government 
Operational Programme (NSRF 2007-2013)).  

Open  Innovation  Relevance  –  Company’s  OIS  strengths  can  be 
summarized as follows: 

- 

IP  Licensing:  Entranet  recognized  a  strong  opportunity  in  a  new  and 
high-growing  market  niche  (the  assisted-living  market).  The  company 
pursued  a  successful  search  strategy  aimed  at  the  integration  of 
construction  knowledge  and  external  ICTs  (in-licensing  ASR  and  SST 
technologies). 

-  An  Innovative  Technology:  Entranet  leverages  on  the  innovative 
voice/speech  recognition  technology  and  applies  it  broadly  to  facilitate 
users'  lives.  Its  technology  enables  highly  accurate  voice  recognition 
thanks to a unique noise rejection algorithm internally developed. 

-  An  Industry  Standard:  Entranet  is  currently  one  of  the  very  few 
companies  worldwide  positioned  to  establish  new  standards  for  the 
assisted-living market and possibly other new markets (e.g. MyCane). 
-  The Importance of Social Innovation: Entranet will contribute to society 
by  offering  the  growing  aging  and  visually-impaired  population  the 
possibility  of  enhancing  their  daily  lives  by  improved  movement, 
interaction, and communication. 

-  Company’s  Business  Model:  ENTRANET's  added  value  comes  from  the 
integration  of  ICTs  into  a  non-ICT  knowledge  base  (construction 
industry) for the assisted-living market. 

Drivers  -  R&D  collaborations  to  connect  ICT  with  other  industries.  The 
company used licensing contracts to integrate technologies across sectors. 

Internal expertise and a strong OI culture proved fundamental for a successful 
search  strategy,  absorptive  capacity  building,  and  recombination  of 
technologies into a new business offering. 

Barriers - Lack of access to qualified/cutting-edge resources. The company is 
not located in a vibrant innovation ecosystem. It took the company significant 
time  to  develop  its  solutions  and  find  the  right  partners  and  competences 
locally. 

Interviewee: Lefteris Papageorgiou, General Manager 
Lefteris  Papageorgiou  is  a  Civil  Engineer  with  more  than  15  years  vast 
experience in construction projects and sustainable energy. He has established 
and  managed  10  successful  companies  in  different  areas  of  construction  and 
manufacturing.  This  helped  him  to  develop  outstanding  business  skills  like 
strategic thinking, decision-making, financial programming and more12. 

12   Source: Company website 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

8.  Primo 1D 

c/o MINATEC Entreprises 
BHT 7, parvis Louis Néel 
F- 38040 Grenoble Cedex 9 (FR) 
Web: www. primo1d.com 

Company  description  -  Primo1D  is  a  French  company  started  in  August 
2013.  It  offers  solutions  for  embedding  intelligence  in  objects  and  materials 
using  the  E-Thread  technology,  a  yarn  embracing  electronic  functions.  At  the 
time  of  founding,  a  15  percent  share  of  the  company  belonged  to  CEA,  the 
French Commission on Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy (Commissariat 
à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives). The CEA is a French public 
research  body  established  in  1945.  The  E-Thread  technology  was  initially 
developed  in  the  CEA-Leti  nanotechnology  centre,  part  of  the  Grenoble  high-
technology  cluster.  Primo1D  also  developed  its  technology  by  participating  in 
the  European  PASTA  Project  consortium,  funded  by  the  7th  European 
Framework  Programme.  The  project  combined  research  on  electronic 
packaging  and  interconnection  technology  with  textile  research  to  realize  an 
innovative  approach  of  smart  textile.  Primo1D  is  industrializing  the  E-Thread 
technology,  with  production  planned  for  end  of  2015.  E-Thread  allows  the 
connection of a chip to a set of two conductors acting as an antenna, a power, 
and/or  a  data  bus.  The  E-Thread  technology  guarantees  traceability, 
production  monitoring,  and 
further 
applications 
include  anti-theft,  anti-counterfeiting,  enhanced  customer 
shopping and recycling. 

temperature  monitoring.  Potential 

Company  Status  -  The  company  currently  employs  eight  people  (four 
individuals  compose  the  management  team).  In  2015,  Primo1D  was  among 
the 14 shortlisted  innovators competing for the Innovation Radar Prize, a DG 
Connect support initiative started in 2014, which focuses on the identification 
of  high  potential  innovations  among  European  ICT-related  projects  (FP7,  CIP 
and  H2020),  and  the  key  organizations  best  placed  to  deliver  these 
innovations to market. 

Financial  results  -  Primo1D spent a year raising funds. In September 2014, 
it secured €3M from  venture capital  funds and,  in the same year,  it obtained 
bank loans (between €1M and €2M).  

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation Roadmap   

Original 
Idea 

Introducing electronics into textiles 

Early 
Development 

Advanced 
Development 

Commercialization  
Strategy 

The E-Thread technology is a 3D micro-packaging so dense 
one can embed electronics inside materials, representing an 
innovation in microelectronic packaging. 
It was first developed at the CEA-Leti labs, then within the 
European PASTA project (FP7). 

Development of the 
technology to meet the 
needs of potential 
customers in the identified 
market of application 
(industrial laundry) 

The E-Thread traceability can 
be used to fight theft and 
counterfeiting in retail and to 
control textile production. It 
provides information along 
the whole product life cycle. 

Market analysis and 
consulting with potential 
customers for needs’ 
scouting. 
Identification of potential 
applications 

Choice of the industrial 
laundry market as the most 
suited to the company goals 
and establishment 

Business Model 
Evolution 

“Technology Push”: 
exploration phase. 

“Business Pull”: exploitation 
phase 

Innovation Strategy: – Primo1D was born out of Open Innovation principles 
and  its  innovation  strategy  rests  on  collaboration  with  its  local  and  global 
ecosystem.   

Open  Innovation  Relevance  –  Whether  by happenstance or by design, the 
following elements highlight Primo1D's OIS approach.  

-  Spin-out: Primo1D is the spin-out of a technology developed at the CEA.   
-  Ecosystem:  Its  ecosystem  enabled  the  company  to  grow.  First,  it 
incubated  at  the  centre's  innovation  incubator  (GRAVIT).  Second, 
Primo1D  was  in  close  proximity  of  other  university  spin-offs  because 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

- 

they  shared  R&D  laboratories  within  the  MINATEC  campus.  This 
proximity allowed the company to build up its industrial project.  
Inbound: The company does not own its technology. Instead, CEA filed 
18  families  of  patents  on  the  E-Thread  technology  (i.e.  technology,  its 
improvements,  its  applications)  and  Primo1D  has  an  exclusive  license 
on it, which  is paid through a mix of  fixed fees and royalties  on future 
turnovers. 

-  Technology  push:  Primo1D's  founder  actively  attempted  to  make  the 
technology  useful.    He  performed  in-depth  market  analysis,  identified 
applications and formed a business around technology. 

-  Business pull: Primo1D's founder also used the feedback from potential 
customers  to  derive  further  applications.  In  particular,  Primo1D  moved 
from its initial traceability idea to anti-counterfeiting or recycling, which 
were identified through these business contacts.   

Drivers  -  From technology push to business pull. The case suggests that the 
true  value  of  the  technology  developed  is  discovered  only  through  an 
inbound/outbound  OIS  (i.e.  identification  of  market  application  via  close 
consultation and work with its potential clients).  

Organizational  incentives  for  corporate  spin-out.  The  entrepreneurial  leave 
policy of the institute where the founder was working allowed the inventors to 
take a paid sabbatical in order to start up their own tech venture. 

Participation in large research consortia/ EU initiatives. The company benefited 
by participating in the PASTA project aimed at technology development. 

Barriers  -  R&D  investment  is  not  enough.  The  risk  for  a  high-tech  start-up 
may  be  to  become  obsessed  with  the  development  of  technology,  without  a 
precise market application in mind.  

Interviewee: Domenique Vicard, CTO 
Dominique  Vicard,  Primo  1D  CTO,  has  an  Engineering  Degree  and  PhD  from 
Telecom ParisTech, and more than 20 years of experience in industrial jobs in 
the private sector in operational and management jobs focused on R&D. 

He is the  inventor of  the «E-Thread®» concept. As CTO, Dominique will take 
care  of  the  definition  and  management  of  the  Primo1D  R&D  programmes 
(including the common  lab with CEA) and  will carry a continuous competitive 
scouting and analysis. 

83 

 
 
 
 
9  IBSENtelecom 

Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Birkelandsvannet 
N-4532 Øyslebø (NO) 
Web: www.ibsentelecom.no 

Company  description  -  IBSENtelecom  was  founded  in  2009  in 
Norway to develop solutions to wireless radiation effects on the human body. 
In  particular, 
it  developed  an  electronic  device  based  on  optical 
communication:  the  Li-Fi  (Light  Fidelity)  technology  for  data  transmission.  In 
2011,  IBSENtelecom  founded  the  Li-Fi  Consortium  together  with  the 
Fraunhofer  Institute,  based  in  Germany,  and  Supreme  Architecture,  based  in 
the United States and Israel – all leaders in optical communication technology. 
They  aim  at  developing  a  concept  and  roadmap  to  establish  new  wireless 
technologies  with  better  speed  bandwidth  and  security  than  current  wireless 
technology.  

Presently,  IBSENtelecom  is  focusing  on  finding  a  market  for  the  Li-Fi 
technology and raising funds to adapt different applications of Li-Fi devices. Its 
devices are designed to cover different markets through two business lines:  
a)  Devices  for  individual  users  –  Through  a  small  device  connected  to 
computers  or  routers,  users  will  get  high-speed  two-way  communication 
(up  to  2  Gb/sec)  through  a  USB  port.  These  devices  are  based  on  laser 
technology and serve point to multiple-point high-speed communication.  
b)  Devices  for  businesses  –  Li-Fi  devices  can  provide  higher  security  levels 
than  comparable  Wi-Fi  technologies  because  they  require  direct  line  of 
sight with the data source.  

IBSENtelecom  is  working  on  the  development  of  a  new  technology,  the  “Fly 
Eye  Receiver  Chip  Technology”  project,  which  should  overcome  the  main 
technological inhibitions of the technology and make the technology usable by 
mobile devices. 

Company  status  -  IBSENtelecom is a micro-company (a high-tech start-up) 
with three employees.  The regional government of Saxony, through a German 
manufacturing partner, currently sponsors the company’s R&D activities. 

Financial  results  - The company is currently classified as an active company 
on the Business Register but its trade status is that of a dormant company (no 
revenues  in  the  last  years).  Therefore,  no  financial  data  are  available  at  the 
moment. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation Roadmap 

Original 
Idea 

Diminish  the  effect  of  wireless  radiations  on  the 
human body. 

The  Li-Fi  (Light  Fidelity)  technology  was  the 
solution for this problem.  

Early 
Development 

Advanced 
Development 

Commercialization  
Strategy 

The company filed a patent on Li-Fi technology at 
the beginning of its development phase.  
Starting  to  collaborate  with  partners  to  increase 
the  transition  rate  of  Li-Fi  technology  from  few 
Kbit/sec to up to 200 Mbit/sec. 

The company and its partners developed a range 
of  different  Li-Fi  applications.  In  the  advanced 
development  phase, 
technology  was 
embedded  into  tradable  products.  To  date,  Li-Fi 
technology  is  able  to  transmit  up  to  10  Gb/sec 
thanks to the existing scientific network in the Li-
Fi consortium. 

the 

The  company  started  selling  its  technology  to 
individual  users  (B2C)  and  then  expanded  its 
market to other enterprises and firms (B2B). 

From  a  closed  business  model  to  commercialize 
Li-Fi  technology  to  potential  customers  to  an 
open setting. 

Business Model 
Evolution 

Improving  Li-Fi  technology  in  order  to  meet 
customers’  needs  forced  IBSENtelecom  to  build 
collaborations  with  different  partners,  and  to 
exploit external competencies and skills.   

Innovation  Strategy:  IBSENtelecom  relied  on  technological  enhancement 
and  development  after  identifying  a  problem  and  looking  for  a  solution. 
IBSENtelecom  changed  to  become  an  open  company  through  its  business 
model evolution because an important potential client had suspended the first 
technology development project. 

Open  Innovation  Relevance  –  The  following  points  highlight  how 
IBSENtelecom ended up performing OIS: 

-  Collaboration:  the  first  product  was  the  result  of  collaboration  with 
partners  (mainly  experts  in  the  field)  on  a  focused  project  where  the 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

technological  knowledge  from  different  partners  was  integrated  through 
close ties.  

-  Technological Push: After the main potential client left the partnership, it 
was  imperative  for  the  Li-Fi  consortium  to  find  a  way  to  survive.  The 
consortium  through  collaboration  and  data  attempted  to  develop  and 
advance the Li-fi technology. 
Inbound strategy: IBSENtelecom’s innovation strategy  is today  based on 
bringing  outside  knowledge  into  the  company.  Technology  exploitation 
and new products’ development are made through partnerships and IP in-
licensing.  

- 

-  Network  Orchestration:  Collaborations 

long-term 
partnerships  through  the  creation  of  a  large  network  of  complementary 
capabilities in the optic and photonic fields.  

evolved 

into 

Today, the company is still searching how to expand in new markets. 

Drivers  -  Market pull technology collaboration. In this case, a request from a 
key potential client created the need for the company to supplement internal 
knowhow with external technological expertise and to establish a technological 
alliance. 

Barriers  -  Failure  of  key  partnerships.  The  implementation  of  effective  open 
innovation  strategies  depends  heavily  on  the  choice  of  partners.  Trust  and 
flexibility in defining clear exit strategies are needed for SMEs, especially when 
partnering Large Enterprises. 

Weak  orchestrator  of  technology  alliances.  The  company  tried  to  keep  the 
technological  partnership  alive  by  assuming  the  role  of  orchestrator  of  the 
alliance. Because resources of the company were still limited, the scope of the 
alliance had to be kept confined and time to market goals had to be revised. 

Absence  of  European  Original  Equipment  Manufacturing  (OEM).  The  level  of 
confidentiality regarding the technology required close proximity with strategic 
partners downstream. The fact that the  leading OEMs were absent prevented 
the company from establishing strong ties with partners.  

Interviewee: Walter Kraus, Chief Executive Officer 
Walter  Kraus  (CEO)  has  a  seasoned  c-level  executive  with  extensive 
international  start-up  and  business  development  experience  in  both  high 
technology telecommunications and renewable energy. He has mainly worked 
with  high  technology  transfer  between  Europe  and  the  US  and hold  currently 
positions  at  GGSI  (Executive  Vice  President),  MarkeTech  Partners  LLC 
(Managing  Partner),  IBSENtelecom  Ltd.  (CEO)  and  the  Li-Fi  Consortium 
(Chairman),  speaking  3  languages  at  University  level  (English,  German  & 
Norwegian). 

Walter  Kraus  founded  IBSENtelecom  in  2009  in  Norway.  IBSENtelecom  has 
been restructured to its current form in 2012. Walter has his background in RF 
shielding  technology  and  developed  also  patents  using  optical  wireless 
communication  technology  for  mobile  phones.  Walter  is  also  chairman  of  the 
Li-Fi  Consortium.  He 
for  OEM  contacts,  contractual 
engagements, concept development as well as company and concept strategy. 

responsible 

is 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

10   STMicroelectronics 

Ch. du Champ-des-Filles 39 
1228 Plan-les-Ouates 
Geneva (CH) 
Web: www.st.com 

Company  description  -  STMicroelectronics  (ST)  is  an  ICT  company  born  in 
1998,  but  its  roots  date  back  to  1987  when  the  Italian  SGS  Microelettronica 
merged  with  the  French  Thomson  Semiconducteurs  to  become  the  SGS-
Thomson  Microelectronics.  In  1987,  the  new  company  suffered  from  losses 
and  overcapacity.  In  1993,  it  received  $1  billion  in  financing  from  the  Italian 
and  French  Governments  to  reduce  its  debts.  In  1994,  it  was  publicly  traded 
while  the  governments  remained  major  stakeholders.  In  those  years,  SGS 
Thomson  reached  a  five  percent  share  of  the  word’s  semiconductor  industry. 
Today  ST  is  quoted  on  the  Milan,  Paris,  and  New  York  stock  exchanges  for 
72.4 percent of its shares. The remaining 27.6 percent of shares are controlled 
by  STMicrolectronics  Holding  II  BV,  which  belongs  to  the  French  and  Italian 
Governments. 

ST  is  one  of  the  world’s  largest  semiconductor  companies,  controlling  about 
three percent of the worldwide semiconductors’ market. It is a B2B (business-
to-business) company and provides to its clients a broad portfolio of solutions 
in  two  main  areas,  “sense  and  power  and  automotive  products”  and 
“embedded processing solutions”.  

The company created and relied on a wide network of strategic alliances (e.g. 
Nokia and Nintendo) with customers, suppliers, universities, and competitors. 
ST’s  products  are  used  in  many  contexts:  ranging,  aerospace,  defense, 
amplifiers,  comparators,  Integrated  Circuits  (ICs),  automotive  analogic  and 
infotainment  and  telematics,  data  converters, 
power  ICs,  automotive 
interfaces, radio frequency transistors, wireless connectivity, etc.  

Today ST is looking into the Internet of Things (IoT) and new solutions to data 
security  problems.  ST  also  played  an  important  role  in  making  nano-  and 
microelectronics  key  enabling  technologies.  In  order  to  better  develop  them, 
ST  has  recognized  the  importance  of  being  in  the  European  microelectronics 
hubs in Grenoble, Eindhoven, and Dresden. 

Company Status - The group had 43,600 employees worldwide in 2014. ST's 
corporate headquarters and the headquarters for Europe, the Middle East and 
Africa  are  in  Geneva.  It  also  has  one  headquarters  for  the  Americas,  one  for 
Greater  China  and  South  Asia,  and  one  for  Japan  and  Korea.  Moreover,  the 
company  has  11  main  manufacturing  sites  and  several  offices  around  the 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

world. ST also has research and development centres in 10 countries outside 
the European microelectronics hubs. 

Financial  results  –  In  2014,  ST’s  revenue  was  US$7.4  billion.  Most  of  it 
derives  from  sensory,  power,  and  automotive  products.  STMicroelectronics  is 
the tenth largest company in the semiconductor industry. ST spent 21 percent 
of  its  revenues  on  R&D  in  2014.  It  has  15,000  patents  and  pending 
applications (9,000 patent families) and it filed 500 new patents in 2014. 

Innovation Roadmap 

Value 
proposition 

Innovation 
process 

Advanced 
Development 

Commercialization  
Strategy 

ST produces semiconductor components in the consumer 
largest 
appliances  sector  and 
semiconductor  companies  in  the  world.  It  controls  three 
percent of the market. 

is  among 

the  10 

The  company  implements  a  strong  internal  R&D  activity 
and recourse to technology in-licensing. 
Length of time for solutions development varies according 
to the type of product and clients. 

ST co-develops with  clients at different  levels. The range 
varies from customization to co-development of products’ 
roadmaps. 
Clients  represent  a  rich  source  of  insights  on  consumers’ 
needs. 

Development  of  platforms  that  integrate  ST  technologies 
and  whose  applications  are  left  to  third  parties  (e.g. 
universities). 
ST  components  are  integrated  in  customers’  solutions 
(B2B):  since  the  components  developed  by  ST  represent 
one  of  the  elements  assembled  in  customers’  products, 
the  integration  needs  a  high  level  of  direct  coordination 
between the company and its clients 

Innovation  Strategy  -  ST’s innovation process is successful because: (i) ST 
has  strategic  partners  that  are  champions  in  their  own  market  and  develops 
with  them  its  innovations;  (ii)  ST  is  both  a  technology-searcher  and  a 
technology-user  company,  maintaining  its  leadership  in  an  extremely  fast-
paced  sector;  (iii)  its  components,  developed  in  collaboration  with  other 
players  in  the  ecosystem  of  innovation,  are  reliable  and  secure.    Through  a 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

collaborative approach, it created connections with companies that understand 
what  customers  want  and  focused  on  applying  integrated  solutions  designed 
for industrial partners. 

Open  Innovation  Relevance  –  Being  a  large  and  multi-focused  company, 
the  elements  of  OIS  in  STM  are  multi-faceted.  As  such,  the  following  only 
summarizes some of its OIS elements: 

- 

Intellectual Property (IP) management: IP represents a key factor in the 
company’s strategy. It evolved from a defensive approach in the 1990s 
to  a  proactive  IP  management  approach  in  the  last  decade.  Since  ST’s 
knowledge  can  be  easily  duplicated,  it  protects  it  for  future  potential 
applications.  

- 

-  Collaborations:  The  company’s  open  innovation  strategy  mainly  relies 
on  collaborations.  ST  collaborates  with  universities  on  projects  of 
common  interest,  in  which  ST  considers  the  university  as  a  “solution 
provider”,  not  a  partner.  It  collaborates  with  clients  on  one-to-one 
contracts  for  product  co-development.  Levels  of  co-development  have 
varied  throughout  ST’s  life:  it  went  from  simple  customization  to  the 
definition of products’ roadmaps. More recently, ST has adopted a “one-
to-many”  strategy  by  making  some  of  its  products  Arduino-compatible 
to demonstrate its closeness to the makers’ community.  
Innovation  System  Enabler:  For  example  in  the  Etna  Valley,  the 
industrial  area  of  Catania  (Sicily,  Italy)  focused  on  semiconductors,  ST 
often  serves  as  a  bridge  among  multiple  stakeholders,  creating  links 
and  integrating  different  actors  around  specific  projects  to  ease 
collaborations. 
Initiatives  &  Investments:  ST  implements  structured  initiatives  such  as 
academic  incubators  or  the  ST  Innovation  Cup.  In  2011,  it  created  the 
STMicroelectronics  New  Ventures,  its  own  corporate  venture  capital 
fund,  to  invest  globally  in  technology,  product  and  service  companies. 
STM  New  Ventures  prefers  investing  at  early  stages,  in  emerging 
markets where semiconductors play a key role. 

- 

Drivers - Coordination of local resources (partners, knowledge, people) within 
an innovation ecosystem. 
Leverage  international  synergies  among  various  international  sites  where  the 
company is present. 

Barriers  -  Problems  of  coordination  among  international  sites.Inefficiencies 
and  coordination  costs  within  local  innovation  ecosystems.Hard  to  adapt  OI 
partnerships  to  fast-paced  developments  in  semiconductor  industry.  Priorities 
and  directions  change  rapidly  and  therefore  it  is  difficult  to  orchestrate 
alliances  and  resource  allocations.  Constant  need  to  renegotiate  and  short-
term objectives does not help execution of OIS. 

Interviewees:  Cosimo  Musca,  Italy  R&D  and  Public  Programme 
Director;  Pasquale  Sanfilippo,  Funding  Programmes  Control  Manager 
& Rome Liaison Officer.  

89 

 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

11   BCB Informática y Control 

C/ Fernando el Católico 11 
28015 Madrid ((ES) 
Web: www.bcb.es 

Company description - BCB Informática y Control (hereafter BCB) is a small 
Spanish  ICT  engineering  company  (computer  systems  design,  computer 
programming  and  data  processing).  BCB’s  core  business  is  based  on  system 
integration  and  quality  control  services  through  the  development  of  Machine 
Vision  (MV)  applications  (imaging-based  automatic  inspection  and  analysis 
enabled  by  visible  and  infrared  technologies).  BCB  offers  “control  and 
management  solutions  for  clients’  industrial  processes  according  to  their 
technical  and  economical  requirements.”  BCB’s  solutions  are  based  on 
hardware  integration  and  software  development  through  cooperative  projects 
with  customers  in  the  industrial  automation,  machine  vision,  thermo-solar, 
optical and ICT fields.  

BCB  usually  sells  the  prototype  to  the  customer  at  the  end  of  each 
collaboration  project.  As  a  result  of  these  versatile  collaborations,  BCB  co-
developed  several  prototypes  of  MV  industrial  applications:  2D  measurement 
equipment,  pharma-packaging  control  system,  optical  inspection  equipment, 
remote telecontrol, automatic number-plate recognition, and optical devices.  
A  new  business  opportunity  recently  came  from  BCB’s  participation  in  H2020 
SMEs instrument programme (phase 2). The company is currently developing 
“Baby  Beat”,  a  patented  system  to  measure  the  fetal  heartbeat  using  a 
wearable device and laser interferometry techniques, in collaboration with the 
Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC).  

-  BCB  currently  employs 

Company  status 
ten  people,  mainly 
telecommunications engineers dedicated to the R&D department in Spain. The 
company owns one registered US patent, and the rate of intangibles over total 
assets  is  about  six  percent.  In  2012,  BCB  opened  a  new  business  unit  in 
Mexico, in order to participate in local R&D projects and explore new business 
opportunities related to thermography techniques in the mining sector. 

Financial  results  -  In  2012,  the  company’s  operating  revenues  were  about 
€408K.  A  huge  increase  was  observed  in  the  last  two  years,  with  revenues 
reaching €1M in 2014. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation Roadmap 

Original 
Idea 

(MV) 

Application of image analysis and machine 
vision 
industrial 
techniques 
processes  in  different  industries  (Codify 
for  MV 
relevant 
the 
applications’  move 
bigger 
industries with higher margins). 

knowledge 

towards 

to 

Early 
Development 

Cooperation 
through FP7. 

in 

large  R&D  networks 

Advanced 
Development 

Customer  cooperation  for  product/service 
development. 

Commercialization  
Strategy 

Selling  co-developed  prototypes  to  clients 
at the end of the project. 

Business Model 
Evolution 

Shift  from  a  top-down  research  driven 
approach  to  a  bottom  up  market  driven 
approach,  through  the  participation  in 
instruments  programme 
H2020  SMEs 
for 
partnership 
New 
(phase 
development  and  commercialization  of  a 
new  patented  product  in  the  healthcare 
industry 

2). 

Innovation Strategy: BCB is a specialized supplier focusing on user-producer 
co-development in order to exploit a transversal knowledge solution (Machine 
visions technologies for quality control). External networking through research 
partnerships  within  the  market  for  technology  was  the  main  driver  of  the 
evolution of BCB’s R&D activity. BCB was able to co-develop and prototype MV 
applications  with  clients  in  several  industries  (automotive,  3D  acoustic 
measurements, electronics, solar power plants). 

Open  Innovation  Relevance  –  The main benefits of a demand driven open 
approach  came  from  the  access  to  product  and  market  knowledge,  through 
proactive 
the 
importance of this partnership in this change: 

following  elements  highlight 

technology  alliances.  The 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

- 

Insourcing  through  collaboration:  BCB’s  participation  in  European 
Framework  Programmes  through  research  consortia  with  universities, 
public  centres  and  partner  companies  was  a  good  opportunity  for 
scientific knowledge insourcing. This strategy played a fundamental role 
in expanding the company’s internal knowledge base and exploiting MV 
research opportunities in several industries.  

-  Private-Public  partnership:  The  most  important  milestone  in  BCB’s 
innovation strategy came with a Horizon 2020 project aimed to develop 
a market application of sensors integration technologies. BCB developed 
and  patented,  in  collaboration  with  the  Polytechnic  University  of 
Catalonia (UPC), the “Baby Beat” device. The system is based on a new 
method 
fetal 
heartbeat,  enabled  by  the  use  of  a  wearable  device  and  by  laser 
interferometry and sensor integration techniques.  

for  continuous,  non-invasive  measurement  of  the 

-  New opportunities through EU programmes: The H2020 SME Instrument 
programme  has  enabled  the  company  to  develop  a  new  open  business 
model  based  on  market  implementation  of  MV  technology.  This 
opportunity  changed  the  company's  innovation  attitude:  it  shifted  from 
a  project  sourcing  based  on  collaboration  on  short-to-medium  term 
collaboration  projects  to  a  problem  sourcing  approach  based  on 
involving external partners in product development.  

Drivers  -  Large EU framework projects set the right incentives for knowledge 
sourcing  and  for  the  creation  of  large  coalitions  focused  on  research  and 
technology development. 
H2020  SME  Instrument  programme  set  the  right  incentives  to  develop  a 
business model, select application and focus on market implementation  

Barriers  -  Priority setting for go-to-market. The case shows that SMEs with a 
transversal  knowledge  base  being  involved  in  multiple  R&D  projects  may  fail 
to set the market to exploit their core technologies. 
Lack  of  focus:  the  company  risked  not  finding  its  way  to  the  market:  OIS 
require  the  implementation  of  sustainable  business  models.  The  company 
struggled  to  find  a  commercial  application  in  spite  of  having  developed  a 
transversal technology. 

Interviewee: Javier Bezares del Cueto, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 
Javier  Bezares  del  Cueto  is  a  telecommunications  engineer  and  an  expert  in 
imaging-based  analyses.  He  worked  4  years  as  a  project  engineer  in  IIC 
(Ingeniería  de  Instrumentación  y  Control)  and  Isolux  Corsan  in  Madrid;  in 
1996  he  founded  BCB  Informática  y  Control,  and  he  is  the  actual  Chief 
Executive  Officer  of  the  company.  Javier  is  a  Member  of  AENOR's  AEN/CTN 
206/SC  Subcommittee  for  Standardization  of  Solar  Thermal  Energy  (CSP) 
Systems. In September 2014 he applied for patenting an innovative and non-
invasive  method  to  measure  the  fetal  APW  using  a  low-cost  laser:  “Method, 
device  and  computer  programmes  for  measuring  a  fetal  arterial  pulse  wave” 
(Europa 14-7163) (Bezares J., Royo S., Guerrero F.). 

92 

 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

12   Philips 

Philips Research 
High Tech Campus 34.5.065 
5656AE Eindhoven (NL) 
Web: www.philips.com 

Company  description  –  Founded  in  1891  in  Eindhoven,  NL  Koninklijke 
Philips  Electronics  N.V.  is  today  a  multinational  corporation  active  in  many 
electronics-related  business  areas.  Since  January  2008,  after  a  simplification 
effort  of  the  company’s  structure,  the  activities  are  divided  into  the  following 
four  sectors:  (1)  healthcare  (imaging  systems,  healthcare  informatics,  home 
healthcare  solutions);  (2)  lighting  (lamps,  luminaires,  lighting  electronics, 
automotive  and  special  lighting  applications);  (3)  consumer  lifestyle  (video 
and  multimedia  applications,  domestic  appliances,  peripherals  and 
accessories);  (4)  innovation  and  emerging  businesses  (research,  design, 
applied technologies). 

Philips  Research  Eindhoven,  based  in  the  High  Tech  Campus  Eindhoven 
(HTCE),  is  one  of  the  largest  private  research  organizations  in  the  world  and 
helps Philips introduce meaningful innovations that improve people’s lives. Its 
activities  focus  on  the  three  main  market  sectors  of  Philips  (healthcare, 
lighting,  consumer  lifestyle),  covering  many  disciplines,  such  as  physics, 
chemistry,  electronics,  mechatronics,  embedded  software,  signal  processing, 
and  computer  science,  in  cross-disciplinary  fields  like  biomedical  engineering, 
microbiology,  biophysics,  system  design,  psychology,  perception,  and 
behavioral sciences. Research activities in all these areas combine to develop 
new  products  and  advance  engineering  competencies  in  a  multidisciplinary 
ecosystem, considering not only the scientific disciplines involved but also the 
products’ potential application. 

Company Status - In 2014, Philips employed approximately 120,000 people. 
It has an IPR portfolio of 80,000 patents and owns manufacturing sites in 28 
countries and sales outlets in 150 countries.  

Financial  Results  -  In  2013,  Philips’  operating  revenues  accounted  for 
€23.452M. Due to its wide patent portfolio, the share of intangibles over total 
assets is very high (36 percent). 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation Roadmap 

Phase 1: 
Characteristics 

Phase 2: 
Joint Research 

Ph.D. 
Programs 

Public Private 
Partnership 
Programs 

Once chosen the 
partner, Philips 
structures the joint 
research according to 
the following elements:  
  3 Research Areas: 

represented by 
Philips core 
businesses (lighting, 
healthcare, lifestyle). 

  4 research teams 

per area, each 
consisting of 4 Ph.D. 
Students. 

  Joint governance 

including 3 subjects: 
1) CEO of Philips; 2) 
delegation from 
Philips; 3) delegation 
from Technical 
University. 
Combined. These 3 
subjects constitute 
the Joint Steering 
Committee of the 
Programme. 
In conducting joint 
researches in PPPs, 
Philips shares facilities, 
machineries and 
research activities with 
its partners to develop 
new general 
technologies. 

Philips establishes 
its university 
partnerships 
according to 
specific principles:  
  Criteria of 

partner choice: 
proximity, 
quality, 
commitment. 
  One-to-One 

Agreement on 
main principles 
of the 
Programme, 
between Philips 
and University 
Institutions. 

The PPPs 
conducted by 
Philips show the 
following main 
characteristics:  
  Cooperation 

Programmes on 
peripheral 
research area. 

  The core 

businesses of 
the company 
are not 
involved. 

Phase 3: 
Transfer of 
Results 
The outputs of Ph.D. 
Programmes 
represent a valuable 
result for Philips: 
The company puts 
emphasis on 
people: at the end 
of the Programme, 
Ph.D. graduates own 
skills and 
competences needed 
in Philips. They have 
a priority in 
company’s hiring 
procedures. 

The management of 
the results obtained 
from PPPs follows 
two main rules:  
  No priority on IP 
appropriation. 
  Results of the 

activities shared 
among partners. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation  Strategy  -  After  Henry  Chesbrough  published  his  book  Open 
Innovation:  The  New  Imperative  for  Creating  and  Profiting  from  Technology 
(2003),  Philips  decided  to  start  its  own  OIS  policy  trying  to  apply  these 
principles, which moved the innovation strategy from closed to open. 

Open  Innovation  Relevance  –  The  shift  from  closed  to  open  innovation 
strategy  was  very  gradual.  The  following  highlights  some  of  key  elements  in 
Philips’ OIS: 
-  Opening  its  Research  Campus.  Philips  put  its  Eindhoven  Campus  research 
centre at the heart of its OIS: from being a closed lab, it became an open 
campus.  

-  Gradual  Changes.  Philips  implemented  its  OIS  gradually  and  customized 
the  strategy  to  company’s  needs  and  characteristics.  Philips  is  fully  aware 
following  several  subsequent  phases  and 
that  OIS  must  apply 
experimenting  different  methods  of  implementation.  Furthermore,  actions 
of  OIS  must  adapt  to  the  single  company  because  a  universal  recipe  for 
implementing OIS does not exist.  

-  Private Collaboration with Different Partners: In 2012, Philips reconsidered 
its  OI  strategy  and  decided  to  refocus  on  three  types  of  partnerships: 
supplier, general, and strategic partnerships. 

Type of Partners 

Type of relation 

Object of 
Partnership 

Suppliers 

Contractual Relations  Non-Core Business 

General  

Joint Programmes 

Non-Core Business 

Strategic  

Joint Programmes 

Core Business 

- 

-  Public  Private  Partnership  with  Universities:  Philips  works  intensively  with 
universities  around  research  projects  to  develop  new  IP  and  keeps  the 
project focused on its business.  
IP  Strategy:  The  company  highlighted  the  importance  of  IP  issues  in 
cooperation:  IP  represents  Philips’  achievement;  cooperating  on  core 
business topics might jeopardize IP rights. When core IP is involved, Philips 
does  not  have  partnerships  with  complementary  companies  because 
business  interests  overlap  and  the  risk  of  losing  priorities  on  the  IP  is  too 
high. 

Drivers  -  Learning  by  doing.  The  case  suggests  that  a  company  can  build 
experience and redefine OIS after first initial attempts. 

Accountability  of  OI.  Relevance  of  managerial  control 
for  successful 
implementation  of  open  innovation.  Centrality  of  monitoring  and  planning  for 
resource allocation. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Appropriation  Strategy  matters.  The  case  suggests  that  when  partners  are 
involved  in  co-development  clear  IP  rules  need  to  be  established  for  OI  to 
work. 

Barriers  -  Partnership Management.  The case suggests that it is difficult and 
time  intensive  to  find  the  right  partners,  preserve  reputation,  build  trust 
among partners, and avoid misunderstandings. 

Interviewee: Ronald Begeer, Programme Manager Research 
Ronald  Begeer  is  Programme  Manager  Research  at  Philips  since  2006,  and 
Member of the Daily Management Committee of Point-One. In this role, he is 
responsible  for  the  Eureka  ITEA  programme  and  the  PDC  Point-One 
programme  in  Royal  Philips  Electronics.  Ronald  previously  served  as 
Programme  Manager  (until  2010).  Before  starting  working  in  Philips,  Ronald 
was  SW  Development  Manager  in  NXP  Semiconductors  (2002-2006)  and  in 
Philips  Creative  Display  solution  (1996-2000).  Begeer  graduated 
in 
Electrotechnics Engineer at Hogeschool Rotterdam. 

In  Philips,  he  is  currently  Programme  Manager  Research  for  PPP  and  he  also 
runs European Programmes (Horizon 2020). He is Programme Manager for the 
cooperation  with  the  Technical  University  Eindhoven.  He  works  within  the 
Campus. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
13   Supponor OY 

Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

02150 Espoo (FI) 
W36UU London (UK) 
Web: www.supponor.com 

Company  description  -  Supponor  OY  is  a  Finnish  sports  media  and 
technology company whose DBRLive technology replaces traditional perimeter 
advertising in sports broadcasts with digital content. The company was started 
in 2000 as Virtual Advertising Systems (VAS) in Finland by Erkki Raintalainen, 
a  physics  teacher.  In  2006,  Conor  Venture  Partners  invested  in  VAS  to  start 
Supponor. 
investment 
partnership,  further  invested  in  Supponor.  Today,  the  company  has  its 
headquarters  in  the  United  Kingdom,  and  two  branches  located  in  Finland, 
including a commercial office, an operational centre, and its R&D department. 
The  company’s  operational  teams  work  with  local  partners  and  specialists  at 
live sporting events across the globe. 

In  2008,  Northzone,  a  European 

technology 

Supponor’s  technology  is  the  DBRLive,  or  Digital  Billboard  Replacement 
Technology.  The  DBRLive  replaces  existing  perimeter  systems,  such  as  LED 
billboards, with their  billboards that keep their  traditional  look for the on-site 
audience  but  whose  appearance  on  the  broadcast  feed  can  be  changed 
through digitally generated graphics. In other words, people attending the live 
event  see  the  original  billboards  while  people  watching  the  broadcast  see 
billboards customized with different advertisements. 

In 2015, Supponor was awarded an H2020 SME Instrument grant, Phase 2, of 
€1,207,500.  The  company  will  conduct  a  three-year  project  on  augmented 
reality  cameras  enabled  with  the  DBRLive  technology.  The  SME  Instrument 
gives the company an opportunity to develop the business. 

Company  Status  -  Supponor  is  a  privately  held  company  owned  by 
management,  private  investors,  and  VC  funds  (i.e.  Sports  Investment 
Partners,  Northzone,  and  Conor).  In  2013,  the  company’s  operating  revenue 
was  €1,352K.  Supponor  employs  highly  skilled  software  engineers  in  the 
research  and  development  team  in  Espoo,  Finland  (19  people).  The  team 
constantly refines and develops the technology underpinning DBRLive. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation roadmap 

Original 
Idea 

Having  different  sets  of  advertising  on  billboards  during 
events:  one  for  the  on-site  audience  and  many  other 
customized ones for audiences around the world 

Early 
Development 

DBRLive  (Digital  Billboard  Replacement  Technology) 
replaces  existing  perimeter  systems,  with  specific 
manufactured  billboards  that  look  traditional  to  the  on-
site  audience  but  can  be  substituted  by  digitally 
generated graphics on the broadcast feed 

Accelerating  innovative  augmented  reality  broadcast 
application through the design of a new industrial camera 
that embeds the DBRLive technology 

Advanced 
Development 

Sale of Supponor’s boards 
that  embed  the  DBRLive 
technology 

Commercialization  
Strategy 

Business Model 
Evolution 

Closed  business  model: 
Supponor  tried  to  sell  a 
product  that  embedded 
its DBRLive technology 

Brands 
for 
to 

Supponor  sells  to  the  brands 
the  advertising  space  that 
the company creates through 
the  intermediation  of  rights 
holders. 
pay 
targeting 
Supponor 
advertising 
different 
audiences. 
Open 
business  model: 
the 
cooperation  between 
three  stakeholders  of  the 
sector 
holders, 
(rights 
broadcasters, and brands). 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

Innovation Strategy: Supponor’s business model relies on three elements: i) 
DBRLive  technology,  a  technically  innovative  media  platform  that  integrates 
with  live  broadcasts; ii)  value  creation  for  sports  rights  holders  by  enhancing 
their  perimeter  billboard;  iii)  creating  and  delivering  marketing  opportunities 
to brands looking to engage specific sports audiences with relevant marketing. 

Open  Innovation  Relevance  –  The  following  elements highlight Supponor's 
innovation process that shows how open innovation often occurs:  

-  Collaboration  with  active  market  players:  Supponor  made  the  whole 
active  market  converge  around  its  technology  through  a  new  business 
model that enables the other stakeholders of the sector to further profit. 
IP  management  strategy:  to  openly  cooperate  with  its  partners, 
Supponor  first  patented  its  innovation.  Patenting  allowed  Supponor  to 
protect  and  keep  under  control  the  results  of  its  research  and  to 
collaborate. 

- 

Drivers  -  Business  model  matters.  Orchestration  of  partnerships  aimed  at 
creating  win-win  conditions  by  aligning  incentives  for  all  partners  involved. 
The  company  develops  a  sustainable  business  model  that  takes  to  market  a 
potentially disruptive technology. 

Protection of IP. The case emphasized the relevance of strong IP protection in 
order to develop collaborations downstream with key partners. 
H2020  SME  instrument  gave  the  company  the  resources  and  incentives  to 
anticipate  business  development  projects  that  otherwise  would  have  been 
postponed. 

Barriers  -  Difficulty  to  establish  partnerships.  Being  at  the  forefront  of 
technology is expensive and requires significant investments in in-house R&D. 
The  company  claims  to  be  willing  to  engage  in  even  more  OIS  for 
technological development if only capable partners existed. 

Interviewee: Charlie Marshall, Chief Product & Strategy Officer 
Charlie,  working  closely  with  the  CEO  Roger  Hall,  develops  and  drives  the 
overall  strategy  and  roadmap  for  Supponor’s  medium  and  long-term  growth. 
Within  the  senior  management  team,  Charlie  is  responsible  for  steering  the 
execution  of  the  company’s  strategy  through  deep  analysis  of  international 
marketplaces  (sports,  technology,  media,  marketing,  and  communications) 
and owning the business plan that brings together all elements of Supponor’s 
growth  agenda.  Charlie  also  heads  up  Supponor’s  Business  Development, 
which involves leading specific new business activities and processes; forming 
strategic  relationships  with  key  partners  (particularly  broadcasters);  and 
representing Supponor’s presence as a growing force in the marketplace. Prior 
to  joining  Supponor,  Charlie  led  Accenture’s  Media  and  Entertainment 
Management Consulting practice in Europe, Africa, and Latin America. He has 
also  worked  for  Spectrum  Strategy,  Hutchison  3G,  and  Ingenious  Media,  and 
co-founded a successful online venture providing data and ticketing service. 

99 

 
 
 
 
Case Studies on Open Innovation in ICT 

100 

 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union 
Free phone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. 

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 
It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu 

How to obtain EU publications 

Our publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), 
where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. 

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. 
You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
F
-
N
A
-
2
7
9
1
1
-
E
N
-
N

JRC Mission 

As the Commission’s  
in-house science service,  
the Joint Research Centre’s  
mission is to provide EU  
policies with independent,  
evidence-based scientific  
and technical support  
throughout the whole  
policy cycle. 

Working in close  
cooperation with policy  
Directorates-General,  
the JRC addresses key  
societal challenges while  
stimulating innovation  
through developing  
new methods, tools  
and standards, and sharing  
its know-how with  
the Member States,  
the scientific community  
and international partners. 

Serving society  
Stimulating innovation  
Supporting legislation 

doi:10.2791/433370 

ISBN 978-92-79-58231-8 

2