Contenu du sommaire : Global R&D and Open Innovation Systems

Network or open innovation is not fundamentally new phenomenon. The paper examines the major determinants of the globalization of firms' R&D by referring to the Evolutionist Theory, which stresses the fact that the accumulation of knowledge is a means of innovation and is the basis of the transformation of firms' structures. The aim is to develop a new methodological framework that will lead us to a better understanding of the real aspects of this phenomenon, in particular the synergies that are formed among the different players (firms, institutions) in the context of the globalization of innovation processes. Thus, two points will be developed. First, the paper reexamines the notions of firm and of MNC in order to better understand the innovation processes and the background in which firms innovate. Second, a distinction is operated between on the first hand the endogenous determinants of the globalization of the firms' R&D namely those which are linked to the creation of technological resources and to the improvement of skills and on the second hand exogenous determinants, that is those which are linked to changes in the process and in the background of innovation. JEL Codes: F23, 032, L 62, L68

According to J. Immelt (General Electric's CEO), considering the new forms of competition and the existing opportunities in emerging countries, industrial corporations must develop reverse innovation (Immelt et al., 2009). Reverse Innovation consists in designing products no longer in industrialized countries but in emerging countries, where they are going to be marketed first, before being marketed in industrialized countries with a certain number of adjustments. That is the reversed process of “glocalization” that consists in designing products in industrialized countries before adjusting them to emerging countries. In the present research, we would like to go further into this topic by putting it in the context of R&D globalization and by studying two cases: Ge Healthcare and Renault. These two enterprises have largely globalized their R&D activities, but have two different strategies regarding reverse innovation; Renault focusing more on an international relay engineering strategy. Some recent enquiries show that reverse innovation is still not a common strategy. But it raises some important issues regarding the nature and the durability of R&D activities in industrial countries, which we present in this paper. JEL Codes: F23, 032, L 62, L68

This paper deals with the influence of open innovation in cultural and creative industries. Creative industries can often be characterized as territorialized industries. Their territorial anchor constitutes a structural characteristic, with a strong influence on the innovation process, and on the conditions of valorization of cultural goods. So, the interpretation highlights the privileged role of shared and situated innovation: concerning the construction of a cooperative model, intellectual property protection, risk reduction, influence of public policies, and conditions for developing and capturing externalities. By contributing to the deployment of specialized assets in cultural and creative industries, open innovation reinforces the factors for a differentiation advantage. The pervasiveness of open innovation and the diffusion of spillovers among creative industries also rely on the economy of contribution, in the framework of the digital economy, local systems of innovation and the third sector. The economy of contribution results from the relations between contributors and from the spillover effects, in creative industries. Thus, open innovation and contribution are increasingly involved in “cognitive-cultural production systems”, based upon the growth and spillovers of creative industries. The differentiation advantage linked to industries and territories now depends on territorial design, combining the driving forces of open innovation, creative entrepreneurship, and the metropolitan cultural governance. JEL Codes: A13, D62, D63, L86, R12, Z11

Firms' interest in an open innovation model may vary with the technological and industrial context (Chesbrough, 2006). Our central hypothesis is that organization of the innovation processes and technological systems evolve conjointly. Taking into account the specificity of climate change mitigation technologies, the aim of this paper is to question the innovation process implemented in the carbon capture and storage domain and to question whether or not open innovation behaviours are fostered. To do that we use a specific indicator: the joint patent applications. We show not only an upturn in open invention practices in the domain of CO2 capture and storage technologies, but also a significant change in the forms of open invention. These forms break free from the firm alone to more systematically involve all of the actors of the triple helix and especially knowledge producers. JEL Codes: O31, O34, Q55

This paper relies on Open Innovation and Organizations Social Responsibility theories to propose methodological insights in order to foster the integration of sustainability issues into competitive clusters' strategies. It therefore insists on the role that a “sustainability assessment standards” co-constructed by the cluster's stakeholders could play to help their acculturation. To that extent, such a collaborative device could influence cluster's governance as well as its ability to enhance emerging innovation. First this paper presents a cross-disciplinary state of the art (C/K theory, actor-network theory, conventions theory), then the methodology used in the studied cluster. JEL Codes: Q01, 031, A12, D74, Z13

This paper focuses on an unnoticed theme in the current debate on Open Innovation, namely the foundational question whether this model is actually a paradigm. Its purpose is to go a step further by analysing its internal consistency. The paper argues that the two broad topics of the model, technology market and in/out-sourcing, seem to refer to theoretical assumptions provided by different conceptual frameworks. Focused, first on the technology market, second on the compatibility between the two proposals, it shows that critical uncertainty should be considered in order to understand both relational contracts on technology and motivations to co-operate. Due to this inconsistency, its paradigmatic dimension remains to be demonstrated. JEL Codes: 031, 032, 034, L2

Chesbrough's (2003) open innovation model incites firms to use more and more external sources to improve their innovation process. However, how can firms benefit from their investments in knowledge in such cases of collective invention? Chesbrough's innovation model deals very little with this issue, especially in the case of co-operation for innovation. Chesbrough's model on openness leans on case studies of large firms. However, at the moment, scholars have hardly studied the hypothesis of the model on a quantitative basis.The study explores intellectual property strategies of French industrial firms to test the hypothesis of Chesbrough's model on a quantitatively basis. We use the data of the community innovation survey (CIS3) for the period 1998-2000. The survey concerns all French firms of more of 20 employees. Then we use a logit model. One main result can be observed: firms do not use the open innovation model strategy. That is to say they do not use less means of protection when they co-operate. On the contrary, they use more means of protection in this case. Moreover, the model predicts that firms would use less secrecy as a means of protection. We obtain the opposite result. Secrecy is correlated with 3 different kinds of partners of co-operation. In addition, firms use various means of protection in a complementary way. This point reduces the predictions of the open innovation model. JEL Codes: O31, O34, L60

Using firm-level data provided by the 4th Community Innovation Survey (CIS4), this paper measures the effect of cooperation on innovation in French service firms. It distinguishes between the effects of two types of cooperation or innovation networks (INs): public-private innovation networks and private-private innovation networks. The empirical evidence presented shows that extended public-private INs (in which service firms cooperate not only with public but also with private actors) seem to be more efficient than strict public-private INs as regards product, organizational and market innovation. Private-private INs for their part seem to be more efficient in the case of process innovation. JEL Codes: L8, O3, C1

This article focuses on how the use of real options and game theory can provide a decision making tool in the timing of innovation. Focusing on competition, the article reviews the key lessons and implications of real options in the process of decision making. We demonstrate how the use of dynamic net present value (NPV) is more relevant than the static one. Thus, the use of option games hypothesis allows us to propose an extension of traditional games to evolutionary games. JEL Codes: C73, D43, L22