Managing knowledge flows within open innovation: knowledge sharing and absorption mechanisms in collaborative innovation

Figures & data

Table 1. Relevant themes of knowledge flow in open innovation found in the literature.

Open innovation from knowledge flow perspectives	Knowledge flows direction, mechanisms, and obstacles	Referrals
Outside-in:	Knowledge direction:
Resources/knowledge flows from outside to within the organization/knowledge inflows.	Obtaining and utilizing valuable knowledge from partners is determined by the organization’s absorptive capacity.	(Mowery et al., 1996)
Inside-out:
Resources/knowledge flows from inside to external organization/knowledge outflows.	Patent-based of knowledge or patent-based brokerage that explored open innovation from a knowledge flow perspective	(Yun et al., 2018).
Coupled processed OI: Combine the knowledge inflows and outflows)	The process of leveraging inflows and outflows of knowledge to increase both internal innovation and use of external markets.	(Chesbrough, 2003; Lopes & de Carvalho, 2018; Shi et al., 2021)
Knowledge flow processing	Knowledge flow mechanisms:
Process of knowledge flow across individuals, groups and organizations	Process of interaction between individuals can help knowledge flow is in the implementation of OI.	(Barney & Felin, 2013)
	Knowledge sharing and acquisition (among employees, groups, and organizations) are important factors in knowledge flow.	(Ipe, 2003)
	Knowledge acquisition (sourcing) through absorptive capacity determines their ability to in-source externally developed ideas and innovation purpose.	(Vanhaverbeke et al., 2008)
	Knowledge flow requires the organizational mechanisms (accessing, integrating, and sharing external and internal knowledge).	(Zhuge, 2002)
	Lack of attention in knowledge flows perspectives in open innovation research	(Shi et al., 2021)
	Lack of attention of the complexity of interactions in innovation collaboration between organizations, a micro foundation approach is needed	(Abell et al., 2008; Barney & Felin, 2013).
	Pays little attention to the context-mechanism-outcome approach to identify and classify the various mechanisms observed in empirical OI studies	(Ogink et al., 2023)
Knowledge flows barriers:	Potential obstacles in the flow of knowledge: Barriers between individuals and groups has an impact on innovation.	(Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Kang et al., 2007; Mabey et al., 2015; Wei et al., 2011)
	Various facilitation to reduce the time in distributing individual ideas or knowledge (e.g. systematic efforts to facilitate the knowledge sharing process at both individual and organizational levels)	(Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Sung & Choi, 2018)

Table 2. The characteristics of the case organizations.

	Company A	University	Company B
Industry	Technology automation development	Education	Furniture
Current dominant parent nationality	America	Indonesia	Indonesia
Operation place	Indonesia	Indonesia	Indonesia
Project of open collaborative innovation	Developing automation technology with partners as well as corporate consumers	Developing raw materials with industry	Product development with consumer
Partner’s current dominant parent nationality	America	Japan	Belgium

Table 3. Profile of key informants.

Organization type	Key person	Professional background
Research-based company	Assistant Division Manager	Project Manager Deputy to manage the project internally (in Indonesia).
	Manager Deputy	Directly involved in managing the innovation project, especially in product designing.
	Team Leader	Mechanical Engineering (hardware specialist). Coordinator of team member for mechanical engineering that involved in collaborative innovation projects.
	Project Leader	Software Engineering. Coordinator of team member for innovation project.
	HR Manager	General HR specialist.
University	Project Leader	Researcher Chemist Coordinator of project lead
	Laboratory Staff	Chemist
	College Students	Team member
Manufacture company	Owner	Project Lead HR Project’s Coordinator
	Third Party	Intermediary between producer and consumer

Resources: Processed research data.

Table 4. Example of exploring the bottom-up emergence of knowledge flow mechanisms in open innovation.

Selective empirical evidence	First-order categories	Second-order dimensions	Third-order themes
‘…there is a discussion process… with them (partner’s team)…, every two weeks we have a meeting with them (partners), and we (representatives of the internal team) can chat directly with them (partners). So we have room to chat directly with them (partners)’. (Case 1) ‘Only they (member of the cross-organizational team) will meet directly, their office is about 20 minutes away from partner’s office, they can also call directly or they can meet in person…’ (Case 1) ‘It’s more formal…must be through an email that is affiliated with the institution’. (Case 2) ‘We want to have a meeting… we’ll ask… how is the progress?’ (Case 2) ‘Sometimes… via email, but… usually they will call me or call my staff. We can do it like this or not… when they approved, then we make a sample (to share the idea). Then the sample will be submitted…’ (Case 3)	Knowledge sharing mechanisms between cross-organizational team members.	Knowledge sharing	Knowledge flow
‘There is an email group for each of them to update information and how far it’s progressed, where to improve, like that…’ (Case 1)	Knowledge sharing mechanisms between internal team members.
‘… usually the meeting… has a schedule… sometimes… for information needs… we can talk again in the next week’. (Case 1) ‘Every Friday… there is a schedule for sharing, so we gather in one room, share what we get, it is to help create innovations or ideas that can later be included in the development of bio-plastic’. (Case 2) ‘Saturday, morning, it is for coordination. For example… the product must be finished with…, and the wood grain shown… then what steps are needed in production, will be discussed first’. (Case 3)
‘communication between our partner and us (internal team) through…our people in the US (cross-organizational team members). So indirectly, information from them first then returns to us, so it’s not direct’. (Case 1)	Intermediary role in knowledge sharing mechanisms
‘…while the partner communicates more intense with our team in the US (cross-organizational team member)’. (Case 1) ‘…they had a meeting to see what the field was like, where it was installed, and they talked about it. Continue to share it with us (internal team member) in here’. (Case 1) ‘…I am a laboratory staff (technical person), so the communication was mediated by Him (cross-organizational team member) to our partner’. ‘…the spokesperson for the research is Him to them (partners)’. (Case 2) ‘I’m the one dealing with the customer, and ask for what it looks like and I can measure it, then I translate before I will share to our team… (Share with the internal team)’. (Case 3)
‘The list of what is needed in product development does come from our team in the US, what is desired is explained. We read and understand it. With that, we can think that it doesn’t make sense, what if it wasn’t like this? (Case 1) ‘It was at that meeting, the technicalities were explored. Then we have a… meeting with the internal team’. (Case2) ‘For example… there is a comb, the shape is oval. This is what we want to develop’. (Case 3)	Knowledge acquisition and assimilation mechanisms between cross-organizational team members.	Knowledge absorption mechanisms
‘…usually via email and then in a virtual meeting… So that’s the process…to discuss within our team’ (Case 1) ‘The information is out there (working documents), in that tools. Later when there is an opportunity to discuss and chat, it will be explained, okay, this is explained in outline’. (Case 1) ‘We’re trying it on a lab scale. While they (partners) also continue to experiment…, it turns out that the results are almost the same as what we tried’. (Case 2) ‘(during product development) … I gather production people, people who take care of materials, finance, logistics, purchasing, …for what? …for example, to discuss …what kind of wood do you need? Do this possible using small wood? …or with what other materials might be used. This is done to have the same understanding’. (Case 3)	Knowledge transformation and exploitation mechanisms between internal team members.
‘If…they asked for a meeting. I’m going to a meeting… The product manager followed suit from the start. So we understand…. don’t let there be any misunderstanding between our team here and our team in the US’. (Case 1) ‘(after meeting with external parties) …then he (a member of a cross-organizational team) and I coordinated. Then we made… a meeting with the internal team. We will ask what the development is like, and discuss the solution and the basis used’. (Case 2) ‘…I’ve filtered (information from partner)… if it (information) goes directly to me it’s easier. So I already understanding, what kind of raw material is this? Immediately I can answer that. If this (information from partner) goes directly into our production, they (the production department) will think about it later… Oh, this is 10 cm, so it has to be made of new wood, cut new wood…, when that happens, the price can go up, and the end of the process… takes longer’. (Case 3)	Intermediary role in knowledge absorption mechanisms

Resources: Processed research data.

Figure 1. Knowledge flows in collaborative innovation.

Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171108

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yun, J., Jeon, J., Park, K., & Zhao, X. (2018). Benefits and costs of closed innovation strategy: Analysis of Samsung’s galaxy note 7 explosion and withdrawal scandal. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4(3), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc4030020

 Google Scholar

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.

 Google Scholar

Lopes, A. P. V. B. V., & de Carvalho, M. M. (2018). Evolution of the open innovation paradigm: Towards a contingent conceptual model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.014

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shi, X., Lu, L., Zhang, W., & Zhang, Q. (2021). Managing open innovation from a knowledge flow perspective: The roles of embeddedness and network inertia in collaboration networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3), 1011–1034. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2019-0200

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Barney, J., & Felin, T. (2013). What are microfoundations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0107

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303257985

 Google Scholar

Vanhaverbeke, W., Van de Vrande, V., & Cloodt, M. (February 7, 2008). Connecting absorptive capacity and open innovation. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1091265 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1091265

 Google Scholar

Zhuge, H. (2002). A knowledge flow model for peer-to-peer team knowledge sharing and management. Expert Systems with Applications, 23(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(02)00024-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Abell, P., Felin, T., & Foss, N. (2008). Building micro-foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(6), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1413

 Google Scholar

Ogink, R. H. A. J., Goossen, M. C., Romme, A. G. L., & Akkermans, H. (2023). Mechanisms in open innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature. Technovation, 119, 102621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102621

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23(5), 687–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840602235001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kang, S.-C., Morris, S. S., & Snell, S. A. (2007). Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation: Extending the human resource architecture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 236–256. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.23464060

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mabey, C., Wong, A. L. Y., & Hsieh, L. (2015). Knowledge exchange in networked organizations: Does place matter? R&D Management, 45(5), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12099

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wei, J., Zheng, W., & Zhang, M. (2011). Social capital and knowledge transfer: A multi-level analysis. Human Relations, 64(11), 1401–1423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711417025

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2018). Building knowledge stock and facilitating knowledge flow through human resource management practices toward firm innovation. Human Resource Management, 57(6), 1429–1442. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21915

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data are available from the corresponding author.