complemented by those of the partners. According to Nooteboom [31], knowledge
transfer between partners is the core of every innovation partnership, and human
resource exchange is recommended as an effective way to ensure effective transfer
of both tacit and explicit knowledge [32]. However, innovation partnerships have
other motives such as allowing partnership members to share innovation costs as
well as risks [33].
Open innovation is consistent with the systems approach to innovation. The latter
emphasises that innovation does not take place in vacuum, but rather it is developed and
implemented in a collaborative process whereby innovating organisations interact, rely
and learn from other entities in their operating environment. The systems approach
became popular in the 1980s through seminal works by researchers such as Freeman
[34], Lundvall [35] and Nelson [36] and as an alternative to the linear model of
innovation. The linear perspective assumes that innovation starts with basic research
which leads to development and then development leads to production and production
to marketing and diffusion [37]. In contrast, the innovation systems perspective pulls
away from the view that innovation is necessarily and primarily related to research
activities and acknowledges the role of other players in the innovation process.
Innovation is seen as part of a larger system of actors and institutions and thus a
complex and interactive process [37, 38]. Viewed as systems, innovation partnerships
can involve loose and or contractual arrangements between companies; they can also
involve weak and strong ties among partnership members [39].
Innovation partnerships are associated with many challenges and risks – not just
benefits. In addition to the challenges associated with the transfer on knowledge itself
(e.g. lack of capabilities to value and tap into the knowledge possessed by other
partners), innovation partnerships raise questions such as how to prevent exchanged
knowledge from being used opportunistically by some partners and how to deal with
issues such as conflicting goals of innovation partners, partnership coordination costs
and the problem of appropriation of innovation outputs [28, 40–42]. As described
below, good governance mechanisms are required to overcome such partnership
challenges and risks.
3.3 Structural and Relational Perspectives on Partnerships
The literature suggests a variety of mechanisms that enable the creation and
execution of stable and effective innovation partnerships. These mechanisms generally draw on two major theoretical perspectives: structural and relational
[43, 44]. The structural perspective, which is based on transaction costs economics
[45], considers innovation partners as rational, calculating and self-interested actors,
which may induce in fact opportunistic behaviour. Thus, this perspective posits that
partnerships should be formalised through the use of official administrative coordination and control mechanisms. Structural governance involves frameworks that
specify the obligations and rights of innovation partners and are codified into
written documents [46, 47]. These frameworks may include court enforceable
174
S. Mvulirwenande and U. Wehn
transfer between partners is the core of every innovation partnership, and human
resource exchange is recommended as an effective way to ensure effective transfer
of both tacit and explicit knowledge [32]. However, innovation partnerships have
other motives such as allowing partnership members to share innovation costs as
well as risks [33].
Open innovation is consistent with the systems approach to innovation. The latter
emphasises that innovation does not take place in vacuum, but rather it is developed and
implemented in a collaborative process whereby innovating organisations interact, rely
and learn from other entities in their operating environment. The systems approach
became popular in the 1980s through seminal works by researchers such as Freeman
[34], Lundvall [35] and Nelson [36] and as an alternative to the linear model of
innovation. The linear perspective assumes that innovation starts with basic research
which leads to development and then development leads to production and production
to marketing and diffusion [37]. In contrast, the innovation systems perspective pulls
away from the view that innovation is necessarily and primarily related to research
activities and acknowledges the role of other players in the innovation process.
Innovation is seen as part of a larger system of actors and institutions and thus a
complex and interactive process [37, 38]. Viewed as systems, innovation partnerships
can involve loose and or contractual arrangements between companies; they can also
involve weak and strong ties among partnership members [39].
Innovation partnerships are associated with many challenges and risks – not just
benefits. In addition to the challenges associated with the transfer on knowledge itself
(e.g. lack of capabilities to value and tap into the knowledge possessed by other
partners), innovation partnerships raise questions such as how to prevent exchanged
knowledge from being used opportunistically by some partners and how to deal with
issues such as conflicting goals of innovation partners, partnership coordination costs
and the problem of appropriation of innovation outputs [28, 40–42]. As described
below, good governance mechanisms are required to overcome such partnership
challenges and risks.
3.3 Structural and Relational Perspectives on Partnerships
The literature suggests a variety of mechanisms that enable the creation and
execution of stable and effective innovation partnerships. These mechanisms generally draw on two major theoretical perspectives: structural and relational
[43, 44]. The structural perspective, which is based on transaction costs economics
[45], considers innovation partners as rational, calculating and self-interested actors,
which may induce in fact opportunistic behaviour. Thus, this perspective posits that
partnerships should be formalised through the use of official administrative coordination and control mechanisms. Structural governance involves frameworks that
specify the obligations and rights of innovation partners and are codified into
written documents [46, 47]. These frameworks may include court enforceable
174
S. Mvulirwenande and U. Wehn