The Open Organization

doi:10.1017/9781108762441.003

2 - The Open Organization

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2023

Christopher Lettl ,

Thomas Ritter and

Carsten Lund Pedersen

Edited by

Charles C. Snow and

Øystein D. Fjeldstad

Show author details

Charles C. Snow: Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Øystein D. Fjeldstad: Affiliation:
BI Norwegian Business School

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The ability to organize is our most valuable social technology. Organizing affects an enterprise’s efficiency, effectiveness, and ability to adapt. Modern organizations operate in increasingly complex, dynamic environments, which puts a premium on adaptation. Compared to traditional organizations, modern organizations are flatter and more open to their environment. Their processes are more generative and interactive – actors themselves generate and coordinate solutions rather than follow hierarchically devised plans and directives. Modern organizations search outside their boundaries for resources wherever they may exist. They coproduce products and services with suppliers, customers, and partners. They collaborate, both internally and externally, to learn and become more capable. In this book, leading voices in the field of organization design articulate and exemplify how a combination of agile processes, artificial intelligence, and digital platforms powers adaptive, sustainable, and healthy organizations.

Keywords

open organizations open innovation interorganizational collaboration digital nomads organization design

Type: Chapter
Information: Designing Adaptive Organizations , pp. 23 - 35

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108762441.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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.Google Scholar

Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99–120.Google Scholar

Caves, R. E., & Porter, M. E. 1977. From entry barriers to mobility barriers: Conjectural decisions and contrived deterrence to new competition. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 91(2): 241–261.CrossRef Google Scholar

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

Chesbrough, H. W. 2006. Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Chesbrough, H. & Bogers, M. 2014. Explicating open innovation: clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., and West, J. (eds.), New Frontiers in Open Innovation: 3–28. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chesbrough, H., Lettl, C., & Ritter, T. 2018. Value creation and value capture in open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 35(6): 930–938.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. 2010. Unravelling the process from closed to open innovation: evidence from mature, asset-intensive industries. R&D Management 40(3): 222–245.Google Scholar

Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2005. What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J. A. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice, vol. 1: 3–58. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Dyer, J. H. & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(4): 660–679.Google Scholar

Eccles, R. G. 1981. The quasifirm in the construction industry. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2(4): 335–357.Google Scholar

Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review 35(2): 202–225.Google Scholar

Fjeldstad, Ø. D., Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E., & Lettl, C. 2012. The architecture of collaboration. Strategic Management Journal 33(6): 734–750.Google Scholar

Franke, N., Keinz, P., & Klausberger, K. 2013. “Does this sound like a fair deal?”: antecedents and consequences of fairness expectations in the individual’s decision to participate in firm innovation. Organization Science 24(5): 1495–1516.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fuchs, V. 1968. The Service Economy. National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Gassmann, O. & Enkel, E. 2004. Towards a theory of open innovation: three core process archetypes. Proceedings of The R&D Management Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, July 6–9.Google Scholar

Greer, C. R., Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. 2016. A service perspective: key managerial insights from service-dominant (S-D) logic. Organizational Dynamics 45: 28–38.Google Scholar

Heinerth, C., Lettl, C., & Keinz, P. 2013. Synergies among producer firms, lead users, and user communities: the case of the LEGO producer-user ecosystem. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31(4): 848–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12127 Google Scholar

Henkel, J. 2006. Selective revealing in open innovation processes: the case of embedded Linux. Research Policy 35(7): 953–969.Google Scholar

Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., & Borgatti, S. P. 1997. A general theory of network governance: exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review 22(4): 911–945.Google Scholar

Keinz, P., Heinerth, C., & Lettl, C. 2012. Designing the organization for user innovation. Journal of Organization Design 1(3): 20–36.Google Scholar

Laursen, K. & Salter, A. J. 2014. The paradox of openness: appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy 43(5): 867–878.CrossRef Google Scholar

Luhmann, N. 1995. Social Systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar

Lusch, R. F. & Vargo, S. L. 2014. Service-Dominant Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar

Macaulay, S. 1963. Non-contractual relations in business: a preliminary study. American Sociological Review 28: 1–19.Google Scholar

Macneil, I. R. 1978. Contracts: adjustment of long-term economic relations under classical, neoclassical, and relational contract law. Northwestern University Law Review 72: 854–905.Google Scholar

Makimoto, T. & Manners, D. 1997. Digital Nomad. Wiley, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Mathews, J. 2014. Entrepreneurial strategies in Asian latecomer firms. In Yu, F.-L. Tony and Yan, H.-D. (eds.), Handbook of East Asian Entrepreneurship: 30–44. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.Google Scholar

Miles, R. E. & Snow, C. C. 1994. Fit, Failure, and the Hall of Fame: How Companies Succeed or Fail. Free Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Nambisan, S. & Baron, R. A. 2010. Different roles, different strokes: organizing virtual customer environments to promote two types of customer contributions. Organization Science 21(2): 554–572.Google Scholar

Normann, R. & Ramirez, R. 1993. From value chain to value constellation: designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review 71(4): 65–77.Google Scholar

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar

Pavitt, K. 1984. Sectoral patterns of sectoral change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy 13: 343–373.Google Scholar

Piezunka, H. & Dahlander, L. 2019. Idea rejected, tie formed: organizations’ feedback on crowdsourced ideas. Academy of Management Journal 62(2): 503–530.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ramirez, R. 1999. Value co-production: intellectual origins and implications for practice and research. Strategic Management Journal 20(1): 49–65.Google Scholar

Richter, S. & Richter, A. 2020. Digital nomads. Business & Information Systems Engineering 62(1): 77–81.Google Scholar

Ritter, T. 1999. The networking company: antecedents for coping with relationships and networks effectively. Industrial Marketing Management 28(5): 467–479.Google Scholar

Ritter, T. & Gemünden, H. G. 2003. Network competence: its impact on innovation success and its antecedents. Journal of Business Research 56(9): 745–755.Google Scholar

Ritter, T., Wilkinson, I. F., & Johnston, W. J. 2004. Managing in complex business networks. Industrial Marketing Management 33(3): 175–183.Google Scholar

Santos, F. M. & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2005. Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science 16: 491–508.Google Scholar

Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. 1995. Basic Organizational Behavior. Wiley, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Schreyögg, G. & Sydow, J. 2010. Crossroads – organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science 21(6): 1251–1262.Google Scholar

Teece, D. J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal 28(13): 1319–1350.Google Scholar

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7): 509–533.Google Scholar

The Economist. 2017. Google leads in the race to lead artificial intelligence. San Francisco, December 7.Google Scholar

Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. 1997. Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar

Uhl-Bien, M. 2006. Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly 17(6): 654–676.Google Scholar

Vanhaverbeke, W. 2006. The interorganizational context of open innovation. In Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., and West, J. (eds.), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm: 205–219. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar

von Hippel, E. 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation: Users Take Center Stage. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

von Hippel, E. 2016. Free Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Wadhwa, A., Bodas Freitas, I. M., & Sarkar, M. B. 2017. The paradox of openness and value capture protection strategies: effect of extramural R&D on innovative performance. Organization Science 28(5): 873–893.Google Scholar

Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. 2006. The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing 21(4): 541–567.Google Scholar

Williamson, O. E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Free Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

World Economic Forum. 2020. www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/global-science-collaboration-open-source-covid-19 Google Scholar

Zobel, A.-K. & Hagedoorn, J. 2020. Implications of open innovation for organizational boundaries and the governance of contractual relations. Academy of Management Perspectives 34(3): 400–423.Google Scholar

Book contents

2 - The Open Organization

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive