Introduction
Since innovation positively affects companies’ performance and contributes to achieving better outcomes, organizations are expected to provide themselves with a constant influx of creative ideas. In this case, open innovation (OI) is a suitable strategy that can help achieve the expected outcomes. OI generally means that organizations can “look outside their own doors for innovative ideas” (Goffin & Mitchell, 2017, p. 60). However, there is a more comprehensive definition that describes the concept as a “process based on purposively managed knowledge flows across organizational boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with the organization’s business model” (Bogers et al., 2019, p. 78). The two definitions indicate that OI is a strategy that makes organizations analyze innovative ideas that are implemented by other companies and use those that seem appropriate for them. OI implies a few principles, including simplicity, value creation, and collaboration, and issues that are the absence of guaranteed advantages and legal provisions. Higher education institutions (HEIs) actively practice OI because this activity is beneficial for them, which contributes to the development of these organizations irrespective of existing challenges.
Open Innovation in Higher Education Institutions
To begin with, one should present the key principles of OI in general. According to Chesbrough et al. (2018), OI is requested today because this approach helps organizations save time, resources, and effort. Instead of creating innovations or attracting individuals with creative ideas, a company can analyze its competitors to find whether it can adopt any innovative solutions. This strategy is less challenging and more straightforward, which denotes that an organization can easily cope with it.
In addition to simplicity, value creation is another characteristic feature of OI. Various organizations do their best to make a difference in society and provide stakeholders with significant improvement. In many cases, innovation helps succeed in this activity because creative ideas typically contribute to achieving improved outcomes. That is why Chesbrough et al. (2018) explicitly indicate that value creation is an effective motivational factor for organizations to engage in OI activities. The rationale behind this fact is that companies typically look for practical and easy ways to achieve the desired results.
Furthermore, one should explain that collaboration is an important principle that is incorporated into OI. This activity implies that organizations should stay in contact with various establishments to have an opportunity to analyze their innovative practices. However, this cooperation does not imply that organizations create any networks. Chesbrough et al. (2018) clarify that OI implies the collaboration of independent actors, which results in advantages for all stakeholders.
One should additionally explain that a specific phenomenon contributes to the spread of OI. Since the modern world is globalized, it is not surprising that knowledge is dispersed in many places internationally (Bogers et al., 2019). This statement denotes that organizations from different countries can succeed in innovation, and an example of China is suitable because this country generated the largest number of patents in the world in 2012 (Bogers et al., 2019). Thus, organizations from many continents can rely on the Chinese experience to find creative ideas and implement them.
In addition to that, OI activities are connected with a few issues. On the one hand, organizations should understand that it is not an effective strategy to copy another company’s solutions in their entirety. If an intervention is effective in some conditions, it is not guaranteed that this solution will generate the same outcomes under different circumstances. This statement denotes that prior to reduplicating others’ experience, organizations should carefully analyze the innovative solution and their own conditions.
On the other hand, OI activities should be implemented with respect to legal provisions. One should understand that this process should not result in a violation of intellectual property rights (Bogers et al., 2019). If an organization uses a particular methodology or product without the required permission, this approach can be considered a breach of law. Consequently, organizations should be aware of this potential problem and make an effort to minimize negative impacts.
OI is a requested practice, and HEIs frequently rely on it. According to Perkmann and Walsh (2007), when these organizations cooperate with external entities, they create research partnerships and research services. These partnerships represent a type of collaboration when organizations agree to cooperate to achieve a particular objective (Perkmann & Walsh, 2007). In other words, HEIs collaborate with other entities, and creating an innovative solution is an objective of their interaction. As for research services, they refer to paid-for services that HEIs are expected to complete because they receive orders from external clients (Perkmann & Walsh, 2007). This information demonstrates that external stakeholders can serve as drivers of OI for educational institutions.
However, not all researchers agree that OI lead to positive outcomes for HEIs. Howells et al. (2012) indicate that various organizations consider universities poor sources for innovation information. Evidence from the same scholarly article indicates that HEIs are seen as low-priority partners to form collaborations for developing or borrowing creative ideas (Howells et al., 2012). The researchers do not explain why various organizations have this image of HEIs. However, once a firm decides to cooperate with a university in terms of innovation, significant and positive effects are found for all the involved entities (Howells et al., 2012).
Since the information above presents contradictory evidence regarding how OI impacts HEIs, it is reasonable to identify and analyze relevant and timely case studies to analyze the issue. Firstly, VitrA is a subsidiary of a company group specializing in building, healthcare, and consumer goods (Demirel et al., 2020). This business draws much attention to innovation and actively cooperates with universities to solve existing issues. It is possible that the cooperation between the business and universities is beneficial for the latter. The rationale behind this statement is that HEIs cooperate with an external entity to become familiar with current challenges and barriers. That is why I believe that HEIs actively practice OI because they understand the importance of preparing for real-life challenges.
Secondly, the London School of Economics and Political Science actively relies on open innovation. A case study by Dignan et al. (2021) indicates that the selected organization benefits from using Salesforce. This platform provides the educational establishment with an opportunity to collect and analyze real-time student data, engage in user-friendly and personalized communications, and respond to COVID-19 challenges (Dignan et al., 2021). These and many other enhanced opportunities and services ensure that the London School of Economics and Political Science can cope with current challenges and provide stakeholders with decent services. The organization’s benefits are important, and a significant aspect is that they come from an external source. In other words, the given case evidently demonstrates that an educational establishment can benefit from open innovation.
Thirdly, Coventry University is another organization that witnesses positive aspects of open innovation. A case study by Dignan et al. (2021) shows that this establishment has more than 50,000 students, and it is necessary to manage their data and communicate with them. That is why the university conducted a search for an appropriate customer relationship management (CRM) application. Salesforce was selected and implemented because it easily provided organizations with innovative solutions to existing issues (Dignan et al., 2021). Instead of investing in the development of a new and unique CRM system, Coventry University decided to rely on an out-of-the-box intervention. Since many educational establishments rely on Salesforce to solve their issues, the selected organization dealt with many arguments in favor of using open innovation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I believe that a few aspects result in the fact that HEIs actively rely on open innovation. Firstly, this approach does not require many financial and physical resources to start implementing an innovative solution. Consequently, universities use open innovation to save time and money. Secondly, open innovation is effective because HEIs are free to find the required solution that will satisfy their requirements. This statement denotes that educational establishments emphasize the opportunity of finding specific and tailored interventions. Finally, open innovation results in cooperation between HEIs and other organizations from different spheres. Educational establishments obtain an opportunity of forming business relationships that promote their growth. That is why I am sure that many aspects make HEIs practice open innovation.
References
Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., Heaton, S., & Teece, D. J. (2019). Strategic management of open innovation: A dynamic capabilities perspective. California Management Review, 62(1), 77-94. Web.
Chesbrough, H., Lettl, C., & Ritter, T. (2018). Value creation and value capture in open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 930-938. Web.
Demirel, O., Sahin, C., & Yildirim, N. (2020). A case study on the open innovation strategy and implementation: VitrA innovates in and out. Information Systems Management and Innovation, 4(2), 1-22.
Dignan, J., Leger, M., & Likhari, R. (2021). Driving innovation in UK. Universities through digital transformation [PDF document]. Web.
Goffin, K., & Mitchell, R. (2017). Innovation management: Effective strategy and implementation (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Howells, J., Ramlogan, R., & Cheng, S. L. (2012). Universities in an open innovation system: A UK perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 18(4), 440-456. Web.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280. Web.