The Management of Open Value Creation Daniel Schlagwein Department of Information Systems and Information Management University of Cologne
[email protected]
Detlef Schoder Department of Information Systems and Information Management University of Cologne
[email protected]
Abstract
firm Merck was concerned of being excluded from key patents. Merck created the MGI (Merck Gene Index) in order not to become dependent on thirdparty patents. Merck devoted all its existing research results to it and made the available for externals. Independent organizations worked together over IS networks to sequence the DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) code. The MGI efforts were meet with success. The sequenced DNA code could be used by Merck and others – there were no exclusive patents imposed on the sequenced code. The joint efforts of Merck’s researcher and externals proved to be faster than competing proprietary efforts to sequence the DNA.
In our study we strive to develop a framework for the management of open value creation adoption. We conducted eighteen in-depth interviews with IS (information systems) executives and consultants responsible for open value creation projects. We combine the results of our software-supported qualitative analysis with insights from a broad range of existing related literature to develop a concise framework. The framework encompasses six major categories of managerial competences that are necessary for successful open value creation by an organization. The framework contributes to IS research and IS practice by providing both the base for further research and a useful guide for practitioners.
1. Open Value Creation An organization can benefit from opening proprietary knowledge, information resources, and information systems to external partners or even the general public. For example [54], several privately funded efforts aimed at sequencing the human DNA in the 1990s. Their aim was to benefit from taking out patents from the research. The pharmaceutical
Wide-spread broadband Internet access and a changed usage pattern – i.e. a use of the Internet as a platform for participation [51, 52] – make full “openness” (free public access) of explicit knowledge an option. The transaction costs of knowledge and information exchange have sunk dramatically [4, 5]. While Merck was still working with a limited number of contributors, more recent examples from business reality highlight that even end-consumer can significantly contribute value for an organization via IS (if enabled and motivated to do so). This value creation potential has already been leverage by organizations such as Wikipedia [58], Google
Figure 1: Open Value Creation
(Android) [69], or Facebook [91]. There are many examples of the successful adoption of open value creation methods [80]. Collaborative technologies such as “2.0” social media tools (like blogs, wikis, or micro-blogs) [6-9, 15] or toolkits for innovation [21, 53, 82, 86] can enable end-consumers to contribute value for the organization. Knowledge contributions from the open, public sphere can be of tacit or explicit nature. One form of possible open knowledge contribution is tacit knowledge. Such knowledge is by nature connected to persons and cannot be easily transferred to others [49, 55, 85], i.e. ideas, know-how, or “good taste”. The other form of open knowledge contributions is explicit knowledge, i.e. tangible, codified information. This kind of knowledge can be described as “information resources” [40]. Value creation can be understood as the valuable combination of resources [1]. In the case of information resources, the more combinations of tacit knowledge (e.g. innovative idea) with explicit information resources (e.g. open application programming interface) are available, the more valuable combinations will be found[69]. Yet, the more “open” knowledge is, the more difficult it will be to benefit from it as it creates a regime of weak appropriability [81]. In other words, there seems to be an optimal level of openness [87], trade-off between value creation and value capture [92]. See Figure 1 for an overview of this notion of open value creation. An increasing number of organizations use or open value creation processes for different parts of the value chain [56]. Openness in R&D (research and development) has labeled open innovation [12, 14]. However, openness can also be used to “crowdsource” production and manufacturing tasks [32, 33] or to improving customer relations, marketing, and sales [63]. Therefore, we use the broader term open value creation here in order to capture all of these contributions along the value chain (for a discussion of the term value chain see [75]). We believe that open value creation has significant impact. Especially in the ICT (information and communication technologies) industry any organization should at least evaluate its potential. Surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge, no IS study has so far attempted to extract the necessary management competences relevant for the adaption of open value creation. Many CIOs (Chief
Information Officers) are looking for external advice on how to build the “Enterprise 2.0” [46]. This demand has recently led to the creation of “2.0 business consultancy” in North America and Europe. It is a duty of our discipline to provide guidelines for all major issues faced by IS practitioners. The research question of our study is therefore: What management competencies are needed to adopt open value creation in an organization? We choose a qualitative research method for this study due to its exploratory character and the social and tacit components involved in open value creation. We conducted in-depth expert interviews with executives that successfully implemented open value creation in organizations. While qualitative research “fit” cannot be measured in a formal way, we applied a rigorous software-supported scheme for collecting and analyzing the data (see Research Method section for details). By doing so, we try to provide “qualitative qualitative research” [60] that is both insightful and valid. Another major part of this study was the analysis of findings existing literature. We aim to provide the first approach to a management framework for open value creation by combining insights of existing literature and “best practices” from successful practitioners. In the interviews the lack of management advice was brought up often. We therefore believe that this study makes a useful contribution. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: In the following section we present our research scheme. In the main section, we combine the findings of the interviews with existing literature on related issues to a management framework for open value creation. We briefly discuss practical implications and future research options in the concluding section.
2. Research Method This study is part our ongoing research into open innovation and open value creation. We apply an inductive qualitative research approach for this study. The reason to choose a qualitative method lies in the explorative nature of the subject. We could not find an existing framework of competencies involved in enabling open value creation to build on. Thus, we aim at develop a framework of such competencies by combining results from our qualitative field research with existing literature on certain aspects of the required competencies.
2.1 Qualitative research
2.2 Data collection
Qualitative methodology – e.g. grounded theory [27, 76, 77] or case studies [18, 89] – implies a hermeneutic and interpretative approach for social sciences research (Habermas). In contrast, quantitative methodology implies a positivistic logic (Popper). Gregor provides an interesting epistemological and ontological discussion of different approaches to research and theory within the IS field [30]. Qualitative research addresses often successfully “how” (construction) questions, while positivistic quantitative methods are in contrast more appropriate for “how many” (confirmation) questions. In fact, surveys found that qualitative research is overrepresented in the group of the most interesting management-related articles [3]. A reason for relatively heavy citation of qualitative studies might lay in their often explorative nature and the insightfulness [89] they can provide in new areas of research interest.
This section outlines what kind of data collection was used in the study ȏͲȐ. The method of data collection that we apply in this study is expert interviews [37, 74]. We conducted eighteen in-depth interviews with senior IS executives and IS consultants in order to develop our framework. The interviews were between 36 and 117 minutes long.
We follow the Academy of Management’s editors’ advice on how to conduct and write up qualitative research results [60, 78]. Some of the recommendations include: Qualitative data should not be present in a “semi-quantitative” way in order to please quantitative reviewers [28]. The research strategy should be defined, that is inductive and deductive approaches should not be mixed inappropriately ȏͲȐ. Qualitative (in fact any) research study should point out why it is relevant and how it fills a gap in existing studies ȏͲȐ. The paper should state whether it develops a completely new theory ȏͺȐ or it builds on existing theory in order to fill oversights ȏ͵ͺȐ. Additionally, a qualitative paper should have a coherent story to not only describe themes, but how those themes fit together ȏͶȐ. We followed these recommendations for he paper and used established patterns of presenting qualitative research [34] in order to make the paper an accessible and useful read.
Qualitative research should explain the reasoning behind the sampling strategy ȏͲȐ. We used targeted theoretical sampling for our study. The selection criterion for the interviewees was that the person was involved in the leading management role in establishing open value creation in an organization. Therefore, the interviews were senior IS executives, usually CIOs, or consultants specialized in IS. Firms involved in our study included major ICT companies that increasingly embrace these forms of value creation and open collaboration. Generally, we assured the interviewees that their identity and their firms name will not be revealed in order to allow for unbiased answers. The interviews were conducted in a semistructure way, using a written document as an interview guideline. Interest areas in the interview guideline concerned personal general information; organization general information; open and collaborative technology use within the organization, with partners, and with end-consumers; completed, ongoing, as well as planned open value creation and enterprise 2.0 efforts; tasks performed and parties involved in such efforts; as well as drivers, supporters, risks, and barriers to open value creation adoption. We conducted three waves of interviews (see Figure 2). The first and the second wave concerned the overall process of open value creation adoption. The third wave mainly focused on specific sub-
Figure 2: Research Process
topics, e.g. legal issues. Accordingly, the guideline for the interviews was adapted twice. In doing so, we followed a “grounded” approach [76, 77] and accounted for the development state of the framework. These modifications reduce the comparability between the interviews. The time span between the waves of interviews might also impact on the results (as e.g. social media is still rapidly spreading). However, we found it useful to start with open interviews and to end the study with focused interviews in order to develop the framework. We asked the expert in the beginning if she/he preferred to be recorded or whether we should stick to taking interview notes by hand. For the audio recording, we used a hardware audio recorder for live interviews and audio recording software for telephone interviews.
For our study, we used three steps of data analysis to develop the elements of our framework. First, we coded all interviews in MAXQDA. The codes described the content the interviewee spoke about (e.g. “prices for participation”). Second, we grouped related codes. The groups of codes each represent an issue related to open value creation adoption (e.g. “extrinsic motivation of participants”). Third, we combined these groups to competences required to adopt open value creation (e.g. we merged the issues of “extrinsic motivation” with “intrinsic motivation”, “relation building”, “community building”, and “community maintenance” to the competence field 2, “community and partner management”). Eventually, we identified six areas of managerial competences (see Findings section and Figure 3).
These recordings were transcribed with the help of the R4 software tool. Some of the interviews and transcription work was done by two junior researchers. Both, interview transcripts and interview notes were than processes with MAXQDA [45], a tool for structured analysis of qualitative data.
In addition to our initial literature review we consulted literature on relevant issues that we did not identify in the first screening (e.g. literature on Social Media Marketing is rather found in marketing journals than IS journals and was not included in our initial literature review). Finally, we combined the findings from the interviews and the findings from the literature. Hence, our literature review is presented as part of the Findings section (and not in the Introduction section).
Qualitative papers are expected to include not only the interpretation of the data (findings) but also the way in which the authors derived these interpretations from the actual qualitative data [43].
Note, that by nature the quality of findings from qualitative data cannot be measured quantitatively – as the data usually has not a statistically significant sample size [59] – but requires interpretation by the
2.3 Data analysis
Table 1: Overview of Conducted Expert Interviews Function Industry Month Exp1 IT senior executive Energy Dec 2008 Exp2 Consultant Consultancy Dec 2008 Exp3 IT senior executive Media Dec 2008 Exp4 Consultant Consultancy Dec 2008 Exp5 IT senior executive Media Dec 2008 Exp6 IT senior executive Telecom Aug 2009 Exp7 IT senior executive Technology Aug 2009 Exp8 IT senior executive Engineering Aug 2009 Exp9 IT senior executive Telecom Aug 2009 Exp10 Consultant Consultancy Aug 2009 Exp11 IT senior executive Media Aug 2009 Exp12 IT senior executive Technology Aug 2009 Exp13 CEO Media Aug 2009 Exp14 Lawyer Law firm Nov 2009 Exp15 IT senior executive Media Nov 2009 Exp16 Consultant Consultancy Nov 2009 Exp17 CEO Trade Nov 2009 Exp18 IT senior executive Technology Dec 2009 *combined from two interview sessions
Length 0:54h 1:30h 1:03h 0:52h 1:57h* 1:00h 0:49h 0:57h 1:03h 1:54h* 0:42h 1:21h 1:43h* 1:09h 1:17h 1:08h 0:36h 1:02h
researchers. We believe to provide a valid interpretation of the issues reported by the experts. See Table 1 for an overview of the conducted interviews and Figure 2 for an overview of the research process.
While the space for HICSS papers is limited, we would like to share at least the major insights with the IS community. We first give the expert statements and then the insight from related literature for each of the following six fields of managerial competencies.
3. Findings
3.1 Management of organizational change
The successful adoption of open value processes in an organization requires a set of corresponding management competence areas. CIOs or other executives striving for implementing open value creation in their respective organizations need to appropriately account for all of these areas. With the help of the outlined research design we identify six major areas of tasks that require specific managerial competences. Figure 3 provides an overview of the fields of managerial competences in order to let readers follow the argument visually ȏͳȐ (we left the textual descriptions from Figure 1 out of the this figure for clarity).
As a matter of fact, our interviewees reported the major problems in establishing open value creation stemming from within their own organization. Many of our interviewees reported that C-level executives are not using collaborative tools and social media themselves and are difficult to be convinced of their benefits. Furthermore, senior executive are rarely giving example by using collaborative tools in the organization – yet, this seems crucial for a there overall acceptance (Exp17). Some executives concerned of security issues, especially regarding business secrets (Exp14). Still, even if CIOs and other C-level executives are convinced of the benefits, significant organizational changes may be difficult to put into practice for “political” reason within the organization (Exp2, Exp12).
This section gives an overview of the six fields of managerial competencies. Statements of the experts are given in order to support the derived framework ȏͷͻǡ ͲȐ. We combine the empirical found “best practices” with insights from existing literature. For all of the indentified six areas, we can find a range of useful literature. However, what was missing is the “big picture” on combining those in order to help IS practitioners to successfully implement open value creation.
However, a young work force growing up that is very much used to an open and collaborative use of information systems [79]. Therefore, younger workers are pushing for the use and adoption of these technologies (Exp10, Exp11, and Exp12). The organizations are rather slow in delivering such systems. Some experts report that establishing clear
Figure 3: Management of Open Value Creation
policies with regard to social media helped reducing employees’ unease in using such tools (e.g. Exp10, Exp14, and Exp16). Corporate culture [66] is the broad agreement on values and believes within an organization. This culture is historically developed and cannot be changed easily. Reluctancy to accept any outside contribution may constitute to a significant obstacle to open value creation and needs to be overcome [41]. The firm’s employees need to be prepared and motivated to accept new forms of value creation. Confronting organization members with a significant shift in corporate culture might result in a “culture shock” and reluctance to accept and support the changes (similar to mergers and acquisitions [10]). Chesbrough suggests paying the same rewards for internally developed and externally found solutions to a problem to address acceptance difficulties [12]. Managers have to create the preconditions for the use of open value creation methods within their organization. This includes the change to parts of the organizational structure and the training of employees [48].
3.2. Community and partner management Taking advantage of open value creation usually requires access to a group of possible contributors. Without the right community of contributors open value creation will not succeed. The group may consist of a limited set of partners and/or an unlimited number of “open” contributors, i.e. often end-consumers. Some experts claim that senior executives doubt the business value of virtual communities (Exp12, Exp15). This may comes as a surprise to many IS researchers as the notion of value of virtual communities is often supported in IS literature [16, 31]. The market seems to share this view: News Corps acquisition of MySpace for $580 million in 2005 was a bargain, compared to the $240 million Microsoft paid for 1.6% of Facebook shares in 2007. Microsoft’s competitor Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion one year earlier. Our experts reported that communities are often helpful in self-identifying innovative solutions (Exp10, Exp17). The experts claimed that the motivation of participants is difficult to predict and manage. Organizations received much more (or much less) participants than expected (Exp15, Exp16). In some cases, the community seemed to be motivated in actually harming the community initiator (Exp12). Exp12 provided the example of digg.com, where the community got upset about the decision of the
digg.com management to remove a certain message and to block the posting user. Thousands of other users kept reposting this message. Finally, digg.com’s management gave in. We can conclude here that communities can provide significant benefits, but they have to be treated a group of independent individuals, outside of any contract with the organization and not obliged to follow rules and orders. There are many different studies on communities engineering and community management [39, 50, 71]. Community management is concerned with the efficient building and maintaining of communities. Community management requires type identification in order to differentiate people with different motivations, interests, and abilities. Different user types have to be managed differently. Lead users [70, 84] may be the most helpful in innovative tasks, whereas others can still create value by performing less-creative work. A major part of community engineering is to find the right people for the community. In literature we find classifications of user types [62] as well as processes for the identification of lead users [42, 44]. Another central element of community engineering is the motivation of the (potential) participants. For the incentive design we have distinguish between extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation, and social motivation. The motivation types require different types of incentives. Extrinsic motivation is most easy to support through monetary rewards, like payment, rebates, or bonuses [83]. Incentives for extrinsic motivation can be sufficient for open production methods like crowdsourcing. Intrinsic motivation for involvement in open value creation often derives from the expectation that the outcome (like an innovative product) will be useful for the contributor [22]. Another intrinsic motivation arises, if the person simply is satisfied by acting in that specific way. Intrinsically motivated participants will try to contribute the best solution, not just any to fulfill the requirements for receiving rewards. The design of incentives for intrinsic motivation is difficult for manager, since the influencing process is rather indirect. Still, designing the community in a way that everybody experiences challenging, but solvable tasks may booster intrinsic motivation. Social motivation describes the influence of groups on the activities of an individual. Establishing relationships with other people within innovative communities have a positive influence on the output [57]. While not all aspects of social motivation can be covered through general measurements, applying
simple mechanisms, like embedding ratings systems, helps to stimulate social motivation. While this three motivation types are not mutually exclusive, applying inappropriate incentives may cause contra-productive effects: e.g. monetary incentives may under certain conditions undermine intrinsic motivation [24].
stages of the Internet [31]. In many industries the dominant large firms missed the chance of building those communities, leaving the market to firms like Facebook, LastFM, or other technology start-ups.
Communities are (social) networks. For networks, especially in the information economy, some specific rules apply [73]. The most prominent of those are the implications of the so called network effects [19, 35, 73], i.e. large networks attract new users much stronger than competing smaller networks. Network effects can enable a selfenergizing circle of grow, called positive feedback [2]. To have this mechanism going in the right direction networks need to reach a critical mass [67] of user as early as possible. Executives of large firms have a much better position to start building communities, since they have a valuable installed base [19] of costumers, in addition to having the monetary resources for the “battle for attention” to promote their respective networks.
IT departments like to adopt applications with clear training programs (Exp12). Arguably, intuitive usability trumps training manuals in the age of social media and web 2.0 (Exp10). However, many experts mentioned a lack of available trainings for social software (while there is a rich body of books and trainings for traditional Groupware etc.). Additionally, IT executives often reported infrastructure shortcomings as a reason not to adopting “2.0 technologies” and collaborative social media tools (Exp12, Exp15, and Exp16). Moreover, some had general security concerns. On the driver side the experts appreciated that “open” tools are often available as free software. Another driving factor is a young workforce that enters the organization with collaborative technologies and social media experience (Exp10 and Exp15).
There number of contributors to participate in open processes, collaborative work, or social networks is not unlimited: projects and firms have to compete for them [13]. Research pointed out the value of online communities already in the early
3.3 Management of collaborative technologies
Collaborative technologies focusing on value creation outside of a firm’s hierarchy are the technological base for harvesting external value creation potential. Recent research has been
Table 2: Management Competencies for Enabling Open Value Creation Management Description: Drivers and barriers : Consider literature on: competencies: Management of Change organizational (+): younger workforce e.g. corporate culture, organizational change culture and structures (-): c-level executives change management Community and partner Finding and motivation (+): leas users e.g. incentivation, management partners (-): self-dynamic of motivation, network communities effect theory Collaborative technology Managing the (+): intuitive use, often e.g. “2.0 technologies”, management corresponding free software available social software, toolkits, technologies (-): infrastructure lead-users method lacking, security issues Information resource Identifying and (+): higher value creation e.g. relational view, open management appropriately configuring potential resource-based view, (e.g. opening) (-): irreversibility of technological platforms information resources information disclosure Appropriation Ensuring that the created (+): win-win-situations e.g. appropriability, management value benefits the (-): weaker regime of value webs/value nets, organization appropriability platform management Management of the legal Changing the legal (+): commitment of users e.g. (intellectual) regime regime of the to openness property rights, licensing organization (-): lack of security, regimes, legal forms of fear of disclosure organizations
undertaken to identify significant collaborative technologies. Saveri et al. [64, 65] discuss how technologies can enable cooperative strategies via new social and economic organization forms. They find eight different clusters of collaborative technologies and propose to shift from designing systems to providing basic platforms for the community to design themselves [64]. Usually the web is the platform for open value creation. Internet browsers are increasingly becoming the centre of value creation, through a broader scope of services on offer and advanced technical mechanisms. RIAs (Rich Internet Applications) are web tools that have the functionality of desktop applications, helping people to collaboratively work on the Internet. RIAs usually use modern technology frameworks like Ajax [25], a technological concept allowing faster communication between client and server to enhance user experience. Hence, collaborative technologies management requires a deep understanding of current web technologies. Another form of collaborative technologies is the software behind the mentioned toolkits [86]. Piller and Walcher identify design requirements for toolkits [53]. While usually toolkits are accessible through web technologies they may additionally require deep integration into the internal information systems depending on the actual purpose. Web-based collaborative technologies can be use in Intranets as well [46]. Employees can discuss ideas with other departments within the organization with the help of such tools. This bears additional value creation potential already within the organizational boundaries.
3.4 Information resource management On strategic level, the management of open value creation adoption requires two things: First, a strategic decision to use open value creation practices. Second, an adequate arrangement (opening) of information resources. This is called information resource management here. For open value creation agents from outside of the firm must be enabled to use some of the firm’s information resources (Exp12). This requires the opening of those resources and the creation of a platform (Exp10, Exp12). The other way around, firms have to consider using open platforms and open external information resources (Exp15, Exp18). The general opinion expressed by the expert was that opening up has a higher value creation potential.
However, there are fears regarding the irreversibility of information disclosure. The firm has to decide which information resources to open. E.g. IBM decided to contribute 100 million US$ worth of code to open source software development project (Linux). The aim is to develop complementary products (operating system) to their main line of products (hardware). “Closed” resources are under full control and exclusive access by the firm. However, in order to enable open value creation a firm has to allow for a certain degree of open access to and property rights control of information resources. The more open a resource is, the more will people contribute and the value creation potential (the number of possible combinations of information resources will be maximized). On the other hand, in this case the appropriability regime is the weakest [81]. We elaborate on this concept in detail elsewhere [68].
3.5 Appropriation management For value creation within the closed boundaries of a firm or a network of fixed partners appropriability management means taking advantage of what Teece calls a tight appropriability regime [81]. Appropriability (“appropriation + ability”) is the environmental regime that determines the appropriation of an innovation’s profits by the initiator of the innovation. In a tight appropriability regime, a firm has effective protection and control over the value creation processes. It can use secrecy or legal mechanisms to prevent external usage of internal innovations and information. For traditional value creation exclusive control and ownership of a resources is seen as a necessary condition for appropriating returns from information resources [20, 36]. If a firm cannot prevent information loss and imitations, profits from its innovations may accrue to others [81]. For open value creations, we need to add some considerations. Only small parts of the firm’s need to be revealed for micro-tasks (“crowdsourcing”). However, other forms of open value creation require significant knowledge of the firm to be revealed on the Internet. Firms need other ways of appropriating value in such cases. Our expert often quoted the example of Google here. Google is appropriating value not from the central products, but from advertisement. Google is building up an entire ecosystem of free services, all available to the same user account login. Users are getting virtually locked into cooperation with Google. End-consumers contribute valuable geographic information to Google
Maps as they can build their own tools with it. Google Maps has become a favorite source for MashUps, third-party applications combining information from different sources in the Internet [47]. Google ensures its position cannot be easily imitated: The user-generated services and information tend to be highly relation specific [17]. Relation-specific information is distinguished by its tendency to lose its value, if one partner ends the relation. Google could withdraw any of it services and makes all MashUps worthless. Chesbrough analyses firms that base their business model solely on complementary assets to open source software: deployment (support and consulting), hybridization (mixing open with proprietary software), complements (hardware), and self-services are identified [11, 13]. Open source software is usually produced under the terms of licensing models like the GNU GPL (GNU General Public License), which is not allowing collaboratively developed code to be used in commercial products [23]. While the GNU GPL leaves little space for direct profits, still many companies, such as IBM, contribute heavily to open source software, as they utilizing complementary assets to reap profits. Firms can tailor complementary assets and production capabilities to best match outcomes from open value creation. If the firm is able to create products and services in a distinct [88] or faster [26] way than competitors, profits may arise from their sale. Generally speaking, our experts found it worth participating in open value creation as it can create “win-win-situations” with end-consumers (Exp12). It might be better “to have a smaller slice of the bigger cake” (Exp15).
3.6 Management of the legal regime The legal regime determines the adoption open value creation significantly (Exp12). A detailed discussion of the legal regime and its implications would need more than the space at hand. Additionally, the legal regime is usually countryspecific. While managing the legal regime is a necessary competence for introducing open value creation, the experts agreed that it is useful for IS executives to seek (legal) consulting on this matter. In brief, we would like to indicate that the legal regime has two different sides: First, the legal status of the organization itself often determines the willingness of external to contribute (exogenous side). For example, developers prefer to contribute to open source project of non-commercial
organizations. E.g. Google did not launch Android as one of its products. Google rather form the OHA (Open Handset Alliance) as new, independent organization in order to launch Android with broader external support and acceptance. Second, the organization can impose different legal regime on its open knowledge, for example different usage condition or licensing regimes [29] (endogenous side). In general, our experts reported a lack of security controls and safeguards as major barrier for open value creation adoption (Exp7, Exp15, and Exp16).
4. Conclusion and Outlook The examples mentioned in the introduction section illustrate how open methods provide new ways for creating value. Open value creation is specifically relevant to our industry. However, IS practitioners, namely the CIOs, need better advice what competencies are required for adoption of open value creation in organizations. We conducted 18 expert interviews to develop such a framework. We stuck to established evaluation scheme of qualitative date to ensure validity. We combined the findings from the interviews with findings from relevant literature. A framework that consively brings together different literature can provide guidance and theory for future research [72]. Therefore, we believe that the outlined framework is relevant for both research and practice. For the managerial framework we identified six areas of managerial competencies necessary to adopt open value creation in an organization. First, management of organizational change is necessary to provide the internal preconditions for open value creation. Second, community and partner management is necessary to integrate externals. Third, management of collaborative technologies is concerned with the technological issues. Forth, information resource management is concerned with the degree of openness of information resources. Fifth, appropriation management ensures that the created value is actually benefitting the organization. Finally, the legal regime both inside and outside of the organization has to be considered. There is a broad range of interesting and relevant research questions related to our study. For example, one could examine what kind of social media and collaborative technology use is acceptable to individuals and/or organizations. Social influence theories might provide a theoretical basis. It might be worthwhile analyzing the social media policies in
actual use in major organization, such as IBM. Another research questions we came across in our study is how to measure the success of open value creation. As benefits usually cannot be measured monetarily, we need to develop appropriate measurements for them. Finally, cross-cultural determinants may play an important role due to the transparent, open, and social nature of the open value creation approach.
References [1] Ansoff, H.I., "Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion" (1. ed), McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965. [2] Arthur, W.B., "Increasing Returns and the New World of Business", Harvard Business Review, 74, 4, 1996, pp. 100-109. [3] Bartunek, J., S. Rynes, and R.D. Ireland, "What Makes Management Research Interesting, and Why Does It Matter?", Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1, 2006, pp. 9-15. [4] Benkler, Y., "Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm", Yale Law Journal, 112, 3, 2002, pp. 369-446. [5] Benkler, Y., "The Wealth of Networks" (1. ed), Yale University Press, New Haven, 2006. [6] Bughin, J., "The Power Laws of Enterprise 2.0" in I. Lee "Encyclopedia of E-Business Development and Management in the Global Economy" (1. ed), IGI Global, Hershey (PA), 2010. [7] Bughin, J., M. Chui, and A. Miller, "How Companies Are Benefiting from Web 2.0: Mckinsey Global Survey Results", McKinsey Quarterly, 17, 3, 2009, pp. [8] Bughin, J. and J. Manyika, "How Businesses Are Using Web 2.0: Mckinsey Global Survey Results", McKinsey Quaterly, 15, 1, 2007, pp. [9] Bughin, J., J. Manyika, and A. Mille, "Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise", McKinsey Quaterly, 16, 2, 2008, pp. [10] Cartwright, S. and C. Cooper, "The Role of Culture Compatibility in Successful Organizational Marriage", The Academy of Management Executive, 1993, pp. 57-70. [11] Chesbrough, H., "Open Business Models" ed), Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2007. [12] Chesbrough, H.W., "Open Innovation" (1. ed), Harvard Business School Press, Boston (MA), 2003. [13] Chesbrough, H.W. and M.M. Appleyard, "Open Innovation and Strategy", California Management Review, 50, 1, 2007, pp. 57-76. [14] Chesbrough, H.W., W. Vanhaverbeke, and J. West, "Open Innovation - Researching a New Paradigm" (1. ed), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006. [15] Chui, M., A. Miller, and R.P. Roberts, "Six Ways to Make Web 2.0 Work", McKinsey Quarterly, 17, 1, 2009, pp. [16] Dahlander, L. and M.W. Wallin, "A Man on the inside Unlocking Communities as Complementary Assets", Research Policy, 35, 8, 2006, pp. 1243-1259. [17] Dyer, J.H. and H. Singh, "The Relational View - Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage", Academy of Management Review, 23, 4, 1998, pp. 660-679. [18] Eisenhardt, K.M., "Building Theories from Case Study Research", Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, 1989, pp. 532-550. [19] Farrell, J. and G. Saloner, "Installed Base and Compatibility Innovation, Product Preannouncements and Predation", American Economic Review, 76, 5, 1986, pp. 940-955. [20] Feeny, D.F. and B. Ives, "In Search of Sustainability Reaping Long-Term Advantage from Investments in Information
Technology", Journal of Management Information Systems, 7, 1, 1990, pp. 27-46. [21] Franke, N., P. Keinz, and M. Schreier, "Complementing Mass Customization Toolkits with User Communities - How Peer Input Improves Customer Self-Design", Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 6, 2008, pp. 546-559. [22] Franke, N. and S. Shah, "How Communities Support Innovative Activities - an Exploration of Assistance and Sharing among End-Users", Research Policy, 32, 1, 2003, pp. 157-178. [23] Free Software, F., "Gnu General Public License", 2007, pp. [24] Frey, B.S. and R. Jegen, "Motivation Crowding Theory", Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 5, 2001, pp. 589-611. [25] Garrett, J.J., "Ajax - a New Approach to Web Applications", 2005, pp. [26] Garud, R. and A. Kumaraswamy, "Changing Competitive Dynamics in Network Industries - an Exploration of Sun Microsystems' Open Systems Strategy", Strategic Management Journal, 14, 5, 1993, pp. 351-369. [27] Glaser, B.G. and A.L. Strauss, "The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research" (1. ed), AldineTransaction, Piscataway (NJ), 1967. [28] Golden-Biddle, K. and K. Locke, "Composing Qualitative Research" (2. ed), Sage, Thousand Oaks (CA), 2007. [29] Goldman, R. and R.P. Gabriel, "Innovation Happens Elsewhere" (1. ed), Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam, 2005. [30] Gregor, S., "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems", MIS Quarterly, 30, 3, 2006, pp. 611-642. [31] Hagel, J. and A. Armstrong, "Net Gain - Expanding Markets through Virtual Communities" ed), Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1997. [32] Howe, J., "The Rise of Crowdsourcing", Wired, 14, 6, 2006, pp. 176-183. [33] Howe, J., "Crowdsourcing" (1. ed), Crown, New York, 2008. [34] Ibarra, H., "Provisional Selves: Experimenting with Image and Identity in Professional Adaptation", Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 4, 1999, pp. 764-791. [35] Katz, M.L. and C. Shapiro, "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility", American Economic Review, 75, 3, 1985, pp. 424-440. [36] Kettinger, W.J., Grover, Varun, S. Guha, Segars, and H. Albert, "Strategic Information Systems Revisited - a Study in Sustainability and Performance", MIS Quarterly, 18, 1, 1994, pp. 31-58. [37] Kruse, J., "Einführung in Die Qualitative Interviewforschung (Reader Oktober 2008)" ed), Institut für Soziologie, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, 2008. [38] Lee, T.W., T.R. Mitchell, and C.J. Sablynski, "Qualitative Research in Organizational and Vocational Psychology, 19791999", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 2, 1999, pp. 161-87. [39] Leimeister, J.M., P. Sidiras, and H. Krcmar, "Exploring Success Factors of Virtual Communities - the Perspectives of Members and Operators", Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 16, 3, 2006, pp. 279-300. [40] Levitan, K.B., "Information Resources as 'Goods' in the Life Cycle of Information Production", Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 33, 1, 1982, pp. 44-54. [41] Lichtenthaler, U. and H. Ernst, "Attitudes to Externally Organising Knowledge Management Tasks: A Review, Reconsideration and Extension of the Nih Syndrome", R&D Management, 36, 4, 2006, pp. 367-386. [42] Lilien, G.L., P.D. Morrison, K. Searls, M. Sonnack, and E. Von Hippel, "Performance Assessment of the Lead User IdeaGeneration Process for New Product Development", Management Science, 48, 8, 2003, pp. 1042-1059. [43] Lofland, J. and L.H. Lofland, "Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis" (3. ed), Wadsworth, Boston (MA), 1995.
[44] Lüthje, C. and C. Herstatt, "The Lead User Method - an Outline of Empirical Findings and Issues for Future Research", R&D Management, 34, 5, 2004, pp. 553-568. [45] MAXQDA. "Maxqda - the Art of Text Analysis", http://www.maxqda.com/, 2010. [46] McAfee, A.P., "Enterprise 2.0 - the Dawn of Emergent Collaboration", MIT Sloan Management Review, 47, 3, 2006, pp. 21-28. [47] Merrill, D., "Mashups - the New Breed of Web App", 2006, pp. [48] Noe, R., "Employee Training and Development" ed), McGraw-Hill, 2002. [49] Nonaka, I. and G. von Krogh, "Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory", Organization Science, 20, 3, 2009, pp. 635-652. [50] O'Mahony, S., "The Governance of Open Source Initiatives What Does It Mean to Be Community Managed", Journal of Management and Governance, 11, 2, 2007, pp. 139-150. [51] O'Reilly, T. "What Is Web 2.0", http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html, 2005. [52] O'Reilly, T. "Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again", http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web-20-compact.html, 2006. [53] Piller, F.T. and D. Walcher, "Toolkits for Idea Competitions a Novel Method to Integrate Users in New Product Development", R&D Management, 36, 3, 2006, pp. 307. [54] Pisano, G., "Profiting from Innovation and the Intellectual Property Revolution", Research Policy, 35, 8, 2006, pp. 11221130. [55] Polanyi, M., "The Tacit Dimension" (1. ed), Doubleday, New York (NY), 1966. [56] Porter, M.E., "Competitive Advantage" (1. ed), Free Press, New York, 1985. [57] Prahalad, C.K. and V. Ramaswamy, "Co-Opting Customer Competence", Harvard Business Review, 78, 1, 2000, pp. 79-90. [58] Prasarnphanich, P. and C. Wagner, "The Role of Wiki Technology on Altruism in Collaborative Knowledge Creation", Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49, 4, 2009, pp. 33-41. [59] Pratt, M.G., "Fitting Oval Pegs into Round Holes: Tensions in Evaluating and Publishing Qualitative Research in Top-Tier North American Journals. ", Organizational Research Methods, 11, n/a, 2008, pp. 481-509. [60] Pratt, M.G., "From the Editors: For the Lack of a Boilerplate: Tips on Writing up (and Reviewing) Qualitative Research", Academy of Management Journal, 52, 5, 2009, pp. 856-862. [61] Pratt, M.G. and A. Rafaeli, "Organizational Dress as a Symbol of Multilayered Social Identities", Academy of Management Journal, 40, n/a, 1997, pp. 862-898. [62] Rogers, E.M., "Diffusion of Innovations" ed), Free Press, New York, 2003. [63] Rubel, S. "Social Commerce", http://www.micropersuasion.com/2005/12/2006_trends_to_.html, 2005. [64] Saveri, A., H. Rheingold, and K. Vian, "Technologies of Cooperation", 2005, pp. [65] Saveri, A., H. Rheingold, and K. Vian, "Technologies of Cooperation - a Socio-Technical Framework for Robust 4g", The Technology and Society Magazine, 27, 2, 2008, pp. 11-23. [66] Schein, E., "Organizational Culture and Leadership" ed), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1985. [67] Schelling, T.C., "Micromotives and Macrobehavior" ed), Norton, New York, 1978. [68] Schlagwein, D., D. Schoder, and K. Fischbach, "An Approach to an Open Resource-Based View", Academy of Management (AOM), Montréal (Canada), 2010. [69] Schlagwein, D., D. Schoder, and K. Fischbach, "Openness of Information Resources - a Framework-Based Comparison of
Mobile Platforms", European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) Pretoria (South Africa), 2010. [70] Schreier, M., S. Oberhauser, and R. Prügl, "Lead Users and the Adoption and Diffusion of New Products - Insights from Two Extreme Sports Communities", Marketing Letters, 18, 1, 2007, pp. 15-30. [71] Schrott, G. and D. Beimborn, "Informal Knowledge Networks - toward a Community-Engineering Framework", Proceedings of Year. [72] Schwarz, A., M. Mehta, N. Johnson, and W.W. Chin, "Understanding Frameworks and Reviews: A Commentary to Assist Us in Moving Our Field Forward by Analyzing Our Past", The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 38, 3, 2007, pp. 29-50. [73] Shapiro, C. and H.R. Varian, "Information Rules - a Strategic Guide to the Network Economy" (1. ed), Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1999. [74] Spradley, J., "The Ethnographic Interview" (1. ed), Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York (NY), 1979. [75] Stabell, C.B. and Ø.D. Fjeldstad, "Configuring Value for Competitive Advantage: On Chains, Shops, and Networks", Strategic Management Journal, 19, 5, 1998, pp. 413-437. [76] Strauss, A.L. and J.M. Corbin, "Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques" ed), Sage, Newbury Park (CA), 1990. [77] Strauss, A.L. and J.M. Corbin, "Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory" ed), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (CA), 1998. [78] Suddaby, R., "From the Editors: What Grounded Theory Is Not", Academy of Management Journal, 49, 4, 2006, pp. 633-642. [79] Tapscott, D., "Grown up Digital" (1. ed), McGraw-Hill, New York, 2008. [80] Tapscott, D. and A.D. Williams, "Wikinomics" (1. ed), Penguin, New York, 2006. [81] Teece, D.J., "Profiting from Technological Innovation", Research Policy, 15, 6, 1986, pp. 285-305. [82] Thomke, S. and E. Von Hippel, "Customers as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value", Harvard Business Review, 80, 4, 2002, pp. 74-81. [83] van Herpen, M., M. van Praag, and K. Cools, "The Effects of Performance Measurement and Compensation on Motivation - an Empirical Study", De Economist, 153, 3, 2005, pp. 303-329. [84] Von Hippel, E., "Lead Users - a Source of Novel Product Concepts", Management Science, 32, 7, 1986, pp. 791-805. [85] Von Hippel, E., ""Sticky Information" And the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation", Management Science, 40, 4, 1994, pp. 429-439. [86] Von Hippel, E. and R. Katz, "Shifting Innovation to Users Via Toolkits", Management Science, 48, 7, 2002, pp. 821-833. [87] West, J., "How Open Is Open Enough? Melding Proprietary and Open Source Platform Strategies", Research Policy, 32, 7, 2003, pp. 1259-1285. [88] West, J. and S. Gallagher, "Challenges of Open Innovation: The Paradox of Firm Investment in Open-Source Software", R&D Management, 36, 3, 2006, pp. 319-331. [89] Yin, R.K., "Case Study Research: Design and Methods" (3. ed), Sage, Thousand Oaks (CA), 2003.
