Open Value Creation

Open Value Creation Daniel Schlagwein supervised by Prof. Schoder University of Cologne Dept. of Information Systems Albertus-Magnus-Platz 50937 Cologne (Germany) [email protected]

Abstract

1. OPEN VALUE CREATION

Open Value Creation extends Chesbrough’s R&D concept of Open Innovation to all value creating processes within organizations. It encompasses all forms of organizational value creation that are enabled or enhanced by the inclusion of external knowledge. I am specifically interested in how organizations can benefit from end-consumer knowledge by opening information resources. Accordingly, the framing research question of the thesis is “How can organization benefit from end-consumer knowledge contributions via open information resources?”. My thesis is a cumulative dissertation. As such, it consists of separate papers with inter-related aims. More precisely, I strive (1.) to define the concept of Open Value Creation, (2.) to provide a strategic management theory of Open Value Creation, (3.) to apply this theory to real world cases, and (4.) to develop a management framework for the use Open Value Creation in organizations.

In medieval times, experts in alchemy and other disciplines believed in secrecy being the key element of their scientific success and were hiding their results from curious eyes (paradigm of closedness). This principle changed with the advent of the European Renaissance around 1600 when the modern universities got established. Scientists started to publish their findings for others to draw on them in an open science landscape (paradigm of openness) (example from David, 2005).

Categories and Subject Descriptors H.3.4 [Information Storage and Retrieval]: Systems and Software--Web 2.0, Social networking.

General Terms Management, Theory

Keywords Openness, Open Innovation, Collaborative Technologies.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. MEDES’10, October 26-29, 2010, Bangkok, Thailand. Copyright © 2010 ACM 978-1-4503-0047-6/10/10...$10.00.

However, traditionally strategic management theory suggests that internal resources and knowledge should be protected in order to serve as the foundation for the firms to create added value (Schumpeter, 1942). Yet, in recent years we see more and more exceptions from this “closed” principle. Firms open certain parts of their processes to create value by collaborating with externals, often end-consumers. The opening of the R&D process of firms has been called “Open Innovation” (Chesbrough, 2003, Chesbrough et al., 2006) or “User Innovation” (Von Hippel, 1988, Von Hippel and Katz, 2002). Furthermore, in recent years we see the opening of processes in other areas of the value chain (Porter, 1985) as well in order to include end-consumer contributions. These phenomena have been called “Crowdsourcing” (Howe, 2006, Howe, 2008) for manufacturing and “Social Commerce” (Goldberg et al., 1992, Rubel, 2005) for marketing and product distribution. Additionally, new (often non-commercial, like Wikipedia) organizations arise that are building their business model solely on the “open” principle (Tapscott and Williams, 2006). Benkler argues that due to the reduced transaction costs (Coase, 1937) for information exchange new, networked and peer-based, production possibilities emerge (Benkler, 2002, Benkler, 2006). Scholars point out a gap of understanding and hence call for developing business strategies and management theories to better describe, understand, and implement the “open” principle (Chesbrough and Appleyard, 2007). I would like to contribute to this research stream by developing a concept of “Open Value Creation”, embedding the concept in strategic management theory, showing the concepts applicability, and deriving a framework of management tasks necessary to integrate Open Value Creation in organizations.

Figure 1: Knowledge Contributions in Open Value Creation

2. THE RESEARCH QUESTION(S) Open Value Creation encompasses value-creating processes all along the value chain of an organization (I use the term “value chain” here, while indicating at the same time that there is some discussion on the term (Stabell and Fjeldstad, 1998)). I am specifically interested in how organizations can benefit from endconsumer knowledge by opening information resources. Accordingly, the framing research question of the thesis is “How can organization benefit from end-consumer knowledge contributions via open information resources?” The “Open Value Creation” thesis is a cumulative dissertation. Accordingly, I am developing four different papers. The aims of the papers are interrelated and are all referring to the overall research question. The four research aims are: (1) To define the concept of Open Value Creation (2) To provide a strategic management theory of Open Value Creation (3) To apply this theory to real world cases (4) To develop a management framework implementation of Open Value Creation

for

the

3. THE LITERATURE REVIEW I applied a “structured literature review”, i.e. a formalized approach to analyze the existing literature (Burton Swanson and

O Ramiller, 1993, Schwarz et al., 2007). In short, I created a search strings with terms that relate to my research topic (“Open Innovation”, “User Innovation”, “Open Source”, “Crowdsourcing”, “Social Media”, “Toolkits” etc.) for the EBSCO and ScienceDirect databases. The journals included in the search were the most highly regarded IS (information systems) journals. As the selection criteria I choose a rating of 2 (B) or higher in the lasted ABS (Association of British Business Schools) Ranking. Additionally, I included relevant top-tier journals from related disciplines (Organization Science, Administrative Science Quarterly, Management Science, Journal of Marketing, Academy of Management Journal/Review, Strategic Management Journal, Research Policy etc.). I set the time frame to the years 2000 - 2010. Furthermore, I manually scanned the “table of content” most relevant IS journals (Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly etc.). After collecting papers in this way, I removed duplicates, book reviews, editorial notes, and papers that mentioned one of the search terms but were not actually examining these issues. Finally, I included source that were often quoted in the paper collection, such as papers outside of the search terms, books, and non-academic papers. Aims of a structured literature review are to synthesize findings of existing literature (Webster and Watson, 2002), to identify directions for future research (MISQ, 2007), and to generating research hypotheses (Schwarz et al., 2007). Due to length restrictions of this thesis overview it is impossible to give a full overview of existing research here. In brief, literature

Figure 2: Value Creation and Value Appropriation

on open value creation can be dived in research on conceptual level (Open Value Creation methods) and technological level (Open Value Creation tools and technologies). I found it useful to categorize research studies on Open Value Creation methods by the function of the organization that it is supporting. We find Open Value Creation practices in research, development, manufacturing, and marketing functions (see figure 1). Existing research on Collective/User/Open Innovation (Von Hippel, 1978, Allen, 1983, Chesbrough, 2003, Huston and Sakkab, 2006), Toolkits (Von Hippel and Katz, 2002, Piller and Walcher, 2006, Thomke and Von Hippel, 2002, Ogawa and Piller, 2006), Lead Users (Von Hippel, 1986, Piller and Walcher, 2006), and Idea Competitions (Walcher, 2007, Leimeister et al., 2009) focus on external contributions to research and development. Crowdsourcing (Howe, 2006, Brabham, 2008, Howe, 2008, von Ahn et al., 2008), Open Source Development (Raymond, 1997, Perens, 1997), Peer/Social production (Benkler, 2002, Benkler, 2006, Tapscott and Williams, 2006), and Mass Customization (Piller, 2003, Reichwald and Piller, 2006, Davis, 1987, Pine, 1993, Kaplan and Haenlein, 2006, Franke et al., 2008) can support manufacturing tasks. Finally, Social Commerce (Rubel, 2005), Collaborative Filtering (Goldberg et al., 1992, Surowiecki, 2004), Prediction Markets (Servan-Schreiber et al., 2004), Long Tail (Anderson, 2004) Marketing, Social Media Marketing/Optimization (Bhargava, 2006) and other forms of harnessing Crowd Wisdom (Surowiecki, 2004) can support marketing departments.

4. THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS With regard to strategic management theory, the benefits of Open Innovation can be explained with the RV (Relational View) (Dyer and Singh, 1998), a specific theory within the RBV (Resourcebased View) (Wernerfelt, 1984, Barney, 1991a). The classical RBV focuses on firm-owned internal resources, whereas the RV focuses on knowledge sharing and relational resources as sources of firms’ competitive advantages (Dyer and Singh, 1998). However, Open Innovation and the RV focus on inter-firm relations (i.e. a limited number of partners with individual legal arrangements). How can the benefits open resources be explained (i.e. public access with no or standardized legal arrangement with contributors)? Ansoff describes value creation as the combination of resource (Ansoff, 1965). From an IS perspective, the relevant resources to be combined (or not) are knowledge or “information resources” (Levitan, 1982). More precisely, we need to consider two forms of knowledge: explicit knowledge (i.e. information resources) and tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge (Nonaka and von Krogh, 2009, Polanyi, 1966) refers to know-how and “sticky information” (von Hippel, 1994) that is embedded in persons or processes. If internal know-how (tacit knowledge, e.g. the creativity of a software developer) is combined with internal information resources (explicit knowledge, i.e. the existing code base of an organization) value will be created in a “closed” (internal, proprietary) way. However, Open Value Creation considers “open” combinations between external knowhow/information resources with internal information resources/know-how as well (see figure 2). Ceteris paribus, the potential for finding a valuable combination of know-how (tacit knowledge) and information resources

Figure 3: Matrix of Access and Control Regimes of Resources

(explicit knowledge) increases exponentially with both the number of information resources and the number of persons (with Table 1: Resource-based Theory and Open Resources Theory

Seminal contributions

Core idea

Explanation of open resources

Resourcebased view (RBV)

(Barney, 1991b, Barney, 1986b, Barney, 1986a, Barney, 1986c, Barney, 1988, Dierickx and Cool, 1989, Mahoney and Pandian, 1992, Penrose, 1959, Prahalad and Hamel, 1990, Priem and Butler, 2001, Wernerfelt, 1984a)

resources are the base for archiving competitive advantages, protected resources are the base for sustainability of these advantages

explains rents through exclusive resource base: does not explain opening of resources and use of open resources

(Duschek, 2004, Dyer and Singh, 1998)

focus set on a network of partners and their shared resources

Relational view (RV)

Dynamic capabilities (DC)

Knowledgebased view (KBV)

(Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000, Helfat and Peteraf, 2003, Helfat, 1997, Makadok, 2001, Priem and Butler, 2001, Teece et al., 1997, Winter, 2003)

resource development as a dynamic process of renewal and absorption

(Conner, 1991, Grant, 1996b, Grant, 1996a, Kogut and Zander, 1992, Kogut, 2000, Spender, 1996, Spender, 1994)

heterogeneous knowledge and capabilities are the major determinants of sustained competitive advantages

explains the benefit of resources shared with partners, does not explain the benefits of open resources learning effects through use of open resources are accounted for, other benefits of open resources are not explained

importance of know-how and information resources stressed; protection instead of openness demanded

know-how) available for combinations. With more openness, the value creation potential is the higher while at the same time the value capture potential is the lower, as it constitutes a weak regime of appropriability (Teece, 1986). There seems to be a trade-off, an optimal level of openness (West, 2003). The resource-based view (RBV) is a well-established strategic management tool for the analysis of firms’ success. The RBV explains value creation superiority, competitive advantages, and resulting rents of firms through their possession of valuable resources. In the RBV, a “resource” is defined as a valuable, rare, in-imitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN) asset. The traditional RBV argues that valuable resource have to be protected, that is closed to externals, to ensure competitive advantages (Barney, 1991b). Firms’ performance improves, if resources are cared for and protected (Crook et al., 2008). The RBV does not explain (or even disagrees on) the benefits of opening valuable resources. A sufficient explanation for openness cannot be found in RBVderived theories, such as the RV, the DC (Dynamic Capabilities) perspective, and the KBV (Knowledge-based View) as well (for overview see table 1). I am developing an “open” resource-based view. Openness has two dimensions: the access (de facto openness for accessibility) dimension of a resource and the control (de jure openness, i.e. property rights regime). Open resources (i.e. publicly and freely accessible resources) can be publically controlled, but may as well be property of a firm (see Figure 3). I argue, we have to look at the compound set of resources at hand of a firm and the relations between the resources in that set – such as complementarity, cospecifity, and specifity (Lippman and Rumelt, 2003) – to determine how access and control should be configured. The argument is outlined in detail in Paper 2 (see below).

5. THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY Due to its cumulative nature, I apply a variety of methods in the different parts of the study, depending on which seems to be most appropriate for the concrete aim: 

Structured Literature Analysis and Framework Building (Schwarz et al., 2007)



Theoretical Discussion/Conceptual Modeling



Qualitative Empirical Research (Pratt, 2009) (I received education in both qualitative methods and tools, such as MaxQDA)



Quantitative Empirical Research (I received education in both quantitative methods and tools, such as SmartPLS and M-Plus)



Planned: Experiments (for causality analysis)

6. CURRENT STAGE OF THE RESEARCH For all four parts of my research, I outlined the initial concepts and/or conducted exploratory studies. These papers have been recently accepted for refereed conference proceedings. I intend to further develop the ideas/studies for eventual publication in toptier journals.

The four papers correspond to the four aims as defined above: (1) Schlagwein, D., Fischbach, K. and Schoder, D. 2010. Open Value Creation. Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI), Göttingen (Germany), February 23-25, 2010. (2) Schlagwein, D., Schoder, D. and Fischbach, K. 2010. An Approach to an Open Resource-based View. Academy of Management (AOM), Montréal (Canada), August 6-10, 2010. (3) Schlagwein, D., Schoder, D. and Fischbach, K. 2010. Openness of Information Resources - a FrameworkBased Comparison of Mobile Platforms. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Pretoria (South Africa), June 7-9, 2010. (4) Schlagwein, D. and Schoder, D. 2011. The Management of Open Value Creation. Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS), Koloa (HW), January 4-7, 2011. Currently, I am working on cultural determinants of Open Value Creation adoption.

[5] BARNEY, J. B. 1991b. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 1, 99-120.

[6] BARNEY, J. B. 1986a. Organizational Culture. Academy of Management Review, 11, 3, 656-665.

[7] BARNEY, J. B. 1991b. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 1, 99-120.

[8] BARNEY, J. B. 1986b. Strategic Factor Markets. Management Science, 32, 10, 1231-1241.

[9] BARNEY, J. B. 1986c. Types of Competition and the Theory of Strategy. Academy of Management Review, 11, 4, 791-800.

[10] BARNEY, J. B. 1988. Returns to Bidding Firms in Mergers and Acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 9, SI summer, 71-78.

[11] BENKLER, Y. 2002. Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm. Yale Law Journal, 112, 3, 369-446.

[12] BENKLER, Y. 2006. The Wealth of Networks. New Haven (CT), Yale University Press.

[13] BHARGAVA, R. 2006. 5 Rules of Social Media Optimization. [14] [15] [16]

7. OUTLOOK: PLANS FOR COMPLETION OF THE THESIS

[17] [18]

I would like to contribute in three ways to the IS research and practice with my thesis: (1)

Establishing a common understanding of Open Value Creation, thereby combining existing research and giving directions for future research.

(2)

Contributing a theoretical explanation for Open Value Creation that is based in existing strategic management theory (i.e. resource-based constructs).

(3)

Helping practitioners that strive to use Open Value Creation in their organization by identifying the set of managerial task and competencies necessary to do so.

End-users, i.e. consumers, born after 1980 – the “net generation” (Tapscott, 2008) – are growing up in a reality of daily use of and active contribution to web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005) services such as Facebook, Twitter, or Wikipedia. Therefore, the future importance of understanding, managing, and researching “open value creation” by organizations cannot be stressed enough. The resulting value creation potential has already been tapped by scholars (Von Ahn et al., 2008b); non-profit organizations like Wikipedia and the Human Genome Project; and firms like Facebook and IBM.

[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

8. REFERENCES [1] ALLEN, R. C. 1983. Collective Invention. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 4, 1, 1-24. [2] ANDERSON, C. 2004. The Long Tail. Wired, 12, 10, 170-177. [3] ANSOFF, H. I. 1965. Corporate Strategy. New York (NY), McGraw-Hill. [4] BARNEY, J. B. 1991a. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 1, 99-120.

[29] [30]

http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2006/08/5_rules_of_soci.h tml. BRABHAM, D. C. 2008. Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving. Convergence, 14, 1, 75-90. BURTON SWANSON, E. & RAMILLER, N. 1993. Information Systems Research Thematics. Information Systems Research, 4, 4, 299. CHESBROUGH, H. W. 2003. Open Innovation, Boston (MA), Harvard Business School Press. CHESBROUGH, H. W. & APPLEYARD, M. M. 2007. Open Innovation and Strategy. California Management Review, 50, 1, 5776. CHESBROUGH, H. W., VANHAVERBEKE, W. & WEST, J. 2006. Open Innovation - Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford (UK), Oxford University Press. COASE, R. 1937. The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4, 16, 386405. CONNER, K. R. 1991. A Historical Comparison of Resource-Based Theory and Five Schools of Thought within Industrial Organization Economics. Journal of Management, 17, 1, 121-154. CROOK, T., KETCHEN JR, D., COMBS, J. & TODD, S. 2008. Strategic Resources and Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 11, 1141-1154. DAVID, P. 2005. From Keeping 'Nature's Secrets' to the Institutionalization of 'Open Science'. In: GOSH, R. A. Code. Cambridge (MA), MIT Press. DAVIS, S. M. 1987. Future Perfect, Reading (UK), Addison Wesley. DIERICKX, I. & COOL, K. 1989. Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage. Management Science, 35, 12, 1504-1511. DUSCHEK, S. 2004. Inter-Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Management Revue. The International Review of Management Studies, 15, 1, 53-73. DYER, J. H. & SINGH, H. 1998. The Relational View. Academy of Management Review, 23, 4, 660-679. EISENHARDT, K. M. & MARTIN, J. A. 2000. Dynamic Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 21, special issue, 11051121. FRANKE, N., KEINZ, P. & SCHREIER, M. 2008. Complementing Mass Customization Toolkits with User Communities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 6, 546-559. GOLDBERG, D., NICHOLS, D., OKI, B. M. & TERRY, D. 1992. Using Collaborative Filtering to Weave an Information Tapestry. Communications of the ACM, 35, 12, 61-70. GRANT, R. M. 1996a. Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments. Organization Science, 7, 4, 375-387.

[31] GRANT, R. M. 1996b. Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]

Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122. HELFAT, C. E. 1997. Know-How and Asset Complementarity and Dynamic Capability Accumulation. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 5, 339-360. HELFAT, C. E. & PETERAF, M. A. 2003. The Dynamic ResourceBased View. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 10, 997-1010. HOWE, J. 2006. The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Wired, 14, 6, 176-183. HOWE, J. 2008. Crowdsourcing. New York (NY), Crown. HUSTON, L. & SAKKAB, N. 2006. Connect and Develop. Harvard Business Review, 84, 3, 58-66. KAPLAN, A. M. & HAENLEIN, M. 2006. Toward a Parsimonious Definition of Traditional and Electronic Mass Customization. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 2, 168-182. KOGUT, B. 2000. The Network as Knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 3, 405-425. KOGUT, B. & ZANDER, U. 1992. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science, 3, 3, 383-397. LEIMEISTER, J. M., HUBER, M., BRETSCHNEIDER, U. & KRCMAR, H. 2009. Leveraging Crowdsourcing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 1, LEVITAN, K. B. 1982. Information Resources as 'Goods' in the Life Cycle of Information Production. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 33, 1, 44-54. LIPPMAN, S. A. & RUMELT, R. P. 2003. A Bargaining Perspective on Resource Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 11, 1069-1086. MAHONEY, J. T. & PANDIAN, J. R. 1992. The Resource-Based View within the Conversation of Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 5, 363-380. MAKADOK, R. 2001. Toward a Synthesis of the Resource-Based and Dynamic-Capability Views of Rent Creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 5, 387-401. MISQ 2007. MISQ Theory and Review. http://www.misq.org/misreview/announce.html. NONAKA, I. & VON KROGH, G. 2009. Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion. Organization Science, 20, 3, 635-652. OGAWA, S. & PILLER, F. T. 2006. Reducing the Risks of New Product Development. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47, 2, 6571. PENROSE, E. 1959. The Theory of the Firm. New York (NY), Wiley. PERENS, B. 1997. The Open Source Definition. http://ldp.dvo.ru/LDP/LGNET/issue26/perens.html. PILLER, F. T. 2003. Mass Customization, Berlin (Germany), Springer. PILLER, F. T. & WALCHER, D. 2006. Toolkits for Idea Competitions. R&D Management, 36, 3, 307. PINE, J. B. 1993. Mass Customization. Boston (MA), Harvard Business School Press. POLANYI, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. New York (NY), Doubleday. PORTER, M. E. 1985. Competitive Advantage. New York (NY), Free Press. PRAHALAD, C. K. & HAMEL, G. 1990. The Core Competencies of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 3, 79-91. PRATT, M. G. 2009. For the Lack of a Boilerplate. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 5, 856-862. PRIEM, R. & BUTLER, J. 2001. Is the Resource-Based 'View' a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? Academy of Management Review, 26, 1, 22-40. RAYMOND, E. 1997. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. http://catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/.

[59] REICHWALD, R. & PILLER, F. 2006. Interaktive Wertschöpfung, Wiesbaden (Germany), Gabler.

[60] RUBEL, S. 2005. Social Commerce. http://www.micropersuasion.com/2005/12/2006_trends_to_.html.

[61] SCHUMPETER, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York (NY), Harper.

[62] SCHWARZ, A., MEHTA, M., JOHNSON, N. & CHIN, W. W. [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]

2007. Understanding Frameworks and Reviews. The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 38, 3, 29-50. SERVAN-SCHREIBER, E., WOLFERS, J., PENNOCK, D. M. & GALEBACH, B. 2004. Prediction Markets. Electronic Markets, 14, 3, 243-251. SPENDER, J.-C. 1994. Organizational Knowledge, Collective Practice and Penrose Rents. International Business Review, 3, 4, 353-367. SPENDER, J.-C. 1996. Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, special issue, 45-62. STABELL, C. B. & FJELDSTAD, Ø. D. 1998. Configuring Value for Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 5, 413-437. SUROWIECKI, J. 2004. The Wisdom of Crowds. London (UK), Doubleday. TAPSCOTT, D. & WILLIAMS, A. D. 2006. Wikinomics. New York (NY), Penguin. TEECE, D. J. 1986. Profiting from Technological Innovation. Research Policy, 15, 6, 285-305. TEECE, D. J., PISANO, G. & SHUEN, A. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 7, 509-533. THOMKE, S. & VON HIPPEL, E. 2002. Customers as Innovators. Harvard Business Review, 80, 4, 74-81. VON AHN, L., MAURER, B., MCMILLEN, C., ABRAHAM, D. & BLUM, M. 2008. Human-Based Character Recognition Via Web Security Measures. Science, Sept. 2008, 1465-1468. VON HIPPEL, E. 1978. Successful Industrial Products from Customer Ideas. Journal of Marketing, 42, 1, 39-49. VON HIPPEL, E. 1986. Lead Users. Management Science, 32, 7, 791-805. VON HIPPEL, E. 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford (UK), Oxford University Press. VON HIPPEL, E. 1994. "Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving. Management Science, 40, 4, 429-439. VON HIPPEL, E. & KATZ, R. 2002. Shifting Innovation to Users Via Toolkits. Management Science, 48, 7, 821-833. WALCHER, D. 2007. Der Ideenwettbewerb als Methode der aktiven Kundenintegration. Wiesbaden (Germany), Deutscher UniversitätsVerlag. WEBSTER, J. & WATSON, R. T. 2002. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future. MIS Quarterly, 26, 2, 13-23. WERNERFELT, B. 1984. A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 171-180. WEST, J. 2003. How Open Is Open Enough? Research Policy, 32, 7, 1259-1285. WINTER, S. G. 2003. Understanding Dynamic Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 10, 991-995.