Abstract
In the global digital economy, the use of digital platforms in supporting innovation across organizational boundaries has attracted more concentration. By using the fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis method, this paper examines survey data from 319 firms located in the Yangtze River Delta region in China. This paper investigates how digital collaboration capability, absorptive capability, digital platform, stakeholder pressure, and external support enable firms’ open innovation through a collaborative symbiosis. Findings reveal that although the above factors are not strictly necessary for firms to achieve high-level open innovation, they contribute to some degree. This paper identifies two comparable paths that facilitate inbound open innovation for firms: the “platform-enabling subject collaborative type,” which focuses on engaging relevant entities, and the “platform-enabling internal and external linkage-type,” which emphasizes integrating firms’ internal and external resources. In addition, a single path supports firms in achieving outbound open innovation, i.e., the “platform–external support collaborative type,” which relies on constructing digital platforms and obtaining external support. This paper offers some significant theoretical and managerial implications for firms, especially those in emerging markets, seeking to integrate into more innovation ecosystems and engage in open innovation through the use of digital platforms.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The advancement of the digital economy accelerates the digitization, interconnection, and intellectualization of firms’ innovation activities, ushering in a new wave of technical change and resource accumulation for innovation. In response to the high-frequency competition in the digital economy and the need to develop an open innovation ecosystem to enhance global competitiveness, an increasing number of firms are adopting diverse innovation techniques, such as business model evolution (Ricardo and Darek, 2021) and cross-border cooperation (Radziwon and Bogers, 2019). Traditional business development models are struggling to effectively adapt to the requirements of the digital economy due to the rapid evolution of digital technologies (Naqshbandi et al., 2019), necessitating a shift from traditional innovation approaches to an open innovation model that transcends organizational boundaries. Open innovation is a strategic approach adopted by firms to leverage external innovation capabilities and effectively coordinate and restructure internal and external resources to expand into new markets and achieve integration-driven innovations. On the basis of the direction of knowledge and resource transfer across firm boundaries, open innovation can be categorized into outbound open innovation, which emphasizes the commercialization of internal technical knowledge through external channels, and inbound open innovation, which focuses on harnessing external technical knowledge for internal resource utilization. Open innovation can help organizations develop cross-functional and cross-regional collaboration capabilities, enabling efficient value transformation that targets firms’ innovation outcomes and business models (Gentile et al., 2019). It may also help firms uncover resource endowments and opportunities for future growth. As a result, increasing the quantity of firms practicing open innovation has emerged as an important topic for further study in the field of innovation management.
Scholars have explored the dynamics of open innovation from the perspectives of internal, external, and a combination of both, discovering various aspects of business organizations and the processes governing their connection. Internally, dynamic capabilities, such as digital collaboration capability, digitalization capability, and absorptive capability, have been highlighted for their role in enhancing efficiency indicators (Natalicchio et al., 2017; Abbate et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2022). Other factors such as entrepreneurship, property rights mechanisms, and firm characteristics also play crucial roles in influencing the innovation cycle through internal and external collaboration (Naqshbandi and Tabche, 2018; Usman and Vanhaverbeke, 2017). At the external level, existing studies have primarily examined the influence mechanism of external variables, such as industry technology level, system, and market environment, on firms’ open innovation practice at the organizational level (Roh et al., 2021; Niloofar et al., 2022). Furthermore, some academics have examined the driving force of firms’ open innovation from internal and external viewpoints, identifying a number of models, including (1) a timely response to environmental changes, taking the initiative to create value (Kratzer et al., 2017); (2) promoting a more open and dynamic flow of innovation components; and (3) expanding corporate boundaries and connectivity.
However, the complexity and dynamic nature of innovation inevitably raise the cost associated with firms’ innovation practices, and the rapid development of the digital era places high demands on firms’ innovation capability. To rise to these challenges, firms should use digital platforms as interactive media to create a bridge between knowledge and technology transfer and strategic cooperation, thereby establishing an ecological space for value creation and exchange and promoting the efficient transfer of knowledge and technology via digital platforms (Martin et al., 2023). On the basis of firms’ application of digital platforms, with the assistance of digital platform embedding, collaborative interactions within an innovation ecosystem can be fostered by enhancing communication efficiency among platform members and complements, thereby enabling firms to adapt flexibly to rapidly changing market environments (Reynolds and Uygun, 2018).
Existing studies about the effect of digital platforms on open innovation have primarily focused on the influence of platform resource environment on firm innovation and the driving mechanisms of open innovation platforms (Muhammad et al., 2022). Digital platforms establish a unique environment for open innovation firms and their partners in the industry, facilitating industrial collaboration. On this basis, firms can utilize digital platforms to coordinate stakeholders’ participation in the process of firms’ innovation practices and enhance managers’ capability to evaluate and solve problems, thereby strengthening the convergence of interests and deepening cooperation (Esposito De et al., 2017). The creation and management of digital platforms, along with the interaction of various actors, drive the development of specific capabilities to enable co-innovation, enabling enterprises to build platform ecosystems (Abbate et al., 2021). Regarding the platform resource environment, organizations may utilize complementary assets to enhance their organizational learning capability, satisfying customer needs and driving inbound open innovation. At the same time, organizations may encourage outbound open innovation by recognizing external possibilities and investigating possible advantages (Muhammad et al., 2023). In exploring what drives innovation platforms, scholars have found that reputation, communication, and sharing of information directly affect platform trust (Pop et al., 2018). Furthermore, the complementarity of cross-border knowledge or technology plays a crucial role in enhancing the influence of open innovation platforms and maximizing their value (Wilhelm and Dolfsma, 2018). However, few studies have concentrated on the mechanism of subject collaboration influencing firms’ open innovation when digital platforms are embedded in firms’ innovation ecosystems. Existing studies have also focused on the net effect of internal and external factors on open innovation and the mechanism of open innovation platforms. Whether digital platforms have a positive effect on firms’ open innovation remains debatable, despite receiving considerable attention as a key instrument for digital transformation that may subsequently enhance the value creation within organizations. Some other scholars have indicated that organizational improvisation and system trust influence how digital platforms affect firms’ open innovation (Ert and Fleischer, 2019; Steinbruch et al., 2020). However, to effectively address threats from external competition, the development of digital platforms depends on the complementary cooperation of platform resources (Liu et al., 2023). In addition, their ongoing innovation process necessitates a successful match between the dynamic capabilities of firms and the external innovation environment. Therefore, from the perspective of the innovation ecosystem, precisely identifying the dynamic effect of digital platforms is crucial to examining their specific role in supporting open innovation.
The digital economy has increased the demand for collaboration and innovation. As a facilitator of flexible resource allocation, the innovation ecosystem assists firms in optimizing resource layout, identifying ecological advantages, and establishing cooperative relationships (Gawer and Cusumano, 2014). This paper proposes an investigation into the internal mechanisms of open innovation by utilizing the innovation ecosystem to study the synergistic symbiosis of antecedent variables and their influence on firms’ open innovation. Aiming to illuminate the path mechanisms through which firms’ digitalization fosters the practice of firms’ open innovation by utilizing synergistic symbiosis among the internal elements of the innovation ecosystem, this paper develops a comprehensive analytical framework. This framework, termed “symbiotic subject–symbiotic interface–symbiotic environment,” is based on the theory of innovation ecosystem. From a configurational perspective, this paper examines several potential pathways that may influence firms’ open innovation practices. It reveals the collaboration of internal and external factors that enable open innovation on digital platforms through the development of open innovation practices via fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). This paper aims to answer the following questions through empirical research:
(1) Does digital platforms assist firms in their open innovation efforts?
(2) Does the role of digital platforms in firms’ open innovation require collaboration among crucial internal and external conditions?
(3) How specifically can digital platforms support firms’ internal and external open innovation initiatives?
The above explorations are expected to offer theoretical insights and managerial implications for the applications of digital platforms and the collaboration of innovation elements in the era of the digital economy.
Theoretical underpinnings and model development
Theoretical underpinnings
The term “innovation ecosystem” refers to a comprehensive system composed of the participants of innovation behavior and the internal and external environments they encounter throughout the process of entry, development, evolution, optimization, and even withdrawal. It highlights the dynamic stability, self-regulation, self-equilibrium, self-adaptation, self-prosperity, and self-evolution of the system itself. An excellent innovation ecosystem plays an important role in fully unlocking the potential of innovation-related factors (Su et al., 2018), enhancing competitiveness, and improving the quality of economic development. Structured like a biological ecosystem, an innovation ecosystem is composed of interconnected innovation entities (e.g., core firms, scientific research institutions, governments, and other stakeholders) who engage in value co-creation through innovation. These entities influence and restrict each other to achieve a common value creation and create new forms through co-evolution (Gomes et al., 2018). The main body structure and the flow of resources in the system significantly affect the dynamic evolution of the innovation ecosystem.
The core features of an innovation ecosystem include symbiosis and evolution (Ozgur et al., 2018). Viewing the innovation system through the lens of symbiosis theory provides a distinct perspective and theoretical support for its study. The value co-creation of an innovation ecosystem can be developed from the three dimensions of “symbiotic unit,” “symbiotic interface,” and “symbiotic environment.” Specifically, the symbiotic unit corresponds to the micro-entities participating in innovation activities, including the types and capabilities of innovation entities. The symbiotic interface corresponds to the mesolevel innovation network, including the network structure and the relationship between its members. The symbiotic environment corresponds to the macrolevel context for innovation, encompassing all external environmental factors that directly or indirectly influence the symbiont, including the external policy environment, market environment, social norm environment, and natural environment. An innovation ecosystem forms of a network of business entities, such as vendors, service providers, and outsourcing firms, fostering mutually beneficial relationships for their development. Within the ecosystem’s evolutionary trajectory, open innovation focuses on integrating the knowledge and technology of the ecosystem into research and development (R&D). This approach leads to the blurring of firms’ boundaries and the integration and penetration of firms, all of which support firms’ technological innovation process in an orderly progression.
To be innovative, firms should highlight the value of external channels for innovation, such as collaboration with other firms, academic institutions, and research centers, in addition to their internal R&D skills (Walrave et al., 2018). Network theory states that an organization can be integrated into the networks of suppliers, customers, other organizations, and other firms. As a result, external investment can give the organization access to new networks and improve its capability to share knowledge and technology, leading to valuable innovation outcomes (Bogers et al., 2018). Firms’ open innovation and collaboration creativity have benefited substantially from the network effect, and firms’ open innovation process has been successfully incorporated into the innovation ecosystem. Each stage of innovation ecosystem development integrates multiple categories of innovation participants, including upstream and downstream firms, midstream service providers, users, and regulators, who work together to provide novel and valuable solutions to problems related to the innovation field (Paasi et al., 2023). Open innovation, which requires diverse interactions and knowledge flows among various types of participants, replaces innovation by a single organization, and considers the co-evolution of the ecosystem and the organizations’ business model (Zhang et al., 2022).
Research by scholars has yielded significant insights into the influence of internal factors and open innovation behavior in firms. Particularly, capability characteristics play an undeniable role in firms’ innovation behaviors and strategic decisions. Digital cooperation and absorptive capabilities are the major driving forces behind the transformation and distribution of business resources. The influence of an evolving innovation environment on firms’ innovation behavior and decision-making has steadily gained attention from scholars. External stakeholders, governments, and nongovernmental organizations continue to encourage firms to integrate their innovation operations internally and externally. Investigating the significance of digital platforms as facilitators of innovation is crucial, as they connect firms’ internal and external circulation channels. Examining how these platforms facilitate the dissemination of knowledge and technology within and beyond the organization, as well as their effectiveness in linking channels for inbound and outbound open innovation, is crucial. Therefore, this paper analyzes key factors influencing the practice of open innovation in firms across three dimensions of “symbiotic subject,” “symbiotic interface,” and “symbiotic environment.” It then identifies five components of the innovation ecosystem: digital collaboration capability, absorptive capability, digital platform, stakeholder pressure, and external support. It examines the synergistic effects of these components on firms’ open innovation, including inbound and outbound strategies.
Research model
Symbiotic unit
(1) Digital collaboration capability. Digital collaboration capability refers to the capability of a firm to share and coordinate information with its partners through digital channels to obtain its own differentiated competitive edges. For inbound open innovation, digital collaboration capability can provide a broad channel for firms to obtain external knowledge; moreover, it can change the norms, beliefs, and processes of the firms by relying on the knowledge interaction in the network, and it can improve the effect of innovation performance by enhancing firms’ absorptive capability (Li et al., 2022). Firms use digital collaboration capabilities to ease internal communication channels, which helps accelerate the commercial transition of innovation findings. Existing studies have explored small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and found that digital collaboration influences the intensity of firms’ resource sharing and the mode of digital expression, thereby affecting firms’ innovation practices. As firms continuously use their digital collaboration capabilities, they strengthen the digital collaboration among different participants in the value network; this enhancement fosters knowledge sharing across the innovation ecosystem, sparks the creation of new knowledge, and establishes internal and external partnerships (Nambisan et al., 2017).
(2) Absorptive capability. Absorptive capability is defined as the process by which a firm acquires, absorbs, transforms, and utilizes knowledge and technology to build its dynamic organizational capabilities, including the capability to identify technology markets and absorb acquired technologies (Schweisfurth and Raasch, 2018). The capability to absorb external knowledge is the main driving force for firms to face market competition, especially for inbound open innovation. However, few scholars have paid attention to the relationship between absorptive capability and open innovation from the perspective of digital platforms. The key to the transformation of external technology and knowledge lies in the firms’ own absorptive capability (Mueller et al., 2021). Internal absorptive capability, directly and indirectly, affects firms’ innovation behavior and innovation transformation, respectively. To perform inbound open innovation practices, firms need to focus on the richness of their external knowledge. Such knowledge can be transformed into valuable innovative products and services for firms. In other words, knowledge transfer needs the support of absorptive capability, and the realization of knowledge sharing and innovation practice is closely related to firms’ absorptive capability. Especially for SMEs, the stronger the capability to absorb knowledge and technology is, the more likely they will transform knowledge and technology into innovative models and sustainable competitive edges (Medase and Barasa, 2019), and even make up for their shortcomings at the resource constraint level. In the process of outbound open innovation, external cooperation can promote the improvement of firms’ absorptive capability, which is conducive to improving the sensitivity of firms to external knowledge and forming timely feedback on the use of new knowledge. For outbound open innovation, absorptive capability contributes to business transformation by helping the transformation of internal resources. However, in comparison with inbound open innovation, outbound open innovation has received less attention. Therefore, no consensus has been reached on the effect of absorptive capability on outbound open innovation.
In sum, digital collaboration capability and absorptive capability are important for firms to integrate internal and external knowledge and technology. They serve as the foundation that enables firms to achieve value creation and transformation, facilitating the efficient development of open innovation strategies.
Symbiotic interface
Digital platforms are the main symbiotic interface for the value co-creation of the innovation ecosystem. A platform is a collection of people, processes, interfaces, and artifacts that can provide an interactive environment for agent behavior that enhances value creation. Digital platform covers all types of digital resources, such as services and content, and bridges the interests of core firms and various stakeholders with the aid of digital technology (Sedera et al., 2016). The adoption of digital platforms for supporting knowledge sharing can enrich the process of strategic design and product innovation. Platform-based open innovation strategies create opportunities for new firms to improve their operating platforms by developing products and services and become an important field for such firms to grow (Bereznoy et al., 2021).
By encouraging knowledge exchange and creative design based on new and existing resources, open innovation digital platforms foster the creation of new value for participants and can be viewed as a virtual environment in which external actors can effectively participate in the process of knowledge creation, exchange, and integration (Lee et al., 2012). By utilizing a wide range of external information resources, digital platforms assist firms in exploring outside prospects that are appropriate for their growth and in obtaining fresh concepts, expertise, and solutions. Digital platforms and open innovation have received comparatively little research overall. Platform construction and open innovation combine to provide firms with various options. Digital platforms can serve as a place of value creation and delivery; provide a foundation for innovation of firms’ entities, academic and research institutions, and other related institutions; and ultimately generate economies of scale and innovation output.
The creation of digital platforms can provide firms with complementary resources and expand innovative possibilities for inbound open innovation, which can enhance their innovation capacity. The use of third-party trust guarantees can boost interactions and sharing between firms, leading to an increase in innovation output (Yuan and Pan, 2023). For outbound open innovation, a dependable platform carrier makes a simple choice for downstream purchasers of firms and encourages the transportation of firms’ products through the platform to the next port in the industrial chain. By relying on the integration of digital platforms, firms can realize the free exchange of resources and access to external ideas, promote the formation of an innovative atmosphere, and optimize the resource-absorptive capability of firms while accelerating the construction of innovative learning firms (Constantinides et al., 2018). Furthermore, digital platforms need to be open to provide innovation opportunities for firms. The boundary-type resources within the platforms help firms and other relevant entities to quickly absorb and transform emerging elements, such as knowledge, technology, and data.
Symbiotic environment
(1) Stakeholder pressure. In the context of this paper, stakeholder pressure refers to the demands of customers and consumers on firms to develop open innovation. In the research of innovation behavior, one of the stakeholders that have received extensive attention is the individual users, including consumers and customers. The innovative activities and knowledge resources of this group are one of the largest sources that firms can tap into and develop open innovation. Individual users can directly contribute to firms’ open innovation process by communicating their needs and preferences with firms through their experiences. Second is the community, whose influence is increasingly valued as an important external source of knowledge, practical experience, and innovation (Sims et al., 2019). Existing research has mainly used open-source software as an important perspective to explore the relationship between communities and firms. An increasing number of studies have confirmed the benefits of considering user input in firms’ innovation activities. This is reflected in the fact that users and even the public can develop the starting point of innovation and development by bridging the uncertainty in the early stage of the industry life cycle in a certain context. Therefore, the user innovation or improvement of products and services often derives a strong commercial appeal (Baldwin et al., 2006). Users belong to the external group of firms, and their participation in innovation involves the internal transmission of external knowledge and resources. The innovation capability carried by external users constantly flows to the internal operations of firms, which is an important embodiment of inbound open innovation. Transparency and data availability of user participation in the innovation process also help validate the effectiveness of the innovation. It allows observers to track and validate the research process in detail, thereby generally facilitating the transformation of innovation. Moreover, transparency and data availability serve as manifestations of outbound open innovation. In addition, with the openness of user participation in innovation, participants can enjoy the social benefits of individual innovation interactions while diluting personal benefits.
(2) External support. Research on firms’ open innovation has gradually developed from the firm level to the network level. External relations related to firms’ open innovation, such as the decision support of the public sector, national/regional innovation strategies, and government/nongovernmental organizations, have also become the main issues of concern in firms’ open innovation research (Jugend et al., 2018). Particularly, government support may have a profound effect on the evolution and development of firms’ innovation ecosystem, especially for technology-intensive firms. Policy support, such as tax support and preferential subsidies, provides new capital channels for firms’ technological innovation. Financial and non-financial support affect the openness of firms’ innovation activities to varying degrees, which is conducive to the commercialization of firms’ outbound open innovation results. The government’s support for interfirm cooperation intention and industrial integration provides a policy guarantee for firms to absorb and internalize external technology and then promote the continuous deepening of firms’ inbound open innovation practice. In addition to the promotion role of specific policies, the influence of the institutional environment on firms’ open innovation should not be underestimated. Formal and informal systems promote the breadth and depth (Chen and Yu, 2022) of firms’ open innovation, respectively. By exerting its initiative, the government can even act as an innovation center, opening up channels of communication among firms, independent technology developers, and other participants in the innovation system.
On the basis of the existing foundation, this paper extracts five key factors that influence firms to achieve open innovation (inbound and outbound) and regards digital platforms as the “cornerstone” of enabling innovation. Platforms can integrate the resources and capabilities of firms and their stakeholders to help transform the results of open innovation. Through the coordination and co-creation of these factors, firm managers can achieve high-level innovation practices and ultimately obtain and create more value. The research model framework of this paper is shown in Fig. 1.
Configuration analysis to high level open innovation. Open innovation is the outcome variable (the outer circle represents the research framework, which is divided into three parts: symbiotic interface, symbiotic environment, and symbiotic unit; the pentagon in the middle layer represents the matching relationship between the five antecedent variables; the solid arrow represents the relationship between the antecedent variables and the outcome variable).
Research method and design
Research methods
Configuration analysis method adopts the overall and systematic analysis ideas and configures and adjusts various internal elements to achieve improved results. It uses the configuration at the case level rather than a single independent variable to analyze the results. The fsQCA method is an important approach in configuration analysis, which aims to solve the phenomenon of causal complexity. In comparison to traditional regression methods, fsQCA is more suitable for complex causal combination analysis. First, fsQCA has a stronger explanatory effect when exploring the comprehensive influence of variable combinations. Second, in the process of analyzing previous studies, a single organizational factor struggles to fully cover the internal mechanism of firms’ open innovation, and studying the combined effect of multiple antecedents from the symbiotic viewpoint is more challenging. Third, fsQCA tools weaken the symmetry between explanatory and outcome variables, and an equivalent relationship exists between different factor combinations and outcome variables. Thus, fsQCA is more interesting and exploratory.
Sample selection and data sources
From March to June 2023, the research team collected data through a questionnaire survey, which was filled out anonymously by middle and senior managers of firms. The sample firms are mainly located in the Yangtze River Delta region in China, mainly including four provinces/municipalities (i.e., Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai, and Anhui). This region has a large number of firms, and the scale of the digital economy accounts for about 30% of the country’s total. Firms in the Yangtze River Delta region have some of the best levels of innovation consciousness and skill in the nation, and they have a wealth of accomplishments and expertise in innovation. The components of the Internet and the digital economy are now developing and improving steadily. By 2022, the Yangtze River Delta region is expected to host eight national dual-cross platforms and more than 70 G60 industrial Internet platforms. Consequently, selecting firms in the Yangtze River Delta region as research subjects may represent the state-of-the-art digital platform development of firms in China. This paper used a well-established scale that is well-known overseas for the design of the questionnaire and modified it appropriately to suit the needs of China’s context. After the preliminary negotiation with the interviewees, the questionnaires were sent through the Questionnaire Star platform, WeChat, email, and other forms to fully ensure the efficiency of questionnaire filling. Finally, 642 questionnaires were recovered. After eliminating those that were incompletely filled, hastily completed, and showed high consistency or patterned responses, 319 valid questionnaires were obtained, resulting in a recovery efficiency of 49.67%. The distribution of the characteristics of sample firms is shown in Table 1.
Common method bias
Given that the questionnaire was filled in by the same manager in the same period of time, it may produce systematic bias. This paper adopted two methods of program and statistical control to avoid homologous variance of research data. In terms of program control, the authenticity and reliability of the data were ensured by filling in the questionnaire anonymously. At the same time, the questionnaire did not reflect the research variables, and the items were randomly ordered to avoid reflecting the internal logic between the items. In terms of statistical control, before data analysis, Harman single-factor test was used to conduct a common method bias test, SPSS 20.0 was used to conduct exploratory factor analysis on all questions, and factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted without rotation. The test results showed that the variance explanation rate of the first factor is 34.95% (lower than 40%), indicating no significant common method bias in the data.
Measures
This paper included one outcome variable (firms’ open innovation) and five antecedent variables. On the basis of existing mature scales at home and abroad, a five-level Likert scale was used for measurement (“1” = very inconsistent, “5” = very consistent). At the same time, in the initial stage of questionnaire design, team members, experts, and scholars in the field collaborated to optimize and improve the questionnaire for many times to ensure that the final measurement items were reliable and in line with the development situation of Chinese firms.
Open innovation
According to the measurement scale of Naqshbandi (2016) and Lichtenthaler (2009), this paper measured the two dimensions of inbound and outbound open innovation, covering six items of the former and four items of the latter. Representative items include “Firms constantly examine the external environment to acquire new technologies, new ideas, and new knowledge;” “Firms often associate external knowledge and technologies with internal research and development;” “All technologies of firms can realize external commercialization;” and “Technologies of external commercialization of firms are limited to noncore technologies.”
Digital collaboration capability
According to the measurement scale of Li et al. (2022), this paper used four items to measure firms’ digital collaboration capability. Representative items include “Our partners share the latest business transaction information with us through digital channels;” “Our partners work with us through digital channels and respond promptly to the suggestions and complaints of end customers;” and “Our partners work with us through digital channels to support the tracking of service processes.”
Absorptive capability
According to the measurement scale of Zacharia et al. (2011) and Aboelmaged, Hashem (2019), this paper used six items to measure firms’ absorptive capability. Representative items include “Firms absorb useful external knowledge;” “Firms are using new knowledge to improve firm performance;” and “Firms encourage employees to come up with new and valuable ideas.”
Digital platform
According to the measurement scale of Khattak et al. (2022), this paper used eight items to measure the level of firms’ digital platform construction. Representative items include “Our platform IT system can realize seamless connection with partners’ IT systems in the fields of forecasting, production, manufacturing, and transportation;” “Our platform can collect relevant information from partners’ databases, such as operation information, business customer performance, and cost information;” and “Our platform is composed of modular software components, the majority of which can be used in other business applications.”
Stakeholder pressure
According to the measurement scale of Garces et al. (2012), this paper focused on the needs of direct stakeholders of firms and used four items to measure stakeholder pressure around four types of subjects, namely, customers, suppliers, shareholders, and employees. Representative items include “Customers require us to adopt environmentally friendly behaviors.” “Supply chain partners (such as suppliers) require us to adopt environmentally friendly behaviors.” and “Corporate marketing departments require firms to implement environmentally friendly behaviors.”
External support
According to the measurement scale of Chwelos and Dexter (2001), this paper used five items to measure the level of external support obtained by firms. Representative items include “Government/nongovernmental organizations provide our firm with donations, such as funds;” “Government/nongovernmental organizations provide our firm with technology transfer support;” and “Government/nongovernmental organizations provide our firm with necessary loan guarantees.”
Data test
This paper used SPSS 20.0 and SmartPLS 4.0 to test the reliability and validity of the scale, and the relevant test results are shown in Table 2. First, SPSS 20.0 was used to conduct exploratory factor analysis on the scale, and the results showed a KMO statistic of 0.941, which is greater than the standard value of 0.6. The p-value of Bartlett’s sphericity test was 0.000, which is less than 0.05, indicating that the questionnaire was suitable for factor analysis. At the same time, the accumulated variance explanation rate of the five factors extracted was 59.905%, and the overall exploratory factor result was acceptable, proving that the structural validity of the overall constructs was good. In addition, Cronbach’s α coefficient and the combined reliability (CR) of the overall constructs were greater than 0.7, ensuring the reliability of the scale in this paper. The factor loads were all above 0.5, and the average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs was greater than 0.5, indicating that the aggregation validity of the scale was good.
Variable calibration
The first step of fsQCA is calibration, which converts the original Likert scale score data into fuzzy membership scores with a set concept to make the results interpretive. The full membership threshold, crossing point, and completely nonmembership threshold were set on the basis of the ratios of 90%, 50%, and 10%, respectively, which are generally adopted in qualitative comparative analysis. “Compute” was run to perform calibration transformation on the overall variables. The calibration results of each variable are shown in Table 3.
Findings
Necessity analysis
To determine the presence of prerequisites for the occurrence of open innovation, this research employed fsQCA 4.0 to perform a requirement analysis on all the conditional variables and associated negative variables prior to configuration analysis. According to the fsQCA convention, a condition is deemed required for the emergence of the result if the consistency level (a single antecedent condition affects the necessity of high inbound or outbound open innovation and nonhigh inbound or outbound open innovation) is more than 0.9. The required analysis and test findings for inbound and outbound open innovation are presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. The tables show that the two forms of innovation do not fulfill the necessary level identification requirement of 0.9 because the necessity level of each individual condition is less than 0.8. The findings indicate that the five antecedents (i.e., digital collaboration capability, absorptive capability, digital platform, stakeholder pressure, and external support) do not constitute the necessary conditions for the realization of firms’ high/nonhigh-level inbound and outbound open innovation.
Configuration analysis
On the basis of the single-factor necessity analysis, multifactor configuration adequacy analysis was conducted with the help of a truth table. The antecedent configuration that can lead to the result is then defined in the causal relationship. By running the “Standard Analysis” program through Boolean minimization, the corresponding complex solution (no logical remainder is used), simple solution (use all logical remainder), and intermediate solution (use only meaningful logical remainder that fits theory and practice) were obtained. “Consistency” is defined as the degree to which common conditional configurations are linked to the same outcome. “Raw coverage” pertains to the proportion of cases with a specific configuration that encompasses the outcome, including any overlapping interpretation parts between configurations. “Unique coverage” denotes the degree to which a single configuration explains the outcome after eliminating any shared components with other configurations. “Overall coverage” represents the overall extent of coverage by considering all configuration result case scenarios.
Configuration analysis to achieve high-level inbound open innovation
According to the results of previous research and corresponding operation rules, the case frequency threshold (depending on the sample size) and consistency threshold were set to 1 and 0.8, respectively. The consistency threshold of proportional reduction in inconsistency (PRI) was set to 0.77 when performing the truth table analysis. Subsequently, the causal adequacy evaluation procedure was initiated. The core and edge conditions were identified by comparing the simple and intermediate solutions, and the realization path of inbound open innovation was described accordingly. Table 6 shows that the consistency level of the single configuration and the overall solution of the high-level inbound open innovation is higher than 0.9, which is higher than the lowest acceptable consistency level of 0.75; in addition, the coverage of the overall solution reaches 0.655. This result indicates that all four configurations can fully explain the results and can be regarded as a sufficient combination of conditions to help firms achieve high-level inbound open innovation.
In summary, under the interaction of the five factors (i.e., digital collaboration capability, absorptive capability, digital platform, stakeholder pressure, and external support), firms’ inbound open innovation has four antecedent configurations. According to the core and edge conditions contained in each state, the interactions can be summarized into two path patterns: platform-enabling agent collaboration type (H1) and platform-enabling internal and external interaction type (H2).
-
1.
Platform-enabling agent cooperation (H1): H1 covers the combination of two antecedent conditions. The consistency level of H1a is 0.934, and the unique coverage reaches 0.046. The consistency level of H1b is 0.951, and the unique coverage reaches 0.051, which is the highest among all configurations. This configuration path takes digital collaboration capability, digital platform, and stakeholder pressure as the core conditions. This finding indicates that regardless of other conditions, firms can effectively promote sharing and collaboration between firms and other relevant entities by relying on digital platforms and driven by stakeholder pressure, thereby finally achieving a high-level inbound open innovation. The Yangtze River Delta region is rich in digital platform resources. Some firms use digital platforms to absorb external knowledge and technology and stably collect the needs and suggestions of external stakeholders. In this manner, they promote collaborative cooperation among firms, customers, suppliers, and other entities, freeing them from the constraints that typically hinder their innovation efforts. This, in turn, effectively addresses challenges in the process of internalizing external knowledge.
-
2.
Platform-enabling internal and external linkage (H2): H2 also includes two antecedent combinations. H2a has a consistency level of 0.946 and a unique coverage of 0.044, whereas H2b has a consistency level of 0.951 and a unique coverage of 0.020. This configuration path takes absorptive capability, digital platform, and external support as the core conditions. It suggests that regardless of other conditions firms may possess, using digital platforms allows them to effectively transform externally shared knowledge and technology through absorptive capability. External support plays a supportive role in this process, thereby ultimately enhancing high-level inbound open innovation.
In the process of firms performing inbound open innovation, absorptive capability can play a compensatory role to a certain extent. Firms with high-level absorptive capability can identify and access external resources and technologies and use their existing knowledge and technology to conduct imitative learning, finally promoting open innovation. With the capability of external capital and noncapital resources, firms can combine and allocate resource modules well, improve existing products and marketing channels, and support performing diversified innovation activities.
Configuration analysis to achieve nonhigh-level inbound open innovation
The case frequency threshold, consistency threshold, and PRI consistency were set to 1, 0.8, and 0.63, respectively. Table 7 shows the results of the conditional configuration analysis to realize firms’ nonhigh-level inbound open innovation. Four paths can achieve nonhigh-level inbound open innovation, with an overall consistency of 0.830 and a coverage of 0.732. These paths all show the core absence of different conditions, indicating that the extracted key conditions are important factors for the realization of firms’ high-level inbound open innovation. Particularly, digital collaboration capability, absorptive capability, and external support are the main driving forces for digital platform-enabled firms to promote open innovation.
Configuration analysis to achieve high-level outbound open innovation
According to previous research results and corresponding operation rules, the case frequency threshold and consistency threshold were set to 1 and 0.8, respectively, and the PRI consistency threshold was set to 0.77 when conducting the truth table analysis. The realization path of firms’ high-level outbound open innovation was finally identified, as shown in Table 8. The consistency of the overall solution and the single configuration reaches the lowest acceptable level, and the coverage of the overall solution reaches 0.604. This finding indicates that the three configurations can fully explain the existence of the results and can be regarded as the combination of sufficient conditions to promote firms to achieve high-level outbound open innovation.
Under the interaction of the five factors (i.e., digital collaboration capability, absorptive capability, digital platform, stakeholder pressure, and external support), the outbound open innovation has three antecedent configurations. According to the core and edge conditions contained in each state, the interaction can be summarized into a path pattern of platform–external support collaborative type (H3). The consistency level of the configuration solution is 0.787, and the coverage is 0.604, which is manifested by the existence of two core conditions of digital platform and external support. This result indicates that even when firms are at a low level of digital cooperation capability, absorptive capability, or stakeholder pressure, they can still achieve high-level outbound open innovation results with the aid of digital platforms and external support.
Configuration analysis to achieve nonhigh-level outbound open innovation
The case frequency, consistency threshold, and PRI consistency were set to 1, 0.8, and 0.61, respectively, to conduct the configuration analysis of nonhigh-level outbound open innovation, as shown in Table 9. The results show that two paths can achieve firms’ nonhigh-level outbound open innovation. The overall consistency of the paths is 0.830, and the coverage is 0.489. The two paths are represented by the absence of the core conditions of digital platforms, stakeholder pressure, and external support. However, the presence of the core condition of absorptive capability in UH6 indicates that only absorptive capability cannot achieve high-level outbound open innovation, and it reflects the asymmetric effect of absorptive capability on open innovation.
Comparison of configurations of high-level inbound and outbound open innovation
The symbiotic interface level of the digital platform and the symbiotic environment level of external support are fundamental prerequisites for achieving high-level inbound/outbound open innovation. This indicates that whether firms engage in inbound or outbound open innovation, connecting internal and external participants through a digital platform can effectively enhance innovation creation and achieve transformation. Furthermore, firms can mobilize energy and participate in collaborative innovation significantly thanks to government and nongovernmental support guarantees. In comparison to outbound open innovation, inbound open innovation places greater emphasis on absorptive capability and stakeholder pressure. Preliminary analysis suggests that the participation of external stakeholders has a more direct effect on inbound open innovation. Participants (including users, communities, and cooperative firms) directly transfer knowledge, technology, and even innovative capabilities to firms to facilitate the realization of open innovation. Throughout this process, the absorptive capability of firms effectively facilitates the internalization of circulating resources, indirectly supporting their pursuit of open innovation while enhancing the efficiency of commercializing outcomes.
Robustness test
Robustness test for inbound open innovation
To verify the robustness of data analysis results, this paper adopted three tests. First, the PRI consistency value was adjusted from 0.77 to 0.8, whereas other levels did not change, and the corresponding results only changed slightly, as shown in Table 10. Second, by adjusting the case threshold from 1 to 2, the obtained configuration analysis results were the same as the original results. Finally, when the case consistency threshold was adjusted from 0.8 to 0.9, the relevant results did not change, thereby verifying the robustness of the configuration of firms’ high-level inbound open innovation.
Robustness test for outbound open innovation
This paper further tested the robustness of the research results in three ways. First, the calibration PRI consistency threshold was adjusted from 0.64 to 0.65, and the relevant results did not change. Second, the case consistency threshold was adjusted from 0.8 to 0.9, and the relevant results did not change. Third, when the case frequency was adjusted from 1 to 2, the relevant results only changed slightly, and no essential change was observed in the path interpretation level (see Table 11). Based on the above analysis, the research conclusion is relatively robust.
Research conclusions and discussion
Research conclusions
On the basis of the innovation ecosystem theory, this paper employs the fsQCA with the most configurational thinking. It examines the combined effects of digital collaboration capability, absorptive capability, digital platform, stakeholder pressure, and external support on firms’ open innovation behavior and the synergistic relationship among various variables. The following are the key research findings:
-
1.
Firms’ open innovation has multiple concurrent characteristics, which are manifested in that no single condition can constitute the necessary condition for firms’ high-level open innovation. The open innovation activities of firms are influenced by their symbiotic environment (stakeholder pressure and external support), symbiotic unit (digital collaboration and absorptive capability), and symbiotic interface (digital platform). Firms’ open innovation is characterized by complicated concurrent causal mechanisms in the age of the digital economy’s rapid expansion, and various open innovation paths share the trait of having the “same destination”.
-
2.
The path to achieve firms inbound open innovation may be divided into two types: “platform-enabling subject collaborative type” and “platform-enabling internal and external linkage-type.” The former is the most prevalent, emphasizing the promotion of internal cooperation and the supervision of relevant entities while also focusing on maintaining coordination and cooperation between firms and relevant entities. Conversely, the latter prioritizes the utilization of absorptive capability to establish channels for knowledge and technology exchange within and outside firms. The path to the implementation of outbound open innovation may be summed up in one model: “platform–external support collaborative type.” In comparison to inbound open innovation, the innovative behavior that extends from inside to outside places a greater emphasis on the importance of a collaborative digital platform and external assistance. Firms can promote their innovative successes through the strength and effect of digital platforms, as well as external backing.
-
Firms may use four methods to achieve nonhigh-level inbound open innovation. A thorough examination of the differences between the various combinations reveals that firms should pay close attention to internal capabilities, the influence of digital platforms, and external support. They should also emphasize the joint collaboration between internal and external entities and rationally match each party’s advantages to develop strengths and avoid weaknesses. This implies that firms must collaborate with other organizations (e.g., customers, suppliers, governments, and banks) to improve their communication channels and accomplish effective transformation of internal innovation achievements.
-
3.
Digital platforms are necessary for firms’ open innovation, which includes inbound and outbound open innovation. In other words, regardless of the existence of other antecedent conditions, digital platforms exist as a core condition and effectively promote the participation of firms in open innovation by bridging the communication between internal and external participants. On this basis, in comparison to the path of high-level inbound open innovation, a potential substitution relationship exists between absorptive capability and external support (H1). A substitution relationship may also exist between digital collaboration capability and stakeholder pressure (H2). In addition to the digital platform, external support is a common core condition for firms to achieve an outbound open innovation path, and a potential substitution relationship exists between absorptive capability, stakeholder pressure, and digital collaboration capability (H3a and H3c).
Theoretical contributions
The theoretical contributions of this paper are mainly reflected in the following three aspects:
First, the innovation ecosystem theory’s application scope is broadened in this research to include the context of firms’ open innovation. The development and evolution of innovation systems and regional collaborative mechanisms are currently the main topics of research on innovation ecosystem theory (Nasrin et al., 2023). However, some scholars have also focused on the realization mechanism of firm capability building and value co-creation within the framework of innovation ecosystems (Luo, 2018; Reynolds and Uygun, 2018). The system architecture of firms is the primary focus of research on open innovation and innovation ecosystems. However, studies on the mechanism of open innovation for general firm groups in the innovation ecosystem are limited. Therefore, from the perspective of symbiosis, this paper establishes the theoretical framework of symbiotic unit, symbiotic interface, and symbiotic environment to identify the synergistic effects of symbiotic unit (digital collaboration capability, and absorptive capability), symbiotic interface (digital platform), and symbiotic environment (stakeholder pressure and external support) and their combination paths for firms’ open innovation. Thus, this paper broadens the application of innovation ecosystem theory in firms’ open innovation paradigms and scenarios.
Second, this paper adds to the antecedents of firms’ open innovation by examining the configuration route of digital platforms that support inbound and outbound open innovation. Research on digital platforms and open innovation currently focuses on the internal governance structure of open innovation platforms (Wilhelm and Dolfsma, 2018; Muhammad et al., 2022). A few scholars have also examined the trust issue of innovation platforms (Pop et al., 2018; Steinbruch et al., 2020). However, research on how digital platforms interact with various internal and external factors, including the institutional environment, the effects of external stakeholders, and other factors, is limited. This paper provides a theoretical explanation for the mechanism of platform-enabling firms’ open innovation by exploring the combined effects of dynamic capabilities, such as digital collaboration capability and absorptive capability, as well as external support and stakeholder pressure, on the process of digital platform-enabling firms’ open innovation. The fsQCA has more advantages in identifying multiple concurrent causal relationships formed by different combinations of antecedent variables than the quantitative analysis of net causal effect, which is the focus of the previous literature. It also helps dispel the “myth” that affects firms’ open innovation under the complex interaction of antecedent variables (Fiss, 2011). The empirical test reveals that inbound open innovation prioritizes the collaborative construction of firms’ internal dynamic capability and external environment, whereas outbound open innovation places greater emphasis on the assurance of external support. Ultimately, inbound open innovation establishes the parameters for facilitating firms’ open innovation through digital platforms.
Third, this paper finds that asymmetry exists in the role path of firm absorptive capability in enabling firms’ open innovation on digital platforms. According to previous confirmatory studies, absorptive capability has a significantly positive effect on firms’ open innovation, suggesting that its effect is symmetrical. Absorptive capability can be a sufficient, but not essential, condition for firms to achieve high-level open innovation, according to this paper’s exploration of the antecedent configurations of high-level and nonhigh-level open innovation. The findings demonstrate that no specific operation leads to high-level open innovation in the configuration leading to nonhigh-level open innovation. The mechanism of absorptive capability on firms’ outbound open innovation is asymmetric, as evidenced by the core presence of absorptive capability in a collection of pathways for implementing nonhigh-level outbound open innovation. At the same time, it also shows that digital platforms, stakeholder pressure, and external support play a prominent role in promoting firms’ outbound open innovation and can be regarded as a universal condition for realizing outbound open innovation.
Managerial inspirations
The research conclusions of this paper provide the following practical implications for firms in the wave of digital transformation and digital innovation:
First, contemporary firms should actively engage in open innovation and gradually shift their development priorities. Through open innovation practice, firms can investigate new avenues for innovation and open up the channel of contact among corporate boundary resources. Firms mostly rely on digital platforms as their development area when embracing open innovation. They must actively optimize digital infrastructure, accelerate the pace of adaptation to the growth of the digital economy, define the development direction and demand in advance when fully realizing the potential of digital platforms, and integrate open innovation into their own development plans. Modern digital means, such as digital platforms and digital technologies, have blurred the boundaries between firms and industries, and the traditional competition pattern has been gradually replaced by the market relationship of synergy and symbiosis. However, given the inevitable conflicts among firms and multiple stakeholders, deepening collaborative governance remains necessary to maintain the development and survival of firms.
Second, firm managers must comprehend the internal resource endowment, carefully examine the type of appropriate open innovation for them, strengthen their collaboration with stakeholders, and prioritize developing their knowledge management skills. On the one hand, firms must modify their internal absorptive capability in environments where the public, nongovernmental organizations and shareholders place a high value. On the other hand, when these stakeholders pay greater attention to the growth of their firms, enhancing digital collaboration can strengthen the trust and cooperation among firms and external partners, facilitate the sharing of resources across organizational boundaries, and ultimately increase the degree of open innovation from external sources inward. Furthermore, if firms possess a significant level of innovation and initiative, then they must prioritize the collaborative utilization of digital platforms alongside government and nongovernmental support. By using digital platforms, firms can integrate innovation and creativity, thereby effectively harnessing external resources to optimize existing products, services, and even their corporate strategy. This approach not only enhances firms’ competitive edge but also opens avenues for delivering creative achievements to the external market.
Third, firms need to use digital and geographic dividends to fully combine the role of digital platforms and absorptive capability. With a strong digital network and technical conditions, firms in the Yangtze River Delta region can fully grasp and use the absorptive capability as an important dynamic capability of firms, such that they can have sustainable competitiveness in the ever-changing market environment. Firms still need to promptly modify the innovation ecosystem’s element planning and development emphasis to maintain high-level flexibility and adaptation in the face of the digital economy’s rapid expansion. Simultaneously, firms should effectively utilize independent innovation in broadening their market and business domain to establish a value network with innovators via digital channels and proactively capture the center of the market. In addition, digital platforms may be used by firms to find and evaluate possible partners and draw outside parties to their open innovation initiatives.
Limitations and future research
This paper is not without shortcomings. First, there exist specific restrictions on the regional representation of the samples because the majority of the study data come from firms in the Yangtze River Delta region. To make the research findings more applicable to a wider range of locations, future investigations must broaden the geographic area of the study objects. Second, the study determines the open innovation combination path from a configurational perspective, but it stops short of delving deeper into the path’s interior workings. Furthermore, the fsQCA approach is difficult to apply in the specific route test, and it places great emphasis on the theoretical level. Subsequent studies can be conducted through the integration of qualitative and quantitative analytical techniques. Third, on the basis of the symbiosis perspective and the innovation ecosystem theory, only five antecedents were selected and refined. However, the market environment and organizational evolution have complex and dynamic characteristics, and a more comprehensive combination of conditions needs to be analyzed from multiple perspectives.
Data availability
All data generated or analyzed during this paper are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. Other data that support the findings of this paper are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Abbate T, Codini A, Aquilani B, Vrontis D (2021) From knowledge ecosystems to capabilities ecosystems: when open innovation digital platforms lead to value co-creation. J Knowl Econ 13(1):290–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00720-1
Abbate T, Codini AP, Aquilani B (2019) Knowledge co-creation in open innovation digital platforms: processes, tools and services. J Bus Ind Mark 34(7):1434–1447. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-09-2018-0276
Aboelmaged DM, Hashem G (2019) Absorptive capacity and green innovation adoption in SMEs: the mediating effects of sustainable organizational capabilities. J Clean Prod 220:853–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.150
Baldwin C, HienerthI C, Von HE (2006) How user innovations become commercial products: a theoretical investigation and case study. Res Policy 35(9):1291–1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.012
Bereznoy A, Meissner D, Scuotto V (2021) The intertwining of knowledge sharing and creation in the digital platform-based ecosystem. A conceptual study on the lens of the open innovation approach. J Knowl Manag 25(8):2022–2042. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2020-0769
Bogers M, Chesbrough H, Moedas C (2018) Open innovation: research, practices, and policies. Calif Manag Rev 60(2):5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617745086
Chen ST, Yu DK (2022) Exploring the impact of external collaboration on firm growth capability: The mediating roles of R&D efforts. Hum Soc Sci Commun 9(1):404–414. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01429-5
Chwelos P, Dexter AS (2001) Research report: empirical test of an EDI adoption model. Inf Syst Res 12(3):304–321. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.3.304.9708
Constantinides P, Henfridsson O, Parker GG (2018) Platforms and infrastructures in the digital age. Inf Syst Res 29(2):381–400. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0794
Ert E, Fleischer A (2019) The evolution of trust in Airbnb: a case of home rental. Ann Tour Res 75:279–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.01.004
Esposito De FS, Renzi A, Orlando B, Cucari N (2017) Open collaborative innovation and digital platforms. Prod Plan Control 28(16):1344–1353. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1375143
Fiss PC (2011) Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad Manag J 54(2):393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263120
Garces AC, Rivera TP, Murillo LJL (2012) Stakeholder pressure and environmental proactivity: moderating effect of competitive advantage expectations. Manag Decis 50(2):189–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211203524
Gawer A, Cusumano MA (2014) Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. J Prod Innov Manag 31(3):417–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12105
Gentile LS, de-Oliveira RT, Paul J (2019) Does organizational structure facilitate inbound and outbound open innovation in SMEs? Small Bus Econ 55(4):1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00175-4
Gomes LA, de V, Facin ALF, Salerno MS, Ikenami RK (2018) Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: evolution, gaps and trends. Technol Forecast Soc 136(1):30–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009
Jugend D, Chiappeta J,CJ, Alves S,JA, Sø R,R, Alcides GJ,J, Latan H, Salgado MH (2018) Relationships among open innovation, innovative performance, government support and firm size: comparing Brazilian firms embracing different levels of radicalism in innovation. Technovation 74–75:54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.02.004
Khattak A, Tabash MI, Yousaf Z, Radulescu M, Nassani AA, Haffar M (2022) Towards innovation performance of SMEs: investigating the role of digital platforms, innovation culture and frugal innovation in emerging economies. J Entrep Emerg Econ 14(5):796–811. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-08-2021-0318
Kratzer J, Meissner D, Roud V (2017) Open innovation and company culture: internal openness makes the difference. Technol Forecast Soc 119:128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.022
Lee SM, Olson DL, Trim IS (2012) Co-innovation: converge omics, collaboration, and co-creation for organizational values. Manag Decis 50(5):817–831. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211227528
Li L, Zhu W, Wei L, Yang SL (2022) How can digital collaboration capability boost service innovation? Evidence from the information technology industry. Technol Forecast Soc 182:121830–121838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121830
Lichtenthaler U (2009) Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: Examining environmental influences. RD Manag 39(4):317–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00561.x
Liu L, Long J, Liu RH, Fan Q, Wan WH (2023) Examining how and when digital platform capabilities drive technological innovation: a strategic information perspective. J Enterp Inf Manag 36(2):553–582. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2022-0033
Luo JX (2018) Architecture and evolvability of innovation ecosystems. Technol Forecast Soc 136(1):132–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.033
Martin K, Ted L, Sungyong U, Dong HK (2023) Development of a method framework to predict network structure dynamics in digital platforms: empirical experiments based on API networks. Knowl Based Syst 280:110936–110952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110936
Medase K, Barasa L (2019) Absorptive capacity, marketing capabilities, and innovation commercialization in Nigeria. Eur J Innov Manag 22(5):790–820. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2018-0194
Mueller JM, Buliga O, Voigt K (2021) The role of absorptive capacity and innovation strategy in the design of industry 4.0 business models—a comparison between SMEs and large enterprises. Eur Manag J 39(3):333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.01.002
Muhammad AA, David R, Murray T (2022) Measuring inter-firm openness in innovation ecosystems. J Bus Res 138:436–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.069
Muhammad I, Alejandro BP, Teresa M, Valentina L (2023) Enhancing open innovation: managing not invented here syndrome in collaborative projects. Technovation 128:102879–102889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102879
Nambisan S, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A, Song M (2017) Digital innovation management: reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Q 41(1):223–238. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41:1.03
Naqshbandi MM (2016) Managerial ties and open innovation: examining the role of absorptive capacity. Manag Decis 54(9):2256–2276. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2016-0161
Naqshbandi MM, Tabche I (2018) The interplay of leadership, absorptive capacity, and organizational learning culture in open innovation: testing a moderated mediation model. Technol Forecast Soc 133:156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.017
Naqshbandi MM, Tabche I, Choudhary N (2019) Managing open innovation: the roles of empowering leadership and employee involvement climate. Manag Decis 57(3):703–723. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2017-0660
Nasrin S, Ekaterina T, Patrick C (2023) The mechanisms underlying the emergence of innovation ecosystems: the case of the AI ecosystem in Montreal. Eur Plan Stud 31(7):1443–1465. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2023.2185502
Natalicchio A, Ardito L, Savino T, Albino V (2017) Managing knowledge assets for open innovation: a systematic literature review. J Knowl Manag 21(6):1362–1383. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2016-0516
Niloofar K, Ernesto T, Andrea A, Corrado C (2022) Managing open innovation within supply networks in mature industries. Eur J Innov Manag 25(6):1106–1130. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2021-0606
Ozgur D, Saku JM Ozgur D, Saku JM, Ortt Jr (2018) Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: a literature review. Technol Forecast Soc 136(1):18–29
Paasi J, Wim ANH, Apilo T, Valkokari K (2023) Modeling the dynamics of innovation ecosystems. Int J Innov Stud 7(2):142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2022.12.002
Pop OM, Leroi WS, Roijakkers N, Andreassen TW (2018) Institutional types and institutional change in healthcare ecosystems. J Serv Manag 29(4):593–614. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-02-2017-0041
Radziwon A, Bogers M (2019) Open innovation in SMEs: exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem. Technol Forecast Soc 146:573–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.021
Reynolds EB, Uygun Y (2018) Strengthening advanced manufacturing innovation ecosystems: the case of Massachusetts. Technol Forecast Soc 136:178–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.003
Ricardo CC, Darek MH (2021) Value creation through the evolution of business model themes. J Bus Res 122:353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.007
Roh T, Lee K, Yang JY (2021) How do intellectual property rights and government support drive a firm’s green innovation? The mediating role of open innovation. J Clean Prod 317:128422–128434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128422
Schweisfurth TG, Raasch C (2018) Absorptive capacity for need knowledge: antecedents and effects for employee innovativeness. Res Policy 47(4):687–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.017
Sedera D, Lokuge S, Grover V, Sarker S (2016) Innovating with enterprise systems and digital platforms: a contingent resource-based theory view. Inf Manag 53(3):366–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.01.001
Shi XX, Lu L, Zhang W, Zhang QP (2020) Managing open innovation from a knowledge flow perspective: the roles of embeddedness and network inertia in collaboration networks. Eur J Innov Manag 24(3):1011–1034. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2019-0200
Sims J, Gichoya J, Bhardwaj G, Bogers M (2019) Write code, save lives: how a community uses open innovation to address a societal challenge. RD Manag 49(3):369–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12338
Steinbruch FK, Nascimento LD, de Menezes DC (2020) The role of trust in innovation ecosystems. J Bus Ind Mark 37(1):195–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-08-2020-0395
Su YS, Kajikawa Y, Tsujimoto M, Chen J (2018) Innovation ecosystems: Theory, evidence, practice, and implications. Technol Forecast Soc 136(1):14–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.009
Usman M, Vanhaverbeke W (2017) How start-ups successfully organize and manage open innovation with large companies. Eur J Innov Manag 20(1):171–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2016-0066
Walrave B, Talmar M, Podoynitsyna KS, Romme AGL, Verbong GPJ (2018) A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation. Technol Forecast Soc 136:103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.011
Wilhelm M, Dolfsma W (2018) Managing knowledge boundaries for open innovation–Lessons from the automotive industry. Int J Oper Prod Manag 38(1):230–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2015-0337
Wu L, Sun L, Chang Q, Zhang D, Qi PX (2022) How do digitalization capabilities enable open innovation in manufacturing enterprises? A multiple case study based on resource integration perspective. Technol Forecast Soc 184:122019–122035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122019
Yuan S, Pan XF (2023) Inherent mechanism of digital technology application empowered corporate green innovation: based on resource allocation perspective. J Environ Manag 345:118841–118856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118841
Zacharia ZG, Nix NW, Lusch RF (2011) Capabilities that enhance outcomes of an episodic supply chain collaboration. J Oper Manag 29(6):591–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2011.02.001
Zhang X, Gao C, Zhang S (2022) The niche evolution of cross-boundary innovation for Chinese SMEs in the context of digital transformation-case study based on dynamic capacity. Technol Soc 68:101870–101883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101870
Acknowledgements
We sincerely express our gratitude for the funding support from the Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province (No. LH2021G005), the Humanities and Social Science Project of the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (Nos. 20YJC630170 and 20YJC790082), and the National Social Science Fund of China (No. 22CGL030).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors’ contributions are as follows: XX: material preparation, investigation, data collection, and manuscript revision; CZ: data analysis, writing of the first draft, and manuscript revision; YL: modification and optimization; TL: review and optimization. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.
Informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Xing, X., Zhu, C., Lin, Y. et al. Can digital platform empowers inbound and outbound open innovation? From the perspective of the innovation ecosystem. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11, 1384 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03523-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03523-2
