Open-Innovation Practices: Diversity in Portuguese SMEs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research gap, as described by the authors ("Despite the growing interest in the business application of the concept of open innovation, most studies in the area still tend to focus primarily on large companies") is to be supported and justified by mentioning authoritative studies and academic contributions.
The structure of the questionnaire (which is reported in the manuscript) is very synthetic. The full questionnaire should be reported in the Appendix. At the moment, the nature and detailed focus of the investigation with the target sample is not clear for the reader. The results provided are quite generic and also the statistical analysis is quite high-level. The authors should be more generous in describing the single points of analysis with companies, and how this was reflected in the questionnaire and then in the data processing activity.
The discussion neeeds to be improved in terms of real advancements respect to the current state of art knowledge (a research agenda?). Also the managerial implications can be described in a more detailed (operational) manner.
Author Response
The research gap, as described by the authors ("Despite the growing interest in the business application of the concept of open innovation, most studies in the area still tend to focus primarily on large companies") is to be supported and justified by mentioning authoritative studies and academic contributions.
Author’s response: Thank you very much for your feedback regarding the pertinence and originality of this work.
The structure of the questionnaire (which is reported in the manuscript) is very synthetic. The full questionnaire should be reported in the Appendix. At the moment, the nature and detailed focus of the investigation with the target sample is not clear for the reader.
Author’s response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have included the full structure of the questionnaire in the Appendix I. Additionally, Table 1 provides an overview of the survey structure considering its sections and answer alternatives.
The results provided are quite generic and also the statistical analysis is quite high-level. The authors should be more generous in describing the single points of analysis with companies, and how this was reflected in the questionnaire and then in the data processing activity.
Author’s response: Thanks for your suggestion to improve this section of the manuscript. The materials and methods section has been improved to indicate that a pilot questionnaire was distributed to 12 partner companies of our research center at the end of January 2021 to collect suggestions for improvement that allowed increasing the focus on the main practices, benefits, and challenges of open innovation. The scale was also corrected to adopt a Likert scale of five levels for the benefits and challenges dimensions. We have also improved the Results section and present a new Table 5 that shows the correlation between the various innovation practices considering the three perspectives (i.e., outside-in, inside-out, and coupled). The results indicate several correlations among the practices, including: (i) the existence of a significant positive correlation among the various innovation practices: (ii) the adoption of outside-in practices is not correlated with inside-out practices; (iii) outside-in and coupled practices show significant positive correlation indicating that SMEs adopt simultaneously more than one practice in each dimension.
The discussion needs to be improved in terms of real advancements respect to the current state of art knowledge (a research agenda?).
Author’s response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have discussed the relevance of our results considering the digital maturity level of organizations, economic potential of inside-out approach, cooperation with customers, and the role of incubators and science parks in promoting open innovation practices. The following references have been included:
COTEC Portugal. Assessing digital maturity in order to evolve. Available online: https://cotecportugal.pt/en/2020/08/31/assessing-digital-maturity-in-order-to-evolve/ (accessed on 26 June 2021).
Teixeira, A.C.; Lopes, M. Open Innovation in Portugal. Acta Oeconomica, 2012, 62(4), 435-458.
Fernandes, S., Cesário, M.; Barata, J.M. Ways to open innovation: Main agents and sources in the Portuguese case. Technology in Society, 2017, 51, 153-162.
Fernandes, S.; Castela, G. Start-ups' accelerators support open innovation in Portugal. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 2019, 26(1), 82-93.
Also the managerial implications can be described in a more detailed (operational) manner.
Author’s response: Thanks for your suggestion to clarify the managerial implications of this study. The results suggest the need for Portuguese SMEs to foster the participation of customers in their open innovation processes to achieve a better balance between the participation of suppliers and customers. In the establishment of public policies, the collaboration with universities and research centers should be encouraged since the transfer of technology to Portuguese SMEs is still marginal. Also highlighted is the need for public policies that foster the creation of spinoffs involving both internal and external technology and incentives for the creation of strategic alliances.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscripts deals with the diversity of open innovation practices in a sample of 187 Portuguese SMEs which reveals that the outside-in paradigm is the most adopted.
The paper is well written and articulated. Its main strengths are represented by the (very interesting) topic investigated and the kind of data employed that have been originally collected by the author(s). The main weakness stems from the use of data: they should be employed to carry out a more advanced econometric analysis instead of being used just for reporting descriptive statistics.
Below some more specific comments to improve the manuscript’s overall quality.
Introduction
Lines 20-24: Author(s) should rephrase these lines since they are currently misleading. Indeed, the creation of new ideas cannot be considered as an innovation itself. Innovations occur only when ideas are actually marketed, otherwise they remain “inventions” (see the OSLO manual).
The author(s) should highlight the gap in the literature that the manuscript intends to fill.
Background
Lines 101-115
In describing companies-suppliers collaborations and companies-customers collaborations, I suggest to refer to the large strand of literature that has investigated the knowledge/technological spillovers arising at backward and forward level (vertical spillovers) and at intra-industry level (horizontal spillovers) between local companies and multinational enterprises, especially as a consequence of labor turnover (see, for instance, Imbriani et al. (2014) “How much do technological gap, firm size, and regional characteristics matter for the absorptive capacity of Italian enterprises?” International Advances in Economic Research)
Other relevant strands of literature that should be mentioned here are related to (i) the role of collaborations in scientific parks, (ii) the analysis of “industrial districts” where innovations arise across companies that share the same “environment”, and (iii) the networking connections among firms, generally investigated through the social network analysis.
Line 143: Since you carry out an empirical (quantitative) investigation, I would probably rephrase the RQ1 as follows: What are the outside-in open innovation practices MOSTLY adopted by Portuguese SMEs?
The previous comments applies also to RQ2 and RQ3
Materials and methods
Lines 239-245 can be removed since they do not provide any relevant insight towards the discussion carried out later on in the manuscript.
Lines 247-259 Some additional information are necessary: which is the percentage of total Portuguese companies that the survey covers? How was the questionnaire administered (through a CWI technique or what else)? Did the author(s) use a pilot questionnaire? The questionnaire could be probably reported in Appendix
Results
Why did you run only a descriptive statistics analysis? I expected to find here an econometric analysis. Considering the kind of data you have collected, ANOVA represents a too basic statistical method. In other words, you made a really valuable effort to get data through the questionnaire and such an effort should be exploited differently, i.e. through a more advanced econometric analysis.
Discussion and conclusions (sections 5 and 6) are overall ok.
Author Response
The manuscripts deals with the diversity of open innovation practices in a sample of 187 Portuguese SMEs which reveals that the outside-in paradigm is the most adopted. The paper is well written and articulated. Its main strengths are represented by the (very interesting) topic investigated and the kind of data employed that have been originally collected by the author(s). The main weakness stems from the use of data: they should be employed to carry out a more advanced econometric analysis instead of being used just for reporting descriptive statistics.
Author’s response: Thanks for your global positive feedback and the suggestion to improve the analysis of data section. We have complemented our initial analysis by presenting in the Table 5 the correlation between open innovation practices. We believe that this analysis is important to understand the correlation between the various open innovation practices and allows us to positively complement the results of the study. It was explored the used of generalized linear model (GLM) but it wasn’t useful for this study because the variable have normal distribution. Also, Probit function is not recommended because this study doesn’t present binary response variables. Additionally, vector autoregression and cointegration models are not relevant because we don’t have time series data.
Introduction
Lines 20-24: Author(s) should rephrase these lines since they are currently misleading. Indeed, the creation of new ideas cannot be considered as an innovation itself. Innovations occur only when ideas are actually marketed, otherwise they remain “inventions” (see the OSLO manual).
Author’s response: Thank you very much for your pertinent observation. It is the classic distinction between innovation and invention. We have corrected this information in the paper by clarifying that Innovation can be understood as a process of continuous learning and research, which results in exploring new ideas successfully in the market.
The author(s) should highlight the gap in the literature that the manuscript intends to fill.
Author’s response: Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the research gap. Accordingly, we have improved the introduction section. Most studies conducted are focused on large organizations and do not distinguish between the various typologies of open innovation practices. This study takes a distinct approach. This study addresses the research gap of the implementation of open innovation practices, benefits, and challenges in the specific context of SMEs and allows for a better understanding of this phenomenon, and the establishment of public policies and recommendations to stimulate open innovation activities in these companies.
Background
Lines 101-115
In describing companies-suppliers collaborations and companies-customers collaborations, I suggest to refer to the large strand of literature that has investigated the knowledge/technological spillovers arising at backward and forward level (vertical spillovers) and at intra-industry level (horizontal spillovers) between local companies and multinational enterprises, especially as a consequence of labor turnover (see, for instance, Imbriani et al. (2014) “How much do technological gap, firm size, and regional characteristics matter for the absorptive capacity of Italian enterprises?” International Advances in Economic Research)
Author’s response: Thanks for your recommendation to improve the Background section. We have discussed the role of knowledge/technological spillovers considering their relevance for different kind of collaborations like companies-suppliers, companies-customers, and companies-universities. Accordingly, we have included the following four references:
Yang, H.; Steensma, H.K. When do firms rely on their knowledge spillover recipients for guidance in exploring unfamiliar knowledge? Research Policy, 2014, 43(9), 1496-1507.
Imbriani, C.; Pittiglio, R.; Reganati, F.; Sica, E. How Much do Technological Gap, Firm Size, and Regional Characteristics Matter for the Absorptive Capacity of Italian Enterprises? International Advances in Economic Research, 2014, 20(1), 57-72.
Laperche, B.; Liu, Z. SMEs and knowledge-capital formation in innovation networks: a review of literature. Journal of Inno-vation and Entrepreneurship, 2013, 2(21), 1-16.
Davies, G.H.; Flanagan, J.; Bolton, D.; Roderick, S.; Joyce, N. University knowledge spillover from an open innovation technology transfer context. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2021, 19(1), 84-93.
Other relevant strands of literature that should be mentioned here are related to (i) the role of collaborations in scientific parks, (ii) the analysis of “industrial districts” where innovations arise across companies that share the same “environment”, and (iii) the networking connections among firms, generally investigated through the social network analysis.
Author’s response: We agree that these three suggested points are relevant. We have addressed the tole of cluster in innovation, the use of social networks for innovation, and the role of collaboration in science parks. To support these themes, we have included the following three references:
Verdú, F.M.; Tierno, N.R. Special issue: clustering and innovation: firm-level strategizing and policy. Entrepreneurship & Re-gional Development, 2019, 31(1-2), 1-6.
Leenders, R.T.; Dolfsma, W.A. Social Networks for Innovation and New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2016, 33(2), 123-131.
Montoro-Sánchez, A.; Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M.; Mora-Valentín, E.M. Effects of knowledge spillovers on innovation and collaboration in science and technology parks. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2011, 15(6), 948-970.
Line 143: Since you carry out an empirical (quantitative) investigation, I would probably rephrase the RQ1 as follows: What are the outside-in open innovation practices MOSTLY adopted by Portuguese SMEs? The previous comments applies also to RQ2 and RQ3
Author’s response: Thanks for your suggestion to review the research questions. We have restructured the three research questions as suggested. The study currently presents the following three research questions:
RQ1: What are the outside-in open innovation practices mostly adopted by Portuguese SMEs?
RQ2: What are the inside-out open innovation practices mostly adopted by Portuguese SMEs?
RQ3: What are the practices of coupled open innovation mostly adopted by Portuguese SMEs?
Materials and methods
Lines 239-245 can be removed since they do not provide any relevant insight towards the discussion carried out later on in the manuscript.
Author’s response: We have removed these lines and the reference associated to Tan (2017) that is no more necessary.
Lines 247-259 Some additional information are necessary: which is the percentage of total Portuguese companies that the survey covers? How was the questionnaire administered (through a CWI technique or what else)? Did the author(s) use a pilot questionnaire? The questionnaire could be probably reported in Appendix
Author’s response: Thanks for your suggestions to develop further this section of the manuscript. We have clarified that it was considered the companies integrating the PME Líder 2020 edition in which a total of 9955 SMEs are included. After that, it was collected a sample of 612 SMEs respecting the geographical distribution of these companies to reduce the risk of bias. Furthermore, A pilot questionnaire was distributed to 12 partner companies of our research center at the end of January 2021 to collect suggestions for improvement that allowed increasing the focus on the main practices, benefits, and challenges of open innovation. The scale was also corrected to adopt a Likert scale of five levels for the benefits and challenges dimensions. Additionally, we have included the full questionnaire in Appendix I.
Results
Why did you run only a descriptive statistics analysis? I expected to find here an econometric analysis. Considering the kind of data you have collected, ANOVA represents a too basic statistical method. In other words, you made a really valuable effort to get data through the questionnaire and such an effort should be exploited differently, i.e. through a more advanced econometric analysis.
Author’s response: Thanks for your suggestion. Descriptive statistic analysis is very important in this study because it gives a global overview about the relevance of open innovation practices (i.e., outside-in, inside-out, coupled). We have also explored the open innovation practices adopted in each paradigm. We consider that analyzing this information in a simple and comprehensive way is very relevant considering the target audience of this study. Additionally, we have also included a new table 5 that explores the correlations between open innovation practices. This information is very interesting to understand how the different practices are jointly adopted by Portuguese SMEs. The results indicate several correlations among the practices, including: (i) the existence of a significant positive correlation among the various innovation practices: (ii) the adoption of outside-in practices is not correlated with inside-out practices; (iii) outside-in and coupled practices show significant positive correlation indicating that SMEs adopt simultaneously more than one practice in each dimension. Finally, we have considered the inclusion of more advance statistical and econometric models, namely GLM, Probit, and vector autoregression. However, the results obtained do not allow us to get additional relevant information that the adoption of ANOVA has already allowed by exploring the impact of the control variables on the practices, benefits, and challenges posed by open innovation among Portuguese SMEs.
Discussion and conclusions (sections 5 and 6) are overall ok.
Author’s response: Thank you very much regarding the quality of discussion and conclusions sections.
Reviewer 3 Report
I found the article very interesting, well written and well presented. I just find the graphs a bit banal and obvious. Personally I would have combined them all together in a nice summary infographic that also acts as a showcase for the article in order to receive citations. Anyway, I wish this article best of luck
Author Response
I found the article very interesting, well written and well presented. I just find the graphs a bit banal and obvious. Personally I would have combined them all together in a nice summary infographic that also acts as a showcase for the article in order to receive citations. Anyway, I wish this article best of luck
Author’s response: Thank you very much for your very positive feedback. We agree that the graphs are a bit banal and obvious and alone they don’t provide relevant conclusions. The idea to present them as an infographic is very relevant and it would increase the level of community acceptance. Therefore, we have removed the Figures 1, 2, and 3. These figures were replaced by a single new Figure 1 that presents a global overview of the obtained results regarding the open innovation practices.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Most of the suggested changes have been implemented by the authors. The article represents now a more robust and contributory piece of research.
Reviewer 2 Report
Well done. I hope anyway that in future researches you'll consider to exploit the collected data in a more quantitative way, since, in my opinion, they show great potential.
