Investigating the link between intellectual capital and open innovation processes: a longitudinal case study
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0020 |
| Published date | 03 December 2020 |
| Date | 03 December 2020 |
| Pages | 538-557 |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,HR & organizational behaviour,Organizational structure/dynamics,Accounting & finance,Accounting/accountancy,Behavioural accounting |
| Author | Diego Matricano,Elena Candelo,Mario Sorrentino,Giuseppe Cappiello |
Investigating the link between
intellectual capital and open
innovation processes:
a longitudinal case study
Diego Matricano
Department of Management, Universit
a degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli,
Capua, Italy
Elena Candelo
University of Turin, Turin, Italy
Mario Sorrentino
Department of Management, Universit
a degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli,
Capua, Italy, and
Giuseppe Cappiello
Dipartimento di Scienze Aziendali, Alma Mater Studiorum Universita di Bologna,
Bologna, Italy
Abstract
Purpose –This paper investigates the link between Intellectual Capital (IC) and Open Innovation (OI).
Scholars worldwide consider the topics as standing alone and so they give scarce attention to the possible link
between them. Managerial experiences (and few theoretical contributions), instead, hypothesize a significant
role that IC can play over OI processes in order make them successful.
Design/methodology/approach –The methodology of a single case study is used to investigate the link
between IC and OI. In particular, an OI process managed by a global company, LEGO, and named Mindstorms
is rebuilt and analysed herein.
Findings –Intermediate results achieved by LEGO through its OI process were unsuccessful since the
company had not developed its own IC (made up of relational, human and structural capital). The subsequent
development of IC, instead, has driven to successful results. This suggests that if companies do not develop
their IC before launching OI processes, then these processes might be not successful.
Research limitations/implications –One limitation is the use of a single case study. Despite this, the
present article is a warning for all the companies: before launching OI processes they need to develop their IC.
Originality/value –To the best knowledge of the authors, this is one of the first works that deepens the
investigation of the link between IC and OI. Very often, scholars investigating IC shyly refer to OI, without
mentioning it, while the scholars investigating OI allude to IC, without citing it. In this study, IC and OI are
investigated together.
Keywords Intellectual capital, Open innovation, Human capital, Structural capital, Relational capital,
Longitudinal case study
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Management scholars consider Intellectual Capital (IC) and Open Innovation (OI) as two
standing alone fields of research. Generally speaking, when management scholars refer to IC
they consider all the intangible resources companies can leverage on in order to attain and
sustain their competitive advantage in the market (Galbraith, 1969;Bontis, 1996,1998;
Sveiby, 1997;Carayannis et al., 2014). At the same time, when they refer to OI they pay
attention on inbound and outbound knowledge flows that can support and foster companies’
innovation processes (Chesbrough, 2003;Gassman et al., 2010).
JIC
23,3
538
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1469-1930.htm
Received 4 February 2020
Revised 18 June 2020
26 August 2020
Accepted 1 October 2020
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 23 No. 3, 2022
pp. 538-557
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0020
Over the last decade, some scholars have shyly suspected and investigated the existence
of a link between IC and OI (Henkel, 2006;Elmquist et al., 2009;Michelino et al., 2014;U
ziene,
2015;Barrena-Mart
ınez et al., 2019;Najar et al., 2020). In particular, Elmquist et al. (2009) recall
and support Henkel’s view (2006) by underlying the role that IC and OI play in the field of
intellectual property. Michelino et al. (2014) leverage IC to test and measure OI. U
ziene (2015)
argues that IC and OI are related topics since OI processes –concerning inbound and
outbound knowledge flows –affect all the resources hold by a company, including the
intangible ones, i.e. IC. Barrena-Mart
ınez et al. (2019) propose integrating IC and OI while
Najar et al. (2020) investigate the impact of IC on OI. However, despite the above studies, the
link between IC and OI still results unrevealed. Undoubtedly it results that management
scholars have not fully investigated the link between IC and OI and the implications that this
link can have on firms’performance.
In order to fill in this gap, the paper is structured as follows. In section two, there is an
extensive review of management literature focused on IC and on OI separately. After that, the
research hypotheses rooted in dedicated literature are presented. In section three, the research
method is defined. The decision to use a single case study methodology is due to the fact that
LEGO Group is a global well-known company producing the so-famous bricks. In particular,
LEGO case study is divided into two phases: the first when Lego launches the project named
Mindstorms, and the second when LEGO launches the “right to hack”to Mindstorms license.
In section four, some reflections about LEGO case study are presented and discussed. In the
last section, after underlining the main limitations of the study, some implications for
companies are discussed and some implications for management researchers are suggested
in order to address the proceeding of future research.
2. Literature review
2.1 Intellectual capital
IC stands for a set of intangible resources that companies can leverage on in order to attain
and sustain their competitive advantage in the market (Galbraith, 1969). Over the years, the
concept has been enlarged or enriched, modified or compressed in order to make it as fitting
as possible with cognitive aims pursued –at each time –by academics, top managers,
consultants and practitioners.
Brooking (1996), for example, maintains that IC is made up of four components. They are
market, human, intellectual and infrastructural capitals. Market capital refers to brand,
positioning and distribution and it stands for the power that companies exert in the
marketplace. Human capital is related to problem-solving capacity, leadership and creativity
that employees hold. Intellectual capital (i.e. patents, copyright and trademarks) stands for
the intangible resources that companies can protect through legal mechanisms. Eventually,
infrastructural capital represents the management philosophy and culture shared inside the
company.
Some scholars (Sveiby, 1997;Roos et al., 1997;Stewart, 1997;Bontis et al., 2000) compress
the concept of IC by assuming that it is made up of customer capital, structural and human
capital while McElroy (2002) enriches the concept by replacing customer capital with social
capital. The OECD (1999) proposes an even more compressed classification of IC by assuming
that it is made up of structural and human capital. By the former, the OECD refers to software
systems and to networks consequently developed that companies can leverage on in order to
compete in the market. By the latter, the OECD refers to all the resources available for
ventures. These resources can be both internal and external. Recently, some scholars
(Khalique et al., 2011,2015) have enlarged again the concept by considering six kinds of
intellectual capital: human, customer, structural, social, technological and spiritual capital.
Even if the debate on the components of IC is still ongoing, most management scholars
Investigating
the link
between IC and
OI
539
To continue reading
Request your trial