Keywords

1 Introduction

Research and Technology Organisations (RTOs) or Technology Centers are key to innovation systems and policies at the national or regional level [1], especially in contexts with a network of small and medium-sized companies [2].

RTOs are organizations whose total or partial mission is to “perform a creative work in a systematic way to increase the volume of knowledge, including the knowledge of humanity, culture and society, and the use of that knowledge to create new applications” [3]. RTOs have a “hybrid nature” [4] and play an intermediary role as creators and transferrants of knowledge, developing their own research and development activities [5]. Acting as a research entity, they provide research and technology services to industries, acting as a special type of KIBS—knowledge-intensive business service firms [6].

Due to their nature, RTOs play an active role in the deployment of public policies on science, technology, and innovation [7] with a special emphasis on their role as knowledge transfer agents for the industry [8]. Their activity helps companies to increase their innovation and technological capabilities [6] and thus to increase the innovation ratios and innovation capacities of the regional innovation system (RIS) in which they operate.

In this context is where an open innovation (OI) plays its role, due to its capability to influence several strategic objectives RTOs need to undertake [9].

2 Open Innovation in RTOs

Collaboration between firms is not a novel phenomenon [10]. Collaboration occurs between different types of agents: between companies, between companies and RTOs, in research and development, or the development of new products and production technologies [1]. Yet, in the literature there is a wide nomenclature when referring to this type of collaboration in R&D, such as “collaboration”, “cooperation”, “strategic alliances”, “Joint Ventures”, and “networking” [11].

Thus, the literature on strategic alliances has had a great development as can be seen in the recent study of literature on the subject [12]. However, in 2003, a new stream of research emerged when Chesbrough coined the term “open innovation” [13], to describe a trend in innovation theory, which evolved from a closed to an open approach. Open innovation was defined as “the use of external and foreign knowledge flows to accelerate the innovation process and to expand the market through the external use of innovation, respectively” and laid the foundations for a new research stream.

Although these two research streams have evolved separately based on different research questions, they share a natural affinity between them in terms of described phenomena, theoretical predictions, and implications for management [14]. Both research streams assume that innovation is collaborative and often complementary, and that such collaborations are crucial for companies when creating and capturing the value of their innovations [15]. Thus, some authors consider OI as a broader concept [14], which integrates the concepts, mechanisms, and models of the stream of strategic alliances. In addition, the fact that the innovation paradigm considers knowledge flows as an essential element makes it very suitable for application to RTOs, given their intermediate position in the innovation system and their fundamental orientation to the transfer of technology to companies.

As stated in the introduction to this section, RTOs develop both inbound and outbound OI roles [16]. On the one hand, they offer knowledge and expertise inputs to other businesses (outbound), which is RTOs’ main mission. This form of technology and knowledge transfer plays an important role in the innovation of clients' firms [6]. On the other (inbound), they rely on external partners, especially universities and other research partners for knowledge acquisition, capacity building, and to stay connected to the sources of scientific and technological developments [16].

RTOs, due to their nature and role in the Regional Systems of Innovation, have close ties with academia and industry, and work in an open collaboration environment, with knowledge flows that enter and leave the organization, which in practice is an OI model. In addition, the fact that companies are increasingly applying OI as an innovation strategy is reinforcing the role of OI in RTOs. Moreover, public administrations also promote, through R&D support programs, collaboration with other agents, which fosters OI in RTOs due to the impact of public funds on RTOs.

Additionally, RTOs consider OI as a key element in the achievement of their strategic objectives [9]: increase of benefits, improvement of development times, increase of innovative capacity, increase of R&D flexibility, or better access to the market. These objectives identified in the scope of the companies have not yet been studied for RTOs, nor the management approach of RTOs for OI or the related obstacles. Results regarding these elements are shown in the following sections.

3 Method

To explore the objectives and barriers of open innovation implementation in RTOs, an empirical study was performed based on a questionnaire addressed to managers in RTOs. The survey focused on the population described at the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities databaseFootnote 1 regarding Innovation and Technology Centers (CIT database). In June 2018, the database contained 63 RTOs. Eliminating the non-active organizations, as well as the ones mainly orientated to sectors of low R&D intensity, the list of RTOs to study was shortened to 50 (target population).

The data employed in this research was obtained using a self-administered questionnaire filled in by the managers of the RTOs, mostly CEOs (43.24%) or other C-Level Executives (45.95%). The instrument was designed with a previous validation through personal interviews, and was based on scales (Likert 1 to 5) previously used in other research studies. Moreover, the management experience of respondents was high with 17.8 years of average experience for CEOs and 16.11 years of average experience for other executives.

Finally, 36 valid responses were obtained, which implies a ratio of 72% of the total population selected, which can be considered very representative.

4 Results

The heterogeneity of the RTOs analyzed is great, as reflected in the type of activity they develop (Table 1).

Table 1 Spanish RTOs typology based on the percentage of activity based on under contract projects (percentage of total activity)
Full size table

This heterogeneity affects the way RTOs understand the importance of OI strategy in their organizations. Thus, as observed in Table 2, the effect of public funding on the importance given to OI is greater for RTOs with a lower percentage of public funding.

Table 2 RTOs open innovation importance and management
Full size table

In addition, when considering the management effort, those RTOs with the least public funding are the ones that show higher OI management practices. This may suggest that OI could play a role in the fund-raising mechanisms of RTOs, needed to complement public support. Figure 1 shows the average values for the “Open innovation management” construct.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Open Innovation Management in Spanish RTOs

Full size image

Regarding the approach of RTOS when managing OI, the analyzed organizations are focused on the planning of the objectives and risks of implementation of OI and the measurement of the collaborations. The management of questions regarding the establishment of formal processes, written procedures, and rules is not so important from their point of view.

Another element highlighted in the literature refers to the objectives that organizations seek when implementing OI. Thus, RTOs in this study underline objectives related to the response to the demand of their partners and customers, technological development (identification of new technological opportunities, exploring technology trends, and avoiding “reinventing the wheel”), the transfer of knowledge and technology, and the establishment of projects in cooperation (Fig. 2). These objectives corroborate those established by other authors [17]. However, some other objectives are not so important for RTOs: the improvement of scientific publications, or the efficiency of R&D projects (reduction of costs of R&D projects, reduction of risks of R&D projects, and the acceleration of R&D project development times). With these values and in the absence of a more detailed analysis, market needs and access to technology seem to be the two most important objectives for RTOs when developing an OI strategy.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Objectives when implementing OI in Spanish RTOs

Full size image

Finally, RTOS also refer to certain obstacles when developing an OI strategy (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Barriers when implementing OI in Spanish RTOs

Full size image

Thus, RTOs point out that the most important barriers are those related to the management of cooperation, as well as those associated with knowledge management (existing and resulting knowledge management, property rights, and patents), and those associated with economic management (costs and financial aspects). Although barrier perception in RTOs shows similarities with the perception at companies [18], they differ in some aspects, like the higher importance that RTOs give to knowledge management (loss of know-how or the problems of exclusivity and confidentiality with multiple partners). On the other hand, RTOs feel management skills are the least important barrier, contrary to companies that feel this one as one of the highest barriers [18].

The importance of IPR management is also emphasized when analyzing the relationship between OI management performance and IPR management using simple linear regression. The model shows a value below the critical level (Sig 0.05), indicating that both variables are linearly related (R-value of 0,352). Besides, the value of R2 indicates that 12.4% of the variability of the performance of OI management in RTOs depends on the IPR management implemented by the organization. These results suggest that knowledge management and intellectual property rights management are very important issues when implementing OI in RTOs. The reason for this is due to the position of RTOs in the innovation system, where continuous knowledge flows (in and out) affect RTOs, which in turn affects the importance of IPR management in generating value from such knowledge.

5 Conclusions and Further Research

Despite its growing popularity around the world, the concept of OI is still not widely studied in RTOs although they are paradigmatic actors of this innovation strategy. RTOs, due to their position in the innovation value chain, generate knowledge and transfer knowledge and technology.

By analyzing the responses regarding OI, it is clear that the nature of the RTOs has a great influence on OI implementation, and surely in other aspects that will be addressed in this ongoing research. The most important objective for RTOs to implement OI is linked to their will to better answer to the demands of their customers (companies), as well as their motivation to explore new technology opportunities. All these findings suggest that RTOs have different motivations when implementing OI than companies [18], more focused on the reduction of costs and the increase of efficiency on R&D projects. For RTOs, the improvement of scientific publications, the reduction of costs of R&D projects, the reduction of risks of R&D projects, or the acceleration of R&D project development times seem not to be so important.

Contrary to other studies analyzing OI in SMEs and big companies [19], the explored data shows that RTOs focus their barriers regarding the implementation of OI in aspects related to the economy of OI, and to the management of knowledge flows and IPR. This is expected due to RTOs’ position in the innovation system, with continuous knowledge flows in and out of the RTOs and the important role IPR management has in extracting value from knowledge.

All these findings suggest that Spanish RTOs have different motivations when implementing OI strategy (demand driven versus technology driven) and that they are struggling to find IPR approaches that will make them be more confident when addressing OI. Additionally, this study shows that Spanish RTOs have a moderate level of OI management profile, with a focus on objective setting and performance evaluation, but with a weaker level of formal OI management procedures.

Further research will focus on how RTOs apply OI, identifying its application patterns and measuring the impact of OI application in RTOs’ key performance results.