Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2010
  • Online publication date: July 2014

8 - Manufacturing and open innovation



This chapter discusses the changing ways by which value can be created and captured from nanotechnologies for future mobile devices. These issues are discussed from three perspectives. Firstly, attention is focused on how advanced technologies emerging from public and private laboratories can be transformed into products and services. Secondly, we look at how new, “open” models of innovation are emerging and discuss the opportunities and challenges this new approach presents for firms. Thirdly, we examine the changing ways in which manufacturing activities are coordinated and, in particular, the emergence of value creation networks as illustrated by changes in the mobile communications sector.

To allow discussion of these wide-ranging and interlinked activities, in this chapter we apply a broad definition of “manufacturing” as follows [1]:

Manufacturing is the full cycle of activity from understanding markets through design and production, to distribution and support, including after sales services and end of life management.

In this chapter, we will use the concept of the manufacturing value chain (see Figure 8.1) which allows us to consider the individual activities, the linkages between the activities, and also the manufacturing operation as a whole.

Commercialization of nanotechnologies

Commercialization of basic research outputs is typically a high-cost, long-timeframe, and high-risk activity. Such research outputs face numerous technological and market uncertainties. Basic research outputs are typified by being at a low level of “readiness” [2] but can be radical or incremental, disruptive or sustaining, and generic or specific in application.

[1] M., Gregory, P., Hanson, A. J., van Bochoven, and F., Livesey, Making the Most of Production. University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing, 2003.
[2] J. C., Mankins, Technology Readiness Levels: A White Paper. 1995, NASA. From:
[3] J. D., Linton and S. T., Walsh, A theory of innovation for process-based innovations such as nanotechnology, Technol. Forecasting Social Change, 75, 583-594, 2008.
[4] S., Lubik and E. W., Garnsey, Commercializing nanotechnology innovations from university spin-out companies, Nanotechnol. Perceptions, 4, 225-238, 2008.
[5] E., Maine and E. W., Garnsey, Commercializing generic technology: The case of advanced materials, Res. Policy, 35, 375-393, 2006.
[6] J., Chen, H., Doumanidis, K., Lyons, J., Murday, and M. C., Roco, Manufacturing at the nanoscale: National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop Report. National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology, 2007.
[7] H., Chesbrough, W., Vanhaverbeke, and J., West, eds. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press, 2006.
[8] H., Chesbrough, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Press, 2003.
[9] M., Docherty, Primer on ‘Open Innovation’: Principles and Practice, pp. 13-17, Vision (Product Development and Management Association), 2006.
[10] E., von Hippel, The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, 1988.
[11] E., von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation, The MIT Press, 2005.
[12] C., Hienerth, The commercialization of user innovations: the development of the rodeo kayak industry, R&D Management, 36, no. 6, 273-294, 2006.
[13] F. T., Piller and D., Walcher, Toolkits for idea competitions: anovel method to integrate users in new product development, R&D Management, 36, no. 3, 307-318, 2006.
[14] J. D., Blascovich and W., Markham, How procurement excellence creates value, Supply Chain Management Rev., 9, no. 5, 44-52, 2005.
[15] R. L., Chapman and M., Corso, From continuous improvement to collaborative innovation: the next challenge in supply chain management, Production Planning & Control, 16, no. 4, 339-344, 2005.
[16] Procurement Strategy Council, First Among Equals – Using Customer of Choice Strategies to Capture Supplier Innovation, 2006.
[17] S. A., Alvarez and J. B., Barney, How entrepreneurial firms can benefit from alliances with large partners, Acad. Management Executive, 15, no. 1, 139-148, 2001.
[18] A., De Meyer, Using Strategic partnerships to create a sustainable competitive position for high tech start-up firms, R&D Management, 29, no. 4, 323-328, 1999.
[19] T. H. W., Minshall, L., Mortara, and J. J., Napp. Implementing open innovation: challenges in linking strategic and operational factors for HTSFs working with large firms. In Proceedings of the 15th High Tech Small Firms Conference (2007), Manchester Business School, 2007.
[20] T. H. W., Minshall, L., Mortara, S., Elia, and D., Probert, Development of practitioner guidelines for partnerships between start-ups and large firms, J. Manufacturing Tech. Management, 19: 3, 391-406, 2008.
[21] W. M., Cohen, R. R., Nelson, and J., Walsh, Links and impacts: the influence of public research on IndustrialR&D, Management Sci., 48, no. 1, 1-23, 2002.
[22] K., Laursen and A., Salter, Searching high and low: what type of firms use universities as a source of innovation?, Research Policy, 33, no. 8, 1201-1215, 2004.
[23] M., Abreau, V, Grinevich, A., Hughes, M., Kitson, and P., Ternouth, Universities, Business and Knowledge Exchange. Council for Industry and Higher Education, University of Cambridge Centre for Business Research, 2008.
[24] H., Chesbrough, Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape, Harvard Business School Press, 2006.
[25] J., de Wit, B., Dankbaar, and G., Vissers, Open innovation: the new way of knowledge transfer?, J. Business Chemistry, 4, no. 1, 11-19, 2007.
[26] R., Lambert, Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration: Final Report. HM Treasury,, 2003.
[27] I., Drejer and B. H., Jørgensen, The dynamic creation of knowledge: analysing public private collaborations. Technovation, 25, no. 2, 83-94, 2005.
[28] J. S., Gans and S., Stern, The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs, Res. Policy, 32: 2, 333-350, 2003.
[29] S., Nambisan and M., Sawhney, A buyer's guide to the innovation bazaar. Harvard Business Rev., 85:6, 109-118, 2007.
[30] V., van de Vrande, C., Lemmens, and W., Vanhaverbeke, Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing, R&D Management, 36, no. 3, 347-363, 2006.
[31] B., Kogut, Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives, Strategic Management J., 9, 319-332, 1988.
[32] O. E., Williamson, Comparative economic organisation: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives, Administrative Sci. Quart., 36, 269-296, 1991.
[33] D., Leonard-Barton, Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining Sources of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, 1995.
[34] F., Bidault and T., Cummings, Innovating through alliances: experiences and limitations, R&D Management, 24, no. 1, 1994.
[35] F., Chiaromonte, Open innovation through alliances and partnership: theory and practice, Int. J. Technol. Management, 33, no. 2/3, 111-114, 2006.
[36] R. N., Osborn and J., Hagedoorn, The institutionalization and evolutionary dynamics of interorganizational alliances and networks. Acad. Management J, 40, no. 2, 261-278, 1997.
[37] U., Lichtenthaler, Corporate technologyout-licensing: motives and scope, World Patent Information, 29: 2, 117-121, 2007.
[38] S., Vishwasrao, Royalties vs. fees: how do firms pay for foreign technology?, Intl. J. Ind. Organization, 25, no. 4, 741-759, 2007.
[39] C., Tomkins, Interdependencies, trust and information in relationships, alliances and networks, Accounting, Organisations and Society, 26, no. 2, 161-191, 2001.
[40] R., Agarwal, R., Echambadi, A. M., Franco, and M. B., Sarkar, Knowledge transfer through inheritance: spin-out generation, development, and survival, Acad. Management J., 47, no. 4, 501-522, 2004.
[41] M., Swink, Building collaborative innovation capability, Research Technology Management, 49, no. 2, 37-47, 2006.
[42] A., Cosh, A., Hughes, and R. K., Lester, UK plc: Just How Innovative Are We?, Cambridge MIT Institute,, 2006.
[43] C. I. V., Kerr, L., Mortara, R., Phaal, and D. R., Probert, A conceptual model for technology intelligence, Intl. J. Technol. Intelligence and Planning, 2, no. 1, 73-93, 2006.
[44] J. J., Quinn, How companies keep abreast of technological change, Long Range Planning, 18, no. 2, 69-76, 1985.
[45] E., Lichtenthaler, Technological change and the technology intelligence process: acase study, J. Eng. Technol. Management, 21, no. 4, 313-348, 2004.
[46] R., Schwartz and J., Mayne, Assuring the quality of evaluative information: theory and practice. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, no. 1, 1-14, 2005.
[47] J., Hogan, Open innovation or open house: how to prototect your most valuable assets, Medical Device Technology, 16, no. 3, 30-31, 2005.
[48] G., Slowinski, E., Hummel, and R., Kumpf, Protecting know-how and trade secrets in collaborative R&D relationships, Research Technol. Management, 49, no. 4, 30-38, 2006.
[49] M. O. L., Collins, Venturing a solution. British J. Administrative Management, 49, 26-27, 2005.
[50] H., Ernst, P., Witt, and G., Brachtendorf, Corporate venture capital as a strategy for external innovation: an exploratory empirical study, R&D Management, 35, no. 3, 233-242, 2005.
[51] S. K., Markham, S. T., Gentry, D., Hume, et al., Strategies and tactics for external corporate venturing, Research Technol. Management, 48, no. 2, 49-59, 2005.
[52] W., Vanhaverbeke and N., Peeters, Embracing innovation as strategy: corporate venturing, competence building and corporate strategy making. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, no. 3, 2005.
[53] V., van de Vrande, C., Lemmens, and W., Vanhaverbeke, Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing, R&D Management, 36, no. 3, 247-363, 2006.
[54] Lux_Research, The Nanotech Report Investment Overview and Market Research for Nanotechnology, Lux Research Inc., 2007.
[55] Nokia, Open Threads: Nokia Open Innovation Newsletter, Nokia Research Centre, 2009.