4IpaUJbnm

Even though open innovation is mostly studied in the context of large organizations, its
popularity and dissemination have increased also in SMEs. Although small companies do
adopt open innovation practices, they are more comprehensively implemented by medium
sized companies. Barriers for innovation in SMEs include lack of financial resources, limited
opportunities to recruit specialized personnel, and small innovation portfolios, so that the
risks connected to innovation cannot be spread. (van de Vrande et al., 2009).
SMEs rely on their networks to find missing innovation resources, and open innovation is
often directed to involving customers and facilitating the commercialization of new products
and services (van de Vrande et al., 2009). The adoption of innovations often requires
external changes, including innovation on the part of other actors, and thus the
interdependent innovations of companies surrounding the focal company within an
ecosystem may be crucial in getting innovations to market (Adner, 2006). Innovation
ecosystems are exchange networks that can also be characterized by simultaneous
cooperation and competition (Afuah 2000). Networks where companies become dependent
on other organizations include initiative risks, like problems in managing a project,
independence risks in coordinating with complementary innovators, and integration risks in
the value chain (Adner, 2006).
The most important motives for implementing open innovation in SMEs are market-related
motives and acquiring missing knowledge (van de Vrande et al., 2009). Other motives for
open innovation include necessary organizational adaptation to changes in the business
environment (Chesbrough, 2003), maintaining growth (Chesbrough, 2006), creating
knowledge, complementary resources of finance, spreading the risks of R&D or
commercialization, enlarging social networks, reducing costs, new revenues, setting industry
standards, and realizing learning effects (van de Vrande et al., 2009). The open innovation
practices in SMEs are often informal and unstructured (ibid.), but a paradigm shift from a
closed to an open innovation model still requires transition to open innovation culture,
open innovation procedures, as well as adopting open innovation skills and motivation
(Mortara et al., 2009).
Design and data
For the case study presented in the next section of the article, views on the future prospects
of the industry and the level of co-operation have been gathered from construction industry
-related companies. Also the innovation practices and company characteristics are
examined. As 70-80% of the production of wood product industry in Finland is utilized by
the construction industry (Finnish Forest Industries Federation, 2013), wood product
industry plays a very significant role in the wood construction innovation network, and is
therefore included in the research. Without the support of engineering and design
companies, the market share of wood construction is hardly going to grow, as someone has
to design the buildings before they can be built. Thus, also engineering and design
companies are included in the study. The paper utilizes empirical research data from
contacting a total of 82 companies operating in Finnish wood industry -related companies,
with an emphasis on companies operating in South-East Finland. 72 companies were
contacted via phone or e-mail during the winter 2013-2014. In addition, ten company
representatives were interviewed in person within the same time period. The data was
analyzed by a specialist working in the Renewable Bioeconomy team of a regional
100