Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Open Innovation Environments Considering Organizational Learning and Self-Organization in Startup Valuation Using Game Theory

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Various recent studies have demonstrated that societies which have embraced open innovation methods are more proactive to improve their industrial and economic performance. Exploring several paradigms and theories, the present study was conceived with the goal of determining whether self-organization and organizational learning can indeed affect open innovation environments (OIEs). By collecting field data on the current status of self-organization and learning, this study investigates the impact of the two processes in OIEs on startups. The relationship between self-organization and learning is assessed using structural equation modeling (SEM). After validating the developed model, the cooperative games of the startups in the aforementioned OIE are examined. In the end, the economic value of each startup is obtained through game theory and the Shapley value. The studied startups were valued in both open and closed innovation environments to assess the economic implications of investment under the two paradigms. The results confirm that making investments is more justifiable when a startup is part of an OIE. Moreover, the value of each startup further increased in OIE due to the synergistic effect of collaborating with other startups in the innovation network.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.survey.porsline.ir

References

  • Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P., Maguire, S., & McKelvey, B. (2011). Complexity and Management. SAGE Publication Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayas, K. (1996). Professional project management: A shift towards learning and a knowledge creating structure. International Journal of Project Management, 14(3), 131–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bašić, M. (2017). The influence of international knowledge and skills and firm internationalization on open innovation. In Open Innovation: Unveiling the Power of the Human Element (pp. 191–219).

  • Bašić, M. (2022). How does open business model transform elements of innovation culture into open innovation practices of high and low internationalisation firms? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–27.

  • Bašić, M. (2021). Organisational learning antecedents and open innovation: Differences in internationalisation level. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 5(4), 161–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, S. (2020). Four Steps to the Epiphany. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken, R., & Fredrich, V. (n.d.). Business model innovation in alliances: Successful configurations. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3584–3590.

  • Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: A critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49, 11–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunswicker, S., & Chesbrough, H. (2018). The adoption of open innovation in large firms. Research-Technology Management, 61(1), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. (1999). Knowledge transfer through technological hyperlearning in five industries. Technovation, 19(3), 141–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E., & Turner, E. (2006). Innovation diffusion and technology acceptance: The case of PKI technology. Technovation, 26(7), 847–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: a new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, 400, 0–19.

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating Open Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for Understanding Innovation (pp. 3–28). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Tucci, C. (2020). The interplay between open innovation and lean startup, or, why large companies are not large versions of startups. Strategic Management Review, 1(2), 277–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, H., Kim, S.-H., & Lee, J. (2010). Role of network structure and network. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 170–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, E., Boardman, P., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies. Research Policy, 35(7), 975–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damodaran, A. (2009). Dark Side Valuation: Valuing Young, Distressed, and Complex Businesses. FT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, V., Giuliani, E., & Rabellotti, R. (2018). Do Global Value Chains Offer Developing Countries Learning and Innovation Opportunities? The European Journal of Development Research, 30, 389–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, T., Zhang, H., & Xiao, Y. (2020). Antecedents and consequence of organizational unlearning: Evidence from China. Technovation, 102160.

  • Devereux, L., Melewar, T., Dinnie, K., & Lange, T. (2020). Corporate identity orientation and disorientation: A complexity theory perspective. Journal of Business Research, 109, 413–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of Organizational learning: Contributions and critiques. Human Relations, 50(9), 1085–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felin, & Zenger. (2013). Closed or open innovation problem solving and the governance choice. Research Policy, 43(5), 914–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research 18(3).

  • Frenken, K. (2000). A complexity approach to innovation networks. The case of the aircraft industry (1909–1997). Frenken, 29(2), 257–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 91–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N., Ahrweiler, P., & Pyka, A. (2007). Learning in innovation networks: Some simulation experiments. Physica a: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 378(1), 100–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grechuk, B., & Zabarankin, M. (2017). Synergy effect of cooperative investment. Annals of Operations Research, 249(1–2), 409–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harwood, R., & Simoes-Brown, D. (2012). Open innovation: from marginal to mainstream. In Handbook on the Knowledge Economy, Volume Two (pp. 143–157). Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Hegeman, P. D., & Sørheim, R. (2021). Why do they do it? Corporate venture capital investments in cleantech startups. Journal of Cleaner Production, 294, 126315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrik Sieg, J., Wallin, M., & Van Krogh, G. (2010). Managerial challenges in open innovation: A study of innovation intermediation in the chemical industry. R&D Management, 40(3), 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jia, W., Liu, L.-R., & Xie, X.-M. (2010). Diffusion of technical innovation based on industry-university-institute cooperation in industrial clusters. The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications, 17(2), 45–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, L., & Pascual, L. (2008). Multicriteria cash-flow modeling and project value-multiples for two-stage project valuation. International Journal of Project Management, 26(2), 185–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jugend, D., Fiorini, P. D. C., Armellini, F., & Ferrari, A. G. (2020). Public support for innovation: A systematic review of the literature and implications for open innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 156, 119985.

  • Kash, D., & Rycroft, R. (2002). Emerging patterns of complex technological innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(6), 581–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J.-H., & Wagman, L. (2014). Portfolio size and information disclosure: An analysis of startup accelerators. Journal of Corporate Finance, 29, 520–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, K., & BiengChuah, K. (2019). Project Action Learning (PAL) Guidebook: Practical Learning in Organizations. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 319–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., & Zhang, S. (2020). Modeling and simulation of firm-leading self-organization evolution process in open source product design project. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 37(2–3), 148–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Likoum, S. B., Shamout, M. D., Harazneh, I., & Abubakar, A. (2020). Market-sensing capability, innovativeness, brand management systems, market dynamism, competitive intensity, and performance: An integrative review. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11(2), 593–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipshitz, R., Friedman, V., & Propper, M. (2007). Demystifying Organizational Learning. SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Malaeb, Z. A., Summers, J. K., & Pugesek, B. H. (2000). Using structural equation modeling to investigate relationships among ecological variables. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 7(1), 93–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Costa, M., Jiménez, D., & Dine Rabeh, H. (2019). The effect of organisational learning on interorganisational collaborations in innovation: An empirical study in SMEs. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(2), 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martovoy, A., Kutvonen, A., Mention, A. L., & Torkkeli, M. (2012). Open innovation in banking services: advantages and disadvantages. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).

  • Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzucato, M., & Semieniuk, G. (2017). Public financing of innovation: New questions. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 24–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B., Tanriverdi, H., & Yoo, Y. (2016). Complexity and information systems research in the emerging digital world. MIS Quarterly.

  • Milici, A., Ferreira, F. A., Pereira, L. F., Carayannis, E. G., & Ferreira, J. J. (2021). Dynamics of open innovation in small-and medium-sized enterprises: A metacognitive approach. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

  • Nasser, S. (2016). Retrieved from www.medium.com: https://medium.com/parisoma-blog/valuation-for-startups-9-methods-explained-53771c86590e#.b24cj6pma. Accessed 14 Jun 2016

  • Naufal Aslam, F., & Alamsyah, A. (2018). The Small World Phenomenon and Network Analysis of ICT Startup Investment in Indonesia and Singapore. The 7h Smart Collaboration for Business in Technology and Information Industry 2016. Bandung.

  • Nieto, M., & Santamaría, L. (2007). The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation, 27(6–7), 367–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan, X., Song, M., Zhang, J., & Zhou, G. (2019). Innovation network, technological learning and innovation performance of high-tech cluster enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(9), 1729–1746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, X., Song, M., Zhang, J., & Zhou, G. (2020). Innovation network, technological learning and innovation performance of high-tech cluster enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(9), 1729–1746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prosperi, M., Lopolito, A., Andriano, A., Lombardi, M., Stasi, A., & Iannuzzi, E. (2020). Network impact of social innovation initiatives in marginalised rural communities. Social Networks, 63, 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pustovrh, A., & Rangus, K. (2020). The role of open innovation in developing an entrepreneurial support ecosystem. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 152, 119892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rampersad, G., Quester, P., & Troshani, I. (2010). Managing innovation networks: Exploratory evidence from ICT, biotechnology and nanotechnology networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(5), 793–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, E. (2011). The Lean Startup. Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R., Chen, H., Upreti, R., Fawcett, S., & Adams, F. (2009). The moderating role of barriers on the relationship between drivers to supply chain integration and firm performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(10), 826–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rycroft, R., & Kash, D. (2004). Self-organizing innovation networks: Implications for globalization. Technovation, 24(3), 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydberg, K., & Froidstedt, J. (2016). How can investors evaluate equity crowdfunding offers? Guthenburg: School of Business, Economics and Law.

  • Shayan, A., Elahi, S., Ghazinoory, S., & KhodadadHoseini, S. (2018). Designing a model for learning self-organized innovation network: Using embedded case studies. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 123, 314–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shinzato, T. (2018). Maximizing and minimizing investment concentration with constraints of budget and investment risk. Physica a: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 490, 986–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srisathan, W., Ketkaew, C., Naruetharadhol, P., & Elshandidy, T. (2020). The intervention of organizational sustainability in the effect of organizational culture on open innovation performance: A case of thai and chinese SMEs. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1717408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telyatnikova, V., Shokhnekh, A., Bespyatykh, V., Azarskaya, M., & Kolyshev, O. (2020). Approaches to Formation of an Innovative Platform of University Complexes in the Strategy of Human Resources Development as Small Business Entrepreneurs. Switzerland: Springer, Cham.

  • Templeton, G., Lewis, B., & Snyde, C. (2002). Development of a measure for the organizational learning construct. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, P. (2010). Co-operative ties and innovation: Some new evidence for UK manufacturing. Research Policy, 39(6), 762–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tse, E. (2002). Grabber–holder dynamics and network effects in technology innovation. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 26(9–10), 1721–1738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. (2004). From engineering management/R&D management, to the management of innovation, to exploiting and exploring over value nets: 50 years of research initiated by the IEEE-TEM. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(4), 409–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldrop, M. (1993). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijhoven, F. (1995). Organizational Learning and Information Systems, The Case of Monitoring Information and Control Systems in Machine Bureaucratic Organizations. University of Twente, Department of Information Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, E. (2002). The shapley value. Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, 3, 2025–2054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xue, X., Zhang, X., Wang, L., Skitmore, M., & Wang, Q. (2018). Analyzing collaborative relationships among industrialized construction technology innovation organizations: A combined SNA and SEM approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 173, 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, J., Liu, J., & Tseng, F.-M. (2020). An evaluation system based on the self-organizing system framework of smart cities: A case study of smart transportation systems in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 119371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

    Sepideh Rahmani & Hamed Kazemipoor

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

    Farzad Movahedi Sobhani

  3. Faculty of Industrial and System Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

    Majid Sheikhmohammady

Authors
  1. Sepideh Rahmani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farzad Movahedi Sobhani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hamed Kazemipoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Majid Sheikhmohammady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farzad Movahedi Sobhani.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 348 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahmani, S., Movahedi Sobhani, F., Kazemipoor, H. et al. Open Innovation Environments Considering Organizational Learning and Self-Organization in Startup Valuation Using Game Theory. J Knowl Econ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01171-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01171-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation