Open Source Collaboration in Digital Entrepreneurship

References

• Abrahamson E, Rosenkopf L (1997) Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion: A computer simulation. Organ. Sci. 8(3):289–309.Link, Google Scholar
• Agerfalk P, Fitzgerald B (2008) Outsourcing to an unknown workforce: Exploring opensourcing as a global sourcing strategy. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 32(2):385–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alexy O, West J, Klapper H, Reitzig M (2018) Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management J. 39(6):1704–1727.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Athreye S, Huang C (2016) The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators. Res. Policy 45(7):1352–1361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Austin PC, Stuart EA (2015) Moving toward best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Statist. Medicine 34(28):3661–3679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2006) The architecture of participation: Does code architecture mitigate free riding in the open source development model? Management Sci. 52(7):1116–1127.Link, Google Scholar
• Baldwin C, von Hippel E (2011) Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1399–1417.Link, Google Scholar
• Bogers M, Zobel AK, Afuah A, Almirall E, Brunswicker S, Dahlander L, Frederiksen L, et al. (2017) The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Indust. Innovation 24(1):8–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonaccorsi A, Giannangeli S, Rossi C (2006) Entry strategies under competing standards: Hybrid business models in the open source software industry. Management Sci. 52(7):1085–1098.Link, Google Scholar
• Capra E, Francalanci C, Merlo F, Rossi-Lamastra C (2011) Firms’ involvement in open source projects: A trade-off between software structural quality and popularity. J. Systems Software 84(1):144–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chesbrough HW (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA).Google Scholar
• Colombo MG, Piva E, Rossi-Lamastra C (2013) Authorising employees to collaborate with communities during working hours: When is it valuable for firms? Long Range Planning 46(3):236–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlander L (2005) Appropriation and appropriability in open source software. Internat. J. Innovation Management 09(03):259–285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlander L, Gann DM (2010) How open is innovation? Res. Policy 39(6):699–709.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlander L, Wallin MW (2006) A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets. Res. Policy 35(8):1243–1259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlander L, Gann DM, Wallin MW (2021) How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward. Res. Policy 50(4):104218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davidson E, Vaast E (2010) Digital entrepreneurship and its sociomaterial enactment. 2010 43rd Hawaii Internat. Conf. Systems Sci. (IEEE, Honolulu, HI), 1–10.Google Scholar
• Davidsson P, Gruenhagen JH (2021) Fulfilling the process promise: A review and agenda for new venture creation process research. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice 45(5):1083–1118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fan Y (2013) Ownership consolidation and product characteristics: A study of the US daily newspaper market. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(5):1598–1628.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faraj S, von Krogh G, Monteiro E, Lakhani KR (2016) Online community as space for knowledge flows. Inform. Systems. Res. 27(4):668–684.Link, Google Scholar
• Felin T, Zenger TR (2014) Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Res. Policy 43(5):914–925.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Felin T, Zenger TR (2020) Open innovation: A theory-based view. Strategic Management Rev. 1(2):223–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fisher G, Kotha S, Lahiri A (2016) Changing with the times: An integrated view of identity, legitimacy, and new venture life cycles. Acad. Management Rev. 41(3):383–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foege JN, Lauritzen GD, Tietze F, Salge TO (2019) Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing. Res. Policy 48(6):1323–1339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fosfuri A, Giarratana MS, Luzzi A (2008) The penguin has entered the building: The commercialization of open source software products. Organ. Sci. 19(2):292–305.Link, Google Scholar
• Germonprez M, Kendall JE, Kendall KE, Mathiassen L, Young B, Warner B (2017) A theory of responsive design: A field study of corporate engagement with open source communities. Inform. Systems Res. 28(1):64–83.Link, Google Scholar
• Gompers P, Kovner A, Lerner J, Scharfstein D (2010) Performance persistence in entrepreneurship. J. Financial Econom. 96(1):18–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greul A, West J, Bock S (2018) Open at birth? Why new firms do (or don’t) use open innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 12(3):392–420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gruber M, Henkel J (2006) New ventures based on open innovation—An empirical analysis of start-up firms in embedded Linux. Internat. J. Tech. Management 33(4):356–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haefliger S, von Krogh G, Spaeth S (2008) Code reuse in open source software. Management Sci. 54(1):180–193.Link, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, Henkel J, von Hippel E (2003) Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Res. Policy 32(10):1753–1769.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henkel J, Schöberl S, Alexy O (2014) The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation. Res. Policy 43(5):879–890.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howison J, Crowston K (2014) Collaboration through open superposition: A theory of the open source way. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 38(1):29–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoyer WD, Chandy R, Dorotic M, Krafft M, Singh SS (2010) Consumer cocreation in new product development. J. Service Res. 13(3):283–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang J, Henfridsson O, Liu M, Newell S (2017) Growing on steroids: Rapidly scaling the user base of digital ventures through digital innovation. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 41(1):301–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang H, Parker G, Tan Y, Xu H (2020) Altruism or shrewd business? Implications of technology openness on innovations and competition. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 44(3):1049–1071.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kallinikos J, Aaltonen A, Marton A (2013) The ambivalent ontology of digital artifacts. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 37(2):357–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kane GC, Ransbotham S (2016) Content as community regulator: The recursive relationship between consumption and contribution in open collaboration communities. Organ. Sci. 27(5):1258–1274.Link, Google Scholar
• Karanam A, Agarwal A, Barua A (2020) Designing for Visibility: The Case of Mobile Apps (Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY).Google Scholar
• Kazanjian RK (1988) Relation of dominant problems to stages of growth in technology-based new ventures. Acad. Management J. 31(2):257–279.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kyriakou H, Nickerson J, Sabnis G (2017) Knowledge reuse for customization: Metamodels in an open design community for 3D printing. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 41(1):315–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lakhani KR, Lifshitz-Assaf H, Tushman M (2013) Open innovation and organizational boundaries: task decomposition, knowledge distribution and the locus of innovation. Grandori A, ed. Handbook of Economic Organization: Integrating Economic and Organization Theory (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK), 355–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laursen K, Salter AJ (2014) The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Res. Policy 43(5):867–878.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leiponen A, Byma J (2009) If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies. Res. Policy 38(9):1478–1488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Tirole J (2002) Some simple economics of open source. J. Indust. Econom. 50(2):197–234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine SS, Prietula MJ (2014) Open collaboration for innovation: Principles and performance. Organ. Sci. 25(5):1414–1433.Link, Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, Cooper LP, Neece OE (2004) Knowledge reuse for innovation. Management Sci. 50(2):174–188.Link, Google Scholar
• Mann RJ, Sager TW (2007) Patents, venture capital, and software start-ups. Res. Policy 36(2):193–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marullo C, Casprini E, Di Minin A, Piccaluga A (2018) “Ready for take‐off”: How open innovation influences startup success. Creativity Innovation Management 27(4):476–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Massa L, Tucci CL, Afuah A (2017) A critical assessment of business model research. Acad. Management Ann. 11(1):73–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Medappa PK, Srivastava SC (2019) Does superposition influence the success of FLOSS projects? An examination of open-source software development by organizations and individuals. Inform. Systems Res. 30(3):764–786.Link, Google Scholar
• Nagle F (2018) Learning by contributing: Gaining competitive advantage through contribution to crowdsourced public goods. Organ. Sci. 29(4):569–587.Link, Google Scholar
• Nambisan S (2017) Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice 41(6):1029–1055.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nambisan S, Siegel D, Kenney M (2018) On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 12(3):354–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nambisan S, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A, Song M (2017) Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 41(1):223–238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parker G, Alstyne M, Jiang X (2017) Platform ecosystems: How developers invert the firm. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 41(1):255–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Poole MS, Van de Ven AH (1989) Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Acad. Management Rev. 14(4):562–578.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schaarschmidt M, Walsh G, von Kortzfleisch HFO (2015) How do firms influence open source software communities? A framework and empirical analysis of different governance modes. Inform. Organ. 25(2):99–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schad J, Lewis MW, Raisch S, Smith WK (2016) Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):5–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Serrano CJ, Ziedonis R (2019) How redeployable are patent assets? Evidence from failed startups. Acad. Management Proc. (Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY), 15631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shaikh M, Levina N (2019) Selecting an open innovation community as an alliance partner: Looking for healthy communities and ecosystems. Res. Policy 48(8):103766.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shane S (2000) Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organ. Sci. 11(4):448–469.Link, Google Scholar
• Shane S, Venkataraman S (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad. Management Rev. 25(1):217–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Lewis MW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Management Rev. 36(2):381–403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Erez M, Jarvenpaa S, Lewis MW, Tracey P (2017) Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organ. Stud. 38(3–4):303–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sojer M, Henkel J (2010) Code reuse in open source software development: Quantitative evidence, drivers, and impediments. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 11(12):868–901Google Scholar
• Spaeth S, von Krogh G, He F (2015) Perceived firm attributes and intrinsic motivation in sponsored open source software projects. Inform. Systems Res. 26(1):224–237.Link, Google Scholar
• Stam W (2009) When does community participation enhance the performance of open source software companies? Res. Policy 38(8):1288–1299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stefan I, Bengtsson L (2016) Appropriability: A key to opening innovation internationally? Internat. J. Tech. Management 71(3–4):232–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steininger DM (2019) Linking information systems and entrepreneurship: A review and agenda for IT-associated and digital entrepreneurship research. Inform. Systems J. 29(2):363–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart KJ, Ammeter AP, Maruping LM (2006) Impacts of license choice and organizational sponsorship on user interest and development activity in open source software projects. Inform. Systems Res. 17(2):126–144.Link, Google Scholar
• Stock JH, Yogo M (2005) Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. Andrews DWK, Stock JH, eds. Identification and Inference for Econometric Models (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 80–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15(6):285–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (2018) Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Res. Policy 47(8):1367–1387.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Briel F, Davidsson P, Recker J (2018) Digital technologies as external enablers of new venture creation in the IT hardware sector. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice 42(1):47–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Briel F, Recker J, Selander L, Jarvenpaa S, Hukal P, Yoo Y, Lehmann J, et al. (2021) Researching digital entrepreneurship: Current issues and suggestions for future directions. Comm. Assoc. Inform. Systems 48(33):284–304.Google Scholar
• von Krogh G, Spaeth S, Lakhani KR (2003) Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: a case study. Res. Policy 32(7):1217–1241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Krogh G, Haefliger S, Spaeth S, Wallin MW (2012) Carrots and rainbows: Motivation and social practice in open source software development. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 36(2):649–676.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wadhwa A, Bodas Freitas IM, Sarkar MB (2017) The paradox of openness and value protection strategies: Effect of extramural R&D on innovative performance. Organ. Sci. 28(5):873–893.Link, Google Scholar
• West J, Gallagher S (2006) Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R & D Management 36(3):319–331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• West J, Kuk G (2016) The complementarity of openness: How MakerBot leveraged Thingiverse in 3D printing. Tech. Forecasting Soc. Change 102:169–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• West J, Salter A, Vanhaverbeke W, Chesbrough H (2014) Open innovation: The next decade. Res. Policy 43(5):805–811.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Yacoub G, Storey C, Haefliger S (2020) Appropriability mechanisms for manufacturing and service firms: The contingencies of openness and knowledge intensity. R & D Management 50(5):551–572.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yoo Y, Henfridsson O, Lyytinen K (2010) The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Inform. Systems Res. 21(4):724–735.Link, Google Scholar
• Yoo Y, Boland RJ, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A (2012) Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1398–1408.Link, Google Scholar
• Zahra SA, George G (2002) Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad. Management Rev. 27(2):185–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zittrain J (2006) The generative internet. Harvard Law Rev. 119:1974–2040.Google Scholar
• Zobel AK, Hagedoorn J (2020) Implications of open innovation for organizational boundaries and the governance of contractual relations. Acad. Management Perspect. 34(3):400–423.Crossref, Google Scholar