مقاله سال ۲۰۱۶

Organizational search is central to classic and contemporary innovation theories (Laursen, 2012; Nelson and Winter, 1982). However, while firms in search of “new combinations” (Schumpeter, 1934) build on accumulated experience,they are also cognitively constrained by previous choices and resource commitments, potentially resulting in myopia (Levinthal and March, 1993) and high R&D expenses. Segments of the rapidly expanding discussion on open innovation have revisited and revitalized the role of search in innovation (c.f. Afuah and Tucci, 2012; Felin and Zenger, 2014; Laursen and Salter, 2006). A key idea in open innovation is that firms should exploit search outside the confines of their organization (c.f. West et al., 2014), making the search for external knowledge an important managerial task (Laursen and Salter, 2006, p. 147). Search for external knowledge is arguably quite complex and difficult, involving uncertainties and characteristics such as the tacitness, complexity, rivalry, and indivisibility of knowledge which may not be conducive to its detection and transfer (c.f. Zollo and Winter, 2002). Despite this complexity, search has been ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: henry.lopez.vega@liu.se (H. Lopez-Vega), fredrik.tell@fek.uu.se (F. Tell), wim.vanhaverbeke@uhasselt.be (W. Vanhaverbeke). analyzed primarily by using one-dimensional constructs such as local vs. distant (Knudsen and Srikanth, 2014), which seldom recognize how different heuristics interact with the solution location (Nickerson and Zenger, 2004).

This paper explores the dynamics and direction of search. We suggest that organizational search involves two dimensions (Gavetti and Levinthal, 2000). The first refers to where to search, i.e., the location of solutions – local or distant – in relation to currently available solutions (Katila and Ahuja, 2002; Levinthal and March, 1981). The second concerns how to search, and which search heuristics to apply, i.e., experiential or cognitive search (Gavetti and Rivkin, 2007; Nickerson and Zenger, 2004). So far, research on open innovation focuses mostly on where to search in a given search space (Garriga et al., 2013; Laursen and Salter, 2006; Piezunka and Dahlander, 2015), and several scholars lament the relatively small attention given to how search takes place, and what alternative search heuristics are applied in open innovation (Felin and Zenger, 2014; Jeppesen and Lakhani, 2010).

Combining the “where” and “how” dimensions of search, we propose a framework for firms’ search for external knowledge that encompasses situated search paths, analogical search paths, sophisticated search paths, and scientific search paths. In pursuing these search paths, firms can exploit two mechanisms to identify solutions in idea and technology markets: first, a problem framing mechanism (Baer et al., 2013; Kaplan, 2008; Von Hippel and Von Krogh, 2015) that involves focusing on and articulating the problem as a technology need before its dissemination, and second, a boundary spanning mechanism (Fleming and Waguespack, 2007; Rosenkopf and Nerkar, 2001) that involves recognizing and connecting the technology need to a specific crowd of technical or scientific solvers. We address the following research questions: (1) What are the characteristics and objectives of each search path? (2) How do problem framing and boundary spanning mechanisms facilitate the identification of solutions?