Open innovation integration to product development: a sector level analysis within the manufacturing industry

Marin, Rafael Ortega; Kaminski, Paulo Carlos

doi:10.1590/0103-6513.20200012

Rafael Ortega Marin ^* * rafaelortegamarin@gmail.com

Escola Politécnica, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8931-7386

Paulo Carlos Kaminski

Escola Politécnica, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6917-7208

* rafaelortegamarin@gmail.com

Figures (8)
Tables (24)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Open product development process framework. Source: (Armellini et al., 2014Armellini, F., Kaminski, P. C., & Beaudry, C. (2014). The open innovation journey in emerging economies: an analysis of the Brazilian aerospace industry. Journal of Aerospace Technology and Management, 6(4), 462-474. http://dx.doi.org/10.5028/jatm.v6i4.390.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5028/jatm.v6i4.390... ).

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Conceptual model for the constructs' hypotheses.

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Histogram of respondents' year of experience in the automotive industry.

Thumbnail

Figure 4
Open innovation inbound activities (global mean values).

Thumbnail

Figure 5
Open innovation outbound activities (global mean values).

Thumbnail

Figure 6
Perceived value of open innovation.

Thumbnail

Figure 7
Most important partnerships in open innovation (as a % of total).

Thumbnail

Figure 8
Barriers and risks in OI engagements (global mean values).

Thumbnail

Table 1
PDP approaches in the manufacturing industry.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Hypotheses for the regression model.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Importance of partnerships in OI factor analysis.

Thumbnail

Table 4
Summary of variables.

Thumbnail

Table 5
OLS regressions correlations summary for hypothesis 1: OI Organizational Culture versus PDP Aspects (model 3).

Thumbnail

Table 6
OLS regressions correlations summary for hypothesis 2: PDP Aspects versus Barriers and risks (model 3).

Thumbnail

Table 7
OLS regressions correlations summary for hypothesis 3: OI Organizational Culture versus Barriers and risks (model 3).

Thumbnail

Table 8
Hypotheses test.

Thumbnail

Table A1
Open innovation inbound practices factor analysis.

Thumbnail

Table A2
Open innovation outbound practices factor analysis.

Thumbnail

Table A3
Perceived importance of OI engagements factor analysis.

Thumbnail

Table A4
Evolution in open innovation adoption factor analysis.

Thumbnail

Table A5
Organizational culture in OI factor analysis.

Thumbnail

Table A6
Perceived barriers and risks in OI engagements.

Thumbnail

Table A7
Degree of innovation performed in their company factor analysis.

Thumbnail

Table A8
Adoption to newer PDP methods and tools factor analysis.

Thumbnail

Table B1
Correlation matrix for variables used in regression model.

Thumbnail

Table B2
OLS regressions for Reasons for partnership measure versus PDP aspects measure (statistically significant p values in bold).

Thumbnail

Table B3
OLS regressions for Reasons for partnership measure versus Barriers and risks (statistically significant p values in bold).

Thumbnail

Table B4
OLS regressions for PDP aspects measure versus Barriers and risks (statistically significant p values in bold).

Thumbnail

Table B5
OLS regressions for Partners measure versus Barriers and risks (statistically significant p values in bold).

Thumbnail

Table B6
OLS regressions for Partners measure versus PDP Aspects (statistically significant p values in bold).

Thumbnail

Table B7
OLS regressions for Cultural aspects measure versus Barriers and risks measure (statistically significant p values in bold).

Thumbnail

Table B8
OLS regressions for Cultural aspects measure versus PDP Aspects.

Author	Title	PDP Approach
(Evans, 1959Evans, J. H. (1959). Basic design concepts. Journal of the American Society for Naval Engineers, 71(4) 671-678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-3584.1959.tb01836.x. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-3584.19... )	Basic design concepts	Product Design spiral
(Asimow, 1962Asimow, M. (1962). Introduction to design. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.)	Introduction to design	Production and consumption cycle
(Cooper, 1990Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons, 33(3), 44-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(90)90040-I. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(90)9... )	Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products	Stage-gates concept
(Womack et al., 1990Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: Free Press.)	The machine that changed the world: the story of lean production	Lean Product Development
(Clark & Fujimoto, 1991Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. 1991. Product development performance: strategy, organization and management in the world auto industry. Harvard Business School Press.)	Product development performance: strategy, organization, and management in the auto industry	Development Funnel Concept
(Clark & Wheelwright, 1993Clark, K. B., & Wheelwright, S. C. 1993. Managing New Product and Process Development. New York: Free Press.)	Managing new product and process development	Development Funnel Concept
(Krishnan & Ulrich, 2001Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K. T. (2001). Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature. Management Science, 47(1), 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.1.10668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.1.10... )	Product development decisions: a review of the literature	PDP Perspectives
(Suh, 2001Suh, N. P. (2001). Axiomatic design: advances and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.)	Axiomatic Design	Axiomatic Design
(Rozenfeld et al., 2006Rozenfeld, H., Forcellini, F. A., Amaral, D. C., Toledo, J. C., Silva, S. L., Alliprandini, D. H., & Scalice, K. R. (2006). Gestão de Desenvolvimento de Produtos – uma referência para a melhoria do processo. São Paulo: Saraiva.)	Product development process management	Product Lifecycle Management
(Dieter & Schmidt, 2009Dieter, G. E., & Schmidt, L. C. (2009). Engineering design (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.)	Engineering design	Technical and managerial gates
(Weber, 2009Weber, J. (2009). Automotive development processes. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01253-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01253-... )	Automotive development processes	Customer Oriented
(Omar, 2011Omar, M. A. (2011). The automotive body manufacturing systems and processes. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119990888 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119990888... )	The automotive car body manufacturing systems and processes	Automotive manufacturing design
(Canuto da Silva & Kaminski, 2016Canuto da Silva, G., & Kaminski, P. C. (2016). Selection of virtual and physical prototypes in the product development process. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 84, 1513-1530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7762-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-776... )	Selection of virtual and physical prototypes in the product development process	Virtual and physical prototypes selection
(Wynn & Clarkson, 2018Wynn, D. C., & Clarkson, P. J. (2018). Process models in design and development. Research in Engineering Design, 29(2), 161-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0262-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-026... )	Process models in design and development	PDP models framework
(Blankesteijn et al., 2019Blankesteijn, M., Jong, F. D., & Bossink, B. (2019). Closed-open innovation strategy for autonomous vehicle development. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 19(1/2), 74-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJATM.2019.098507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJATM.2019.098... )	Closed-open innovation strategy for autonomous vehicle development	Closed-open innovation strategy in R&D

Hypothesis	Dependent measure	Independent measure
H1a	Most important partnerships	Degree of innovation
H1b	Most important partnerships	Adoption to newer PDP methods
H1c	Reasons for partnership	Degree of innovation
H1d	Reasons for partnership	Adoption to newer PDP methods
H1e	Cultural aspects	Degree of innovation
H1f	Cultural aspects	Adoption to newer PDP methods
H2a	Degree of innovation	Perceived barriers and risks
H2b	Adoption to newer PDP methods	Perceived barriers and risks
H3a	Most important partnerships	Perceived barriers and risks
H3b	Reasons for partnership	Perceived barriers and risks
H3c	Cultural aspects	Perceived barriers and risks

Importance of partnerships in OI	Factor 1 (Partners_F1)	Factor 2 (Partners_F2)
Access to new markets	0.86	-
Sharing privileged information on the market/industry	0.84	-
Scaling up production processes	0.85	-
Access to new distribution networks	0.88	-
Sharing information for production and procurement	0.83	-
Access to critical R&D competencies	-	0.92
Access to R&D infrastructure (e.g. laboratory equipment)	-	0.91
Long-term research on prospective technologies (exploratory research)	-	0.83
Development of prototypes	-	0.67
Reduction of costs or lead time for product development	-	0.59
Sharing technical information for R&D and/or product development	-	0.80
Access to incentives or government funds	0.62	-
Facilitate the networking and/or intermediation in the business ecosystem	-	0.60
% prop.	0.36	0.34
% cumul.	0.36	0.70
Eigenvalue	4.70	4.43
Cronbach-alpha	0.91	0.91
KMO	0.84

Description of variable	Method	Variable
Partnerships in OI	PCF	Partners_F1
Partnerships in OI	PCF	Partners_F2
Open innovation inbound practices	PCF	OI_Inbound
Open innovation outbound practices	PCF	OI_Outbound
Perceived importance of OI	PCF	OI_Reasons
Organizational culture	PCF	Cult_Aspects_F1
Perceived importance of OI	PCF	Cult_Aspects_F2
Maturity of company in OI	Single var	OI_Maturity
How important OI is to the company's strategy	Single var	OI_Strategy
Evolution of OI culture in company	PCF	Cult_Change
Degree of innovation	PCF	PDP_Degree_F1
Adoption to newer PDP methods	PCF	PDP_Adoption
Barriers and risks	PCF	Barriers_F1
Barriers and risks	PCF	Barriers_F2
Barriers and risks	PCF	Barriers_F3
First or late comer in Brazil	Category	Type_Maker
Respondent's years of experience in auto industry	Single var	Exp_Total

Measure	Dependent Variable	Independent Variable
Measure	Dependent Variable	PDP_Degree	PDP_Adoption
Most important partnerships	Partners_F1	0.17	0.36**
Most important partnerships	Partners_F2	-0.23	-0.10
Reasons for partnership	OI_Inbound	-0.08	0.67***
	OI_Outbound	0.04	0.65***
	OI_Reasons	0.11	0.64***
Cultural aspects	Cult_Aspects_F1	-0.08	0.37**
	Cult_Aspects_F2	0.01	0.27 ⁺
	OI_Strategy	0.16	0.84 ^* ***** p<.001 (highlighted in bold).
	OI_Maturity	0.19+	0.33 ^ p<.01;

Measure	Dependent Variable	Independent Variable
Measure	Dependent Variable	Barriers_F1	Barriers_F2	Barriers_F3
PDP Aspects	PDP_Adoption	0.17	-0.10	-0.18
PDP Aspects	PDP_Degree_F1	0.00	-0.36 ^**	0.12

Measure	Dependent Variable	Independent Variable
Measure	Dependent Variable	Barriers_F1	Barriers_F2	Barriers_F3
Most important partnerships	Partners_F1	0.36**	-0.08	-0.25*
Most important partnerships	Partners_F2	-0.19	0.37*	0.07
Reasons for partnership	OI_Inbound	0.26 ⁺	0.12	-0.34*
	OI_Outbound	0.13	-0.09	-0.36**
	OI_Reasons	0.21	0.08	-0.17
Cultural aspects	Cult_Aspects_F1	-0.01	0.01	-0.16
	Cult_Aspects_F2	0.30 ^* * p<.05;	-0.16	0.10
	OI_Strategy	0.24	-0.00	-0.16
	OI_Maturity	0.12	-0.42 ^ p<.01; (highlighted in bold).	0.15

Hypothesis	Decision	Observation
H1a	Rejected	No statistically significant correlations were found
H1b	Partially accepted	A significant positive correlation was found between Partners_F1 and PDP_Adoption, but not with Partners_F2
H1c	Rejected	No statistically significant correlations were found
H1d	Accepted	A significant positive correlation was found between all the three variables in the measure and PDP_Adoption
H1e	Partially accepted	There is a positive correlation between the variables OI_Maturity and PDP_Degree, which is one out of five variables from this measure
H1f	Accepted	A significant positive correlation was found between all the five variables in the measure and PDP_Adoption
H2a	Partially accepted	A significant negative correlation was found between PDP_Degree and Barriers_F2, but not in Barriers_F1, F3
H2b	Rejected	No statistically significant correlations were found
H3a	Contradictory results	Partners_F1 showed a positive correlation with Barriers_F1, but a negative correlation with Barriers_F3
H3b	Contradictory results	OI_Inbound showed a positive correlation with Barriers_F1, but a negative correlation with Barriers_F3
H3c	Contradictory results	Cult_Aspects_F2 showed a positive correlation with Barriers_F1, while OI_Maturity showed a negative correlation with Barriers_F2

Open innovation inbound activities	Factor 1 (OI_inbound)
Purchase of R&D services	0.58
“Active” monitoring/surveillance of technologies with advanced tools	0.61
Collective intelligence tools to gather or test ideas, products, concepts, etc.	0.70
Purchase of licenses/patents	0.81
Acquisition of innovative companies	0.75
Co-creation projects with third parties	0.79
Informal networking	0.70
University research grant	0.74
% prop.	51%
% cumul.	51%
Eigenvalue	4.10
Cronbach-alpha	0.87
KMO	0.87

Open innovation outbound activities	Factor 1 (OI_outbound)
Structured networking (publication, social media, congresses, conferences, associations, etc.)	0.59
Joint Venture	0.79
Participation in a consortium	0.89
Appreciation of your patents	0.78
Participation in standardization committees	0.72
Sharing (free or not) data, patents, technologies, etc.	0.88
Facilitating the creation of companies by collaborators	0.76
% prop.	60%
% cumul.	60%
Eigenvalue	4.23
Cronbach-alpha	0.88
KMO	0.84

Perceived importance of OI engagements	Factor 1 (OI_reasons)
To valorize its intellectual property and patents	0.71
To reduce R&D costs	0.83
To share or reduce the risks and uncertainties of a complex project	0.85
To have access to new scientific knowledge, new technologies or a new know-how	0.88
To accelerate the time-to-market of a product or service	0.85
To access incentives (tax credits, subsidies, grants, etc.)	0.64
% prop.	0.64
% cumul.	0.64
Eigenvalue	3.82
Cronbach-alpha	0.89
KMO	0.81

Evolution in open innovation adoption (since 2014)	Factor 1 (Cult_change)
The open innovation culture has developed	0.89
The number of open innovation project has increased	0.94
Employees have progressed in their abilities to absorb external information, knowledge, or technology	0.81
The open innovation strategy has become clearer, better understood and has been clarified	0.84
The open innovation processes have grown in maturity	0.93
This plant/unit dedicates resources to open innovation	0.90
% prop.	0.78
% cumul.	0.78
Eigenvalue	4.70
Cronbach-alpha	0.94
KMO	0.87

Organizational culture in OI	Factor 1 (Cult_Org_F1)	Factor 2 (Cult_Org_F2)
Management encourages teamwork	0.89	-
Management encourages everyone's participation in the search for solution	0.87	-
Leaders or managers in your plant/unit have the flexibility required to implement changes	0.57	-
Employees' suggestions for improvement are encouraged	0.73	-
Employees that propose improvements are recognized by their solutions	0.61	-
The company offers training to its employees	0.68	-
The company uses techniques to stimulate creativity among its employees	-	0.69
A team (dedicated or not) is in charge of promoting a culture of open innovation in the corporate culture	-	0.81
Indicators specific to open innovation are used	-	0.88
% prop.	0.39	0.29
% cumul.	0.39	0.68
Eigenvalue	3.55	2.58
Cronbach-alpha	0.87	0.80
KMO	0.81

Perceived barriers and risks in OI engagements	Factor 1 (Barriers_F1)	Factor 2 (Barriers_F2)	Factor 3 (Barriers_F3)
Lack of knowledge of the open innovation tools and practices	-	-	0.75
Practices too distant from the corporate culture	-	-	0.89
Practices too different from team competencies	-	-	0.84
Theft or misappropriation of intellectual property	-	0.94	-
Theft or misappropriation of key know-how	-	0.92	-
Lack of trust with partners	-	0.79	-
Loss of control of projects conducted with partners	-	0.84	-
Difference between the intentions displayed by the managers and the resources allocated to the approach	0.67	-	-
Opposition or passivity of employees	0.65	-	-
Lack of clarity in the open innovation strategy	0.78	-	-
Resources not available	0.85	-	-
Inappropriate tools	0.90	-	-
% prop.	0.27	0.27	0.22
% cumul.	0.27	0.55	0.76
Eigenvalue	3.28	2.27	2.59
Cronbach-alpha	0.88	0.92	0.84
KMO	0.78

Degree of innovation performed in their company	Factor 1 (PDP_Degree)	Factor 2 (discarded)
The products developed are more incremental than radical in their innovations	0.86	-
The products are developed based on information from prior projects/products	0.87	-
Products are being developed to new target markets	-	0.84
The products developed necessitated the development of a new platform and/or new business models	-	0.83
% prop.	0.38	0.36
% cumul.	0.38	0.73
Eigenvalue	1.51	1.42
Cronbach-alpha	0.67	0.58
KMO	0.50

Adoption to newer PDP methods and tools	Factor 1 (PDP_adoption)
The way PDP is done has changed since 2014	0.70
Open innovation has influenced the way PDP is done	0.94
Open innovation is responsible for the improvement of existing and implemented PDP methods or tools in your plant/unit	0.96
Open innovation is responsible for the adoption of new PDP methods or tools (scrum, agile, etc.) in your plant/unit	0.91
% prop.	0.78
% cumul.	0.78
Eigenvalue	3.12
Cronbach-alpha	0.90
KMO	0.80

Description of variable	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)	(13)
OI_Inbound (1)	1.00	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
OI_Outbound (2)	.83	1.00	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
OI_Reasons (3)	.61	.60	1.00	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
OI_Maturity (4)	.47	.50	.33	1.00	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
OI_Strategy (5)	.53	.59	.62	.60	1.00	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cult_Change (6)	.50	.58	.32	.50	.48	1.00	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cult_Aspects1 (7)	.57	.62	.45	.49	.51	.72	1.00	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cult_Aspects2 (8)	.26	.29	.04	.09	-.06	.36	.15	1.00	-	-	-	-	-
Barriers_F1 (9)	.35	.27	.28	.04	.17	.14	-.02	.10	1.00	-	-	-	-
Barriers_F2 (10)	-.19	-.31	-.14	-.42	-.34	-.22	-.05	-.10	.06	1.00	-	-	-
Barriers_F3 (11)	-.09	-.14	.03	-.18	-.06	-.04	-.21	.07	-.02	.31	1.00	-	-
PDP_Degree (12)	-.08	.09	.06	.09	.22	.08	-.17	-.15	.24	-.33	.11	1.00	-
PDP_Adoption (13)	.74	.75	.49	0.53	.61	.67	.64	.29	.10	-.22	-.25	.01	1.00

Variable	OI_Inbound			OI_Outbound			OI_Reasons
Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
PDP_Degree_F1	-0.07	-0.10	-0.08	0.05	0.02	0.04	0.14	0.12	0.11
PDP_Degree_F1	(0.10)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.11)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.11)	(0.12)	(0.13)
PDP_Adoption	0.72 ^* ***** p < 0.001.	0.74***	0.67***	0.72***	0.74***	0.65***	0.62***	0.63***	0.64***
PDP_Adoption	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.14)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.15)	(0.11)	(0.11)	(0.12)
Exp_Total		-0.01	-0.01		-0.01	0.00		-0.01	-0.01
Exp_Total		(0.01)	(0.01)		(0.01)	(0.02)		(0.01)	(0.02)
N	49	49	41	47	47	38	53	53	46
adj. R²	0.42	0.41	0.34	0.40	0.39	0.35	0.38	0.37	0.36

Variable	OI_inbound			OI_outbound			OI_Reasons
Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Barriers_F1	0.19	0.22	0.26+	0.09	0.11	0.13	0.20	0.20	0.21
Barriers_F1	(0.14)	(0.13)	(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.16)
Barriers_F2	0.07	0.07	0.12	-0.11	-0.10	-0.09	0.07	0.07	0.08
Barriers_F2	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.15)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.15)
Barriers_F3	-0.22 ⁺ + p < .1;	-0.24+	-0.34 ^* * p < .05;	-0.25+	-0.26+	-0.36 ^ p < .01.	-0.13	-0.13	-0.17
Barriers_F3	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.14)
Exp_Total		0.03+	0.03+		0.01	0.02		0.00	0.01
Exp_Total		(0.01)	(0.02)		(0.01)	(0.02)		(0.01)	(0.02)
N	53	53	43	51	51	40	56	56	47
adj. R²	0.03	0.08	0.15	0.03	0.02	0.15	0.01	-0.01	-0.02

Variable	PDP_Adoption			PDP_Degree_F1
Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Barriers_F1	0.15	0.17	0.17	0.03	-0.00	0.00
Barriers_F1	(0.13)	(0.12)	(0.14)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.12)
Barriers_F2	-0.10	-0.11	-0.10	-0.23⁺	-0.22⁺	-0.36 ^ p < .01.
Barriers_F2	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.14)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.13)
Barriers_F3	-0.14	-0.15	-0.18	0.03	0.04	0.12
Barriers_F3	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.14)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.12)
Exp_Total		0.03⁺ + p < .1;	0.02		-0.03^* * p < .05;	-0.04**
		(0.01)	(0.02)		(0.01)	(0.01)
N	61	61	49	65	65	51
adj. R²	0.01	0.05	0.01	0.01	0.08	0.21

Variable	Partners_F1			Partners_F2
Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Barriers_F1	0.36**	0.37**	0.36**	-0.16	-0.16	-0.19
Barriers_F1	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.14)
Barriers_F2	-0.04	-0.05	-0.08	0.40 ^ p < .01.	0.40**	0.37*
Barriers_F2	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.14)
Barriers_F3	-0.23*	-0.23*	-0.25 ^* * p < .05;	0.03	0.04	0.07
Barriers_F3	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.13)
Exp_Total		0.01	0.01		-0.00	-0.01
Exp_Total		(0.01)	(0.02)		(0.01)	(0.02)
N	65	65	51	65	65	51
adj. R²	0.14	0.14	0.14	0.15	0.13	0.10

Variable	Partners_F1			Partners_F2
Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
PDP_Degree_F1	0.16	0.18	0.17	-0.09	-0.10	-0.23
PDP_Degree_F1	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.15)	(0.16)
PDP_Adoption	0.45***	0.44 ^* ***** p < .001.	0.36 ^ p < .01;	-0.13	-0.12	-0.10
PDP_Adoption	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.14)	(0.15)
Exp_Total		0.01	-0.00		-0.00	-0.01
Exp_Total		(0.01)	(0.02)		(0.02)	(0.02)
N	61	61	49	61	61	49
adj. R²	0.20	0.18	0.12	-0.01	-0.03	-0.01

Variable	Cult_Aspects_F1			Cult_Aspects_F2			OI_Strategy			OI_Maturity
Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Barriers_F1	0.06	0.09	-0.01	0.25*	0.26*	0.30*	0.22	0.25	0.24	0.01	0.10	0.12
	(0.13)	(0.12)	(0.14)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.16)	(0.16)	(0.18)	(0.13)	(0.10)	(0.11)

Barriers_F2	0.05	0.04	0.01	-0.20	-0.20	-0.16	-0.03	-0.03	-0.00	-0.30*	-0.31**	-0.42***
	(0.13)	(0.12)	(0.14)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.16)	(0.16)	(0.19)	(0.12)	(0.10)	(0.11)

Barriers_F3	-0.18	-0.18	-0.16	0.11	0.10	0.10	-0.09	-0.09	-0.16	0.00	0.09	0.15
	(0.13)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.16)	(0.16)	(0.18)	(0.13)	(0.11)	(0.12)

Exp_Total		0.03^* * p < .05;	0.02		0.01	0.01		0.04*	0.04		0.05^* ***** p < .001.	0.05***
		(0.01)	(0.02)		(0.01)	(0.01)		(0.02)	(0.02)		(0.01)	(0.01)
N	65	65	51	65	65	51	65	65	51	50	50	41
adj. R²	-0.01	0.07	-0.01	0.07	0.06	0.08	-0.02	0.05	0.01	0.06	0.40	0.47

Variable	Cult_Aspects_F1			Cult_Aspects_F2			OI_Strategy			OI_Maturity
Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
PDP_Degree_F1	-0.16	-0.07	-0.08	-0.02	-0.01	0.01	0.08	0.16	0.16	-0.01	0.18⁺	0.19⁺
	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.14)	(0.13)	(0.14)	(0.15)	(0.13)	(0.14)	(0.15)	(0.12)	(0.10)	(0.11)

PDP_Adoption	0.43 ^* ***** p < .001.	0.38**	0.37**	0.30 ^* * p < .05;	0.29*	0.27 ⁺ + p < .1;	0.89***	0.85***	0.84***	0.46* ^ p < .01;	0.32**	0.33**
	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.14)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.14)	(0.11)	(0.10)	(0.11)

Exp_Total		0.03⁺	0.02		0.00	0.00		0.02	0.02		0.05***	0.05***
		(0.01)	(0.02)		(0.02)	(0.02)		(0.01)	(0.02)		(0.01)	(0.01)
N	61	61	49	61	61	49	61	61	49	49	49	40
adj. R²	0.19	0.22	0.15	0.06	0.04	0.02	0.44	0.46	0.45	0.23	0.49	0.50

[1] * rafaelortegamarin@gmail.com

Brasil

Brasil

Open innovation integration to product development: a sector level analysis within the manufacturing industry

Abstract

Paper aims

Originality

Research method

Main findings

Implications for theory and practice