Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology / Edition 1

Hardcover (Print)
Buy Used
Buy Used from
(Save 41%)
Item is in good condition but packaging may have signs of shelf wear/aging or torn packaging.
Condition: Used – Good details
Used and New from Other Sellers
Used and New from Other Sellers
from $1.99
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
(Save 95%)
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (39) from $1.99   
  • New (13) from $5.00   
  • Used (26) from $1.99   


The Innovation Game Has Changed . . .

Companies that don't innovate die. This is one certainty your company faces in a complex world. But how should your company innovate? While the key to successful innovation once lay in the controlled environment of the corporate laboratory, today the widespread distribution of useful knowledge makes such control unfeasible. Competitive advantage now often comes from leveraging the discoveries of others.

Rather than relying entirely on internal ideas to advance the business, an "open" approach to innovation leverages internal and external sources of ideas. Rather than restricting innovations to a single path to market, open innovation inspires companies to find the most appropriate business model to commercialize a new offering -- whether that model exists within the firm or must be sought through external licensing, partnering, or venturing.

This pathbreaking approach -- based on the author's extensive field research, academic study, and longtime professional experience in Silicon Valley -- calls for very different organizing principles for managing research and innovation. Through rich descriptions of the innovation processes of Xerox, IBM, Intel, Procter & Gamble, Lucent, Merck, and other firms, Chesbrough illustrates the principles of open innovation in practice:

  • Not all the smart people work for you
  • External ideas can help create value, but it takes internal R&D to claim a portion of that value for you
  • It is better to build a better business model than to get to market first
  • If you make the best use of internal and external ideas, you will win
  • Not only should you profit from others' use of your intellectual property, you should also buy others' IP whenever it advances your own business model
  • You should expand R&D's role to include not only knowledge generation, but knowledge brokering as well
Chesbrough argues that no innovation holds value until a viable business model successfully commercializes it. Open Innovation will unlock the economic value latent in your company's ideas and technologies. If you don't unlock this value, chances are someone else will.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

Publishers Weekly
The great corporate research departments at companies like Bell Labs, IBM and Xerox were once the motor of American industry. But that may be changing, according to this probing academic study of corporate technological innovation. Chesbrough, an assistant professor at the Harvard Business School, argues that the old "closed innovation" model-vertically integrated research-and-development departments that develop technology in-house for the sole use of their corporate parent-is becoming obsolete in an age of mobile scientific workers, ubiquitous high-tech startups and a growing extra-corporate research establishment at university labs. Modern technology powerhouses like Cisco and Microsoft do little of their own basic research, he reports; instead they have dropped the "do-it-all-yourself" approach and pioneered a new model of "open innovation," in which companies import ideas from without and let their own innovations enter the wider marketplace. Drawing on case studies of companies like Lucent and Intel, Chesbrough suggests that companies make themselves more permeable to the flow of knowledge through such strategies as hiring professors and grad students as summer consultants, sponsoring university research, investing in and partnering with high-tech startups and venture capitalists, and disseminating their own innovations through spin-off companies or even by publishing it in the public domain. Chesbrough's sophisticated but highly readable discussion of these complex issues will give managers much food for thought. (Apr.) Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information.
Soundview Executive Book Summaries
Using field research into the innovation processes that drive Xerox, IBM, Intel, Merck and others, Harvard Business School Professor Henry Chesbrough explores the principles of open innovation in practice. Open Innovation describes how organizations can unlock the economic value that is latent in their ideas and technologies by showing them how they can expand R&D's role to include knowledge brokering, make better use of internal and external ideas, and build a better business model. Copyright © 2003 Soundview Executive Book Summaries
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9781578518371
  • Publisher: Harvard Business Review Press
  • Publication date: 3/6/2003
  • Edition description: First Edition
  • Edition number: 1
  • Pages: 227
  • Sales rank: 940,858
  • Product dimensions: 6.38 (w) x 9.50 (h) x 1.00 (d)

Meet the Author

Henry Chesbrough is an Assistant Professor of Technology and Operations Management at Harvard Business School.
Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

1 Xerox PARC: The Achievements and Limits of Closed Innovation 1
2 The Closed Innovation Paradigm 21
3 The Open Innovation Paradigm 43
4 The Business Model: Connecting Internal and External Innovation 63
5 From Closed to Open Innovation: The Transformation of the IBM Corporation 93
6 Open Innovation @ Intel 113
7 Creating New Ventures out of Internal Technologies: Lucent's New Ventures Group 135
8 Business Models and Managing Intellectual Property 155
9 Making the Transition: Open Innovation Strategies and Tactics 177
Notes 197
Index 217
About the Author 227
Read More Show Less



Most innovations fail. And companies that don't innovate, die. This is a book about the process of innovation, how companies utilize and advance technologies to create new products and services. In today's world, where the only constant is change, the task of managing innovation is vital for companies of every size in every industry. It is vital to sustain and advance companies' current businesses; it is critical to growing new businesses. It is also a very difficult process to manage.

Innovation in the 21st Century: A Tale of Two Models

To paraphrase Charles Dickens, for innovation in this new century, it is "the best of times; it is the worst of times". Industrial technology is advancing our understanding of the natural world at an accelerating rate. In the oldest industry in the world, agriculture, companies are learning to use genetic and genomic technology to make crops more resistant to pests, to droughts, and diseases, even as they produce more output per acre. In another ancient industry, retailing, computing and communications advances are bringing retailers into closer contact with their customers, and enabling them to provide more variety with less inventory than ever before. The burgeoning services businesses all benefit from technologies that offer better communications with more capabilities at lower prices. The largest service industry, health care, is experiencing an explosion in our scientific understanding of the forces that create life, which offers the prospect of longer, healthier lives for us all.

Yet in many ways, it is the worst of times for innovating companies. Many leading companies are having a terrible time sustaining their internal R&D investments. Take the premier industrial research laboratory of the 20th century, Bell Labs. Not long ago, Bell Labs would have been a decisive strategic weapon in Lucent's battle with Cisco in the telecommunications equipment market.

Lucent, which was the telecommunications equipment company that was created in the breakup of AT&T, enjoyed significant momentum from its spin-off from AT&T in 1996, calling itself "the largest startup in history". It also inherited the lion's share of Bell Laboratories from the old AT&T, endowing it with a wealth of research and technology to focus on the telecommunications equipment market. And over the next five years, Lucent enjoyed many victories in the market with its new products. Yet Cisco consistently managed to keep up with them, and occasionally got to market ahead of them. While Bell Labs technologies did create many new products and services for Lucent, Cisco also seemed to introduce many new products and services, despite the fact that it lacked anything like the deep research capabilities of Bell Labs.

Though they were direct competitors in a very technologically complex industry, Lucent and Cisco were not innovating in the same manner. Lucent devoted enormous resources to exploring the world of new materials and state of the art components and systems, to come up with fundamental discoveries that could fuel future generations of products and services. Cisco, meanwhile, did practically no internal research of this type.

Instead, Cisco deployed a rather different weapon in the battle for innovation leadership. It scanned the world of startup companies that were springing up all around it, which were commercializing new products and services. Some of these startups, in turn, were founded by veterans of Lucent, or AT&T, or Nortel, who took the ideas they worked on at these companies, and attempted to build companies around them. Sometimes, Cisco would invest in these startups. Other times, it simply partnered with them. And more than occasionally, it would later acquire them. In this way, Cisco kept up with the R&D output of perhaps the finest industrial research organization in the world, without doing much internal research of its own.

Lucent's experience with the limits of its research capability is not unique. IBM's research prowess in computing was of no avail against Intel and Microsoft in the personal computer business. Similarly, Nokia has catapulted itself ahead of Motorola, Siemens, and other industrial titans to the forefront of wireless telephony in just twenty years, building on its industrial experience from earlier decades in the low tech industries of wood pulp and rubber boots. GE's labs are no longer the powerhouse they once were. Xerox has now formally separated from its famous Palo Alto Research Center. Hewlett-Packard's HP Labs has been broken up between HP and Agilent.

This leads to a number of paradoxes that confront all innovating companies in the early 21st century. While ideas abound, internal industrial research is less effective. While innovation is critical, the usual process of managing innovation doesn't seem to work anymore. While ideas and external capital are plentiful, companies struggle to find and finance internal growth opportunities. While industrial R&D spending is high, many worry that we are exhausting the "seed corn" of basic knowledge that will propel technology a generation from now.

Not long ago, internal research and development was viewed as a strategic asset, and even a barrier to competitive entry in many industries. Only large companies with significant resources and long term research programs could compete. Research-based companies like DuPont, Merck, IBM, GE, and AT&T did the most research in their respective industries. And they earned most of the profits as well. Rivals who sought to unseat these firms had to ante up their own resources, and create their own labs, if they were to have any chance against these leaders.

These days, the former leading industrial enterprises are finding remarkably strong competition from many newer companies. These newcomers conducted little or no basic research on their own: Intel, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, Cisco, Genentech, Amgen, Genzyme. These companies have been very innovative, but they have innovated with the research discoveries of others. And there is a legion of other, even newer companies waiting to supplant these firms, if an opportunity should arise. These latter newcomers also are likely to rely on someone else's discoveries to ascend to leadership.

To make matters worse, some companies that made significant long term investments in research found that some of the resulting output, however brilliant, wasn't useful for them. They found ways to gracefully exit from further funding of these projects, and moved on to more promising work. Then, to their amazement, some of those abandoned projects later turned into very valuable companies. This was the experience of the Xerox Corporation, for example, with its Palo Alto Research Center. Numerous valuable computer hardware and software innovations were developed at PARC, but few of them made any money for Xerox and its shareholders.

A Shift in Innovation Paradigms

What accounts for the apparent decline in the innovation capabilities of so many leading companies, at a time when so many promising ideas abound? The research I have done in this book has led me to conclude that it is the way we innovate new ideas, and bring them to market, that is undergoing a fundamental change. In the words of the historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, I believe that we are witnessing a "paradigm shift", in how companies commercialize knowledge. The old paradigm is one I call "Closed Innovation". It is a view that says successful innovation requires control. Companies must generate their own ideas, and then develop them, build them, market them, distribute them, service them, finance them, and support them on their own. This paradigm counsels firms to be strongly self-reliant, because one cannot be sure of the quality, availability, and capability of others' ideas: "If you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself".

The logic that informed Closed Innovation thinking was an internally focused logic. This logic wasn't necessarily written down in any single place, but it was tacitly held to be self-evident as the "right way" to innovate. Here are some of the implicit rules of Closed Innovation:

--We should hire the best and the brightest people, so that the smartest people in our industry work for us.
--In order to bring new products and services to the market, we must discover and develop them ourselves.
--If we discover it ourselves, we will get it to market first.
--The company who gets an innovation to market first, will usually win.
--If you lead the industry in making investments in R&D, you will discover the best and most ideas, and will come to lead the market as well.
--We should control our IP, so that our competitors don't profit from our ideas.

This logic created a virtuous circle (figure I-1). Companies invest in internal R&D, which led to many breakthrough discoveries. These discoveries enabled those companies to bring new products and services to market, realize more sales and higher margins because of these products, and then reinvest in more internal R&D, which led to further breakthroughs. And because the intellectual property (IP) that arises from this internal R&D is closely guarded, others could not exploit these ideas for their own profit.

For most of the twentieth century, this paradigm worked, and worked well. The chemicals industry created the central research laboratory, and used it to identify and commercialize a tremendous variety of new products. Thomas Edison created an American version of this laboratory, used it to develop and perfect a number of important breakthroughs, and founded General Electric's famed laboratory. Bell Laboratories discovered amazing physical phenomena, and harnessed its discoveries to create the transistor, among its many important achievements. And the US government created an ad hoc central research laboratory to conduct a crash project on nuclear fission, which led to the development of the atomic bomb.

Figure I-2 depicts this Closed Innovation paradigm for managing R&D. The solid lines show the boundary of the firm. Ideas flow into the firm on the left, and flow out to the market on the right. They are screened and filtered during the research process, and the surviving ones are transferred into development, and then taken to market.

In Figure I-2 above, the linkage between research and development is tightly coupled and internally focused. Our extant theories of managing R&D are built upon this conception. Examples of this thinking are the "stage gate" process, the "chain link" model, and the product development funnel or pipeline found in most texts on managing R&D. Projects enter in on the left at the beginning, and proceed within the firm until they are shipped to customers on the right of the Figure. The process is designed to weed out false positives, projects that look initially appealing, but later turn out to be disappointing. The surviving projects, having survived a series of internal screens, hopefully have a greater chance of success in the market.

*Endnotes were omitted

Copyright 2003 Henry Chesbrough

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing all of 3 Customer Reviews
  • Posted June 30, 2011

    more from this reviewer

    Pioneering and tested guidelines for modern research innovation models

    This intriguing book proves just how right author Henry Chesbrough is ¬ and has been since its first edition in 2005. He devotes a major portion of his work to explaining the differences between "Open and Closed Innovation paradigms," and to arguing for the necessity of the open model. In the years since his book's publication, Open Innovation platforms have increasingly become the norm. Clearly, Chesbrough was forward-looking, and his studies of specific corporations' innovation successes or failures remain fresh and instructive. Firms grappling with Open Innovation models can benefit enormously from his guidelines on how best to use them. getAbstract recommends this informative standard in the field to inventors and innovators, those responsible for corporate knowledge management, and all leaders trying to design their organizations for innovation.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted March 21, 2005

    Leveraging Innovation from Anywhere

    Open Innovation is a great read. It is about leveraging neworks of knowledge and expertise that are clearly untapped by some companies who rely on internal (very finite) resources to cultivate innovation and thrust it into something tangible that can make money; not easy in any environment. It is akin to the use of Open Source software. As one who has spent several years in larger organisations like IBM, HP and in smaller emerging companies, trying to develop new businesses, I am in strong agreement with the thesis presented here. What is also clearly impressive is the amount of research done to extract the larger meaning of it all.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 27, 2003

    Accessible, strategic , solid: the real think!

    Chesbrough really understands how high-tech innovation and R&D work. He's a genuine Silicon Valley start-up guy turned HBS professor, so is an active participant. This book lays out the challenges faced by Xerox PARC (and Intel, IBM) in thinking about R&D, and how the major players are modifying their strategies. Big and little companies pay him for his opinion.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing all of 3 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)