World Scientific
Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
Our website is made possible by displaying certain online content using javascript.
In order to view the full content, please disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website

System Upgrade on Mon, Jun 21st, 2021 at 1am (EDT)

During this period, the E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 6 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.


    Intermediaries are an inherent part of value creation in open innovation. They connect organisations seeking external solutions for an innovation-related problem (seekers) with potential solution providers (solvers). To bridge between the innovation problem and external knowledge sources, intermediaries deploy different search strategies. This study compares the cost of using two prevalent approaches: direct versus delegated search. Direct search corresponds to the conventional understanding of search by screening a pre-identified set of solution providers that the intermediary has identified as potentially relevant contributors. Delegated search comprises more indirect search such as problem broadcasting or crowdsourcing. Here, the innovation problem is distributed to a large external network of potential solvers, allowing even unobvious outsiders to contribute to its solution. An empirical study of 53 open innovation intermediaries indicates that delegated search outperforms direct search in terms effectiveness. The lower overall effort for intermediation in delegated search mainly arises from decoupling the effort to coordinate the search process by shifting it towards the solution provider.


    • Afuah, A and CL Tucci [2012] Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355–375. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Agogué, M, A Yström and P Le Masson [2013] Rethinking the role of intermediaries as an architect of collective exploration and creation of knowledge in open innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(2), 1–24. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Alexy, O, G George and AJ Salter [2013] Cui Bono? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 270–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Antons, D, M Declerck, K Diener, I Koch and F Piller [2017] Assessing the not-invented-here syndrome: Development and validation of implicit and explicit measurements. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8), 1227–1245. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Baron, RM and DA Kenny [1986] The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Baer, M, KT Dirks and JA Nickerson [2013] Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197–214. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Brunswicker, S and U Hutschek [2010] Crossing horizons: Leveraging cross-industry innovation search in the front-end of the innovation process. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), 683–702. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Brusoni, S and A Prencipe [2013] The organization of innovation in ecosystems: Problem framing, problem solving, and patterns of coupling. Advances in Strategic Management, 30, 167–194. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Cassiman, B and R Veugelers [2006] In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Cohen, J [1987] Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum: Hillsdale. Google Scholar
    • Dahlander, L, JB Jeppesen and H Piezunka [2018] How organizations manage crowds: Define, broadcast, attract and select. Managing Inter-Organizational Collaborations-Process Views. Google Scholar
    • De Silva, M, J Howells and M Meyer [2018] Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: Knowledge–based practices and internal value creation. Research Policy, 47(1), 70–87. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Diener, K and FT Piller [2010] The Market for Open Innovation: Increasing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Innovation Process. Raleigh: Lulu Inc. Google Scholar
    • Erat, S and V Krishnan [2012] Managing delegated search over design spaces. Management Science, 58(3), 606–623. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Faul, F, E. Erdfelder, A Buchner and A Lang [2009] Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Felin, T and TR Zenger [2014] Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Research Policy, 43(5), 914–925. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Field, A [2013] Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage. Google Scholar
    • Giannopoulou, E, A Yström and S Ollila [2011] Turning open innovation into practice: Open innovation research through the lens of managers. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(3), 505–524. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Gulati, R and H Singh [1998] The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 781–814. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Gulati, R, P Puranam and M Tushman [2012] Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571–586. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Harrell Jr, FE (2015). Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. Springer. Google Scholar
    • Hertog, PD [2000] Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 4(4), 491–528. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Howells, J [2006] Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Hussinger, K and A Wastyn [2016] In search for the not-invented-here syndrome: The role of knowledge sources and firm success. R&D Management, 46(S3), 945–957. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Jeppesen, LB and KR Lakhani [2010] Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Jonassen, DH and H Kwon [2001] Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 35. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Katila, R and G Ahuja [2002] Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Katila, R and EL Chen [2008] Effects of search timing on innovation: The value of not being in sync with rivals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 593–625. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Katzy, B, E Turgut, T Holzmann and K Sailer [2013] Innovation intermediaries: A process view on open innovation coordination. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(3), 295–309. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Kogut, B and U Zander [1992] Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Kozinets, RV [2010] Netnography. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Google Scholar
    • Lakhani, KR (2006). The core and the periphery in distributed and self-organizing innovation systems. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
    • Landis, JR and GG Koch [1977] The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159–174. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Laursen, K and A Salter [2006] Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Lazzarotti, V and R Manzini [2009] Different modes of open innovation: A theoretical framework and an empirical study. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 615–636. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Lüttgens, D, P Pollok, D Antons and FT Piller [2014] Wisdom of the crowd and capabilities of a few: Internal success factors of crowdsourcing for innovation. Journal of Business Economics, 84(3), 339–374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Miron-Spektor, E and Beenen [2015] Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 53–65. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Mohr, J and R Spekman [1994] Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135–152. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Mortara, L (2010). The role of intermediaries. Working Paper, Center for Technology Management, Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge University, Cambridge. Google Scholar
    • Nambisan, S and M Sawhney [2007] A buyer’s guide to the innovation bazaar. Harvard Business Review, 85(6), 109–118. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Nickerson, J and TR Zenger [2004] A knowledge-based theory of the firm — The problem solving perspective. Organization Science, 15(6), 617–632. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Piezunka, H and L Dahlander [2015] Distant search, narrow attention: How crowding alters organizations’ filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 856–880. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Piller, FT and J West [2014] Firms, users, and innovation: An interactive model of coupled open innovation. in New Frontiers in Open Innovation, HW ChesbroughW VanhaverbekeJ West (Eds), pp. 29–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Pisano, G and R Verganti [2008] Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harvard Business Review, 25(4), 78–87. Google Scholar
    • Podsakoff, PM, SB MacKenzie and JY Lee [2003] Common method biases in behavioral research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Pollok, P, D Lüttgens and FT Piller [2019] Attracting solutions in crowdsourcing contests: The role of knowledge distance, identity disclosure, and seeker status. Research Policy, 48(1), 98–114. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Preacher, KJ and AF Hayes [2004] SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4), 717–731. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Richardson, HA, MJ Simmering and MC Sturman [2009] A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762–800. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Rosenberg, N [1982] Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
    • Rosenkopf, L and P Almeida [2003] Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49(6), 751–766. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Rosenkopf, L and A Nerkar [2001] Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Sanchez, R and JT Mahoney [1996] Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 63–76. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Sawhney, M, G Verona and E Prandelli [2005] Collaborating to create: The internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4), 4–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Sheikh, K and S Mattingly [1981] Investigating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 35(4), 293–296. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Shih, T-H and X Fan [2008] Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys. Field Methods, 20(3), 249–271. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Shrout, PE and JL Fleiss [1979] Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Sieg, JH, MW Wallin and G von Krogh [2010] Managerial challenges in open innovation: A study of innovation intermediation in the chemical industry. R&D Management, 40(3), 281–291. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Simon, HA [1989] The scientist as problem solver. in Complex Information Processing: The Impact of Herbert Simon, D KlahrK Kotovsky (Eds.), pp. 375–398. Hillsdale: Lawrence Publishers. Google Scholar
    • Terwiesch, C and Y Xu [2008] Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Science, 54(9), 1529–1543. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Von Hippel, E [1994] “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Von Hippel, E [1998] Economics of product development by users: The impact of “sticky” local information. Management Science, 44(5), 629–644. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Williamson, OE [1979] Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • Zahra, SA and G George [2002] Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203. Crossref, ISIGoogle Scholar
    Published: 4 June 2019
    Remember to check out the Most Cited Articles!

    Be inspired by these New Titles in Business and Management