From Open Source to Open Innovation practices: A case in the Greek context

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

From Open Source to Open Innovation practices: A case in the Greek contextin light of the debt crisis

Thanos Papadopoulos a,⁎, Teta Stamati b, Mara Nikolaidou c, Dimosthenis Anagnostopoulos c

a Hull University Business School, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX, UKb Department of Informatics and Telecommunications, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Panepistimioupolis, Ilissia, Athens 15784, Greecec Department of Informatics and Telematics, Harokopio University of Athens, 70 El. Venizelou Str, Athens 17671, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 10 February 2012Received in revised form 26 October 2012Accepted 27 October 2012Available online 26 November 2012

“Open” practices have been at the forefront of research, business and political agendas for sometime. Traditionally, research has focused on analysing critical factors for the deployment ofOpen Source (OS) Software and has highlighted the roles of “Collective Intelligence” and“participation in voluntary communities” in facilitating OS development. Nevertheless, there islittle literature examining the role these Open Innovation (OI) practicesmay play in influencingthe private-collective model of innovation and its application in economies-in-crisis to createpublic-good innovations. To address this gap, this paper uses the case of Greece. Data weregathered from interviews conducted with public policy makers and private sector top executives.The findings underline the importance of using OS as software to deal with cost reduction duringdebt crisis; butmore importantly reveal a shift fromOS to utilising the aforementioned OI practicesto support the creation of public-good innovations through the private-collective model ofinnovation, and the difficulties faced in encouraging this initiative due to insufficient nationalinnovation policy, and different philosophies, structures, and cultures followed by the organisa-tions. The study calls for changes in the national policy supported by the private-collectivemodel toleverage innovation.

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Open SourceOpen InnovationPrivate-collective innovation modelCollective intelligenceParticipation in voluntary communitiesDebt crises

1. Introduction

Over the last years there has been a focus on the devel-opment, implementation, and adoption of Open Source (OS)Software1 by both researchers and practitioners [1]. Themarket for OS is growing at an annual rate of 22.4% and ispredicted to be worth US$8.1 billion by 2013 [2], whereas thepredictions by Gartner [3] suggest that by the end of 2012,at least 80% of all commercial software solutions will includesubstantive OS components.

The extant literature has illustrated the industry-strengthof OS as a software tool [4–7], highlighting the role of Open

Innovation (OI) practices of “Collective Intelligence” [8,9] and“participation in voluntary communities” [6,10,11] in facili-tating OS development. Furthermore, research has examinedthe positive impact of these OI practices on the economy andsociety [12], and the impact of OI on national systems ofinnovation [12,13] as well as on opportunities presented byOI for countries to enhance and participate in innovationusing different models [11,14,15]. Among these models, theprivate-collectivemodel of innovation [15–17] is based on thecreation of a consortium of innovators where public subsidyis absent and private resources are used for the creation ofinnovations pro bono publico. Innovators retain partial owner-ship of the innovation but do not have the right to sell/controlit after it has been released [15–17].

Nevertheless, apart from exceptions discussing the appli-cability of the private-collective model of innovation [11,17],there is little literature examining the role of these OI practicesin influencing the private-collective model of innovation and

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 1232–1246

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1482463063.E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Papadopoulos).

1 We acknowledge the differences between various types of software,such as Open source, free software, and Free (libre) Open Source Software(FOSS/FLOSS). However, in this research we use these terms interchange-ably as “Open Source (OS)” [4,5].

0040-1625/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.10.030

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change


its application in economies in crisis to create public-goodinnovations. Harnessing OI practices is becoming a necessity,particularly in periods of national debt crises where triggeringinnovation is a key to achieving growth and subsequently todealing with the consequences of financial crises [19–21].

To address this gap, a qualitative case study strategy[22–24] in the Greek context using semi-structured interviewswith top executives and top public policy makers in privateand public organisations was used. Greece has been at thecentre of the European debt crisis for many months and risksdefaulting on its public debt and leaving the Eurozone. The debtcrisis has had an impact on both the IT/IS expenditure andinvestments on innovation [25–27], which have been dimin-ished under a government that is struggling to deal with thestate finances. However, a more sustainable solution lies inestablishing measures and policies that will help stimulategrowth in the ailing economy, and build the cornerstones of astrong economy: this solution may rest on innovation policiesand good governance, facilitated by collective know-how andparticipation in voluntary communities to stimulate innovationat a national level [13,14,17].

This paper argues for the importance of utilising OS asa software tool to deal with the insufficient IT investmentsduring the crisis; but more importantly, following the literatureon the private-collective model of innovation [11,14–17], itunderlines a necessary shift in the current use of OS as asoftware tool to the utilisation of the OI practices of CollectiveIntelligence and participation in voluntary communities (con-sortia) that facilitate innovation and thus promote growth[19–21]. Furthermore, our findings highlight the difficulties inapplying such practices and the specific model of innovationdue to inadequate national innovation policy, as well as thecurrent philosophy, structure and culture of both public andprivate organisations. The study calls for changes in the nationalpolicy to leverage innovation through the model. To secure thesustainability of such policy, commitment as well as politicalwill and the creation of a roadmap may be needed, which willdetermine the participation incentives in those communities,the way such a policy will be implemented in Greece, the waythese communities will come into being and how they willbe led, and who will maintain those initiatives after develop-ment. Therefore, policies should be directed towards utilisingCollective Intelligence as part of the private-collective innova-tion model to transform public administration, thereby gener-ating new ideas and innovations which will enable growth. Theawareness of the strategic value of OI practices is the key aim ofthis research.

The paper is structured as follows: after a brief review ofthe literature regarding OS and OI (Section 2), the researchmethodology of the paper is presented (Section 3). The findingsof the case study are discussed next in comparison to the extantliterature (Sections 4 and 5), and the paper concludes (Section 6)by highlighting its contribution to literature and suggestingfuture research avenues.

2. From Open Source to Open Innovation practices

This section begins with a brief overview of the extantliterature on OS Software, and focuses on factors highlightedfor its successful implementation. The characteristics of the

“Open movement” are then discussed in the context of OIpractices.

2.1. Open Source Software

Open Source Software refers to computer software whosesource code is publically accessible under OS licences [28–30].OS Software gives users the right to modify, copy, and dis-tribute software freely [31]. It differs from proprietary softwarein that it can be fully redistributed [32]. One of themost strikingcharacteristics of OS is the lack of traditional organisationalstructures, such as conventional hierarchies and rules, as wellas the fact that it is based on collaboration that takes placeusually within voluntary communities of developers [33,34].

Von Krogh and Spaeth [12] suggest that OS impactspositively both on the economy and society. Being “computer-based” and “user-driven” innovation [35,36] marked by sharedideologies and values, OS adopts a different business value-creation model, in which value is an outcome of collectiveintellect [37] to deal with costs and short product lifecycles[38]. Harfoff et al. [19] refer to the benefits accruing to userswho free-reveal their innovations, suggesting that creatingthe conditions for actors to engage jointly in innovation isprofitable; but more importantly, is also welfare-improving.

The extant literature on OS (Table 1) has discussed modelsrelated to the business and strategic value of OS [14,31,39–41];the motivations of participants in the OS development process[15,16,19,42,43]; and factors for its successful deployment[44,45]. The striking feature of the OS projects lies in the lackof traditional organisational mechanisms and in particular inthe absence of conventional hierarchies, rules, and internalorganisational bodies. By becoming “Open”, organisations canharness external and internal ideas to jointly advance theirtechnologies: ideas and resources flow collectively in and out oforganisations [46, p. 699]. Organisations have recognised thestrategic value of being “Open” and realised that this effectiveprocess needs to be incorporated in the way they innovate;that is, they need to acquire ideas and resources from both the

1233T. Papadopoulos et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 1232–1246

Table 1Factors which influence the adoption of OS.

Context Factors Indicativeliterature

Environmental Fit with parent/allied organisations'systems

[18,45,49]

Successful exemplars [45]External support services [44,50–53]

Organisational Organisational size [45,53]The availability of resources(financial, human)

[2,44,50–54]

Presence of boundary spanners [51,52]Top management support [2,45,52,54]

Technological Easy to integrate with legacy systems [45,53,55,56]Reliability of the product [49,53,56]Vendor lock-in avoidance [44,53,55]

Individual Decision maker processes rich ITknowledge

[2]

Decision makers' perception of maturityof Open Source

[50,53,56]

Employee familiarity with the OS [53,56,57]


internal and external environments [47,48]. Hence, OI comes tothe foreground and is explicated in the following section.

2.2. Open Innovation and practices

Open Innovation has been a major trend over the lastyears in both academia and practice. The general thrust ofOI lies in the fact that organisations are no longer reluctantto collectively engage in new product and service develop-ment, or public sector reform, but do tend to focus primarilyon acquiring and exploiting externally generated knowledge inorder to create innovations for public good [47,58]. Chesbrough[47, p. 24] defines OI as “a paradigm that assumes that firmscan and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, andinternal and external paths to market, as firms look to advancetheir technology”. Implicit in this definition is the need fororganisations to collectively engage in sharing and exploitingvaluable ideas [46]. Additionally, free-revealing of the innova-tion [36,59] – used for the good of the public – yields significantbenefits for these organisations and in particular the promisethat the innovating organisations can achieve a greater returnon their innovative activities and intellectual property [47].Therefore, the OI paradigm goes beyond utilising customers,rivals, and universities for the creation and exploitation ofpublicly available innovation [14,19,34,58,60,61]. The innovat-ing community rewards those innovations by providing thetools and funds, which offset the developers' contribution costs[16,62].

The extant literature has suggested different businessmodels based on the OS and OI [6,12,14,17,63]. In this paper,we focus on the private-collective model of innovation [14]which has been used by many researchers in the field[11,15–17]. The model suggests that public subsidy is absentand the innovator uses private resources – both human andfinancial – for the creation and exploitation of public-goodinnovations. Innovators who participate in such a communitycould retain partial ownership of the intellectual propertythat is created, but they do not have any exclusive rights tosell and control the use of the innovation after it has beenreleased [64,65]. Therefore, the model proposes that privateresources are invested in the creation of a good which may beshared and revealed for social welfare purposes. In this veinthe innovators receive higher benefits when contributing topublic good [6,11,17]: the cost of protecting knowledge mayoutweigh the benefits or free-revealing; innovators whofollow this model learn both internally and externally fromother organisations [17]; the provision of innovations to thepublic can generate useful feedback on how to improve them[15] whereas collective knowledge is created [17]; innovatorsbenefit from a positive reputation by using resources for publicgood [21]; the innovation adoption is fast and widespread andtherefore advantages can occur from network effects [14]; byparticipating in such a collective activity, organisations reducetheir costs of innovation [47]; and the supply of public-goodinnovations makes it possible for organisations to reducemanufacturing-incurred fixed costs related to research anddevelopment [17]. Finally, cooperation and knowledge sharing,learning and enjoyment gained from participating, as wellas a sense of ownership and control [11,15], form “selectiveincentives” for participation in such projects [66–68].

Implicit in the definitions of OI and the private-collectivemodel of innovation is the necessity for innovators to revealtheir knowledge, engage with other organisations in bothconvergent and divergent modes of thought, and subsequentlyreflect on these insights gained [9,69,70] while they partici-pate in voluntary communities of innovators [17]. Wooley andFuchs [9] refer to the benefits attained from encouragingorganisations to pursue and reflect on different modes ofthought, referred to as “Collective Intelligence” [9]. Accordingto Wooley and Fuchs [9, p.1359–60], Collective Intelligenceleverages “the insights from reflection into course-correctingchanges”, and has been acknowledged as enabling the achieve-ment of faster or improved solutions. The extant literaturehas focused mainly on ICT to enhance the knowledge pool ofcommunities [71], on problem solving and decision making[8,72], and on time savings created en masse in comparison toindividual problem-solving [72,73]. The degree of intelligenceis dependent on the diversity of resources and perspectiveseach innovator brings to the community, and the existingmechanism for reconciliation of different opinions, promotionofways forward and application of thosewho fit the situation [8].According to Malone et al. [8], harnessing Collective Intelligencemeans identifying building blocks that can be combined to createa collective system.

Finally, literature has acknowledged the important rela-tionship between OI and national systems of innovation; thatis, “the set of institutions, actors, and relationships thatindividually and jointly influence a nation's cumulative inno-vative performance” [13, p. 419]. This is because the abilityof an organisation to apply OI practices lies in the extentto which it addresses the external factors involved, such asexploring and exploiting external knowledge, skilful innova-tors, financial resources, effective and efficient governancestructures, effective legal systems, and the protection of theorganisation's intellectual property [13]; and these factors havebeen correlated to a country's national system of innovation[47,74,75]. Nevertheless, literature has mostly explicated OI ata firm level, with the aim of confirming its necessity for thesurvival of organisations [76]; there are relatively a few studies[13,74] which emphasise the relationship between the OIpractices of Collective Intelligence and participation in volun-tary communities, and a country's national system of innova-tion, “despite the fact that it is precisely this relationship thatmay be crucial for policy-making.” [13, p. 420]. Even thesestudies [13] examine how a country's national system ofinnovation is influenced when organisations adopt OI strate-gies; they do not therefore examine the possible participationof organisations – both public and private – in a new model orpolicy, which will leverage innovation and growth throughCollective Intelligence and thinking.

This section has highlighted that a) organisations haveunderstood the need to shift from the use of OS Software toOI, b) it is necessary for organisations which follow the Openparadigm to participate in Collective Intelligence schemata(communities) where they engage in different modes ofthought and reflect on the insights gained, c) it is fruitful fororganisations to participate in voluntary communities ofinnovators to create public-good innovations since theyreduce innovation costs, whereas the value from creatinginnovations and exploring and exploiting knowledge bal-ances any losses from the free distribution of innovation, and

1234 T. Papadopoulos et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 1232–1246


d) these communities and models need to be consideredwithin the national innovation systems and policies.

This paper, therefore, focuses on the use of the Openphilosophy as both a software tool (through OS Software) andthrough the utilisation of OI practices (Collective Intelligence,participation in voluntary communities of innovators) throughthe private-collectivemodel of innovation to create innovation.Before embarking on a discussion of the results of the study,the research methodology and context are presented in thefollowing section.

3. Research methodology and context

This paper follows the qualitative case study tradition[22–24]. The qualitative case study was chosen since the aimwas to acquire an in-depth understanding of the views ofhigh-echelon managers in relation to the adoption of OS andOI practices and models from a software tool to a CollectiveIntelligence mechanism, and answer ‘how’ and ‘why’ specificphenomena take place [22–24].

Data were collected by interviewing forty (40) top publicpolicymakers andprivate sector top executives (seeAppendixA -Table 1A). The interviews were conducted in two phases: thefirst phase took place from October to December 2011 (that is,before the 2012 Greek National Elections), and the secondphase from June to July 2012 (after the 2012 Greek NationalElections). We secured the views of public policy makers andprivate sector executives before and after a new governmentcame to power. The private organisations we approached wererelated to the IT sector and they were classified among the top10 IT users/developers in the country. When discussing OS as asoftware tool, the researchers used the topic of OS EnterpriseResource Planning (ERP)2; the extant literature (e.g., [77–81])highlights the popularity of OSS-ERP solutions in both publicand private sectors and therefore discussions around ERP wouldbe within the specialisation of the top public policy makers andprivate sector top executives.

The interviews were semi-structured [82] and eachlasted for 45 min on average. They were conducted in twoparts: the first part included questions about the necessity ofimplementing OS as a software tool, and the second partincluded questions on the deployment of OI practices throughthe private-collective model of innovation. The second part ofthe interview questions followed Steurmer et al. [10], but theform of the emerging data determined the direction and lengthof the interviews [45]. Before the interviews, a list of potentialinterview questions was sent to the interviewees via emailfor informative reasons. The interviewees were the intendedactors for policy making in Greece.3 They were sampledaccording to a) their position and role in policy (public sector)and strategy-making and deployment (private sector), and b)their knowledge of the Open movement (both public andprivate sectors). The public sector interviewees are membersof the top ranks of the Greek government, and hence are

considered the public sector policy makers (see Appendix A -Tables 1A and 2A). Interviews were audio-recorded andtranscribed verbatim. In the case where the participants didnot agree to be tape-recorded, notes were kept which reflectedtheir opinions. Strict confidentiality regarding the names oforganisations and participants was applied.

Data were viewed “not as objective evidence supportingor falsifying an assertion but as texts and text analogues,whose meanings, when read hermeneutically, can go beyondthe original intentions and meanings attributed by theirsources” [83, p. 57]. This hermeneutical approach followsBoland [84] and more recent studies (e.g., [85]) which studythe embedding of technology in work practices and the waysit is adapted by employees in an organisation. Transcribeddata were assigned broad initial codes that were refined as theresearch progressed. Emergent themeswere identified throughreviewing field-notes and interview data, and supplementarycodes emerged during this subsequent analysis. The emergingthemes were further refined as the process continued, thusbuilding the analysis incrementally.

3.1. The context of the study

The Greek case was chosen as the research context ofthis study. Greece is classified as a developed country [86].The global debt crisis of 2008–2009 and the subsequentrevelations regarding the falsification of statistical data of thefinancial situation of Greece drove up its borrowing costs andeven today Greece continues to risk defaulting on its publicdebt. In 2010 the European Union (EU), the European CentralBank and the International Monetary Fund agreed that anuncontrollable Greek default would trigger a major crisis inthe Eurozone, and announced a major financial assistancepackage for Greece based on the Greek compliance withfar-reaching economic reforms. A year later, however, theeconomy was still veering towards default and the Europeanleaders came upwith a second round of measures in July 2011,and also in October 2011. This new package calls for moreausterity measures and financial assistance. A Government ofNational Unity was formed from November 2011 to June 2012under leading scholars, which was then replaced after theelection in June 2012 with a coalition government, led by theGreek Conservative Party. The new government has asked for atwo-year extension to meet the tough budget targets attachedto Greece's bailout from the EU and International MonetaryFund, and new austeritymeasures of €11.5 billion are yet to beput into practice.

The financial crisis impacted the expenditure and in-vestments on innovation and services. Before the debt crisis,the IT expenditure was at the level of 1.2% of Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) but dropped below 1.0% in 2010 [25]. Thetotal Greek expenditure on innovation, and research anddevelopment is currently below 0.6% GDP, whereas the sameEU expenditure is around 1.9% GDP [87,88].

The investments for innovation and research in Greeceare the lowest compared to the rest of Europe. In particular,most funding in Greece comes from public resources, where-as for the period 2003–2007, the private sector has providedaround 30% of the national investment. For the same period,the EU countries have spent around 63% of their nationalinvestments on R&D [87,88]. Furthermore, the total private


2 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) focuses on the seamless integrationof information flows across business functions or organisations [77–79]. Itbrings fundamental changes in a company's strategy, organisation andculture [77,80,81].

3 The Greek public high-echelon employees take the strategic decisionsfor such initiatives in consultation with the private companies' CEOs and topmanagers who provide the support and various resources.


investment in R&D is around 0.16% GDP, which representsonly 15% of the corresponding EU number; this is also thecase when discussing ICT projects [87,88].

The remit of the EU is to reinforce investments from bothpublic and private sectors particularly in ICT. In particular,the EU intends to lead initiatives concerning many projectsfor the invigoration of the research, innovation, and devel-opment in ICT. Among these targets for “Europe 2020”, thedevelopment of a new strategy for innovation and researchwill improve and secure infrastructures and amplify sharingof know-how, particularly in public sector segments suchas e-procurement and citizen services. Central among theseinitiatives is the creation of policies for OS and OI. Theimplementation of OS and OI in public sector projects will actpositively towards the maximisation of the returns throughpublic investments in research and innovation and the im-provement of the visibility of these innovations to the societyand organisations. Therefore, the formation of such a culturethat promotes OS and OI, together with the implementationof Open infrastructures, will have positive results for inno-vation and technological development. The implementationof the aforementioned strategies from Greece must be imme-diate, since in the case of Greece these reforms do not occuras an additional measure towards innovation; rather, theysubstitute public sector reform.

The deployment of OS in the Greek context is discussed inthe next sections.

4. Exploring Open Source and Open Innovation practicesin the Greek context

This section reports on the results from the interviewswith top managers and policy makers in the Greek context(See Appendix A - Table 2A). It is split into two parts: the firstreports on the use of OS as a software tool by the organisations(both public and private) and the second part discusses theapplication of OI practices through the private-collectivemodelof innovation.

4.1. The necessity of deploying Open Source as software tool

The results of the study suggest that a possible deploymentof OS is a top-down decision, initiated by the top managementof the organisations:

“Weusewhat our [big company] uses, andwedon't have anypower in decision making with regards to the purchase ordeployment of software.” (General Director, Organisation G).

The public sector policy makers focused on the importanceof having sufficient funding and governance mechanisms inplace to purchase and maintain software:

“In the public sector there is loads of funding, many ofwhich are not utilised and it must be used. The problemis that it is the bureaucracy of the Public Administrationthat creates bottlenecks in the implementation of the ITprojects. In such occasions, OS applications can providesolutions since they are smart, cost-efficient, flexible,expandable, and non-demanding in terms of hardwareand software resources.” (Director, Organisation D).

However, the private companies underlined the impor-tance of cost alleviation and the applicability of OS:

“The IT people can suggest anything. However, any imple-mentation depends on budget, implementation time, inte-gration with other products etc.… I am only concernedabout the cost… I am not sure about the applicability ofOS-ERP. In general we try not to invest directly, but to sellour own applications through management consultingprojects.” (CEO, Organisation A).

Both public and private sector interviewees suggestedthat OS was technologically mature – that is, compatible withtheir current systems and flexible enough to deal with futureupgrades – and also reliable (for instance its use will notresult in data loss or any technical failure): but OS and theOpen practices need to be in alignment with the businessstrategy. Finally, policy makers and top managers did notacknowledge the importance of employee acceptance andexternal support for the deployment and maintenance of OS.However, the public policy makers underlined the impor-tance of learning-by-example and the transfer of privatesector practices to the public sector:

“I follow themarket trend, which at themoment is towardsOS-ERP, even in the public sector. I think such a solution isreliable and cost-efficient.” (Sales Director, Organisation E).

4.2. Open Innovation practices: private-collective model ofinnovation, Collective Intelligence mechanism, and participationin voluntary communities

In the first part of this section, the interviewees highlight-ed the importance of OS as a software tool in the currentGreek crisis. This section focuses on the ability of both publicand private organisations to engage in creating public-goodinnovation based on OI practices and Collective Intelligence.

The interviewees stated the importance of OI principles toenhance innovation:

“In the crisis one needs to act quickly and correctly. How-ever, this is not always achievable. Technological know-how and experience are vital… and are indeed vital tosimplify public and private organisations. Simplification,integration and innovation are necessary for growth andsubsequently – why not? – a remedy to crisis. OS offersthese, and since we need to get rid of the obsolete practicessupported by proprietary software of the past, it may bethat OS-ERP is the key.” (CEO, Organisation N).

There was a need expressed to create the appropriateconditions for citizen participation in decision making, opti-mum utilisation of resources, transparency and accountability,and therefore Open governance, and it was considered that OIcould be the tool to achieve this. The need to innovate wasevident, particularly for private companieswhich, on one hand,had to cut down on expenditure on many levels, and on theother hand, to invest in the repeatability of their products andfacilitate innovation:

“Given the crisis, the survival of the fittest is more obviousthan ever. To be the first in your industry, you need toinnovate and it is true that the specific model offers the



possibility to innovate and facilitate growth by creatingpublic-good innovations” (CEO, Organisation B).

The need for private companies to innovate was related totheir struggle for survival within a market hit by the financialcrisis. For the Greek public sector, it was not a matter ofsurvival of the organisations but a matter of survival of thestate. However, incentives towards such ways of facilitatinggrowth are not yet in place:

“As you understand, given the crisis, there is no time fordelaying attempts to create innovation and growth. Youknow that Greeks have tried a lot over the last years withall these cuts taking place everywhere. We have also triedtowards public sector reform and public-good innova-tion. With the participation of private organisations forreforming public sector…this is to the right direction.However, we are yet to discuss which the incentives willbe in this direction.” (High-Echelon Public Director,Organisation K).

One of the interviewees, a CEO from the private sector,provided an interesting example of innovating in ICT fol-lowing the private-collective model of innovation. The proj-ect, which was a major initiative in e-health, used OSSoftware developed by a voluntary community of innovatorsin its early stages, and had to deal with the modernisationof the country's social insurance and health funds, and alsoto create infrastructure for supporting citizens. The CEOs atfirst argued towards the benefits of this initiative to createinnovation:

“At first we all said “yes” to that initiative, by which a newpilot system was built really fast satisfying user require-ments. It is a really important project for our country ontime, on quality, with no huge financial investment” (CEO,Organisation A).

However, problems started to arise regarding the scal-ability of the initiative, as well as with who would beaccountable for this new initiative. What would be the newinvestment and who would finance it? What would the newfunctionality be? Who would lead? Who would be respon-sible for maintaining the old/new system? These werequestions that the majority of our interviewees from theprivate sector asked. Furthermore, people comprising thevolunteering community decided to leave the communityand subsequently important “know-how” was lost. Eventu-ally, the Greek government decided to assign the initiative toa private organisation which is supervised by the Greek Stateto implement the project under low cost. Additionally, it wasdecided that the initiative will be assigned through compe-tition and that it will be co-funded by the EU. The basicreason was the criticality of the system and the immediateneed to cut down on spending based on its operation.

“There must be a sponsor scheme comprised of privatecompanies which would be responsible for the imple-mentation, operation, and maintenance of the systembecause of the system's criticality.” (High-Echelon PublicDirector, Organisation K).

The Highest-Echelon Public Servant supported this:

“The conclusion from the implementation of the [major]project in e-health is that the private-collective model canbe implemented in the case we would like to promoteinnovation, but when we are talking about a criticalsystem for the country's finances which is part of thememorandum policy, it should be assigned to the privatesector.” (Highest-Echelon Public Servant, Organisation K).

Furthermore, a Member of the Strategic Committee ofHigh-Echelon Public Employees suggested that it is also thepublic sector that needs to provide incentives for suchinitiatives:

“In the case of [major project in e-health] we would havehad fantastic results under the private-collective model ofinnovation if the private companies knew how to use themodel to their benefit and evaluated positively the know-how they got, and would get, with the implementation ofthe system. It is possible that it is our fault too, becausebeing public sector we did not provide the appropriateincentives in terms of reputation, ethical support – you dosomething for your country –, political will and support.”(Member of the Strategic Committee of High-EchelonPublic Employees, Organisation K).

This initiative is yet to be assigned through competitionand co-financed by the EU.

5. Discussion: from OS to OI and Collective Intelligencepractice in the Greek context

In the previous section the results of this study werepresented. In particular, the findings underlined a) the im-portance of utilising OS as a software tool which will dealwith the insufficient investments in IT during the currentdebt crisis in both private and public organisations, b) thenecessary shift fromOS to OI practices of Collective Intelligenceand participation in voluntary communities of innovators toprovide support in creating public-good innovations throughthe private-collective model of innovation, and c) the difficul-ties in materialising such an attempt from Greek public andprivate organisations owing to insufficient national innovationpolicies, philosophy, structure, and culture of both private andpublic organisations, as well as on the constantly changingpolicies due to government changes. Furthermore, the privatecompanies stated the need for tangible returns while partici-pating in these consortia — i.e. know-how is important, butthey are accountable to their shareholders for creating tangiblevalue. This section discusses this shift from OS to OI practicesand suggests that the key for the adoption of OI practices liesin establishing a national innovation policy, as highlighted bythe intended actors of this study— that is, the private sector topmanagers and strategists, and the public policy makers.

Open Source Software is the means through which bothpublic and private organisations could deal with the limitedfunds for investments in IT software and services. Therefore,this research confirms the extant literature stating theimportance of flexibility, compatibility and reliability of OS[14,31,39–41,44,45,52,53]. However, organisations are not



yet at the level required to adopt full OS software solutions. Inpublic organisations in particular where the crisis is evidentthrough, for instance, strict financial control and minimalinvestments in IT, the policy makers expressed their concernswith regards to the interoperability of OSwith current systems,although the idea of free software created by participation involunteer communities of innovators which facilitate Collec-tive Intelligence seemed attractive. For private organisations,particularly those specialised in developing software, it wasmore important to be able to sell an OS product or licenceswhile keeping costs low.

Both top managers and policy makers underlined theimportance of embracing Open principles. They suggestedthat a shift from OS to OI is important, and highlighted theimportance of both Collective Intelligence and participationin volunteer communities of innovators as OI practices foreconomic efficiency andgrowth [19–21]. This shift ismanifestedthrough a synergy between OS and OI practices: OS could bethe first step towards the adoption of OI practices, and OIpractices could cultivate the necessary conditions for innovationand growth [19–21].

Both public and private organisations supported the needto engage in sharing and exploiting valuable ideas [46], andunderlined the possible benefit of freely revealing innova-tions [59,60]. From a practical point of view, however, ourresults did not support the view held by Chesbrough [47]that OI could bring significant benefits for organisations;for instance, return on innovative activities and IntellectualProperty. Private companies were opposed to activities whichdid not secure income generation and could be responsiblefor revealing company secrets. Public policy makers not onlyunderlined the benefits of establishing practices for thecreation and the exploitation of publicly available innovation[14,19,34,58,60,61], but they also correlated OI practices tonecessary financial investment on behalf of the private com-panies. The results show that the constant change of nationalinnovation policies following national elections has not in-cluded such initiatives and therefore does not explicitly make acase for participation in volunteer communities of innovators,and does not facilitate Collective Intelligence [8].

The literature suggests that the free-revealing of in-novations may bring net gain for the innovator, through, forinstance, innovation-related profits via network effects andaccess to external knowledge sources [11,14,89]. Althoughour results suggest that these benefits are difficult to attain,these views need to be interpreted in the light of the currentdebt crisis in Greece, where the ethos of the survival of thefittest prevails. Hence, in practice, private companies andshareholders are reluctant to participate in communities thatwill not necessarily secure significant revenues, could disap-point shareholders, and thus jeopardise the future sustainabil-ity of the companies. The public sector policy makers, on theother hand, face a dilemma: on one hand, there is innovationthat needs to be facilitated in order to bring growth to theeconomy; and on the other hand there are costs which mustbe reduced. To this extent the private-collective model ofinnovation as facilitated by the OI practices of participation involunteering communities and Collective Intelligence can beapplicable.

Top managers and public policy makers, the intendedactors of this study, did acknowledge the importance of the

private-collective model of innovation and the OI practicesof Collective Intelligence and participation in volunteeringcommunities as a possible way forward: but for the private-collective model of innovation to succeed in the Greek context,an economy in crisis, a change in the culture and philosophyof both private and public sectors needs to occur. Therefore, tothis extent, the study contributes to the literature examiningthe application of the private-collective model of innovation[11,14–17] by assessing the applicability of such a frameworkin the Greek context. For private companies, there is a need tounderstand the importance of sharing know-how and knowl-edgewithin volunteering communities of innovators. Althoughcompaniesmust report profits and losses to their shareholders,literature suggests that the investment in innovation willbring them significant benefits [6,10,17] such as feedback onimproving innovations [17] and sharing of collective knowl-edge [17], reputation [21], reduction in innovation costs [47]and sense of ownership and control [11,15]. This can occurwith a change in their culture and philosophy; but changes inthe overall mindsets may take time and cannot be imposed.Misjudging the amount of time needed to engage organisationswith the private-collective model may lead to failure.

For public policy makers there is an urgent need to rethinkthe current Greek national innovation system. A restructurednational system of innovation [13,47,74,75] needs to have newor improved structures in place. These will secure explorationand exploitation of knowledge and know-how between publicand private organisations, as well as effective and efficientgovernance structures which will allow organisations (bothpublic and private) to participate in volunteering communities,thus facilitating Collective Intelligence. Therefore, from thisperspective, the study contributes to the literature examiningOI practices and a country's national system of innovation[13,47,74,75] by showing that the difficulties in the adoptionof OI practices by both public and private organisations canalso be related to the absence of appropriate national systemsof innovation to facilitate these practices, and examines theparticipation of public and private organisations in a newmodel or policy, which will leverage innovation and growththrough Collective Intelligence and thinking. In such a model,private top managers and public policy makers need to becommitted to secure and sustain this type of volunteeringcommunities. These actors may have different agendas, butthe community needs to provide a space in which they canadjust their own agendas and perceptions to others' agendasand needs. In this vein, communication, knowledge sharing,organisational efficiency and innovation in the Greek contextwill be enhanced, the repercussions of the debt crisis will beaddressed, and both economy and society will be positivelyimpacted [11,12,19–21].

6. Conclusion

Starting from the application of OS as a tool to deal withinsufficient investments in IT, this paper examined theOI practices of a) participation in voluntary communities(consortia) of innovators, and b) Collective Intelligencewithin the private-collective model of innovation and theirapplicability in economies in crisis, using the case of Greece.The findings suggested the importance of using OS as a tool todealwith the increased costs of software; butmore importantly,



the necessary shift from OS to the utilisation of the aforemen-tioned OI practices to support the creation of public-good inno-vation through the private-collective model of innovation.

The study contributes to the literature on OS and OI focusingon the private-collective model of innovation [11,14–17] in thatit examines the application of the framework in an economyin crisis and discusses the difficulties associated with puttingsuch an initiative into practice. The study also contributes tothe literature examining OI and national systems of innovation[13,47,74,75] by suggesting that these difficulties are relatednot only to the culture, philosophy, and structure of private andpublic organisations, but also to the constantly changing policiesand the inappropriate national innovation system which doesnot value participation in volunteering communities and col-laboration to enhance Collective Intelligence. A new modelor policy then, based on the private-collective model, will lever-age innovation and growth through Collective Intelligence. Tosecure the sustainability of such an initiative, commitment bytopmanagers and public policy makers is needed. Furthermore,this research has made empirical contributions to research inthe form of the case used. Greece is at the centre of this researchand at the centre of the European debt crisis. The findings mayprovide preliminary implications about how to facilitate thestrategic deployment of OI practices during periods of debtcrises, and this has further implications in promoting innovationand growth.

The arguments of this study could be developed and ex-tended through further research. This encouragement for moretesting of our knowledge in this context has the potentialto build robust theories [90]. One possible future study couldinvolve the longitudinal study of the long-term impact of OSand OI practices in the Greek economy or other economieswhich are currently in debt. Our case study included organi-sations in Greece, which is representative as a data sourcebut does not mean that the results are generalisable. Giventhe fact that OI is also dependent on market conditions, itwould be fruitful to see studies in other countries, particularlythose that are not in debt crisis, and maybe cross-countrycomparisons to test the validity of our results. Finally, from amethodological point of view, future research can enrich theexisting data and validate the findings of this research. This isbecause our study is exploratory and hence any new data frominterviewing or surveying – for instance, using participantsfrom various organisational levels – would perhaps enableresearchers to identify more factors, conditions, and frame-works under which the OI practices of voluntary communitiesand Collective Intelligence through the private-collective modelof innovation could enable innovation to flourish. It iswithin ourintentions to provide both academics and practitioners withfood-for-thought to improve the effectiveness of the aforemen-tioned OI practices to achieve innovation and growth and dealwith the repercussions of tight budgets and debt crises.


Table 1AInterviews per public and private organisations and organisational profiles.

Position and number of interviews(in brackets)

Organisation Organisation's profile Public/private

-CEO (1)-General Director (1)

A Company A is 100% subsidiary of Company B. The company provides integrated IT systems,dealing with the study, design and implementation of Integrated IT Solutions for the publicsector. It operates in the sectors of Public Administration, Transport, Regional and LocalGovernment and Health–Social Security. Furthermore, it deals with subsidised EuropeanUnion programmes and outsourcing services for public sector projects.

Private

-CEO (2)-PMO (1)-Head of SW Engineers (1)-Business Development Manager (1)-Services Manager (1)-General Manager (1)-Business Unit Manager (1)

B Company B is the leading Software and Integrated IT Solutions Group in Greece.The Group offers advanced and integrated IT systems as well as full support services. Theproducts and services are used by a significant number of organisations belonging toboth private and public sectors. The Group boasts a nationwide network of authorisedpartners, numbering more than 500 partners all over Greece.

Private

-CEO (1) C Company C is an expert company in developing OS applications for both public andprivate sectors. The company currently has signed a contract in order to implement anERP system using OS technologies for a leading retail provider.

-President (2)-CEO (1)-Director (1)

D Company D is a public utility organisation, supervised by the Greek Government. Thecompany's target is the implementation of ICT projects within the context of communitysupport frameworks.

Public

-CEO (2)-Sales Director (1)-Presales Director (1)-Sector Sales Manager (1)

E Company E is 100% subsidiary of company M. The company offers state-of-the-art ICTsolutions and services to public and private organisations both in Greece and abroad.The company is the first Hellenic IT company founded in Greece with more than40 years of experience and know-how. The company has a leading position in thebanking and telecoms sectors, having implemented innovative projects.

Private

-General Director (2)-Sales and Business DevelopmentManager (1)

F Company F is a group of companies providing telecom systems, engineering services,manufacturing services and IT services for public administration, private market,e-Government, banking and financial sector and defence sector. The company's strategicregional focuses are Western Europe, Southeast Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.

(continued on next page)

Appendix A



Table 1A (continued)

Position and number of interviews(in brackets)

Organisation Organisation's profile Public/private

-General Director (1)-ICT Director (1)-Sales and Development Manager (1)

G Company G is 100% subsidiary of the biggest Hellenic telecoms provider. The companywas established in order to provide added value services in the consultancy marketbased on specialised know-how in the field of ICT and Management.

Private

-CEO (1) H Company H is a focused company providing e-Government and e-Business Servicesmainly for governmental organisations. The company's development team comprisesmainly programmers with know-how in OS technologies.

-President (1) I Company I is a leading Greek company in the transportation market.-CEO (1)-President (1)

J Company J mainly deals with the design, development, customisation and maintenance ofintegrated software systems and the provision of advanced IT services in the Hellenic andInternational markets. The company is considered as the premier Hellenic software house,specialising in the areas of business intelligence, liability management, transactionalsystems, core factoring and the implementation of mission-critical custom applications.

-Highest-Echelon Public Servant (2)-High-Echelon Public Director (1)-Member of the Strategic Committee ofHigh-Echelon Public Employees (1)

K The K Organisation is a public sector organisation. Public

-President (1)-Member of Board (1)-Member of Board (1)

L Company L is a non-profit Greek organisation. The company's main objectives are topromote ICTs in Greece and to enlarge the ICT Industry's market. The companyrepresents the interests of the Greek ICT Enterprises vis-à-vis the Greek Government,the European Commission and other bodies of influence.

Private

President (1) M Company M currently has been transformed into a holding company. The Group'spresence is in IT, courier services, and energy sector. The Group's presence is in Cyprus,Romania, Bulgaria and Belgium.

CEO (1) N Company N is a diagnostic and therapeutic centre in Greece. The company is a listedcompany in the Athens Stock Exchange, holds a leading position in the healthcaresector, and is one of the fastest growing groups in South-East Europe.

-Member of Board of Directors (1) O Company O is the largest business group in South Eastern Europe. The company is aninvestment company. The aim of the company is to make private equity-typeinvestments, as well as investments in privatisations and infrastructure projects.

Table 2AEmerging themes of the study.

Emerging themes Type oforganisations

Extracts from interviews Relevant/indicativeliterature

Current/futureuse of OS

Deploying OpenSource Software

Top-down drivendeployment of OS inboth private and publicorganisations.

Public “We use what our [big company] uses,and we don't have any power in decisionmaking with regards to the purchase ordeployment of software.”(General Director, Organisation G).

[2,45,52] Current

Discrepancy betweenpersonal opinion fortechnological maturityof OS and final decisionfor deploying OS or itscommercial exploitation.

Private “To characterise anything as being fullymature, you need to prove that it iscommercially mature and there is amarket that will adopt it.”(Sector Sales Manager, Organisation E).

[50,56,58] Current

Importance of havingsufficient funding andgovernance mechanisms inplace to purchase andmaintain software.

Private “In the public sector there is loads offunding, many of which are not utilised andit must be used. The problem is that it is thebureaucracy of the Public Administrationthat creates bottlenecks in theimplementation of the IT projects. On suchoccasions, OS applications can provide so-lutions since they are smart, cost-efficient,flexible, expandable, and non-demanding interms of hardware and software resources.”(Director, Organisation D).

[44,53] Future

Importance of costalleviation and theapplicability of OS.

Private “The IT people can suggest anything.However, any implementation depends onbudget, implementation time, integrationwith other products, etc.… I am onlyconcerned about the cost… I am not sureabout the applicability of OS-ERP. In generalwe try not to invest directly, but to sell ourown applications through managementconsulting projects.” (CEO, Organisation A).

[53–57] Current







Technological maturity andalignment with businessstrategy.

Private “From a technical point of vieweverything is possible. These decisionsare management decisions and no matterwhether, from a technological side, OS ismature, its commercial value is still to beexplored. Costs, implementation period,compatibility and strategy are issueswhich need to be addressed beforemoving into a full OS-ERP solution.”(CEO, Organisation A).

[50,56,57] Current

Importance of employeeacceptance and externalsupport; “Learning byexample” is important.

Private “I follow the market trend, which at themoment is towards OS-ERP, even in thepublic sector. I think such a solution isreliable and cost-efficient.”(Sales Director, Organisation E).

[2,45,50,52,56,57] Current

From Open Source toOpen InnovationPractices

Importance of innovationpractices through OS andthe Open movement.

Private “In the crisis one needs to act quickly andcorrectly. However, this is not alwaysachievable. Technological know-how andexperience are vital… and are indeedvital to simplify public and private orga-nisations. Simplification, integration andinnovation are necessary for growth andsubsequently – why not? – a remedy tocrisis. OS offers these, and since we needto get rid of the obsolete practicessupported by proprietary software of thepast, it may be that OS-ERP is the key.”(CEO, Organisation N).

[19–21] Current

Public “We value OI as a natural evolution fromOS software given the useful practice ofcollectively creating new innovations.We also collaborate with other publicorganisations. Innovation needs to occurat the interstices of organisations, whereit is difficult for all relevant organisationsto communicate with each other. Themain aim of the… [public organisation] isto provide innovative ways of seamlesscommunication amongst public organi-sations, which will enable the citizens togain seamless services across the publicsector. Given the current crisis, OI is theright direction.” (High-Echelon PublicDirector, Organisation K).

[14,15,17,37,38,47,63,76] Current

Need to innovate is evidentgiven the crisis.Importance of public-goodinnovation given the crisisand willingness to work inpublic-good innovationinitiatives.

Private “The crisis has influenced my companyand we had to cut down on expenditureon many levels, e.g. operational costs. Wehad to become more productive and sellour products at better and morecompetitive prices. We invested in therepeatability of our products. We alwaystry to achieve innovation in our projectsbut keeping costs at a low level… Giventhe crisis, the survival of the fittest ismore obvious than ever. To be the first inyour industry, you need to innovate andit is true that the specific model offers thepossibility to innovate and facilitategrowth by creating public-good innova-tions.” (CEO, Organisation B).

[14,15,17,37,38,47,63,76] Current

Public “As you understand, given the crisis thereis no time for delaying attempts to createinnovation and growth. You know thatGreeks have tried a lot over the last yearswith all these cuts taking placeeverywhere. We have also tried towardspublic sector reform and public-good in-novation with the participation of privateorganisations for reforming public sector…

[14,15,17,37,38,47,63,76] Current








this is to the right direction. However, weare yet to discuss which the incentives willbe in this direction.” (High-Echelon PublicDirector, Organisation K).“In the case of [major project in e-health]we would have had fantastic results underthe private-collective model of innovationif the private companies knew how to usethe model to their benefit and evaluatedpositively the know-how they got andwould get with the implementation of thesystem. It is possible that it is our fault too,because being public sector we did notprovide the appropriate incentives interms of reputation, ethical support – youdo something for your country –, politicalwill and support.” (Member of theStrategic Committee of High-EchelonPublic Employees, Organisation K).

Importance of CollectiveIntelligence as anunderlying mechanism forpublic-good innovationpractice.

Collective Intelligence isinternally utilised, andunderstood in theprivate-collective model ofinnovation as voluntarycontribution towards thecreation of public-goodinnovation.

Private “We follow that two or more brains arebetter than one. In theory, CollectiveIntelligence could work, because inpractice in the Greek sector we have yet tosee such initiatives; however, we havestarted to investigate whether suchscenarios are possible and under whichincentives and circumstances This may beappropriate in crisis periods, such as thecurrent period”. (CEO, Organisation E).

[8,9,70] Current

Current“Such examples we have in the case ofinternal operations. For instance, recentlywe tried to integrate our different internalcompany systems so that theycommunicate with each other seamlessly.We have decided that new collectives(teams) will be created. These teams willdevelopOS Software andwill aimat sharingtheir know-how internally in the organisa-tion.” (General Director, Organisation F).

Public “From the public sector perspectivewe canfacilitate Collective Intelligence. If we ask,for instance, for development of softwareor other projects where both the privatesector and we could offer know-how, I amsure the private sector will invest in OIpractices and thus Collective Intelligenceand provide incentives to the private toparticipate.” (High-Echelon PublicDirector, Organisation K).

[8,9,70] Current

Volunteering forpublic-good innovation isnot understood in practice.Difficulties in accountability,responsibility, and achiev-ing results in volunteeringconsortia for public-goodinnovation.

Private “Volunteer participation for the creation ofpublic-good innovations can exist at atheoretical level. However, a communitylike the one you are describing is notreporting to its shareholders regardingrevenues. The private organisations needto report back to their shareholders andthese cases you are referring to cannot givevalue to private organisations. The volun-teer consortia that you are suggestingcould be beneficial in the future. The issueis whether the public sector would like toparticipate in such consortia. If, however,the public sector assigns complete respon-sibility to a private company to run this,then if something goes wrong the respon-sibility is with this company. There is noperson responsible within these commu-nities.” (CEO, Organisation B).

[14,15,17,37,38,47,63,76] Current







Current“When you belong to such a communityyou are doing your best for innovationbut you can wait for the results. Theadvantage of a private company is thatresponsibility is assigned and results willbe achieved. Reliability is an importantissue here.” (General Director,Organisation F).

Public “Any volunteering or participation in suchconsortia for the common good isacceptable, in particular if the aim is toreform the governmental structures and thepublic sector so that Greece stayswithin theEurozone. Volunteering, in my opinion, isthe basis for creating innovative solutions.However, our basic problem is that being apublic organisation, we should be fair whenconducting public competition for projects,we need to be careful not to exclude privateorganisations who would not like to followthis model of innovation. Additionally,being a… [public organisation], we are notoriented towards innovation to achieveresults. We just like to serve our citizensand provide services.” (High-Echelon PublicDirector, Organisation K).

[14,15,17,37,38,47,63,76] Current

Future“At the moment what is missing frompublic administration are the philosophy,culture, and processes that will enablevolunteering to flourish. We need toreform our structures to adapt to the newmodel, if it was to be implemented. In thepublic sector, know-how is a major prob-lem and we rely on private companies toinvest. However, our biggest problem isthat every time a government changes, allpolicies change.” (Highest-Echelon PublicServant, Organisation K).

Collective Intelligence froman external point of viewhas issues with handlingIntellectual Property andknow-how leaks. It is anintegral part of public-goodinnovation/practiceconsortia.

Private “The projects and the marketcircumstances determine the balance ofcollaboration between organisations. Forinstance, in a big project, CollectiveIntelligence can mitigate risk and dealwith insufficient know-how. It may alsobe that the nature of a project imposescollaboration between public and privateorganisations.” (CEO, Organisation B).

[8,9,59,60,70] Current

Current“Collective Intelligence andparticipation inOI practice consortia is indeed a good idea,especially in promoting innovation in thehealth sector. But with Collective Intelli-gence there is no control. Inmy company ateam which was developing software leftfor another company, transferring theirknow-how to their new job. What should Ido with the software they developed ifthere is no one to maintain and improveit?” (CEO, Organisation B).

Collective Intelligence andparticipation in voluntarycommunities: useful at atheoretical level, but not ata practical level.

Private “The Collective Intelligence consortia arenot popular in Greece. The reason is thatprivate companies would like to knowwhat the tangible value of participating insuch consortia is. And from the perspectiveof public organisations, they need to makeclear that the appropriate processes andstructures are in place, and costs are takencare of. InGreece the policymakers are notusually flexible in such processes and donot follow such initiatives.” (CEO,Organisation B).

[8,9,14,17,59,60,70] Current








From Open Source toOpen InnovationPractices

Participation in voluntarycommunities and relatedbenefits. Differences inwhat is consideredIntellectual Property andpersuading shareholdersfor the necessity of such aphilosophy/model from theperspective of private andpublic organisations.

Private “The advantage in participating insuch consortia is the reputation ofthe company, the possibility to achieveresults without risk and the incentiveto be part of a pioneer attempt toreform the Greek innovation system,achieve and diffuse innovationrapidly, and facilitate growth.”(CEO, Organisation B).

[8,9,14,17,59,60,70] Current

Current

Current

“Participating in OI practice consortiacan cause loss of control with regards tothe innovation's intellectual property.In the case of OS, anybody could use thesource code and develop solutions; theresult will be us losing profit.”(General Director, Organisation F).“The problem is that there is noappropriate organisational structure,culture, philosophy, and technologicalinfrastructure to accommodate theseconsortia at a practical level. I think itwould be really difficult to persuadeour shareholders to participate in suchan attempt, although the non-valueadded benefits are obvious. Anyattempt needs to be capitalised.”(CEO, Organisation E).

Public “It is obvious that participating in thecreation of a public-good innovation is aone-way street for the public sector,given the current situation because it canoccur without direct public sector cost.”(Highest-Echelon Public Servant,Organisation K).

[8,9,14,17,59,60,70] Future

Public-good innovation,voluntary communities,and national policy oninnovation.

Private “The private-collective model is a differ-ent philosophy which has not been yetendorsed in Greece, although thenon-value added benefits are many. I amsure it is the future innovation model,and it has great potential in Greecebecause of the crisis, but firstly it needsto be decided at a national level. At themoment, the national policy on innova-tion is almost non-existent. Having saidthat, there is much potential in applyingsuch a model in the Greek context.”(CEO, Organisation B).

[8,9,13,14,17,59,47,60,70,74] Current

Public “Voluntary participation for public-goodinnovation from the private sector isinvaluable. We wish such attemptsexisted, but reality is different. In Greecethe private sector does not have that typeof culture to invest in such initiatives.And of course, it is our fault too as publicpolicy makers because we do not provideincentives towards the creation ofcommunities for public-good innovationbased on Collective Intelligence andvolunteering. Our national policy oninnovation is almost non-existing. Weare sometimes afraid to collaborate withthe private sector. Projects are not manyand viability of such projects orinitiatives can be under threat. Privatecompanies are trying to survive so I guessvolunteering may be out of the questionfor them too.” (High-Echelon PublicDirector, Organisation K).

[8,9,13,14,17,59,47,60,70,74] Future


References

[1] P.L. Gallego, S. Bueno, Designing a forecasting analysis to understandthe diffusion of Open Source Software in the year 2010, Technol.Forecast. Soc. Chang. 75 (5) (2008) 672–686.

[2] K.L. Gwebu, J. Wang, Adoption of Open Source Software: the role ofsocial identification, Decis. Support. Syst. 51 (2011) 220–229.

[3] Gartner Inc., Gartner Highlights: Key Predictions for IT Organizationsand Users in 2008 and Beyond, 2008. (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=593207).

[4] B. Perens, The Open Source definition, in: B. Perens (Ed.), Open Sources:Voices from theOpen Source Revolution, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol,CA, 1999.

[5] B. Fitzgerald, The transformation of Open Source Software, MIS Q. 30(3) (2006) 587–598.

[6] G. von Krogh, E. von Hippel, The promise of research on Open SourceSoftware, Manag. Sci. 52 (7) (2006) 975–983.

[7] G. von Krogh, E. von Hippel, Private-collective innovation inside, DieBetriebswirtschaft 67 (2007) 615–616.

[8] T.W.R. Malone, C. Laubacher, C. Dellarocas, The collective intelligencegenome, Sloan Manag. Rev. 51 (3) (2010) 21–31.

[9] A.W. Woolley, E. Fuchs, Collective Intelligence in the organization ofthe science, Organ. Sci. 22 (2011) 1359–1367.

[10] M. Steurmer, S. Spaeth, G. von Krogh, Extending private-collectiveinnovation: a case study, R&D Manag. 39 (2) (2009) 170–191.

[11] S.Gächter, G. vonKrogh, S.Haefliger, Initiatingprivate-collective innovation:the fragility of knowledge sharing, Res. Policy 39 (7) (2010) 893–906.

[12] G. von Krogh, S. Spaeth, The Open Source Software phenomenon:characteristics that promote research, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 16 (3) (2007)236–253.

[13] Y. Wang, W. Vanhaverbekea, N. Roijakkersa, Exploring the impact ofOpen Innovation on national systems of innovation — a theoreticalanalysis, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 79 (3) (2012) 419–428.

[14] E. von Hippel, G. von Krogh, Open Source Software and the ‘private-collective’ innovation model: issues for organization science, Organ.Sci. 14 (2) (2003) 209–222.

[15] K.R. Lakhani, B. Wolf, Why hackers do what they do: understandingmotivation and effort in free/Open Source Software projects, in: J.Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam, K.R. Lakhani (Eds.), Perspectives on Freeand Open Source Software, MIT Press, 2005.

[16] G. Hertel, S. Niedner, S. Hermann, Motivation of software developers inthe Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors tothe Linux kernel, Res. Policy 32 (7) (2003) 1159–1177.

[17] S. Spaeth,M. Stuermer, G. von Krogh, Enabling knowledge creation throughoutsiders: towards a pushmodel of Open Innovation, Int. J. Technol. Manag.52 (3 4) (2010) 411–431.

[18] B. Johansson, F. Sudzina, ERP systems and open source: an initialreview and some implications for SMEs, J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 21 (6)(2008) 649–658.

[19] D. Harhoff, J. Henkel, E. von Hippel, Profiting from voluntary informationspillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations, Res.Policy 32 (10) (2003) 1753–1769.

[20] B. Kogut, A. Metiu, Open-source software development and distributedinnovation, Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 17 (2) (2001) 248–264.

[21] J. Lerner, J. Tirole, Some simple economics of Open Source, J. Ind. Econ.52 (2002) 197–234.

[22] D. Silverman, Interpreting Qualitative Data:Methods for Analysing Talk, Textand Interaction, 2nd ed. Sage, London/Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, 2001.

[23] Y.S. Lincoln, E.G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publications Inc.,Beverly Hills, CA, 1985.

[24] R.K. Yin, Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd ed. SagePublications, Newbury Park, 2003.

[25] Eurostat, Report on Science and Technology, 2010. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/CH_12_2010/EN/CH_12_2010-EN.PDF.

[26] G.P. Kouretas, P. Vlamis, The Greek crisis: causes and implications,Panoeconomicus 4 (2010) 391–404.

[27] G. Pagoulatos, C. Triantopoulos, The return of the Greek patient:Greece and the 2008 global financial crisis, S. Eur. Soc. Polit. 14 (1)(2009) 35–54.

[28] A. Aksulu, M.A. Wade, Comprehensive review and synthesis of OpenSource research, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 11 (2010) 576–656.

[29] K.L. Gwebu, J. Wang, Seeing eye to eye? An exploratory study of freeopen source software users' perceptions, J. Syst. Software 83 (11)(2010) 2287–2296.

[30] T. Pykäläinen, D. Yang, D. Fang, Alleviating piracy through open sourcestrategy: an exploratory study of business software firms in China,J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 18 (2009) 165–177.

[31] T. Pykäläinen, T. Fang, Cross country study of Open Source Software(OSS), national culture and piracy, in: The 10th International Conferenceon Global Business & Economic Development: Creativity & Innovation:Imperatives for Global Business and Development. Ryukoku University,Kyoto, Japan, August 8-11, 2007.

[32] J.West, S. Gallagher, Patterns ofOpen Innovation inOpen Source Software,in: Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford UniversityPress, 2006.

[33] K. Crowston, J. Howison,Assessing thehealth of open source communities,IEEE Comput. 39 (5) (2006) 89–91.

[34] G. von Krogh, S. Spaeth, K.R. Lakhani, Community, joining, and speciali-zation inOpen Source Software innovation: a case study, Res. Policy 32 (7)(2003) 1217–1241.

[35] J. Füller, K. Matzler, M. Hoppe, Brand community members as source ofinnovation, J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 25 (6) (2006) 608–619.

[36] E. von Hippel, Innovation by user communities: learning from OpenSource Software, Sloan Manag. Rev. 42 (4) (2001) 82.

[37] H.W. Chesbrough, M.M. Appleyard, Open Innovation and strategy, Calif.Manag. Rev. 50 (1) (2007) 57–76.

[38] H.W. Chesbrough, The market for innovation: implications for corporatestrategy, Calif. Manag. Rev. 49 (3) (2007) 45–66.

[39] A. Bonaccorsi, S. Giannangeli, C. Rossi, Adaptive entry strategies undercompeting standards-hybrid business models in the Open SourceSoftware industry, Manag. Sci. 52 (7) (2006) 1085–1098.

[40] N. Economides, E. Katsamakas, Two-sided competition of proprietaryvs. open source technology platforms and the implications for thesoftware industry, Manag. Sci. 52 (7) (2006) 1057–1071.

[41] G. Pisano, Science Business: The Promise, The Reality, and The Future ofBiotech, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 2006.

[42] A. Bonaccorsi, C. Rossi, Why Open Source Software can succeed, Res.Policy 32 (7) (2003) 1243–1258.

[43] A. Hars, S. Ou, Working for free? Motivations of participating in OpenSource projects, Int. J. Electron. Commer. 6 (2002) 25–39.

[44] J. Dedrick, J. West, An exploratory study into Open Source platformadoption, in: HICSS'04 Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii Interna-tional Conference on System Sciences,Waikoloa, Hawaii, January 2004, CSDigital Library, 2004.

[45] E. Glynn, B. Fitzgerald, C. Exton, Commercial adoption of Open SourceSoftware: an empirical study, in: ISESE'05 Proceedings of the 2005International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, NoosaHeads, QLD, Australia, November, 2005, pp. 225–234.

[46] L. Dahlander, M. Magnusson, How do firms make use of communities?Long Range Plan. 41 (2008) 629–649.

[47] H. Chesbrough, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating andProfiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2003.

[48] K. Laursen, A.J. Salter, Open for innovation: the role of openness inexplaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms,Strateg. Manag. J. 27 (2) (February 2006) 131–150.






“Public-good innovations by facilitatingparticipation in voluntary communitiesand Collective Intelligence have low costand low innovation starting cost too.However, there is a danger for privatecompanies to lose know-how or revealthe companies' assets.” (Highest-EchelonPublic Servant, Organisation K).


[49] W.G. Qu, Z. Yang, Z. Wang, Multi-level framework of Open SourceSoftware adoption, J. Bus. Res. 64 (2011) 997–1003.

[50] S. Goode, Something for nothing: management rejection of Open SourceSoftware in Australia's top firms, Inf. Manag. 42 (2005) 669–681.

[51] L. Morgan, P. Finnegan, How perceptions of Open Source Softwareinfluence adoption: an exploratory study, in: ECIS2007 Proceeding ofthe 21st Conference of the European Colloid and Interface Society,Geneva, Switzerland 10–14 September, 2007, pp. 973–984.

[52] G. Pare, M.D. Wybo, C. Delannoy, Barriers to Open Source Softwareadoption in Quebec's health care organizations, J. Med. Syst. 33 (1)(2009) 1–7.

[53] K. Ven, J. Verelst, The organizational adoption of open source serversoftware: a quantitative study, in: The Proceeding of the 16th EuropeanConference on Information Systems, Galway, Ireland 9-11 June, 2008.

[54] B. Fitzgerald, T. Kenny, Open Source Software in the trenches: lessons froma large scale implementation, in: S.T. March, A. Massey, J.I. DeGross (Eds.),Proceedings of 24th International Conference on Information Systems,Seattle, December, 2003, pp. 316–326.

[55] J. Holck, M.H. Lapsen, M.K. Pedersen, in: Identifying Business Barriersand Enablers for the Adoption of Open Source Software, Workingpaper, Vilnius, Lithuania, 10 September, 2004, pp. 1–15.

[56] D. Nagy, A.M. Yassin, A. Battacherjee, Organisational adoption of OpenSource Software: barriers and remedies, Commun. ACM 53 (3) (2010)148–151.

[57] K. Ven, J. Verelst, H. Mannaert, in: Should You Adopt Open SourceSoftware? IEEE Software, May/June 2008, pp. 54–59, (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4497765&tag=1).

[58] U. Lichtenthaler, E. Lichtenthaler, A capability-based framework forOpen Innovation: complementing absorptive capacity, J. Manag. Stud.46 (8) (2009) 1315–1338.

[59] K.R. Lakhani, E. von Hippel, How Open Source Software works: ‘free’user-to-user assistance, Res. Policy 32 (6) (2003) 923–943.

[60] E. von Hippel, The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press,New York, 1988.

[61] J. Grönlund, D. Sjödin, J. Frishammar, Open Innovation and the stage-gate process: a revised model for new product development, Calif.Manag. Rev. 52 (3) (2010) 106–131.

[62] J.A. Roberts, I. Hann, S.A. Slaughter, Understanding the motivations,participation and performance of Open Source Software developers: alongitudinal study of the Apache projects, Manag. Sci. 52 (7) (2006)984–999.

[63] H. Chesbrough, Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the NewInnovation Landscape, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2006.

[64] M. Boldrin, D.K. Levine, Growth cycles and market crashes, J. Econ.Theory 100 (2001) 13–39.

[65] J. Bessen, E. Maskin, Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation,RAND J. Econ. 40 (2009) 611–635.

[66] G. von Krogh, Care in knowledge creation, Calif. Manag. Rev. 40 (3)(1998) 133–153.

[67] G. von Krogh, The communal resource and information systems, J. Strateg.Inf. Syst. 11 (2002) 85–107.

[68] S. Grand, D.L. von Krogh, W. Swap, Resource allocation beyond firmboundaries: a multi-level model for open source innovation, LongRange Plan. 37 (2007) 591–610.

[69] H. Bloom, Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bangto the 21st Century, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2000.

[70] A.W. Woolley, C.F. Chabris, A. Pentland, N. Hashmi, T.W. Malone,Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of humangroups, Science 330 (6004) (2010) 686–688.

[71] S. Faraj, S.L. Jarvenpaa, A. Majchrzak, Knowledge collaboration in onlinecommunities, Organ. Sci. 22 (5) (2011) 1224–1239.

[72] N. Gulley, K. Lakhani, The Determinants of Individual Performance andCollective Value In Private-collective Software Innovation, Harvard BusinessSchoolWorking Paper 10-065, 2010. (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1550352).

[73] L.B. Jeppesen, K.R. Lakhani, Marginality and problem solving effective-ness in broadcast research, Organ. Sci. 21 (5) (2010) 1016–1033.

[74] J.P. Jong, T. Kalvet, W. Vanhaverbeke, Exploring a theoretical frame-work to structure the public policy implications, Tech. Anal. Strateg.Manag. 22 (8) (2010) 877–896.

[75] D. Archibugi, National innovation systems, a comparative analysis, Res.Policy 25 (5) (2006) 838–842.

[76] O. Gassmann, E. Enkel, H. Chesbrough, The future of Open Innovation,R&D Manag. 40 (3) (2010) 213–221.

[77] T.H. Davenport, Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system, Harv.Bus. Rev. 76 (4) (1998) 121–131.

[78] C. Soh, S.S. Kien, J. Tay-Yap, Cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universalsolution? Commun. ACM 43 (4) (2000) 47–51.

[79] B. Wier, J. Hunton, H.R. Hassabelnaby, Enterprise resource planningsystems and non-financial performance incentives: the joint impact oncorporate performance, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 8 (3) (2007) 165–190.

[80] M. Al-Mashari, A. Al-Mudimigh, M. Zairi, Enterprise resource planning:a taxonomy of critical factors, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 146 (2003) 352–364.

[81] P. Bingi, M.K. Sharma, J.K. Godla, Critical issues affecting an ERPimplementation, Inf. Syst. Manag. 16 (3) (1999) 7–14.

[82] E. Gummesson, Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA, 2000.

[83] S. Sarker, S. Sarker, A. Sidorova, Understanding business process changefailure: an actor-network perspective, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 23 (1) (2006)51–86.

[84] R. Boland, Phenomenology: a preferred approach to research oninformation systems, in: E.R. Mumford, G. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald,A.T. Wood-Harper (Eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems,North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985.

[85] J. Baptista, S. Newell, W. Currie, Paradoxical effects of institutionalisationon the strategic awareness of technology in organisations, J. Strateg. Inf.Syst. 19 (2005) 171–183.

[86] WorldBank, How we classify countries, http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications 2011.

[87] Digital Agenda, Communication from the Commission to the EuropeanParliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committeeand the Committee of the Regions: A Digital Agenda for Europe, 2010.(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0245:FIN:EN:PDF).

[88] Eurostat, Report on science, technology, and innovation in Europe, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-31-11-118/EN/KS-31-11-118-EN.PDF 2011.

[89] P. Muller, J. Penin, Why do firms disclose knowledge and how does itmatter? J. Evol. Econ. 16 (2006) 85–108.

[90] K.G. Corley, D.A. Gioia, Building theory about theory building: whatconstitutes a theoretical contribution, Acad. Manag. Rev. 36 (1) (2011)12–32.

Dr Thanos Papadopoulos is a Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) inInformation Systems at Hull University Business School, University of Hull, UK.He holds a PhD from Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK. Healso holds a Diploma (Dipl-Eng, equivalent to MEng) in Computer Engineeringand Informatics from the School of Engineering of Patras University, Greece,and an MSc in Information Systems from the Department of Informatics ofthe Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece. He has been awardedthe Best Paper Award in the 2007 International Conference on theManagementof Healthcare and Medical Technology. His articles have been published ininternational journals such as the Journal of Strategic Information Systems,International Journal of Operations and Production Management, ProductionPlanning and Control, and Project Management Journal.

Dr Teta Stamati obtained her degree in computer science from the Nationaland Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. She also holds an MPhil inEnterprise Modelling Techniques from the University of ManchesterInstitute of Science and Technology (UMIST) in UK, an MBA Degree fromLancaster University Business School in UK, and a PhD from the National andKapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. Currently she is a researchassociate at the Department of Informatics and Telecommunications at theNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens. Greece. She has extensiveexperience in top management positions in leading IT companies of theGreek and European private sector.

Dr Mara Nikolaidou received her PhD and bachelor's degree in computerscience from the Department of Informatics and Telecommunications at theUniversity of Athens, Greece. She is an Associate Professor in the Departmentof Informatics and Telematics at the Harokopio University of Athens. Herresearch interests include software and Information Systems engineering,service-oriented architectures, e-government, and digital libraries. Over thelast few years, she has actively participated in numerous projects onservice-oriented architectures, digital libraries, and e-government. She haspublished more than 100 papers in international journals and conferences.

Professor Dimosthenis Anagnostopoulos is the Rector of HarokopioUniversity of Athens, Greece and Head of the Department of Informatics andTelecommunications in the same University. From 2004 to 2009 he served asthe General Secretary of Information Systems at the Greek Ministry of Finance.He is a Professor in Discrete Event Simulation at the Department of Informaticsand Telematics, Harokopio University of Athens, Greece. He received hisbachelor's and PhD degrees in computer science from the Department ofInformatics and Telecommunications at the University of Athens. He haspublished more than 100 papers in international journals and conferences. Hisresearch interests include discrete event simulation, faster-than-real-timesimulation, and modelling and simulation of distributed Information Systems.He has actively participated in numerous projects related to simulation,e-government, and Information Systems.


From Open Source to Open Innovation practices: A case in the Greek context

Documents

Transcript of From Open Source to Open Innovation practices: A case in the Greek context