Open Innovation Adoption, R&D Portfolio Management, and New Product Development Performance in Emerging Economy Multinationals
Author(s): Michael T. Baxter, Ji-Hoon Park, Sophie Lefevre
Affiliation: Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Page No: 83-87-
Volume issue & Publishing Year: Volume 3, Issue 3, 2026/03/27
Journal: International Journal of Modern Engineering and Management | IJMEM
ISSN NO: 3048-8230
DOI:
Abstract:
Open innovation — the systematic use of external knowledge flows (inflows from universities, suppliers, startups, and competitors; outflows through licensing, spin-offs, and joint ventures) alongside internal R&D — has been documented as a performance-enhancing strategy in US and European R&D-intensive firms. Whether emerging economy multinationals (EMNCs) — firms that have achieved global scale from developing country bases but face distinctive institutional, resource, and knowledge infrastructure contexts — can effectively deploy open innovation architectures to enhance new product development (NPD) performance remains an underexplored question with substantial policy implications for India's innovation ecosystem. This study examines open innovation adoption patterns and NPD performance consequences across 167 R&D-intensive EMNCs from India (n=71), South Korea (n=52), and Brazil (n=44) using a cross-country survey and archival panel data design (2014-2024). Open innovation is operationalised across three dimensions: inbound (external knowledge sourcing breadth and depth), outbound (knowledge commercialisation intensity), and coupled (alliance and consortium R&D participation). NPD performance metrics include time-to-market, new product revenue share, and patent citation quality. SEM analysis reveals that inbound open innovation predicts NPD performance most strongly (β=0.47, p<0.001), particularly through university partnership depth (β=0.39) and technology startup acquisition or investment (β=0.34). R&D portfolio balance — operationalised as the ratio of exploratory to exploitative R&D investment — moderates the open innovation-performance relationship, with optimal portfolio balance (40-60% exploratory/60-40% exploitative split) maximising performance translation. Indian EMNCs show significantly higher inbound open innovation adoption than Korean (p<0.01) but lower outbound and coupled adoption, attributable to India's university-industry linkage infrastructure improvements post-National Education Policy 2020 and lower technology licensing ecosystem maturity respectively.
Keywords:
open innovation, R&D portfolio management, new product development, emerging economy multinationals, university-industry partnerships, India, South Korea, Brazil, NPD performance, technology licensing
Reference:
[1] Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press.
[2] Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In H. Chesbrough et al. (Eds.), New Frontiers in Open Innovation (pp. 3-28). Oxford University Press.
[3] Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
[4] Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. (2024). Research and Development Statistics 2023-24. Ministry of Science and Technology.
[5] DPIIT. (2024). Startup India Annual Report 2023-24. Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade.
[6] Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131-150.
[7] Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and future directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 75-93.
[8] March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
[9] Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201-221.
[10] Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305.