Programa del congreso

In an increasingly competitive and dynamic business environment, firms must carefully balance knowledge protection and openness in order to foster innovation. Appropriability mechanisms - both formal (e.g. patents, copyrights) and informal (e.g. secrecy, lead-time advantages) - play a crucial role in this process. While previous research has extensively studied open innovation and appropriability separately, the interplay between these concepts remains underexplored. This paper investigates how firms use appropriability mechanisms in the context of inbound and outbound open innovation, with a particular focus on the moderating role of technological strategy - whether a firm positions itself as an R&D leader or follower. Using data from the Spanish Community Innovation Survey (CIS), we find that firms engaging in inbound open innovation are more likely to rely on formal appropriability mechanisms, especially when they position themselves as R&D leaders. However, we also find that R&D leadership weakens the positive relationship between formal appropriability mechanisms and inbound open innovation. In addition, our results indicate a strong and significant relationship between outbound open innovation and the use of informal appropriability mechanisms. These findings contribute to the open innovation literature by shedding light on the strategic role of appropriability mechanisms in shaping firms' innovation practices and competitive positioning.

The article presents an integrative model of the creativity influence system, representing the environmental, social, and cognitive elements and their interrelations in creating a creative solution. The Interactive Qualitative Analysis method was used as a data collection and analysis strategy. In total, 12 advertising professionals participated in the Focus Group and interviews proposed by the method. As the main result of the research, a diagram of the creativity influence system was obtained. It was noted that the motivational elements of creativity are represented in a linear process by both contextual elements, such as environment (scenario), taking breaks (breaks), and external stimuli (stimuli), as well as by individual elements, such as workflows (setup), feelings present in the process (mood), and research and repertoire search (diving). In this view, a greater degree of power of external elements over internal elements was perceived, indicating that contextual and social elements, rather than individual and cognitive elements, influence creativity more. These findings have significant implications for understanding and fostering creativity.

• Organizations’ innovation capacity has been explained through three dominant perspectives: the resource-based view emphasizing internal resources, inter-organizational collaborations, and country-level characteristics. Despite substantial empirical support for each, their relative explanatory power remains unclear.

• This study develops a multilevel framework to assess the contributions of organizational, inter-organizational, and country factors to innovation capacity, leveraging data from 73,900 organizations across 7,164 EU Horizon Europe projects.

• Using monetary contributions as a proxy for innovation capacity, our multilevel modelling reveals that organizational resources account for 47% of the variance, followed by inter-organizational factors (31%) and country effects (22%). We identify boundary conditions—organization type, size, the amount of contribution received, and project size—that shape the relevance of these factors. Additionally, we find that country-level characteristics outweigh regional effects, highlighting the centrality of national policies in shaping innovation capacity. These findings advance theoretical clarity on innovation drivers, provide nuanced insights into contextual dependencies, and offer actionable guidelines for managers and policymakers.

The Objectives and Key Result (OKR) framework is recognised for bridging organisational strategy and implementation. By aligning team and organisational objectives, it promotes shared accountability and transparency, integrating diverse perspectives into the strategic process. OKRs encourage business innovation by fostering ambitious goal setting, cross-functional collaboration, and continuous market adaptation. Despite these advantages, research on its implementation and effectiveness in different organisational contexts remains limited. This study aims to evaluate the global adoption of OKRs and their impact on innovation. Grounded in Strategic Alignment Theory, it explores how OKRs translate strategic intent into execution while maintaining adaptability. The research employs a survey-based methodology targeting management professionals across industries to assess adoption levels, motivations, and challenges. Findings indicate that nearly half of surveyed organisations use OKRs, though adoption varies by company size and framework maturity. OKRs contribute to innovation by promoting structured execution, iterative learning, and organisational agility. This research lays the foundation for further exploration of OKRs’ effectiveness and adaptability, informing both practitioners and scholars on their evolving role in strategy execution and business innovation.

This paper investigates the interaction between NIH syndrome and the use of intellectual property protection mechanisms (IPPMs) — both formal and informal — in an OI context. Specifically, it examines how IPPMs can moderate the negative impact of NIH syndrome on innovation performance. The study provides new insights into how firms can safeguard their innovations while collaborating with external partners. The study draws on empirical analyses using OLS regression and data from a survey conducted in four European Union countries (France, Italy, Spain, and Sweden), offering a detailed exploration of NIH syndrome and IPPMs' influence on collaborative project-level innovation outcomes. The findings are somewhat controversial, as they suggest that both formal and informal IPPMs mitigate, in different ways, the adverse effects of NIH syndrome. This highlights the dual role of IPPMs—not only as safeguards for innovation but also as potentially contentious enablers of OI, challenging firms to strike a delicate balance between protection and openness.