Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015 61
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OPEN INNOVATION MODEL APPLICATION
IN SLOVENIAN FIRMS
Daša Farčnik
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics
Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
dasa.farcnik@ef.uni-lj.si
Tjaša Redek
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics
Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
tjasa.redek@ef.uni-lj.si
Abstract
This paper analyses the characteristics of the model of open innovation in Slovenia. On the basis of activities that are
defined by the model of open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003) 222 companies are divided into three groups : companies
that do not apply open innovation activities, companies with limited scope of activities of open innovation and com-
panies engaged in the majority of open innovation activities. Three groups of firms also differ with regard to the or-
ganizational structure, attitude of staff and management towards the open innovation activities, expenditures for
research and development and success of the introduction of new products, process innovation and success of these
products and services on the market. Analysis combines the dominant model of innovation model with the open in-
novation model. Further on it is encouraging that all three groups do not differ regarding their future plans of intro-
ducing the model of open innovation activities.
Keywords: innovation, open innovation model, innovation success
1. INTRODUCTION
The model of open innovation, according to
Chesbrough (2006) represents the opposite of the
classical understanding of development and inno-
vation in enterprises. The classic definition of inno-
vation assumes that the development of ideas and
new products takes place within the company,
which then produces and market them. In contra-
diction to prevailing traditional or »vertical« para-
digm of innovation, the model of open innovation
builds on the inflow and outflow of both internal
and external elements in the creation of ideas and
products, and then, when the product is designed,
the marketing also focuses on the internal and ex-
ternal elements (Chesbrough, 2004, 2006). The
boundaries of the company in a model of open in-
novation are not clearly defined, but the model as-
sumes flow of information internally and externally.
The porosity of the borders, which is actually inten-
tional, is also one of the key elements of the model,
as it allows development on the basis of internal
and external information, ideas and knowledge, but
also allows the transfer of ideas, information and
knowledge externally.
Slovenia, as a small and open economy, in
which exports account for over three quarters of
GDP is strongly integration into international pro-
duction chains and adopted the export-oriented
Vol. 4, No. 1, 61-71
doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2015.v04n01a05
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
Daša Farčnik, Tjaša Redek: The Characteristics of the Open Innovation Model Application in Slovenian Firms
62
growth model (SORS, 2014). GDP at purchasing
power parity in Slovenia currently reaches 82 per-
cent of the average EU28 and is classified as the
under-developed state. The economy can on still
grow through the transfer of knowledge as well as
lower factor costs, but to a lesser extent as before.
Thus, the innovativeness is crucial for the develop-
ment of Slovenia. This has been confirmed by the
World Economic Forum (2008) that since 2007 ranks
Slovenia among the countries that grow through in-
novation ("innovation-driven") and not among the
countries that are growing due to increased effi-
ciency ("efficiency driven"). This of course means
that the country must still invest additional re-
sources in development of its own innovative prod-
ucts and services, which will be competitive on the
global markets and at the same time it will increase
the share of global value added. The openness of
the economy and the integration into international
production chains allows Slovenian companies ei-
ther direct or indirect access to many sources of in-
formation, new ideas and accumulated knowledge
that can facilitate the development of new prod-
ucts, services or enable process innovation. In addi-
tion, inclusion in global value chains enables
Slovenian companies also to provide it's knowledge
within their chains and facilitate the development
in partners and thus contribute to better or cheaper
final products. These knowledge spill-overs are the
central point of the model of open innovation,
which is therefore seen as an extremely interesting
concept for Slovenian companies.
The purpose of this paper is therefore to exam-
ine the practice of the open innovation activities
and link them to the prevailing model of innovation,
in which the importance and organization of re-
search and development department and the in-
vestments in research and development is
particularly emphasizes. The aim of this paper is to
identify if the companies that implement more
open innovation activities are also those companies
that have already developed innovation activities.
Based on that, the Slovenian firms will be distrib-
uted with regard to the intensity of the open inno-
vation activities.
Based on a questionnaire from 222 Slovenian
companies conducted in September 2012, using
Ward's analysis of the groups, the companies are
initially divided into three groups based on the (in-
tensity) of the activities of open innovation. Further
on the differences in means of other innovation ac-
tivities and elements of genetic material are com-
pared with Tukey's method (Tukey, 1949). The
contribution therefore provides one of the first pa-
pers that links open innovation with a dominant
model of innovation in enterprises and examines
the within group differences in the product and
process innovation success.
The paper is structured as follows: after the in-
troduction, there are three chapters. The second
chapter provides short description of the open in-
novation model; the third describes the objectives
of the paper, the data used and the methodology.
In chapter four the results are represented and the
last chapter provides conclusions and discusses
some practical recommendations.
2. THE OPEN INNOVATION MODEL
The literature on innovation is very broad and a
large number of definitions of, innovation models,
as well as models of the impact of innovation on the
economy in the broadest sense innovation have
been developed. Starting from the current definition
of innovation as applied by the Community Innova-
tion Survey, the main international research in the
field of innovation, innovations are divided into
product or process innovations, whereby both new
or significantly improved product (or service) as well
as the process (production, support services, distri-
bution, etc..) are an innovation if a product or
process represent both novelty to the firm, but not
necessarily for the market (Eurostat, 2012). Innova-
tion depends on many factors and over time the
focus has shifted from one to the other factor. Based
on the innovation literature review Damanpour
(1991), for example, found that the authors expose
the whole multitude of factors that account to over
10. In theory key determinants of innovation in the
company should be then, specialization, centraliza-
tion, management attitudes toward changes, profes-
sionalism, centralisation, functional differentiation,
management stability, technological competence (in
original technological knowledge), the availability of
free resources, company’s organization, organiza-
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015 63
tional structure and internal as well as external com-
munication and information flow. Damanpour has
also reviewed the literature that began to focus on
the wider importance of other (soft/intangible ) fac-
tors, such as the internal organization in the broad-
est sense) and external factors (see eg. The Von
Hippel, 1988, which inter alia highlights the impor-
tance of the consumer).
ders are purposive and the knowledge flows inward
and outward. This two-way flow is the core of the
model of open innovation summarized in Figure 1.
The model of open innovation is particularly
important for Slovenia, because of the openness of
the economy and therefore intensive integration
into the world economy. According to the Statistical
Figure 1: The open innovation model
Source: Adopted by Chesbrough, 2006, figure 1.2.
Chesbrough (2003) combined a combination of
factors that are both external and internal in a com-
prehensive model of open innovation. The model
emphasizes that the ideas for innovation are cre-
ated in the company itself but also the business en-
vironment can serve as an important source of ideas
or as an external technological knowledge base (Fig-
ure 1). At the same time the company can influence
the innovation activity of other companies, if parts
of its knowledge and information are available also
externally (eg. intellectual property out-licensing,
selling unused or unutilized, free dissemination of
knowledge). By definition (Chesbrough, 2003) the
model of open innovation builds on both the inflows
and outflows of knowledge with a purpose to pro-
mote and strengthen innovation activity in the en-
terprise and the same time the opening of 'market'
for outdoor use of new products / services. The
company therefore acts as an agent that combines
ideas, knowledge and technology. Traditionally,
companies preferred to draw inward knowledge and
not to provide or "give" it to the outside, but based
on the open innovation model the company's bor-
Office (SURS, 2015), exports to the EU (mostly in
Germany) represented 79 percent in 2013 and im-
ports from EU represented almost three-quarters of
all imports.
Openness of the economy also means that
Slovenian companies have access to the latest ideas
and knowledge, which is directly relevant to ex-
porters, and firms can also draw ideas and knowl-
edge from importing. This fosters learning, which is
one of the key factors in the growth of export - ori-
ented economies (Helpman et al., 2004; Stiglitz and
Greenwald, 2014). Companies with open borders
can therefore transfer the knowledge through sup-
ply chain to the other domestic companies. The
question of course is how intensely companies are
aware of the opportunities and to what extent the
companies draw or share knowledge and informa-
tion. This area of study in Slovenia is studied to a
limited extent. The link between companies and
learning has been studied by Prašnikar et al. (2012)
and the model of open innovation has been also
studied by Rangus and Drnovšek (2013), Rangus
(2014) and Pustovrh (2014).
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
Daša Farčnik, Tjaša Redek: The Characteristics of the Open Innovation Model Application in Slovenian Firms
64
Previous research on the use of open innovation
model show that, on average, Slovenian companies
are aware of the potential of open innovation model,
but are currently focusing primarily on the inflow of
information and knowledge (inbound activities) and
not on outflow activities (outbound activities). This
means that the model is not applied fully, which in
particular means that the national economy has not
achieved the desired or potential knowledge spill-
overs between firms yet (Farčnik, Redek and Trobec,
2014). However, Slovenian companies can be divided
into several groups with regard to activities in the
field of open innovation (Ranugs, 2014).1 Prašnikar
et al. (2012) further finds that the learning of com-
panies is often the result of external factors, in par-
ticular the cooperation with companies in the value
chain, suppliers and customers and the absorption of
ideas from the competition which therefore implies
that these are the inbound activities of the open in-
novation model. The use of information and knowl-
edge is mainly dependent on firm’s genetic material
(competences, abilities, strategic orientation, work
processes, inventory and human resource manage-
ment, Nelson and Winter, 1982).
3. GOALS AND THE ME
3.1 Goals
The contribution builds on previous related re-
search and connects the model of open innovation
with the prevailing model of innovation, where re-
search and development (R&D) departments, their
organization and strategic position within the com-
pany and the resources allocated to R&D are the key
factors. Based on the company’s intensity of open in-
novation activities the firms are distributed in groups
and between groups differences in R&D activities are
investigated. The main research question is, whether
the companies that largely implement open innova-
tion activities are the ones that have already devel-
oped R&D activities in general (the R&D activities
that are included in the prevailing model of innova-
tion). In addition we disentangle the innovation suc-
cess in success related to the product innovation and
the success related to the process innovation, while
most of the research so far has focused only on prod-
uct innovation. By linking concepts of genetic mate-
rial (Nelson and Winter, 1982) and innovation, we
also shed some light on the importance of the orga-
nizational structure of the company, employee rela-
tionships, management support and openness of the
organization for innovation activity in the company.
3.2 Data
As part of the international project " Open In-
novation Network " and with the cooperation of the
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia an
international survey on the open innovation prac-
tices defined by the model of open innovation (Ches-
brough, 2003) was sent to the members of the
Chamber (owners or managers or heads of develop-
ment ) in September 2014. The questionnaire in-
cluded the assessment of the implementation of the
open innovation practices, future plans regarding
the application of open innovation practices and the
organisational characteristics. In addition, questions
regarding the mainstream R&D activities were
added (Redek et al., 2010; Prašnikar, ed., 2010,
Prašnikar et al., 2011). Data was collected for 222
companies, which on average employ of 69 workers.
Model of open innovation includes the follow-
ing activities: (1) customer and consumer co-cre-
ation in R&D projects; (2) crowd sourcing, (3)
scanning for external ideas, (4) collaborative inno-
vation with external partners (i.e. suppliers, univer-
sities, competitors…), (5) subcontracting R&D, (6)
idea & start up competitions, (7) using external net-
works (e.g. associations, intermediaries, knowledge
brokers), (8) participation in standardization (public
standards) / influencing industry standards, (9) free
revealing (e.g. Ideas, IP) to external parties, (10) IP
in-licensing, (11) IP out-licensing, (12) external tech-
nologies acquisition, (13) selling unutilized / unused
technologies. The intensity of the implementation
of certain activities were captured using an 8- point
scale (1 -not performed, 2 - very rarely performed
and 8 - very intense performed). Respondents plans
1 Based on the open innovation activities Rangus (2013) classifies companies into four groups, namely open innova-
tors who carry out all the activities of open innovation; systems engineering companies or solution implementers
that are using all activities except renting R&D, R&D outsourcers and customer oriented companies.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015 65
for changes in the intensity of the implementation
of the above activities were described using a five-
point scale (2 - significant reduction, 0 – unchanged,
2 - a significant increase).
Other information on companies’ innovation
activities were collected based on the questionnaire
from Redek et al. (2010). The questionnaire covered
the performance characteristics of the R&D depart-
ment (if there is one, what are its functions), infor-
mation on the amount of R&D expenditure and the
importance and perception of the role of R&D
spending in terms of strengthening competitive ad-
vantages. Respondents also provided information
on the success of the introduction of different types
of process and product innovation and characteris-
tics (innovativeness) of both types of innovation.
Respondents also provided a lot of information
about the company. Based on a 7-point scale (1 -
completely disagree, 7 completely agree), we have
analysed the organizational structure, employee re-
lations, management support of the R&D activities
and openness of the organization. In that manner the
education and training of employees on open inno-
vation, employees’ perceptions on the introduction
of new ideas and technologies, employees’ reward
system for outstanding innovation, management
support for open innovation, openness of the firm’s
borders, the participation of employees in the search
for information and knowledge and in the exchange
of knowledge , design of organizational structure in
line with the needs of the model of open innovation,
and the introduction of interactive tools and meth-
ods for participating in open innovation.
3.3 Goals and the methodology
The model of open innovation shall encourage
innovation activity in enterprises because it allows
a faster flow of information and learning, but also
has a beneficial effect on other businesses and
therefore on the long term also promotes innova-
tion. Regarding the analysis of the implementation
of the open innovation activities in Slovenian firms,
we formed the following research questions:
  1) What are the differences in the implementation
of each activity of the model of open innovation
in Slovenian companies?
  2) Is there a link between the intensity of each ac-
tivity of the model of open innovation and in-
novation activities of the company in general
and its performance success?
  3) Is there a link between the intensity of each ac-
tivity of the model of open innovation and atti-
tude toward the innovation of the company
itself?
In order to answer the research questions, we
first distribute firms regarding the intensity of the
open innovation activities and second we check for
the between groups differences. Based on the thir-
teen questions on the intensity of the activities de-
fined by the model of open innovation, companies
are classified into three groups with Ward's method
of cluster analysis. The method is particularly suit-
able for ordinal responses it forms groups on the
basis of n groups of size 1. On the basis of minimiz-
ing the sum of squares and loss of information three
groups were selected.
For companies classified in each group the
mean values of other variables are calculated. Dif-
ferences in mean values were calculated on the
basis of the Tukey’s method of comparison that si-
multaneously performs pair-wise comparison
(Tukey, 1949) and not all the group means at once,
such as the classic analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Below we present the differences between the av-
erage values of the two groups at least at the 5% sig-
nificance level. If the difference is statistically
significant between all the clusters, the significance
level is described by the star next to the result. If
one cluster statistically significantly differs from the
other two, the significance level is assigned only to
the result of that cluster.
4. RESULTS
4.1 Clustering
By using Ward's clustering method companies
are classified into three groups. The first group are
companies that do not or very rarely implement the
activities defined in the open innovation model and
present 19.4 percent of the sample (40 companies).
The second group of 83 companies (40.3 percent of
the sample) is characterized by a limited extent
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
Daša Farčnik, Tjaša Redek: The Characteristics of the Open Innovation Model Application in Slovenian Firms
66
and/or less frequently performance open innova-
tion activities. The third group with also 83 firms
consists of companies that to a greater extent than
the second group of companies perform all these
activities and in accordance to the literature (eg .
Chesbrough, 2003 Rangus, 2014) can be described
as "open innovators".
a confirmative answer for the particular category or
R&D characteristic. Only 3 percent of companies in
the first cluster have organized R&D department,
the share of those is 20 percent second cluster, and
51 percent in the third cluster. In the third cluster of
firms – the firms that are open innovators, the R&D
department is statistically significantly more present
Regarding the future plans of the application of
open innovation activities, there is no significant dif-
ference between groups. This means that, on aver-
age, companies that do not currently apply open
innovation activities or apply then to a limited ex-
tent, they intend to increase the application in the
future.
4.2 Open innovation and the R&D
The three clusters of vary according to having a
R&D department and its role in the company. Table
1 shows the shares of companies that are provided
than in the other two groups (see significance next
to the result for the third cluster) and provides sys-
tematic support for solving problems arising in the
company. In the companies in the third cluster the
R&D department also provides an absorption capac-
ity of the collection, storage and dissemination of
technological information, it sets guidelines for the
technological development of the company, and
plays the role of an agent of change. To a lesser ex-
tent, unlike companies that do not carry out activi-
ties open innovation, the R&D department is
important for the formation of independent indus-
trial design capabilities.
Figure 2: Average values of the frequency of using open innovation activities for clusters of firms
Note: IP means intellectual property
Source: Own research, 2014.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015 67
Table 2 shows the difference between clusters
on R&D expenditures and the role of the expendi-
tures for the future development of the firm.
Open innovators (firms in the third cluster) on
average spend a higher proportion of revenues on
R&D, but also have different attitudes to these ex-
penditures. Almost two-thirds of these firms do not
consider R&D expenditures merely as a cost, but
they represent an important facilitator of innovation
and represent a source of competitive advantage
and thus growth. Consequently, the R&D expendi-
tures have a strategic importance for the company.
Regarding the importance or the role of the R&D ex-
penditures we also find different treatments be-
tween cluster 1 and 2. Companies in the second
companies (ie companies that to a limited extent
carry out activities identified by the model of open
innovation), on average, more often consider R&D
expenditures as a source of competitive advantage
and believe they represent a strategic importance
for the firm.
4.3 Between cluster difference in the success in
product and process innovations
Companies in the first cluster are significantly
less successful in introducing new products in the
last five years since only a quarter of these compa-
nies have introduced a new product that repre-
sented a novelty in the relevant market. The share
of successful firms in introducing new projects in the
second cluster is in 51%, and 64 % in the third. At
the same time, fewer companies (23%) in the first
cluster have introduced new products that were
new on the relevant market they supply, compared
to companies in the second cluster (44%) and in the
third group (52%). However, we find no statistically
significant differences between companies in the
second and third clusters, which means, that the
frequency of open innovation activities does not sig-
nificantly affect the success of the introduction of
new products. However, the differences between
the moderate innovators open (cluster 2) and open
innovators (cluster 3) mainly occur when introduc-
Table 1: R & D characteristics by clusters, as a % of all companies the cluster
R&D in the
company
Systematic support of
the R&D department
R&D dep. builds the
abortion capacity
R&D dep. sets
the guidelines
Industrial design in
R&D dep. 
Cluster 1 2.7% 11.8% 2.9% 5.7% 0.0%
Cluster 2 20.3% 29.7% 17.7% 17.2% 12.7%
Cluster 3 50.6% * 54.9% * 47.9% * 43.5% * 24.3% a
Table 2: R&D expenditures for clusters of firms, as a % of all companies the cluster
At least 1%
of revenues
for R&D
More than 3%
of revenues
for R&D
R&D expenditures
not considered
entirely as a cost
R&D expenditures
are a competitive
advantage
Strategic
importance of
R&D expenditures
Cluster 1 16.7% * 2.8% 15.2% * 15.2% * 6.5% *
Cluster 2 46.2% 18.0% 42.9% 39.4% * 42.2% *
Cluster 3 55.2% 36.8% * 61.1% * 66.7% * 66.2% *
Notes: Data show the shares of companies with individual elements. * Denotes statistically different from the average value at the 5 %
significance level. a indicates a statistically significant difference in the average value at the 5 % significance level only from the first
cluster and not the second.
Source: Own research, 2014.
Notes: The data shows the percentage of firms that answered the questions with "Yes". * denotes statistically different value from the
average value at the 5 % significance level.
Source: Own research, 2014.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
Daša Farčnik, Tjaša Redek: The Characteristics of the Open Innovation Model Application in Slovenian Firms
68
ing new products, which are a novelty on the world
market (not only on a local or regional). Thus, 35
percent of all open innovators have introduced a
product that is new in the world, while the share of
such companies in the second group statistically sig-
nificantly lower (11%).
In terms of process innovation, companies that
have not applied open innovation activies are on av-
erage less successful than companies that are mod-
erately or fully introduced the model. Only 13
percent of companies in the first cluster introduced
process innovation in the last three years. The share
of such firms was more than half (53%) in the second
cluster and 71 percent in third cluster. Similarly, the
companies in the first cluster, to a lesser extent sig-
nificantly improved production processes of goods
and services, and processes of logistics, delivery or
distribution of elements, products and services. We
find no statistically significant differences in terms of
introducing process innovation between companies
in the second and the third cluster.
4.4 Selected organizational characteristics of the
clusters
Differences between firms in three clusters ac-
cording to the selected organizational characteris-
tics are shown in Table 3. On average, companies
vary in providing education and training on open in-
novation and employee and management support
for open innovation. Companies in the first cluster
devote fewer resources to education and training
on open innovation, as well as management support
is smaller than in the second and third cluster. Oth-
erwise, the firms in the first cluster significantly dif-
fer from the other two clusters since they developed
less positive attitude towards the introduction of
new ideas and technologies and the use of knowl-
edge and technology from the outside the borders
of their own business. Given that these companies
are on average not (yet) applying open innovation
activities, employee remuneration in is smaller. As
it has already been mentioned, the differences be-
tween firms in cluster 2 which to a limited extent
carry out activities of open innovation, and open in-
novators (cluster 3) for the last three mentioned or-
ganizational characteristics are not statistically
significant.
Open innovators are more likely to encourage
the active participation of employees in the search for
knowledge, for what they have created interactive
tools and methods for participating in the activities
of open innovation. At the same time organizational
structure is designed in accordance with the needs of
the firm. The boundaries of these companies are
more open and allow in/out-flow of knowledge. To a
Table 3: Average values regarding the genetic material, by clusters
Education
and training
on open
innovation
Positive attitude
towards introduction
of new ideas and
technologies
Positive attitude towards
application of knowledge
and technology of other
firms
Rewarding
employees based
on introduction of
new ideas
Management
support for
open
innovations
Cluster 1 3.2 * 4.2 * 4.0 * 3.4 * 4.1 *
Cluster 2 4.2 * 5.1 4.8 4.3 5.0 *
Cluster 3 5.1 * 5.5 5.0 4.6 5.6 *
Open
borders of
firm
Active participation
of employees in
knowledge formation
Organisation structure
based on the innovation
needs
Interactive tools
and methods for
OI participation
Cluster 1 4.0 * 3.3 * 3.8 * 3.1 *
Cluster 2 4.9 4.5 * 4.8 * 3.9 *
Cluster 3 5.4 5.5 * 5.0 * 4.8 *
Notes: The data show the average value on a scale from 1 - completely disagree and 7 - completely agree. * Denotes statistically
different from the mean value of the 5 % confidence level.
Source: Own research, 2014.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015 69
lesser extent this applies to firms in the second clus-
ter. Companies that do not implement open innova-
tion activities, have on average more closed borders
and of course less -developed tools and methods for
participating in open innovation.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Using survey data of 222 Slovenian companies
and using Ward's clustering method the firms are
classified into three clusters as based on the appli-
cation and frequency of open innovation activities.
First cluster represents the companies that (still) do
not carry out open innovation activities, the second
cluster are companies, which to a limited extent and
/ or less frequently use these activities, and in the
third cluster are "open innovators " , that are com-
panies that often use activities identified by the
model of open innovation.
In the empirical exercise, we analyzed the rela-
tionship between the several dimensions of innova-
tion activities in general and open innovation
activities, since based on the theory of innovations,
the open innovation activities are related and influ-
ence other innovation features. The data shows that
companies that carry out activities identified by the
model of open innovation, have on average also
more likely developed R&D departments and the
department has a strategic role in the company. This
cluster of companies devotes a larger share of rev-
enues to research and development. This implies
that companies, which are otherwise active in the
field of innovation, are also more active in the field
of open innovation. The information and knowledge
in these firms are obtained either within or outside
the firm and are a source of competitive advantage.
However, the performance comparison between
companies in the three groups shows that the differ-
ences between the second and third group are small
and insignificant, but companies in both groups
more successful in product and process innovation
from the companies in the first group. "Open inno-
vators" have also developed an appropriate organi-
zational structure and encourage employee
relations and support of the manaegemnt in order
to support and promote the activities in the field of
open innovation. Similarly, this also holds for the
companies in the second group, particularly with re-
gards to the attitude of employees and their remu-
neration. This however is not true for companies in
the first group.
The paper links the two models of innovation:
the dominant model, which is based primarily on
the role of the R&D department, and a model of
open innovation. The results show a clear link in the
development of the R&D department and introduc-
tion of the open innovation model. At the same
time, we however find that with regard to the suc-
cess in process and product innovation, all the open
innovation activities are not directly necessary. We
actually find that based on a sample of Slovenian
companies, the open innovation model comple-
ments dominant innovation model.
This paper offers several recommendations for
managers of Slovenian companies. It is appropriate
to complement the existing models of innovation
with the open innovation model and opening firms’
borders. Companies that are constantly looking for
ideas outside the company, cooperate with various
stakeholders and allow outbound sharing of their
knowledge, are on average more successful in intro-
ducing new products that are not only new to the
regional but also on the global market. Successful
companies also have more developed R&D depart-
ment, which has a strategic role in the company.
This might lead to a conclusion that the application
of only the model of open innovation, does not offer
gaining or maintaining competitive advantage. For
a successful application the open innovation model
the firm must adopt an adequate organizational
structure, human resource management and man-
agement support.
EXTENDED SUMMARY / IZVLEČEK
Model odprtih inovacij po besedah Chesbrougha (2006) predstavlja nasprotje klasičnemu razumevanju razvoja in in-
oviranja v podjetjih. Klasična definicija inovacij naj bi namreč predpostavila, da podjetje samo znotraj podjetja oblikuje
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
Daša Farčnik, Tjaša Redek: The Characteristics of the Open Innovation Model Application in Slovenian Firms
70
ideje in razvija nove proizvode, jih nato proizvede in trži. Model odprtih inovacij v nasprotju s to 'vertikalno' paradigmo,
kot pravi Chesbrough (2004, 2006) stremi k temu, da podjetje namerno uporablja tako notranje kot tudi zunanje prvine
pri oblikovanju idej in proizvodov in se nato, ko je proizvod oblikovan, pri trženju ravno tako opre na vse razpoložljive
prvine, notranje in zunanje. Meje podjetja tako v modelu odprtih inovacij niso jasno začrtane, pač pa model predpostavlja
prehajanje informacij navznoter in navzven. Poroznost mej, ki pa je pravzaprav namerna, je ravno tako eden ključnih ele-
mentov modela, saj omogoča razvoj na podlagi notranjih in zunanjih informacij, idej, znanja, hkrati pa omogoča tudi prenos
idej, informacij in znanja navzven. Slovenija, kot majhno in odprto gospodarstvo, v katerem izvoz predstavlja dobre tri
četrtine BDP (SURS, 2014) in je tako močno vpeto v mednarodne proizvodne verige, raste predvsem s pomočjo izvozno-
usmerjenega modela rasti. Tako je za slovenski razvoj inovativnost ključnega pomena, saj mora država vedno več vlagati v
razvoj lastnih inovativnih proizvodov in storitev, s katerimi bo prodirala na globalne trge končnih proizvodov in si na drugi
strani tudi povečevala delež v globalno ustvarjeni dodani vrednosti. 
Prispevek nadgrajuje pretekle raziskave in poveže model odprtega inoviranja s prevladujočim modelom inoviranja,
kjer se kot ključni dejavnik omenjajo oddelki namenjeni raziskavam in razvoju, njihova organizacija in strateška pozicija
znotraj podjetja ter sredstva namenjena raziskavam in razvoju. Vprašanje je namreč, če so podjetja, ki v večji meri izvajajo
aktivnosti odprtega inoviranja, tudi tista podjetja, ki že uporabljajo model odprtih inovacij kot prevladujoč model inoviranja. 
Z namenom preučitve komplementarnosti obstoječega modela inoviranja in modela odprtih inovacij je bila v sep-
tembru 2014 izvedena anketa o razširjenosti uporabe trinajstih aktivnosti, ki so opredeljene v modelu odprtih inovacij
(Chesbrough, 2003), o njihovi prihodnji uporabi ter o organizacijskih značilnostih podjetij. Podjetja so podala tudi številne
druge informacije o inovacijski dejavnosti v podjetju (vprašalnik iz Redek in ostali, 2010). Vprašalnik je zajel značilnosti de-
lovanja oddelka raziskav (ali obstaja, kaj so njegove naloge), podal informacije o višini izdatkov za raziskave in razvoj ter
pomenu  in  percepciji vloge trošenja za  raziskave in razvoj v smislu krepitve konkurenčnih prednosti. Respondenti so
orisali tudi uspešnost uvajanja različnih tipov procesnih in proizvodnih inovacij ter značilnosti (naprednost) obeh tipov in-
ovacij. 
Na podlagi odgovorov 222 slovenskih podjetij so podjetja z Wardovo analizo skupin najprej razdeljena v tri skupine
glede (intenzivnosti) izvajanja aktivnosti odprtega inoviranja. V prvi skupini je 40 podjetij oziroma 19,4 odstotkov vseh opa-
zovanih podjetij, ki ne izvajajo oziroma zelo redko izvajajo dejavnosti opredeljene z modelom odprtih inovacij. V drugi
skupini je 83 podjetij oziroma 40,3 odstotkov vseh opazovanih podjetij, ki v omejenem obsegu in manj pogosto izvajajo
dejavnosti, opredeljene z modelom odprtih inovacij. V tretji skupini pa je prav tako 83 podjetij, ki izvaja večinoma vse
omenjene dejavnosti in bolj intenzivno kot v drugi skupini in jih v skladu s smernicami domače in tuje literature (npr. Ches-
brough, 2003, Rangus 2014) lahko imenujemo »odprti inovatorji«. Glede na intenzivnost izvajanja aktivnosti odprtega in-
oviranja so podjetja v nadaljevanju obravnavana ločeno po skupinah.
V nadaljevanju smo razlike v povprečnih vrednostih ostalih inovacijskih dejavnosti in elementov genetskega materiala
primerjali s Tukey-jevo metodo (Tukey, 1949). Podatki kažejo, da imajo podjetja, ki izvajajo aktivnosti opredeljene z mod-
elom odprtih inovacij, v povprečju tudi bolj pogosto razvite oddelke raziskav in razvoja. Ti oddelki imajo hkrati tudi strateško
vlogo v podjetju. Ta skupina podjetij nameni tudi večji delež prihodkov raziskavam in razvoju. Tako so podjetja, ki so tudi
sicer bolj aktivna na področju inovacij, tudi bolj aktivna na področju odprtega inoviranja, in so informacije pridobljene
bodisi znotraj ali zunaj podjetja vir njihovih konkurenčnih prednosti. Primerjava uspešnosti med podjetji v treh skupinah
pa kaže, da so razlike  med drugo in tretjo skupino majhne in neznačilne, so pa podjetja v obeh skupinah bolj uspešna pri
produktni in procesni inovativnosti od podjetij v prvi skupini. »Odprti inovatorji« imajo tudi drugačno organizacijsko struk-
turo in razvijajo odnose zaposlenih in vodstva do inovacij tako, da s tem spodbujajo oziroma podpirajo tudi aktivnosti s
področja odprtih inovacij. Poleg tretje skupine to v veliki meri velja tudi za podjetja v drugi skupini, predvsem kar se tiče
odnosa zaposlenih in njihovega nagrajevanja. To pa ne drži za podjetja v prvi skupini. 
Tako prispevek ponuja eno prvih raziskav povezave odprtega inoviranja s prevladujočim modelom inovacijske de-
javnosti v podjetjih in preučuje razlike v uspešnosti skupin glede produktnih kot tudi procesnih inovacij. Rezultati kažejo
jasno povezavo razvitosti oddelka raziskav in razvoja na uvajanje modela odprtega inoviranja. Hkrati pa kažejo, da sicer za
uspešnost podjetij pri produktnih in procesnih inovacijah, niso potrebne vse dejavnosti odprtega inoviranja. Oba modela
se na vzorcu slovenskih podjetij celo komplementarno dopolnjujeta.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015 71
REFERENCES
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Im-
perative for Creating and Profiting from Technology.
Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2004). Managing Open Innovation:
Chess and Poker. Research-Technology Management,
47, 1 (January), 23-26.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Innovation: A New Para-
digm for Understanding Industrial Innovation. In
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (ed.).
Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-12.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-
analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.
Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 555-590.
Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of rad-
ical and incremental innovations: An empirical analy-
sis. Management Science, 32, 1422-1433.
Eurostat (2012). Retrieved: 2.4.2015 on the webpage
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/203647/20
3701/CIS_Survey_form_2010.pdf/b9f2c70e-0c46-
4f82-abeb-c7661f1f2166.
Farčnik, D., Redek, T., & Trobec, D. (2014). Learning of
Slovenian firms through open innovation. In: Prašnikar,
J.(ed.). Industrial policy in retrospective. Ljubljana:
Časnik Finance, 241-258.
Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J., & Yeaple, S. R. (2004). Export
versus FDI with heterogeneous firms. American Eco-
nomic Review, 94, 300-316.
Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. (1981). Organizational in-
novation: The influence of individual, organizational,
and contextual factors on hospital adoption of tech-
nological and administrative innovations. Academy of
Management Journal, 24, 689 - 713.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conserva-
tive and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic
momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 1-25.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary the-
ory of economic change. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
Prašnikar, J. (ed.) (2010). The role of intangible assets in
exiting the crisis. Ljubljana: Časnik Finance, 187-202.
Prašnikar, J., Redek, T., Drenkovska, M., & Voje, D. (2012).
Innovation in Slovenia as indicator of companies’ ge-
netic material potential. In Prašnikar, J. (ed.). Compar-
ing companies’ success in dealing with external
shocks: the case of the Western Balkans, Mediter-
ranean countries and core European countries. Ljubl-
jana: Časnik Finance: 363-388.
Prašnikar, J., Redek, T., & Drenkovska, M. (2011). Method-
ological challenges of measuring intangible capital in
developing countries: the case of innovation activity.
Paper presented at the 2011 International conference
for entrepreneurship, innovation and regional devel-
opment, Skopje, 5-7 May 2011.
Pustovrh, A. (2014). Odprti inovacijski sistemi in njihovi
učinki na strategije rasti malih in srednje velikih pod-
jetij. Doktorska disertacija, forthcoming.
Rangus, K. (2014). Nagnjenost k odprtemu inoviranju:
razvoj konstrukta, determinante in rezultati. Dok-
torska disertacija. Ljubljana: Ekonomska fakulteta.
Rangus, K., & Drnovšek, M. (2013). Open innovation in
Slovenia: A comparative analysis of different firm
sizes. Economic and Business Review, 15 (3), 175–196.
Redek, T., Kopriva, G., Mihelič, N., & Simič, M. (2010). In-
vestments in intangible activities: innovation in the
Slovenian manufacturing sector. In: Prašnikar, J. (ed.).
The role of intangible assets in exiting the crisis. Ljubl-
jana: Časnik Finance, 2010, 149-159.
Stiglitz, E. J., & Greenwald, C. B. (2014). Creating a Learn-
ing Society. New York: CUP.
SURS (Statistični urad Republike Slovenije) (2015). SI-Stat.
Online database. Retrived 12.3. 2015 on webpage:
http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Ekonomsko/Ek
onomsko.asp#03.
Tukey, J. (1949). Comparing Individual Means in the
Analysis of Variance. Biometrics, 5 (2), 99-114.
Von Hippel, E. (1988). Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.
World Economic Forum (2008). Global competitiveness
report 2008. Geneva: WEF. Retrived 10. 3. 2015 on
webpage http://www.weforum.org/pdf/GCR08/
Slovenia.pdf