Open-Source Collaboration and Technological Innovation in the Industrial Software Industry: A Multi-Case Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- What are the different types of open-source collaboration models based on their characteristics?
- (2)
- How do these collaboration models influence the technological innovation in the industrial software industry?
2. Literature Review
2.1. Open-Source Collaboration
2.2. Industrial Software Technological Innovation
2.3. The Impact of Open-Source Collaboration on Technological Innovation in Industrial Software
3. Research Design
3.1. Research Method
3.2. Case Selection
3.3. Data Collection and Analysis
4. Case Analysis
4.1. Case Introduction
4.1.1. Case A: Siemens and MindSphere Collaboration
4.1.2. Case B: Dassault Systèmes and Exalead Collaboration
4.1.3. Case C: General Electric and Microsoft Collaboration
4.1.4. Case D: Schneider Electric and AVEVA Collaboration
4.2. Within-Case Analysis
4.2.1. Coreness Analysis
4.2.2. Complementarity Analysis
4.3. Comparative Analysis of Open-Source Collaboration Models
4.3.1. Single-Core with High Complementarity
4.3.2. Single-Core with Low Complementarity
4.3.3. Multi-Core with High Complementarity
4.3.4. Multi-Core with Low Complementarity
4.3.5. Comparative Analysis Framework
5. Conclusions and Implications
5.1. Research Conclusions
5.2. Theoretical Contributions
5.3. Practical Implications
5.4. Research Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ryu, D.; Baek, K.H.; Yoon, J. Open innovation with relational capital, technological innovation capital, and international performance in SMEs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hertog, P.D. Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2000, 4, 491–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobides, M.G. How to compete when industries digitize and collide: An ecosystem development framework. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2022, 64, 99–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmié, M.; Wincent, J.; Parida, V.; Caglar, U. The evolution of the financial technology ecosystem: An introduction and agenda for future research on disruptive innovations in ecosystems. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 151, 119779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mortazavi Ravari, S.S.; Mehrabanfar, E.; Banaitis, A.; Banaitienė, N. Framework for assessing technological innovation capability in research and technology organizations. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2016, 17, 825–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Mao, J.; Ma, Y.; Li, G. The knowledge linkage between science and technology influences corporate technological innovation: Evidence from scientific publications and patents. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2024, 198, 122985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, Y.; Henfridsson, O.; Lyytinen, K. Research commentary—The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Inf. Syst. Res. 2010, 21, 724–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, Y.; Shao, Y. Power-leveraging paradox and firm innovation: The influence of network power, knowledge integration and breakthrough innovation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2022, 102, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, T.; Makhija, M.; Karim, S. A knowledge recombination perspective of innovation: Review and new research directions. J. Manag. 2022, 48, 1724–1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.H.; Zhou, Y. The Essence of Innovative Collaboration and Theoretical Evolution of Open Source Software from Cooperation and Competition Perspectives. Sci. Sci. Manag. S. T. 2024, 45, 13–30. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, Y.; Liu, W.; Lv, X.; Chen, X.; Shen, M. Investigating interior driving factors and cross-industrial linkages of carbon emission efficiency in China’s construction industry: Based on Super-SBM DEA and GVAR model. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delgado, M.; Porter, M.E.; Stern, S. Clusters, convergence, and economic performance. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 1785–1799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Portillo, A.; Almodóvar-González, M.; Hernández-Mogollón, R. Impact of ICT development on economic growth. A study of OECD European union countries. Technol. Soc. 2020, 63, 101420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyer, J.H.; Singh, H.; Hesterly, W.S. The relational view revisited: A dynamic perspective on value creation and value capture. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 3140–3162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dingler, A.; Enkel, E. Socialization and innovation: Insights from collaboration across industry boundaries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 109, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bø Lyng, H.; Brun, E.C. Innovating with strangers; managing knowledge barriers across distances in cross-industry innovation. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 2020, 17, 2050008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spithoven, A.; Merlevede, B. The productivity impact of R&D and FDI spillovers: Characterising regional path development. J. Technol. Transf. 2023, 48, 560–590. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, X.; Yang, S. Does intelligence improve the efficiency of technological innovation? J. Knowl. Econ. 2023, 14, 3671–3695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Chang, H.; Forrest, J.Y.L.; Yang, B. Influence of artificial intelligence on technological innovation: Evidence from the panel data of china’s manufacturing sectors. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 158, 120142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, N.; Tu, S.; Guo, F. Big-data analytics capability, value creation process, and collaboration innovation quality in manufacturing enterprises: A knowledge-based view. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2024, 187, 109804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, H.; Zhong, Q.; Lee, C.C. Digitalization, competition strategy and corporate innovation: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing listed companies. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2022, 82, 102166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Ji, H.; Ji, J. Mobile information technology’s impacts on service innovation performance of manufacturing enterprises. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 184, 121996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, S.; Kapoor, R. Value creation tradeoff in business ecosystems: Leveraging complementarities while managing interdependencies. Organ. Sci. 2023, 34, 1216–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldwin, C.; Von Hippel, E. Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organ. Sci. 2011, 22, 1399–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 1986, 15, 285–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, M.J. The interdependence imperative: Business strategy, complementarities, and economic policy. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2021, 37, 392–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, L.D.W.; Ritala, P.; Karhu, K.; Heiskala, M. Vertical and horizontal complementarities in platform ecosystems. Innovation 2024, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badr, M. Unleashing the Power of AI: The Microsoft and OpenAI Partnership. April 2023. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1773/49810 (accessed on 27 December 2024).
- Alcacer, J.; Khanna, T.; Snively, C. The rise and fall of Nokia. Harv. Bus. Sch. Case 2014, 714, 428. [Google Scholar]
- Granovetter, M.S. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 1973, 78, 1360–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldwin, C.Y.; Clark, K.B. The architecture of participation: Does code architecture mitigate free riding in the open source development model? Manag. Sci. 2006, 52, 1116–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gereffi, G.; Humphrey, J.; Sturgeon, T. The governance of global value chains. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 2005, 12, 78–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aksnes, D.W.; Sivertsen, G. Global trends in international research collaboration, 1980–2021. J. Data Inf. Sci. 2023, 8, 26–42. [Google Scholar]
- Arita, M.; Karsch-Mizrachi, I.; Cochrane, G. The international nucleotide sequence database collaboration. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021, 49, D121–D124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, X.W.; Xiao, Y.L.; Yang, X.H. Industrial software innovation breakthrough path and incentive mechanism for domestic replacement. Sci. Technol. Rev. 2023, 41, 34–46. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, L.; Li, P.G.; Huang, P.; Yang, Z.; Gao, J. Development Strategies of Industrial Software for Digital Design. Strateg. Study CAE 2023, 25, 254–262. [Google Scholar]
- Shao, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, C.; Feng, X.; Wang, J.; Xiong, H. Development path of China’s industrial software industry in the new era. Strateg. Study Chin. Acad. Eng. 2022, 24, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H. Research on Collaborative Innovation in Industrial Software Development Based on Tripartite Evolutionary Game Theory. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computer Engineering, Dalian, China, 17–19 November 2023; pp. 811–817. [Google Scholar]
- Haefliger, S.; Von Krogh, G.; Spaeth, S. Code reuse in open source software. Manag. Sci. 2008, 54, 180–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adner, R. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 98. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Carayannis, E.G.; Campbell, D.F.J. ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2009, 46, 201–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jorge, J. Strategic complementarities, geographical agglomeration, and firm investment. Eur. J. Financ. 2023, 29, 135–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kapoor, R.; Furr, N.R. Complementarities and competition: Unpacking the drivers of entrants’ technology choices in the solar photovoltaic industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 2015, 36, 416–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kapoor, R.; Agarwal, S. Sustaining superior performance in business ecosystems: Evidence from application software developers in the iOS and Android smartphone ecosystems. Organ. Sci. 2017, 28, 531–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conaldi, G.; De Vita, R. At the core of innovation: Network reconfiguration during radical and incremental innovation episodes in an open source software project. Int. J. Inf. Decis. Sci. 2011, 3, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods; Sage: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, Y.; Jin, Y.; Ji, Y. Explore an open-source value co-creation framework: A multiple case study. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0310516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schueller, W.; Wachs, J.; Servedio, V.D.P.; Thurner, S.; Loreto, V. Evolving collaboration, dependencies, and use in the rust open source software ecosystem. Sci. Data 2022, 9, 703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenhardt, K.M.; Graebner, M.E. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.; Zhao, X.; Chen, L. A multi-case study of business innovation models for manufacturing capacity sharing platforms, based on a resource orchestration perspective. Eng. Manag. J. 2024, 36, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzky, I.; Baltes, G.H. The Path to Innovation: Exploring the Interplay of Multiple Corporate Entrepreneurship Units. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology, and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), Funchal, Portugal, 24–28 June 2024; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2024; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Massa, L.; Ardito, L.; Petruzzelli, A.M. Brokerage dynamics in technology transfer networks: A multi-case study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 183, 121895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenhardt, K.M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrik, D.; Herzwurm, G. iIoT ecosystem development through boundary resources: A Siemens MindSphere case study. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Software-Intensive Business: Start-Ups, Platforms, and Ecosystems, Tallinn, Estonia, 26 August 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, S.; Alqahtani, F.; Tolba, A.; Lee, I.; Jia, T.; Xia, F. Collaborative team recognition: A core plus extension structure. J. Informetr. 2022, 16, 101346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schermuly, L.; Schreieck, M.; Wiesche, M.; Krcmar, H. Developing an industrial IoT platform–Trade-off between horizontal and vertical approaches. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Siegen, Germany, 24–27 February 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Petrik, D.; Herzwurm, G. Towards an understanding of iIoT ecosystem evolution-MindSphere case study. In Proceedings of the Software Business: 10th International Conference, ICSOB 2019, Jyväskylä, Finland, 18–20 November 2019; Proceedings 10. Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 46–54. [Google Scholar]
- Novikov, S.V.; Sazonov, A.A. Application of the open operating system ‘MindSphere’ in digital transformation of high-tech enterprises. Econ. J. 2019, 1, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrik, D.; Herzwurm, G. Complementor satisfaction with boundary resources in IIoT ecosystems. In Proceedings of the Business Information Systems: 23rd International Conference, BIS 2020, Colorado Springs, CO, USA, 8–10 June 2020; Proceedings 23. Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 351–366. [Google Scholar]
- Suo, L.; Yang, K.; Ji, H. The impact of technological mergers and acquisitions on enterprise innovation: A review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanif, N. Unleashing synergy: Exploring the impact of experiential learning and component technology on integration implementation strategy in cross-border technological acquisitions. Rev. Int. Bus. Strategy 2024, 34, 387–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basana, S.; Malelak, M.; Suprapto, W.; Siagian, H.; Tarigan, Z.J.H. The impact of SCM integration on business performance through information sharing, quality integration and innovation system. Uncertain Supply Chain. Manag. 2024, 12, 435–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, W.H.; Shih, Y.S.; Chu, L.S.; Chen, S.L. Merger and acquisitions integration, implementation as innovative approach toward sustainable competitive advantage: A case analysis from Chinese sports brands. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 869836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Y.; Ma, J. Innovative Research and Development of Strategic Alliance of Core Technologies in The Emerging Technology Supply Chain. Front. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2023, 8, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reznikov, R. The economic impact of cloud technologies on the industry 4.0 development. Econ. Her. Donbas 2023, 4, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, M.; Ahokangas, P.; Pikkarainen, M. Complementors’ coopetition-based business models in multiplatform ecosystems. J. Bus. Models 2023, 11, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vosman, L.; Coenen, T.B.J.; Volker, L.; Visscher, K. Collaboration and innovation beyond project boundaries: Exploring the potential of an ecosystem perspective in the infrastructure sector. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2023, 41, 457–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habib, T.; Kristiansen, J.N.; Rana, M.B.; Ritala, P. Revisiting the role of modular innovation in technological radicalness and architectural change of products: The case of Tesla X and Roomba. Technovation 2020, 98, 102163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Beer, J.; Depew, C. The role of process engineering in the digital transformation. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2021, 154, 107423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceniceros, J.A.R.; Aguilar-Calderón, J.A.; Espinosa, R.; Tripp-Barba, C. The external and data loose coupling for the integration of software units: A systematic mapping study. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2021, 7, e796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feizabadi, J.; Alibakhshi, S. Synergistic effect of cooperation and coordination to enhance the firm’s supply chain adaptability and performance. Benchmarking Int. J. 2022, 29, 136–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Case A | Case B | Case C | Case D | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Basic Information | Siemens (Germany, est. 1847), a global leader in automation, digitalization, and smart manufacturing (Fortune Global 500) | Dassault Systèmes (France, est. 1981), a top industrial software firm specializing in 3D design and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) | General Electric (GE) (USA, est. 1892), one of the world’s largest industrial companies | Schneider Electric (France, est. 1836), a global leader in energy management and automation |
MindSphere (est. 2016), Siemens’ industrial IoT platform | Exalead (est. 2000), a company specializing in enterprise search and big data analytics | Microsoft (est. 1975, USA), one of the world’s most valuable tech companies | AVEVA (est. 1967, UK), a prominent industrial software company | |
Business Model | Siemens provides industrial automation and digitalization solutions, including MindSphere, a cloud-based industrial IoT platform (PaaS). | Dassault Systèmes specializes in 3D modeling, digital twins, and PLM, offering the 3DEXPERIENCE platform for digital solutions. | GE focuses on industrial internet, renewable energy, and smart manufacturing, with Predix, an industrial IoT platform for data analysis and optimization. | Schneider Electric operates in industrial automation and energy management, offering EcoStruxure, an AI-enabled industrial IoT solution for smart manufacturing and digital factories. |
MindSphere as IoT platform | Exalead offers enterprise search, NLP, data analytics | Microsoft offers cloud computing, AI, OS, enterprise software, etc. | AVEVA offers engineering design, digital lifecycle solutions, etc. | |
Technological Innovation Strategy | Siemens focuses on developing an open, scalable industrial IoT platform to address data silos, high maintenance costs, and low production efficiency. | Dassault enhances smart manufacturing and Industry 4.0 through PLM and big data technologies. | GE advances the industrial internet using cloud computing, AI, and big data to optimize energy and manufacturing efficiency. | Schneider Electric promotes smart manufacturing, industrial system intelligence, and sustainability through digital platforms. |
MindSphere enhances data analytics via its open IoT platform. | Exalead improves enterprise data management and search efficiency. | Microsoft builds a smart cloud and edge computing ecosystem. | AVEVA facilitates industrial digital transformation and production efficiency through software solutions. |
No. | Open Source Collaboration | Coreness Characteristics | Complementarity Characteristics |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Single-Core with High Complementarity | Centralized platform governance, dominant actor dictates architecture and standards | High, partners contribute interoperable, non-redundant modules tightly integrated with the platform |
2 | Single-Core with Low Complementarity | Centralized, post-acquisition hierarchy, minimal architectural collaboration | Low, functional integration is narrow and substitutive |
3 | Multi-Core with High Complementarity | Distributed, co-governed between multiple platform owners | High, partners contribute domain-specific, synergistic capabilities |
4 | Multi-Core with Low Complementarity | Decentralized, loosely coordinated governance, independent roadmaps | Low, capabilities are overlapping and loosely coordinated |
No. | Open Source Collaboration | Organizational Characteristics | Innovation Strategy | Technological Impact |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Single-Core with High Complementarity | Platform-centric, centralized governance, modularized contributors | Exploitative innovation, platform optimization and rapid scaling | Strong ecosystem convergence, standardized modular innovation |
2 | Single-Core with Low Complementarity | Hierarchical structure, asymmetric power from acquisition | Substitutive innovation, capability patching via acquisition | Isolated enhancement, low synergy and limited system integration |
3 | Multi-Core with High Complementarity | Balanced authority, distributed platform sovereignty, co-governance | Exploratory innovation, cross-domain co-development and experimentation | Interoperable co-innovation, collaborative technical evolution |
4 | Multi-Core with Low Complementarity | Loose coupling, independent product and governance structures | Market-driven innovation, incremental coordination with minimal integration | Non-systemic output, limited technical spillover, stable coexistence |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chen, X.; Zhou, Y. Open-Source Collaboration and Technological Innovation in the Industrial Software Industry: A Multi-Case Study. Systems 2025, 13, 433. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13060433
Chen X, Zhou Y. Open-Source Collaboration and Technological Innovation in the Industrial Software Industry: A Multi-Case Study. Systems. 2025; 13(6):433. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13060433
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Xiaohong, and Yuan Zhou. 2025. "Open-Source Collaboration and Technological Innovation in the Industrial Software Industry: A Multi-Case Study" Systems 13, no. 6: 433. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13060433
APA StyleChen, X., & Zhou, Y. (2025). Open-Source Collaboration and Technological Innovation in the Industrial Software Industry: A Multi-Case Study. Systems, 13(6), 433. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13060433