How Open Innovation Models Might Help the Thai Energy Sector to
Address the Climate Change Challenge?
A Conceptual Framework on an Approach to Measure the Impact of Adoption of
Open Innovation
Ronnakorn Vaiyavuth
Institute for Knowledge and Innovation, Bangkok University, Rama 4, Bangkok, Thailand
Keywords: Open Innovation, Climate Change, Energy Sector, External Knowledge.
Abstract: Climate change has increasingly impacted businesses both on their growths and a risk of sustainability. The
energy sector has been the main contributor of carbon emissions to the atmosphere, accounting for 66.5
percent of total world emissions (Herzog, 2009). As a consequence, the energy sector will be a focus of
international scrutiny and strategy of emission reduction. With the recent controversial concerns in global
warming issue, various mitigation and adaptation technologies, measures, and strategies, have been
undergoing proposed and implemented since the early 2000s. Such activities require a usage of both internal
and external knowledge in developing those innovations to be launched consistently and successfully.
Several researchers have identified that relying on closed innovation system to create innovation is
insufficient and no longer sustainable for a knowledge intensive sector in particular. The open innovation
model, proposed by Henry Chesbrough in 2003, has been frequently applied to offer a more effective
approach in generating innovation by using internal and external knowledge. There is, however, a lack of in-
depth research carrying on the issue of how one could efficiently implement open innovation to address the
certain challenge, especially in energy sector which are now encountering the challenge of climate change.
The purpose of this research is to develop an open innovation model that can assist in adopting open
innovation process in Thai energy sector with a view to combating with climate change concern. The study
also aim to assess the impact of the integration of open innovation approaches within Thai energy sector
through its appreciation level of the related stakeholder with a view to suggest policy implications for
energy sector in contesting with a controversial climate change concern in the future. While this research
focuses on energy sector in Thailand, its findings should be relevant for other countries that are in the
process of combating with climate change concern.
1 INTRODUCTION
Climate change has increasingly impacted
businesses both on their growths and a risk of
sustainability. The energy sector has been the main
contributor of carbon emissions to the atmosphere,
accounting for 66.5 percent of total world emissions
as shown below in figure 1 (Herzog, 2009). As a
consequence, the energy sector will be a focus of
international scrutiny and strategy of emission
reduction. Petroleum businesses including oil & gas,
and petrochemical industries, which have a signature
of intense energy consumption and therefore high
carbon emissions are obligated to efficiently manage
energy use and to challenge themselves for new
approaches of carbon emission reduction.
Figure 1: World Greenhouse Gas emissions in 2005.
With the recent controversial concerns in global
warming issue, various mitigation and adaptation
technologies, measures, and strategies, have been
229
Vaiyavuth R..
How Open Innovation Models Might Help the Thai Energy Sector to Address the Climate Change Challenge? - A Conceptual Framework on an
Approach to Measure the Impact of Adoption of Open Innovation.
DOI: 10.5220/0004170102290234
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2012), pages 229-234
ISBN: 978-989-8565-31-0
Copyright
c
2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
undergoing proposed and implemented since the
early 2000s. These processes have been applied at
both organisation and national contexts, with a core
objective of improving their environmental
performance as well as sustaining the social well-
being. Such activities require a usage of both
internal and external knowledge in developing those
innovations to be launched consistently and
successfully. Several researchers have identified that
relying on closed innovation system to create
innovation is insufficient and no longer sustainable
for a knowledge intensive sector in particular, for
instance food, pharmaceutical, software,
biotechnology, telecommunication, and energy
sectors (Bianchi et al., 2010); (Giarratana and Luzzi,
2009);( Hakkim and Heidrick, 2008); (Huang,
2011); (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2009);
(Lööf and Heshmati, 2006); (Sarkar and Costa,
2008). The open innovation model, proposed by
Henry Chesbrough in 2003, has been frequently
applied to offer a more effective approach in
generating innovation by using internal and external
knowledge. Open innovation is the use of purposive
inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate
internal innovation, and expand the markets for
external use of innovation, respectively (H.
Chesbrough, 2003, 2006b).
There is, however, a lack of in-depth research
carrying on the issue of how one could efficiently
implement open innovation to address the certain
challenge, especially in energy sector which are now
encountering the challenge of climate change.
The purpose of this research is to develop an
open innovation model that can assist in adopting
open innovation process in Thai energy sector with a
view to combating with climate change concern. The
study also aim to assess the impact of the integration
of open innovation approaches within Thai energy
sector through its appreciation level of the related
stakeholder with a view to suggest policy
implications for energy sector in contesting with a
controversial climate change concern in the future.
This impact of open innovation will be examined
through qualitative (multi-case study and
comparative) analyses. The multi-case study
analysis is applied firstly to review the energy
industry in term of environmental aspect and the
current adoption of open innovation. The interview
approach will be carried out with a view to identify
past open innovation activities and past innovation
models as well as the future direction of the
organization related to climate change strategy. An
impact of open innovation will be assessed using a
structured interview approach with a view to
examine the extent of the appreciation level of
related stakeholder in open innovation activities in
energy sector. The comparative analysis will be then
conducted with a view to identify the appropriate
open innovation activities from other selected
countries that has yet to be implemented in Thailand.
The findings, juxtaposed with the results from the
previous methodologies, will be consolidated to
develop a Knowledge Management implication for
Thai energy sector in order to help in implementing
open innovation practices in the future. Lastly, the
roadmap that will help implementing open
innovation in Thai energy sector will be provided.
While this research focuses on energy sector in
Thailand, its findings should be relevant for other
countries that are in the process of combating with
climate change concern.
2 SCIENTIFIC POSITION
The core research question for this research is “How
Open Innovation models might help the Thai Energy
Sector to address the climate change challenge?”.
This research will develop around the core discipline
of “Management and especially Management of
innovation”. Another discipline will be also applied
in this research in order to assist in answering such
question, namely, “Change management”. This is
because the expected outcome of this research is
also to address the challenge of implementing
“efficiently” open innovation in public sector. In
order to answer this research question, three sub-
questions will be investigated as
1. What is the existing innovation approach applied
in public sector and in the Thai energy sector?
2. Which open innovation initiatives are currently
adopted by the energy sector in other countries? And
how transferable are these practices?
3. What kind of open innovation practices or model
is adapted to the Thai situation?
3 LITERATURE REVIEWS
The conceptual framework of open innovation has
been widely applied in both macro and micro levels
with a view to overcome a limitation of closed
innovation system (Almirall and Casadesus-
Masanell, 2010); (Barge-Gil, 2010); (Chesbrough,
2006a; 2011). It has been demonstrated through
various studies in several sectors that open
innovation can accelerate the process of creating
KMIS2012-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
230
innovation through a better managing of the inflow
and outflow knowledge (Chesbrough, 2010);
(Dahlander et al., 2008); (Dreyfuss, 2011);
(Giarratana and Luzzi, 2009); (Hakkim and
Heidrick, 2008); (Harison and Koski, 2010);
(Huang, 2011); (Lichtenthaler, 2009). This research
is therefore initially developed around the benefit of
adopting open innovation as well as the approach to
gain knowledge from both private and public
initiatives.
The emission from energy sector is the dominant
anthropogenic emission that gradually emerged to a
larger concern in global warming issue (Houghton et
al., 2002). In Thailand, for example, emission from
energy sector accounted for approximately 70 per
cent of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the
year 2000 (ONEP, 2010). The climate change
concern has been firstly captured by researchers in
the mid 1980s. This resulted in the establishing of
several international entities, for instance
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC)
in 1988 (IPCC, 2010) and United Nations
Framework convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) in 1990 (UNFCCC, 2007).
The rationale behind these establishments is to
bring together researchers and think-tanks in both
public and private bodies with a view to develop and
propose an appropriate mitigation plan as well as an
acceptable international agreement to ensure that all
countries have been fairly contributed in combating
recent global warming issue. While, a global climate
change agreement has yet to be finalized, a certain
direction that likely to be occurred is that all
countries have to reduce their GHG emission in
order to keep the increasing global temperature
under an average of 2c or less in 2050 (EG Science,
2008; Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave, & Meyer,
2007). To achieve this commitment, GHG emission
emitted from developed country is expected to
decrease by 30% by 2020 and by 85% by 2050
relative to 1990 (EG Science, 2008). Due to the
requirement in adjusting its economic structure – as
a result of globalisation and manufacturing bloom -
developing country emissions are expected to
increase up to 2020 with following a dramatically
reduction to the same level in 1990 (EG Science,
2008). This demonstrates that there will be a
substantial reduction of GHG emission not only in
developed countries but also for the developing
countries in the future, including Thailand. This
pressure will be inevitably passed through energy
sector as it is a main contributor of the country GHG
emission. Using the benefits of open innovation, it
can be therefore assumed that adapting open
innovation into the routine operational approach
might assist Thailand energy sector in responding
with this incoming pressure.
The recent literatures on open innovation
emphasis four main research streams, namely
Technology transaction, user innovation, business
model, and innovation markets (Lichtenthaler,
2011). Lichtenthaler (2011) has proposed the
conceptual framework for open innovation that
emphasis three level of managing knowledge as
knowledge exploration, knowledge exploitation, and
knowledge retention at internal and external contexts
to capture those research streams as shown in figure
2 below.
Figure 2: Open innovation conceptual framework.
Various researchers emphasis that open
innovation can contribute to the better approach of
achieving organizational goals. However, to
appreciate the actual benefit of the adoption of open
innovation, an in-detph analysis of the open
innovation model is required. The biggest part of
open innovation initiatives deal with knowledge
generation, problem solving, collective development
and etc. There is a lack of in-depth research
regarding the assessment of the impact of the
adoption of open innovation initiatives especially in
public or former large public entity that has been
reformed (ie. privatisation, restructuring, and
regulatory reform). This research, therefore,
attempts to investigate this issue by applying the
conceptual framework developed by Lichtenthaler
(2011) as a core framework to analyse the
organisational approach in adopting open innovation
and its appreciation level.
Based on the need of the nation that require to
generate less GHG emission in the future to reduce a
global warming problems, green innovation
technology is required to be either incrementally and
radically innovated (Bartlett & Trifilova, 2010).
Open innovation can be one of the key approaches in
assisting all related entities to create a green
innovation technology as well as sustain its
development process in the future.
Even though, the researches carrying out the
issue of energy sector and climate change have been
constantly emphasising since the late 1980s, the
Knowledge
exploration
Knowledge
retention
Knowledge
exploitation
Internal
Organisational
level
Inventive capacity
Transformative
capacity
Innovative capacity
Project level Make decision Integrate decision Keep decision
Individual level
Not-invented-here
attitude
Not-connected-
here attitude
Not-sold-here attitude
External
Organisational
level
Absorptive capacity
Connective
capacity
Desorptive capacity
Project level Buy decision Relate decision Sell decision
Individual level Buy-in attitude Relate-out attitude Sell-out attitude
HowOpenInnovationModelsMightHelptheThaiEnergySectortoAddresstheClimateChangeChallenge?-A
ConceptualFrameworkonanApproachtoMeasuretheImpactofAdoptionofOpenInnovation
231
conceptual framework of open innovation has just
been recently introduced in 2003. Therefore, there is
a lack of literature in the area of the relationship
between open innovation and energy sector,
especially in climate change aspect. Arnold (2009)
proposed that open innovation methods can help in
combating climate change. The study developed
around several open innovation methods, for
instance dialogues, idea contest, focus group,
communities, and intermediary agencies. This study
highlights the strengths and weaknesses of such
methods to combat climate change using a case
study method on 13 mainly German-based
companies. The findings illustrate that open
innovation methods can help in combating climate
change. However, it depends on methods as well as
applicability conditions which have yet to be studied
in detail (Arnold, 2009).
Hakkim (2008) attempted to analyse the process
in developing a technological innovation method
within energy sector using open innovation concept.
A case-study method was applied in analysing the
usage of open innovation in the Canadian research
agencies. It was found that integrating an open
innovation through a collaborative research and
development (R&D) among participants has played
a key role in the success of tested energy project in
Turkey (Hakkim and Heidrick, 2008). Goduscheit et
al. (2011) applied similar approach to analyse the
open innovation model in the large energy project in
Denmark. Despite the successful of the project as a
result of applying open innovation, the study
identified two key barriers in the adoption of open
innovation, namely the ability to understand and the
willingness to employ the open innovation
approaches (Goduscheit et al., 2011). The results
from both studies have strengthened the benefit of
adopting open innovation in the habitual operation
and strategy. This aligns with several studies that
attempted to validate the benefit of open innovation
in other industries (Bianchi et al., 2010); (Cainelli et
al., 2006); (Chesbrough, 2010); (Van der Meer,
2007).
It can be found that previous open innovation
literatures attempted to identify the superiority of
open innovation regardless the extent of its actual
impact and the applicability conditions. Therefore,
in order to overcome such shortfall, this research
attempts to propose a measurement framework as
well as factors that make up a measurement for
effectiveness of open innovation by using energy
sector as a core case study in the climate change
perspective. While this research emphasises public
sector, especially in energy sector in Thailand, its
findings should be relevant for other countries that
are in the process of combating with climate change
concern. The findings can also be applicable to
measure the appreciation level of the adoption of
open innovation on public sectors in other industries.
4 PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
In order to answer the research questions, three main
research methods will be adopted namely a multiple
case study methodology, systematic comparative
analysis (SCA), and focused or semi-structured
interview approach. The overall research framework
is shown in figure 3 below
Figure 3: The proposed overall research framework.
In the first phase, the research will, firstly, adopt
a multi case study method (Yin, 2003). This phase
will consist of three main activities. Initially,
literature review on the matter of open innovation
practices both in private and public sectors will be
conducted in order to appreciate what kind of open
innovation models are transferable as well as why
and how are their efficiencies given the respective
objectives. The review will include the literature in
the context of change management with a view to
identify the pattern of change in public sector which
leads to the success implementation of open
innovation. Moreover, another purpose of this
activity is to develop theoretical framework which
integrate open innovation and change management
together to guide developing the next step. Secondly,
a list of questions developing from the main issues
and theoretical frameworks from the previous step
will be designed to be used for the following
structured interviews and observations. Lastly in the
first phrase, structured interviews and observations
KMIS2012-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
232
will be conducted on selected personnel related with
Thai energy sector as well as other selected
countries as a best practice with a view to investigate
current status of practices and to identify
characteristics of the adoption of open innovation in
public and private sector that related to energy
industry as well as the approaches that were
developed to facilitate the change in organization as
the result of adopting these initiatives.
The systematic comparative analysis will be
introduced in the second phase with a view to
examine the applicability of international open
innovation approaches – identified from the previous
phrase – to Thailand energy sector. The systematic
comparative analysis will be conducted emphasising
three core variables, namely open innovation
variable (eg. objective, model of open innovation,
method of implementation, applicability, technical
transaction, stakeholder, market and characteristic of
the sector, knowledge variable (eg. type of required
knowledge and resources), change variable (eg.
culture of public agencies, organisational design).
An impact of adoption the selected open
innovation approaches on Thai energy sector will be
measured through an appreciation level using
focused or semi-structured interview approach in the
third phase. In order to measure an appreciation
level of stakeholders as an impact of the adoption of
open innovation which is difficult to be
straightforward, a flexible, accessible and intelligible
and, capable of disclosing important and often
hidden facets of human and organizational behavior
type of interview is required. The focused or semi-
structured interview approach can overcome such
difficulties occurred in structured interview
approach (Qu and Dumay, 2011). Kvale and
Brinkmann (2009) also concluded that the focused
interview approach is the most effective and
convenient means of gathering information as it
allows interviewer to adjust the questioning style
according to the response of interviewee and be able
to evoke the fullest responses from the interviewees
as well as providing interviewees to be able to share
their information generously. The outcomes from
this stage will be consolidated to develop an open
innovation model to be applied in Thai energy sector
for combating climate change challenges.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
WORK
It has been proven through various studies that open
innovation can somehow assist organisation to
increase the number of innovations as well as
accelerate the process of generating innovation
through the utilisation of both internal and external
knowledge. There is, however, a lack of in-depth
research carrying on the issue of how one could
efficiently implement open innovation to address the
certain challenge. In this study, the conceptual
framework is proposed with a view to overcome that
shortfalls by using Thai energy sector and the
current climate change challenge as a case study.
The proposed conceptual framework will be tested
through the abovementioned steps including
obeservation and interviewing approaches. The
expected outcomes will be the open innovation
model as well as related policy implication that will
be initiatived with a view to enhance the benefits
and accelerate the adoption of open innovation
model in Thai energy sector.
Several changes are expected to be engaged in all
industries, especially in the emission intensive
industries due to the current concerns in world
sustainabile development. It is inevitable that the
new technology, mitigation and adaptation options
are required to be generated continuously in
response to those changes. Open innovation is a very
promising model, and should be seriously
considered at both an organizational, as well as
national, level. However, understanding the impacts
of using it and how to implementing it efficiently
should be the next task for any organization thinking
about adopting it in the future.
REFERENCES
Almirall, E. & Casadesus-Masanell, R., 2010. Open
Versus Closed Innovation: A Model of Discovery and
Divergence. Academy of Management Review, 35, 27-
47.
Arnold, M., 2009. Combating Climate Change" Can open
innovation methods help? GIN 2009 - Joint Actions on
Climate Change. Denmark.
Barge-Gil, A., 2010. Open, Semi-Open and Closed
Innovators: Towards an Explanation of Degree of
Openness. Industry and Innovation, 17, 577-607.
Bartlett, D. A. & Trifilova, A., 2010. Green Technology
and eco-innovation. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology, 21, 910-929.
Bianchi, M., Campodall'orto, S., Frattini, F. & Vercesi, P.,
2010. Enabling open innovation in small- and
medium-sized enterprises: how to find alternative
applications for your technologies. R&D Management,
40, 414-431.
Cainelli, G., Evangelista, R. A. & Savona, M., 2006.
Innovation and economic performance in services: a
HowOpenInnovationModelsMightHelptheThaiEnergySectortoAddresstheClimateChangeChallenge?-A
ConceptualFrameworkonanApproachtoMeasuretheImpactofAdoptionofOpenInnovation
233
firm-level analysis. Cambridge Journal of Economics
30, 435-458.
Chesbrough, H., 2003. Open Innovation: The New
Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology, Boston, Massachusetts, Harvard
Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H., 2006a. Open Business Models: How to
thrive in the new innovation, Boston, Massachusetts,
Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H., 2006b. Open innovation: a new paradigm
for understanding industrial innovation. In:
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. A. & West, J.
(eds.) Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H., 2010. How Smaller Companies Can
Benefit form Open Innovation. Economy, Culture &
History Japan Spotlight, 29, 13-15.
Chesbrough, H., 2011. Open Service Innovation:
Rethinking your business to grow and complete in a
new era, San Franciso, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Dahlander, L., Frederiksen, L. & Rullani, F., 2008. Online
Communities and Open Innovation. Industry and
Innovation, 15, 115-123.
Dreyfuss, R. C., 2011. Evaluating the Public Impact of
Open Innovation. Australian Economic Review, 44,
66-72.
EG Science 2008. The 2°C target: Background on
Impacts, Emission Pathways, Mitigation Options and
Costs. EU Climate Change Expert Group (EG
Science).
Giarratana, M. S. & Luzzi, A., 2009. Open Innovation
Model and Open Source Software: The Sources Of
Increasing Returns. Academy of Management Annual
Meeting Proceedings, 1-6.
Goduscheit, R. C., Jorgensen, J. H. & Bergenholz, C.,
2011. Open innovation models in the energy sector: A
case study of playing poker with chess pieces.
Denmark: Centre for Organizational Renewal And
Evolution (Core).
Hakkim, R. P. & Heidrick, T. R., Year. Open innovation
in the Energy sector. In: Portland International
conference on Management of Engineering &
Technology (PICMET) 2008 27-31 July 2008 2008
Cape town, South africa 565 - 571
Harison, E. & Koski, H., 2010. Applying open innovation
in business strategies: Evidence from Finnish software
firms. Research Policy, 39, 351-359.
Herzog, T., 2009. World Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
2005. Washington DC: World Resources Institute
(WRI).
Hitchcock, G. & Hughes, D., 1989. Research and the
Teacher: A Qualitative Introduction to School-based
Research, London, Routledge.
Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van
der Linden, P. J., A. & Dai, X., 2002. Climate Change
2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working
Group 1 to the Third Assessment report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.,
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Huang, H.-C. 2011. Technological innovation capability
creation potential of open innovation: a cross-level
analysis in the biotechnology industry. Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, 23, 49-63.
IPCC. 2010. Understanding Climate Change: 22 years of
IPCC assessment. available: http://www.ipcc.ch/
organization/organization_history.shtml#.T3wbevDoJ
Lc [Accessed 04 April 2012].
Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. 2009. Inter Views: Learning
the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, Los
Angeles, CA., Sage.
Lichtenthaler, U. 2009. Outbound open innovation and its
effect on firm performance: examining environmental
influences. R&D Management, 39, 317-330.
Lichtenthaler, U. 2011. Open Innovation: Past Research,
Current Debates, and Future Directions. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 25, 75-93.
Lichtenthaler, U. & Lichtenthaler, E. 2009. A Capability-
Based Framework for Open Innovation:
Complementing Absorptive Capacity. Journal of
Management Studies, 46, 1315-1338.
Lööf, H. & Heshmati, A. 2006. On the relationship
between innovation and performance: A sensitivity
analysis. Economics of Innovation and New
Technology, 15, 317-344.
Metz, B., Davidson, O., Bosch, P., Dave, R. A. & Meyer,
L. 2007. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA., Cambridge
University Press.
ONEP 2010. Thailand National Communication.
Bangkok, Thailand: Office of Natural Resources and
Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP).
Qu, S., Q. & Dumay, J. 2011. The qualitative research
interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting &
Management, 8, 238-264.
Sarkar, S. A. & Costa, A. I. A. 2008. Dynamics of open
innovation in the food industry. Trend in Food Science
& Technology, 19, 574-580.
UNFCCC. 2007. Issues in the negotiating process: a brief
history of the climate change process. Available:
http://unfccc.int/cop7/issues/briefhistory.html.
van der Meer, H. 2007. Open innovation - the Dutch treat:
Challenges in thinkings in business models. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 16, 192-202.
Yin, R. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and methods,
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
KMIS2012-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
234
