value of innovation. Indeed, organizations innovate to generate a difference from their competitors; they seek to increase the number of customers, revenues and economic results. This is how intellectual property comes into play in the subject at hand.
From a legal standpoint, there are several ownership regimes that should not be confused (Binctin 2018). Literary and artistic property (copyright, neighboring rights) exists because of the birth of creation, while industrial property (patents, trademarks and designs) requires formalism. For example, the patent is filed with a recognized institution, such as the INPI in France, the European Patent Office in Europe or the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The function of these regimes is to protect actors who have invested different resources (financial, material, etc.) in the development of innovation. From this perspective, organizations today no longer focus on a single regime, but combine them (Granstrand 1999; Reitzig 2004). Thus, the ability to combine intellectual property rights becomes an issue for them, whether large or small (Le Bas and Szostak 2016). When opportunities arise without the legislator having been able to regulate the terms, organizations exploit contract laws. This is notably the case to circumscribe the intellectual property rights of different contributors who have committed themselves to a collective project for the development of an innovation.
While these appropriation modalities primarily aim at the full capture of economic value, other modalities develop the idea that property rights are not a monolithic whole, but a bundle of rights. According to Schlager and Ostrom (1992), there is the right of access, the right to harvest, the right of management, the right to exclude and the right to alienate. This is the current of “creative commons”, which is similar to the culture of the “free” (Broca and Coriat 2015). Thus, the different rights may be held by different actors, which leads innovation management, to consider the question of appropriating the value of innovation from a different, but complementary, angle. Indeed, free movement does not question intellectual property, since it uses its foundations (Binctin 2015). On the contrary, it poses new challenges for organizations, and also for the regulator, notably on the question of the distribution of rights between actors and on the rules to be retained in this perspective. It could encourage better recognition of the contributions of employees, among others.
In conclusion, the appropriation of innovation remains a subject to be questioned because of the evolution of society from the point of view of the consumer, who is now more creative and has more power over the organization, of the members of the organization whose status is more protean than before, and also of the question of the ownership of this innovation.
2.5. Conclusion
This chapter showed that innovation management is a discipline in constant development, at least according to the three dimensions chosen here, namely, space, time and matter. Inspired by technological and social developments, practitioners and researchers are therefore redoubling their creativity to invent new tools and practices likely to improve the course of the innovation process, hoping for “Eureka” by aiming for the moon.
It should be remembered that there are many key points to understanding innovation management (Fagerberg et al. 2006; Shane 2009; Burger-Helmchen et al. 2016; Shalley et al. 2016; Paulus and Nijstad 2019). Each provides subtle insights into a particular aspect of the complex process of innovation. However, they all share the belief that innovation needs the individual, the team, the organization and the markets to succeed and spread, which is why it is important to continue to consider this in future research on innovation management.
2.6. References
Agogué, M. (2016). Alex F. Osborn : le brainstorming, premier outil de support à la pensée créative. In Les grands auteurs en management de l’innovation et de la créativité, 1st edition, Burger-Helmchen, T., Hussler, C., Cohendet, P. (eds). Editions EMS, Paris.
Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B. (1988a). A quoi tient le succès des innovations ? Gérer et comprendre. Annales des mines, les annales des mines, 4–17.
Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B. (1988b). L’art de l’intéressement : le choix des porte-parole. Gérer et comprendre. Annales des mines, les annales des mines, 14–29.
Amabile, T. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(2), 123–167.
Amezcua, A., Grimes, M., Bradley, S., Wiklund, J. (2013). Organizational sponsorship and founding environments: A contingency view on the survival of business-incubated firms, 1994–2007. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1628–1654.
Antonelli, C. (1997). The economics of path-dependence in industrial organization. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15(6), 643–675.
Audretsch, D. (2007). The Entrepreneurial Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bathelt, H., Cohendet, P., Henn, S., Simon, L. (2017). The Elgar Companion to Innovation and Knowledge Creation. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Northampton, MA.
Belussi, F. and Sedita, S. (2009). Life cycle vs. multiple path dependency in industrial districts. European Planning Studies, 17(4), 505–528.
Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. Harper & Row, New York.
Binctin, N. (2015). Stratégie d’entreprise et propriété intellectuelle. LGDJ, Paris.
Birkinshaw, J., Bouquet, C., Barsoux, J.-L. (2012). The 5 myths of innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(2), 43–50.
Bohas, A., Faure, S., De Vaujany, F.-X. (2017). Tiers-lieux & espaces collaboratifs : laboratoires et révélateurs des nouvelles pratiques de travail. Paper, RGCS (Research Group on Collaborative Spaces).
Boisot, M. and Macmillan, I.C. (2004). Crossing epistemological boundaries: Managerial and entrepreneurial approaches to knowledge management. Long Range Planning, 37(6), 505–524.
Bollinger, S.R. (2020). Creativity and forms of managerial control in innovation processes: Tools, viewpoints and practices. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(2), 214–229.
Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (1991). De la justification : les économies de grandeur. Éditions Gallimard, Paris.
Boschma, R. (2004). Proximité et innovation. Économie rurale, 280(1), 8–24.
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.-C. (1970). Éléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignement. Editions de minuit, Paris.
Briscoe, R. and Ward, M. (2000). The Competitive Advantages of Co-Operatives. Centre for Cooperative Studies, National University of Ireland, Cork.
Broca, S. and Coriat, B. (2015). Le logiciel libre et les communs : deux formes de résistance et d’alternative à l’exclusivisme propriétaire. Revue internationale de droit économique, 29(3), 265–284.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design. How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. HarperCollins, New York.
Burgelman, R. (1993). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223–244.
Burger-Helmchen, T. and Raedersdorf, S. (2018). Pro En Management. Vuibert, Paris.
Burger-Helmchen, T., Hussler, C., Cohendet, P. (2016). Les grands auteurs en management de l’innovation et de la créativité, 1st edition. Editions EMS, Paris.
Camagni, R. (1991). Local “milieu”, uncertainty and innovation networks: Towards a new dynamic theory of economic space. In Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives, Camagni, R. (ed.). Belhaven Press, London.
Capelli, S., Falchi, A., Hussler, C., Sabadie, W. (2016). Co-innover avec ses consommateurs : oui, mais lesquels ? De l’intérêt d’impliquer les consommateurs-membres dans