2026-09-19T14:25:18Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/requestoai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/728772022-01-13T07:54:52Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131023
Scott Stern.
Bouygues, Léonard
Sloan School of Management.
Sloan School of Management
2012-09-13T18:58:43Z
2012-09-13T18:58:43Z
2012
2012
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/72877
808376092
Thesis (S.M.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, 2012.
Cataloged from PDF version of thesis.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 69-73).
Open innovation was defined by Chesbrough (2003) as a development process that allows ideas to flow through the boundaries of the firm. However, while open innovation has been the focus of extensive research and discussions since its definition by Chesbrough in 2003, no consensus has been reached on a single meaning of the term. Starting from a publication by Rosenberg (2009) that defines openness at Google as the combination of open technology and open information, this paper draws on works and discussions on open innovation to assess Google's openness. While openness is often considered as a binary measure and a single dimension, it needs to be defined as a multi-dimensional concept measured on continuous scales. In this respect, Google's openness significantly varies depending on products and dimensions of openness. For instance, while Google is open with respect to promoting open-source and open standards, the company does not open source the majority of its products. While Google's selective openness has received heavy criticisms, we conclude that openness should be recognized as a strategy that allows the firm to generate profits, rather than serve altruistic goals.
by Léonard Bouygues.
S.M.
79 p.
eng
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
M.I.T. theses are protected by
copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but
reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written
permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
Sloan School of Management.
Openness at Google : perspectives from theory and practice
Thesis
application/pdf
false
Publication
unknown
unknown
<Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="5c5e4cf0-b11d-4d6e-af5c-0bc02dd62405">
<Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type>
<Language>eng</Language>
<Title>Openness at Google : perspectives from theory and practice</Title>
<PublishedIn>
<Publication>
</Publication>
</PublishedIn>
<PublicationDate>2012</PublicationDate>
<Authors>
<Author>
<DisplayName>Bouygues, Léonard</DisplayName>
<Affiliation>
<OrgUnit>
</OrgUnit>
</Affiliation>
</Author>
</Authors>
<Editors>
</Editors>
<Publishers>
<Publisher>
<DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName>
<OrgUnit />
</Publisher>
</Publishers>
<License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License>
<Keyword>Sloan School of Management.</Keyword>
<Abstract>Open innovation was defined by Chesbrough (2003) as a development process that allows ideas to flow through the boundaries of the firm. However, while open innovation has been the focus of extensive research and discussions since its definition by Chesbrough in 2003, no consensus has been reached on a single meaning of the term. Starting from a publication by Rosenberg (2009) that defines openness at Google as the combination of open technology and open information, this paper draws on works and discussions on open innovation to assess Google's openness. While openness is often considered as a binary measure and a single dimension, it needs to be defined as a multi-dimensional concept measured on continuous scales. In this respect, Google's openness significantly varies depending on products and dimensions of openness. For instance, while Google is open with respect to promoting open-source and open standards, the company does not open source the majority of its products. While Google's selective openness has received heavy criticisms, we conclude that openness should be recognized as a strategy that allows the firm to generate profits, rather than serve altruistic goals.</Abstract>
<Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right"
>
</Access>
</Publication>