Thèse S'Organiser pour Innover une Nouvelle Approche pour Orchestrer les Paradoxes de l'Innovation Ouverte à Travers les Grands Évènements Professionnels H/F - Doctorat.Gouv.Fr

Établissement : Université Paris-Saclay GS Economie & Management École doctorale : Droit, Economie, Management Laboratoire de recherche : RITM - Réseaux Innovation Territoires et Mondialisation Direction de la thèse : Pascal CORBEL ORCID 0000000299261651 Début de la thèse : 2026-10-01 Date limite de candidature : 2026-05-11T23:59:59 Le paysage de l'innovation en santé évolue rapidement vers des réseaux d'innovation ouverte décentralisés. Toutefois, cette transformation introduit le « paradoxe de l'ouverture », une tension critique entre le partage des connaissances en vue de la co-création de valeur et leur protection en vue de l'appropriation de cette valeur. Dans le Système Sectoriel d'Innovation (SSI) fortement régulé du secteur de la santé, les individus confrontés à ces tensions mobilisent fréquemment des mécanismes de défense destructeurs, conduisant à une fragmentation de l'écosystème et à des échecs collaboratifs.

Pour répondre à cette problématique, cette recherche examine le rôle des événements configurateurs de champ (Field-Configuring Events, FCEs) en tant que dispositifs spatio-temporels capables d'orchestrer ces frictions collaboratives. Ancrée dans l'approche de la Design Science Research (DSR), cette étude mobilise simultanément des questionnaires validés, des entretiens semi-directifs et une observation participante structurée lors de multiples événements, suivis de l'application de la méthode Delphi floue (Fuzzy Delphi Method, FDM) et de tests pilotes du « modèle d'innovation médiée par l'événement ».

En définitive, cette recherche propose aux orchestrateurs d'écosystèmes des stratégies permettant de gérer de manière sécurisée les flux de connaissances inter-organisationnels, de surmonter l'anxiété liée à l'innovation au niveau individuel et de soutenir une innovation durable dans le domaine de la santé. The healthcare innovation landscape is shifting from vertically integrated R&D toward decentralized, collaborative Open Innovation (OI) networks, a framework where organizations intentionally harness cross-boundary knowledge flows (Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014; Chesbrough, 2003). To understand the structural dynamics of this highly regulated environment, the Sectoral Systems of Innovation (SSI) framework is utilized, emphasizing that innovation is shaped by specific knowledge bases, actors, networks, and institutional rules (Malerba, 2002, 2005). While every industry is unique in how its specific actor networks and institutional rules shape its SSI, the healthcare ecosystem was selected for this study because its highly regulated nature and intense sharing-protecting tensions amplify the paradox of openness.

However, the imperative to collaborate across boundaries introduces the 'Paradox of Openness' the inherent tension between sharing knowledge for collaborative value creation and protecting it for value appropriation (Bahemia et al., 2018a; Laursen & Salter, 2014). Within the healthcare SSI, collaboration among 'core inside innovators' (such as university research hospitals and pharmaceutical incumbents), 'peripheral inside innovators' (including clinicians and nursing staff), and 'external innovators' (such as health-tech startups and regulatory bodies) is no longer merely an optional strategy but a structural imperative for survival and growth (Neyer et al., 2014; Secundo et al., 2018). Yet, this collaborative imperative introduces profound strategic tensions that threaten to undermine the very innovation it seeks to foster.

Individuals navigating these sharing-protecting tensions often experience affective tolls, leading to the destructive and defensive withholding of information (Foege et al., 2019; Stefan et al., 2022). This proposal investigates the role of Field-Configuring Events (FCEs), temporary social organizations like major industry trade shows and conferences (Lampel & Meyer, 2005), as potential spatial and temporal environments where these tensions are navigated, negotiated, and potentially altered to foster innovation (Schüßler et al., 2015).

Despite the growing literature on healthcare innovation, significant research gaps remain. As highlighted in The Oxford Handbook of Open Innovation (2024), ecosystem research has not focused extensively on the directionality of knowledge flows, nor has it adequately investigated how member organizations internally manage the process of combining external, ecosystem knowledge (West & Olk, 2024). This proposal explicitly addresses this gap by grounding post-event mechanisms in Absorptive Capacity Theory (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) and Knowledge Integration Theory (Grant, 1996)to accurately model the internal integration of external knowledge.

Furthermore, the role of specific innovation intermediaries and temporary hubs, such as field-configuring events, has been largely neglected in the healthcare innovation ecosystem literature (Losová & Dvouletý, 2024). The fragmentation of the healthcare innovation ecosystem frequently causes new, information-driven technologies to fail in practice because ecosystem members lack the incentives to collaborate, leading to collective ecosystem failure. To truly transform the healthcare collaborative experience, researchers and health leaders must leverage paradox science to drive forward actionable, evidence-based innovation agendas. This research directly addresses these gaps by proposing a validated intervention artifact. This research aims to provides a critical examination of the intersection between macro-level innovation systems and micro-level knowledge flews.

4.1.1. It could expand the structurally focused view of SSI by embedding the micro-foundations of knowledge sharing and individual agency. The study explicitly addresses the structural tensions between the norms of open science, which prioritize rapid, broad dissemination of basic knowledge, and the proprietary requirements of open innovation aimed at commercial value capture (Perkmann & Schildt, 2015). By formally integrating the 'Paradox of Openness,' this research aims to map how sector-wide regulatory bottlenecks precipitate individual-level responses, such as knowledge withholding.

4.1.2. The study can affect FCE theory from a descriptive sociological construct into a functional mechanism for knowledge integration. By analyzing FCEs as episodic interventions, the research identifies how temporary spatial compression can orchestrate the paradoxes of agency, organizational norms, and intellectual property risks that typically hinder research utilization. This extends FCE theory by observing events not just as networking hubs, but as critical instruments for testing and stabilizing inter-organizational cognitive frames (Schüßler et al., 2015).

4.1.3. The application of DSR aims to introduce a rigorous scientific protocol to organizational studies. While traditional quality improvement models frequently focus on localized problem identification, this DSR approach extends to systematic artifact creation and generalization of design knowledge generation. By utilizing the Fuzzy Delphi Method coupled with pilot testing, the study ensures that proposed socio-technical interventions are both theoretically sound and practically viable prior to full-scale organizational implementation.

4.2. Practical Implications for Healthcare Ecosystems

Practically, this study is going to address the pervasive ecosystem fragmentation that frequently

causes information-driven healthcare technologies to fail in routine practice. The research moves beyond theoretical observation to provide functional guidelines for managing cross-boundary knowledge flows.

4.2.1. Ecosystem Orchestration: Suggest a validated intervention artifact provides orchestrators with objective, data-driven strategies to structure FCEs. This transitions event management from purely logistical coordination to active knowledge brokering, ensuring that complementary knowledge stocks are identified and integrated efficiently, thereby reducing biases associated with 'local search' paradigms (West & Olk, 2024).

4.2.2. Neutralizing the 'Dark Side' of Innovation: Acknowledging the severe psychological and economic tolls of the openness paradox, the model provides orchestrators with actionable parameters to establish psychological safety. By clarifying intellectual property boundaries in situ, the intervention directly neutralizes the collaborative anxiety and defensive behaviors of individual researchers and clinicians (Foege et al., 2019; Stefan et al., 2022).

4.2.3. Sustaining Post-Event Integration: The collaborative value generated during temporary FCEs decays rapidly without structural reinforcement. The validated model will define explicit embedding strategies, anchored in Absorptive Capacity Theory, to transition episodic event collaborations into permanent clinical and organizational workflows, ensuring sustained ecosystem transformation. This study employs a multi-phase, mixed-methods approach grounded in the Design Science Research framework.

Methodological Conviction: The conviction for using DSR is that it moves beyond passive observation; its primary intention is to produce functional knowledge to assist in solving real-time organizational issues by developing and validating prescriptive, inventive artifacts (Hevner et al., 2004; March & Smith, 1995). DSR is particularly beneficial for healthcare contexts, where resource constraints demand solutions that address highly complex socio-technical challenges.

The methodology utilizes a cross-sectional, multi-event comparative design. Data collection will target 3 to 5 major, distinct healthcare FCEs per year (e.g., SantExpo in Paris, The French Healthcare Business Forum and MEDICA in Düsseldorf). Because attempting to survey participants weeks before an event presents significant feasibility risks regarding data access and non-response, all primary data collection (surveys, interviews, and observation) is merged into an intensive, in-situ 'During-Event' phase.

3.1. Phase 1: Phase 1: In-Situ Assessment & Ethnography (During-Event)

Theoretical Lens: SSI, Paradox of Openness, Social Network Theory, & Relational View, & Behavioral Strategy.

Addressed Questions: SRQ 1, SRQ 2, SRQ 3 & H1, H2, H3.

3.1.1. Semi-structured Interviews & Questionnaires: Conducted directly on the trade show floor, this phase captures both baseline metrics and real-time dynamics.

The researcher will administer psychometrically validated questionnaires to attendees and exhibitors on-site. To ensure rigorous operationalization, structural factors will be measured using Social Network Theory indicators (e.g., network density, centrality). Collaborative value creation will be operationalized through the Relational View (Dyer & Singh, 1998), measuring joint capability generation. To address measurement consistency and construct validity, the Questionnaires will explicitly adapt previously validated psychometric scales (Foege et al., 2019) to quantify individual affective states and bottlenecks. Subsequently, Semi-structured Interviews utilizing purposive sampling will explore the narrative mechanisms and defensive strategies individuals plan to deploy.

3.1.2. Participant Observation: To capture real-time relational dynamics within the temporal and spatial compression of the event, trained ethnographers will conduct an immersive study. While participant observation is exceptional for studying in situ social dynamics (Fairley & Tyler, 2012; Jorgensen, 1989), it inherently carries feasibility risks regarding standardization. To mitigate this, the observation will be strictly combined with an interaction coding framework based on discourse analysis. Engagement behaviors will be operationalized using the micro-foundations of behavioral strategy to ensure variables are reliably measurable.

Expected Output: An empirically derived, operationalized mapping of network structures, retrospective psychological bottlenecks, and a systematically coded taxonomy of observed engagement behaviors.

3.2. Phase 2: Prescriptive Validation (Post-Event)

Theoretical Lens: FCE Theory & Behavioral Strategy (Micro-foundations).

Addressed Questions: SRQ 4, H4.

Fuzzy Delphi Method (Expert Panel) & Case-Based Validation Testing: The transformation logic into the final artifact is explicitly defined using Hevner's design logic guidelines (Hevner et al., 2004), establishing a clear mapping from empirical inputs (Phase 1 bottlenecks and Phase 1 coded behaviors) to formalized design principles, and finally to the complete artifact. To integrate the Open Innovation theory gaps regarding how organizations internally manage external knowledge (West & Olk, 2024), the post-event embedding strategies are anchored directly in Absorptive Capacity Theory (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) and Knowledge Integration Theory (Grant, 1996).

A panel of experts will evaluate the draft Intervention Model using the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM), which systematically quantifies expert consensus by converting linguistic assessments into triangular fuzzy numbers (Murray et al., 1985). To determine consensus, the Vertex distance

formula is applied to calculate the threshold value :

Elements will only be retained if they meet a threshold value of and achieve an expert consensus percentage exceeding 75%. Crucially, to address the over-reliance on FDM, which validates theoretical consensus rather than real-world effectiveness, the final phase incorporates case-based pilot testing of the approved model within a selected healthcare consortium to ensure empirical viability.

Expected Output: A mathematically validated and pilot-tested Intervention Model defining post-event embedding and integration strategies.

Sujet réservé pour Fariba Vahedi