At the present stage of the world economic development, countries face the deepening of globalisation processes and strengthening of the interdependence of economies. The events of recent years, which — in one way or another — have affected a significant number of countries around the world, especially the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, as well as the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine, have generated new challenges for international partnerships. Today, it is extremely important to find mechanisms of adaptation of the national economy to global shocks. This article attempts to highlight the main levers of the mechanism of such adaptation of the country by strengthening its investment attractiveness as one of the main factors of economic growth through international partnerships. Ensuring the investment attractiveness is a scientific and applied task, the solution of which will help to increase the capital and the intensity of innovations.

The full-scale war in Ukraine, which began on Feb. 24, 2022, caused a significant shock to the economic and social spheres of the country, the consequences of which will have prolonged manifestations. Restoration of the resource balance and implementation of the strategy of functioning under the conditions of war in Ukraine currently presuppose extensive partnership relations with many countries of the world. The main current focus of attention, as well as of the financial and material flows, is the defence-industrial complex of Ukraine. However, it is strategically important to maintain and increase the capacity of those sectors of the economy that can continue developing even in martial law.

The most promising investment sites in Ukraine are the agro-industrial complex and the information technology (IT) industry. At the same time, the economic and intellectual potential of Ukraine provides a basis for further search for ways to increase the country’s investment attractiveness given the available and potentially available resources.

The case of Ukraine is quite complex for scientific substantiation, as it covers political, social, economic, environmental, scientific, technical and other aspects of cooperation with European countries and the United States in conditions of a full-scale war. Therefore, within the framework of this study, it is expedient to identify key means of strengthening the country’s investment attractiveness for postwar recovery.

Thus, the purpose of the research is to develop the scientific provisions for increasing the investment attractiveness of countries under the new market conditions from the point of view of the resource-based approach. Researchers have developed a methodological basis for assessing the level of investment attractiveness, which — in combination with the relevant developments of international organisations — provides the scientific basis for identifying reserves for improving the investment climate of a country. At the same time, the problems involved in increasing the level of investment attractiveness of countries considering the available, limited and potentially available resources remain to be solved.

For Ukraine, it is extremely important to study the issue of increasing investment attractiveness under conditions of military conflict on the basis of postwar developments. It is important to determine the direction of intensification of the country’s innovation activity as one of the key stimulators of the inflow of financial resources. Thus, the definition of strategic priorities of Ukraine and possible centres of innovative development is the key to rapid recovery after the resolution of the military conflict.

The Concept of Investment

Attractiveness The essence of the term 'investment’ is that it is an acquisition of fixed assets, intangible assets, corporate rights and securities in exchange for funds or property. Attracting investment reduces the depreciation of fixed assets (in Ukraine, it averages 65%) and, therefore, worth in the coming years to promote investment inflows to achieve higher levels of economic development (Tolstov & Tsybulskyi, 2014; Hrytsaienko & Hrytsaienko, 2017).

The issue of ensuring the investment attractiveness of economic systems is well developed and highlighted in the scientific literature. The multifaceted concept of 'investment attractiveness’ got conceptual identification through a number of scientific approaches. The problems of ensuring the investment attractiveness of a country have been discussed in the scientific articles of Birnleitner (2014), Horna, Ishchuk and Khalilova (2017), Tocar (2018), Furdychko and Pikhotska (2018), Churuta (2018), Usov (2018), Vydobora (2018) and others. In these works, the researchers define the essence of the concept of 'investment attractiveness’, identify stimulants and barriers of this characteristic at the micro and macro levels, as well as propose tools for improving the investment climate of a country, in particular by achieving and maintaining human capital, intellectual capital and the macroeconomic potential.

It should be noted that since the concept under study is complex and multifaceted, differences in understanding its content, which can be traced to the works of different authors, are justified. Thus, depending on those factors of investment attractiveness that are considered key, the authors emphasise the various system-building components and the importance of investment attractiveness as an analytical category. Analysis of the scientific sources gives an opportunity to summarise the main approaches to explain the essence of the investment attractiveness concept. Within these approaches (Table 1), emphasis is placed on one or another key component of investment attractiveness or on the role of this characteristic of a country for the possibility of its economic growth.

According to a general view in accordance with Rzaev and Vakulova (2016), the investment attractiveness of a country is a set of political, legal, economic and social conditions (factors, elements) that provide and promote the investment activities of domestic and foreign investors and, accordingly, determine the degree of investment risk. In addition, investment attractiveness is a generalised characteristic of a set of social, economic, organisational, legal, political and sociocultural prerequisites that determine the attractiveness of the state for investment and is the basis for the investment climate.

Dobrova and Sydorenko (2018) explain the essence of this concept as various political, economic, legal, institutional, socioeconomic and environmental factors and conditions that determine the behaviour of current and potential investment entities to invest in the development of the region and ensure the stability of investment activities of domestic and foreign investors. The mentioned definitions are the most general and reflect the diversity of investment attractiveness of the country, its variability and subordination to various external and internal factors. Among such factors, economic and political ones play an important role, as they affect the institutional stability of the region (country) and, consequently, determine the level of risk of a potential investment project.

Development of mechanisms to increase the level of investment attractiveness of the country by any of the approaches presented in Table 1 may be based on the following types of pre-assessment: self-assessment, independent evaluation, or a combination of these two species. Further formulations of the authors are based on the fact that the priority type of assessment of the country’s investment climate is external (independent), which considers the opinion of the direct object of potential investment — business in the country (represented by directors and/or business owners). Among the world’s methods of assessing the country’s investment attractiveness are the most common ratings: Institutional Investor, Euromoney, Business Environment Risk Intelligence (BERI), Moody’s Investor Service, Transparency International, World Bank’s Investment Climate Survey (ICS) and others. The concept of 'investment attractiveness’ is meaningfully related to such concepts as 'investment climate’, 'investment risk’, 'investment activity’ and 'investment image’. Usov (2018) summarises the dependence of definitions and the relevant processes using the logical and structural scheme and comes to the reasonable conclusion that (a) an investment climate of a region is not a set of the investment climates of industries; and (b) the investment climate of industries is not a set of the investment climate of enterprise-participants.

The identity of the concepts of 'investment attractiveness’ and 'investment image’ found in the scientific literature, for example in the paper by ?huruta (2018, p. 73), which, in our opinion, is not quite correct, deserves special mention. Investment image characterises the reputation of the country and its investment history, i.e. a set of successful investment projects. Instead, a territory that does not have a significant investment history, but that may be characterised by the emergence of favourable conditions to meet the interests of potential investors who make decisions, may be attractive. Within this study, the scientific substantiation of the main categories is based on the resource-based approach mentioned in Table 1, according to which the investment attractiveness is equated with the constraints and opportunities that determine the level of the investment development of a country.

There are opportunities to use the available scarce resources, as well as the ability to create competitive advantages through the effective realisation of opportunities, which in turn determines the main macroeconomic indicators of the country and its economic potential. Moreover, in this context, the intellectual potential of the country, which determines the level of its innovation activity, and hence the ability to attract foreign capital for the implementation of innovative developments, is of great importance. The main difficulties in performing an analysis of the country’s competitiveness reserves from the perspective of a potential investor are the following:

• availability of different approaches for defining the concept of a country’s investment attractiveness;
• the possibility of applying different assessment methods depending on the approach chosen;
• a large number of indicators used in the evaluation process are qualitative indicators that are difficult to quantify.

Overcoming these obstacles can be seen in the following steps: to clarify the essence of the concept of investment attractiveness of the country in the chosen approach; to summarise the criteria for investing in an attractive country; to justify the factors that increase the investment attractiveness of the country.

Factors Determining the Investment Attractiveness of Ukraine

In the scientific literature, there is a large list of factors that determine a country’s investment attractiveness. It is common to divide such factors into hard and soft ones (for example Husarova, 2017; Vasil’ev & Ivanchenco, 2016). The influence of hard factors cannot be avoided or changed in the short term. This group includes geographical location, availability of natural resources, innovation potential, quality of labour force and market conditions. As a rule, such factors are subject to quantitative measurement, and the relevant data are reflected in official statistical databases.

Soft factors are affected, and their effects can be changed in a short period of time. The negative effect of such factors may be manifested in additional barriers to investment. The definition of such factors is subjectivism, as it is often a matter of perception of the economic environment by potential investors. Expert methods are used, in particular, for quantitative evaluation. Soft factors include business climate, efficiency of state bodies, level of corruption, tax pressure, successful experience in implementing investment projects and trust in the government.

Following the methodology of the 2020 Global Foreign Investment Country Attractiveness index (GFICA index; the developer of the methodology is Prof. Riadh Ben Jelili), there are several groups of factors that determine the ability of a country to attract investment into its internal markets, namely:

• macroeconomic, financial and governmental factors;
• market potential, resources and the infrastructure;
• differentiation and agglomeration economic effects.

The total number of different factors considered in 2020 is >50. According to the last GFICA ranking, the top 10 countries and outsider countries are as follows (Table 2).

As shown in Table 2, the USA, Switzerland, Chad and Central African Republic do not show changes in their positions during the period of 2015–2020. The USA, as the leader, may be considered as the country that has a pattern of the most attractive country for foreign direct investment (FDI). This means that this country is the best by such FDI determinants as gross domestic product (GDP) Growth Volatility, Average Inflation Rate, Political Stability, Absence of Violence, Trade and Transport Infrastructure and many other factors. Of course, the decision of a particular investor to invest depends not only on the rankings of the country but mainly on the ability to predict the value and the behaviour of the object of investment (the relevant business). Moreover, analysis of the location of the most innovative companies makes it easy to conclude the reason for the attractiveness of the USA. Among the most innovative companies, according to FastCompany (2021), are Moderna, Inc. (biotechnology; USA), Pfizer-BioNTech (biotechnology; USA), SpaceX (aerospace, manufacturing, space travel and transportation; USA) and others.

As can be seen from Table 2, Ukraine’s position hardly changes. A more detailed analysis of the formation of factors of investment attractiveness of this country, given the escalation of the military-economic conflict of 2014–2022, which may affect the ability to attract investment on the basis of resource economy, i.e. in material production, mining, agriculture and other areas of the national economy, is worth investigation.

In summary, in the scientific literature, there is a common quantitative approach for determining the factors of investment attractiveness, which involves the allocation of areas and indicators to be quantified and on the basis of which it is possible to perform economic modelling.

For instance, Konakova (2017, pp. 38–39) identifies a number of factors that contribute to attracting investment to the national economy of Ukraine. Among the aggregated factors are economic development, development of small business and trade, provision of resources, institutional environment, research potential, staffing, healthcare potential, education potential, income and expenditure of the population. Yelnikov? (2020), studying the attractiveness of the regions of Ukraine, identifies three vectors of their development, within which the relevant factors are determined, namely economic, managerial and environmental. An integrated assessment is performed using quantitative indicators in the article (Yelnikov?, 2020, p. 66).

Horna et al. (2017, pp.146–147) present the results of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis of Ukraine in order to identify incentives and barriers to investment inflows. The study also highlights the regression model of the dependence of investment attractiveness of the country on economic, political, legal and sociocultural factors. Among the factors included in the model, the most important is the level of prosperity and human progress. The authors emphasise that increase in military events reduces the value of the investment index of Ukraine.

It should be emphasised that Ukraine is characterised by special processes of innovative development, which — in our opinion — is one of the main factors of investment attractiveness. The study conducted at the National Technical University of Ukraine 'Kyiv Polytechnic Institute’ (Kukharuk, Skorobogatova & Pyshnograiev, 2017) shows that in Scandinavian and Asian countries, the relationships between the level of macroeconomic infrastructure, the degree of economic freedom and innovation activity are direct and tight; in Western Europe, the impact of the economic freedom on the innovation activity is reasonably low, and the influence of the macroeconomic infrastructure is significant. The article describes the specific relationships of these mentioned indicators in a group of post-socialistic states, according to which, Bulgaria and Ukraine differ significantly from Poland and the remainder of the total sample, as the economic conditions of these countries and their innovation activity are in inverse dependence. In other words, according to the study, the deteriorating economic situation in Ukraine may act as a booster of innovative ideas.

The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has approved an action plan for 2021–2023 to implement the Strategy for the Development of Innovation for the period up to 2030. According to this document, the main barriers of the innovation development of Ukraine are as follows:

• imperfection of institutions, including the political, regulatory and business environment;
• underdeveloped infrastructure, including innovation, as the percentage of gross capital formation as a percentage of the GDP, environmental sustainability, accessibility and quality of e-Government (the use of information and communication technologies [ICT] combined with organisational change and the application of new skills) remain low in public administration for the implementation of public services and democratic processes).

According to the action plan determined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine within the framework of the implementation of this strategy, a number of measures were to be taken in the first quarter of 2022. Unfortunately, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has hindered the fulfilment of the set tasks.

Official statistics on the volume of investment flows in Ukraine for the past 20 years are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 shows that the negative dynamics fall on the years of escalation of the military-political conflict in eastern Ukraine, as well as in March 2020, which was the beginning of severe quarantine restrictions in connection with the global COVID-19 pandemic. Forecasting investment levels using mathematical tools will provide results with significant deviation. The first reason for this is the heterogeneous dataset [the squared coefficient of variation is 0.72, with a permissible error of 0.33 according to Yerina and Paliian (2010)]. The second reason for the difficulty in forecasting is that much of Ukraine is a zone of active hostilities (eastern and southern regions), which gives grounds to argue about the unfavourable investment climate not only in these regions but also in other regions of Ukraine in terms of the resource-based approach. At the same time, the development of a mechanism to intensify investment in Ukraine may involve the selection of an innovation vector of development and attraction of financial resources through the financing of project activities in Ukraine. This statement is based on the key issue of the postwar recovery of Ukraine, namely: the necessity to create new urban infrastructure, new energy and industry, adaptive state institutions, a progressive education system, etc., instead of rebuilding the old infrastructure and public administration system.

Innovation Vector as a Determinant of Postwar Recovery of Ukraine

Implementation of an innovation model for economic growth is a promising tool for the strategic management of Ukraine’s competitiveness. Financing and implementation of innovation projects enables developed countries to gain significant economic effects, including those from the commercialisation of innovations. The issue of innovative development of Ukraine as a factor of its competitiveness is an urgent scientific and applied task. In particular, the innovation strategy of Ukraine provides for implementation of the following measures (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2019):

• creation of a favourable regulatory framework for business entities engaged in innovation activities;
• development of innovation infrastructure, methodological and consulting support, as well as expansion of ties of domestic scientists and inventors with foreign enterprises;
• increasing the capacity level, which is realised through both cultural and educational activities, increasing innovation culture and through educational activities aimed at ensuring successful careers of young people after graduation in higher education in one of the following selected areas: starting own business, working in an enterprise that meets the modern technological level or scientific (teaching) work.

At the same time, in addition to the war, there are systemic obstacles in the country, which are considered by scientists. Exploring the problems and paradoxes of innovation in Ukraine, Fedulova (2020) emphasises that the powerful innovation potential of the state is not realised in Ukraine but works in the economies of other countries (an example is the IT industry with about 200,000 specialists involved and revenues of $5 billion per year, providing an opportunity to develop innovative products, which is unfortunately being implemented outside Ukraine).

Despite a number of obstacles to supporting the innovation model, Ukraine is also characterised by initiatives to develop innovation activity. Special attention should be paid to the Association of Industrial Automation (created in 2011, with totally 54 members), whose mission is to develop Ukraine as a high-tech state and an equal participant in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The Association works as a non-government and non-profit organisation uniting legal entities (Table 4)

Universities play an important role in the chain of knowledge sharing and innovation. Although representatives of the Association have repeatedly stressed the availability of reserves to increase the innovative activity of universities, Ukraine is currently implementing international partnership projects, active work on which continues despite the COVID-19 pandemic and war. An example of such an activity is an international project CPEA-LT-2017/10047 'NTNU-KPI Collaboration within Industry 4.0 Education’.

The overall objective of this project is to offer attractive education within the Sustainable Manufacturing concept through the exchange of knowledge between the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) and the National Technical University of Ukraine 'Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute’ (KPI). This is done by strengthening the existing cooperation between the institutions and establishing new contacts among both staff and students. The project started through sharing information and experience on improvement of already existing courses and programmes in manufacturing topics related to Industry 4.0. The cooperation seeks to develop modern teaching methods (learning factories and simulation) and a programme to achieve better gender balance for staff and students in technical studies. NTNU collaborates with

SINTEF — one of Europe’s largest independent research organisations — to enable interaction with industry and may further leverage cooperation with the NCE Raufoss 'Kvinnearena’ programme on female role models, seminars and targeted promotion. The introduction of learning factories will change how technology, processes and (operations) management is taught and will open up new possibilities for groundbreaking research.

Another promising research field is the Science for Peace and Security (North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]-funded) programme, with the following topics: (a) Defence against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) agents; and (b) environmental security. Fundraising for long-term projects in a protracted war is especially important in order to provide employment for scientists and to develop ideas that will contribute to the post-crisis recovery of the country.

Conclusions

Summing up the research material, it is possible to conclude that under conditions of crisis, uncertainty and especially war (as in the case of Ukraine), the old models of economic development need to be revised. Occupation of areas rich in resources and potentially attractive for investment makes it impossible to develop a resource-oriented approach to enhancing the competitiveness of a country. Summarising the analysis of scientific literature, ratings, materials of independent organisations, as well as examples of activity that has not been significantly suppressed by economic and social shocks (pandemic, aggression by another state), we highlight the following determinants of Ukraine’s investment attractiveness:

1. Increasing the level of transparency of economic development processes and further integration into the European Community on a partnership basis.

2. Adherence to the principles of the innovative model of economic development, which should promote investment in international partnership projects in priority areas of scientific and technical development.

3. Transition from a resource-oriented economy to a human-oriented and idea-oriented economy, in which innovation is a key lever of the mechanism.

4. Development of a network of participants to promote the ideas of the Industry 4.0 movement to share experiences, generate solutions, harmonise the legal field of intellectualisation and automation of the production of key industrial goods.

5. Strengthening the applied component of education in Ukraine by intensifying the participation of universities in international grant programmes, which will provide an opportunity to train a new generation of professionals using advanced learning technologies for innovation.

From the point of view of the resource-based approach to the identification of reserves to increase the level of investment attractiveness of Ukraine, it is advisable to specify 'opportunities’, among which are the cooperation between youth and business, increasing the number of scientists, standardising the market structure and innovation activity. The promising field for further research is the development of the scientific statement regarding the assessment of the level of the investment attractiveness of different countries according to the specifics of their functioning.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their respect and gratitude to the governments of European countries, in particular the Republic of Poland, for their significant efforts and support of Ukrainian citizens in difficult times for Ukraine. Opportunities for academic mobility for scientists and their involvement in international research will contribute to the accumulation of innovative potential for postwar reconstruction of the state.

The authors thank the Association of Industrial Automation of Ukraine for educational work regarding Industry 4.0 processes and challenges and for help in developing innovative projects by facilitating the cooperation of youth, government and business.

The authors thank the partner organisation within the CPEA-LT2017/10047 'NTNU-KPI Collaboration within Industry 4.0 Education’ project — Norwegian University of Science and Technology — for the efficient collaboration and support.

References

1. Birnleitner, H. (2014). Attractiveness of countries for foreign direct investments from the macro-economic perspective. Proceedings of FIKUSZ ’14 Symposium for Young Researchers, pp. 29–40. Budapest, Hungary.

2. Bulkot, O. (2020). Method of analysis of international attractiveness of the investment environment of the country. Black Sea Economic Studies, 54, 16–22.

3. Chaika, K. (2019). Comparative analysis of the representativeness of foreign investment ratings. Problems and Prospects of Economics and Management, 4(20), 105–110 .

4. Churuta, I. (2018). Investment ratings and their impact on investment country image. Herald of Economics, 3, 70–78.

5. Crawford, V. (2019). 7 ways business can be agents for peace. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/7-ways-business-can-be-agentsfor-peace/.

6. Dlihach, A. (2022). Ukraine of the future — A view from 2030. Ukrainian Pravda, 2022, March 24. Retrieved from https://www.epravda.com.ua/columns/2022/03/24/684560/

7. Dobrova, N., & Sydorenko, O. (2018). Investment attractiveness of Ukrainian regions as a fundamental for sustainable economic development of the country. Scientific Bulletin of Odessa National Economic University, 5(257), 51–66.

8. Dulles, E. (1942). War and investment opportunities: An historical analysis. The American Economic Review, 32(1), Part 2, Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Fifty-fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (1942, March), 112–128, Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1815102.

9. Edelsten, S. (2022). Investing in a time of war. Financial Times, 2022, March 2. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/8962af33-1a6e-476d-b53d-904626dc9de3

10. Ernst, U. (2002). Investment and competitiveness: A strategic management perspective for Ukraine. OECD-Ukraine Forum. Ukraine: Kyiv, 2002, February 21–22, 9. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/investment/investmentfordevelopment/1833042.pdf

11. Evaluation Approaches. Mechanism of Economic Regulation, 4, 119–128. Retrieved from https://mer.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/content/acticles/issue_43/Oleksii_V_Lyulyov_Bogdan_A_ MoskalenkoAssessment_of_Country_Investment_Attractiveness_Evaluation_Approach es.pdf

12. FastCompany (2021). The world’s most innovative companies. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/90603436/the-worlds-most-innovative-companies-2021

13. Fedulova, L. (2020). Ukrainian innovative development: problems and paradoxes. University Economic Bulletin, 44, 42–49.

14. Fernández, A., Schmitt-Grohé, S., & Uribe, M. (2016). World shocks, world prices, and business cycles: an empirical investigation. USA: National Bureau of Economic Research (28p). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22833/ w22833.pdf.

15. Furdychko, L., & Pikhotska, O. (2018). Adverse influence of investment climate on investment attractiveness of Ukraine. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 3(26), 281–291.

16. Geleverya, Y. M., & Serhiienko, Y. I. (2020). The investment attractiveness of regions as the basis of the country’s sustainable development. Business Inform, 4, 112–117.

17. Global Foreign Direct Investment Country Attractiveness Index 2020. Retrieved from http://www.fdiattractiveness.com/ranking-2020/.

18. Horna, M., Ishchuk, & Khalilova, T. (2017). Conditions and factors of formation of investment attractiveness of the countries of Eastern Europe. International Economic Policy, 2(27), 137–155. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/197266227.pdf.

19. Hrytsaienko, H., & Hrytsaienko, M. (2017). Investment attractiveness of Ukraine. Agricultural and Resource Economics, 3(1), 80–93.

20. Husarova, M. (2017). The impact of „hard” and „soft” factors of competitiveness in the investment attractiveness of the country. Economic bulletin of Zaporizhzhia State Engineering Academy, 1–2(7), 47–50.

21. Khaietska, O. (2020). Ways to increase the international investment attractiveness of Ukraine. Economics, Finance, Management: Current Issues of Science and Practice, 3, 114–130.

22. Konakova, E. (2017). Factors of influence on investment attractiveness of Ukraine. Problems and Prospects of Economics and Management, 4(12), 34–41.

23. Kukharuk, A., Skorobogatova, N., & Pyshnograiev, I. (2017). Identifying the relationships between the level of countries’ economic development and innovation activity. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 301–314.

24. Kuzmenko, O., & Kasaeva, J. (2019). Research into the role of information technologies in ensuring the investment attractiveness and socio-economic development of the country. Investments: Practice and Experience, 16, 5–15.

25. Lyulyov, O., & Moskalenko, B. (2019). Assessment of country investment attractiveness evaluation approaches. Mechanism of Economic Regulation, 4, 119–128.

26. Maslak O., & Talover, V. (2016). Complex assessment of country’s investment attractiveness. Economic Forum, 3, 51–59.

27. Minfin Media (2022). Foreign direct investment (FDI) in Ukraine. Retrieved from https://index.minfin.com.ua/ua/economy/fdi/

28. Moore, R. (2021). Emerging from war: Public policy and patterns of foreign direct investment recovery in postwar environments. Journal of International Business Policy, 4, 455–475. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/s42214-02000084-4.pdf

29. Provolotska, O., Voloshina, S., & Hura, O. (2018). The place of Ukraine in world rankings as an indicator of its investment attractiveness. Problems of the Economy, 1(35), 108–114.

30. Rzaev, G. I., & Vakulova, V. O. (2016). Methods of assessing investment attractiveness at country level and prospects for their use in economic analysis. Bulletin of Khmelnytsky National University, 3(1), 137–143.

31. Shemaeva, L. (2019). Development of public-private partnership in measuring Ukraine’s indicators in global rankings. Problems of the Economy, 2, 81–88. Retrieved from https://www.problecon.com/export_pdf/problems-of-economy-2019-2_0-pages-81_88.pdf.

32. Strategy of development of the sphere of innovation activity for the period up to 2030. Document 526–2019-p. Adoption on July 10, 2019. Ukraine: Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/526-2019- %D1%80#n12.

33. Tarabukina, O. (2010). Investment attractiveness of the territory as a motivating factor of investment activity. Investments: Practice and Experience, 12, 8–11.

34. Tocar, S. (2018). Determinants of foreign direct investment: a review. Review of Economic & Business Studies, 11(1), 165–196.

35. Tolstov, V., & Tsybulskyi, L. (2014). Approaches to assessing the attractiveness of countries and regions for investment formation and business climate. Scientific and Technical Information, 3, 13–19.

36. Usov, M. (2018). The essence of investment attractiveness, as a way of attracting investment resources. Efektyvna ekonomika, 8. Retrieved from http://www.economy. nayka.com.ua/pdf/8_2018/153.pdf.

37. Vasil’ev, S., & Ivanchenco, N. (2016). Factors and directions of improvement of investment attractiveness of agricultural production. Investments: Practice and Experience, 9, 46–49.

38. Voitko, S., & Shatkovsky, A. V. (2013). Indicative approach to assessing investment attractiveness of countries: The sphere of renewable energy. Business Inform, 7, 141–148.

39. Vydobora, V. (2018). Ways of improving investment attractiveness of Ukraine in conditions of socio-economic uncertainty. Scientific Bulletin [Odessa National Economic University], 2, 57–66.

40. Yelnikov?, Yu. (2020). Ranking of the Ukraine regions by the level of responsible investments attractiveness. Investments: Practice and Experience, 17–18, 63–68.

41. Yemets, O., & Voloshynovych, Kh. (2016). The investment attractiveness of regions under economic globalization. Eastern Europe: Economy, Business and Management, 4(4), 132–137.

42. Yerina, A., & Paliian, Z. (2010). Statistics (351 p). Kyiv, Ukraine: KNEU.

Innovation in organizations has become a challenge for modern economies and a condition for keeping up with changes in the environment and shaping these changes in societies, social groups, and individuals. A broad understanding of innovation is to see beyond the achievements of researchers, experts, science, and technology. Innovation also includes the contributions from customers who are the ultimate users of goods and services. Thanks to their knowledge, skills, experiences, different points of view, and needs, they become active participants in the innovation process.

Indeed, companies have recently begun to understand that the customers’ intellectual capital can be a strategic set of intangible assets that influence competitive advantage (Rossi, Magni, 2017).

Creating innovation from the customer’s perspective is a way to invest in customers and to increase their value for the company (DobiegałaKorona 2010). The benefits for both parties depend on the innovation model. Models presented in the literature differ based on the customer’s participation in the innovation process. Some models are based only on customer opinions („voice of the customer”), and other models are based on the customers’ active participation. The authors indicate what motivates customers to participate in the co-creation of value and the requirements for increasing the effectiveness of these forms of cooperation. Further, we suggest the directions of changes that would help increase the chances of achieving the company’s desired effects (see also Mierzejewska, 2008; Wojnicka, 2011; Baran, Ostrowska, Pander, 2012; Busse, Siebert, 2018).

Using an agent-based approach, Ohori and Takahashi (2007) have created a model for analyzing innovation generated by the leading users.
The conducted simulations showed that companies could effectively manage innovations with the leading users’ participation if only they change their strategy by focusing on innovation communities.

Empirical studies conducted among Polish enterprises on user-created innovation indicate the limitations and benefits of applying such a concept in business practice. This can help researchers develop theories concerning other open innovation forms (Szopik-Depczyńska, 2018). An important direction of this research is related to the factors that hinder customers from submitting their ideas (Chepurna, Criado, 2018; Balaji, Roy, 2017; Gummesson, Mele, 2010), as the ability to overcome these barriers determines the level of activity and involvement of users in the innovation process.

The purpose of the article is to present factors affecting the process of co-creation of value with the participation of customers, with particular emphasis on open innovation. Further, this article indicates companycustomer cooperation conditions and the positive and negative effects of the demand-driven approach to innovation.

Rationale and principles of the demand-side approach to innovation based on user participation

The mechanism of open innovation is based on the idea of the free flow of knowledge, ideas, and technologies essential for creating innovation. Engaging the company’s stakeholders, especially customers, affects innovation policy changes and the company’s business model. The development of open innovation brings evident benefits to the company.

Those benefits are recognized not only by technology start-ups but also by companies from other industries. However, achieving these benefits requires appropriate management of the innovation process, reformulation of its objectives, principles, and instruments.
First of all, it is crucial to identify customers ready to cooperate with the company and determine the terms and conditions of this cooperation. However, the question arises: how do we identify such customers? Based on observations of behavior and relations with customers, the following groups are the most susceptible to cooperation with the company in generating innovation:

• Loyal customers of the brand, interested in its development and willing to cooperate with the company and the brand
• Demanding, active customers who expect personalization of the offer, its adaptation to individual expectations
• Influencers whose susceptibility to cooperation with a company is motivated by the desire to influence other users of the product, e.g., followers
• Institutional customers interested in cooperation with a company as it allows them to achieve mutual business benefits

The forms of stimulating involvement in creating innovations depend on the type of customers, and especially on whether they are individual or institutional customers.

There are several principles of a demand-driven approach to innovation that is based on user participation. Based on the literature review and the experience from the project „U — Drive: IT — User-Driven Innovation Transfer From ICT to Other Sectors, conducted within the Nordic Innovation Center, we emphasize that in the era of network intelligence, we state that the following principles are particularly crucial:

a) Sharing knowledge — getting ideas from users
b) Cooperating with the participants in the process of creating innovations
c) Openness to ideas, opinions, and comments of other participants of the innovation process
d) Using experience — the design process should be powered by applying previous experience, improving the existing solutions, and
implementing new ideas. Simulations are also necessary, e.g., using 3D visualizations or simulation computer games
e) Interdependence — acknowledging mutual relations between
participants of the innovation process
f) Honesty — transferring transparent information, opinions, results obtained at particular stages of the innovation process
g) Contextualisation — participatory design depends on the specific context in which it takes place. Participants (users, inventors, or producers) in the innovation process have different objectives and motivations which need to be recognized for the benefit of the process improvement
h) Iteration — active participation of users in the innovation process is revealed in generating ideas and creating prototypes that users evaluate. The proper improvement of the prototype and its iteration affects the desired final result (Tapscott, Williams, 2011, p. 32, Nordic Report, 2010, p. 21).

According to H.Chesbrough, who first pointed to Open Innovation as a concept of using internal and external ideas in creating innovation, it is cocreated by the following elements:

1. Network.
2. Collaboration involving partners, competitors, universities, and users.
3. Corporate entrepreneurship, especially through corporate ventures, start-ups, and spin-offs.
4. Proactive management of intellectual property: buying and selling intellectual property and thus creating technology markets.
5. Research and development (R&D) to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace (Chesbrough, 2003).

Table 1 shows three models of customer involvement in the innovation process depending on whether the customers are merely a source of information, whether they co-create the innovation in collaboration with the company, or, finally, whether a customer is an innovator who owns their intellectual property.

There is no doubt that electronic communication is crucial in creating innovation. The interactive nature of such communication encourages users to interact with the company and with other users. They become more active and strive to take advantage of the opportunities. By proposing new products, customers express themselves and their needs and aspirations. ICT-based solutions help create platforms through which users can submit their ideas for a new product and evaluate other products. On the other hand, the company can get acquainted with them and choose the most promising idea.

In summary, the development of demand-side innovation requires stimulating the customers’ interest and willingness to cooperate with the company and creating the conditions for such cooperation. It brings benefits to both the company and the customer, which is translated into benefits for the economy and society.

Forms of consumer activity in open innovation

The forms of stimulating involvement in creating innovations depend on the type of customer and methods of obtaining ideas and creative solutions. Suppose the company uses only one-way communication (e.g., through ideas submitted on Internet forums or under models based on mass customization or task-based models). In that case, the complexity of such a process is low (Sopinska, 2013). More complex solutions include twoway communication, in which a company uses participation platforms and models based on the open-source. In such a case, the partnership with users who have access to software tools and databases expands their creative opportunities. The effects of these more complex solutions depend on the proper preparation of project assumptions, access to software tools and databases, and users’ competence in creating new solutions. Managersexperts of crowdsourcing are critical in this process, as they evaluate submitted ideas, identify high-quality ideas, and incorporate them into the internal research and development process (Liu, Zhao, Sun, 2018).

There are many examples of companies implementing successfully open-source innovation programs. They include P&G, IBM,
InnoCentive, Unilever, Mars, SAP, Kellogg’s, Mondelez International (Kraft Foods), Vodafone. Achieving success requires developing
a strategy of action and effective forms of cooperation to create new value. It is also necessary to use a specific platform for the realization of this cooperation. Among such platforms are platforms based on the design and exchange of ideas, platforms for creative co-creation of products, corporate initiatives — product ideas, corporate initiativesbranding and design, partner production and PiP, public crowdsourcing (Szopik-Depczyńska, 2018, p. 105).

A good example is the Bright Idea platform which gathers thousands of ideas that allow solving complex problems that R&D departments of the largest corporations such as Cisco, GE, MasterCard cannot cope with.

Kaggle platform, on the other hand, offers access to the computing power of thousands of data analysts, which generates more agility than any artificial intelligence (Malinowski, 2018). ICT-based innovations are important in studying the demand-side approach to innovation because they are based on the cooperation between a supplier and customer in all stages of product creation and sales.

Von Hippel (2015) indicated that the trend towards democratization of innovation is growing through software and information products.
However, recently, also other products and services such as surgical equipment, surfboards, and software security have become important in this process. Such trend is enforced by so-called „leading users” who are often ahead of market trends. They propose innovative and attractive solutions to users, which translates into the company’s success.

Table 2 presents the primary forms of implementing open innovation, indicating objectives, challenges, and situations in which they are applied.

Competitions as a form of creating innovations with customer participation

The most popular and effective form used in open innovation models is competitions. Competitions allow expanding the experimentation scope by soliciting proposals for multiple solutions from external participants (amateurs or specialists). This is especially important when the problem is complex or novel.

The broad development of crowdsourcing platforms facilitates individual users’ creative potential to generate new product, organizational, and marketing solutions.

As shown in Table 2, running an open innovation competition involves significant management challenges. First of all, it is necessary to formulate the problem regardless of company-specific qualities and present it to be entirely understandable for many external partners interested in participating in the competition. This may require breaking it down into many sub-problems or even different competitions.

The contest’s assumptions and structure should stimulate customers to participate by bringing solutions that the organization can implement. Moreover, promoting the contest is very important, including a clear presentation of the evaluation rules of solutions, expected prizes, or other forms of recognition for the participants.

The company should also define the contractual terms of participation, including the platform’s use, to ensure proper intellectual property protection. An excellent way to do this is to use prior agreements to respect copyrights and conforming behavior to the rules and the brief.

It is also necessary to pay attention to the need to use various forms of support for participants, i.e., dispelling their doubts, answering their questions, e.g., by conducting chats during the project and the possibility to contact the crowd manager responsible for coordinating the contest (Milewski, 2015).

Companies can use various online platforms designed to run contests for customers and other external entities. Currently, platforms such as TopCoder, Kaggle, and InnoCentive provide services for crowd contests. Those platforms facilitate participants’ engagement in such contests and streamline acquiring ideas in the co-creation of innovations. They also enable to process of payments, secure data, and transfer of intellectual property rights worldwide (Boudreau and Lakhani, 2013).

A good example of a software platform used in the open innovation model is CRM-Salesforce’s „Ideas,” where users submit their suggestions, which other customers comment on, allowing further idea analysis and evaluation. This platform is used by Starbucks and DELL, among others, and has been successfully used to improve those companies’ products and other offers.

Customers are the leading creators and evaluators of ideas, which the organization’s teams further implement. Starbucks managers found that the process of innovation’s creation requires an understanding of incentives that drive people who participate in creating ideas. It turns out that satisfaction and pride in participating in co-design can be an important motivator for customers cooperating with the brand (Starbucks, 2020). Such a trend is confirmed by the Lakhani and Wolf’s (2003) study conducted on a sample of 684 programmers. Their study showed that the main motivating factors for participating in open-source software projects come from the user’s intrinsic needs, the desire for intellectual stimulation associated with writing code, and improving programming skills (Lakhani and Wolf, 2003 ).

The role of collaborative communities

In the era of network intelligence, an important role in stimulating customer involvement in generating innovation is played by Online Communities created by people interested in a particular idea, brand, or activity type. The high rate of interaction between members of such communities increases their effectiveness in creating new solutions.

As a result, many social platforms now offer projects tailored to the community’s life, stimulating engagement in the creation of ideas for new products. Examples of such inspirations include Unilever’s sustainability products under the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan or the self-driving city buses, i.e., Accessible Olli produced by Local Motors. As part of crowdsourcing, customers can also co-determine whether a project qualifies for implementation, e.g., a new collection of yoga clothing by the British brand Catalyst Activewear. Starbucks has implemented many customersubmitted ideas. They include new products (such as Skinny Mocha, Cake Pops, sugar-free syrups, K cups), creating experiences (free Wi-Fi in their coffee shops), and ways to build community (Norton, 2019).

The strength of communities is their diversity. They can attract participants from all over the world — from different companies, domains, and industries — who have their interests and motivations, which fosters inspiration. Further, there are possibilities of shaping high consumer engagement by stimulating fan pages in social media, blogs, marketing games, and crowdsourcing platforms. Such activities’ high effectiveness has been observed, especially in the high-tech goods and banking sectors (Kieżel, Wiechoczek, 2016). What is noted is the potential of brand fans whose involvement is conducive to encouraging the promotion of ideas and innovation projects in their communities. One weakness of communities is the lack of cohesion, which makes it difficult to control crowds.

Tab. 3 presents examples of using online communities’ potential in value creation, highlighting the benefits of such forms of cooperation.

The main benefit of communities in creating innovations comes from finding solutions to the company’s problems and gathering new knowledge and skills. This is possible thanks to sharing ideas by the open innovation project participants.

Complementary communities

An extremely valuable form of open innovation is communities’ synergic activities, which, thanks to their creativity, enable them to solve many different problems by creating products complementary to the basic product. Platforms that allow generating such complementary innovations serve this purpose.

A good example is iTunes built around Apple’s core mobile products — the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Through iTunes, vast groups of geographically dispersed developers create a wide range of complementary innovations, such as apps and podcasts created by users of these mobile devices.

The variety of complementary goods generates revenue and can also increase demand for the product itself, making it more useful. In turn, increased demand can increase the supply of complementary innovations and a whole host of network effects.

The effectiveness of using communities in creating complementary products is most significant for complex problems that require the consideration of a large number of diverse complements, which usually exceeds the internal potential and capabilities of a single company.

A fundamental prerequisite for the effective use of the community’s potential in creating complementary products is to provide access to features and detailed information about the output product. The company, therefore, provides technology interfaces that allow external developers to participate in the creation of complementary innovations. If the core product is simple, then access to data sources from the website is sufficient. More complicated cases are cases in which participants in complementary communities must select core product features to create new solutions compatible with the lead product. For example, third-party developers must use application programming interfaces (APIs) to access the software vendor’s capabilities to create complementary applications.

An excellent example of using institutional customers’ potential to create innovations is Procter & Gamble, which cooperates with young companies to acquire innovative approaches and new technological solutions. Fresh ideas and solutions are presented at Demo Day meetings organized by the company together with ABSL tech lab. The projects of such young technology companies as Brainly, Justtag, and Wise Shelf have shown Procter & Gamble a new perspective that is a source of inspiration in creating a new approach to business processes. Through such collaborations, the company can create innovations for European and global customers in business analytics, marketing, supply chain planning, Business Intelligence, or Big Data (IT Innovations, 2020). These customized solutions allow them to build a competitive advantage and meet consumer expectations better.

Other companies also provide examples of success in open innovation. For example, Google in 2015 released its automated learning tool
Tensorflow for collaboration under an open-source license (Appache 2.0). With Google’s creation of third-party developers’ ability to use the license, any solution they create that complies with the license terms can quickly evolve into a Google product. This strategy, typical in the IT industry, stimulates the company’s growth, which has positioned itself as a significant player in artificial intelligence ( Pierrard, 2019 ).

Another example is Nestlé, the Swiss food giant who created an open innovation platform, „Henri @ Nestlé,” through which it received more than 400 innovative solutions from start-ups in two years. The submissions received allow the company to respond to challenges in sustainability, nutrition, health, and consumer well-being (Nestlé, 2018).

Gamification in the process of open innovation

The main goal of gamification is to increase users’ motivation to participate in a particular process by using techniques that create a game mechanism. Therefore, it is used to stimulate innovation activities in the organization, and it can be part of the innovation process. The impact of gamification on the area of innovation is multidimensional. Participation of the company’s users and employees in a game stimulates free associations, divergent thinking, and creativity.

The use of gamification in the company’s innovation process requires specific rules (Robra-Bissantz, Lattemann, 2017):

• customers should get to know the company and its objectives in order to acquire the knowledge needed to participate in innovation processes
• customers should act as part of the company and share the same values as its employees’ values, especially when it comes to responsibility and loyalty
• customers should be creative and motivated and be willing to cooperate with other colleagues.

Gamification allows deepening participants’ positive motivation through incentives such as points earned, badges, prizes, feedback, and respect (Zichermann, Linder, 2010; Vassileva, 2012). The game scenario, which connects internal players with external players, includes teamwork based on a sense of belonging and mutual understanding. All players can formulate individual and group goals and decisions. The achievement of goals through the synergy effect leads to a common solution, revealing new approaches and interesting ideas along the way.

Thus, gamification components are used in the Customer Connection program implemented by SAP, allowing customers to directly influence products’ continuous improvements within the company’s development portfolio. Using gamification elements, the company increases customers’ interest in participating in the program, proposing improvements in the offered products (Masser, Mory, 2018).

Customer-players operate on the Customer Influence platform acting in various roles: (1) „Submitters” who describe their ideas. (2) „Subscribers” who „vote” on an idea and thus prioritize it to make it eligible for analysis; (3) „Observers” who receive information about the progress of an idea and comment on it. The program uses key elements of gamification in order for its participants to have fun while working together to find the best solutions. These gamification features increase its usefulness in shaping the activity and involvement of participants in the innovation process.

Factors determining the process of implementation of the open innovation model

The effective use of customers’ potential in creating innovation requires recognizing factors motivating customers to cooperate with the company and factors stimulating companies to engage customers in the innovation process.

When adopting the customers’ perspective, it is necessary to consider psychological and behavioral processes that refer to the customers’
motivation to cooperate with the company regarding innovation.

Companies should perceive motivations and customer skills as necessary premises in managing innovation processes. Recognizing these motivations allows for creating appropriate ways to encourage customers to create innovation and effective customer input. Understanding customer motivation also facilitates selecting the right customers whose potential provides good prospects for cooperation with the company in creating innovations. Therefore, companies need to conduct marketing research focused on potential customers to recognize their characteristics, expectations, and willingness to cooperate with the company. There are a number of methods available. Their use requires an extremely valuable qualitative approach, which allows investigating the mechanism behind potential customers’ motivation and needs and anticipating these needs and expectations. Monitoring trends and changes in the consumer behavior can be the starting point because it shows the space for searching for new product ideas.

When adopting the company’s perspective, it is necessary to indicate the organization’s internal factors that affect its approach to customer participation in creating innovations (Cui A, 2018). These are factors related both to the company’s strategy and organizational aspects. They primarily concern managers’ behaviors, their openness to cooperation with customers, and understanding of the benefits obtained from including customers in the process of creating innovations (Hoyer et al. 2010; Mohr and Sarin 2009, Bartl et al. 2012). Their decisions in managing the process of engaging customers also depend on managers’ attitudes and role in building organizational culture.

The key is to recognize customer innovation’s strategic impact on the innovation process and its implementation, such as creativity, efficiency, and speed. Furthermore, future research should identify how adopting an innovation model with customer participation can affect companies’ overall strategic choices, management concepts, and long-term results.

Adopting a strategic perspective also requires consideration of customer innovation in the context of knowledge management processes. Customers play an active role in knowledge management if they have the opportunity to share knowledge and co-create a new product and innovative organizational or marketing solutions. However, such involvement requires treating customers as the company’s crucial partners, who have a clear specificity compared to other stakeholders. Therefore, to effectively use their potential, new organizational structures and new management systems are needed. Directions of these changes are presented in Tab. 4.

Below we explain the changes needed to implement the demand-driven approach to innovation:

1. New corporate culture — the first stage of opening the company to using the open innovation model is transforming the organizational culture by saturating it with greater openness, tolerance, knowledge sharing, and the need to act jointly to pursue goals is. This leads to a change in mentality, which is the biggest barrier to introducing changes.
2. The company’s business model — such a model should support extensive cooperation with different stakeholders, including customers, in the process of generating innovation. Focusing on a customer as an active participant in the innovation process requires defining the principles and forms of cooperation. Assumptions of the User design model, e.g., an open model of cooperation, require skillful customer knowledge management and efficient information flow between the company and its environment.
3. Shaping good relationships between the company and customers — proper identification of customers by their interests in specific products, buying behaviors, and readiness to cooperate with the company should be the basis for these relationships. The company should develop partnership relationships with customers to motivate them to cooperate with the company. It also requires the use of various forms and tools tailored to the character and types of customers.
4. Shaping the communication system with customers — this system should be based on personalized communication channels with
   customers and forms and instruments of communication dedicated to recognized types of customers. This allows increasing the effectiveness of their influence on these customers.
5. Changes in the enterprise’s organizational structure — developing cooperation with customers requires flexibility of the company’s organizational structure and immediate response to the environment’s signals. Hybrid organizational structures, e.g., matrix structures, which allow for the implementation of tasks beyond standard sets of tasks and employees’ responsibility, can meet this challenge. Innovation centers in which customers and suppliers cooperate since the emergence of a new product can be an example of such structures. One such example is the case study of Mercadona, a leading retailer in Spain that introduces new products developed using this innovative approach to co-innovation (AIbors — Garrigos, 2020).
6. Intermediaries in the creation of open innovations — the new challenge is to use the services of new market actors acting as intermediaries in creating open innovations. Their mission is to support companies in opening themselves to cooperation with external entities, including consumers, in the best way. Intermediaries can adopt various forms and methods of operation, including network platforms, open innovative consultations, or performance of a cooperation accelerator’s function by providing companies seeking innovation with solutions dedicated to them (AIbors-Garrigos, 2020). Using these intermediaries’ services also allows companies to reduce the risk of cooperation with unknown entities and save time while searching for stakeholders willing to cooperate.
7. Changes in staff management — demand approach to innovation require proper preparation of the company employees at all management levels. It is important to apply new methods of training the competencies of managers and employees involved in shaping relationships with customers at various levels. Those skills should include skills needed to identify customers with creative potential who will cooperate with the company. Co-creation should not be seen as a threat to employees but rather as an encouragement to diversify thinking and recognize different views with customers’ participation from many environments. Unilever cooperates within the Open Innovation Platform with individual customers and designers, researchers, or new companies (Unilever, access: 4/01/2018).
8. Creating Internet technology-based tools for cooperation with customers — in creating innovation, achieving the desired effects of cooperation with customers requires equipping them with appropriate tools, enabling the submission of ideas and other forms of participation in this process. The collaboration tools in innovation should be included in the enterprise’s ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system. Such a system allows for the integration of organizational processes. Therefore, in addition to all management functions included in the system and related to production, finance, sales, or marketing, among others, the new area of open innovations should be added. Within this function, it is necessary to add crowdsourcing platforms for reporting innovations, create models of process simulations, conduct experiments, and test innovations (products, solutions) with customer participation. Cooperation with customers may also require the use of a variety of techniques to stimulate customer creativity.
9. Integration of the processes of customer participation with internal NPD systems (new product development and production systems)
   Achieving integration of open innovation processes with existing NPD systems is a serious challenge for companies (Cui, 2018). This integration is necessary to ensure the elementary conditions for implementing innovation.
10. Development of a strategy for managing the intellectual property system

The application of customer potential-based concepts requires the company to solve legal problems related to copyright. Acquiring intellectual property is complex and involves many challenges because a high level of intellectual property protection inhibits open innovations. The lack of such protection can lead companies to hide new company solutions, which hinders but even restrains the development of open innovations. Therefore, it is necessary to establish clear and detailed rules for intellectual property management strategy, as the lack of caution and violation of these principles can have profound legal implications. First of all, the acquiring company should ensure that the purchased intellectual property enjoys balanced legal protection under one of the categories of intellectual property rights recognized by law (Mention, Al-Sharieh, 2013).

The use of intellectual property in open, innovative environments may take the form of attribution/acquisition of intellectual property and intellectual property license. Both forms are legal actions that must be effectively applied to avoid negative consequences from the legal protection of companies’ intellectual property involved in open innovations.

It should be noticed that intellectual property licensing resolves the tension between knowledge protection and knowledge sharing (Bogers, 2011). Based on a survey conducted among over 154 industrial companies, Lichtenthaler (2010) observed that intellectual property portfolio size plays a vital role in encouraging the company to move to the open innovation paradigm.

The best approach that enables proper use of the intellectual property right to stimulate innovation is to design it so that the right balance between external innovators’ and the company’s interests is achieved.

The possible solutions include co-patenting by the entities involved in the cooperation and applying for the legal protection of jointly owned inventions. However, there is a risk of a conflict of interest between the patent co-owners (Wściubiak, 2017).

When assessing the effects of consumer participation in the process of value creation, especially the creation of innovations, the following impact on the company, economy, and society should be emphasized:

• Increasing the role of human capital in business models and the scale of social participation in management;
• Gaining access to non-standard concepts through acquiring knowledge directly from the market and strengthening relationships with customers;
• Transforming the organizational business innovation system through opening it to external stakeholders;
• Increasing the efficiency of operations related to the creation of innovations. The achieved results prove to be valuable concerning the relatively small costs of cooperation with customers;
• Increasing the chance of satisfying consumer needs in accordance with individual aspirations and expectations as well as possibilities of selfrealization of consumers — innovators;
• Stimulating social entrepreneurship development, development of a partnership network, culture of trust, and cooperation.

However, it is also necessary to indicate the possible destructive impact of customer-organization value creation practices. This is a phenomenon of the so-called co-destruction that may result from the inappropriate or unexpected use of resources, e.g., inconsistent with the resource provider or potential user’s perspective. This can be accidental or intentional.

Accidental improper use may result from the lack of sufficient customer knowledge. As Jeff Howe said, „sometimes the crowd can be wise, but sometimes it can also be stupid” (Surowiecki, 2019).

Deliberate abuse resulting from sabotage or opportunistic behavior can be a threat. Dziewanowska (2017) and Harris LC and Ogbonna E. (2006), as well as DA Greer (2015), describe three types of defective behaviors, including relational (e.g., insufficient or excessive participation), interpersonal (e.g., verbal or physical), and inappropriate behaviors (property abuse and fraud).

It should also be emphasized that thanks to the progress in Internet technologies and the growing popularity of social media, crowdsourcing offers new forms of work. Simultaneously, the question arises whether these new forms of work allow employees to create their careers or create a workshop where employees perform fragmented tasks to earn a minimum wage (Howe, 2006).

There are a few threats to the organization-customer value co-creation:

• Ethical issues related to injustice, lack of transparency and clearly defined fair rules, or non-compliance with previously established rules for customer participation in the value creation process;
• Difficulties in maintaining the confidentiality of information, which may lead to cooperation only with contractors cooperating in a long term;
• Risk arises from manipulating crowdsourcing participants through stronger, more opinion-forming individuals and a leader that does not necessarily support the initiative (Surowiecki, 2019).

Conclusions

Co-creation of value with customers’ active role is a big challenge. The customer is no longer just the recipient of the offer but increasingly becomes a co-creator of organizational value or even contributes as an innovator. The development of information and communication
technologies means that the customer’s cooperation with the company takes various forms, among which joining the creation of open innovations is crucial. Effective use of customer potential requires recognizing both factors motivating customers to cooperate with the company and factors stimulating companies to engage customers in the innovation process. This allows the development of an appropriate model for managing the innovation process with customers’ active participation. The application of such a model has specific strategic implications regarding organizational culture, business models, and changes in company management systems, especially in internal and customer-centric knowledge management.

Cultural changes resulting in the growing importance of such values as taking initiatives, creativity, self-realization, and striving to participate in shaping reality are important in developing open innovation. Achieving effects for both end-users and the organization will result from the impact of stimulants and destimulants of value creation with the participation of users. The effectiveness of using factors supporting open innovation and minimizing the impact of various types of threats depends on managers’ experience and skills.

References

1. 1. AIbors — Garrigos, J. and de Miguel Molina, M. (2020). Integrating Customers and Suppliers in Retail Co-innovation. Journal Research — Technology Management, 63(3).
2. Balaji, M. and Roy, S. (2017). Value co-creation with internet of things technology in the retail industry. Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 33 Nos 1/2, 7–31.
3. Baran, M., Ostrowska, A. and Pander, W. (2012). Innowacje popytowe, czyli jak tworzy się współczesne innowacje. Warszawa: Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości.
4. Bartl, M., Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H. and Ernst, H. (2012). A manager’s perspective on virtual customer integration for new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 1031–1046.
5. Bogers, M. (2011). The open innovation paradox: Knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(1), 93–117.
6. Boudreau, K. J. and Lakhani, K. R. (2013). Using the Crowd as an Innovation Partner HBR. www.hbr.org
7. Busse, M. and Siebert, R. (2018). The role of consumers in food innovation processes.
   European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(1).
8. Chepurna, M. and Criado, J. R. (2018). Identification of barriers to co-create online: the perspectives of customers and companies. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 12(4), 452–471 Emerald Publishing.
9. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology Boston. Harvard Business School Press.
10. Cui, A. (2018). Customer Involvement in Innovation: A Review of Literature and Future Research Directions 2018. Review of Marketing Research, July 2018.
11. Dobiegała-Korona, B. (2010). Strategie innowacji w budowie kapitału klienta.
    W: Zarządzanie wartością klienta. Pomiar i strategie, red. nauk. B. Dobiegała-Korona, T. Doligalski. Warszawa.
12. Dziewanowska, K. (2017). Współtworzenie i współniszczenie wartości, czyli wady i zalety współpracy z klientem. Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe UE w Katowicach, 328.
13. Greer, D.A. (2015). Defective co-creation. European Journal of Marketing, 49(1/2), 238–261.
14. Gummesson, E. and Mele, C. (2010). Marketing as value co-creation through network interaction and resource integration. Journal of Business Market Management, 4(4), 181–198.
15. Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2006). Service Sabotage: A Study of Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 543–558.
16. Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M. and Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer cocreation in new product development. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 283–296.
17. Howe, J. ( 2006), Rise of the crowdsourcing. Wired magazine, 14(6) 1–4.
18. Innowacje IT, (2020). Innowacje w obszarze IT zaczynają się od konsumentów. www.money.pl (11.12.2020).
19. Kieżel, M. and Wiechoczek, J. (2016). Zaangażowanie klienta (ce) w sektorze dóbr zaawansowanych technicznie oraz sektorze bankowym. Studia i Prace WNEIIZ US, 434/2.
20. Lakhani, K. R. and Wolf, R. G. (2003). Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects. Electronic Journal Unfollow journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.443040
21. Lichtenthaler, U. (2010). Intellectual property and open innovation: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3/4), 372–391.
22. Liu, Q., Zhao, X. and Sun, B. (2018). Value co-creation mechanisms of enterprises and users under crowdsource-based open innovation. International Journal of Crowd Science, 2(1).
23. Malinowski, B. F. (2018). Czym jest crowdsourcing. www.wethecrowd.pl (21.04.2019).
24. Masser, K. and Mory, L. Gamification-Engaging People by Letting Them Have Fun. www.link.springer.com
25. Mazurek-Łopacińska, K. (2013). Klient w kreowaniu innowacji na współczesnym rynku: modele, narzędzia, przykłady. Handel Wewnętrzny, 1–2.
26. Mazurek-Łopacińska, K. (2012). The Customer in Creating Innovation — Challenge for the Enterprise. W: Olejniczuk-Merta A. (red.), The Transformation of Consumption and Consumer Behaviour. Warszawa: IBRKK.
27. Mention, A.-L. and Al-Sharieh, S. ( 2013). Open Innovation and Intellectual Property: The Relationship and Its Challenges, www.researchgate.net (15.05.2020).
28. Mierzejewska, B. (2008). Open innovation — nowe podejście w procesach innowacji. E-Mentor, 2(24).
29. Milewski, F. (2015) (red.). Tłum jako źródło wiedzy i kapitału. PARP.
30. Mohr, J. J. and Sarin, S. (2009). Drucker’s insights on market orientation and innovation: implications for emerging areas in high-technology marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 85–96.
31. Nestlé’s Open Innovation Platform Celebrates Two Years Of Creative Solutions Jun 26 2018 3:00. www.esmagazine.com (7.11.2019).
32. Norton, K., (2019). 12 Brands Using Crowdsourcing for Product Design Ideas, www.cadcrowd.com (21.12.2020)
33. Ohori, K. and Takahashi, S. (2007). Agent-based Analysis of Lead User Innovation in Consumer Product Market. W: Agent — Based Approaches in Economic and Social Complex, vol. 6, Springer vol. 6, 267–279.
34. Pierrard, S. (2019). Innovation ouverte: vers de nouveaux modeles de propriété intellectuelle? www.lavery.ca (15.12.2020).
35. Raport Nordic Innovation Center. (2010), 21.
36. Robra-Bissantz, S. and Lattemann, Ch. (2017). Customer-Oriented Strategies and Gamification-The Example of Open Customer Innovation. W: Stieglitz S., Lattemann Ch., Robra-Bissantz, S., Zarnekow, R. and Brockmann, T., Gamification. Using Game
    Elements in Serious Contexts. Springer.
37. Rossi, M. V. and Magni, D. (2017). Investigating Intellectual Capital Role inValue Co Creation lectual Capital. Journal of Marketing, 1.
38. Rycharska M., Kuczwalski R., Stokalski B. and Ozimek, W. (2011). Gra o klienta czy gra z klientem? Nowa generacja usług elektronicznych. W: Gotowi na innowacje. Warszawa: Infovide-Matrix.
39. Sopińska, A. (2013). Otwarte innowacje bazujące na mądrości „tłumu” — podstawa sukcesu współczesnego przedsiębiorstwa. Zarządzanie i Finanse, 11(4). Uniwersytet Gdański.
40. Surowiecki, Korzyści i zagrożenia crowdsourcingu. www.nf.pl (11.04.2019).
41. Szopik-Depczyńska, K. (2018). Koncepcja innowacji kreowanej przez użytkownika w działalności badawczo-rozwojowej. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego.
42. Tapscott, D. and Williams, A. D., (2011). Makrowikinomia. Reset świata i biznesu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Studio Emka.
43. Vassileva, J. (2012). Motivating participation in social computing applications: A user modeling perspective. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(1–2), 177–201.
44. Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press Cambridge. London: Massachusetts. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2333.001.0001
45. Wojnicka, E. (2011). Popytowe podejście do innowacji — charakterystyka koncepcji. PARP.
46. Wściubiak, Ł. (2017). Rola praw własności intelektualnej w świetle koncepcji otwartych innowacji. Studia i Prace WNEIZ US, 48/3.
47. www.mystarbucksidea.force.com (15.12.2020).
48. www.unilever.com/about/innovation/open-innovation/ (4.01.2019).
49. Zichermann, G. and Linder, J. (2010). Game-based marketing: inspire customer loyalty through rewards, challenges, and contests. New Jersey: Wiley.