Role of open innovation in enterprise growth

Full text

Open innovation models for increased innovation activities and enterprise growth.
Gadaf Rexhepi
1
Hyrije Abazi
2
,
Amir Rahdari,
3
Biljana Angelova
4
Abstract
Open innovation tends to be one of the hottest topic in innovation management. Open innovation tends to
be very much related with enterprise growth. The purpose of this paper is to present a literature review
related to open innovation and open innovation models and how they affect enterprise growth. The book
chapter represents the importance of innovation and open innovation overall and open innovation. Special
emphasize in this paper is given to the evolution of open innovation models and how this has influence
enterprise effectiveness and efficiency which further influence enterprise growth.
Key words: Innovation, open innovation, open innovation models, growth.
Introduction
Innovation has become the new buzzword across the globe. Most of the international organizations,
governments, corporate, academia and civil society accept innovation as the answer to major contemporary
challenges (Carayannis & Campbell, 2011; Rexhepi et al., 2017). Organizations in today’s economy tend
to change and adopt continuously (Rexhepi & Berisha, 2017). Some of these changes are political
transformation such as the rise of a multipolar world and loss of sovereignty of nation states; technological
revolutions in informatics and biotechnology; and one of very important elements global environmental
change (Carayannis & Campbell, 2011).
Innovations and alternatives are emerging, not only in businesses in industrialized countries but
also in developing countries (China in solar technology, and mobile banking in Kenya) (Carayannis &
1
South-East European University, Macedonia
2
South-East European University, Macedonia
3
Tarbiat Modares University, Iran
4
University St” Cyril and Methodius”, Macedonia

Campbell, 2011). Innovation needs to focus on the integration of fundamental and applied research; it
makes shifts in mindsets, strategy, research focus, academia-industry relationships, IP policies and
government involvement (Parveen et al., 2015).
However, the main change regarding innovation is the source of innovations. Innovations usually
are seen as a product that derives from inside the organizations and produce competitive advantage also
known as closed innovation. Nevertheless, research have proven that this way of exploring innovation have
many boundaries, even though researchers have identified a number of ways in which business strategies
can influence innovation activities (Kennedy et al., 2016; Rexhepi, 2015). Thus, they recommend new
sources of innovation, which will come from outside the organization known as open innovation. The new
approach toward the source of innovation for organizations every day is increasing. Parveen et al., (2015),
argued that there are some antecedents that helped play a key role in both enabling the ideas of open
innovation and its acceptance among managers and scholars. First, innovation scholars have understood
since the 1970s that sources of innovative ideas often come from outside the firm. Second, open innovation
builds on the profiting from innovation framework, paying specific attention to challenges that firms face
capturing returns from their innovative effort. This tradition is rooted in an understanding of the particular
features of technology markets, with asymmetric relations between bargaining agents, and incomplete
information and contracts (Arora et al., 2001; Gans and Stern, 2003; Parveen et al., 2015).
According the EU’s Open Innovation Strategy and Policy Group (OISPG) yearbooks about the
current innovation practices in Europe there is an increase of level of open-ness with increased
sophistication and complexity associated with innovation (Curley & Salmelin, 2013). However, in many
cases firms hesitate to open their innovation processes or are not able to build the necessary capabilities
(Burcharth et al., 2014), neither for successful innovation alliances and partnerships nor for the integration
of their customer’s creativity (Arora and Gambardella, 1990; Bruneel et al., 2010).
The models of open innovation, which will be explain in this chapter, contribute to sustainability
of enterprises. A study done by Rauter, et al., (2017), found that by qualitatively analyzing 19 papers that
were published between 2003 and 2015 showed that open innovation is an important concept for
sustainability (Rauter, et al., 2017). The intersection of mega-trends such as digitization, mass collaboration,
and sustainability needs are creating unique opportunities which results in increase shared value because of
innovation. (Curley & Salmelin, 2013). Sustainability oriented firms tend to increase their attention to how
firms may improve environmental and/or social performance and in this way trying to increase its
competitiveness (Kennedy et al., 2016). Open innovation can be used for sustainable development
especially in a low-tech environment, mainly because in low-tech environments open innovation
emergesgradually from the spillovers of R&D (Ingenbleek &Backus, 2015).

In this chapter firstly we discuss about innovation, role of open innovation in sustainability, we
explain the concept of open innovation and explain the models of open innovation and how they emerge.
Open innovation
In technology-intensive industries, innovation is a central issue for the competitiveness of the firm (Ferrary,
2011). This is why most successful companies invest huge amounts of their resources in R&D (for example,
in 2008, Microsoft invested $6.4 billion in R&D; Nokia, 5.3 billion; IBM, $4.3 billion; Intel, $4.1 billion
and Motorola, $2.9 billion) (Ferrary, 2011). However, new global challenges require new smarter solutions
such as healthcare, transportation, climate change, youth unemployment, financial stability, prosperity,
sustainability, and growth which can be a great opportunity in generating new shared value (Curley &
Salmelin, 2013; Suklev & Rexhepi, 2013). As Joseph Schumpeter’s (1942) in his famous creative
destruction model stated that, where the failure of old approaches fuels the motivation for change will
appear (Curley & Salmelin, 2013). Open innovation showed to be the new model that can help reshape the
way organizations use innovation capacity.
Institutional openness is becoming increasingly popular in practice and academia: open innovation,
open R&D and open business models (Gassmann & Chesbrough, 2010). Organization is an open system,
it influences and, can be influenced from the society. This means that organizations create benefits for
others but also can use benefits from other. Creativity and innovation is the first thing that organization
should cooperate with others. The new concept introduced by Henry Chesbrough (2003), called open
Innovation conceptualized the idea of innovation where ideas pass to and from different organizations for
exploitation. Open innovation concept assumes that corporate innovation activities are more like an open
system than the traditional (20th century) vertically integrated model (Chesbrough, 2003, 2006). Open
innovation concepts suggest that innovation can be derive not just from inside the organization but also
from outside the organization. Chesbrough & Vanhaverbeke (2011), suggest companies should find a way
to utilize the distributed pools of knowledge possessed by customers, suppliers, universities, national labs,
consortia, consultants and even their own competitors. The combination of diverse knowledge increases
the chances of finding creative solutions leading to innovations that are more radical.
The open innovation concept has been developed firstly from a small club of innovation
practitioners, mostly active in high‐tech industries, to a widely discussed and implemented innovation
practice (Gassmann & Chesbrough, 2010). Today, open innovation is cited in strategy, general management
and organization behavior journals(Gassmann & Chesbrough, 2010). The concept of open innovation has,
penetrated in industries such as software, electronics, telecommunications, pharma and biotech, while the
software and electronics industries are progressively building on the open innovation trend (Chesbrough,

2003). Organizations such as SAP and Microsoft have started to build decentralized research labs on
university campuses to increase their absorptive capacity for outside‐in innovation processes, Apple, had
to open up its proprietary technology to its addicted high‐tech users, Philips open innovation park, Xerox's
Palo Alto Research Center, Siemens' open innovation program and IBM's open source initiatives, British
Telecom's incubation activities, Deutsche Telecom and Swisscom all of them drive open innovation on a
strategic level (Gassmann & Chesbrough, 2010). It is obvious that the era of open innovation has just begun
(Gassmann & Chesbrough, 2010).
Open innovation has been defined as ‘… the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to
accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively’
(Chesbrough et al., 2006). Nevertheless, open innovation definition has evolved through year, even
Chesbrough’s definition of open innovation. (Parveen et al., 2015). Open innovation is seen also as a
“distributed innovation process based on purposively managed knowledge flows across organizational
boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with the organization’s business
model” (Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014). Open innovation is also seen as a methodology to design and
implement solutions collaboratively by engaging all stakeholders in an iterative and inclusive service
design process (Carayannis & Campbell, 2011). It is used to address issues for businesses, governments
and many other institutions in order to improve the quality of their innovation activities and increase quality
of their service that they deliver (Syla & Rexhepi, 2013).
The use of open innovation is diverse among countries. In countries such as Chile, Colombia, Egypt,
and Lebanon open innovation activities are oriented to develop tangible and actionable opportunities for
government practitioners to work together with citizens to tackle intractable challenges in issues ranging
from urban and governance to mobility and water. In addition, in other countries like in Finland, the
Republic of Korea, Spain use open innovation in cities to support entrepreneurship and build creative
confidence among diverse stakeholders as governments and academia (Carayannis & Campbell, 2011).
Companies that create innovation using open innovation concept use different approach toward innovation
also, meaning if one innovation can’t be used for personal use this can be sold to other companies that might
have the right model and this innovation might work (Vanhaverbeke, et al., 2008).
Open innovation in risk-laden processes that includes some advantages. First, firms can benefit from
early involvement in new technologies or business opportunities. Second, firms can profit from delayed
financial commitment as they can invest step-by-step, avoiding investing large up-front costs. Third, they
can benefit from early exits, as corporate venturing is a flexible investment instrument. Fourth, investing
firms can also delay exit in the case of spins-offs (Vanhaverbeke, et al., 2008).

Gassmann & Chesbrough (2010) suggest nine perspectives needed to develop an open innovation
theory more fully. Open innovation is based on these different research streams, which are:
1. The spatial perspective
2. The structural perspective
3. The user perspective.
4. The supplier perspective.
5. The leveraging perspective.
6. The process perspective.
7. The tool perspective.
8. The institutional perspective.
9. The cultural perspective.
The number of streams is not definitive, new may arise. However, even though the concept of open
innovation has evolved still it is commonly associated with fast-growing, technology-intensive industries
(Sarkar & Costa, 2008).
Open innovation models
The literature on the dynamics of the development of innovation system framework has undergone through
different phases. There is a vast empirical evidence on open innovation itself, albeit few of them consider
the innovation system framework approach. The primary model of knowledge production, Triple Helix,
developed by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000), represented innovation system model through the
interactions of three ‘helices’ in knowledge production: academia/universities (higher education), industry
(economy), and governments. One of the advantages of using the Triple Helix model in qualitative
research is related with the increased awareness about knowledge-based developments needs at
least three relevant dimensions (Leydesdorff, 2012). Triple Helix model motivates scholars to reflect on
more than two possible dynamics (markets and governance) (Leydesdorff, 2012).
Studies have shown that increased cooperation and knowledge transfer from Universities to the
other business institutions offer opportunities for increased regional innovation and commercialization
possibilities (Miller et al., 2016). Knowledge transfer within the Triple Helix is conceptualized as boundary
spanning across academia, Industry and regional Government (Miller et al., 2016). The model of “Open
Innovations” (OI) can be compared with the “Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations”
(TH) as attempts to find surplus value in bringing industrial innovation closer to public R&D (Leydesdorff,
& Ivanova, 2016).

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000), not only consider the “university-industry-government
relations” and networks, but further highlighting the overlap of the three helices on “tri-lateral networks
and hybrid organizations”. Accordingly, at this stage of the model of knowledge production, the so far
individual entities have joint their strength, thus resulting into the synergy of the interaction itself between
academia, industry and the state (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). Having said that this is the primary
model of knowledge production, as such it is regarded as useful innovation framework where the interaction
between universities, the whole economy and the institutions of government develops through intense, but
nonlinear, communication and negotiations (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000; Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz,
1996).
Gibbons et al., (1994) developed a theory of the knowledge production of Mode 1 and Mode 2,
which are also being used to further explain the concept of the Triple Helix. Mode 1 of this theory refers to
the production of scientific knowledge in a traditional university setting, whereas Mode 2 is established as
a supplement to Mode 1. According to them, in Mode 2 science has gone ‘beyond the market!’ where
knowledge production becomes diffused throughout society. In this early study, Mode 2 is characterized
by the following principles: ‘knowledge produced in the context of application’; ‘transdisciplinarity’;
‘heterogeneity and organizational diversity’; ‘social accountability and reflexivity’; and ‘quality control’
(Gibbons et al., 1994). Consequently, the boundaries between science and technology start to fade, as the
university-based scientific research is spread in a larger societal context, i.e. bridging universities with
business and linking science and technology closer together became necessary (Campbell and Güttel, 2005).
Further investigation in this field of research has come up with the concept of academic firm.
According to Campbell et al. (2013), academic firm represents a type of firm that focuses on encouraging,
supporting, and advancing knowledge production and knowledge application. Taking into consideration
that this type of firm follows the logic of a “sustainability” in balance with knowledge production and the
principles of knowledge production, even though the academic firm is also inclined to generate profit
(revenues), it is contrary to the concept of the “commercial firm”.
Companies and universities usually are not able to capture the full potential from their cooperation.
The term ‘open innovation’ was firstly used by Henry Chesbrough to describe, “how useful knowledge and
technology was becoming increasingly widespread,” and how we can benefit from integrating knowledge
and expertise in the economics of innovation (Melese, et al., 2009). There are also studies that question the
capacities of separate entities. For example, Alexander et al., (2015), analyze the university capacity, thus
question their ability to become truly open and at the same time provide academic faculty that will be
engaged in collaboration and impact. This study emphasizes the fact that together with the development of

the innovation system universities are challenged to rethink their models of engagement with industry and
wider society (Alexander et al., 2015).
Pharmaceutical and large biotechnology companies, even though they increased their spending on
research and development (R&D) by 147% from 1993 to 2004 to fuel their drug pipelines, still they
achieved to do so by just 38%. Thus, many companies realized that they needed to look beyond their own
walls for innovation (Melese, et al., 2009).
But in order for this cooperation university-industry, there are several steps to take in consideration
(Melese, et al., 2009):
(i) recognize the value proposition of the collaboration;
(ii) manage the industry-academic collaborations as they would an investment portfolio;
(iii) adopt a new attitude about sharing of information; and
(iv) create new innovative models. An approach to each of these steps is detailed below.
Firms need to continuously look for new growth opportunities (Vanhaverbeke, et al., 2008). The
investigation in the field noticed that Triple Helix model has its disadvantages, as it does not take into
consideration the civil society.
In continuation of ‘Mode 1’ and ‘Mode 2’, Carayannis and Campbel, (2009), introduce the ‘Mode
3’ system consisting of ‘Innovation Networks’ and ‘Knowledge Clusters’. “This is a multi-layered, multi-
modal, multi-nodal and multi-lateral system, encompassing mutually complementary and reinforcing
innovation networks and knowledge clusters consisting of human and intellectual capital, shaped by social
capital and underpinned by financial capital.” The basic idea of the Carayannis and Campbel, (2009), is:
co-existence, co-evolution and co-specialisation of different knowledge paradigms and different knowledge
modes of knowledge production and knowledge use as well as their co-specialisation as a result.
Another related approach is the one with helices. In extension of the Triple Helix model, Carayannis
and Campbell (2009) suggest a ‘Quadruple Helix Innovation System Framework’, which in addition to the
above stated helices, has a ‘fourth helix’ identified as the ‘media-based and culture-based public’. In other
words, the new framework of the innovation model is transformed to the Quadruple Helix, which is
embedding the features of the public to the Triple Helix (Carayannis and Campbell, 2009). The quadruple
helix model of innovation involves civil society with business, academia, and government sectors with aim
to drive changes (Curley & Salmelin, 2013).
The innovation users are another element emphasized by Carayannis et al., (2017), on the
Quadruple Helix Innovation System Framework. The role that the civil society have (i.e. users), are at the

heart of innovations and encourage their development. In other words, they are the owners and drivers of
the innovation processes. Considering the involvement of users in their role as lead users, co-developers,
and co-creators, Arnkil et al. (2010), maintain that the degree of user involvement could be defined as
inclusive of the ‘design by users’ to develop new innovative products, services and solutions. Accordingly,
civil society as the fourth helix has become a crucial helix of innovation systems, and the model itself
considers the innovation economy with four, all equally important, helices: universities, firms, government
and civil society.
Leydesdorff (2012), argue that in the case of Japan, the addition of a fourth helix to the model
was needed because along with university–industry–government relations, internationalization had also
an impact during the 1990s, mainly because of the new economic approaches of China and the demise of
the Soviet Union. Based on qualitative empirical research, MacGregor et al., (2010) present and analyze
the current innovation architecture to support cooperation, co-specialization, and coopetition between
actors, and the main functions carried out within the system, while exploring the readiness for the quadruple
helix in 16 European innovation ecosystems, all within medium-sized cities. They discuss whether
quadruple-helix innovation architecture (Q-HIA) evolves from triple-helix architectures.
To determine whether the Quadruple Helix model has an effect on the firms’ profitability,
Campanella et al. (2017) employed the classification analysis method (Classification and Regression Trees)
on a sample of 4215 manufacturing firms located in science parks. In order to deal with the variable
“citizen” they classify it as businesses with high Return on Investment. Their findings show that in science
parks “the fourth helix” (citizen) has an important role in classifying the firms with the highest performance.
Moreover, the majority of firms that attribute high importance to the collaboration with private financial
institutions in order to finance innovations have a high ROI. In addition, firms with high economic
performance in the model of the quadruple helix generate product innovation.
Campbell et al., (2015) consider the perspective of knowledge democracy through Quadruple
Helix. They emphasize that the architectures of Quadruple Helix (and Quintuple Helix) innovation systems
demand and require the formation of a democracy, implicating that quality of democracy provides for a
support and encouragement of innovation and innovation systems, so that quality of democracy and
progress of innovation mutually "Cross-Helix" in a connecting and amplifying mode and manner (Campbell
et al., 2015).
The use of Quadruple Helix Innovation Theory (QHIT) proved that the investment in innovation
transmission mechanisms influence the economic growth and productivity gains (Afonso, et al., 2010).
Quadruple helix model for open innovation argues the integration of industry, academia, government and

society is inevitable for the organizations development. This caused challenges to the organizations to
respond dynamic environment. (Parveen et al., 2015).
Quadruple Helix reflects in many ways several features, which are related to new thinking in
innovation process and innovation policy (Parveen et al., 2015). Study investigated the impact of
organization culture on quadruple helix and it was found that to optimize the open innovation in context of
industry, academia, society and government organization are required to be committed to the open
innovation implementation (Parveen et al., 2015). As discussed earlier in this chapter, the Triple Helix
innovation model is concentrated on university-industry-government relations, whereas the Quadruple
Helix embeds the Triple Helix by adding as a fourth helix the ‘media-based and culture-based public’
and ‘civil society’. The latest development considers the Quintuple Helix innovation model which
includes the helix (and perspective) of the ‘natural environments of society’ (Carayannis & Campbell,
2012). The more recent research on innovation system framework has come up with the fifth helix. Figure
1 represents a Quintuple Helix Innovation System Framework.
Figure 1. Five elements of the quintuple helix
The Quintuple Helix innovation model, presented by Carayannis et al. (2012), is even broader and more
comprehensive by contextualizing the Quadruple Helix and by additionally adding the helix (and
perspective) of the ‘natural environments of society’. The Quintuple Helix helps all parties win like
natural
environments
of society
civil society
governments
economy
higher
education
INNOVATION

ecology, knowledge and innovation, or creating synergies between economy, society, and democracy and
even global warning. (Carayannis & Campbell, 2012).
All systems in a Quintuple Helix perform a pivotal function, influencing each other (Carayannis
& Campbell, 2012). The Quintuple Helix Model shows that an investment in knowledge and promoting
it influences new and crucial impulses for innovation, know-how and overall advancement of society
(Carayannis & Campbell, 2012). Carayannis & Campbell (2012) argue that the Quintuple Helix
Model makes it clear that the implementation of thought and action in sustainability will have a positive
impact on the society as a whole. One on the main objective of the Quintuple Helix is to enhance value
in society through the resource of knowledge which is the way to new possibilities and quality of life
(Carayannis & Campbell, 2012).
Carayannis & Campbell (2012) argue that no matter if one state is developed or not and maybe is
leading in different field this in the future will depend on their potential to develop new knowledge,
know-how and innovation in balance with nature. However, the Quintuple Helix Model includes better
exchange of knowledge, new know-how, and innovations enables a better solution for the new challenges
of sustainable development (Carayannis & Campbell, 2012). Quintuple Helix innovation model, takes
natural-environments-of-society as new opportunities for driving further and excelling the sustainable
development (Carayannis & Campbell, 2012).
Carayannis et al., 2017, in their paper explore and profile the nature and dynamics of the
“Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation System Framework as an enabler and enactor of regional co-
opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems conceptualized as fractal, multi-level, multi-modal, multi-nodal, and
multi-lateral configurations of dynamic tangible and intangible assets within the resource-based view and
the new theory of the growth of the firm.”
The main goal of all “helix” models is that universities, business and public-sector organizations
all coming together in order to foster innovation and economic prosperity (Parveen et al., 2015).
Furthermore, the fourth and fifth helices emphasize the interaction of the triple helix with the civil society
and the environment.

Conclusion
In summary, as we highlighted at the literature review, organization is an open system, thus it
creates benefits for others but also can use benefits from other. Furthermore, organization should cooperate
with others creativity and innovation. As suggested by Chesbrough & Vanhaverbeke (2011) companies
should find a way to utilize the distributed pools of knowledge possessed by customers, suppliers,
universities, national labs, consortia, consultants and even their own competitors. The combination of
diverse knowledge increases the chances of finding creative solutions leading to innovations that are more
radical.However, this cooperation, or as broadened by MacGregor et al., (2010) cooperation,
cospecialization, and coopetition between actors, is not straightforward. This chapter brought into light the
perspectives that entities, identified as ‘helices’ in the innovation model, can take in order to achieve the
utmost of the synergy that their interaction can bring. This chapter starts with the exploration of the initial
model of knowledge production, Triple Helix, representing innovation system model through the
interactions of three ‘helices’ in knowledge production: universities-industry-governments.
Even though Triple Helix brought innovation in the way how companies tended to approach new
growth opportunities, the model underwent through more changes. In other words, a new framework of the
innovation model was introduced, known as Quadruple Helix (Carayannis and Campbell, 2009). The
quadruple helix model of innovation involves civil society with business, academia, and government sectors
with aim to drive changes (Curley & Salmelin, 2013). Even here though, the literature noticed a slight
disadvantage, which is the lack of the ecological element. The ‘Global Warming Era’ characteristics
interfered also in the literature of the innovation system framework. As a result, in the approach of the
Quintuple Helix innovation model, a new perspective is added, the one of ‘natural environments of society’.
One can conclude that the last, but not least, helix identified can be considered as opportunities for driving
further and excelling the sustainable development. Furthermore, it can contribute toward the coevolution
of knowledge economy, knowledge society, and knowledge democracy (Dubinaet al., 2012).

References
1. Afonso, O., Monteiro, S., & Thompson, M. J. R. (2010). A growth model for the Quadruple Helix
innovation theory (NIPE Working Paper 12). Braga: Universidade do Minho.
2. Arora, A., Arunachalam, V. S., Asundi, J., & Fernandes, R. (2001): The Indian software services
industry. Research policy, 30(8), 1267-1287
3. Boltuck, R., (1987): An Economic Analysis of Dumping, Journal of World Trade Law, 21: 45 – 54
4. Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010): Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to
university–industry collaboration. Research policy, 39(7), 858-868.
5. Campbell D.F.J., Carayannis E.G., Güttel W.H. (2013). Academic Firm. In: Carayannis E.G. (eds)
Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Springer, New York,
NY.
6. Campbell, D.F.J. and Güttel, W.H. (2005). Knowledge production of firms: research networks and
the ‘scientification’ of business R&D. International journal of technology management, 31(1/2),
152–175.
7. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). 'Mode 3'and'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century
fractal innovation ecosystem. International journal of technology management, 46(3-4), 201-234.
8. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2011). Open innovation diplomacy and a 21st century fractal
research, education and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem: building on the quadruple and quintuple
helix innovation concepts and the “mode 3” knowledge production system. Journal of the
Knowledge Economy, 2(3), 327.
9. Carayannis, E.G., Barth, T.D. & Campbell, D.F. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model:
global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship. 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2
10. Chesbrough, H. (2003): The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California
management review, 33-58.
11. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2006): Open innovation: Researching a
new paradigm. Oxford University Press on Demand.
12. Curley, M., & Salmelin, B. (2013). Open Innovation 2.0: a new paradigm. OISPG White Paper, 1-
12.
13. David F. J. Campbell de Araújo Burcharth, A. L., Knudsen, M. P., & Søndergaard, H. A. (2014):
Neither invented nor shared here: The impact and management of attitudes for the adoption of
open innovation practices. Technovation, 34(3), 149-161.

14. Dubina, Igor N. & Carayannis, Elias G. & Campbell, David F. J. (2012) Creativity Economy and a
Crisis of the Economy? Coevolution of Knowledge, Innovation, and Creativity, and of the
Knowledge Economy and Knowledge Society. Journal of Knowledge Economy 3:1–24. DOI
10.1007/s13132-011-0042-y
15. Ferrary, M. (2011). Specialized organizations and ambidextrous clusters in the open innovation
paradigm. European Management Journal, 29(3), 181-192.
16. Francesco Campanella & Maria Rosaria Della Peruta & Stefano Bresciani & Luca Dezi, (2017).
"Quadruple Helix and firms’ performance: an empirical verification in Europe," The Journal of
Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), p. 267-284
17. Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003): The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization
strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research policy, 32(2), 333-350.
18. Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&d
Management, 40(3), 213-221.
19. Gibbons M. (2013) Mode 1, Mode 2, and Innovation. In: Carayannis E.G. (eds) Encyclopedia of
Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Springer, New York, NY
20. gor N. Dubina & Elias G. Carayannis &
21. Ingenbleek P.T.M., Backus G.B.C. (2015) Organizing Open Innovation for Sustainability. In:
Brem A., Viardot É. (eds) Adoption of Innovation. Springer, Cham
22. Kennedy, S., Whiteman, G., & van den Ende, J. (2016). Radical innovation for sustainability: the
power of strategy and open innovation. Long Range Planning.
23. Kolehmainen, J., Irvine, J., Stewart, L., Karacsonyi, Z., Szabó, T., Alarinta, J., & Norberg, A. (2016).
Quadruple helix, innovation and the knowledge-based development: lessons from remote, rural
and less-favoured regions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 7(1), 23-42.
24. Leydesdorff, L. J Knowl Econ (2012) 3: 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4
25. Leydesdorff, L., & Ivanova, I. (2016). “Open innovation” and “triple helix” models of innovation:
can synergy in innovation systems be measured?. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology,
Market, and Complexity, 2(1), 11.
26. Melese, T., Lin, S. M., Chang, J. L., & Cohen, N. H. (2009). Open innovation networks between
academia and industry: an imperative for breakthrough therapies. Nature medicine, 15(5), 502.
27. Miller, K., McAdam, R., Moffett, S., Alexander, A., & Puthusserry, P. (2016). Knowledge transfer in
university quadruple helix ecosystems: an absorptive capacity perspective. R&D
Management, 46(2), 383-399.

28. Parveen, S., Senin, A. A., & Umar, A. (2015). Organization culture and open innovation: a
quadruple Helix open innovation model approach. International Journal of Economics and
Financial Issues, 5(1S), 335-342.
29. Parveen, S., Senin, A. A., & Umar, A. (2015): Organization culture and open innovation: a
quadruple Helix open innovation model approach. International Journal of Economics and
Financial Issues, 5(1S), 335-342.
30. Prytz, D., Flakstad, S., & Gjertsen, L. M. O. (2013). How and Why do Companies Perform Open
Innovation?:-a comparative study of Norwegian SMEs and large companies (Master's thesis,
Institutt for industriell økonomi og teknologiledelse).
31. Rauter, R., Perl-Vorbach, E., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2017). Is open innovation supporting
sustainable innovation? Findings based on a systematic, explorative analysis of existing
literature. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 11(2-3), 249-270.
32. Rexhepi, G. (2015). Entering new markets: Strategies for internationalization of family businesses.
In Family businesses in transition economies (pp. 293-303). Springer, Cham.
33. Rexhepi, G. (2015): Entering new markets: Strategies for internationalization of family businesses.
In Family businesses in transition economies (pp. 293-303). Springer, Cham.
34. Rexhepi, G., & Berisha, B. (2017). The effects of emotional intelligence in managing changes: an
entrepreneurial perspective. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable
Development, 13(2-3), 237-251.
35. Rexhepi, G., Ramadani, V., Rahdari, A., & Anggadwita, G. (2017). Models and strategies of family
businesses internationalization: A conceptual framework and future research directions. Review of
International Business and Strategy, 27(2), 248-260.
36. Sarkar, S., & Costa, A. I. (2008). Dynamics of open innovation in the food industry. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 19(11), 574-580.
37. Suklev, B., & Rexhepi, G. (2013). Growth strategies of entrepreneurial businesses: Evidence from
Macedonia. In Entrepreneurship in the Balkans (pp. 77-87). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
38. Syla, S., & Rexhepi, G. (2013). Quality circles: what do they mean and how to implement
them?. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(12), 243.
39. Vanhaverbeke, W., Van de Vrande, V., & Chesbrough, H. (2008). Understanding the advantages
of open innovation practices in corporate venturing in terms of real options. Creativity and
innovation management, 17(4), 251-258.

40. Vanhaverbeke, W., Van de Vrande, V., & Chesbrough, H. (2008). Understanding the advantages
of open innovation practices in corporate venturing in terms of real options. Creativity and
innovation management, 17(4), 251-258.
41. Wallin, S. (2010, October). The co-evolvement in local development–From the triple to the
quadruple helix model. In BOOK OF ABSTRACTS (p. 361).