Content uploaded by João Félix
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by João Félix on Jun 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
IMP.GE.212.0
Open Innovation
Strategy
Systematic Literature
Review
João Félix 44344
44344@alunos.upt.pt
IMP.GE.212.0
2
ABSTRACT
The world has changed rapidly in the last few decades; with the democratisation of the
internet and information, the firm’s boundaries are no longer visible. Knowledge creation
inside the firm is still a valid method for innovation. However, with increasing costs over
R&D and the concept that knowledge is everywhere, it is also safe to assume that it will be
possible to reduce costs by integrating outside knowledge to fasten the innovation and
product development cycles. Moreover, the new paradigm of open innovation was born to
help the firm use internal and external sources of knowledge to obtain a definite competitive
advantage. This work aims to perform a systematic literature review that analyses the
evolution of the Open Innovation Strategy by using the WOS database. 40th articles
analysed from 1989 until 2017; this resulted in the work being grouped into 4 clusters
according to their contribution to the comprehension of Open Innovation Strategy: i)
Knowledge base view; ii) Networks & Knowledge management; iii) Business Model; iv)
Types of innovation.
Keywords: democratisation; internet; change; Open innovation; KBV; Networks; Business
model
IMP.GE.212.0
3
1 INTRODUCTION
As its primary purpose, this work elaborates a systematic literature review of the Open
Innovation Strategy, bringing to the open the factors considered by literature as crucial for
success.
Chesbrough (2003) introduces the theme of Open Innovation in literature, where the author
explains the shift from the old Closed Innovation Model to the Open Innovation Model.
One of the critical differences between models is that in Open Innovation, projects can be
launched from either internal or external technology sources, and new technology can enter
the process at various stages. In addition, projects can go to market in many ways, such as
spin-offs not restrained to the market the company operates typically on.
Chesbrough (2006) defines Open Innovation as a paradigm that assumes that firms can and
should use external ideas and internal ideas and internal and external paths to market as
they look to advance their technology.
Dodgson et al. (2006) were the first to mention Open Innovation Strategy in literature in
their work regarding “The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case
of Procter & Gamble”, in a world in rapid technological change with a necessity of cutting
down R&D costs and risk from sending a new product to marketing (Chesbrough &
Appleyard, 2007). With the necessity of searching outside the firm’s boundaries for new
knowledge that helps create better products and reduce the R&D costs, this boundary
concept is thinner. The adaptation of Open Innovation is widespread and not only
connected to large technology companies. Not all smart people work for the firm, and it is
understood that there are good ideas outside, and not all internal ideas can go out to market
(Chesbrough & Crowther, 2006).
Companies that have not focused on Open Innovation can fail because they do not share
the costs of R&D or the market risk. Alternatively, it could end like the Xerox Parc paradox,
a leading innovation company in the late ’70s that made companies like Apple and
Microsoft wealthy (i.e. the mouse and the graphic interface that made modern operation
systems)(Chesbrough, 2006).
IMP.GE.212.0
4
2 RESEARCH METHOD
In searching for more detailed information about Open Innovation Strategy, the author
chose an SLR (Systematic Literature Review) through a transparent and reproducible
procedure; systematic reviews improve both the quality of the review process and its results
(Tranfield et al., 2003).
The primary purpose of this work is to perform a systematic literature review using the
essential studies being developed about the thematic of Open Innovation Strategy; for that
matter, the author uses the scientific database Web of Science.
The author started his search in the database Web of Science on the 15th of November of
2021, using the search topic of “Open Innovation Strateg*”. From this initial search, the
author obtains a sample of 186 articles. At this stage in the search was essential to refine
the query using the following parameters: document type, categories, and language. The
author selected articles and early access regarding the first parameter document type. The
author selected management, business and economics for the second parameter category.
Regarding the last parameter, the author selected only articles in the English language. With
this new and refined search query, the author obtains a sample of 100 articles.
IMP.GE.212.0
5
The use of the SLR Methodology in the search query was as follows. First, the author
defined search boundaries that included the string used in the search “Open innovation
strateg*” and the protocol defined by “search title, abstract, author keywords, and keyword
plus.” The search boundaries close with the database, in this case, WOS.
The second step is the inclusion criteria, and the author followed the following; arguments
articles published until the 15th of November of 2021, articles published in peer-review
journals, articles in the English language and a focus on Business, Management and
economics. At this stage, no exclusion criteria were used to refine the sample further.
In the third step regarding the literature search, the author’s final sample was the initial
inclusion criteria of 100 articles from WOS.
SLR Methodology
Literature Search
Initial inclusion
criteria: Wos 100
Total art icles in
database: 100
Inclusion C riteria
Focus in Busiens s,
Management and
Economics
Articles P ublished
till November 15,
2021
Articles p ublished
in peer-reviewed
journals
Articles p ublished
in English
Language
Search Boundaries
Protocol: search
title, abstract,
author keywords,
and Keywords
Plus.
Database: WOS
String ("Open
innovation
strateg*")
Figure 1 SLR Methodology applayed in the Study
IMP.GE.212.0
6
2.1 DATA EXTRACTION
The author decided on a co-citation analysis as his primary analysis technique to identify
trends in the literature amongst the sample that resulted from WOS research. Zitt &
Bassecoulard (1994) defend using co-citations analysis to identify the papers with higher
impact.
Small (1973) defines co-citation as the frequency of two papers cited together. White &
Griffith (1981) also states that the more two documents are cited, the closer the relationship
is, clustering them into groups. The author conducted his research using VOSviewer
version 1.6.18; the co-citation analysis was performed based on articles with five co-
citations, resulting in four clusters as presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2 - Co-Citation Analysis Cluster Output extracted on the
15th of November 2021
IMP.GE.212.0
7
The extracted sample from VOSviewer resulted in 137 articles; after a detailed review of
these articles, 20 articles were excluded for not being relevant to study thematic or being
books. It is essential to consider that on Cluster 1 (Red), nine articles were excluded, on
Cluster 2 (Green), six articles; on Cluster 3 (Blue), five articles and Cluster 4 (Yellow)
remained unaltered.
Table 1 - Cluster Representation extrated VOSviewer
Cluster
Cluster Theme
Orginal Articles
Revised Articles
Cluster 1 (Red)
Knowledge Base View
40
31
Cluster 2 (Green)
Networks and Knowledge
39
33
Cluster 3 (Blue)
Business Models
33
28
Cluster 4 (Yellow)
Types o f Innova tion
25
25
Total o f Artic les
137
117
After using these excluded criteria and a detailed read of the abstract and conclusions, it
was possible to name each cluster as presented in Table 1.
Due to a large number of articles and the need to further develop a characterisation of each
cluster, the author created a rank system that would only consider the best ten articles of
each cluster. The ranking system is based on the Weight Citation in the VOSviewer Output.
Link Strenght is the chosen criteria in the case of a tie.
IMP.GE.212.0
8
3 SEARCH PROFILE
Using WOS analysis of the number of publications and references with the title “Open
innovation strateg*”, it is possible to observe its crescent interest from 2006 until 2021. Of
the 100 articles on this recent topic, open innovation was first mentioned in the literature
(Chesbrough, 2003). Regarding strategies of open innovation, as the author’s search
presents, 2016 was the year of the first publication of the compelling case of Procter and
Gamble (Dodgson et al., 2006).
At this stage, the author created a ranking of the five most cited articles from the initial
WOS sample, as presented in Table 2. In the articles dated from 2006 to 2015, it is essential
to consider that the first article about open innovation strategy ranks first with 373 citations
(Dodgson et al., 2006).
Table 2 - Top 5 Most Cited Articles
Author(s)
Article
Citations
(Dodgson et al., 2006)
The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter &
Gamble
373
(Dittrich & Duysters,
Networking as a Means to Strategy Change: The Case of Open Innovat ion in Mo bile
Telephony
278
(Lichtenthaler, 2009)
Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: examining
environmental influences
213
(Saebi & Foss,
Busines s mode ls for ope n Innovat ion: Matching hetero geneous open innovation
strate gies w ith bus iness model d imens ions
150
(Belussi et al., 2010)
Learning at the boundaries in an “Open Re giona l Innova tion Sys tem”: A focus on
firms’ innovation strategies in the Emilia Ro magna life science industry
128
Figure 3 - Publications Vs Citations Evolution Over Time
Extrated from WOS
IMP.GE.212.0
9
Regarding the most cited publications, the author created a ranking of the 20 most
representative, as presented in Table 3. The importance of the thematic in the study to
Research and Development (R&D) with 633 citations is about 25% of all citations. Also
important to consider is the Journal of Product Innovation Management, with 317 citations,
about 13% of all citations.
Table 3 - Top 20 Most Cited Publications
Journals
Citations
R & D MANAGEMENT
633
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
317
RESEARCH POLICY
256
EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL
162
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT
143
TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE
107
BUSINESS HORIZONS
104
INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION
99
RESEARCH-TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT
92
LONG RANGE PLANNING
86
TECHNOVATION
83
CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW
77
INFORMATION & MANAGEMENT
71
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS
62
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
58
MANAGEMENT DECISION
52
STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP JOURNAL
46
TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
45
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
42
TOTAL
2535
Table 4 presents the top research areas; although all the sample derives from Business
Economics, other areas of study are also complemented, from Engineering to Geography
and Transportation.
IMP.GE.212.0
10
Table 4 - Top Research Areas
Research Areas
Number of Articles
Percentage %
Business Economics
100
100%
Engineering
13
13%
Public Administration
8
8%
Science Technology Other Topics
8
8%
Information Science Library Science
6
6%
Operations Research Management Science
6
6%
Environmental Sciences Ecology
4
4%
Computer Science
2
2%
Development Studies
1
1%
Geography
1
1%
Transportation
1
1%
Table 5 presents present the principle methodologies and approaches used in the studies.
The sample presents 26 articles of a qualitative nature, 45 from a quantitative nature and
19 from mixed-methods.
Table 5 - Number of Articles by Methodology
Type of Methodologies
Number of Articles
Percentage %
Qualitative
36
36%
Quantitative
45
45%
Mixed-Methods
19
19%
Total
100
100%
IMP.GE.212.0
11
4 THEMATIC GROUPS
At this point, it is necessary to further explore the articles in the study. The 40 articles from
the ranked sample were divided into four clusters by thematic and contribution to the study
of Open Innovation Strategy (Table 6): i) Knowledge base view; ii) Networks and
Knowledge Management; iii) Business Models; vi) Types of Innovation.
Table 6 - Article Distribution by Thematic
Cluster
Number of Articles
Knowledge Base View
10
Networks and Knowledge Management
10
Business Models
10
Types of Innovations
10
TOTAL
40
To better understand each cluster and its contribution to the thematic Open Innovation
Strategy study, it was considered to present each article by cluster and main results.
IMP.GE.212.0 12
Table 7 - Cluster 1 Knowledge Base View
Author(s)
Objectives
Methods
Sample
Key Findings
(Huston &
Sakkab,
2006)
Find a pa rtner w ith the te chnol ogy and knowled ge to so lve the pro blem of developing a new
product.
Qualitative
N/a
The Connect and develop method for developing a new product in record time at a fraction of
the regular cost.
(Zahra &
George,
2002)
The reconceptualisation of absorptive capacity as a dynamic capability.
Qualitative
N/a
Absorptive capacity is a set of organisational routines and processes that firms acquire,
assimilate, transform, and exploit to produce a dynamic organisati onal capability.
(Chesbrough
& Appleyard,
2007)
This article aims to study the increasing adaptation of more open innovatio n and ens ure tha t
this adaptation can be explained with the theories of business strategy.
Qualitative
N/a
Open strategy is the attempt to balance the power of the value creation force of creative
individuals, communities and collaboration initiatives with the continuous need to capture value
to sustain participation and support for these initiatives.
(Teece et al., 1997)
Addressing the f undamental ques tion in st rategic manage ment of how firms achieve and
sustai n compet itive a dvanta ge.
Qualitative
N/a
The study suggests that competitive success can flow from strategising and economising,
although the authors defend the fundamental status of strategising. Only in particular
circumstances over strategising can lead to harm to long-term competitiveness.
(Dittrich &
Duysters,
2007)
This st udy investigates how innovation networks can be used to deal with a changing
technological environment.
Mixed-
Methods
2,500
agreements
This study demonstrates the power of strategic technology networks for repositioning under
change co nditio ns. These networks appear to offer flexibility, speed, innovation, and the ability
to adjust smoothly to changing market conditions and new strategic opportunities.
(von Hippel, 2005)
The international research community’s understanding of what is user-centered innovatio n.
Quantit ative
8 Studie s
The users ’ ability to innovate is improving radically and rapidly due to the steadily i mproving
computer software and hardware quality.
(Chiaroni et a l.,
2011)
This study addresses the topics of understanding the relevance of Open Inno vatio n beyon d
high-tech ind ustrie s and ho w firms implement Ope n Innova tion
Qualitative
N/a
The Ope n Innovation pa radig m is imple mented along a three-phase process co mprisi ng the
unfreezing, moving, and institutionalising stages.
(Foss et al., 2011)
This stud y pretends to prove that firms can i mprove t heir in novation proce ss by using users’
knowledge.
Mixed-
Methods
169 Fir ms
A key result is that organisational practices mediate the link from customer knowledge to
innovat ion.
(March, 1991)
The purpose of this work is to consider the complications regarding the allocation of resources
between exploring new possibilities and exploiting old certainties in organisat ional learning.
Quantit ative
N/a
This work proves that the trade-off between exploring new possibilities and exploiting old
certainties is affected by their contexts o f distribution cost and benefits and ecological
interaction.
(Teece, 2007)
This paper draws on the social and behavioural sciences to specify the nature and
microfoundations of the capabilities necessary to sustain superior enterprise performance.
Qualitative
N/a
Dynamic capabilities enable business enterprises to create, deploy, and protect intangible assets
supporting superior long-term business performance.
IMP.GE.212.0
13
Cluster 1, “Knowledge Base View”, comprises ten articles, six qualitative nature, two
quantitative nature and two mixed-methods (Table 7). These articles contribute to
understanding the importance of knowledge as a firm resource.
Huston & Sakkab (2006) address Procter & Gamble’s connect and develop a method for
innovation, where the firm searches outside its boundaries to a solution in how to solve a
problem in the development of a new product. The search solution was found, and the firm
accessed outside knowledge and resources to develop a new product in record time with a
fraction of the cost.
Zahra & George (2002) pretend to reconceptualise the absorptive capacity as a dynamic
capability. The authors define absorptive capacity as a set of organisational routines and
processes that firms acquire, assimilate, transform, and exploit to produce a dynamic
organisational capability.
Chesbrough & Appleyard (2007) argues that open strategy is the attempt to balance the
power of the value creation force of creative individuals, communities and collaboration
initiatives with the continuous need to capture value to sustain participation and support for
these initiatives.
Von Hippel (2005) tries to understand user-centered innovation; it is a crucial definition
because the users’ ability to innovate is improving radically and rapidly due to the steadily
improving computer software and hardware quality. This user innovation would be
necessary for a more decisive knowledge base view of the firm.
Foss et al., (2011) pretend to prove a relationship between the capacity of the firm to
improve the innovation process and the inclusion of users’ knowledge in those processes.
As a result, organisational practices mediate the link from customer knowledge to
innovation.
IMP.GE.212.0 14
Table 8 - Cluster 2 Networks & Knowledge Management
Author(s)
Objectives
Methods
Sample
Key Findings
(Laursen & Salter,
2006)
This paper aims to use o a large-scale sa mple of industrial firms to prove a link between
search s trategy and in novative performance.
Quantit ative
13315
Business
The results strongly suggest that searching widely (external search breadth) and deeply (external
search depth) across various search channels can provide ideas and resources that help firms gain and
exploit innovative opportunities.
(Cohen & Levint hal,
1990)
In this study, researchers defend that it is critical for a company’s innova tion p rocess
to recognise the value of new infor mation integra ted and applied to commercial ends.
Quantit ative
1719
Business
The results suggested that when there is less quality of knowledge, an increase in the relevance of
knowledge should have a more positive effect on the intens ity of res earch and deve lopme nt.
(Chesbrough, 2003)
The Open Innovation Model is shifting from Closed Innovation to Open Innovation.
Qualitative
N/a
The areas of innovation: funding, generating and commercialising innova tion as their modes. It is
essential to rapidly use the valued knowledge ava ilable internally or externally be fore it becomes lost.
(Cassiman &
Veugelers, 2006)
In this s tudy, re searc hers ana lyse the comple mentar ity bet ween R& D and e xternal
knowledge acqu isitio n for innovation activities.
Mixed-
Methods
1335 Fir ms
The results complement these innovation activities: internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition.
(Cohen & Levint hal,
1989)
The stud ies pre tend to prove t hat the R&D investme nts are not only used for new
process creation and product innovation but also pretend to develop and ma intain more
expansive capabilities to assimilate a nd exploit external information.
Quantit ative
2494
Busines s
The results confirm that the influence of appropriability and technological opportunity conditions are
affected by determinants of the ease of learning, particularly the targeted quality of knowledge inputs.
(Barney, 1991)
This research studies the links between the firm’s resources and sustained competitive
advantage.
Qualitative
N/a
The model stresses the importance of the firm’s resource endowments in creating sustained
compet itive a dvant ages. This mo del is based on four empir ical i ndicat ors o f the fi rm’s potential
resources to generate a sustained competitive advantage: value, rareness, imitability, and
(Leiponen & Helfat,
2010)
The researchers intend to study the association between the breadth of technological
search in innovation objectives and knowledge sources and the firm’s innovat ion
success.
Quantit ative
339 Firms
The results suggest that a greater breadth of Innovation and knowledge sources are associated with
better sales revenues on newly commercialised innovations, therefore business success.
(Tether, 2002)
This study pretends to investigate t he patterns of co-operation between companies that
innovate and external partners.
Quantit ative
1275 Firms
Results suggest that the extent of co-operative activities for innovation depends on the type of
companies being considered and what is meant by innovat ion.
(Laursen & Salter,
2004)
This stud y pretends to examine the fac tors influencing why firms draw t heir innovatio n
activities from the universities.
Quant itative
13315
Busines s
The results lead to firms that adopt open search strategies and invest in R&D being more likely than
other firms to draw the ir innovat ion fro m universities.
(Perkmann &
Walsh, 2007)
This paper explores the diffusion and characteristics of collaborative relationships
between universities and industry and develops a research agenda informed by an open
innovation perspective.
Qualitative
N/a
The evid ence s uggests that i nter-or ganisational relationships between public research organisatio ns
are widespread and regarded as valuable by industrial and academic participants.
IMP.GE.212.0
15
Cluster 2, “Networks & Knowledge Management,” comprises ten articles, three of
qualitative nature, six of quantitative nature and one of the mixed-methods (Table 8). These
articles contribute to understanding the relations between search strategy and Innovation
performance and how networks can help amplify this search for new knowledge and apply
it to commercial ends (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).
Laursen & Salter (2006) pretend to prove a link between search strategy and innovation
performance; their result proves a relationship between external search and the generation
of ideas and resources that a firm can explore to obtain innovation opportunities.
Chesbrough (2003), in his seminal paper about Open Innovation, defends the shift from
Closed to Open Innovation and the importance of knowledge management by rapidly using
the valued knowledge that is available internally or that was obtained externally in a
relationship network.
Cassiman & Veugelers (2006) analyse any relationship between R&D and external
knowledge acquisition for the firm’s innovation activities; as a result, the authors obtained
that complementation between internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition there
sustaining the importance of correct knowledge management via external networks.
Perkmann & Walsh (2007) study the nature of the collaborative relationship between
university and industry from an Open Innovation perspective. The universities are sources
of external knowledge and an element of the network that provides external resources and
knowledge for the firm’s innovative activities. The author also supports an inter-
organisational relationship between public research and industry. Laursen & Salter (2004)
defend that firms that adopt open search strategies and invest in R&D are more likely than
other firms to draw their innovation from universities. It is possible to conclude that a
relationship exists between Networks and partners like universities to support the firm’s
search for knowledge and resource to implement in their internal R&D and take to market.
IMP.GE.212.0 16
Table 9 - Cluster 3 Business Models
Author(s)
Objectives
Methods
Sample
Key Findings
(West & Bogers,
2014)
To provide a process model of how firms can leverage external sources of
innovat ion.
Qualitative
291
Publica tions
The stud y identifies five gaps i n the lite rature : the alignment to the bus iness mod el, a comprehens ive
view of all phases of the commercialisation process, the nonlinear nature of the process model, the
definition of innovation and limits and mod erators of the process model.
(van de V rande e t
al., 2009)
The study pretends to prove that small and medium-sized enterprises also use open
innovation practices.
Mixed-
Methods
1206
Individuals
The results suggest that MNEs conduct o pen innovation and apply to a broad sample of SMEs, and
open innovation is increasingly adopted.
(West et al., 2014)
The anal ysis of t he contributio n to the e volutio n of OI si nce Chesbroug h first
published his book in 2003 suggests future directions in the study of OI.
Qualitative
287 articles
Although highly cited and has influenced the study of innovat ion, ope n innovation re search ha s had
a limited impact on the border disciples of management and economics.
(Bogers et al., 2017)
This paper provides an overview of the main perspectives and themes emerging in
research on open innovatio n (OI). The paper results from a collaborative process
among several OI scholars
Qualitative
N/a
This paper identifies some of the gaps within the different research directions and thus highlights
new research areas. In particular, they propose new research questions that span collaborative
innovat ion concepts and leve ls of ana lysis that have previously de velope d in para llel.
(Parida et al., 2012)
This study investigates the implicat ions of small and medium-sized enterprises in
open innovation adaptation.
Quantit ative
252 SMEs
The results prove that different open innovation activities benefit different innovation outco mes (i.e.
technology sourcing is linked to radical innovation performance).
(Bianc hi et al. ,
2011)
This stud y inves tigates the ad option o f Open I nnovat ion in the biopha rmace utical
industry, studying how organisational modes are applied and how these modes are
connected with the different phases of the drug discovery and development process.
Qualitative
20
pharma ceutic al
firm
The stud y thoroughly discusses how these fi rms have used different organis ationa l modes to enter
into a relationship with different types o f partners to acquire (Inbound OI) or commercially exploit
(Outbound OI) technologies and knowledge.
(Cheng & Huizingh,
2014)
This study addresses this: does performing OI activities increase innovat ion
perfor mance? What is t he moder ating impact of vario us kinds of strategic
orienta tion o n the relation be tween O I and Innovation performance?
Mixed-
Methods
1000 Fir ms
The res ults sho w that performing open innovation activities is positively related to the dimensions
(4) of innovation performance; regarding the influence of the firm’s strategic orientations, the
researchers found that all significant moderation effects are positive.
(Chiang & Hung,
2010)
The researchers defend that accessing knowledge from a limited external channel
can facilitate incremental innovation performance in a company and from a broader
range can enhance radical innovation performance of the firm.
Quantit ative
184 Fir ms
As a resu lt, the research found that open search depth is positively related to the firm’s innova tion
performance, and open search breadth is positively related to radical innovation performance.
(Almirall &
Casadesus-
Masanell, 2010)
This study addresses when open innova tion is superior to closed innovation.
Quantit ative
100 Firms
(Simulation)
If it is impossible to change partners, OI performs better than CI if the complexity is low. If to change
partner s, then as the partner opportunity set expands, so does the minimum level of complexity such
that OI leads to better performance than closed innovation.
(Laursen & Salter,
2014)
This study pretends to address the paradox of openness. Innovative firms must
collaborate with other players in the market and at the same time capture value from
their innovative ideas.
Quantit ative
28,000 business
The research found a concave relationship between the firm’s breadth of external search and formal
collaboration for innovatio n, and a lso the firm’s appropriability strategies strength,
IMP.GE.212.0
17
Cluster 3, “Business Models”, comprises ten articles, four qualitative nature, four
quantitative nature and two mixed-methods (Table 10). These articles contribute to
understanding the importance of defining a Business Model for Open Innovation. Sumitra
(2012) asks Henry Chesbrough about the difference between Open Innovation and Open
Source Software, and the difference is the Business Model. In Open Innovation, the
Business Model has to provide the firm with ways to obtain a profit; on the other hand, in
Open Source Software, profit is not the case.
West & Bogers (2014) study identifies five gaps in the literature: the alinement of the
business model, comprehensive view of all phases of the commercialisation process, the
nonlinear nature of the process model, the definition of innovation and limits and
moderators of the process model.
Van de Vrande et al. (2009) pretend to prove that not only large companies in the
technology area are using open innovation practices inside their business model. Their
result suggests that open innovation is increasingly adopted.
Parida et al. (2012) study the implications of small and medium-sized enterprises in open
innovation adaptation. As a result, different innovation activities benefit different
innovation outcomes; for example, technology sourcing is linked to radical innovation
performance and business models.
Cheng & Huizingh (2014) studied if performing Open Innovation activities increases the
innovation performance, and as a result performing innovation activities is positively
related to the four dimensions of innovation performance; i) new product/service
innovativeness; ii) new product/service success; iii) customer performance; iv) financial
performance. It would be necessary for further research to investigate the weight of these
dimensions of innovation performance in the overall adaptation of the business model.
IMP.GE.212.0 18
Table 10 - Cluster 4 Types of Innovation
Author(s)
Objectives
Methods
Sample
Key Findings
(Dahlander &
Gann, 2010)
This study pretends to clarify the definition of “openness” used in the literat ure on op en
innovat ion.
Qualitative
102 Publications
The researchers divided inbound and outbound innovatio n into pecuniary and non-pecuniary
interac tions. For eac h type o f openne ss, the y explo re adva ntages and disa dvanta ges.
(Chesbrough &
Crowther, 2006)
Study potential “early adopters” of Open In novation outs ide the “ high-technology”
Industr ies.
Qualitative
40 senior business
executives
The adoption of OI concepts is still at an early stage, but the study proves its adaptation in a
wide range of industr ies considered before.
(Enkel et al., 2009)
This study aims to advance the perspective of R&D, innovation and technology
manage ment by build ing on previo us and current studies in t he field and pro viding fut ure
directions.
Qualitative
107 Fir ms
R&D Mana gement brings s ome of the most active aut hors who have de veloped a better
understanding of open R&D and OI in recent years. While most researchers focus on the
outside-in proc ess, t he theor y does not clearly unde rstand i nside -out or outbound activities.
(Gassmann et al.,
2010)
Create a reflection upon the perspectives for OI.
Qualitative
N/a
Nine perspectives need to be developed in OI: spatial perspective, structural perspective, user
perspective, supplier perspective, leveraging perspective, process perspective, tool
perspective, institutional perspective and cultural perspective.
(Huizingh, 2011)
This study pretends to explore the concept of open innovation. It will pretend to address
what (co ntent), when (c onte xt-dependency), and how (process) q uestio ns.
Qualitative
150 innovation
papers
There is evidence that open innovation ha s been a valued concept in different contexts for
many co mpanies , find ing thei r place in inno vation manage ment.
(West & Gallagher,
2006)
How to lead with the three fundamental challenges for implementing OI: creative ways
to use inter nal inno vation be tter, use exte rnal inno vation internally, a nd encourage
outsiders to supp ly exte rnal in novations.
Qualitative
N/a
The four strategies firms can employ to lead with the paradox: Pooled R&D and PD, spinouts,
selling complements and attracting donated complements.
(Lee et al., 2010)
This study pretends to identify SMEs’ potential for open inno vation and develop
collaboration models to increase this potential.
Quantit ative
2414 Korean
SMEs
As a result, several possibilities for facilitating Innovation in SMEs were indicated.
(Lichtenthaler &
Lichtenthaler, 2009)
This study merged research into knowledge management, absorptive capacity, and
dynamic capabilities to obtain an integrative perspective, which po nders knowledge
explora tion, retention, and exploitation inside and outside a firm’s boundaries.
Qualitative
N/a
The conceptualisation of a capability-based framework helps op eratio nalise knowle dge
manage ment and OI.
(Lichtenthaler,
2008)
This researcher pretends to describe the current state of OI.
Qualitative
154 Fir ms
This study shows that most firms pursue Closed I nnovat ion; the re stil l in the pro cess of
transiting from closed to OI.
(Lichtenthaler,
2011)
The study aims to evaluate the literature and assess whether OI is a sustainable trend or
just a mana gement fashio n.
Qualitative
N/a
Created a framework proving organisational capabilities for managing OI are affected by
determinates at multiple levels. (the attitudes of an individual employee may aggravate the
development of absorptive capacity at the firm level).
IMP.GE.212.0
19
Cluster 4, “Types of Innovation”, comprises ten articles, nine qualitative and one
quantitative (Table 11). In this cluster, the connections between Open Innovation and the
different types of innovation are explored and also consider the relationship between R&D
and Open Innovation, namely inside-out and outside-in.
Dahlander & Gann (2010) discuss the importance of clarifying the idea of “Openness” used
in literature and reconceptualising the concept by introducing two Inbound processes and
two Outbound processes. They explore the advantages and disadvantages of each method
to support future research in the thematic. Chesbrough & Crowther (2006) abord “early-
adopter” outside the technological industries, they conclude that the adoption of OI usually
is defined by the “early adopter” inside the technology sector, but there is also a more
comprehensive range of industries adopting OI.
Enkel et al. (2009) identify a gap regarding the lack of studies addressing a clear
understanding of inside-out or outbound activities. Until now, researchers have focused on
the outside-in process.
West & Gallagher (2006) propose that researchers had to find a way to lead with three
fundamental challenges for implementing OI: using internal innovation better, using
external innovation internally, and encouraging outsiders to supply external innovation.
Sumitra (2012), in an interview with Henry Chesbrough from the World Economic Forum
where Chesbrough states that companies tend to accept the outside-in of the model better
than the inside-out of the model; we can conclude that companies still have problems with
the flux of knowledge from the company to the market.
Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler (2009) argue that it is crucial to operationalise the knowledge
management and OI and better explore knowledge, retention, and exploitation inside and
outside the firm’s boundaries. It is possible to establish a relationship between Types of
Innovation and knowledge management and, for that matter, a knowledge base view.
IMP.GE.212.0
20
5 RESEARCH AGENDA
Themes
Subthemes
Research Gaps
Questions for future research
Business Model
The importance of the
business model in open
innovat ion has been
ignored despite the role in
distinguishing open
innovation from earlier
research on inter-
organisationa l
collaboration in
innovat ion.
What is the role of a Business model in adapting
an Open Innovation Strategy?
Open Innovation
Strategy
Innovat ion
Use “innovat ion”
inconsistent with earlier
definitions in innovation
manage ment.
What is the definition of innovation in a
management environment?
IMP.GE.212.0
21
6 FRAMEWORK
7 CONCLUSION
This work aims to understand the factors that impact Open Innovation’s adaptation and
strategies.
Using a systematic literature review to analyse those factors, the author created a sample
using VOSviewer of initially 117 articles; the author felt the need to rank further this
sample for a more precise presentation of the thematic articles. The article timeframe
regarded articles from 1989 to 2017.
Open innovation is a complex process that large technological companies initially adopted
but since then has been widespread across different types of organisations, including
MMEs and SMEs (Chesbrough H, Crowther A, 2006).
Although the articles presented in the sample address the adaptation factors separately, this
article aims to establish a connection between them from the aspects outside the firm
Figure 4 - Concept Framework Open Innovation Strategy
IMP.GE.212.0
22
boundary to the aspects inside the firm. Another aimed contribution from this work is
identifying success factors for an Open Innovation Strategy: i) Knowledge Base View; ii)
Networks & Knowledge Management; iii) Business Models; iv) Types of Innovation.
After a detailed cluster analysis, the author concludes that for success in adapting the Open
Innovation Strategy, it is first necessary for the firm to understand the importance of a
knowledge-based view. Huston & Sakkab (2006) address this with the basilar concept
article Procter & Gamble’s connect and develop a method for innovation and how
searching knowledge outside the firm and implemented into developing a new product can
reduce costs and make NPD in record time. The search and implementation of knowledge
are crucial to the Open Innovation Strategy but depend on the manager’s will to change
mindsets from closed innovation to open innovation.
It is also crucial to consider the importance of Networks and Knowledge Management for
implementing an Open Innovation Strategy. Laursen & Salter (2006) prove a relationship
between external search and the generation of ideas and resources that a firm can explore
to obtain innovation opportunities; this is fundamental to establishing a relationship
between networks, knowledge management and open innovation strategy.
Regarding the importance of the factor Business Model for adapting an Open Innovation
Strategy, Sumitra (2012), interviewing Henry Chesbrough, states that in the end, it always
depends on the business model. It is possible to transfer technology not used by the
company (inside-out) to another company in another location (using another business
model), do the best marketing research for free, and watch the result with limited risk. In
the case of Open Source Software and Open Innovation, the basilar difference is the
Business Model; a firm wants to have profit; in Open Source, that is not the case.
It is also crucial to consider the last factor presented in this work to adopt an open
innovation strategy, Types of Innovation. West & Gallagher (2006) defend that it is
fundamental for research to address the three fundamental challenges for the
implementation of Open innovation: i) using internal innovation better; ii) using external
innovation internally; iii) encouraging outsiders to supply external innovation. This
premise makes a clear connection between the Open innovation strategy and the Types of
Innovation (Open, Closed), and the bigger picture can also connect to the knowledge base
view and the firms incorporate external information in innovation activities. For networks
IMP.GE.212.0
23
and knowledge management, the firm needs to search for information and resources outside
the firm’s boundaries.
7.1 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
The proposed framework in figure 4 underlines the relations between the four factors of an
effective Open Innovation Strategy. A successful Open Innovation Strategy is connected
to the firm’s capacity to implement internal and external knowledge in its innovation
process. The firm needs a network of partners willing to give this knowledge for a business
opportunity or royalties to access external knowledge. Furthermore, it needs to manage this
internal and external flow of knowledge. To make good use of this acquired knowledge,
the firm needs to sustain its Open Innovation Strategy in a supportive Business Model,
which sustains, for example, inside-out strategies being conducted with a partner with a
different business model at minimal risks (i.e. Internationalisation). Finally, the firm has to
use internal innovation better, use external innovation internally, and encourage outsiders
to supply external innovation. Furthermore, this connects us back to the Knowledge base
view. The framework is dynamic, and the firm can never stop the innovation process in this
perpetual motion.
7.2 LIMITATIONS
Regarding limitations, the author considers the use of only one database in this study; due
to this limitation, other relevant articles may not have been included. It is safe to assume
that a second study considering other relevant databases such as SCOPUS can increase the
quality of this study.
Another limitation is the lack of longitudinal studies in this field; they could bring essential
insights to the study field. A limited timeframe is a known limitation that can influence the
quality and result of any research.
IMP.GE.212.0
24
8 REFERENCES
Almirall, E., & Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010). Open Versus Closed Innovation: A Model of
Discovery and Divergence. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 27–47.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.45577790
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Belussi, F., Sammarra, A., & Sedita, S. R. (2010). Learning at the boundaries in an “Open
Regional Innovation System”: A focus on firms’ innovation strategies in the Emilia
Romagna life science industry. Research Policy, 39(6), 710–721.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.014
Bianchi, M., Cavaliere, A., Chiaroni, D., Frattini, F., & Chiesa, V. (2011). Organisational
modes for Open Innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical industry: An exploratory analysis.
Technovation, 31(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.03.002
Bogers, M., Zobel, A.-K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L.,
Frederiksen, L., Gawer, A., Gruber, M., Haefliger, S., Hagedoorn, J., Hilgers, D., Laursen,
K., Magnusson, M. G., Majchrzak, A., McCarthy, I. P., Moeslein, K. M., Nambisan, S.,
Piller, F. T., … ter Wal, A. L. J. (2017). The open innovation research landscape: established
perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and
Innovation, 24(1), 8–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1240068
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In Search of Complementarity in Innovation
Strategy: Internal R&D and External Knowledge Acquisition. Management Science, 52(1),
68–82. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0470
Cheng, C. C. J., & Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2014). When Is Open Innovation Beneficial? The
Role of Strategic Orientation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(6), 1235–
1253. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12148
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial
Innovation. In Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, & West J (Eds.), Open Innovation
Researching a New Paradigm (pp. 1–12). Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: early adopters of open
innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3), 229–236.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The Era of Open Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,
44(3), 35–41.
Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open Innovation and Strategy. California
Management Review, 50(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166416
IMP.GE.212.0
25
Chiang, Y.-H., & Hung, K.-P. (2010). Exploring open search strategies and perceived
innovation performance from the perspective of inter-organisational knowledge flows. R&D
Management, 40(3), 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00588.x
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). The Open Innovation Journey: How firms
dynamically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm. Technovation,
31(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.007
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of
R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233763
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on
Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6),
699–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013
Dittrich, K., & Duysters, G. (2007). Networking as a means to strategy change: The case of
open innovation in mobile telephony. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(6),
510–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00268.x
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. J. (2006). The role of technology in the shift
towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. R and D Management, 36(3), 333–
346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00429.x
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation:
exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 301–316.
Foss, N. J., Laursen, K., & Pedersen, T. (2011). Linking Customer Interaction and
Innovation: The Mediating Role of New Organizational Practices. Organization Science,
22(4), 980–999. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0584
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D
Management 40, 3, 2010, 40(3), 213–221.
Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives.
Technovation, 31(1), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.10.002
Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and Develop Inside Procter & Gamble’s New
Model for Innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 58–67. www.hbrreprints.org
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2004). Searching high and low: what types of firms use
universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33(8), 1201–1215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.004
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining
innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,
27(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
IMP.GE.212.0
26
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external
search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867–878.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.004
Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs—An intermediated
network model. Research Policy, 39(2), 290–300.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.12.009
Leiponen, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2010). Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the
benefits of breadth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 224–236.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.807
Lichtenthaler, U. (2008). Open Innovation in Practice: An Analysis of Strategic Approaches
to Technology Transactions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 148–
157. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2007.912932
Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance:
examining environmental influences. R&D Management, 39(4), 317–330.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00561.x
Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open Innovation: Past Research, Current Debates, and Future
Directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 75–93.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2011.59198451
Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A capability-based framework for open
innovation: Complementing absorptive capacity. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8),
1315–1338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00854.x
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization
Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Parida, V., Westerberg, M., & Frishammar, J. (2012). Inbound Open Innovation Activities in
High-Tech SMEs: The Impact on Innovation Performance. Journal of Small Business
Management, 50(2), 283–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2012.00354.x
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation:
Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.x
Saebi, T., & Foss, N. J. (2015). Business models for open innovation: Matching
heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions. European
Management Journal, 33(3), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.11.002
Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the Scientific Literature: A New Measure of the
Relationship Between Two Documents. Journal of American Society for Information
Science, 265–269.
IMP.GE.212.0
27
Sumitra. (2012). Insight: Ideas for Change - Open Innovation - Henry Chesbrough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02tCs3oKovc&list=PLnKWHU3V2mCfbSZVof6eufrw
qDCmwFQGY&index=9&t=590s
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why. Research Policy, 31(6),
947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00172-X
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing
Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British
Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8551.00375
van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & de Rochemont, M. (2009). Open
innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29(6–7),
423–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.001
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratising innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user
innovation. Journal För Betriebswirtschaft, 55(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-
004-0002-8
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of
Research on Open Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814–831.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12125
West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm
investment in open-source software. R and D Management, 36(3), 319–331.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00436.x
West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2014). Open innovation: The
next decade. Research Policy, 43(5), 805–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.001
White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual
structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 163–171.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630320302
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualisation,
and Extension. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185.
https://doi.org/10.2307/4134351
IMP.GE.212.0
28
Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (1994). Development of a method for detection and trend
analysis of research fronts built by lexical or cocitation analysis. Scientometrics, 30(1), 333–
351. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017232
