Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of open innovation has attracted considerable attention since Henry Chesbrough first coined it to capture the increasing reliance of firms on external sources of innovation. Although open innovation has flourished as a topic within innovation management research, it has also triggered debates about the coherence of the research endeavors pursued under this umbrella, including its theoretical foundations. In this paper, we aim to contribute to these debates through a bibliometric review of the first decade of open innovation research. We combine two techniques—bibliographic coupling and co-citation analysis—to (1) visualize the network of publications that explicitly use the label ‘open innovation’ and (2) to arrive at distinct clusters of thematically related publications. Our findings illustrate that open innovation research builds principally on four related streams of prior research, whilst the bibliographic network of open innovation research reveals that seven thematic clusters have been pursued persistently. While such persistence is undoubtedly useful to arrive at in-depth and robust insights, the observed patterns also signal the absence of new, emerging, themes. As such, ‘open innovation’ might benefit from applying its own ideas: sourcing concepts and models from a broader range of theoretical perspectives as well as pursuing a broader range of topics might introduce dynamics resulting in more impact and proliferation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In rare cases, publications are assigned to multiple document-type categories, e.g. ‘article/editorial’. We only selected publications that are assigned solely to the document type ‘article’.

  2. We downloaded the Web of Science records on October 1st, 2013. A copy of these records can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author.

  3. See Vogel and Güttel (2013) for a more elaborate overview of management research that draws upon citation-based bibliometric methods.

  4. See Van Eck and Waltman (2009) for a more elaborate overview of the most widely applied measures of similarity in bibliometric studies.

  5. VOSviewer is a freely available computer program for the visualization of bibliometric networks that can be downloaded from http://www.vosviewer.com/.

  6. Hence, the betweenness of an edge is larger, the higher the number of pairs of nodes that it lies between.

  7. See Van Eck and Waltman (2010) for an elaborate discussion of these default parameters.

  8. We were only able to download Web of Science records for 92 of the 123 cited references since the remaining references are books that are not held by the Web of Science.

References

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Albors-Garrigos, J., Etxebarria, N. Z., Hervas-Oliver, J. L., & Epelde, J. G. (2011). Outsourced innovation in SMEs: A field study of R&D units in Spain. International Journal of Technology Management, 55(1–2), 138–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., & Salter, A. (2009). Does IP strategy have to cripple open innovation? MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(1), 71–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., & Salter, A. (2012). Managing unsolicited ideas for R&D. California Management Review, 54(3), 116–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allarakhia, M., & Walsh, S. (2011). Managing knowledge assets under conditions of radical change: The case of the pharmaceutical industry. Technovation, 31, 105–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angehrn, A. A., Luccini, A. M., & Maxwell, K. (2009). InnoTube: A video-based connection tool supporting collaborative innovation. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(3), 205–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anokhin, S., Ortqvist, D., Thorgren, S., & Wincent, J. (2011). Corporate venturing deal syndication and innovation: the information exchange paradox. Long Range Planning, 44(2), 134–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bae, Y., & Chang, H. (2012). Efficiency and effectiveness between open and closed innovation: empirical evidence in South Korean manufacturers. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(10), 967–980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C., & Von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6), 1399–1417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barge-Gil, A. (2010). Open, semi-open and closed innovators: Towards an explanation of degree of openness. Industry and Innovation, 17(6), 577–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, M. R. (2012). An open innovation ecosystem for drug discovery. Medchemcomm, 3(1), 92–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basole, R. C., & Karla, J. (2011). On the evolution of mobile platform ecosystem structure and strategy. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 3(5), 313–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battistella, C., & Nonino, F. (2012). Open innovation web-based platforms: The impact of different forms of motivation on collaboration. Innovation-Management Policy and Practice, 14(4), 557–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 267–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477–1492.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, M., Campodall’Orto, S., Frattini, F., & Vercesi, P. (2010). Enabling open innovation in small- and medium-sized enterprises: How to find alternative applications for your technologies. R&D Management, 40(4), 414–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, M., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). Exploring the role of human resources in technology out-licensing: An empirical analysis of biotech new technology-based firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(8), 825–849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogers, M., & Lhuillery, S. (2011). A functional perspective on learning and innovation: Investigating the organization of absorptive capacity. Industry and Innovation, 18(6), 581–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonesso, S., Comacchio, A., & Pizzi, C. (2011). Technology sourcing decisions in exploratory projects. Technovation, 31(41588), 573–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonzi, S., & Snyder, H. W. (1991). Motivations for citation—A comparison of self citation and citation to others. Scientometrics, 21(2), 245–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2006). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. J. (2012). Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organization Science, 23(5), 1409–1427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadus, R. N. (1983). An investigation of the validity of bibliographic citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34(2), 132–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, T. A. (1986). Evidence of complex citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(1), 34–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullinger, A. C., Rass, M., Adamczyk, S., Moeslein, K. M., & Sohn, S. (2012). Open innovation in health care: Analysis of an open health platform. Health Policy, 105, 165–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caetano, M., & Amaral, D. C. (2011). Roadmapping for technology push and partnership: A contribution for open innovation environments. Technovation, 31(7), 320–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderon, F., Barros, D., Bueno, J. M., Coteron, J. M., Fernandez, E., Gamo, F. J., et al. (2011). An invitation to open innovation in malaria drug discovery: 47 quality starting points from the TCAMS. Acs Medicinal Chemistry Letters, 2(10), 741–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrascosa, M. C., Massaguer, O. L., & Mestres, J. (2012). Pharmatrek: a semantic web explorer for open innovation in multitarget drug discovery. Molecular Informatics, 31(8), 537–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Valentini, G. (2009). Strategic organization of R&D: the choice of basicness and openness. Strategic Organization, 7(1), 43–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., Chen, Y. F., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011). The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms. Technovation, 31(8), 362–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. H., Huang, M. H., & Chen, D. Z. (2012). Detecting temporal gaps of technology fronts: A case study of smart grid field. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(9), 1705–1719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003a). The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003b). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003c). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2004). Managing open innovation. Research-Technology Management, 47(1), 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Schwartz, K. (2007). Innovating business models with co-development partnerships. Research-Technology Management, 50(1), 55–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, D., Lee, S., & Kim, Y. (2012). The complementarities and contextualities of corporate R&D strategies: An empirical analysis of Korean manufacturing industry. Journal of Management and Organization, 18(3), 311–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clausen, T., & Rasmussen, E. (2011). Open innovation policy through intermediaries: the industry incubator programme in Norway. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(1), 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive-capacity—A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P. (2005). Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation exploring ‘Globalisation 2’—A new model of industry organisation. Research Policy, 34(8), 1128–1149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., & Thorwarth, S. (2012). The contribution of in-house and external design activities to product market performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 878–895.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, L., & Wallin, M. W. (2006). A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets. Research Policy, 35(8), 1243–1259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davey, S. M., Brennan, M., Meenan, B. J., & McAdam, R. (2011). Innovation in the medical device sector: An open business model approach for high-tech small firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(8), 807–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Couvreur, L., & Goossens, R. (2011). Design for (every)one: Co-creation as a bridge between universal design and rehabilitation engineering. Codesign-International Journal of Cocreation in Design and the Arts, 7(2), 107–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, J. P. J., Kalvet, T., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2010). Exploring a theoretical framework to structure the public policy implications of open innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(8), 877–896.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deodhar, S. J., Saxena, K. B. C., Gupta, R. K., & Ruohonen, M. (2012). Strategies for software-based hybrid business models. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(4), 274–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Minin, A., Frattini, F., & Piccaluga, A. (2010). Fiat: Open innovation in a downturn (1993–2003). California Management Review, 52(3), 132–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dushnitsky, G., & Klueter, T. (2011). Is there an Ebay for ideas? Insights from online knowledge marketplaces. European Management Review, 8(1), 17–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebersberger, B., & Herstad, S. J. (2011). Product innovation and the complementarities of external interfaces. European Management Review, 8(3), 117–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebner, W., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Community engineering for innovations: The ideas competition as a method to nurture a virtual community for innovations. R&D Management, 39(4), 342–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmquist, M., Fredberg, T., & Ollila, S. (2009). Exploring the field of open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 326–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erat, S., & Krishnan, V. (2012). Managing delegated search over design spaces. Management Science, 58(3), 606–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faems, D., De Visser, M., Andries, P., & Van Looy, B. (2010). Technology alliance portfolios and financial performance: Value-enhancing and cost-increasing effects of open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(6), 785–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faems, D., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Towards a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 238–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. (2011). Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organization Science, 22(5), 1224–1239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feller, J., Finnegan, P., Hayes, J., & O’Reilly, P. (2012). ‘Orchestrating’ sustainable crowdsourcing: A characterisation of solver brokerages. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(3), 216–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fey, C. F. (2005). External sources of knowledge, governance mode, and R&D performance. Journal of Management, 31(4), 597–621.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fichter, K. (2009). Innovation communities: The role of networks of promotors in open innovation. R&D Management, 39(4), 357–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2), 165–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folta, T. B. (1998). Governance and uncertainty: The trade-off between administrative control and commitment. Strategic Management Journal, 19(11), 1007–1028.

  • Ford, S. J., Mortara, L., & Probert, D. R. (2012). Disentangling the complexity of early-stage technology acquisitions. Research-Technology Management, 55(3), 40–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosfuri, A. (2006). The licensing dilemma: Understanding the determinants of the rate of technology licensing. Strategic Management Journal, 27(12), 1141–1158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, N., & Shah, S. (2003). How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy, 32(1), 157–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, K., Lüthje, C., & Haag, S. (2011). Whom should firms attract to open innovation platforms? The role of knowledge diversity and motivation. Long Range Planning, 44(5–6), 397–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Füller, J., Hutter, K., & Faullant, R. (2011). Why co-creation experience matters? Creative experience and its impact on the quantity and quality of creative contributions. R&D Management, 41(3), 259–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Füller, J., Matzler, K., Hutter, K., & Hautz, J. (2012). Consumers’ creative talent: which characteristics qualify consumers for open innovation projects? An exploration of asymmetrical effects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(3), 247–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, A., Giuri, P., & Luzzi, A. (2007). The market for patents in Europe. Research Policy, 36(8), 1163–1183.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, H., Aksuyek, E., Hacklin, F., & Von Krogh, G. (2012). Exploring social preferences in private-collective innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(2), 113–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: Towards an agenda. R&D Management, 36(3), 223–228.

  • Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O., Sandmeier, P., & Wecht, C. H. (2006). Extreme customer innovation in the front-end: learning from a new software paradigm. International Journal of Technology Management, 33(1), 46–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghauri, P. N., & Rao, P. M. (2009). Intellectual property, pharmaceutical MNEs and the developing world. Journal of World Business, 44(2), 206–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory—Strategies for qualitative research. Sociology Press.

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M., & Baden-Füller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grindley, P. C., & Teece, D. J. (1997). Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review, 39(2), 8–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groen, A. J., & Linton, J. D. (2010). Is open innovation a field of study or a communication barrier to theory development? Technovation, 30(11–12), 554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronlund, J., Sjodin, D. R., & Frishammar, J. (2010). Open innovation and the stage-gate process: A revised model for new product development. California Management Review, 52(3), 106–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, M., & Henkel, J. (2006). New ventures based on open innovation—An empirical analysis of start-up firms in embedded Linux. International Journal of Technology Management, 33(4), 356–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haefliger, S., Jager, P., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Under the radar: Industry entry by user entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 39(9), 1198–1213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering—interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 371–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31(4), 477–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halbert, L. (2012). Collaborative and collective: Reflexive co-ordination and the dynamics of open innovation in the digital industry clusters of the Paris region. Urban Studies, 49(11), 2357–2376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Henkel, J., & Von Hippel, E. (2003). Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Research Policy, 32(10), 1753–1769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harison, E., & Koski, H. (2010). Applying open innovation in business strategies: Evidence from Finnish software firms. Research Policy, 39(3), 351–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hars, A., & Ou, S. S. (2002). Working for free? Motivations for participating in open-source projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(3), 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, J. (2006). Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux. Research Policy, 35(7), 953–969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, J. (2009). Champions of revealing—The role of open source developers in commercial firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(3), 435–471.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Herstad, S. J., Bloch, C., Ebersberger, B., & Van de Velde, E. (2010). National innovation policy and global open innovation: Exploring balances, tradeoffs and complementarities. Science and Public Policy, 37(2), 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertel, G., Niedner, S., & Herrmann, S. (2003). Motivation of software developers in open source projects: An Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Research Policy, 32(7), 1159–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildrum, J. M. (2009). Sharing tacit knowledge online: A case study of e-learning in CISCO’s network of system integrator partner firms. Industry and Innovation, 16(2), 197–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. S. (2009). Societal and economic valuation of technology-transfer deals. Acta Astronautica, 65, 834–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, M. M., Tidd, J., Nightingale, P., & Miller, R. (2011). Generative and degenerative interactions: positive and negative dynamics of open, user-centric innovation in technology and engineering consultancies. R&D Management, 41(1), 44–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, K. N., & Tidd, J. (2012). Open versus closed new service development: The influences of project novelty. Technovation, 32(11), 600–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop: Inside Procter & Gamble's new model for innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 58–66.

  • Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Füller, J., Mueller, J., & Matzler, K. (2011). Communitition: The tension between competition and collaboration in community-based design contests. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(1), 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Igartua, J. I., Garrigos, J. A., & Hervas-Oliver, J. L. (2010). How innovation management techniques support an open innovation strategy. Research-Technology Management, 53(3), 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaksen, A., & Onsager, K. (2010). Regions, networks and innovative performance: The case of knowledge-intensive industries in Norway. European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(3), 227–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeon, J., Lee, C., & Park, Y. (2011). How to use patent information to search potential technology partners in open innovation. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16(5), 385–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeppesen, L. B., & Frederiksen, L. (2006). Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? The case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organization Science, 17(1), 45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafouros, M. I., & Forsans, N. (2012). The role of open innovation in emerging economies: Do companies profit from the scientific knowledge of others? Journal of World Business, 47(3), 362–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karo, E., & Kattel, R. (2011). Should “open innovation” change innovation policy thinking in catching-up economies? Considerations for policy analyses. Innovation-The European Journal of Social Science Research, 24(1–2), 173–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome—A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R-AND-D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibiliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keupp, M. M., & Gassmann, O. (2009). Determinants and archetype users of open innovation. R&D Management, 39(4), 331–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, T., Füller, J., Stieger, D., & Matzler, K. (2011). Avatar-based innovation: Consequences of the virtual co-creation experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 160–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, T., Matzler, K., & Füller, J. (2009). Avatar-based innovation: Using virtual worlds for real-world innovation. Technovation, 29, 395–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koruna, S. M. (2004). External technology commercialisation—Policy guidelines. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(2–3), 241–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakhani, K. R., & Von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works: “Free” user-to-user assistance. Research Policy, 32(6), 923–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampel, J., Jha, P. P., & Bhalla, A. (2012). Test-driving the future: How design competitions are changing innovation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(2), 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33(8), 1201–1215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. A., Chu, S. Y., Willard, F. S., Cox, K. L., Galvin, R. J. S., Peery, R. B., et al. (2011). Open innovation for phenotypic drug discovery: the pd2 assay panel. Journal of Biomolecular Screening, 16(6), 588–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G. K., & Cole, R. E. (2003). From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: The case of the Linux kernel development. Organization Science, 14(6), 633–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. M., Hwang, T., & Choi, D. (2012). Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries. Management Decision, 50, 147–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. G., Park, S. H., & Song, Y. I. (2009). Which is better for a firm’s financial performance: an externally oriented or inwardly oriented innovation strategy? An empirical study on Korean SMEs. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 17(1), 57–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs—An intermediated network model. Research Policy, 39(2), 290–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leimeister, J. M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Leveraging crowdsourcing: activation-supporting components for IT-based ideas competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 197–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2002). Some simple economics of open source. Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(2), 197–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. T., & Kozhikode, R. K. (2009). Developing new innovation models: Shifts in the innovation landscapes in emerging economies and implications for global R&D management. Journal of International Management, 15(3), 328–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2005). External commercialization of knowledge: Review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 231–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2007). The drivers of technology licensing: An industry comparison. California Management Review, 49(4), 67–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2008a). Open innovation in practice: An analysis of strategic approaches to technology transactions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 148–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2008b). Integrated roadmaps for open innovation. Research-Technology Management, 51(3), 45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2008c). Relative capacity: Retaining knowledge outside a firm’s boundaries. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 25(3), 200–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2008d). Opening up strategic technology planning: Extended roadmaps and functional markets. Management Decision, 46(1–2), 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2008e). External technology commercialisation projects: Objectives, processes and a typology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(4), 483–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: Examining environmental influences. R&D Management, 39(4), 317–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2010). Technology exploitation in the context of open innovation: Finding the right ‘job’ for your technology. Technovation, 30, 429–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2011a). Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and future directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 75–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2011b). Implementation steps for successful out-licensing. Research-Technology Management, 54(5), 47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2006). Attitudes to externally organising knowledge management tasks: a review, reconsideration and extension of the NIH syndrome. R&D Management, 36(4), 367–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A capability-based framework for open innovation: Complementing absorptive capacity. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1315–1338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2010). Technology transfer across organizational boundaries: absorptive capacity and desorptive capacity. California Management Review, 53(1), 154–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., & Muethel, M. (2012). The role of deliberate and experiential learning in developing capabilities: Insights from technology licensing. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 29(2), 187–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann, S., Niesenhaus, J., Heim, P., & Ziegler, J. (2009). Fostering knowledge flow and community engagement in the development of interactive entertainment. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 15(8), 1722–1734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, J. H., Roper, S., & Bryson, J. R. (2011). Openness, knowledge, innovation and growth in UK business services. Research Policy, 40(10), 1438–1452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mamtora, J., Wolstenholme, J. K., & Haddow, G. (2014). Environmental sciences research in northern Australia, 2000-2011: A bibliometric analysis within the context of a national research assessment exercise. Scientometrics, 98(1), 265–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Marjanovic, S., Fry, C., & Chataway, J. (2012). Crowdsourcing based business models: In search of evidence for innovation 2.0. Science and Public Policy, 39(3), 318–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Torres, M. R., Toral, S. L., Barrero, F., & Cortes, F. (2010). The role of Internet in the development of future software projects. Internet Research, 20(1), 72–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, H. (2010). Catching up: The role of state science and technology policy in open innovation. Economic Development Quarterly, 24(3), 195–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehlman, S. K., Uribe-Saucedo, S., Taylor, R. P., Slowinski, G., Carreras, E., & Arena, C. (2010). Better practices for managing intellectual assets in collaborations. Research-Technology Management, 53(1), 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minshall, T., Mortara, L., Valli, R., & Probert, D. (2010). Making “asymmetric” partnerships work. Research-Technology Management, 53(3), 53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, S. (2011). What determines the openness of a firm to external knowledge? Evidence from the Korean service sector. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 19(2), 185–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, L., & Finnegan, P. (2010). Open innovation in secondary software firms: An exploration of managers’ perceptions of open source software. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 41(1), 76–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortara, L., & Minshall, T. (2011). How do large multinational companies implement open innovation? Technovation, 31, 586–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C. (2009). Plus ca change: Industrial R&D in the “third industrial revolution”. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(1), 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Seitz, G., & Reger, G. (2009). Is open source software living up to its promises? Insights for open innovation management from two open source software-inspired projects. R&D Management, 39(4), 372–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Seitz, G., & Reger, G. (2010a). Networking beyond the software code? An explorative examination of the development of an open source car project. Technovation, 30(11–12), 627–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Seitz, G., & Reger, G. (2010b). ‘Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia’ as a role model? Lessons for open innovation from an exploratory examination of the supposedly democratic-anarchic nature of Wikipedia. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3–4), 457–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munsch, K. (2009). Open model innovation. Research-Technology Management, 52(3), 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagaoka, S., & Kwon, H. U. (2006). The incidence of cross-licensing: A theory and new evidence on the firm and contract level determinants. Research Policy, 35(9), 1347–1361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakagaki, P., Aber, J., & Fetterhoff, T. (2012). The challenges in implementing open innovation in a global innovation-driven corporation. Research-Technology Management, 55(4), 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napp, J. J., & Minshall, T. (2011). Corporate venture capital investments for enhancing innovation: Challenges and solutions. Research-Technology Management, 54(2), 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E, 69(2), 026113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyens, I., Faems, D., & Sels, L. (2010). The impact of continuous and discontinuous alliance strategies on startup innovation performance. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3–4), 392–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parjanen, S., Hennala, L., & Konsti-Laakso, S. (2012). Brokerage functions in a virtual idea generation platform: Possibilities for collective creativity? Innovation-Management Policy and Practice, 14(3), 363–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penin, J., & Wack, J. P. (2008). Research tool patents and free-libre biotechnology: A suggested unified framework. Research Policy, 37(10), 1909–1921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perr, J., Appleyard, M. M., & Sullivan, P. (2010). Open for business: emerging business models in open source software. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3–4), 432–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prugl, R., & Schreier, M. (2006). Learning from leading-edge customers at The Sims: Opening up the innovation process using toolkits. R&D Management, 36(3), 237–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullen, A. J. J., De Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., Groen, A. J., & Fisscher, O. A. M. (2012). Open innovation in practice: Goal complementarity and closed NPD networks to explain differences in innovation performance for SMEs in the medical devices sector. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 917–934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raasch, C., Herstatt, C., & Balka, K. (2009). On the open design of tangible goods. R&D Management, 39(4), 382–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., Hopkins, M. M., Hoekman, J., Siepel, J., O’Hare, A., Perianes-Rodríguez, A., & Nightingale, P. (2014). Big Pharma, little science? A bibliometric perspective on Big Pharma’s R&D decline. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 22–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajala, R., Westerlund, M., & Möller, K. (2012). Strategic flexibility in open innovation—Designing business models for open source software. European Journal of Marketing, 46(10), 1368–1388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remneland-Wikhamn, B., & Wikhamn, W. (2011). Open innovation climate measure: The introduction of a validated scale. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(4), 284–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigby, D. K., & Zook, C. (2002). Open-market innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80(10), 80–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, P. L., Casali, G. L., & Jacobson, D. (2012). Managing open incremental process innovation: Absorptive capacity and distributed learning. Research Policy, 41(5), 822–832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, G. M., & Mayr, L. M. (2011). Collaboration versus outsourcing: the need to think outside the box. Future Medicinal Chemistry, 3(16), 1995–2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolandsson, B., Bergquist, M., & Ljungberg, J. (2011). Open source in the firm: Opening up professional practices of software development. Research Policy, 40(4), 576–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusu, A., Kuokkanen, K., & Heier, A. (2011). Current trends in the pharmaceutical industry—A case study approach. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 44(3), 437–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandulli, F. D., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). The two sides of open business models. Universia Business Review, 22, 12–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiele, H. (2010). Early supplier integration: The dual role of purchasing in new product development. R&D Management, 40(2), 138–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiele, H. (2012). Accessing supplier innovation by being their preferred customer. Research-Technology Management, 55(1), 44–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segarra-Cipres, M., Bou-Llusar, J. C., & Roca-Puig, V. (2012). Exploring and exploiting external knowledge: The effect of sector and firm technological intensity. Innovation-Management Policy and Practice, 14(2), 203–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seldon, T. (2011). Beyond patents: Effective intellectual property strategy in biotechnology. Innovation-Management Policy and Practice, 13(1), 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharabchiev, J. T. (1988). Comparative analysis of two methods of cluster analysis of bibliographic references. Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, 2(4), 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shu, W., & Chuang, Y. H. (2012). Wikis as an effective group writing tool: A study in Taiwan. Online Information Review, 36(1), 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simiyu, K., Masum, H., Chakma, J., & Singer, P. A. (2010). Turning science into health solutions: KEMRI’s challenges as Kenya’s health product pathfinder. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 10(1), S10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjodin, D. R., Eriksson, P. E., & Frishammar, J. (2011). Open innovation in process industries: A lifecycle perspective on development of process equipment. International Journal of Technology Management, 56, 225–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slowinski, G., Hummel, E., Gupta, A., & Gilmont, E. R. (2009). Effective practices for sourcing innovation. Research-Technology Management, 52(1), 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slowinski, G., & Sagal, M. W. (2010). Good practices in open innovation. Research-Technology Management, 53(5), 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slowinski, G., & Zerby, K. W. (2008). Protecting IP in collaborative research. Research-Technology Management, 51(6), 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaeth, S., Stuermer, M., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Enabling knowledge creation through outsiders: Towards a push model of open innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 52, 411–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010a). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spithoven, A., Frantzen, D., & Clarysse, B. (2010b). Heterogeneous firm-level effects of knowledge exchanges on product innovation: Differences between dynamic and lagging product innovators. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(3), 362–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stam, W. (2009). When does community participation enhance the performance of open source software companies? Research Policy, 38(8), 1288–1299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation—Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terwiesch, C., & Xu, Y. (2008). Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Science, 54(9), 1529–1543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why—An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31(6), 947–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickle, M., Adebanjo, D., & Michaelides, Z. (2011). Developmental approaches to B2B virtual communities. Technovation, 31(7), 296–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todtling, F., Van Reine, P. P., & Dorhofer, S. (2011). Open innovation and regional culture—Findings from different industrial and regional settings. European Planning Studies, 19(11), 1885–1907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toral, S. L., Martinez-Torres, M. R., & Barrero, F. J. (2009a). Virtual communities as a resource for the development of OSS projects: the case of Linux ports to embedded processors. Behaviour and Information Technology, 28(5), 405–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toral, S. L., Torres, R. M., & Barrero, F. (2009b). Modelling mailing list behaviour in open source projects: the case of ARM embedded linux. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 15(3), 648–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traitler, H., & Saguy, I. S. (2009). Creating successful innovation partnerships. Food Technology, 63(3), 22–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trott, P., & Hartmann, D. (2009). Why ‘open innovation’ is old wine in new bottles. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 715–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. P. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tukel, O. I., Kremic, T., Rom, W. O., & Miller, R. J. (2011). Knowledge-salvage practices for dormant R&D projects. Project Management Journal, 42(1), 59–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vrande, V., Lemmens, C., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2006). Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing. R&D Management, 36(3), 347–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vrande, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Duysters, G. (2011). Additivity and complementarity in external technology sourcing: The added value of corporate venture capital investments. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(3), 483–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vrande, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Gassmann, O. (2010). Broadening the scope of open innovation: Past research, current state and future directions. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3–4), 221–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize coocurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1635–1651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Dekker, R., & Van den Berg, J. (2010). A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2405–2416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R. (1997). Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research Policy, 26(3), 303–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vladutz, G., & Cook, J. (1984). Bibliographic coupling and subject relatedness. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, 21, 204–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2013). The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management Science, 48(7), 821–833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E., & Von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E., & Von Krogh, G. (2006). Free revealing and the private-collective model for innovation incentives. R&D Management, 36(3), 295–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Krogh, G., Spaeth, S., & Lakhani, K. R. (2003). Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: A case study. Research Policy, 32(7), 1217–1241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, E. B. (2011). Why prize? The surprising resurgence of prizes to stimulate innovation. Research-Technology Management, 54(6), 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. Y. (2012). Exploring potential R&D collaborators with complementary technologies: The case of biosensors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(5), 862–874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Roijakkers, N. (2012). Exploring the impact of open innovation on national systems of innovation—A theoretical analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(3), 419–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, B. H. (1974). Bibliographic coupling—Review. Information Storage and Retrieval, 10(5–6), 189–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J. (2003). How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy, 32(7), 1259–1285.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3), 319–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2008). Getting clear about communities in open innovation. Industry and Innovation, 15(2), 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies, analysis and antitrust implications—A study of the economics of internal organization. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuehrer, G. A., & Smejkal, A. E. (2013). The knowledge domain of the academy of international business studies (AIB) conferences: A longitudinal scientometric perspective for the years 2006–2011. Scientometrics, 95(2), 541–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ye, W. W., Xu, P. P., Jia, Y. H., & Jiang, F. (2012). Crowdsourcing for open innovations. Applied Mathematics and Information Sciences, 6(3), 741–747.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, E., & Olsen, C. P. (1993). From transaction costs to transactional value analysis: Implications for the study of interorganizational strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 30(1), 131–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zdrazil, B., Pinto, M., Vasanthanathan, P., Williams, A. J., Balderud, L. Z., Engkvist, O., et al. (2012). Annotating human p-glycoprotein bioassay data. Molecular Informatics, 31(8), 599–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X. Y., & Zheng, Y. N. (2011). Development of Chinese science and technology intermediaries and their integration into the open innovation paradigm. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(1), 25–48.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Alberto Di Minin, Dries Faems, Wim Vanhaverbeke, Geertrui van Overwalle, Arina Gorbatyuk, Dennis Verhoeven and Erwin Hofman, as well as participants of the 2014 Academy of Management Annual Meeting in Philadelphia and the 2014 World Open Innovation Conference in the Napa Valley for their constructive feedback on earlier versions of this paper. Our paper benefited significantly from the valuable and insightful comments and suggestions of the editor and two anonymous referees, for which we are especially thankful. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from KU Leuven’s “Impulsfinanciering” (Grant IMPH/10/006). The corresponding author furthermore acknowledges financial support from FWO, (Research Foundation Flanders) (Grant 11O0415N).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), 1000, Brussels, Belgium

    Adrián Kovács

  2. Department of Managerial Economics, Strategy and Innovation (MSI), Faculty of Business and Economics (FEB), KU Leuven, 3000, Louvain, Belgium

    Adrián Kovács, Bart Van Looy & Bruno Cassiman

  3. Institute for Governance Studies, University of Twente, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Adrián Kovács & Bart Van Looy

  4. Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM), KU Leuven, 3000, Louvain, Belgium

    Bart Van Looy

  5. Strategic Management Department, IESE Business School, 08034, Barcelona, Spain

    Bruno Cassiman

Authors
  1. Adrián Kovács
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bart Van Looy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruno Cassiman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrián Kovács.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kovács, A., Van Looy, B. & Cassiman, B. Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research. Scientometrics 104, 951–983 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1628-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1628-0

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation