Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What we know about open innovation, unresolved issues, and a checklist for future research

  • Published:
Journal of Industrial and Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We synthesize and provide a critical overview of the set of quantitative papers on open innovation which have had an influence on analyses of open innovation in a corporate strategy context. We categorize the literature into (a) firms’ external search and knowledge sourcing activities, (b) absorptive capacity, and (c) appropriability. We discuss the firm and individual level contributions to each of these literature streams, identifying those contributions specific to knowledge about open innovation and unresolved issues which represent future research opportunities. In addition, we try to draw some lessons in terms of future challenges for open innovation research in relation to the growth and influence of this domain. Specifically, we discuss some specific problems related to the robustness, validity, reliability, and causal identification of open innovation research, and how these might be overcome through a new research approach. We conclude by proposing a checklist for future quantitative empirical studies of open innovation.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Business Source Ultimate made available by EBSCO, includes 4,300 academic business-relevant journals (mainly within social sciences). See https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/business-source-ultimate (accessed September 13, 2023).

  2. We thank an anonymous reviewer for making this point.

  3. Keld Laursen served as co-editor of Research Policy 2014–2018, and Ammon Salter has served as co-editor since 2019.

References

  • Aguinis, H., Archibold, E. E., & Rice, D. B. (2022). Let’s fix our own problem: Quelling the irresponsible research perfect storm. Journal of Management Studies, 59(6), 1628–1642. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12814

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy, O., George, G., & Salter, A. J. (2013). Cui bono? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 270–291. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleyard, M. M., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2017). The dynamics of open strategy: From adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A. (1995). Licensing tacit knowledge: Intellectual property rights and the market for know-how. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599500000013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Athreye, S., & Huang, C. (2016). The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators. Research Policy, 45(7), 1352–1361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Rønde, T. (2013). Managing licensing in a market for technology. Management Science, 59(5), 1092–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arundel, A. (2001). The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy, 30(4), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00100-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berchicci, L. (2013). Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy, 42(1), 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, O., & Mol, M. J. (2013). The antecedents and innovation effects of domestic and offshore R&D outsourcing: The contingent impact of cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Strategic Management Journal, 34(6), 751–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogers, M., Foss, N. J., & Lyngsie, J. (2018). The “human side” of open innovation: The role of employee diversity in firm-level openness. Research Policy, 47(1), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogers, M., Zobel, A.-K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., et al. (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappelli, R., Corsino, M., Laursen, K., & Torrisi, S. (2023). Technological competition and patent strategy: Protecting innovation, preempting rivals and defending the freedom to operate. Research Policy, 52(6), 104785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Valentini, G. (2016). Open innovation: Are inbound and outbound knowledge flows really complementary? Strategic Management Journal, 37(6), 1034–1046. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). Spillovers and R&D cooperation: Some empirical evidence. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1169–1184. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260344704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003a). Open innovation. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W., & Garman, A. R. (2009). How open innovation can help you cope in lean times. Harvard Business Review, 87(12), 68–76. 128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., Lettl, C., & Ritter, T. (2018). Value creation and value capture in open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 930–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coff, R. (1999). When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science, 10(2), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.2.119

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., Foss, N. J., Lyngsie, J., & Rossi Lamastra, C. (2021). What drives the delegation of innovation decisions? The roles of firm innovation strategy and the nature of external knowledge. Research Policy, 50(1), 104134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cricelli, L., Mauriello, R., & Strazzullo, S. (2023). Preventing open innovation failures: A managerial framework. Technovation, 127, 102833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102833

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, L., Gann, D. M., & Wallin, M. W. (2021). How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward. Research Policy, 50(4), 104218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, L., O’Mahony, S., & Gann, D. M. (2016). One foot in, one foot out: How does individuals’ external search breadth affect innovation outcomes? Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 280–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, J., Leten, B., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2014). Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners. Research Policy, 43(5), 828–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.12.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2009). Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 38(1), 96–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., & Zenger, T. R. (2020). Open innovation: A theory-based view. Strategic Management Review, 1(2), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1561/111.00000011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foege, J. N., Lauritzen, G. D., Tietze, F., & Salge, T. O. (2019). Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing. Research Policy, 48(6), 1323–1339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. (1968). Chemical process plant: Innovation and the world market. National Institute Economic Review, 45(August), 29–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, H., von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. (2013). How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1134–1144. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimpe, C., & Sofka, W. (2009). Search patterns and absorptive capacity: Low- and high-technology sectors in European countries. Research Policy, 38(3), 495–506.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00061-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heimann, B., & Nickerson, J. (2004). Empirical evidence regarding the tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge expropriation in collaborations. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25, 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Quinn, J. B. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 86–88. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.20591014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, J., Schöberl, S., & Alexy, O. (2014). The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation. Research Policy, 43(5), 879–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, A. D., Johnson, S. G., Greco, L. M., O’Boyle, E. H., & Walter, S. L. (2021). Endogeneity: A review and agenda for the methodology-practice divide affecting micro and macro research. Journal of Management, 47(1), 105–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320960533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoang, H., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2010). Leveraging internal and external experience: Exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31(7), 734–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holgersson, M., Wallin, M., Chesbrough, H., & Dahlander, L. (2023). Closing open innovation. Strategic Management Review, forthcoming

  • Hung, K. P., & Chou, C. (2013). The impact of open innovation on firm performance: The moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation, 33(10–11), 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Yang, J. (2022). Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing. Research Policy, 51(1), 104417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104417

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale, P., & Singh, H. (2009). Managing strategic alliances: What do we know now, and where do we go from here? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R., & Allen, T. (1982). Investigating the not invented here (nih) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D projects. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köhler, C., Sofka, W., & Grimpe, C. (2012). Selective search, sectoral patterns, and the impact on product innovation performance. Research Policy, 41(8), 1344–1356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakemond, N., Bengtsson, L., Laursen, K., & Tell, F. (2016). Match and manage: The use of knowledge matching and project management to integrate knowledge in collaborative inbound open innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(2), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtw004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovative performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2020). Who captures value from open innovation—the firm or its employees? Strategic Management Review, 1(2), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1561/111.00000009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., Salter, A., & Somaya, D. (2023). Complementarities and tensions between appropriability and open innovation: An overview of prior research and future opportunities. In H. Chesbrough, A. Radziwon, J. West, & W. Vanhaverbeke (Eds.), Handbook of open innovation. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiponen, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2010). Innovation opportunities, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 224–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linder, S. B. (1961). An essay on trade and transformation. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. (2003). A bargaining perspective on resource advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11), 1069–1086. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, J. H., Roper, S., & Vahter, P. (2014). Learning from openness: The dynamics of breadth in external innovation linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 35(11), 1703–1716. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Q., & Chesbrough, H. (2022). Measuring open innovation practices through topic modelling: Revisiting their impact on firm financial performance. Technovation, 114, 102434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B. -Å. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process—from user-producer interaction to national systems of innovation. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. L. G. Soete (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 349–367). Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mindruta, D. (2013). Value creation in university-firm research collaborations: A matching approach. Strategic Management Journal, 34(6), 644–665. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mindruta, D., Moeen, M., & Agarwal, R. (2015). A two-sided matching approach for partner selection and assessing complementarities in partners’ attributes in inter-firm alliances. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreira, S., Markus, A., & Laursen, K. (2018). Knowledge diversity and coordination: The effect of intrafirm inventor task networks on absorption speed. Strategic Management Journal, 39(9), 2517–2546. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(Summer Special Issue), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & West, J. (2015). Open science and open innovation: Sourcing technology from universities. In A. N. Link, D. S. Siegel, & M. Wright (Eds.), The Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Chicago University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. (1982). Learning by using inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F., & Alexandre, M. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20(4), 759–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salge, T. O., Farchi, T., Barrett, M. I., & Dopson, S. (2013). When does search openness really matter? A contingency study of health-care innovation projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(4), 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salter, A., Ter Wal, A. L. J., Criscuolo, P., & Alexy, O. (2015). Open for ideation: Individual-level openness and idea generation in R&D. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(4), 488–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1912/1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle (R. Opie, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy (Paperback edition). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simeth, M., & Mohammadi, A. (2022). Losing talent by partnering up? The impact of R&D collaboration on employee mobility. Research Policy, 51(7), 104551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making process in administrative organization. Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, R., Choo, A., Narayanan, S., Sarkar, S., & Tenhiälä, A. (2021). Knowledge sources, innovation objectives, and their impact on innovation performance: Quasi-replication of leiponen and helfat (2010). Strategic Management Journal, 42(11), 2104–2136. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ter Wal, A. L. J., Criscuolo, P., & Salter, A. (2017). Making a marriage of materials: The role of gatekeepers and shepherds in the absorption of external knowledge and innovation performance. [Article]. Research Policy, 46(5), 1039–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tether, B., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37(6/7), 1079–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1976). Dominant role of users in scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy, 5(3), 212–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wadhwa, A., Freitas, I. M. B., & Sarkar, M. B. (2017). The paradox of openness and value protection strategies: Effect of extramural R&D on innovative performance. Organization Science, 28(5), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1145

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zobel, A. K. (2017). Benefiting from open innovation: A multidimensional model of absorptive capacity. [Article]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(3), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zobel, A.-K., Balsmeier, B., & Chesbrough, H. (2016). Does patenting help or hinder open innovation? Evidence from new entrants in the solar industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(2), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtw005

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Strategy and Innovation, Copenhagen Business School, Kilevej 14a, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Keld Laursen

  2. Warwick Business School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

    Ammon Salter

Authors
  1. Keld Laursen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ammon Salter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keld Laursen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Laursen, K., Salter, A. What we know about open innovation, unresolved issues, and a checklist for future research. J. Ind. Bus. Econ. 50, 743–764 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-023-00283-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-023-00283-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation