Academic journal article Asian Social Science

Mapping Development of Open Innovation Visually and Quantitatively: A Method of Bibliometrics Analysis

Academic journal article Asian Social Science

Mapping Development of Open Innovation Visually and Quantitatively: A Method of Bibliometrics Analysis

Article excerpt

Abstract

Open innovation has become one of the hottest fields in innovation management. Although some reviews have been done to conclude the work of open innovation study, however, few of them were conducted quantitatively as well as visually. From a perspective of bibliometrics analysis, this article depicted a map of development of open innovation study with the help of CiteSpace II. Most important references and authors about open innovation study were picked out objectively according to their ranks and the visualization. The process of open innovation development was described and the newest topics in recent years are highlighted to help understand history of open innovation and do further study in this field. Also, according to the trend study, the current stage of open innovation study was estimated and the trends of recent future were forecasted.

Keywords: open innovation, visualization, bibliometrics analysis, CiteSpace II

1. Introduction

Open innovation has attracted quite a large amount of attention since its formal term was proposed (H. Chesbrough, 2003b; Terwiesch & Ulrich, 2009; Von Hippel, 2005). Open innovation is coming with the concept of closed innovation which wastes some chances for development. The new thoughts of open innovation did promote power of innovation in helping firms to obtain new ways to get profit (H. Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, & West, 2006; Henry Chesbrough & Crowther, 2006). Actually, many companies achieved their new goals by adopting this open innovation strategy (H. Chesbrough, 2003a). However, researchers noted that open innovation existed early in the history and closed innovation was nearly not there (Linstone, 2010; Mowery, 2009). People use this tactic without abstracting concept of open innovation although some other ones like absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) and complementary assets (Teece, 1986) were discussed that days. After H. Chesbrough (2003b) defined the term "open innovation" formally, hundreds of researchers started to study the nature of this phenomenon.

Although all researchers agree with the existence of open innovation, they have different understanding of its concept and use them respectively (Dahlander & Gann, 2010; di Benedetto, 2010). It is natural to consider the state of open innovation study. More time is needed to develop a perfect system of open innovation concept. At the same time, more and more aspects of open innovation study were accepted by most researchers (Huizingh, 2011). Openness of individual firms is a continuum with varying degrees rather than a dichotomy (Dahlander & Gann, 2010) for many parts of the innovation process (O. Gassmann & Enkel, 2004). Furthermore, open innovation was divided into inbound open innovation and outbound open innovation from the perspective of knowledge flow (Henry Chesbrough & Crowther, 2006; Lichtenthaler, 2008a, 2008b; Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler, 2009). When it comes to performance of open innovation, many things in innovation process are taken into account. Generally, costs like wasting time of managers, misleading of the strategy (Huizingh, 2011) and returns such as innovativeness, financial benefits (Cheng. & Huizingh, 2010) , identifying core competences (Rigby & Zook, 2002) are shown to understand its performance. Laursen and Salter (2006) found the performance has a curve linear relationship with degree of open innovation due to some useless activities which are included into open innovation strategy. Also, Tomlinson (2010) found the strength of cooperation is more important than the existence of it. In this case, although open innovation is demonstrated to have the power to make firms perform quite well (H. Chesbrough, 2012; Lichtenthaler, 2007; Nagaoka & Kwon, 2006), it needs more understanding about its negative impact (Dahlander & Gann, 2010). The study also pays much attention to context of open innovation: internal characteristics and external environment (Oliver Gassmann, 2006). …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.