The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 130 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward
Open accessAbstract
This paper sheds fresh light on our 2010 paper How Open Is Innovation by taking into consideration notable developments in innovation over the last decade. The original paper developed four types of openness: sourcing, acquiring, selling, and revealing. Reflecting on important technological, organizational, and societal changes in the past decade, we highlight how these changes prompt novel questions for open innovation. While the core features of the original framework still stands, there are many new questions that have emerged in recent years. We end by charting a path for future research that emphasizes opportunities, costs and tradeoffs between different modes of open innovation, the need to better understand the nature of data, new organizational designs and legal instruments, and multilevel aspects and relationships that affect the extent and nature of openness.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338
(2003) · Cited by 9,368
Teece, D. J. (1986) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2 · Cited by 7,842
Teece, D. (1993) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(93)90063-n · Cited by 7,242
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.507 · Cited by 6,324 · cited 5×
“The open innovation literature has since developed a much more nuanced interpretation of open innovation, explaining the contingencies under which it makes sense to be open (see e.g., Felin and Zenger, 2014; Laursen and Salter, 2006).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSocial Theory and Social Structure.
Stone, G. P., & Merton, R. K. (1958) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2390803 · Cited by 4,499
Price, D. J. D. S. (1963) · Columbia University Press eBooks · doi:10.7312/pric91844 · Cited by 4,264
The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study
Mollick, E. (2014) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.06.005 · Cited by 4,221
Towards a theory of ecosystems
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2904 · Cited by 3,724
The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1136099 · Cited by 3,615
Metadata
- Authors
- Dahlander, L., Gann, D. M., & Wallin, M. W.
- Venue
- Research Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-05
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 104218
- ISSN
- 0048-7333 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3129885361
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 130
- FWCI
- 39.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104218
- The paper
- Dahlander, L., Gann, D. M., & Wallin, M. W. (2021). How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104218
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
