Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 217

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Chez Panisse: Building an Open Innovation Ecosystem

Chesbrough, Henry, Kim, Sohyeong, Agogino, Alice·2014·California Management Review

Abstract

The case study provides a history of Chez Panisse and Alice Waters. Throughout Chez Panisse's history, Waters and her team had built a local and now global ecosystem using an “open innovation” strategy with stakeholders such as suppliers, alumni chef and staff, food writers, and others. The Chez Panisse ecosystem case study uses an open innovation framework to analyze how Chez Panisse grew. The case study allows students to learn how a small firm thrived and became a business success based on building a successful business ecosystem that shares knowledge, encourages individuals' growth, and embeds trust among participants.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1525/cmr.2014.56.4.144

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 217

Metadata

Authors
Chesbrough, H., Kim, S., & Agogino, A.
Venue
California Management Review
Published
2014-08
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
144-171
ISSN
  • 0008-1256 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-8564
OpenAlex
W2064601528
Cited by
217
References
0
FWCI
26.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Chez Panisse: Building an Open Innovation Ecosystem. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.4.144
The paper
Chesbrough, H., Kim, S., & Agogino, A. (2014). Chez Panisse: Building an Open Innovation Ecosystem. California Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.4.144

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.