Co-creation and open innovation: Systematic literature review

Authors : María Soledad Ramírez-Montoya,  Francisco-José García-Peñalvo

Open science, as a common good, opens possibilities for the development of nations, through innovations and collaborative constructions, which help to democratize knowledge. Advances in this area are still emerging, and the open science, cocreation of knowledge and open innovation triangle, is presented as an opportunity to generate an original contribution from research to open educational theory and practices.

The study analyzed the articles that addressed this triangle, in order to identify the contexts and challenges that arise in open innovation and the cocreation of knowledge to promote open science.

The method was a systematic literature review (SLR) of 168 articles published in open access format, from January 2014 to May 2017 in the Web of Science and Scopus databases.

In the validation process, the York University criteria were used: inclusion and exclusion, relevance of the pertinent studies, evaluation of the quality / validity of included studies and description of data / basic studies.

The findings showed that the mostwidely publicized contexts were in the United States and Brazil, in the business and academic sectors (closely followed by the social sector), and the challenges were open to innovation, opening and research.

The research concludes that the context and practices of collaboration are substantial elements for innovation and open science.

URL :  Co-creation and open innovation: Systematic literature review

Alternative location :

L’open innovation et les grandes entreprises françaises : de l’urgence de l’appropriation à l’opportunité de transformation : le cas d’EDF comme prisme d’étude

Auteur/Author : Céline Repoux

L’accélération imprègne tous les aspects du champ social : la consommation, les transports, les loisirs, les discours… Tout est prétexte à aller plus vite pour optimiser les effets attendus. Avec la crise économique, les grandes entreprises sont aussi concernées : pour rester compétitives dans un univers de plus en plus concurrentiel, celles-ci sont enjointes en permanence à « innover ».

Cependant, le temps long de la Recherche & Développement, entité qui gère traditionnellement l’innovation de ces grandes entreprises, n’est pas celui du nouveau marché très rapide qui se dessine et qui profite aux start-ups, leurs nouveaux concurrents directs. Comment appréhender ce bouleversement ?

Ce travail tente de montrer comment les Nouvelles Technologies de l’Information Communication (NTIC) ont transformé le rapport au temps de la société et comment cette transformation trouve ses effets dans le mode de gestion de l’innovation des grandes entreprises, au profit d’une pratique dénommée « Open innovation ».

Une étude plus particulière du cas d’EDF, étayée par l’analyse d’éléments issus de plusieurs autres grandes entreprises françaises et de start-ups, nous permet d’analyser ce phénomène. En rappelant les définitions couramment attribuées à « l’innovation », nous voyons dans un premier temps en quoi les NTIC sont étroitement liées à cette notion et comment leur association crée « l’urgence d’innover » parmi les grandes entreprises.

Nous voyons ensuite comment les imaginaires liés à ces NTIC, intégrés par les individus, transforment la gestion effective de l’innovation des grandes entreprises, mettant en tension les enjeux d’« ouverture » et de « gestion » de l’Open innovation.

Un dernier temps de l’analyse nous permet de montrer comment ce changement de paradigme affecte jusqu’à l’organisation de l’entreprise, au point de conduire à sa propre mutation.


Open Innovation in Development: Integrating Theory and Practice Across Open Science, Open Education, and Open Data

Author :  Jeremy de Beer

This article integrates the concepts of open innovation and open development. It extends the theory of open development beyond the field of information communications technology to address aspects of innovation systems more generally.

It applies the concept of openness to innovation in practice across the domains of open science, open education, and open data. Creating a framework that is more integrated in theory and cross-cutting in practice creates new possibilities for interdisciplinary research and policy-relevant insights.



Openness as social praxis

Authors : Matthew Longshore Smith, Ruhiya Seward

Since the early 2000s, there has been an explosion in the usage of the term open, arguably stemming from the advent of networked technologies — including the Internet and mobile technologies.

‘Openness’ seems to be everywhere, and takes many forms: from open knowledge, open education, open data and open science, to open Internet, open medical records systems and open innovation. These applications of openness are having a profound, and sometimes transformative, effect on social, political and economic life.

This explosion of the use of the term has led to multiple interpretations, ambiguities, and even misunderstandings, not to mention countless debates and disagreements over precise definitions.

The paper “Fifty shades of open” by Pomerantz and Peek (2016) highlighted the increasing ambiguity and even confusion surrounding this term. This article builds on Pomerantz and Peek’s attempt to disambiguate the term by offering an alternative understanding to openness — that of social praxis.

More specifically, our framing can be broken down into three social processes: open production, open distribution, and open consumption. Each process shares two traits that make them open: you don’t have to pay (free price), and anyone can participate (non-discrimination) in these processes.

We argue that conceptualizing openness as social praxis offers several benefits. First, it provides a way out of a variety of problems that result from ambiguities and misunderstandings that emerge from the current multitude of uses of openness.

Second, it provides a contextually sensitive understanding of openness that allows space for the many different ways openness is experienced — often very different from the way that more formal definitions conceptualize it.

Third, it points us towards an approach to developing practice-specific theory that we believe helps us build generalizable knowledge on what works (or not), for whom, and in what contexts.


The openness buzz in the knowledge economy: Towards taxonomy

Authors : Anna Lundgren, Hans Westlund

In the networked information and knowledge-based economy and society, the notions of ‘open’ and ‘openness’ are used in a variety of contexts; open source, open access, open economy, open government, open innovation – just to name a few.

This paper aims at discussing openness and developing a taxonomy that may be used to analyse the concept of openness. Are there different qualities of openness? How are these qualities interrelated?

What analytical tools may be used to understand openness? In this paper four qualities of openness recurrent in literature and debate are explored: accessibility, transparency, participation and sharing. To further analyse openness new institutional theory as interpreted by Williamson (2000) is used, encompassing four different institutional levels; cultural embeddedness, institutional environment, governance structure and resource allocations.

At what institutional levels is openness supported and/or constrained? Accessibility as a quality of openness seems to have a particularly strong relation to the other qualities of openness, whereas the notions of sharing and collaborative economics seem to be the most complex and contested quality of openness in the knowledge-based economy.

This research contributes to academia, policy and governance, as handling of challenges with regard to openness vs. closure in different contexts, territorial, institutional and/or organizational, demand not only a better understanding of the concept, but also tools for analysis.