Cognitive mapping the topic of open innovation

Cognitive mapping the topic of open innovation

Joseph Kim-keung Ho

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Abstract: The topic of open innovation in the subject of Business Management is complex. By making use of the cognitive mapping technique to conduct a brief literature review on the open innovation topic, the writer renders a systemic image on the topic of open innovation. The result of the study, in the form of a cognitive map on open innovation, should be useful to those who are interested in the topics of cognitive mapping, literature review and open innovation.

Key words: Open innovation, cognitive mapping, literature review

Introduction

As a topic in Business Management, open innovation is complex. It is thus useful to employ some learning tool to conduct its study, notably for literature review purpose. For a teacher in research methods, systems thinking and management, the writer is specifically interested in finding out how the cognitive mapping technique can be employed to go through a literature review on  open innovation. This literature review exercise is taken up and reported in this article.

On the cognitive mapping exercise for literature review

Literature review is an important intellectual learning exercise, and not just for doing final year dissertation projects for tertiary education students. On these two topics of intellectual learning and literature review, the writer has compiled some e-learning resources. They are the Managerial intellectual learning Facebook page and the Literature on literature review Facebook page. Conducting literature review with the cognitive mapping technique is not novel in the cognitive mapping literature, see Eden and Simpson (1989), Eden, Jones and Sims (1983), Open University (n.d) and the Literature on cognitive mapping Facebook page. In this article, the specific steps involved in the cognitive mapping exercise are as follows:

Step 1: gather some main points from a number of academic journal articles on Open innovation. This result in the production of a table (Table 1) with the main points and associated references.

Step 2: consolidate  the main points from Table 1 to come up with a table listing the cognitive map variables (re: Table 2).

Step 3: link up the cognitive  map variables in a plausible way to produce a cognitive map (re: Figure 1) on the topic under review.

The next section applies these three steps to produce a cognitive map on open innovation.

Descriptions of cognitive map variables on the open innovation topic

From the reading of some academic articles on Open innovation, a number of main points (e.g., viewpoints, concepts and empirical findings) were gathered by the  writer. They are shown in Table 1 with explicit referencing on the points.

Table 1: Main points from the open innovation literature and referencing

Main points from the open innovation literature	Referencing
Point 1: "The concept of open innovation proposed by Chesbrough (2003a, 2003b) has grown in popularity within academia and among managers and business practitioners, raising questions about how open innovation should be managed".	Ollila, S. and M. Elmquist. 2011. "Managing Open Innovation: Exploring Challenges at the Interfaces  of an Open Innovation Arena" Creativity and Innovation Management 20(4), Blackwell Publishing: 273-283.
Point 2: "The emergence of open innovation initiatives, in which R&D and innovation processes are increasingly opened to external parties, seems to be associated with amplifying the levels of collaboration. Initiatives by large companies such as Procter & Gamble are often cited as success stories of how to use external sources to innovate".	Ollila, S. and M. Elmquist. 2011. "Managing Open Innovation: Exploring Challenges at the Interfaces  of an Open Innovation Arena" Creativity and Innovation Management 20(4), Blackwell Publishing: 273-283.
Point 3: "Research on open innovation focuses on new actors, such as innovation intermediaries (Chesbrough, 2006) that provide an open marketplace for ideas, talent and technologies. Innovation intermediaries are variously described in the literature as bridgers (Bessant & Rush, 1995; McEvily & Zaheer, 1999), brokers (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; Provan & Human, 1999) and as third parties".	Ollila, S. and M. Elmquist. 2011. "Managing Open Innovation: Exploring Challenges at the Interfaces  of an Open Innovation Arena" Creativity and Innovation Management 20(4), Blackwell Publishing: 273-283.
Point 4: "In their efforts to develop new technologies, firms increasingly rely on external knowledge to complement their internal knowledge base (Chesbrough, 2003; Dahlander and Gann, 2010; Hagedoorn, 2002). Accordingly, an important element of “open innovation” is “the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation”...".	Bogers, M. 2011. "The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations" European Journal of Innovation Management 14(1), Emerald: 93-117.
Point 5: "Despite the growing importance of R&D collaborations in particular and open innovation in general, many important questions are still unexplored – also due to the (growing) complexity of such collaborative efforts and the nature of the underlying resources and knowledge (Chesbrough, 2003; Das and Teng, 2000; Granstrand, 2000; Gulati and Singh, 1998; Haefliger et al., 2008; Henkel, 2006). For example, although there is an inherent paradox caused by the natural tension between knowledge sharing and protection, little attention has been given to how firms can protect their technological competencies while they, at the same time, collaborate with other organizations (McEvily et al., 2004) and how firms create and capture value in an era of open innovation when innovating organizations are highly dependent on each other".	Bogers, M. 2011. "The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations" European Journal of Innovation Management 14(1), Emerald: 93-117.
Point 6: ".... it has been argued that we have entered an era of intellectual and alliance capitalism (Gerlach, 1992; Granstrand, 2000; Narula and Duysters, 2004; Teece, 2000). Gulati and Singh (1998) furthermore note that the growth of inter-firm collaborations has been characterized by increasing diversity of collaborations, with respect to partners’ nationalities, motives and goals, and the formal structures used in collaborations. Moreover, because of the increasing complexity of knowledge, more and different kinds of partners are often needed to achieve a certain goal, including partners from other industries, universities and public research organizations as well as competitors".	Bogers, M. 2011. "The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations" European Journal of Innovation Management 14(1), Emerald: 93-117.
Point 7: "Open innovation has the potential to eliminate innovation costs altogether, however, that constitutes a double-edged sword because, by eliminating the cost of innovation, it also removes a barrier to new competition. That, plus other concerns have emerged with the increase in open innovation. For example, there is the risk of loss of innovation skills, the costs of coordination can be high, and being able to generate profits is uncertain".	Anon. 2012. "Does open innovation create a competitive advantage? Finding value by tapping into the ideas of online, open-innovation communities" Development and Learning in Organizations 26(6), Emerald: 34-36.
Point 8: "Ricardian rents arise from owning scarce and valuable resources. Similar to monopoly rents, there exist numerous lists of the sources of Ricardian rents. They include intangible resources like: * employee knowhow; * culture; * networks; and * reputation. Employee knowhow includes the tacit skills and knowledge that make imitation difficult. In addition to the usual operational and administrative skills that underpin advantage, there is also knowhow on the integration of the Internet and its tools into the business model – it has changed the way firms communicate with customers, sell their products, and manage their supply chain. Similarly, for open innovation, there is a need for know-how in working with individuals in the open-innovation community".	Anon. 2012. "Does open innovation create a competitive advantage? Finding value by tapping into the ideas of online, open-innovation communities" Development and Learning in Organizations 26(6), Emerald: 34-36.
Point 9: "Openness to new ideas from the environment improves firms’ innovation performance. As the breadth and depth of searching using external actors and sources increases, so does innovation, and while too much searching can lead to diseconomies and performance deterioration, openness to new ideas from the environment is superior to a closed, in-house, internal focus on innovation. Consequently, more and more firms are finding value by tapping into the ideas of online, open-innovation communities".	Anon. 2012. "Does open innovation create a competitive advantage? Finding value by tapping into the ideas of online, open-innovation communities" Development and Learning in Organizations 26(6), Emerald: 34-36.
Point 10: "Open innovation has been widely debated in the management of innovation literature over the past decade (e.g., Chesbrough, 2003; Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Gassmann & Enkel, 2004; von Hippel, 2005; Prahalad & Ramaswary, 2004;West & Gallagher, 2006). On the one hand, research has identified a number of advantages of the open innovation model, such as leveraging external knowledge inputs to accelerate internal innovations and expand the markets for external use of innovation. On the other hand, empirical evidence indicates that the returns from open innovation decrease at the margin as the costs of openness exceed the benefits".	Saebi, T. and N.J. Foss. 2015. "Business models  for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions" European Management Journal 33, Elsevier: 201-213.
Point 11: ".... recent studies reveal that companies that have successfully capitalized on integrating external sources of knowledge into their innovation processes primarily stand out in organizational terms: They are characterized by organizational flexibility and a willingness to restructure their existing business models to accommodate open innovation strategies (Chesbrough & Schwartz, 2007; Hienerth, Keinz, & Lettl, 2011; Keinz, Hienerth, & Lettl, 2012; van der Meer, 2007). We define business models as the content, structure, and governance of transactions inside the company and between the company and its external partners in support of the company’s creation, delivery and capture of value".	Saebi, T. and N.J. Foss. 2015. "Business models  for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions" European Management Journal 33, Elsevier: 201-213.
Point 12: "... there is little research that explicitly links business models to open innovation strategies. That is, while such strategies differ significantly with regard to, for example the number and types of actors involved (Elmquist, Fredberg, & Ollila, 2009; Laursen & Salter, 2006) and the phases of the innovation process that are kept open in terms of interacting with outside knowledge sources (Foss, Lyngsie, & Zahra, 2013; Lazzarotti, Manzini, & Pellegrini, 2011), little is known about how companies need to design their business models to match different open innovation strategies".	Saebi, T. and N.J. Foss. 2015. "Business models  for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions" European Management Journal 33, Elsevier: 201-213.
Point 13: "Industrial innovation, during the twentieth century, has been based on the model of vertical integration, where the R&D division creates the basis to the innovations the firm would market. The concept of open innovation is the opposite of this model relying on the observation that firms can use external knowledge, together with their own, to create products that can be sold to their market, a new market, or to some other firm. In this line of thought, R&D is seen as an open system, with several ways in and out, instead of a closed system, where there is only one way in for innovations – the R&D division of a firm – and one way out – the firm’s market".	Duarte, V. and S. Sarkar. 2011. "Separating the wheat from the chaff - a taxonomy of open innovation" European Journal of Innovation Management 14(4), Emerald: 435-459.
Point 14: "Open innovation is the result of successful links with outside entities, such as other firms, universities, public research centres, competitors, clients, suppliers, even groups of product users as sources of innovations. The accomplishment of an open innovation strategy relies on a business model developed to retain the value of innovating (West, 2006). This requires the appropriability of the innovations in order to prevent imitation (Saviotti, 1998), which leads to the question of intellectual property rights (IPR). Patents and other forms of IPR are aimed at providing a temporary monopoly to the innovators and those who pay for the innovation, in order to recover the investment and prevent free riding by imitators".	Duarte, V. and S. Sarkar. 2011. "Separating the wheat from the chaff - a taxonomy of open innovation" European Journal of Innovation Management 14(4), Emerald: 435-459.
Point 15: "The concept of open innovation has had a lot of promotion in recent years, although collaboration between firms has been happening for a long time, as in the case of joint ventures. Firm-university collaborations also are not a new phenomenon, nor are spin-offs. These observations leave an open path for further research: as more studies on open innovation are published, the confusion of terms used invariably would arise leading to an increasing need to clarify the terminology used".	Duarte, V. and S. Sarkar. 2011. "Separating the wheat from the chaff - a taxonomy of open innovation" European Journal of Innovation Management 14(4), Emerald: 435-459.
Point 16: "This literature has tended to focus on interfirm cooperation and the development of an ecosystem of firms, sharing technologies and trading intellectual property, within a given industry or sector (cf. West et al., 2006). However, non-firm actors such as communities are rarely to be found in the recent writings on open innovation. However, community-based innovation by its nature takes place outside the boundaries of the firm, which fits Chesbrough’s definition (2003) of open innovation".	West, J. and K.R. Lakhani. 2008. "Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation" Industry and Innovation 15(2), April, Routledge: 223-231.
Point 17: "As von Hippel (2005: 96) explicitly says, ‘‘Innovation communities can have users and/or manufacturers as members and contributors.’’ Firm participation can occur through direct sponsorship of staff and their efforts in communities. For example, Lakhani and Wolf (2005) have shown that 40 percent of contributors to open source software projects are ‘‘paid’’ to participate. Outside of open source, in communities developing important technical standards, the direct interactions involve individuals, but the individual actors are formally or informally representing their corporate parents, as can be seen from the subsequent corporate actions".	West, J. and K.R. Lakhani. 2008. "Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation" Industry and Innovation 15(2), April, Routledge: 223-231.
Point 18: "Among studies related to open innovation, the intra-community linkages in some studies are more explicit than others. User innovation researchers have studied the peer-to-peer assistance in open source software (Lakhani and von Hippel, 2003) and sporting goods (Franke and Shah, 2003). For these cases, the community support facilitates adoption and use of the innovation, although only in the latter case does that adoption create revenues for a firm (such as buying a sailplane or a snowboard). Meanwhile, identification and interaction within a user community means that innovations fuel imitation and extension by other user innovators".	West, J. and K.R. Lakhani. 2008. "Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation" Industry and Innovation 15(2), April, Routledge: 223-231.
Point 19: "Over the past decade, an increasing number of firms have started actively to involve customers, suppliers, and other parties in product and process innovation. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as ‘‘open innovation.’’ Open innovation can help firms by reducing the cost of product development and process improvement, accelerating time to market for new products, improving product quality, and accessing customer and supplier expertise outside the organization".	Wallin, M.W. and G. Von Krogh. 2010. "Organizing for Open Innovation: Focus on the Integration of Knowledge" Organizational Dynamics 39(2), Elsevier: 145-154.
Point 20: ".... previous research has shown that there are several managerial challenges to organizing and implementing innovation that extends beyond firm boundaries. For example, when firms invite volunteer users to contribute their knowledge to innovation, they cannot apply traditional organizational hierarchy or leadership authority to directing, incentivizing, and monitoring volunteers’ efforts. However, researchers have only begun to focus on how managers can design their organizations to facilitate the use of outside knowledge in the innovation process".	Wallin, M.W. and G. Von Krogh. 2010. "Organizing for Open Innovation: Focus on the Integration of Knowledge" Organizational Dynamics 39(2), Elsevier: 145-154.

With a set of main points collected, the writer produces a set of cognitive map variables. These variables are informed by the set of main points from Table 1. These variables are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Cognitive map variables based on Table 1

Cognitive map variables	Literature review points
Variable 1: Drivers of interest in open innovation	Point 1: "The concept of open innovation proposed by Chesbrough (2003a, 2003b) has grown in popularity within academia and among managers and business practitioners, raising questions about how open innovation should be managed". Point 2: "The emergence of open innovation initiatives, in which R&D and innovation processes are increasingly opened to external parties, seems to be associated with amplifying the levels of collaboration. Initiatives by large companies such as Procter & Gamble are often cited as success stories of how to use external sources to innovate". Point 6: ".... it has been argued that we have entered an era of intellectual and alliance capitalism (Gerlach, 1992; Granstrand, 2000; Narula and Duysters, 2004; Teece, 2000). Gulati and Singh (1998) furthermore note that the growth of inter-firm collaborations has been characterized by increasing diversity of collaborations, with respect to partners’ nationalities, motives and goals, and the formal structures used in collaborations. Moreover, because of the increasing complexity of knowledge, more and different kinds of partners are often needed to achieve a certain goal, including partners from other industries, universities and public research organizations as well as competitors". Point 15: "The concept of open innovation has had a lot of promotion in recent years, although collaboration between firms has been happening for a long time, as in the case of joint ventures. Firm-university collaborations also are not a new phenomenon, nor are spin-offs. These observations leave an open path for further research: as more studies on open innovation are published, the confusion of terms used invariably would arise leading to an increasing need to clarify the terminology used". Point 19: "Over the past decade, an increasing number of firms have started actively to involve customers, suppliers, and other parties in product and process innovation. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as ‘‘open innovation.’’ Open innovation can help firms by reducing the cost of product development and process improvement, accelerating time to market for new products, improving product quality, and accessing customer and supplier expertise outside the organization".
Variable 2: Improve intellectual understanding of open innovation	Point 3: "Research on open innovation focuses on new actors, such as innovation intermediaries (Chesbrough, 2006) that provide an open marketplace for ideas, talent and technologies. Innovation intermediaries are variously described in the literature as bridgers (Bessant & Rush, 1995; McEvily & Zaheer, 1999), brokers (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; Provan & Human, 1999) and as third parties". Point 8: "Ricardian rents arise from owning scarce and valuable resources. Similar to monopoly rents, there exist numerous lists of the sources of Ricardian rents. They include intangible resources like: * employee knowhow; * culture; * networks; and * reputation. Employee knowhow includes the tacit skills and knowledge that make imitation difficult. In addition to the usual operational and administrative skills that underpin advantage, there is also knowhow on the integration of the Internet and its tools into the business model – it has changed the way firms communicate with customers, sell their products, and manage their supply chain. Similarly, for open innovation, there is a need for know-how in working with individuals in the open-innovation community". Point 10: "Open innovation has been widely debated in the management of innovation literature over the past decade (e.g., Chesbrough, 2003; Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Gassmann & Enkel, 2004; von Hippel, 2005; Prahalad & Ramaswary, 2004;West & Gallagher, 2006). On the one hand, research has identified a number of advantages of the open innovation model, such as leveraging external knowledge inputs to accelerate internal innovations and expand the markets for external use of innovation. On the other hand, empirical evidence indicates that the returns from open innovation decrease at the margin as the costs of openness exceed the benefits". Point 11: ".... recent studies reveal that companies that have successfully capitalized on integrating external sources of knowledge into their innovation processes primarily stand out in organizational terms: They are characterized by organizational flexibility and a willingness to restructure their existing business models to accommodate open innovation strategies (Chesbrough & Schwartz, 2007; Hienerth, Keinz, & Lettl, 2011; Keinz, Hienerth, & Lettl, 2012; van der Meer, 2007). We define business models as the content, structure, and governance of transactions inside the company and between the company and its external partners in support of the company’s creation, delivery and capture of value". Point 13: "Industrial innovation, during the twentieth century, has been based on the model of vertical integration, where the R&D division creates the basis to the innovations the firm would market. The concept of open innovation is the opposite of this model relying on the observation that firms can use external knowledge, together with their own, to create products that can be sold to their market, a new market, or to some other firm. In this line of thought, R&D is seen as an open system, with several ways in and out, instead of a closed system, where there is only one way in for innovations – the R&D division of a firm – and one way out – the firm’s market". Point 14: "Open innovation is the result of successful links with outside entities, such as other firms, universities, public research centres, competitors, clients, suppliers, even groups of product users as sources of innovations. The accomplishment of an open innovation strategy relies on a business model developed to retain the value of innovating (West, 2006). This requires the appropriability of the innovations in order to prevent imitation (Saviotti, 1998), which leads to the question of intellectual property rights (IPR). Patents and other forms of IPR are aimed at providing a temporary monopoly to the innovators and those who pay for the innovation, in order to recover the investment and prevent free riding by imitators". Point 16: "This literature has tended to focus on interfirm cooperation and the development of an ecosystem of firms, sharing technologies and trading intellectual property, within a given industry or sector (cf. West et al., 2006). However, non-firm actors such as communities are rarely to be found in the recent writings on open innovation. However, community-based innovation by its nature takes place outside the boundaries of the firm, which fits Chesbrough’s definition (2003) of open innovation". Point 18: "Among studies related to open innovation, the intra-community linkages in some studies are more explicit than others. User innovation researchers have studied the peer-to-peer assistance in open source software (Lakhani and von Hippel, 2003) and sporting goods (Franke and Shah, 2003). For these cases, the community support facilitates adoption and use of the innovation, although only in the latter case does that adoption create revenues for a firm (such as buying a sailplane or a snowboard). Meanwhile, identification and interaction within a user community means that innovations fuel imitation and extension by other user innovators".
Variable 3: Effective open innovation practices	Point 4: "In their efforts to develop new technologies, firms increasingly rely on external knowledge to complement their internal knowledge base (Chesbrough, 2003; Dahlander and Gann, 2010; Hagedoorn, 2002). Accordingly, an important element of “open innovation” is “the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation”...". Point 7: "Open innovation has the potential to eliminate innovation costs altogether, however, that constitutes a double-edged sword because, by eliminating the cost of innovation, it also removes a barrier to new competition. That, plus other concerns have emerged with the increase in open innovation. For example, there is the risk of loss of innovation skills, the costs of coordination can be high, and being able to generate profits is uncertain". Point 9: "Openness to new ideas from the environment improves firms’ innovation performance. As the breadth and depth of searching using external actors and sources increases, so does innovation, and while too much searching can lead to diseconomies and performance deterioration, openness to new ideas from the environment is superior to a closed, in-house, internal focus on innovation. Consequently, more and more firms are finding value by tapping into the ideas of online, open-innovation communities". Point 17: "As von Hippel (2005: 96) explicitly says, ‘‘Innovation communities can have users and/or manufacturers as members and contributors.’’ Firm participation can occur through direct sponsorship of staff and their efforts in communities. For example, Lakhani and Wolf (2005) have shown that 40 percent of contributors to open source software projects are ‘‘paid’’ to participate. Outside of open source, in communities developing important technical standards, the direct interactions involve individuals, but the individual actors are formally or informally representing their corporate parents, as can be seen from the subsequent corporate actions".
Variable 4: Learn from open innovation practices	Point 5: "Despite the growing importance of R&D collaborations in particular and open innovation in general, many important questions are still unexplored – also due to the (growing) complexity of such collaborative efforts and the nature of the underlying resources and knowledge (Chesbrough, 2003; Das and Teng, 2000; Granstrand, 2000; Gulati and Singh, 1998; Haefliger et al., 2008; Henkel, 2006). For example, although there is an inherent paradox caused by the natural tension between knowledge sharing and protection, little attention has been given to how firms can protect their technological competencies while they, at the same time, collaborate with other organizations (McEvily et al., 2004) and how firms create and capture value in an era of open innovation when innovating organizations are highly dependent on each other". Point 12: "... there is little research that explicitly links business models to open innovation strategies. That is, while such strategies differ significantly with regard to, for example the number and types of actors involved (Elmquist, Fredberg, & Ollila, 2009; Laursen & Salter, 2006) and the phases of the innovation process that are kept open in terms of interacting with outside knowledge sources (Foss, Lyngsie, & Zahra, 2013; Lazzarotti, Manzini, & Pellegrini, 2011), little is known about how companies need to design their business models to match different open innovation strategies". Point 20: ".... previous research has shown that there are several managerial challenges to organizing and implementing innovation that extends beyond firm boundaries. For example, when firms invite volunteer users to contribute their knowledge to innovation, they cannot apply traditional organizational hierarchy or leadership authority to directing, incentivizing, and monitoring volunteers’ efforts. However, researchers have only begun to focus on how managers can design their organizations to facilitate the use of outside knowledge in the innovation process".

The next step is to relate the cognitive map variables to make up a cognitive map on open innovation. The cognitive map and its explanation are presented in the next section.

A cognitive map on open innovation and its interpretation

By relating the four variables identified in Table 2, the writer comes up with a cognitive map on open innovation, as shown in Figure 1.

These cognitive  map variables, four of them altogether, are related to constitute a systemic image of open innovation. The links in the cognitive map (re: Figure 1) indicate direction of influences between variables. The + sign shows that an increase in one variable leads to an increase in another variable while a -ve sign tells us that in increase in one variable leads to a decrease in another variable.  If there no signs shown on the arrows, that means the influences can be positive or negative.  For further information on open innovation, readers are referred to the Literature on open innovation Facebook page.

Concluding remarks

The cognitive mapping exercise captures in one diagram some of the main variables involved in open innovation. The resultant cognitive map promotes an exploratory way to study open innovation in a holistic tone. The experience of the cognitive mapping exercise is that it can be a quick, efficient and entertaining way to explore a complex topic such as open innovation in Business Management. Finally, readers who are interested in cognitive mapping should also find the article informative on this mapping topic.

Bibliography

1.      Eden, C. and P. Simpson. 1989. "SODA and cognitive mapping in practice", pp. 43-70, in Rosenhead, J. (editor) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World, Wiley, Chichester.

2.      Eden, C., C. Jones and D. Sims. 1983. Messing about in Problems: An informal structured approach to their identification and management, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

3.      Literature on cognitive mapping Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-cognitive-mapping-800894476751355/).

4.      Literature on open innovation Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-open-innovation-451631405219368/).

5.      Literature on literature review Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/).

6.      Managerial intellectual learning Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/managerial.intellectual.learning/).

7.      Open University. n.d. "Sign graph" Systems Thinking and Practice (T552): Diagramming, Open University, U.K. (url address: http://systems.open.ac.uk/materials/T552/) [visited at April 10, 2017].

8.      Ollila, S. and M. Elmquist. 2011. "Managing Open Innovation: Exploring Challenges at the Interfaces  of an Open Innovation Arena" Creativity and Innovation Management 20(4), Blackwell Publishing: 273-283.

9.      Bogers, M. 2011. "The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations" European Journal of Innovation Management 14(1), Emerald: 93-117.

10. Anon. 2012. "Does open innovation create a competitive advantage? Finding value by tapping into the ideas of online, open-innovation communities" Development and Learning in Organizations 26(6), Emerald: 34-36.

11. Saebi, T. and N.J. Foss. 2015. "Business models  for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions" European Management Journal 33, Elsevier: 201-213.

12. Duarte, V. and S. Sarkar. 2011. "Separating the wheat from the chaff - a taxonomy of open innovation" European Journal of Innovation Management 14(4), Emerald: 435-459.

13. West, J. and K.R. Lakhani. 2008. "Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation" Industry and Innovation 15(2), April, Routledge: 223-231.