Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Open innovation from the perspective of network embedding: knowledge evolution and development trend

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is an attempt of using co-citation analysis to sort out and to analyze the development and evolution of a latest hot area, open innovation from the perspective of network embedding. A dataset of 1437 records published between 1990 and 2019 is collected from Web of Science database. The empirical results show the latest hot topics in the open innovation study focus on innovation performance and value creation. In addition, we make a new interpretation of open innovation from four aspects: innovation and entrepreneurship, resource acquisition, knowledge sharing and innovation performance, then combines the importance of network embedding to the innovation and development of enterprises, and proposes the future research direction of open innovation. Our research in this paper is helpful to systematically sort out the knowledge context of open innovation, which is of great significance to the construction and development of open innovation knowledge system. The conclusions and implications in this paper will be particularly illuminating for both academic research and enterprises’ practice application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Viel, F. (2011). The field-standardized average impact of national research systems compared to world average: The case of Italy. Scientometrics,88(88), 599–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahn, J. M., Ju, Y., Minshall, T., & Moon, T. H. (2016). Beyond absorptive capacity in open innovation process: The relationships between openness, capacities and firm performance. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,28(9), 1009–1028.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly,45(3), 425–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberti, F. G., & Pizzurno, E. (2015). Knowledge exchanges in innovation networks: Evidences from an Italian aerospace cluster. Competitiveness Review,25(3), 258–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberti, F. G., & Pizzurno, E. (2017). Oops, I did it again! Knowledge leaks in open innovation networks with start-ups. European Journal of Innovation Management,20(1), 50–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnaboldi, V., Conti, M., & Gala, M. L. (2015). Ego network structure in online social networks and its impact on information diffusion. Computer Communications,76(C), 26–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. (1995). All economies are ‘embedded’: the career of a concept, and beyond. Social Research,62(2), 387–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battiston, F., Nicosia, V., & Latora, V. (2014). Structural measures for multiplex networks. Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics,89(3), 032804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlingerio, M., Coscia, M., Giannotti, F., Pedreschi, D., & Monreale, A. (2011). Foundations of multidimensional network analysis. International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining,2011, 485–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies,39(1), 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boso, N., Story, V. M., & Cadogan, J. W. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, network ties, and performance: Study of entrepreneurial firms in a developing economy. Journal of Business Venturing,28(6), 708–727.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, C., & Giovanni, V. (2016). Open innovation: Are inbound and outbound knowledge flows really complementary? Strategic Management Jourmal,37(6), 1034–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunswicker, S., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2015). Open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): External knowledge sourcing strategies and internal organizational facilitators. Journal of Small Business Management,53(4), 1241–1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Valentini, G. (2016). Open innovation: Are inbound and outbound knowledge flows really complementary? Strategic Management Journal,37(6), 1034–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,57(3), 359–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. H., Chang, Y. Y., & Lee, C. Y. (2015). Creative entrepreneurs’ guanxi networks and success: Information and resource. Journal of Business Research,68(4), 900–905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. New Frontiers in open innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Criscuolo, P., Nicolaou, N., & Salter, A. (2012). The elixir (or burden) of youth? Exploring differences in innovation between start-ups and established firms. Research Policy,41(2), 319–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • da Mota Pedrosa, A., Välling, M., & Boyd, B. (2013). Knowledge related activities in open innovation: managers’ characteristics and practices. International Journal of Technology Management,61(3/4), 254–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eftekhari, N., & Bogers, M. (2015). Open for entrepreneurship: How open innovation can foster new venture creation. Creativity and Innovation Management,24(4), 574–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esteve-Pérez, S., & Rodríguez, D. (2013). The dynamics of exports and R&D in SMEs. Small Business Economics,41(1), 219–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Villaverde, P. M., Rodrigo, J., Requena, G. P., & Ortega, M. J. R. (2018). Technological dynamism and entrepreneurial orientation: The heterogeneous effects of social capital. Journal of Business Research,83, 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebreeyesus, M., & Mohnen, P. (2013). Innovation performance and embeddedness in networks: evidence from the ethiopian footwear cluster. World Development,41(3), 302–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graciela, C. D., Jones, J., & Statsenko, L. (2016). Managing innovation networks for knowledge mobility and appropriability: A complexity perspective. Entrepreneurship Research Journal,6(1), 75–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology,78(6), 1360–1380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovtter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology,91(3), 481–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovtter, M. (1992). Economic institutions as social constructions: A framework for analysis. Acta Sociologica,35(1), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J., & Zhao, Q. (2013). The impact of university-industry collaboration networks on innovation in nanobiopharmaceuticals. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,80(7), 1271–1289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gubbins, C., & Dooley, L. (2014). Exploring social network dynamics driving knowledge management for innovation. Journal of Management Inquiry,23(2), 162–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly,40(4), 619–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal,19(4), 293–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Lavie, D., & Madhavan, R. (2011). How do networks matter? The performance effects of interorganizational networks. Research in Organizational Behavior,31, 207–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, D. Q., & Yue, Y. D. (2017). Open innovation and innovation performance: The mediating role of network embeddedness. Agro Food Industry Hi-Tech,28(3), 918–922.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heger, T., & Boman, M. (2015). Networked foresight: The case of EIT ICT labs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,101, 147–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C., & Liu, C. S. (2015). Employees and creativity: Social ties and access to heterogeneous knowledge. Creativity Research Journal,27(2), 206–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huggins, R., & Prokop, D. (2016). Network structure and regional innovation: A study of university-industry ties. Urban Studies,54(4), 931–952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2017). Entrepreneurial networks and open innovation: The role of strategic and embedded ties. Industry and Innovation,24(4), 403–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huizingh, E. K. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation,31(1), 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, R. A. (2013). Entrepreneurial tweaking: An empirical study of technology diffusion through secondary inventions and design modifications by start-ups. European Journal of Innovation Management,16(2), 148–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonathan, S., & Victor, P. S. (2017). Organizations coupled with communities: the strategic effects on firms engaged in community-coupled open innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change,26(4), 647–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapoor, R., & Lee, J. M. (2013). Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strategic Management Journal,34(3), 274–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kask, J., & Linton, G. (2013). Business mating: when start-ups get it right. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship,26(5), 511–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, T., Park, K., & Kim, E. (2018). Complementary or contradictory? The effects of structural holes and status on innovation. Innovation Management Policy & Practice,2, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreiser, P. M. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation and organizational learning: The impact of network range and network closure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,35(5), 1025–1050.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, C. Y. (2012). Knowledge stickiness in the buyer-supplier knowledge transfer process: The moderating effects of learning capability and social embeddedness. Expert Systems with Applications,39(5), 5396–5408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. A. (2009). Capability based framework for open innovation: Complementing absorptive capacity. JournaI of Management Studies,46(8), 1315–1338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyu, Y. B., He, B. Y., Zhu, Y. Q., & Li, L. (2019). Network embeddedness and inbound open innovation practice: The moderating role of technology cluster. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,144, 12–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, F., & Xi, M. (1992). Status and trends of bibliometric. Journal of Information Science,13(5), 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, P., & Scharnhorst, A. (2014). Scientometrics and information retrieval: Weak-links revitalized. Scientometrics,102(3), 2193–2199.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. W. (1989). Mapping authors in intellectual space population genetics in the 1980s. Communication Research,16(5), 667–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review,23(2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2013). Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: entrepreneurs’ self-regulatory processes and their implications for new venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,37(5), 1071–1097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nell, P. C., & Andersson, U. (2012). The complexity of the business network context and its effect on subsidiary relational (over-) embeddedness. International Business Review,21(3), 1087–1098.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozer, M., & Zhang, W. (2015). The effects of geographic and network ties on exploitative and exploratory product innovation. Strategic Management Journal,36(7), 1105–1114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pe’er, A., & Keil, T. (2013). Are all startups affected similarly by clusters? Agglomeration, competition, firm heterogeneity, and survival. Journal of Business Venturing,28(3), 354–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, C. C. (2010). A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. The Academy of Management Journal,53(4), 890–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rass, M., Dumbach, M., Danzinger, F., Bullinger, A., & Moeslein, K. M. (2013). Open innovation and firm performance: The mediating role of social capital. Creativity and Innovation Management,22(2), 177–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rishika, R., Kumar, A., Janakiraman, R., & Bezawada, R. (2013). The effect of customers’social media participation on customer visit frequency and profitability: An empirical investigation. Information Systems Research,24(1), 108–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, A. G., Blake, D., & Timermann, A. (2018). Network centrality and delegated investment performance. Journal of Financial Economics,128(1), 183–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyedghorban, Z., Matanda, M. J., & Laplaca, P. (2016). Advancing theory and knowledge in the business-to-business branding literature. Journal of Business Research,69(8), 2664–2677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipilov, A., Godart, F. C., & Clement, J. (2017). Which boundaries? How mobility networks across countries and status groups affect the creative performance of organizations. Strategic Management Journal,38(6), 1232–1252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikimic, U., Chiesa, V., Frattini, F., & Scalera, V. G. (2016). Investigating the influence of technology inflows on technology outflows in open innovation processes: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management,33(6), 652–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, H., Kryscynski, D., & Li, X. (2016). Pipes, pools, and filters: How collaboration networks affect innovative performance. Strategic Management Journal,37(8), 1649–1666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. (2003). Paradigms, citations, and maps of science: A personal history. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,54(5), 394–399.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, D., & Geidner, N. (2015). Collective dynamics of the spiral of silence: The role of ego-network size. International Journal of Public Opinion Research,28(1), 25–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorescu, A. (2017). Data-driven business model innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,34(5), 691–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stam, W., Arzlanian, S., & Elfring, T. (2014). Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm performance: A meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators. Journal of Business Venture,29(1), 152–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, D. M., & Marvel, M. R. (2011). Knowledge acquisition, network reliance, and early-stage technology venture outcomes. Journal of Management Studies,48(6), 1169–1193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning,51(1), 40–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tödtling, F., Lengauer, L., & Höglinger, C. (2011). Knowledge sourcing and innovation in ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ regional innovation systems—comparing ICT firms in two Austrian regions. European Planning Studies,19(7), 1245–1276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal,41(4), 464–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usman, M., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2017). How start-ups successfully organize and manage open innovation with large companies. European Journal of Innovation Management,20(1), 171–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,42(1), 35–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Shaw, J., Sykes, T., Macharia, M., & Wamba, S. F. (2017). Networks,technology,and entrepreneurship: a field quasi—experiment among women in rural India. Academy of Management Journal, 60(5).

  • Villanueva, J., Van de Ven, A. H., & Sapienza, H. J. (2012). Resource mobilization in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing,27(1), 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vissa, B. (2012). Agency in action: entrepreneurs’ networking style and initiation of economic exchange. Organization Science,23(2), 492–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & Zhang, L. (2018). Knowledge structure and development trend of enterprise network research: Analysis based on knowledge map. Technological Progress and Countermeasures,16, 151–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, Z. L., Song, Q., & Quan, Y. M. (2017). Open learning and business model innovation: the moderating effect of competitive environment. Management review,29(12), 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, T., & Roper, S. (2016). Unpacking open innovation: Absorptive capacity, exploratory and exploitative openness, and the growth of entrepreneurial biopharmaceutical firms. Journal of Small Business Management,54(3), 931–952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, H. J. (2014). Research on the benefit sharing mechanism of intellectual property of industry-university-research collaborative innovation alliance. Academic Research,7, 58–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, H. M., Zhang, Y., Cheng, C., & Chen, Y. (2014). The impact of network embedding on technological innovation performance: The perspective of learning ability. Scientific Research Management,12, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, J., & Han, W. P. (2017). Triple helix dynamics of South Korea’ s innovation system: A network analysis of inter-regional technological collaborations. Quality & Quantity,51(3), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Souitaris, V., Soh, P. H., & Wong, P. K. (2008). A contingent model of network utilization in early financing of technology ventures. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice,32(4), 593–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zobel, A. K., Lokshin, B., & Hagedoorn, J. (2017). Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness. Technovation,59, 44–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zukin, S., & DiMaggio, P. (1990). Structures of capital: The social organization of economy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to my instructor Professor Liu for valuable comments and suggestions throughout the research process. This research has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71303204); Social Science Jury Committee Project of Hunan Province (XSP17YBZZ112); Social Science Foundation of Hunan Province (15WTC05).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan, 411105, China

    Ting Liu & Liu Tang

Authors
  1. Ting Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liu Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liu Tang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, T., Tang, L. Open innovation from the perspective of network embedding: knowledge evolution and development trend. Scientometrics 124, 1053–1080 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03520-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03520-7

Keywords