Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-pvkqz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-07T13:11:17.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 4 - Strategic Openness and Open Strategy

from Part I - The Concept of Open Strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2019

By
Xian Xu  and
Oliver Alexy
Edited by
David Seidl ,
Georg von Krogh  and
Richard Whittington
David Seidl
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Georg von Krogh
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal University (ETH), Zürich
Richard Whittington
Affiliation:
Saïd Business School, University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Just by their names, the concepts of Open Strategy (OS) and Strategic Openness (SO) seem to have a lot in common – at the very least, they both constitute equally viable outcomes in a forced relationship technique exercise using the words “open” and “strategy.” Indeed, authors on both topics would arguably agree that both concepts somehow deal with behavior that has to do with strategy and in which certain aspects are open, with “open” implying at least a partial reduction of access restrictions (also see, e.g., OED Online, 2013). More precisely, Open Strategy is defined as an inclusive and transparent way to develop and enact strategy (Tavakoli et al., 2015), and Strategic Openness as how firms voluntarily forfeit control over their resources (Alexy et al., 2018).

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy , pp. 59 - 84
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Afuah, A. N., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355–375.Google Scholar
Alexy, O., George, G., & Salter, A. (2013a). Cui bono? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 270–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexy, O., Henkel, J., & Wallin, M. W. (2013b). From closed to open: Job role changes, individual predispositions, and the adoption of commercial open source software development. Research Policy, 42(8), 1325–1340.Google Scholar
Alexy, O., & Reitzig, M. (2013). Private–collective innovation, competition, and firms’ counterintuitive appropriation strategies. Research Policy, 42(4), 895–913.Google Scholar
Alexy, O., West, J., Klapper, H., & Reitzig, M. (2018). Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), 1704–1727.Google Scholar
Altman, E. J., Nagle, F., & Tushman, M. (2014). Innovating without information constraints: Organizations, communities, and innovation when information costs approach zero. In Shalley, C., Hitt, M. A., & Zhou, J. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship (pp. 353–384): Oxford Handbooks Online.Google Scholar
Amrollahi, A., Ghapanchi, A. H., & Talaei-Khoei, A. (2014). Using crowdsourcing tools for implementing open strategy: A case study in education. Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Savannah, 2014.Google Scholar
Amrollahi, A., & Ghapanchi, A. (2016). Open strategic planning in universities: A case study. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Kauai, Hawaii.Google Scholar
Amrollahi, A., & Rowlands, B. (2016). OSPM: A design methodology for open strategic planning. Americas Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Chiayi, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Appleyard, M. M., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2017). The dynamics of open strategy: From adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 310–321.Google Scholar
Aten, K., & Thomas, G. F. (2016). Crowdsourcing strategizing: Communication technology affordances and the communicative constitution of organizational strategy. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), 148–180.Google Scholar
Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (1997). Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review, September–October, 84–93.Google Scholar
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2006). The architecture of participation: Does code architecture mitigate free riding in the open source development model? Management Science, 52(7), 1116–1127.Google Scholar
Baldwin, C. Y., & Henkel, J. (2015). Modularity and intellectual property protection. Strategic Management Journal, 36(11), 1637–1655.Google Scholar
Barge-Gil, A. (2013). Open strategies and innovation performance. Industry & Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, 20(7), 585–610.Google Scholar
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.Google Scholar
Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase’s penguin, or, Linux and “the nature of the firm.” Yale Law Journal, 112(3), 369–446.Google Scholar
Bogers, M., & West, J. (2012). Managing distributed innovation: Strategic utilization of open and user innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1), 61–75.Google Scholar
Bogers, M., Zobel, A.-K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., Frederiksen, L., Gawer, A., Gruber, M., Haefliger, S., Hagedoorn, J., Hilgers, D., Laursen, K., Magnusson, M. G., Majchrzak, A., McCarthy, I. P., Moeslein, K. M., Nambisan, S., Piller, F. T., Radziwon, A., Rossi-Lamastra, C., Sims, J., & Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2017). The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 8–40.Google Scholar
Bonaccorsi, A., Giannangeli, S., & Rossi, C. (2006). Entry strategies under competing standards: Hybrid business models in the open source software industry. Management Science, 52(7), 1085–1098.Google Scholar
Borkar, S. Y., Dubey, P., Kahn, K. C., Kuck, D. J., Mulder, H., Pawlowski, S. S., & Rattner, J. R. (2005). Platform 2015: Intel processor and platform evolution for the next decade. Technology@ Intel Magazine, 3, 3.Google Scholar
Boudreau, K. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science, 56(10), 1849–1872.Google Scholar
Boudreau, K. J. (2012). Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organization Science, 23(5), 1409–1427.Google Scholar
Boudreau, K., & Lakhani, K. (2009). How to manage outside innovation. Sloan Management Review, 50(4), 69–75.Google Scholar
Boudreau, K. J., Guinan, E., Lakhani, K. R., & Riedl, C. (2016). Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Science, 62(10), 2765–2783.Google Scholar
Boudreau, K. J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2015). “Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology. Research Policy, 44(1), 4–19.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
Bücheler, T., Füchslin, R. M., Pfeifer, R., & Sieg, J. H. (2010). Crowdsourcing, open innovation and collective intelligence in the scientific method: A research agenda and operational framework. Artificial Life XII – Twelfth International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems, Odense, Denmark, 19 August 2010–23 August 2010, 679–686.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2(3), 239–262.Google Scholar
Cheng, C. C. J., & Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2014). When is open innovation beneficial? The role of strategic orientation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(6), 1235–1253.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California Management Review, 50(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W., & Prencipe, A. (2008). Networks of innovation and modularity: A dynamic perspective. International Journal of Technology Management, 42(4), 414–425.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2014). New frontiers in open innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarkson, G., & Toh, P. K. (2010). “Keep out” signs: The role of deterrence in the competition for resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(11), 1202–1225.Google Scholar
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.Google Scholar
Cruz-González, J., López-Sáez, P., Navas-López, J. E., & Delgado-Verde, M. (2015). Open search strategies and firm performance: The different moderating role of technological environmental dynamism. Technovation, 35, 32–45.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709.Google Scholar
Dahlander, L., & O’Mahony, S. (2011). Progressing to the center: Coordinating project work. Organization Science, 22(4), 961–979.Google Scholar
Dattée, B., Alexy, O., & Autio, E. (2018). Maneuvering in poor visibility: How firms play the ecosystem game when uncertainty is high. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 466–498.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.Google Scholar
Dobusch, L., Dobusch, L., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2019). Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies, 40(3), 343–370.Google Scholar
Dobusch, L., Kremser, W., Seidl, D., & Werle, F. (2017). A communication perspective on open strategy and open innovation. Managementforschung, 27(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. (2007). “In case of fire, please use the elevator”: Simulation technology and organization in fire engineering. Organization Science, 18(5), 849–864.Google Scholar
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. (2008). The management of technological innovation: Strategy and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2008). Fast strategy: How strategic agility will help you stay ahead of the game. Harlow, UK: Pearson.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41.Google Scholar
Felin, T., & Zenger, T. R. (2014). Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Research Policy, 43(5), 914–925.Google Scholar
Fiegenbaum, I., Ihrig, M., & Torkkeli, M. (2014). Investigating open innovation strategies: A simulation study. International Journal of Technology Management, 66(2–3), 183–211.Google Scholar
Foss, N. J. (2003). Selective intervention and internal hybrids: Interpreting and learning from the rise and decline of the Oticon spaghetti organization. Organization Science, 14(3), 331–349.Google Scholar
Foss, N. J., Laursen, K., & Pedersen, T. (2011). Linking customer interaction and innovation: The mediating role of new organizational practices. Organization Science, 22(4), 980–999.Google Scholar
Frey, K., Lüthje, C., & Haag, S. (2011). Whom should firms attract to open innovation platforms? The role of knowledge diversity and motivation. Long Range Planning, 44(5), 397–420.Google Scholar
Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: Three core process archetypes. R&D Management Conference (RADMA). Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2006). Open innovation: Die öffnung des innovationsprozesses erhöht das innovationspotenzial. Zeitschrift Führung + Organisation, 75(3), 132–135.Google Scholar
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. M. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213–221.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Guinan, E. C., Boudreau, K. J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2013). Experiments in open innovation at Harvard Medical School. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(3), 45–52.Google Scholar
Harhoff, D., Henkel, J., & von Hippel, E. (2003). Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Research Policy, 32(10), 1753–1769.Google Scholar
Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 298–309.Google Scholar
Henkel, J. (2004). Open source software from commercial firms – tools, complements, and collective invention. ZfB-Ergänzungsheft, 74(4), 1–23.Google Scholar
Henkel, J. (2006). Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of Embedded Linux. Research Policy, 35(7), 953–969.Google Scholar
Henkel, J., & Baldwin, C. Y. (2011). Modularity for value appropriation: Drawing the boundaries of intellectual property. Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper No. 11–054.Google Scholar
Henkel, J., Baldwin, C., & Shih, W. (2013). IP modularity: Profiting from innovation by aligning product architecture with intellectual property. California Management Review, 55(4), 65–82.Google Scholar
Hossain, M. (2012). Crowdsourcing: Activities, Incentives and Users’ Motivations to Participate. Paper presented at the 2012 International Conference on Innovation Management and Technology Research.Google Scholar
Howe, J. (2006). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired, 14, 6.Google Scholar
Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 58–66.Google Scholar
Huy, Q. N. (2011). How middle managers’ group-focus emotions and social identities influence strategy implementation. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1387–1410.Google Scholar
Jacobides, M. G., MacDuffie, J. P., & Tae, C. J. (2016). Agency, structure, and the dominance of OEMs: Change and stability in the automotive sector. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1942–1967.Google Scholar
Jacobides, M. G., & Tae, C. J. (2015). Kingpins, bottlenecks, and value dynamics along a sector. Organization Science, 26(3), 889–907.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: The challenges of a practice perspective. Human Relations, 60(1), 5–27.Google Scholar
Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.Google Scholar
Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19(5), 729–752.Google Scholar
Laamanen, T., Reuter, E., Schimmer, M., Ueberbacher, F., & Guerra, X. W. (2015). Quantitative methods in strategy-as-practice research. In Golsorkhi, D., Seidl, D., Vaara, E., & Rouleau, L. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice, 2nd ed. (pp. 520–544). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakhani, K. R., & Panetta, J. A. (2007). The principles of distributed innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 2(3), 97–112.Google Scholar
Lakhani, K. R., & Lonstein, E. (2008). InnoCentive.com. Harvard Business School General Management Unit Case No. 612–026.Google Scholar
Lampel, J., Pushkar, P. J., & Bhalla, A. (2012). Test-driving the future: How design competitions are changing innovation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(2), 71–85.Google Scholar
Langlois, R. N. (2002). Modularity in technology and organization. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 49(1), 19–37.Google Scholar
Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.Google Scholar
Lazzarotti, V., Garcia, M., Manzini, R., & Garcia, M. (2014). Open innovation strategies in the food and drink industry: Determinants and impact on innovation performance. International Journal of Technology Management, 66(2/3), 212–242.Google Scholar
Lichtenthaler, U. (2008). Opening up strategic technology planning: Extended roadmaps and functional markets. Management Decision, 46(1), 77–91.Google Scholar
Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2017). Dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA: The critical role of professional identity in open innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4), 746–782. 0001839217747876Google Scholar
Luedicke, M. K., Husemann, K. C., Furnari, S., & Ladstaetter, F. (2017). Radically open strategizing: How the premium cola collective takes open strategy to the extreme. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 371–384.Google Scholar
MacCormack, A. D., Rusnak, J., & Baldwin, C. Y. (2006). Exploring the structure of complex software designs: An empirical study of open source and proprietary code. Management Science, 52(7), 1015–1030.Google Scholar
Majchrzak, A., Griffith, T. L., Reetz, D. K., & Alexy, O. (2018) Catalyst Organizations as a New Organization Design for Innovation: The Case of Hyperloop Transportation Technologies. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(4), 472–496.Google Scholar
Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2006). Corporate wiki users: Results of a survey, Proceedings of the 2006 international symposium on Wikis, 99–104. Odense, Denmark: ACM.Google Scholar
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Niemiec, R. M. (2017). Using public crowds for open strategy formulation: Mitigating the risks of knowledge gaps. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 397–410.Google Scholar
March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.Google Scholar
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583–598.Google Scholar
Mergel, I., & Desouza, K. C. (2013). Implementing open innovation in the public sector: The case of challenge.Gov. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 882–890.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari. London: Financial Times/. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Montgomery, C. A. (2008). Putting leadership back into strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 54–60.Google Scholar
Morton, J., Wilson, A., & Cooke, L. (2015). Collaboration and knowledge sharing in open strategy initiatives. Proceedings of iFutures 2015, Sheffield, 7 July 2015, 7 pp.Google Scholar
Ng, E. S. W., & McGinnis Johnson, J. (2015). Millennials: Who are they, how are they different, and why should we care? In Burke, R. J., Cooper, C. L., & Antoniou, A.-S. G. (Eds.), The multi-generational and aging workforce: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 121–138). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Online, OED. (2013). Open, adj. www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/131699; retrieved February 15, 2014.Google Scholar
Palmisano, S. (2004). Leading change when business is good. Harvard Business Review, 82: 60–70.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A., & Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.Google Scholar
Peppard, J., Galliers, R. D., & Thorogood, A. (2014). Information systems strategy as practice: Micro strategy and strategizing for IS. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Perkmann, M., & Schildt, H. (2015). Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations. Research Policy, 44(5), 1133–1143.Google Scholar
Peters, H. P. F., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1993). Co-word-based science maps of chemical engineering. Part I: Representations by direct multidimensional scaling. Research Policy, 22(1), 23–45.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective (2003 classic ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Pisano, G. P., & Teece, D. J. (2007). How to capture value from innovation: Shaping intellectual property and industry architecture. California Management Review, 50(1), 278–296.Google Scholar
Pittz, T. G., & Adler, T. (2016). An exemplar of open strategy: Decision-making within multi-sector collaborations. Management Decision, 54(7), 1595–1614.Google Scholar
Polidoro, F., & Toh, P. K. (2011). Letting rivals come close or warding them off? The effects of substitution threat on imitation deterrence. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 369–392.Google Scholar
Polidoro, F., & Theeke, M. (2012). Getting competition down to a science: The effects of technological competition on firms’ scientific publications. Organization Science, 23(4), 1135–1153.Google Scholar
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.Google Scholar
Powley, E. H., Fry, R. E., Barrett, F. J., & Bright, D. S. (2004). Dialogic democracy meets command and control: Transformation through the appreciative inquiry summit. The Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005), 18(3), 67–80.Google Scholar
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Puranam, P., Alexy, O., & Reitzig, M. (2014). What’s “new” about new forms of organizing? Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 162–180.Google Scholar
Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. (2010). Building the co-creative enterprise. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 100–109.Google Scholar
Reetz, D. K., & MacAulay, S. (2016). Beyond ill-structured problems: Tackling true novelty through co-evolutionary search. 36th Strategic Management Conference SMS, Berlin.Google Scholar
Robertson, B. J. (2015). Holacracy: The revolutionary management system that abolishes hierarchy. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Saebi, T., & Foss, N. J. (2015). Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions. European Management Journal, 33(3), 201–213.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Seidl, D., & Werle, F. (2018). Inter-organizational sensemaking in the face of strategic meta-problems: Requisite variety and dynamics of participation. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 830–858.Google Scholar
Seltzer, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2013). Citizen participation, open innovation, and crowdsourcing: Challenges and opportunities for planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 28(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Shafique, M. (2013). Thinking inside the box? Intellectual structure of the knowledge base of innovation research (1988–2008). Strategic Management Journal, 34(1), 62–93.Google Scholar
Shah, S. (2006). Motivation, governance, and the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development. Management Science, 52(7), 1000–1014.Google Scholar
Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. (2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54(4), 44–68.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, A., Schlagwein, D., & Schoder, D. (2015). Open strategy: Consolidated definition and processual conceptualization. Thirty-Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth, 2015.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, A., Schlagwein, D., & Schoder, D. (2017). Open strategy: Literature review, re-analysis of cases and conceptualisation as a practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26(3), 163–184.Google Scholar
Trantopoulos, K., von Krogh, G., Wallin, M. W., & Woerter, M. (2017). External knowledge and information technology: Implications for process innovation performance. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 287-A288.Google Scholar
Tucci, C. L., Chesbrough, H., Piller, F., & West, J. (2016). When do firms undertake open, collaborative activities? Introduction to the special section on open innovation and open business models. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(2), 283–288.Google Scholar
Tushman, M., Lakhani, K. R., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2012). Open innovation and organization design. Journal of Organization Design, 1(1), 24–27.Google Scholar
Urban, G. L., & von Hippel, E. (1988). Lead user analysis for development of new industrial products. Management Science, 34(5), 569–582.Google Scholar
van Burg, E., Berends, H., & van Raaij, E. M. (2014). Framing and interorganizational knowledge transfer: A process study of collaborative innovation in the aircraft industry. Journal of Management Studies, 51(3), 349–378.Google Scholar
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1635–1651.Google Scholar
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.Google Scholar
Verdin, P., & Tackx, K. (2015). Can co-creation lead to better strategy? An exploratory research. Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Working Paper.Google Scholar
von Hippel, E. (1976). The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovations process. Research Policy, 5, 212–239.Google Scholar
von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209–233.Google Scholar
von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. (2006). Free revealing and the private-collective model for innovation incentives. R&D Management, 36(3), 295–306.Google Scholar
von Krogh, G. (2012). How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a strategic research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(2), 154–164.Google Scholar
Vuori, T. O., & Huy, Q. N. (2015). Distributed attention and shared emotions in the innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(1), 9–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, J. (2003). How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy, 32(7), 1259–1285.Google Scholar
West, J. & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814–831.Google Scholar
West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open source software. R&D Management, 36(3), 319–331.Google Scholar
West, J., & O’Mahony, S. (2008). The role of participation architecture in growing sponsored open source communities. Industry and Innovation, 15(2), 145–168.Google Scholar
West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2014). Open innovation: The next decade. Research Policy, 43(5), 805–811.Google Scholar
Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29(5), 731–735.Google Scholar
Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–634.Google Scholar
Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis‐Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 531–544.Google Scholar
Whittington, R., Yakis-Douglas, B., & Ahn, K. (2016). Cheap talk? Strategy presentations as a form of chief executive officer impression management. Strategic Management Journal, 37(12), 2413–2424.Google Scholar
Yakis-Douglas, B., Angwin, D., Ahn, K., & Meadows, M. (2017). Opening M&A strategy to investors: Predictors and outcomes of transparency during organisational transition. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 411–422.Google Scholar
Zammuto, R. F., Griffith, T. L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D. J., & Faraj, S. (2007). Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organization Science, 18(5), 749–762.Google Scholar
Zang, J., Zhang, C., Yang, P., & Li, Y. (2014). How open search strategies align with firms’ radical and incremental innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 26(7), 781–795.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×