The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1460-1060.htm

EJIM
20,1 Startups and open innovation:
a review of the literature
John-Christopher Spender
ESADE Business School, Barcelona, Spain
4
Vincenzo Corvello
Received 12 December 2015 Department of Business Science, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy
Revised 19 August 2016
Accepted 19 August 2016
Michele Grimaldi
Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering,
University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Casino, Italy, and
Pierluigi Rippa
University Federico II of Naples, Napoli, Italy

Abstract
Purpose – Startup companies represent a powerful engine of open innovation (OI) processes. The purpose of
this paper is to represent a first step in building a map of the state-of-the-art knowledge of the “startups in an
OI context” phenomenon. Through the selection and analysis of relevant literature, this study aims at
deepening our understanding of the theme and at providing directions for future research.
Design/methodology/approach – By using an explicit method for the review (Pittaway et al., 2004) the
authors selected a set of papers, which cover the knowledge domain object of this study. In total, 41 articles
about “startups and OI” have been selected and the full papers have been analysed.
Findings – The analysed literature has been synthesized in seven sub-topics, which have been evaluated as
the most relevant in explaining the phenomenon of startups in relation to OI. Implications for research, for
managers and for policy makers conclude the paper.
Practical implications – The review produced valuable knowledge for both managers and policy decision-
makers. The paper allows a better understanding of the role of startups in OI processes. This improved
understanding can help managers of large firms as well as policy makers involved in OI in making their
decisions. Besides, implications of OI strategies for startup managers have been singled-out.
Originality/value – Startup companies are intrinsically open organizations, necessarily engaged in
innovation processes. Research at the intersection between the themes of OI and startups is gaining
momentum. This review of the literature represents the first attempt to organize the scientific knowledge
related to the intersection between the startups and OI phenomena systematically.
Keywords Literature review, Open innovation, Startup
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
Startups play a key role in innovation processes (Colombo and Piva, 2008; Davila et al., 2003;
Mustar et al., 2008). According to the well-known definition by Steve Blank (2010) a startup
is a company, a partnership or temporary organization designed to search for a repeatable
and scalable business model. Through the startup phase, new ideas are brought to the
market and transformed in economically sustainable enterprises. New firms are artefacts for
transforming entrepreneurial judgement into profit (Spender, 2014). Existing research
indicates that forming relationships with external partners is a priority for the success of
startups (Teece, 2010; Pangarkar and Wu, 2012; Kask and Linton, 2013).
Due to their smallness, startups suffer a structural lack of tangible and intangible
resources (Wymer and Regan, 2005). The lack of financial and human resources hinders the
European Journal of Innovation
Management development of new innovation processes. Adopting open innovation (OI) practices is a
Vol. 20 No. 1, 2017
pp. 4-30
necessity for startups in order to overcome both the liability of newness and the liability of
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1460-1060
smallness (Bogers, 2011). From a scientific point of view, the startup phenomenon and OI are
DOI 10.1108/EJIM-12-2015-0131 closely related.
 Research in OI has followed several different strands, giving evidence of the Startups and
multidimensional nature of the concept of openness. Many studies have examined the open
complex features of OI (Huizingh, 2011; Aslesen and Freel, 2012), focussing on its different innovation
aspects, such as OI classification in terms of: modulation of openness level (Herrmann et al., 2007);
the adoption modality of OI (Bigliardi et al., 2012; Dahlander and Gann, 2010); knowledge flows
(Lichtenthaler and Ernst, 2009); innovation practices (Baldwin and von Hippel, 2011; Galati et al.,
2015; Saguy and Sirotinskaya, 2014); effectiveness of OI activities and practices (Tomlinson, 5
2010; Dahlander and Gann, 2010; Tomlinson and Fai, 2013; Greco et al., 2015). Besides, other
streams of research have taken into consideration the context of OI as for internal and external
environmental characteristics (Harison and Koski, 2010; Huizingh, 2011), and for OI processes.
A complex network of knowledge flows between firms emerges, that needs to be
managed and affects the internal choices of the startup company. While several
existing studies have examined the impact of partnerships and networks on the decision to
start a new venture and on the outcomes of entrepreneurial processes, a research gap
still exists regarding the mutual influence between the startups management decisions and
OI processes.
Despite this connection, the results produced by this field of research have scarcely been
analysed. How and if startups adopt OI practices, and how do they manage the knowledge
flows among different partners are still an unresolved question.
The aim of this paper is to fill this gap through a review of the literature on startups and
OI (Pittaway et al., 2004; Rousseau et al., 2008), in order to move forward the field of research
on startup and OI.
To do so, we review and analyse papers published on startups and OI on Web of
Science – Social Science Citation Index, Emerald and Elsevier’s Scopus. We analyse the
literature by providing an overview of the different points of view that authors adopted in
conceptualizing OI in the startups domain. We develop a frame by structuring the analysis
in domains consolidated in the OI literature: the startup ecosystem and the role of actors in
the network, Knowledge flows management in OI, and performance fostered by OI.
This study aims to enhance our understanding of the relationship between startups
creation and management on the one hand and OI on the other. Such a review can produce
valuable knowledge for both managers and policy decision-makers.

Methodology
The study was designed to provide an explicit method for the review (Pittaway et al., 2004;
Rousseau et al., 2008). The aim was to select and analyse relevant papers, which dealt at the
same time with both themes: startups and OI. Through this study, it was possible to provide
a description and an evaluation of the current body of knowledge on the intersection
between these two topics.
The following steps have been taken (Pittaway et al., 2004):
(1) The authors identified keywords on the subject based on a preliminary review of the
literature and using a form of brainstorming. The keywords included, for example
“Open innovation”, “startups”, “distributed innovation”, “networked innovation”,
“new venture”.
(2) The keywords were constructed into search strings. For example, the search string
[(“start up*”) OR (“new venture*”) AND ((“open innovat*”) OR (“network* innovat*”)
OR (“distributed innovat*”] was the first string used for finding citations.
(3) An initial search of Google Scholar was undertaken using the search string above to
identify further keywords for the main search. Additional words, such as early stage
company, inter-organizational innovation, emerging enterprise were added to the
search terms.
EJIM (4) The basic search string “open innovat?” AND “startup*” was used in three search
20,1 engines, Web of Science – Social Science Citation Index, Emerald and Elsevier’s
Scopus, to identify the key citation index for the review. This was chosen based on
the volume of citations relevant to the basic search string. The chosen engine was
Elsevier’s Scopus.
(5) The citation database chosen, Scopus, was reviewed using the search strings
6 identified in steps (2) and (3). These search strings were progressively analysed
from the most basic to the most complex. Using the final string 365 citations
were obtained.
(6) Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified (Table AI). The logic adopted was to
include all the papers that deal at the same time with both the topics, startups and
OI, even if the two topics did not assume the same relevance in the paper. The term
startup and other search terms used to identify papers about new ventures
(like entrepreneur and derived terms) are commonly used to address also other
phenomena. For example, entrepreneurship is an individual disposition investigated
in several studies. Therefore, exclusion criteria were introduced in order to exclude
these papers systematically.
(7) The citations identified were reviewed according to the inclusion and exclusion
criteria. Two stages were undertaken to reduce the number of citations. The first
analysed the titles and keywords of articles according to the inclusion and exclusion
criteria. The second analysed the abstracts of the articles, which were judged
potentially interesting in the previous step, in order to check their actual
compatibility with the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
(8) The reviewers cross-checked the reference sections of the included articles to assess
the search strategy.
After steps (1)-(8), 41 citations remained. These 41 articles represent the material
used for the review.
The 41 papers were analysed in order to identify frequently addressed issues.
These issues were then organized into themes and the results obtained for each
theme were summarized and discussed. More precisely the following steps describe
the data analysis methodology:
(9) A report structure was identified. The report structure had the aim to guide the
analysis of the papers by different reviewers. It indicated the main information to be
collected.
(10) A report was written for each paper by each of the authors separately, according to
the report structure identified in step (9). In particular, the main topics dealt with in
the papers and the main results were reported.
(11) Based on the topics identified in step 9, each author defined a list of relevant topics.
The initial lists had a number of topics ranging from 7 to 14.
(12) The reports were circulated among the authors and each author made comments on
the others’ reports and list. The process continued until convergence on the contents
of the papers was achieved.
(13) Also, the lists of topics were circulated and when possible the number of topics was
reduced in order to obtain as small a number of themes including homogeneous
topics as possible.
(14) Articles were reviewed once again and sections were written as the articles relevant
to a particular theme were reviewed.
Data analysis methodology Startups and
As for the typology of the methodological/scientific approach adopted in the 41 publications that open
have been selected, we considered three aspects: data analysis methodology, characteristics of innovation
research topics exploration, and data mining techniques (Leonidou et al., 2010; Furrer et al., 2008).

Data and content analysis

We have found that in 23 papers out of the total of the 41 analysed papers, scientific/ 7
technologic data/information have been gathered through surveys or interviews
(56 per cent); in nine papers data have been collected from single case studies
(22 per cent); in five papers data have been extracted from databases (12 per cent); in one
paper a mix of data from interviews and databases has been obtained. In the remaining
three papers, information has been derived from the literature analysis, or based on real
option approach or on simulation approach. As more than half of papers have made use of
surveys, while only five papers have had the opportunity of obtaining data from structured
databases, it is possible to infer that the topic is relatively recent and that it would be
necessary to dispose of an ad-hoc database. In that case, specific variables and dimensions
would allow analysing the role of OI practices, which have been put into use by startups.
Finally, as for the research typology of papers, 24 papers out of 41 had the goal of
developing a new theory, and 16 papers out of 41 had the aim to test one or more hypotheses
by means of a confirmatory approach. Only one paper made use of both approaches. The
analysis reveals that the topic “startups and OI” is a subject that generates interest not only
in the identification of new theories and in the exploration of new innovative branches of
knowledge, but also in testing and confirming the most established theories.
From merging data collection methodology with research design methodology,
excluding from the analysis the paper that made use of both new theory and
confirmatory approaches, it comes out that there is an equal number of developing theory
papers and of confirmatory papers, based on interviews or surveys (11 to 11) (Table I).
Moreover, descriptive papers, based on case study research design type, revealed to be
strongly new-theory-oriented (7) and two papers, based on case-study approaches, have
tried to confirm existing theories by means of specific field-study analyses. In addition, out
of five papers, based on statistical data extracted from databases, three papers have
focussed on confirmatory approaches, and two papers on “developing new theory” research
design type. This confirms the fact that researchers are tackling the exploration of the theme
“startups and OI” also by means of quantitative analyses, considering the theme still in
progress both from the theoretical/conceptual and practical/managerial points of view. The
three papers, which used a confirmatory approach and have not made use of input data,
along with the only one paper that has utilized mixed data from interviews and databases,
are based on developing new theory method.
By considering a content analysis of the characteristics of the selected manuscripts, the
following aspects can be highlighted (Table II).
There is no a majority among the different natures of articles. There is a very similar
number of papers that are conceptual, methodological and empirical. They account for a
third of the total. The only paper that belongs to a different nature is a review paper.

New theory Confirmatory

Survey/interviews 11 11 Table I.
Case study 7 2 Data collection and
Database 2 3 research design
Other 4 0 methodologies
EJIM Total (n ¼ 41) %
20,1
Study methodology
Case study 22
Survey 56
Database 12
Not available 10
8
Nature of articles
Conceptual 37
Methodological 29
Empirical 32
Review 2
Research design
Qualitative 61
Quantitative 37
Both 2
Scope of research
Table II. Academic 58
Manuscript Practitioner 27
characteristics Both 15

Moreover, a qualitative methodology (61 per cent) of data analysis was employed in
25 papers out of the 41 papers; a quantitative methodology (37 per cent) was used in
15 papers, while in only one paper a mix of quantitative/qualitative has been employed.
The target audience for the majority (58 per cent) of the articles was the academic
community, as opposed to 27 per cent that was purely targeting business practitioners. The
remaining articles (15 per cent) focussed equally on both academics and practitioners.
Finally, as explained above, the vast majority (56 per cent) of the paper adopted a survey
approach. Case study papers accounted for 22 per cent, while only few database papers
(12 per cent) were published. The remaining papers (10 per cent) had a mixed methodology
or a not clear study approach.

Research topic exploration

The keywords proposed in each of the papers reviewed for this study have been collected to
illustrate the topics studied in the papers (Figure 1). Figure 1 represents a cloud, where the
dimension of the characters of the keywords is proportional to the number of times each
keyword appears in all the selected papers. From the cloud information, it is possible to
verify that several papers have few keywords in common, but a high number of keywords
appear only in one paper. This depends on that research activity focussed on the theme
“startups and OI” does not focalize on any particular theme or a specific discipline.
The top eight keywords of the search – in order of importance – are innovation, network,
technology, entrepreneurship, OI, venture capital (VC), startups, and transfer. This shows
that “innovation” and “network” are the most frequent keywords and illustrates the
predominance of these two subjects in the theme “startups and OI”. By itself, “innovation” is
a well-established concept since the end of the past century (Drucker, 1988; Christensen,
1997), but its weight in literature has been strengthened by the addition of the word “open”
which has made it gain the interest of researchers and practitioners quickly (Chesbrough,
2003). As for the keyword “network”, the word became popular since the beginnings of
internet and its use has been gradually boosted in many fields where cross-relationships
have become a usual way of connection and information exchange, also highlighting the
 Startups and
open
innovation

Figure 1.
Cloud of the keywords

increasing relevance of social capital. Indeed, it is not for nothing that the concept of
relationship is embedded also in the other more frequent words that appear in the cloud, such
“alliances”, “corporate”, “entrepreneurship”, “firms”, “social”. Then, the frequency of the
keyword “technology” can be taken for granted, given the fields of the selected research works.
A further observation must be made for the keywords “startups” and “open innovation”:
the former shows a frequency greater than the latter. This depends on the fact that the word
“startups” refers to a particular stage of an enterprise, univocally intended and used, while
“open innovation” is a concept to which researchers have often referred by making use of
synonyms or expressions.

Descriptive analysis
As highlighted in Figure 2, the literature review appears to be quite scattered on several
journals, some of them containing multidisciplinary topics. The top four journals in terms of
coverage that have contributed to this work of review and have illustrated research design
types focussed on “startups and OI” are Technovation, International Journal of Technology
Management, European Planning Studies, and Strategic Management Journal. In addition to
these journals, review articles on “startups and OI” have been sourced from other 21
journals that publish works about innovation management, technology management,
organizational behaviour, entrepreneurship and business, marketing and strategic
management, economic and regional geography, besides a number of fields within social
sciences. These results show that there is a growing interest in the theme of “startups and
OI” and that this subject is strongly multidisciplinary.
The reviewed papers are also analysed according to the countries that feature within
studies (Figure 3).
When the year of publication is considered, analysing the frequency of the retrieved papers
makes clear that this subject of study and the evidence base is relatively recent (Figure 4).
Up to 2002, only three papers has been published on the theme “startups and OI”; this is not a
consequence of the fact that Chesbrough has sanctioned the expression “Open Innovation” in
2003, as in the query also synonyms of the term “open innovation” have been input. We have
made this choice in order to avoid the case of skipping contributions antecedent to
the introduction of the expression “Open Innovation” by Chesbrough (2003). Further, for the
period comprised between 2003 and 2008, the data show a shortage of papers. As of 2009, our
search retrieved at least three papers/year on the topic of our interest, with a maximum value
EJIM California
Management Review
20,1 5%
European
Planning Studies
7%

10 International Journal
of Technology
Management
10%
Others
41%
Research
Technology
Management
5%
Small Business
Economics
5%

Strategic
Management Journal
Technovation 7%
Figure 2. 15% Technology Analysis
Contributions from and Strategic
top journals Management
5%

Belgium Canada
Australia
2% 2%
2%
China
2%
World Finland
12% 2%

Israel
USA 10%
12%

Japan
2%

The Netherlands
7%
UK
12%

Norway
7%

Taiwan
2% Sweden
Spain Peru
Figure 3. 7%
5% 2%
Countries of Switzerland
application 2% Scotland Portugal
2% 2%
 7
Startups and
6 open
5
innovation
4

3
11
2

Figure 4.
1
Distribution of papers
0
per year of publication
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

of six papers, and a higher expected value of the selected paper in 2015. The topic is well
entrenched by now and calls the attention of several researchers.
In summary, from the examination of evidence base, it can be concluded that the topic
under analysis feels the effect of the short time of investigations. This is demonstrated by
descriptive-qualitative/quantitative types of research methods adopted in almost all the
selected papers, where interviews, observations, and reviews have been frequently used.
Therefore, in order to improve and expand the subject area of “startups and OI” there is a
need to tackle its exploration by means of the scientific support of a remarkable number of
academic and non-academic researchers over a prolonged period of time.

Results
This section presents the results of our analysis on startups and OI based on the full texts of
the 41 papers selected for this review.

Theme 1: the role of startups’ networks

In the OI literature, networks have often been considered as instrumental to the success of
innovation processes (West and Gallagher, 2006). They have been considered instrumental
either to the acquisition of resources (e.g. knowledge or financing) (Soetanto and van
Geenhuizen, 2015) or to the introduction of new products in the market (Lundberg, 2013).
For startup companies as well as for other actors involved in innovation processes it is
important to understand how the structure and processes of the network affect their own
processes and outcomes.
The surveyed literature focusses on two main aspects when discussing networks in the
context of startups in OI:
(1) the impact of quantitative/structural differences in the network on innovation
processes and outcomes; and
(2) the impact of qualitative differences in a single organization’s relations with the
other actors on innovation processes and outcomes.
The role of structural aspects in startups’ networks. According to La Rocca and Snehota
(2014), networks are the locus of innovation. Innovation processes and network structure
mutually shape each other: actors in the network define the requirements for new products
or services, produce new artefacts, accept or refuse them and in the process modify their
relations. This phenomenon is especially relevant when considering new ventures, which
necessarily change the structure and processes of the network when entering the market
(La Rocca and Snehota, 2014).
With reference to academic spin-offs, Soetanto and van Geenhuizen (2015) analysed the
impact of the characteristics of the network on the ability of new firms to attract funding.
EJIM They found that the four characteristics they studied (i.e. network size, density, the strength
20,1 of ties a multiplexity) affect the ability to attract funding. The strength of ties and
multiplexity, however, showed diminishing returns. Therefore the authors concluded that
relationships tend to be beneficial as long as they are not too strong or too complex
(Soetanto and van Geenhuizen, 2015).
The impact of the structure of the network on startups’ OI processes seems to be affected
12 by contingent factors. Again Van Geenhuizen and Soetanto (2012) in a study about
networks in two different urban areas, observe that the structure of the network impacts on
new ventures’ job growth. The relation between network structure and job growth, however,
is complex. Contextual factors affect its strength and direction. Indeed, the authors found
that “while networks in Delft (in a large metropolitan area) tend to be stronger compared to
those in Trondheim (isolated city), the influence of network strength on growth tends to be
negative in Delft but positive in Trondheim”. Wang and Fang (2012) have found that
network structure affects new firms’ innovativeness. In particular, they studied the impact
of startups’ network centrality and cooperative network (i.e. strength of network ties)
on innovative performance. The authors have found that network centrality positively
affects innovative performance, while the influence of cooperative network is negative.
Moreover, they found that when uncertainty is higher both the positive influence of network
centrality and the negative influence of cooperative network are stronger.
Neyens et al. (2010) considered the impact of the duration of alliances on startups’
innovation performance. They found that while continuous (i.e. long duration) alliances with
customers, suppliers, and competitors have a positive effect on startups’ ability to generate
radical innovation, discontinuous (i.e. short duration) alliances with customer, suppliers, and
competitors have a positive effect on startups’ ability to generate incremental innovation
(Neyens et al., 2010).
A relevant issue is the presence and relations of intermediary organizations, including
technology service firms, accounting and financial service firms, law firms, and talent search
firms. Zhang and Li (2010) have found that having relations with this type of organizations
is positively related to new ventures’ product innovation. Intermediary organizations play a
boundary-spanning role. Boundary spanners affect startups’ network processes by pooling
interest in new-ventures’ innovation projects and by translating knowledge from different
knowledge domains (Lundberg, 2013). VCs play an intermediary role as well. Strömsten and
Waluszewski (2012) found that the structure of a VC’s network “influences a startup’s
possibilities to develop organizational and technical resource interfaces to critical
counterparts such as suppliers and customers”.
Overall, according to the surveyed literature, network structure affects startups’
innovativeness, job growth, and ability to attract funding. While having a larger network, a
central position and a balanced portfolio of long and short term relations, seems to have a
positive effect, the strength and complexity of the relations in the network have a positive
effect below a certain threshold but a negative effect above it (i.e. the relation is inverted
U-shaped). Besides, the context, in particular, environmental uncertainty, affects the causal
link between network structure and the considered measure of performance.
The role of qualitative aspects in startups’ networks. If the number and strength of
relations startups hold with other actors affects OI processes, no less important is the nature
of these relations and the mechanisms used to manage them.
The study by Soetanto and van Geenhuizen (2015) cited above, for example, investigated
quantitative aspects (e.g. network size and density) as well as qualitative aspects
(e.g. multiplexity). As reported above multiplexity was found to reduce firms’ ability to
attract funding (Soetanto and van Geenhuizen, 2015).
Kaufmann and Schwartz (2008) suggested that startuppers should receive formal
training to develop their networking abilities.
 Sharif and Tang (2014), in their study of Chinese university spin-offs, analysed the Startups and
different institutional models regulating the relations between universities and startups. open
They found a great variety in the institutional models adopted by different groups of innovation
universities and startups. In general, however, the relations are managed top-down, with the
university playing the leading role (Sharif and Tang, 2014).
In a study based on data from 56.611 entrepreneurs in 61 countries, Schott and Sedaghat
(2014) found that not all the types of network relations were useful. In particular while public 13
networking (i.e. networking with colleagues, institutional and international actors) improved
innovativeness, private networking (i.e. networking in the personal sphere, with family and
friends) had a negative effect. In particular, “networking in the professional area” and
“international relations” have a positive effect on innovativeness (Schott and Sedaghat, 2014).
Startups’ networks evolve in time. For example, in the case of academic spin-offs, they
involve mainly academic partners in the early stage of the firm’s growth, while later there is
a shift towards customers (Pérez Pérez and Sánchez, 2003).
Chesbrough’s (2012) study of GE’s experiment with startups, ecomagination challenge,
proves that not all the links with startups are fructuous and that relevant relationships
between large incumbent firms and startups need to evolve from simple links to complex
relations in order to be beneficial for both parties.
Overall the literature focussing on qualitative aspects of the relations in the network
underlines the importance of two factors: the actors involved and the evolution of the
relations in time. Startups and large companies need to adapt their network strategies when
dealing with different actors and in different stages of their relation.

Theme 2: the actors interacting with startup’s in OI processes

As depicted in the section about “Networks”, opening up the innovation process implies the
involvement of startups in relationships with different typologies of actors. Scientists widely
studied this phenomenon, and the following actors emerged from the literature analysis:
• incubators;
• large corporations;
• VC firms;
• higher education systems; and
• others.
Incubators. A (business) incubator is a company that helps new and startup companies to
develop by providing services such as management training or office space. Incubators can
be sponsored and managed by different organizations, and the literature on startups and OI
focalized the analysis mainly on three typologies of incubator: technology incubator
(Kaufmann and Schwartz, 2008), industrial incubator (Clausen and Rasmussen, 2011, 2015),
and university incubator (Rubin et al., 2015). Each of these papers focalized the analysis
providing evidence on how to stimulate innovation processes all along the lifecycle of a
startup, from the pre-seed stage until the commercialization stage.
Kaufmann and Schwartz (2008) revealed in their analysis the failure of a technology
incubator in Israel in assisting entrepreneurs in forming a strong initial network, putting
evidence on the importance of the networks in the development of (biotechnology) firms.
Rubin et al. (2015) highlighted the importance of a technology business incubator in
stimulating the innovation process by creating a bridge between market failures of new
ventures (due to the fact that they lack managerial experience and ability to raise capital at an
early stage) and improving access to capital at a firms early stage. They conclude by opening
two questions about the role of universities in the startups lifecycle: first, university play a
EJIM modest role as a source of new ideas for incubators and incubatees, and second universities
20,1 play an important role in the later stages of incubatees’ new product development processes.
In the public co-sponsored industry incubator, Clausen and Rasmussen (2011, 2015)
evidenced three different goals of the incubator as a vehicle of knowledge transfer from
large firms to society: stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship in the form of new
ventures; stimulate innovation in the mother companies; and stimulate innovation more
14 generally in society. Conclusion remarks underline the role of a publicly co-sponsored
industry incubator as a programme to commercialize knowledge within corporations that
suffer from structural inertia.
Finally, Rothschild and Darr (2005) examined the intermediation role of incubators under
a new complex model of innovation, a cyclical model of innovation management, where
knowledge and know-how flow back and forth, via social network, in feedbacks loops
throughout the entire process of innovation.
Large corporations. Large corporations adopted different mechanisms like corporate VC,
internal incubators, strategic alliances and joint ventures to collaborate with startups and
new ventures or to create new spin-offs or spinouts. The growth and increasing viability of
startup firms, and their attendant disruption, create a new imperative to develop more agile,
rapid means for large companies to engage with the startup community. Anokhin et al.
(2011) studied the strategies large corporations should adopt to maximize the trade-off
between the number of ventures and the position they take in their syndication networks.
Since most corporate investors require at least one non-voting observer seat on a new
venture’s board, the interaction that inevitably occurs in their meetings make the boardroom
a de facto forum for information exchange. Weiblen and Chesbrough (2015) reported four
different models that corporations can employ to engage with startups successfully,
focalizing on two new models that appear to have their own strengths: outside-in and
platform startup programmes. Minshall et al. (2010) move their attention on the specific
challenges small firms such as startups need to manage in a partnership with a larger firm
that brings this into an asymmetric partnership. The challenges increase when one partner
is a commercially inexperienced startup attempting to exploit a novel technology at a low
level of readiness, and the other partner is a long established, complex organization with
operations spread over multiple business areas and geographic locations. They ended up
with a management guidebook-based approach for addressing startups and large firms
towards beneficial partnerships.
VC firms. VC firms are typically structured as partnerships, the general partners of
which serve as the managers of the firm and will serve as investment advisors to the VC
funds raised. VC are recognized as disseminators of knowledge since it provides a network
of relationships including financial, commercial or technology-based contacts. The literature
on startups and OI highlighted the role of VC as a vehicle able to transfer experience and
knowledge between new firms and establish contacts with third parties.
Ferrary and Granovetter (2009) studied the success story of the Silicon Valley, and their
analysis reported how the VCs usually use to invest in the seed stage than in the pre-seed
stage, when considering successful startups. In addition, they illustrate the role of the VC as
a creator of potential specific interactions with other agents in the network that determine a
particular dynamic of innovation.
Stromsten and Waluszewski (2012) reported the role of VC as investors in
entrepreneurial firms perceived as having potential but also high risk. VCs’ governance
mechanisms, adherence to a tight time schedule, and eagerness to eliminate uncertainties
can “get a better sense of the risks […] set clear goals and timelines […] communicate
clearly […] and think critically about financial and product market cycles”.
Finally, Pinch and Sunley (2009) highlighted the role of VCs as disseminators of
knowledge in the cluster of high-technology businesses that have spun off from research
undertaken at the University of Southampton UK. The interest is in the ways in which the Startups and
“know-how” possessed by VCs is passed on to their investees: while entrepreneurs possess open
more detailed knowledge of their technologies and an in-depth understanding of the innovation
strengths and weaknesses of their startups, VCs typically possess more knowledge about
financing opportunities and business development strategies. Therefore, VC information
may be valuable to new venture team managers because VCs bring a variety of experiences
with them from earlier investments. 15
Higher education system. An OI ecosystem for startups is not complete without the role
played by Higher Education System (HEI). HEI are an important source of knowledge, and
as competitiveness became dependent on knowledge, ideas and creativity, HEIs became
crucial for economic development.
Simôes et al. (2012) analysed the role of HEI as an intermediary bridging the gap
between producers and consumers of knowledge since they possess staff and various
research units that can help venture startups and young entrepreneurs to identify
opportunities, mobilize resources and create an organization. In their analyses realized in
Portugal, a set of internal and external factors of HEIs that stood out as being able to
influence venture creation within innovation networks are proposed. The most interesting
one is the role of HEI as a “network actor” that incentives and energizes the diverse
elements to integrate into an innovation network, that promotes knowledge sharing and
that supports nascent entrepreneurs at the various stage of venture creation.
On the same advice are Minshall et al. (2007), where their study reported the case of the
Cambridge Display Technology and the role played by University of Cambridge. As universities
should develop the so called “third mission” to supplement their traditional missions of research
and teaching, the activities to be developed by universities includes faculty consultancy,
licensing of university IP to established firms, building of spin-out ventures around university
IP, and the support for the creation of student and faculty-led startup ventures.
Other actors. In the OI context, there exist actors other than the ones previously
described that interact with startups but that currently receive less attention by the
scientific literature as evidenced in this review. Autio (1997) underlined how customers can
be an important source of technological know-how for new, technology-based firms (NTBFs)
(von Hippel, 1986, 1988; von Hippel and von Krogh, 2003). The customer becomes
increasingly involved in the transaction as a co-producer of value. Communities are another
relevant actor to be considered in the discussion as highlighted in Waguespack and Fleming
(2009). In this case, endorsements from high-status third parties further serve as a form of
free advertising, which, in turn, leads to relationships with additional high-status actors.
Finally, Collinson and Gregson (2003) and Zhang and Li (2010) explore two similar
organizations supporting innovation networks for new ventures creation. Both researches
concluded examining the role of ties with service intermediaries and organizations
established to promote new business startups in new venture innovation. This increases the
opportunities for the required fusion of entrepreneurs’ ideas, complementary technical and
market knowledge, managerial knowledge and finance. Such organizations are helpful
to integrate capabilities of new ventures to search, filter and integrate knowledge from a
huge variety of sources.

Theme 3: startups’ ecosystems and their impact on OI processes

Startups’ ecosystems are groups of organizations (including new ventures, universities,
VCs, public administrations, and others) interacting to create and facilitate the success of
startup companies. The term is sometimes used as synonymous of network. Here, however,
we refer to ecosystems as the overall milieu in which startups operate: this context includes
actors to which startups are not necessarily linked through neither direct nor mediated
EJIM relations if not in a very abstract sense. For example, public policies are undoubtedly an
20,1 element of an ecosystem, but it would be misleading to say that policy makers as such are
part of a startup’s network.
The financing system. One way in which other organizations create the right context for the
creation and growth of NTBFs is the facilitation of access to financing. In this respect banks,
VCs and governments are actors able to shape the ecosystem. The presence of an active and
16 efficient system of VC is often considered among the main reasons for success for a startups’
ecosystem (Ferrary and Granovetter, 2009). In a simulation-based study, Vitali et al. (2013)
found that ecosystems, in which banks collaborate with startups, are characterized by lower
mortality and higher productivity of new firms and, as a consequence, higher returns and
lower risks for banks. The surveyed literature suggests that public financing is important for
startups, but presently public programmes do not meet the financing needs of startups.
In particular, according to Brown and Mason (2014), the model of startup public programmes
are based upon (linked to universities, financed by VCs, based on protected intellectual
property) seems to be a stereotype not supported by empirical data.
The knowledge creation and diffusion system. A second relevant aspect of a startup
ecosystem is the presence of intellectual resources and the mechanisms of knowledge production
and diffusion. Several organizations contribute in facilitating the creation of new knowledge
and its transfer to and from startups. VCs (Ferrary and Granovetter, 2009), incubators
(Clausen and Rasmussen, 2011, 2015), and other boundary spanners (Lundberg, 2013) transfer
from startups to other actors (and vice versa) and translate it in the process. VCs and
intermediaries also contribute on the efficiency of the ecosystem by selecting, mentoring,
and championing startup projects (Ferrary and Granovetter, 2009). Also large corporations,
through corporate VC programmes, contribute to knowledge production and diffusion
(Napp and Minshall, 2011). Universities are often considered the main source of knowledge for
NTBFs. They provide knowledge about new technologies, but also on markets, legal and
financial aspects even if seldom startuppers get their ideas form their academic environment
(Rubin et al., 2015). According to Frenkel et al. (2015), an ecosystem including
diverse technologies encourages the creation of startups. In order to effectively exchange
knowledge, both formal and informal relations among the actors in the ecosystems are
important (Padilla-Melendez et al., 2013).
The governance system. The capacity to facilitate startups’ creation and growth is
influenced by the (formal an informal) governance system regulating the ecosystem. In a
study of startups ecosystems in China, Sharif and Tang observe that several governance
models exist. Most of the ecosystems the authors considered were based on a top-down model
in which large organizations like universities or governmental authorities regulated the
interactions among the actors. However, bottom-up approaches, with the startups playing an
active role are becoming more and more common (Sharif and Tang, 2014). Indeed, in their
study of university spin-offs, Minshall et al. (2007) found that spin-offs actively build and
control networks of partners in the ecosystem. VCs also play a role in the governance of the
system, not only through mechanisms linked to their financing role, but also through informal
relations (Ferrary and Granovetter, 2009; Strömsten and Waluszewski, 2012).
Summarizing the surveyed literature stresses the importance of three aspects, which
influence the functioning and performance of an ecosystem: the financing system; the
knowledge creation and diffusion system and the governance system. All three sub-systems
are facilitated by the presence of networks of formal and informal relations among the actors.

Theme 4: the entrepreneurial dimension in startups’ OI processes

Stiglitz and Driffill (2000) defined “entrepreneur” the person who creates new businesses,
brings new products to market, or develops new processes of production. This is just one
among the thousands of definitions literature produced to describe the phenomena of Startups and
entrepreneurship. Our review analysed articles focalized on the role of entrepreneurship for open
new venture creation in an OI arena. The entrepreneurial process in the OI era consists of innovation
distinctive activities such as the identification of opportunities, the mobilization of
resources, and the creation of an organization. Acquiring external scientific, technological,
and entrepreneurial knowledge is crucial for developing new combinations as well as for the
success of entrepreneurial ventures. As this is the main aim, we categorize the literature 17
reviewed into three categories: “prior entrepreneurial experience”, “entrepreneurial social
capital”, and “entrepreneurial policy”.
Prior entrepreneurial experience. Prior entrepreneurial experience is one component to
explain entrepreneurial behaviours of new companies’ entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs
launching new ventures often lack managerial experience. Kaufmann and Schwartz (2008)
through a field research realized in the biotechnology sector, assumed that the
entrepreneurs who turn into incubator are those with less business experience. Results
confirmed this assumption in the way entrepreneurs who participated in a programme
incubator revealed a relative inferiority with respect to their management experience,
managerial seniority with entrepreneurs who did not make use of the incubator. Simôes et al.
(2012) also revealed from their field research how spin-offs whose founding academic
entrepreneurs participate in outside consulting arrangements with industry are more likely
to commercialize their technology. On the same advice is Hayter (2013), who theorized how
prior entrepreneurial experience positively influences the propensity if the nascent
entrepreneur to create new firms. Moreover, previous experience in the sector has a
significant and positive effect on nascent entrepreneurs’ propensity to create firms.
Entrepreneurial social capital. Social capital is another interesting way to analyse the
ability of nascent entrepreneurs to keep advantages from the OI opportunities. What
happens is that the entrepreneur is not acting alone but together with others, and thereby
the entrepreneurial activity is embedded in the network around the entrepreneur. This
means the ability to manage the network as a result of the social capital embedded in the
entrepreneur (or in the entrepreneurial team). Kaufmann and Schwartz (2008) assumed that
entrepreneurs who come into incubators have a lower level of social capital. Results confirm
this assumption and, later, Schott and Sedaghat (2014) go in-depth analysing how
entrepreneurial social capital influence the ability of new entrepreneurs to innovate. Results
of the analysis revealed how networking in the private sphere has a negative, albeit small,
effect, whereas substantial benefits for innovation are obtained by networking in the public
sphere. In a field study in the open source sector (OSS), Gruber and Henkel (2006) reported
how active participation in an OI process (OSS) gives firms visibility towards potential
customers, helps to build a technical reputation, and allows them to overcome capacity
limitations by recruiting outside development support.
Entrepreneurial policy. Finally, the “entrepreneurial policy” theme covered almost all the
previously described aspects. If previous entrepreneurial experience and social capital are
elements cited in the literature as crucial for new entrepreneurs, policies should be directed
in order to improve these abilities. In this sense, Hayter (2013) evidenced how policies and
programmes designed to spur academic entrepreneurship should establish and strengthen
managers, support services, potential customers, and a variety of innovation sources to
improve commercialization and innovation. This is a critical task also highlighted in
Brown and Mason (2014), where they denote how typically policy efforts are directed
towards knowledge generation aspects, neglecting the crucial role of knowledge exploitation
and networking aspects or “entrepreneurial ecosystem”. Moreover, they also denounce
how policy makers focus on high-tech firms “as a priority” when other sectors might pose
better opportunities.
EJIM Theme 5: the role of financing and financing institutions
20,1 The most frequent type of financial support that have been found in the papers, selected
for the theme “Financing” are the following: “VC and corporate venture capital (CVC)”;
“Funding relationships between University and startups/spin-offs”; “Strategic partnership
complementary to capital (market) financing”. Beyond the well-known economic meaning of
VC and CVC, it is worth pointing out that the last two methods represent the most recurrent
18 financing choices of funding OI in startups in order to overcome uncertain economic
conditions. The selected papers have been clustered into the three sub-themes hinted above.
VC and CVC. As for the first sub-theme, Pinch and Sunley (2009) have studied the role of
VC investors as supporting high-technology agglomerations. By means of an in-depth
qualitative survey conducted in the UK, the authors found that VCs could have an important
role in balancing differences between innovative technologies and commercial technologies.
Indeed, abilities that are needed so that innovations are successful in the marketplace are
different from the academic point of view about funding and prestige. Therefore, VC can
actually support the commercialization of innovation. Moreover, the results suggest that the
system of financial support for technology startups should be improved. In the same vein,
Ferrary and Granovetter (2009) have tried to understand the role of funding agents, and
among them the VCs, to support creation and development of startups. By analysing the
Silicon Valley innovation system through the complex network theory, the authors have
highlighted that the complete system, which determines a particular dynamic of innovation
activities, is supported by networks of VC agents. These establish specific positive
interactions with other agents in the network (universities, large companies, laboratories)
that are likely to create future innovation ventures. About the same sub-theme, a further
study by Anokhin et al. (2011) has investigated the effectiveness for CVC to participate in
networks of large firms. Data for this study were collected using a data set of investment
decisions made by 163 corporations over four years. The data set has been analysed to
verify the effect of network centrality and investment intensity on innovation performance.
The analysis has suggested that corporations need to consider the trade-off between the
number of ventures they support and their position in the networks. The best strategies
appear to be those that support many ventures from outside the network centre or those
that support few ventures but occupy a central network position. Continuing on the same
sub-theme, Chesbrough (2012) has given empirical evidence to how a large corporation can
build a community and how to establish a challenge to lead a number of new startups being
funded not only by its own support, but also by VCs. Indeed, the author observes that VCs
have a different conception of the market and might recognize opportunities that internal
people may fail to catch. By describing the case study of General Electric Ecomagination
Challenge, the author has analysed a best practice of a challenge that created processes and
structures to make sure that at least some investments would pay off for the company.
In regard to the same subject, Stromsten and Waluszewski (2012) have explored how VC
ownership and governance influence the innovation process when relationships and
networks are critical contextual factors. The authors have analysed the interface between
innovation and corporate governance and in particular, how resources interact in industrial
networks. The results revealed that the relationship between a VC and a startup company is
embedded in a wider network and, therefore, needs deeper recognition. Moreover, it resulted
that the governance of the VC spreads in the surrounding network and influences startups’
possibilities to develop organizational and technical resource interfaces to critical
counterparts such as suppliers and customers. Finally, Weiblen and Chesbrough (2015)
have examined how large corporations from the technology industry can engage with
startups and tap into their entrepreneurial innovation. The authors have showed that in
addition to the two traditional methods of CVC and corporate incubators, there are other two
new models of engaging with startups: inside-out platform startup programmes and Startups and
outside-in startup programmes. In the former, startups are mere executors of the technology open
supplied by those corporations that want to enlarge their own markets. In the latter, the innovation
corporation acts as an incubator for the startups and fosters mutual learning, in the hope to
earn more than if it depended only on its own assets.
Funding relationships between university and startups/spin-offs. The second sub-theme
concerns “Funding relationships between University and startups/spin-offs”. Wouters (2010) 19
has hypothesized conditions under which value-based agreements on real options reasoning
can be applicable. Two case studies are examined to provide empirical support for these
hypotheses and helped to explain why value-based arrangements were found in the first case,
but not in the second one. Indeed, the latter case, an R&D company in the nanotechnology
field, founded in 1999 as a university spin-off, showed how there can be commercial
uncertainty because very innovative technology hampers the development of customer value
proposition. Moreover, Soetanto and van Geenhuizen (2015) have analysed the ability of the
spin-offs in attracting funding for research and development and, in particular, how the
relationships of academic spin-off firms with their parent university influence their ability to
attract funding. By studying a sample of 100 academic spin-off from the Netherlands and
Norway, the authors found that the ability to attract funding has an association with having a
dense, strong, and complex network with university network. Moreover, they confirmed that
maintaining a significantly strong relationship with the university might reduce the time and
effort allocated for exploring external resources outside the university. Nevertheless, a
relationship is beneficial as long as it is not too strong or not too complex.
Strategic partnership complementary to capital (market) financing. Coming to the last
sub-theme, “Strategic partnership complementary to capital (market) financing”, Minshall
et al. (2010) have pointed out that an opportunity for the implementation of OI strategies can
be generated by “asymmetric” partnerships, which can provide both startups and large
firms with economic advantages. The study was conducted on the base of semi-structured
interviews with representatives of large firms, startups, and investors in order to know the
diverse challenges. Many approaches have been identified by both startups and large firms
to meet asymmetric partnerships and firms have found to overcome many of the defined
management challenges. As any approach has not received a complete approval, it has been
recognized the need for a further in-depth analysis. Vitali et al. (2013) have aimed at
analysing the relationship between smart growth and innovation to understand how
identifying external funds for innovative entrepreneurs. The authors, following the agent-
based computational economic approach, have assessed how internal and external
financing impacts on overall economic growth and innovation adoption thus finding that
collaborative companies have the highest positive impact on the economic system. Finally,
Fujiwara (2014) has examined the difference between license-fee elements and has tried to
determine the innovation valuation in strategic partnerships by using the real option
perspective for the valuation of innovation partnership. The research was aimed at
understanding if the adoption of strategic partnerships can be complementary to capital
market financing. By making use of real option analysis, it has emerged that the main
objective of the partnership is the establishment of a synergistic effect by different expertise
partners in terms of cost efficiency, risk management capability, and favourite stage.

Theme 6: performance of startups in an OI context

The analysis of the papers selected for the major theme “Performance” has allowed to group
them into two sub-themes: innovation performance and organizational performance. Several
authors have conceptualized the two expressions and from some of their attempted
constructs we have extracted the few lines summarized here below.
EJIM Innovation performance is intended here as the relation existing between the definition of
20,1 innovation and its application to the concept of performance, resulting in the quality and
quantities of ideas and the efficiency and effectiveness of their implementation (Alegre et al.,
2006). Organization performance is intended as the ability of the organization to achieve
their goals by using resources in an efficient and effective manner (Lichtenthaler and Ernst,
2008; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990).
20 Innovation performance. As for the sub-theme innovation performance, Neyens et al. (2010)
observed that alliances between startups and other firms to merge their complementary skills
impact on incremental and radical innovation performance. The authors, by introducing a
time dimension in the analysis of the alliance strategies (continuous or discontinuous) and
assuming different partnership typology, demonstrated that results can vary markedly and
have several implications on managerial practices in dependence of the variety of settings.
They found that continuous alliances with competitors, university, and research institution
affect radical innovation, while discontinuous alliance with suppliers, customers, and
competitors affect incremental innovation. Also, the innovative performance is improved by a
network centrality, as Wang and Fang (2012) suggested in their research. On the other hand,
they remarked that the cooperative network of a new venture evidenced a negative linear
relationship with innovative performance. Again, results of their paper indicated that, in
environmental uncertainty conditions, the positive relationships between the central position
of a new venture and its innovative performance is heightened. Therefore, managers should
be able to judge the industrial network critically, without counting on resources and
information from relationships too much confidently.
Organization performance. The important role of managers in organization performance
is underlined by Chaston and Scott (2012). Grounded on a robust theoretical and statistical
base, the paper has examined the effects of entrepreneurial orientation and involvement in
OI on the organizational performance of firms in Peru. The results have shown that there is
a great accentuation on double loop learning among Peruvian organizations involved in OI.
As for entrepreneurship practices, it seems that, in spite of some entrepreneurial behaviour,
this concept is still not completely appropriate to the managerial activities in the emerging
economies, and there is a need for developing research on management organizational
processes. Equally important, in the paper by Hayter (2013), evaluations of the success of
university technological spin-offs in terms of commercialization can be characterized as
expressions of efficient organizational performance. He narrowed the focus on the so-called
“credibility phase” (Vohora et al., 2004) of spin-offs development through and on the factors
responsible for their organizational innovation performance towards commercialization.
An accurate analysis highlighted several factors of ability and collaboration, related to
entrepreneurship, university, firms themselves, and policy instruments. The assumption is
that when a spin-off commercializes technology it does not only penetrate the knowledge
filters, but it also signals its capability to contribute to economic development by means of
the implementations of new ideas.

Theme 7: knowledge stocks and flows in startups’ OI processes

The analysis of papers selected for the theme “Knowledge” has allowed to cluster them into
three sub-themes dealing with agents enabling assimilation of OI knowledge practices:
knowledge transfer; knowledge-based entrepreneurship; knowledge incubators.
Knowledge transfer means the interactivities of passing knowledge between two or
more entities (Zander and Kogut, 1995). Knowledge-based entrepreneurship is intended as
the ability to discern or avail of an opportunity and act to fulfil an innovative knowledge
practice or product. A knowledge incubator is an organization/agent that promotes the
development of early stage ventures/startups through knowledge-based services.
 Knowledge transfer. As for the sub-theme “Knowledge transfer”, the NTBFs have been Startups and
analysed in terms of the systemic knowledge conversion process to which they are related open
(Autio, 1997). The author views NTBFs from the resource-based perspective as bundles of
technologic resources. The model elaborated in the study suggests that it is possible to
innovation
identify niches for NTBFs not only in terms of technologic dynamics in the industry sector but
also in term of functional relationship with the process by which generic scientific knowledge
is transformed into basic technologies and application-specific technologic knowledge. 21
The role of VCs as indirect facilitators of knowledge for startups in the cluster of
high-technology businesses has been investigated by Pinch and Sunley (2009). In contrast
with the previous study on the internet industry, the authors did not find a parallel evidence
of cluster-based infrastructure disseminating technical knowledge in their study area
(Southampton, UK). Here, VCs were not involved in spreading technical knowledge, and
there is little evidence that they supply specialist and tacit knowledge via strong relational
partnerships. The authors’ results suggest that institutional support from VC require a
careful attention to the continuing effects of information asymmetry.
The capability of social capital of empowering knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE)
is described by Padilla-Melendez et al. (2013), who have analysed these activities verifying
between higher education institutions and spin-off (academic and non-academic), in order to
convert knowledge into innovation within regional innovation systems. Individual and
institutional/organizational relationships (formal and informal), organized in a sort of
virtuous KTE cycle, appear to be particularly important for successful innovation and KTE
activities addressed to SMEs.
Knowledge-based entrepreneurship. The second sub-theme concerns the “Knowledge-
based entrepreneurship”. The paper by Karlsson and Warda (2014) is an “invited paper”
showing a selection of the various contributions from many authors to the Uddevalla
Symposium (14-16 June 2013), all supporting the relevance of the role of scientific,
technological, and entrepreneurial knowledge-based entrepreneurship to local, regional, and
national development. Many researchers underline the role of institutional arrangements
(formal and informal) and the structure and the efficiency of innovation networks, where
many actors involved in innovative production foster the circulation and creation of new
knowledge. The continuous evolution of the innovation networks, and in particular of
knowledge-based entrepreneurship, has contributed to change the geography of
entrepreneurship. The increasing agglomeration economies and the diffusion of the benefits
of the associated external economies will become key factors for entrepreneurship in the
twenty-first century.
In this vein, Hayter (2013) focussed his attention on academic institutions. It is known
that universities produce knowledge and human capital. Recently, universities started
promoting spin-offs to generate new innovations and job/prosperity for regional economics.
The purpose of the paper is the exploration of success factors. These are examined by
means of the Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship that helps to find knowledge
“filters”. Findings revealed that spin-offs with access and strong external linkage to new
technologies, knowledge, ideas, funding, and management are more likely to
commercializing their technologies compared those that are without.
Knowledge incubators. Coming to the last sub-theme, “Knowledge incubators”, Clausen
and Rasmussen (2011, 2015) have helped develop OI policies to foster innovation and
entrepreneurship. The work is based on an empirical study of an industry incubator with
public and private funding. By this research, the authors have found out that the main task
of industry incubators is that of preserving, retaining, and transferring valuable knowledge
from large industrial firms to society. Their study has also revealed that the social benefits
of such innovation intermediation activities may be far greater than their private value.
EJIM A further perspective on the same sub-theme is put forward by Rubin et al. (2015) who
20,1 have found out that there is a lack of in-depth studies that examine both the different
knowledge produced by incubators and the nature of knowledge flows between these
knowledge agents and incubatees. They have shifted the focus in the existing incubator
research from the incubator outcome to the processes and interrelationships within
incubators. Findings revealed the existence of three types of “knowledge bearers”:
22 technological knowledge, market knowledge, and financial resource bearers. An incubator
interrelationship model is presented, based on the Horizontal Strategy theory applied to
both countries study cases, helping incubatees to be more competitive and faster to market
with their products and services.

Conclusion
This review of the literature represents the first attempt to organize the scientific knowledge
related to the intersection between the startups and OI phenomena. By using an explicit
method for the review (Pittaway et al., 2004) we selected a set of papers, which cover the
whole knowledge domain object of this study. At the same time, any scholar interested in
verifying or expanding our study has been given the means to do so. As a consequence, this
study represents a solid first step in building a map of the state-of-the-art knowledge of the
“startups in an OI context” phenomenon (Table III).
This study has implications both for future research and for managers and policy
makers. The main implications of the study are described below.

Implication for research

The theme of this review is relatively new: most of the papers were published after 2009;
several papers are based on qualitative studies with a theory building purpose. On the other
hand, the interest of scholars is steadily growing, as shown by the analysis of the year of
publication of the papers.
Directions for future research can be derived from the conducted analysis. Indeed, it
appears that a refinement of the available knowledge is needed from a methodological,
empirical and theoretical point of view.
From a methodological point of view, two observations need to be made:
(1) Startups represent a temporary form of organization. Their very nature is
provisional and dynamic. Longitudinal studies are needed to understand their role in
OI processes. Indeed, some of the qualitative studies considered in this review
adopted a longitudinal approach with interesting results. The implications of
decisions or events in the early stages of a startup lifecycle for the results in later
stages can be understood only through studies with a longitudinal design.
(2) The theme of startups and OI is intrinsically multidisciplinary. Consequently, studies
mixing methods, concepts and even theories from different disciplines are needed.
Both qualitative and quantitative studies are needed. Quantitative studies like path analysis
could help clarify the impact of OI strategies on firm innovative behaviour and, ultimately,
on organizational performance. Quantitative, longitudinal studies might help understanding
the multiple interactions among variables that characterize the complex dynamics of
startups in an OI context.
From an empirical point of view, it would be useful to investigate to what extent new firms
adopt OI strategies during their startup phase. Indeed several empirical studies exist, but most
of them are exploratory studies. With reference to several topics, results are not conclusive.
In the literature surveyed in this study, the topic of startups’ networks is probably the
most investigated. However, results are ambiguous or even contradictory with respect to
Startups and
open
innovation

23

Table III.
Synthesis of the
reviewed literature
EJIM several aspects. For example, the variable “strength of ties” has complex effects on startups
20,1 processes and performance and requires an in-depth analysis. While in some cases it seems
to affect innovation performance positively, in others the effect is negative. As others have
highlighted (Gulati, 2007), it is vital that the nature and purpose of networks are further
explored and understood, from a qualitative, besides quantitative, point of view.
Most of the surveyed studies focussed on the impact of network structure and
24 characteristics on the innovative performance of startups. Other aspects of performance have
been less investigated. Future research should clarify the impact of networks and networking
on aspects like firms survival, economic, and financial performance. These aspects are more
difficult to investigate. While innovation performance can be measured through an analysis of
patents, firms survival and economic performance pose difficulties linked to the transient
nature of startups. New firms can be acquired by large companies or run out of business. It is
difficult to design studies that compare successful and unsuccessful startups. To be relevant,
however, research needs to consider these cases. It is important to understand how OI can
support the ability of startups to translate innovativeness into the market and financial
success. Several studies analysed the factors affecting the innovativeness of new firms, but
being innovative is not relevant if it does not contribute to its success.
A gap in the literature concerns the analysis of forms of innovation different from
product innovation (e.g. process and organizational innovation). Process and organizational
innovation are more difficult to study. Again, this is partly due to the limited possibility to
use documents available in organized databases, like in the case of patents for product
innovation. However, the success of many startups cannot be understood if not by looking
at the changes they introduced in their business models. Studies designed to collect original
data through surveys or case studies should be used to investigate this specific issue.
OI seems to have spread mostly in a limited number of industries like the pharmaceutical
one. However, the dynamics of new, technology-based companies change from industry to
industry. Future research should consider the link between startups and OI within different
industries. Variability in the relations between investigated variables can be expected when
the industrial context changes.
Even though the role of ecosystems has been the object of several studies, the obtained
results seem to be not conclusive. Most studies are of a qualitative nature and stress the
complexity of the obtained result. In part, this is due to the actual complexity of the
phenomenon under investigation (and therefore qualitative studies seem to be the proper
approach), but it also seems that this area of research needs a refinement in terms of research
constructs. Ecosystem dynamics and configuration could be a fruitful line of research. Like, for
example, in the study by Sharif and Tang (2014), it would be interesting to define possible
configurations of an ecosystem and studying their impact on the diffusion of knowledge and
trust and, ultimately, on firm performance. Results could be useful for both private investors
and entrepreneurs looking for the right context for their enterprise and for public decision
makers trying to attract resources. What seems also to be missing is research on the role of
local or regional government agencies as players in the OI ecosystem. Not only configuration at
the national level, but also at the regional and local level should be considered in future studies.
With reference to the actors involved in OI processes of startups, several studies
investigate the role of VCs, universities or incubators. In an OI context, an important role is
played by communities of customers or other categories of individuals. It is expected that
these networks play a key role in the dynamics of startups as well. However, virtually no
paper on this topic has been found in this review. Future research should investigate the
processes, which characterize the interactions between startups and communities of
external individuals.
Startups are powerful engines of knowledge creation. Several studies consider the
problem of transferring knowledge to startups. A few consider the problem for large
corporations of absorbing knowledge from startups. An interesting area of research is how Startups and
other actors, as universities or large corporations and the society in general, can benefit from open
the knowledge generated by startups. Also in the case of unsuccessful startups, knowledge innovation
is generated which can be of value for other organizations, institutions or individuals.
In conclusion, it needs to be observed that several studies adopt the point of view of large
corporations or institutions. It seems that the interest of researchers has focussed on cases in
which at least one large organization was involved. The point of view of small companies 25
has been neglected. More research would be needed on OI from the point of view of startups
as the decision maker as well as on horizontal networks, in which SMEs play the key role.
The impact of startups strategic and organizational choices on their survival and success is
an obvious but under-investigated issue.
Further effort is needed from the point of view of conceptual refinement. There is still
confusion on what it is exactly meant by both “startup company and OI”. Both terms
describe very complex and heterogeneous phenomena. Taxonomies of these phenomena are
needed as well as empirical studies aimed at understanding the differences and similarities
between different forms of startups within different forms of OI contexts.

Implication for practice

Based on the scope of this literature review, four main types of actors can support new
entrepreneurs in opening up the innovation process all along the startup lifecycle: incubators,
ventures capitalists, large corporations, and universities. Being able to manage the relations
with these actors is a necessary competence for startuppers. Therefore, “networking” should
be part of all the education programmes for entrepreneurs. However, a more in-depth analysis
of mechanisms and best practices for managing these relations is required.
There is general agreement on the central role of financial support in sustaining
technological innovation. Allocating capital to startups to implement new processes and to
commercialize new technologies in OI activities can be fulfilled by various upholders. VC/CVC
support the commercialization of startups’ innovations. In particular, it appears that there is a
growing interest of large companies to work with startups with the goal of creating new
opportunities, in addition to aiming at product commercialization. The literature provides
directions for VC firms and large corporations to interact with startups. Less clear is how
startups can manage the power unbalance between themselves and VC and large corporations.
Relationships with universities are able to provide access to financial support and
knowledge. Managers of startup companies should be able to profit from the interactions
with research institutions throughout their lifecycle.
Alliances, collaboration and relations in general, can positively affect new firms’
performance. However, the positive results on innovation performance are heightened only by a
central position in the network and in environmental uncertainty conditions. Too strong
relationships risk having a negative effect on the innovative performance of startup companies.
As a consequence, startuppers should balance their portfolio of relationships accordingly.

References
Alegre, J., Lapiedra, R. and Chiva, R. (2006), “A measurement scale for product innovation
performance”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 333-346.
Anokhin, S., Örtqvist, D., Thorgren, S. and Wincent, J. (2011), “Corporate venturing deal syndication
and innovation: the information exchange Paradox”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 44 No. 2,
pp. 134-151.
Anokhin, S., Wincent, J. and Frishammar, J. (2011), “A conceptual framework for misfit technology
commercialization”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 1060-1071.
EJIM Aslesen, H.H.W. and Freel, M. (2012), “Industrial knowledge bases as drivers of open innovation?”,
20,1 Industry and Innovation, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 563-584.
Autio, E. (1997), “New, technology-based firms in innovation networks symplectic and generative
impacts”, Research Policy, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 263-281.
Baldwin, C.Y. and von Hippel, E.A. (2011), “Modeling a paradigm shift: from producer innovation to
user and open collaborative innovation”, Organization Science, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 1399-1417.
26 Bigliardi, B., Dormio, A. and Galati, F. (2012), “The adoption of open innovation within the
telecommunication industry”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 27-54.
Blank, S. (2010), “Why startups are agile and opportunistic – pivoting the business model”, available at:
www.steveblank.com (accessed 1 November 2015).
Bogers, M. (2011), “The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D
collaborations”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 93-117.
Brown, R. and Mason, C. (2014), “Inside the high-tech black box: a critique of technology
entrepreneurship policy”, Technovation, Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 773-784.
Chaston, I. and Scott, G.J. (2012), “Entrepreneurship and open innovation in an emerging economy”,
Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 1161-1177.
Chesbrough, H. (2012), “GE’s ecomagination challenge”, California Management Review, Vol. 54 No. 3,
pp. 140-155.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003), “The era of open innovation”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3,
pp. 35-41.
Christensen, C. (1997), The Innovator’s Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book that Will Change the Way
You Do Business Collins Business Essentials, Harper Paperbacks, New York, NY.
Clausen, T. and Rasmussen, E. (2011/2015), “Open innovation policy through intermediaries: the
industry incubator programme in Norway”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 75-85.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-152.
Collinson, S. and Gregson, G. (2003), “Knowledge networks for new technology-based firms :
an international comparison of local entrepreneurship promotion”, R&D Management, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 189-208.
Colombo, M.G. and Piva, E. (2008), “Strengths and weaknesses of academic start-ups: a conceptual
model”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 37-49.
Dahlander, L. and Gann, D.M. (2010), “How open is innovation?”, Research Policy, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 699-709.
Davila, A., Foster, G. and Gupta, M. (2003), “Venture capital financing and the growth of start-up
firms”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 689-709.
Drucker, P.F. (1988), “The coming of the new organization”, Harvard Business Review,
January-February, pp. 3-11.
Ferrary, M. and Granovetter, M. (2009), “The role of venture capital firms in Silicon Valley’s complex
innovation network”, Economy and Society, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 326-359.
Frenkel, A., Israel, E. and Maital, S. (2015), “The evolution of innovation networks and spin-off
entrepreneurship: the case of RAD”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 23, May, pp. 1-25.
Fujiwara, T. (2014), “Real options analysis on strategic partnership dealing of biotech start-ups”,
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 617-638.
Furrer, O., Thomas, H. and Goussevskaia, A. (2008), “The structure and evolution of the strategic
management field: a content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Galati, F., Bigliardi, A.I. and Petroni, A. (2015), “Open innovation in food firms: implementation Startups and
strategies, drivers and enabling factors”, International Journal of Innovation Management, open
Vol. 20 No. 3, available at: www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S1363919616500420
innovation
Greco, M., Grimaldi, M. and Cricelli, L. (2015), “Open innovation actions and innovation performance: a
literature review of European empirical evidence”, European Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 150-177.
Gruber, M. and Henkel, J. (2006), “New ventures based on open innovation an empirical analysis of start-up 27
firms in embedded Linux”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 356-372.
Gulati, R. (2007), Managing Network Resources: Alliances, Affiliations and Other Relational Assets,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Harison, E. and Koski, H. (2010), “Applying open innovation in business strategies: evidence from
Finnish software firms”, Research Policy, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 351-359.
Hayter, C.S. (2013), “Harnessing university entrepreneurship for economic growth: factors
of success among university spin-offs”, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 18-28.
Herrmann, A., Gassmann, O. and Eisert, U. (2007), “An empirical study of the antecedents for radical
product innovations and capabilities for transformation”, Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, Vol. 24 Nos 1-2, pp. 92-120.
Huizingh, E.K.R.E. (2011), “Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives”, Technovation,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-9.
Karlsson, C. and Warda, P. (2014), “Entrepreneurship and innovation networks”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 393-398.
Kask, J. and Linton, G. (2013), “Business mating: when start-ups get it right”, Journal of Small Business
& Entrepreneurship, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 511-536.
Kaufmann, D. and Schwartz, D. (2008), “Networking: the ‘Missing Link’ in public R&D support
schemes”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 429-440.
La Rocca, A. and Snehota, I. (2014), “Relating in business networks: innovation in practice”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 441-447.
Leonidou, L.C., Katsikeas, C.S. and Coudounaris, D.N. (2010), “Five decades of business research into
exporting: a bibliographic analysis”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 78-91.
Lichtenthaler, U. and Ernst, H. (2008), “Intermediary services in the markets for technology:
organizational antecedents and performance consequences”, Organization Studies, Vol. 29
No. 7, pp. 1003-1035.
Lichtenthaler, U. and Ernst, H. (2009), “Opening up the innovation process: the role of technology
aggressiveness”, R&D Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 38-54.
Lundberg, H. (2013), “Triple Helix in practice: the key role of boundary spanners”, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 211-226.
Minshall, T., Mortara, L., Valli, R. and Probert, D. (2010), “Making ‘Asymmetric’ partnerships work”,
Research Technology Management, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 53-63.
Minshall, T.I.M., Seldon, S. and Probert, D. (2007), “Commercializing a disruptive technology based
upon University IP through open innovation: a case study of Cambridge display technology”,
International Journal of Innovation & Technology Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 225-239.
Mustar, P., Wright, M. and Clarysse, B. (2008), “University spin-off firms: lessons from ten years of
experience in Europe”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 67-80.
Napp, J.J. and Minshall, T. (2011), “Corporate venture capital investments for enhancing innovation:
challenges and solutions”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 27-36.
EJIM Neyens, I., Faems, D. and Sels, L. (2010), “The impact of continuous and discontinuous alliance
20,1 strategies on startup innovation performance”, International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 52 Nos 3-4, pp. 392-410.
Padilla-Melendez, A., Del Aguila-Obra, A.R. and Lockett, N. (2013), “Shifting sands: regional
perspectives on the role of social capital in supporting open innovation through knowledge
transfer and exchange with small and medium-sized enterprises”, International Small Business
Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 296-318.
28
Pangarkar, N. and Wu, J. (2012), “Industry globalization and the performance of emerging market
firms: evidence from China”, International Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 196-209.
Pérez Pérez, M. and Sánchez, A.M. (2003), “The development of university spin-offs: early dynamics of
technology transfer and networking”, Technovation, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 823-831.
Pinch, S. and Sunley, P. (2009), “Understanding the role of venture capitalists in knowledge
dissemination in high-technology agglomerations. A case study of the University of
Southampton spin-off cluster”, Venture Capital, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 311-333.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D. and Neely, A. (2004), “Networking and innovation: a
systematic review of the evidence”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vols 5-6
Nos 3-4, pp. 137-168.
Rothschild, L. and Darr, A. (2005), “Technological incubators and the social construction of innovation
networks: an Israeli case study”, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 59-67.
Rousseau, D.M., Manning, J. and Denyer, D. (2008), “Evidence in management and organizational
science: assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses”, The
Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 475-515.
Rubin, T.H., Aas, T.H. and Stead, A. (2015), “Knowledge flow in technological business incubators:
evidence from Australia and Israel”, Technovation, Vols 41-42, July-August, pp. 11-24.
Saguy, I. and Sirotinskaya, V. (2014), “Challenges in exploiting open innovation’s full potential in the
food industry with a focus on small and medium enterprises (SMEs)”, Trends in Food Science
and Technology, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 136-148.
Schott, T. and Sedaghat, M. (2014), “Innovation embedded in entrepreneurs’ networks and national
educational systems”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 463-476.
Sharif, N. and Tang, H.H.H. (2014), “New trends in innovation strategy at Chinese universities in
Hong Kong and Shenzhen”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 65 Nos 1-4,
pp. 300-318.
Simôes, J., Silva, M.J., Trigo, V. and Moreira, J. (2012), “The dynamics of firm creation fuelled by higher
education institutions within innovation networks”, Journal of Science and Public Policy, Vol. 39
No. 5, pp. 630-640.
Soetanto, D. and van Geenhuizen, M. (2015), “Getting the right balance: university networks’ influence
on spin-offs’ attraction of funding for innovation”, Technovation, Vols 36-37, February-March,
pp. 26-38.
Spender, J.C. (2014), Business Strategy: Managing Uncertainty, Opportunity, and Enterprise, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Stiglitz, J.E. and Driffill, J. (2000), Economics, W.W. Norton, New York, NY.
Strömsten, T. and Waluszewski, A. (2012), “Governance and resource interaction in networks.
The role of venture capital in a biotech start-up”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 2,
pp. 232-244.
Teece, D.J. (2010), “Business models, business strategy and innovation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43
Nos 2-3, pp. 172-194.
Tomlinson, P. and Fai, F. (2013), “The nature of SME co-operation and innovation: a multi-scalar and
multi-dimensional analysis”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 141 No. 1,
pp. 316-326.
Tomlinson, P.R. (2010), “Co-operative ties and innovation: some new evidence for UK manufacturing”, Startups and
Research Policy, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 762-775. open
Van Geenhuizen, M. and Soetanto, D.P. (2012), “Benefitting from learning networks in ‘Open innovation
Innovation’: spin-off firms in contrasting city regions”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 1-17.
Vitali, S., Tedeschi, G. and Gallegatiy, M. (2013), “The impact of classes of innovators on technology,
financial fragility, and economic growth”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 22 No. 4, 29
pp. 1069-1091.
Vohora, A., Wright, M. and Lockett, A. (2004), “Critical junctures in the development of university
high-tech spinout companies”, Research Policy, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 147-175.
von Hippel, E. and von Krogh, G. (2003), “Open source software and the private-collective innovation
model: issues for organization science”, Organization Science, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 209-223.
von Hippel, E. (1986), “Lead users: a source of novel product concepts”, Management Science, Vol. 32
No. 7, pp. 791-805.
von Hippel, E. (1988), The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Waguespack, D.M. and Fleming, L. (2009), “Scanning the commons? Evidence on the benefits to
startups participating in open standards development”, Management Science, Vol. 55 No. 2,
pp. 210-223.
Wang, M. and Fang, S. (2012), “The moderating effect of environmental uncertainty on the relationship
between network structures and the innovative performance of a new venture”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 311-323.
Weiblen, T. and Chesbrough, H.W. (2015), “Engaging with startups to enhance corporate innovation”,
California Management Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 66-90.
West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006), “Patterns of open innovation in open source software”, in
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds), Open Innovation: Researching a New
Paradigm, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 82-106.
Wouters, M. (2010), “Customer value propositions in the context of technology commercialization”,
International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 1099-1127.
Wymer, S. and Regan, E. (2005), “Factors influencing e-commerce adoption and use by small and
medium businesses”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 438-453.
Zander, U. and Kogut, B. (1995), “Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of
organizational capabilities: an empirical test”, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 76-92.
Zhang, Y. and Li, H. (2010), “Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster:
the role of ties with service intermediaries”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 88-109.

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

EJIM Appendix
20,1

No. Criteria Reason for exclusion

Exclusion criteria
30 1 Pre-2003 Contributions on Open Innovation started after the
publication of Chesbrough’s book in 2003
2 Entrepreneurial orientation Entrepreneurship is not intended as the creation of
new firms, but as an individual’s or an
organization’s disposition
3 Technology or plant startup Startup is not intended as a new venture, but as the
initial phase in the use of a new technology or in the
operation of a new plant
4 Entrepreneurs and Open Innovation in old firms Excludes many papers focusing on the role of the
entrepreneur in enterprises which are not new firms
Inclusion criteria
1 Theoretical papers Provide the working assumptions to be used in the
report
2 Qualitative and quantitative empirical studies Capture all empirical evidence
3 Any study which focuses on Startups and Focus on new technological ventures creation and
considers Open Innovation at least as an aspect of open innovation as a context
Table AI. the study
Exclusion and 4 Any study which focuses on Open Innovation and Focus on innovation processes. Consider Startup as
inclusion criteria considers Startups at least as an aspect of the study actors in an innovation network

Corresponding author
Pierluigi Rippa can be contacted at: pierluigi.rippa@unina.it

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com