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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0025-1747.htm

Unleashing open innovation in the Open

innovation in
public sector: a bibliometric and the public
sector
interpretive literature review
Rocco Palumbo 103
Department of Management and Law, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
Received 22 December 2022
Elena Casprini Revised 10 February 2023
Department of Business and Law, Universit
a degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy, and Accepted 17 February 2023

Mohammad Fakhar Manesh

Department of Management, Lincoln Business School, Lincoln, UK

Abstract
Purpose – Institutional, economic, social and technological advancements enable openness to cope with
wicked public management issues. Although open innovation (OI) is becoming a new normality for public
sector entities, scholarly knowledge on this topic is not fully systematized. The article fills this gap, providing a
thick and integrative account of OI to inspire public management decisions.
Design/methodology/approach – Following the SPAR-4-SLR protocol, a domain-based literature review
has been accomplished. Consistently with the study purpose, a hybrid methodology has been designed.
Bibliographic coupling permitted us to discover the research streams populating the scientific debate. The core
arguments addressed within and across the streams were reported through an interpretive approach.
Findings – Starting from an intellectual core of 94 contributions, 5 research streams were spotted. OI in the
public sector unfolds through an evolutionary path. Public sector entities conventionally acted as “senior
partners” of privately-owned companies, providing funding (yellow cluster) and data (purple cluster) to nurture
OI. An advanced perspective envisages OI as a public management model purposefully enacted by public
sector entities to co-create value with relevant stakeholders (red cluster). Fitting architectures (green cluster)
and mechanisms (blue cluster) should be arranged to release the potential of OI in the public sector.
Research limitations/implications – The role of public sector entities in enacting OI should be revised
embracing a value co-creation perspective. Tailored organizational interventions and management decisions
are required to make OI a reliable and dependable public value generation model.
Originality/value – The article originally systematizes the scholarly knowledge about OI, presenting it as a
new normality for public value generation.
Keywords Open innovation, Public management, Collaboration, Public value, Value co-creation
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
Increasing turbulence and complexity of the environment reconfigure the logic that inspires
the functioning of public sector entities (e.g. Barahona and Elizondo, 2014; Demircioglu and
Audretsch, 2020), calling for management decisions aimed at organizational flexibility and
adaptiveness (Cunningham and Kempling, 2009; Isaac-Henry and Painter, 1991). This
happens amidst multiple challenges, which undermine the public sector entities’ ability to
meet the evolving needs of the community. Financial constraints make it difficult to achieve
a compromise between austerity measures and the delivery of high-quality services

© Rocco Palumbo, Elena Casprini and Mohammad Fakhar Manesh. Published by Emerald Publishing
Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone
may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and
non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full Management Decision
Vol. 61 No. 13, 2023
terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode pp. 103-171
This research has been partially supported by the European Academy of Management (4th Research Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
Grants Scheme). DOI 10.1108/MD-12-2022-1745
MD (Felıcio et al., 2021). Technological transformations alter value creation processes and revisit
61,13 conventional management practices (Erakovic and Wilson, 2006). Institutional transitions
imposed by the managerialization of the public sector dictate a rethinking of the assumptions
laying behind management decisions, propelling proactiveness and resilience in steering
public sector entities (Common, 1998).
The shift towards value co-creation has been envisaged as the leading way to cope with such
challenges (Palumbo and Fakhar Manesh, 2021). This is especially true where innovation is
104 concerned (Alves, 2013). Innovation broadly encompasses management efforts and decisions
directed at introducing new solutions to enhance operational efficiency, foster organizational
adaptiveness and advance public services’ quality (Queyroi et al., 2022). Collaborative practices
empower public sector entities to escape environmental unpredictability (Colovic et al., 2022),
revitalizing them with the energy and resources of external stakeholders (Ansell and Torfing,
2021). Therefore, innovation in the public sector is reconceptualized according to an open
innovation (OI) perspective, which rejects the conventional one-sided and closed view and relies
on “. . . a process of collaboration and cocreation between stakeholders in order to address societal
challenges” (Bekkers and Tummers, 2018, p. 211).
As argued by Chesbrough and Bogers (2014, p. 17), OI is “. . . a distributed innovation
process that involves purposively managed knowledge flows across the organizational
boundary”. Three attributes characterize OI (Kankanhalli et al., 2017). First, it originates
from a deliberate strategic orientation which sticks to a collaborative blueprint (Feller et al.,
2011). Second, it is based on continuous knowledge inflows and outflows, boosting creativity
through mutual fertilization (Smith et al., 2019). Third, it is based on distributed learning,
which is quintessential to tackle the transversal challenges met by public sector entities (Lee
et al., 2012). OI has been argued to fit the public sector, which broadly involves “. . . all
organizations owned by governments, be they national, regional, or local, including state
supported institutions” committed to the generation of value for the community (Blais et al.,
1990, p. 382). The systemic nature of the public sector facilitates knowledge inflows and
outflows across organizational boundaries to nurture public value generation (Radnor et al.,
2014). Besides, the publicness of public management issues (Pesh, 2008) legitimizes the
involvement of multiple stakeholders in polymorphic endeavours intended to advance the
efforts directed at public value generation (De Vries et al., 2018a). Finally, yet importantly,
the transition towards smart governance (Ferraris et al., 2018) and the emphasis attached to
co-production (Palumbo, 2016) entail a reconfiguration of public value generation models,
fostering the adoption of OI practices (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al., 2021).
Whilst scholars emphasized the need to “. . . draw more extensively on open innovation”
(De Vries et al., 2018b, p. 159) to deal with the fast-moving scenario experienced by public
sector entities (Criado and Guevara-Gomez, 2021), evidence of the requisites (Hameduddin
et al., 2020), attributes (Heimst€adt and Reischauer, 2019) and implications (Paskaleva and
Cooper, 2018) of OI in the public sector is inconsistent. Previous studies argued that research
and practice about OI in the public sector are misaligned, due to the heterogeneity of
perspectives adopted by scholars and practitioners (Pedersen, 2020). This calls for a
systematization of the scientific literature, unveiling the how and why of OI in the public
sector. Earlier reviews on this topic have addressed the determinants of OI, the interventions
to support openness and the barriers preventing the creation of a collaborative space in the
public sector (see, inter alia: Lopes and Farias, 2022; Mu and Wang, 2022; De Coninck et al.,
2021). Furthermore, they have been focused either on particular geographical contexts or on
specific organizational purposes (e.g. Haley, 2016). However, inadequate efforts have been
made to map the state of the scholarly debate contextualizing OI in the public sector. This is a
major knowledge gap, which prevents us from fully acknowledging the contribution of OI to
public value generation (Fuglsang and Hansen, 2022). To fill this gap, the article advances a
hybrid domain-based literature review. A bibliographic analysis enabled us to identify the
research streams articulating the extant scholarly debate. Relying on authors’ interaction and Open
interpretation to delve into research streams and establish bridges across them, an innovation in
interpretive approach was embraced to extract evidence of what makes OI viable in the public
sector. Consistently with recent trends inspiring the scholarly debate in the field of
the public
management decisions (Caputo et al., 2022), our research addresses the following questions: sector
RQ1. What is the role of public sector entities in enacting OI?
RQ2. What is the scope of OI in the public sector? 105
RQ3. What are the conditions for establishing OI in the public sector?
The article is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the methodology and describes the
study protocol implemented to collect and systematize relevant contributions. Section 3
delivers an overview of the findings, presenting the research streams generated by
bibliographic coupling. Section 4 critically discusses the study results, highlighting the
implications of our literature review and envisioning avenues for further development.
Section 5 concludes the paper, stressing its twofold contribution to theory and practice.

2. Methodology
Drawing on the taxonomy of literature reviews proposed by Palmatier et al. (2017), a domain-
based approach was taken to conduct this study. OI was framed as the main domain of this
literature review (Fernandes et al., 2019). The public sector was identified as the field within
which it was contextualized, acknowledging the salience of OI for public value generation (Mu
and Wang, 2022). Hence, OI in the public sector was addressed as a substantive study domain
which, as argued by Kankanhalli et al. (2017), shows distinguishing features as compared with OI
in the private sector, such as: (1) its focus on public value generation; (2) its target on improving
public service performance; and (3) the involvement of citizens, non-profit entities and higher
education institutions alongside privately-owned organizations in the pursuit of innovation.
Echoing the study design of previous studies adopting the same methodological outline in
different domains (e.g. Casprini et al., 2020 and Dabic et al., 2020), we crafted a hybrid
literature review, which consisted of a bibliographic analysis intended to cluster reviewed
items into homogeneous research streams and an interpretive theme-based review targeted to
deliver a thorough and integrative account of research streams (Paul and Criado, 2020). To
enhance the study replicability and reliability, the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for
Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) proposed by Paul et al. (2021) were followed. As
compared with other protocols for conducting systematic literature reviews, such as the
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), SPAR-4-
SLR was specifically designed for social sciences (Tsiotsou and Boukis, 2022). It disclosed
several advantages, including a dependable assessment of the literature being investigated
and an increased transparency, replicability and robustness of items’ coding, assessment and
analysis (Kumar et al., 2022).
This protocol unfolds through three steps, each of which further consists of two sub-steps.
During the assembling stage (Step 1) an effort is made to delimit the study domain and identify the
data sources for items’ collection. In the arranging stage (Step 2) the rules to analyse collected
items are defined and the records that are not consistent with the inclusion criteria are discarded.
Finally, in the assessing stage (Step 3) included items are carefully analysed and systematized,
inspiring the report of the findings. A detailed account of the research protocol is presented below.

2.1 Assemble
The assembling stage started with clearly defining the boundaries of the study domain and
involved the selection of the most fitting sources to collect relevant scientific contributions.
MD Since our main target was OI, we decided to focus on it as the primary component of our
61,13 search string. We did not take into consideration synonyms of OI, such as distributed
innovation or networked innovation (Spender et al., 2017), to keep the spotlight exclusively on
OI. Moreover, we did not use concepts which embrace an open perspective, but are not
immediately targeted at innovation, such as co-production, which focuses on the design and
delivery of public services (Palumbo, 2016), open government, which refers to the
informational and interactive openness of public sector entities (Meijer et al., 2012) and
106 crowdsourcing, which entails citizens’ participation in initiatives directed “. . . to generate
better public services with lower costs” (Liu, 2017, p. 656). The search string comprised a
secondary component, which was intended to contextualize our literature review to the public
realm. Alongside referring to public sector entities and public administration, we included
any potential variations which accounted for the complexity of the public sphere, such as
public services and public management. The secondary keywords were reciprocally
connected with the Boolean operator “OR”, whilst the primary and the secondary keywords
were associated by the Boolean operator “AND”.
Different data sources are available to accomplish literature reviews. Consistently with the
approach taken in previous studies consisting of a bibliographic analysis and an integrative
systematization of retrieved items (Balzano, 2022), we queried two major sources
(Archambault et al., 2009; Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016): Clarivate Analytics’ Web of
Science (WoS™) and Elsevier’s Scopus®. We did not set any temporal limitations in our
search strategy to be as much comprehensive as possible in our data collection. We
contemplated different types of scientific contributions, such as article published in peer-
reviewed journals, conference proceedings and book chapters. The inclusion of conference
proceedings and book chapters permitted us to consider emergent scholarly contributions
presented at academic conferences or hosted in edited books, but which were not already
published in scientific journals at the time of this literature review. We excluded notes,
erratum and similar records which did not significantly advance the state of knowledge in the
study domain. We set a strict language limitation, admitting in the analysis only items
published in English. The search was targeted to the title, abstract and keywords in Scopus®
and to topic in WoS™. The asterisk (*) was used to catch any variations of the terms included
in the query, which is reported below:
((“open innovat*”) AND (“Public Adm*” OR “Public Sect*” OR “Public serv*” OR “Public man*” OR
“Public Ent*” OR “*government” OR “public gov*”))
The search string was run on January, 10th 2022 and delivered 608 records on Scopus® and
395 records on WoS™. The items delivered by the two sources were carefully compared. The
items collected from WoS™ were also indexed in Scopus®, which rendered a larger number
of items. Hence, we decided to use Scopus® due to its larger coverage (Vera-Baceta et al.,
2019). Most items involved in the analysis consisted of articles published in peer reviewed
journals (52.4%), followed by conference proceedings (33.6%) and books’ chapters (9.4%).

2.2 Arrange
The retrieved items were collected in an electronic worksheet. Codes based on authors’ name,
article’s type (e.g. original article, review, conference paper and book chapter), title, source,
publisher and year of publication were used to accomplish a preliminary screening of the
records. This preliminary analysis led us to remove 16 duplicates from the original database.
Furthermore, we decided to retract from the dataset items which were issued by publishers
considered to be predatory or facing ethical problems in publishing to ensure the
dependability of our literature review. Altogether, 77 contributions were discarded. Next,
the authors met to define exclusion and inclusion criteria. Drawing on extant literature
reviews (Palumbo et al., 2022), three exclusion criteria were agreed. Items which did not
address issues and challenges related to the application of OI in the public sector were Open
rejected as off topic. Besides, records which did not deliver any relevant insights into the role innovation in
of public sector entities in enacting and nurturing a public value generation model based on
OI were retracted as off scope. Finally, contributions which did not deliver compelling
the public
evidence on the importance of OI for augmenting the value generation capability of public sector
sector entities were removed as off focus. The authors independently screened the items to
purify the dataset. Once individual analysis was completed, the authors had a meeting which
was intended to overcome inconsistencies in the inclusion and exclusion of analysed items. 107
The authors did not agree on the exclusion of 78 items. A debate was launched to set
disagreements. The majority rule was adopted, i.e. contested items were removed if 2 in 3
authors agreed on their exclusion. As a result of this analysis, 317 items were retracted: more
specifically, 138 were off topic, 109 were off scope, and 70 were off focus. Hence, 198 records
were admitted to the final step of this literature review.

2.3 Assess
The records which passed the arranging stage were duly examined to identify the main
research streams and point out the key themes addressed within and across them. Following
the approach taken in previous reviews aimed at investigating the scope of OI (e.g. Kovacs et al.,
2015), a bibliometric analysis was accomplished, which enabled us to map the intellectual
structure of retrieved literature. We used bibliographic coupling as the aggregation mechanism
and the visualization of similarity technique to systematize articles into clusters depicting
homogeneous research streams (van Eck and Waltman, 2010). This approach assumes that
articles citing one or more common references are likely to pertain the same research stream
(Boyack and Klavans, 2010). Bibliographic coupling was used because it permitted us “. . . to
construct structural images” of the research streams, relying on the shared research interest of

coupled items assessed by the similarity of their reference lists (Zupic and Cater, 2015, p. 430).
VOSviewer (vers. 1.6.10) was used to run the analysis.
The output of this methodological approach is displayed in a two-dimensional map, which
exploits the outcome of the aggregation analysis to locate items based on their similarity
measures. Relatedness is denoted by articles’ spatial proximity. The threshold for running the
analysis was fixed at a minimum of 5 common references to enhance the internal coherence of
research streams and the total citation link strength was set at 10 to ensure the thickness of
the clusters (Waltman and van Eck, 2012). In line with previous literature reviews (Balzano,
2022), we allowed a minimum cluster size of 8 items, and we maintained at 1 the resolution
parameter to get large enough clusters embedding consistent streams of scientific literature
(van Eck and Waltman, 2017). As a result of this routine, 94 items were found to be highly
coupled. The full list of selected items is available in Table A1, which is attached to the article
and provides descriptive information on the knowledge core of this literature review. The
records were clustered in 5 groups, representing different shades of the scientific debate on OI
in the public sector. Figure 1 displays a flow diagram depicting the steps which were taken to
obtain, analyse and select relevant items.
Drawing on Tranfield et al. (2003), a non-standardized reporting approach was taken to
systematize the contributions, which enabled us to achieve an improved explanatory power.
More specifically, an interpretive approach was used. The articles were manually coded by
the authors, who independently assessed the key themes addressed in the research streams
(Bryant and Charmaz, 2010). On the one hand, open coding was used to spot the conceptual
and empirical insights delivered by the literature. On the other hand, axial coding was
implemented to highlight mutual links across the contributions. At the end of individual
analysis, the authors met to discuss inconsistencies and work out a dependable and
harmonious account of the research streams. Once all disagreements were set, the authors
MD
61,13

108

Figure 1.
A graphical
representation of items’
collection and analysis

arranged a final report summarizing the main results of the literature review, which inspired
the findings of this article.

3. Findings
3.1 An overview of reviewed contributions
Most items included in this literature review consisted of articles published in peer-reviewed
journals (75.5%), followed by conference proceedings (20.2%) and book chapters (4.3%).
About 60 different sources covering disparate scientific fields – including business,
management and accounting, computer science, engineering, decision sciences and
economics – were taken into consideration. As depicted in Figure 2, publication years
ranged from 2008 to 2021. More than 2 in 3 contributions were published from 2015 onwards
(69.1%), witnessing the salience of the study domain. On average, the records included in this
literature review were cited 29 times (σ 5 33.4) at the time of this study, ranging from a
minimum of 4 citations to a maximum of 181 citations.
Figure 3 graphically displays the clusters obtained from bibliographic coupling. As
synthesized in Table 1, the Yellow cluster consists of 10 items published between 2017 and
2021: it articulates the senior partnership role of public sector entities in sustaining OI via
financial and relational support. The Purple cluster includes 17 records published between
2013 and 2018, presenting public sector entities as enablers of OI through open public data.
The Red cluster encompasses 32 articles published between 2008 and 2019: it frames a public
value creation view of OI. The Green cluster hosts 18 items published between 2015 and 2021,
shedding light on the architectures required to put OI at the service of public value creation.
Lastly, the Blue cluster accounts for 17 items published between 2008 and 2020: it envisions
 Open
innovation in
the public
sector

109

Figure 2.
The items’ distribution
per publication year

Figure 3.
The output of
bibliographic coupling
MD Range of
61,13 No of publication
Cluster Label items year Main theme(s) addressed Key references

Yellow Aiding OI via 10 2017/2021 Public sector entities initiate OI ecosystems Ahn et al. (2020),
cluster financial and encouraging stakeholders to enter Jugend et al.
relational collaborative innovation efforts through (2020), Leckel
support financial and relational aids. The et al. (2020)
110 relationship between financial aids and
stakeholders’ involvement in OI initiatives
follows an inverted U shape. A combination
of financial and relational aids is required
to foster the establishment of vivid OI
ecosystems
Purple Nurturing OI 17 2013/2018 Alongside delivering financial and Gagliardi et al.
cluster through relational support, public sector entities can (2017), Gasco
public open support OI through public open data. (2017), Tate et al.
data Limitations preventing the stakeholders’ (2018)
access to public open data should be
addressed. On the one hand, adequate
infrastructures should be implemented to
ensure the fair and timely access to open
public data. On the other hand, boundary
spanning and interorganizational
relationships should be exploited to
facilitate the alignment of perspectives
between public sector entities and relevant
stakeholders
Red Creating 32 2008/2019 OI is conceived of as an innovative public Cohen et al.
cluster public value management model to engage stakeholders (2016), Mergel
through OI in public value generation. Embracing a (2015), Molinari
collaborative economy perspective, OI (2011)
involves the implementation of public–
private partnerships (PPPs), leveraging the
knowledge and skills of privately-owned
companies to address public management
challenges. Adopting a public service
perspective, OI implies the shift towards a
public private people partnership (PPPP)
approach, which emphasizes people
centeredness and relies on citizens’
empowerment for the purpose of public
value generation
Green Preparing the 18 2015/2021 Inconsistent rules and ambiguous Ferraris et al.
cluster ground for OI strategies prevent the success of (2020),
collaborative innovation in the public Wijnhoven et al.
sector. To overcome such shortcomings, (2015), Yuan
public sector entities should prepare the and Gasco-
ground for OI, dealing with the “hard” and Hernandez
“soft” side of collaborative innovation. A (2021)
reliable infrastructure should be arranged
to facilitate inflows and outflows of
Table 1. knowledge. Moreover, attention should be
A descriptive overview paid to the incentives fostering
of the clusters retrieved stakeholders’ participation to OI
from bibliographic
coupling (continued )
 Range of
Open
No of publication innovation in
Cluster Label items year Main theme(s) addressed Key references the public
Blue Oiling the 17 2008/2020 OI requires the design of context-specific Koch et al. sector
cluster mechanisms interventions, which should fit with the (2011),
for OI complexity of the institutional field and Lundgren and
with the political, social, and economic Westlund 111
challenges faced by public sector entities. (2017),
Collaborative innovation relies on four Mroczkowski
principles: accessibility, transparency, and Miller
participation, and empowerment (2017)
Source(s): Authors’ own creation Table 1.

the mechanisms for exploiting OI for viable public value generation. An interpretive account
of the 5 research streams follows.

3.2 Yellow cluster: aiding OI via financial and relational support

Public sector entities are in a critical position to promote the establishment of OI ecosystems,
putting multiple stakeholders’ ingenuity and creativity at the service of economic and social
development (Gershman et al., 2019). However, public sector entities may lack resources and
capabilities to manage complex inter-organizational relationships; furthermore, they may be
unprepared to abandon conventional innovation practices which stick to a closed perspective.
These limitations induce public sector entities to indirectly participate in OI ecosystems. Such
indirect participation takes different shapes, ranging from supporting private companies
with financial aids (Leckel et al., 2020) to the creation of intermediary organizations to foster
inbound and outbound innovation at the crossroad of the public and the private sectors
(Gershman et al., 2019).
Jugend et al. (2020, p. 11) identified four dimensions of public support for innovation, i.e.:
“. . . (1) financial support for R&D activities; (2) development through innovation; (3) support
for sectorial programs; and (4) university-industry-government collaboration (triple helix)”.
Elaborating on this classification, public sector entities support OI using two leverages:
financial aids and relational aids. In most cases, they deliver financial assistance to stimulate
stakeholders’ commitment to OI (Cheah and Ho, 2020). The availability of public funding
reduces perceived risks, thus stimulating the willingness of private companies to participate
in boundaryless research and development endeavours (Orlando et al., 2021). Besides,
financial aids provide incentives to the development of knowledge, skills and capabilities that
are conducive to OI (Zheng et al., 2018). These interventions are especially effective when less
innovative companies benefit from public support, which is intended at nurturing their
research and development potential (Cano-Kollmann et al., 2017).
For what concerns relational aids, public sector entities promote and sustain inter-
organizational relationships involving research institutions, private companies and the
community in innovation practices. Non-monetary support focused on facilitating
networking has been argued to be more effective in enabling OI when complex innovation
initiatives are concerned (Jugend et al., 2018). Networking paves the way for a multiple helix
approach, which enables the co-creation of shared cultural artifacts to advance collaborative
innovation and curb appropriability hazards, thus encouraging joint efforts aimed at OI
(Zhang et al., 2017a). Although scholars agree in claiming the importance of public support for
OI, they are not consistent in appreciating its implications on the recipients’ propensity to
implement outbound research initiatives. More specifically, previous studies emphasized that
MD companies benefitting from large amount of support are less willing to participate in
61,13 collaborative innovation than their counterparts receiving modest support (Ahn et al., 2020).
This casts a shade on the effectiveness of public aids to enact OI ecosystems and highlights
the need for balancing financial aid with relational aid.

3.3 Purple cluster: nurturing OI through public open data

112 Alongside delivering financial and relational aids, public sector entities nurture OI by
enhancing the stakeholders’ access to data concerning public management issues and
activities, which can be exploited for innovation purposes (Malsbender et al., 2014).
Nevertheless, enabling open data access in a perspective of information intensity is not
enough for stimulating OI (Chatfield and Reddick, 2017). Open government data should
be purposefully classified, elaborated and managed, advancing their meaningfulness for
stakeholders interested in the implementation of inbound and outbound innovation
(Gagliardi et al., 2017). This is consistent with embracing a capacity building
perspective, empowering stakeholders to participate in addressing public
management challenges through the access to timely and relevant open public data
(Sandoval-Almazan et al., 2017). Before building infrastructures hosting public open
data, it is necessary that public sector entities establish loyal and trusted relationships
with stakeholders, stimulating their willingness to use public open data to partake in
public value generation (Sandoval-Almazan and Valle-Cruz, 2017). This is consistent
with previous research arguing that the arrangement of a shared OI perspective with
relevant interlocutors “. . . is considered more important than obtaining specific
innovation results” (Gasco, 2017, p. 90).
Despite the advantages triggered by implementing a data-driven OI framework, it heralds
shortcomings which endanger the collective commitment towards exploiting public open
data for innovation purposes (Ham et al., 2015). On the one hand, lack of adequate
infrastructures, competencies and expertise to ensure the fair access to open data
compromises the success of data-driven OI (Hellberg and Hedstr€om, 2015). On the other
hand, limited availability of boundary spanners and cross-organizational linkages promoting
an alignment between the perspectives held by public sector entities and relevant
stakeholders constrains the latter’s willingness to use public open data (Yang and
Kankanhalli, 2013), with the emergence of barriers to data-driven OI (Tate et al., 2018).
Tailored interventions are required to address these issues. Literature identifies three
main areas of intervention. Firstly, a favourable atmosphere for OI should be established at
the macro level, enacting a compelling institutional framework which solicits the adoption of
an open perspective in managing public open data (Kassen, 2017). Such institutional
framework should be embodied in a hybrid (physical and virtual) collaborative environment,
where the principles of transparency and openness are stressed, exchanges between public
sector entities and stakeholders are nurtured, and a collective enthusiasm towards OI is
propelled (Gryszkiewicz et al., 2016). Secondly, public sector entities should empower their
stakeholders (including citizens), enabling them to maximize the advantage they can get from
open data and putting social capital at the service of public value generation (Bartlett, 2017).
Therefore, public sector entities should implement a thick web of connections at the meso
level (Bekkers and Tummers, 2018), supporting stakeholders in handling and exploiting
public open data (Susha et al., 2015). Lastly, attention should be paid to the “hard” side – e.g.
infrastructures and platforms implemented to ensure the reliable access to public open data
(Smith and Sandberg, 2018) – and to its “soft” side – e.g. informal support to organizational
development initiatives (Zhang et al., 2017b) – of data-driven OI, overcoming resistances to
the use of public open data dictated by the inability to accommodate the stakeholders’
motivations, approaches and objectives in partaking to OI.
3.4 Red cluster: creating public value through OI Open
Financial and relational aids and access to public open data are generally implemented as innovation in
preliminary steps of a fully-fledged OI strategy (Chan, 2013). It is targeted at filling the
emptiness of e-government approaches (Assar et al., 2011), engaging stakeholders in
the public
developing innovative public services (Bekkers, 2012) and in stimulating local development sector
(Guerrero and Urbano, 2017). For this to happen, tailored initiatives intended to empower
stakeholders are necessitated (Almirall et al., 2014), arousing their desire and willingness to
participate in a collective endeavour aimed at public value co-creation (Conradie et al., 2012). 113
Stakeholders’ engagement may take different forms, according to the specific aims of public
sector entities (Fernandez-Zubieta et al., 2016) and the characteristics of the institutional field
where OI is implemented (Davies et al., 2019). Outside-in models overcome the scarcity of
knowledge and resources available to the public sector (Heimst€adt and Reischauer, 2019) by
leveraging partners’ expertise and assets (Niehaves, 2010). Alternatively, inside-out models
make the public sector entities’ assets available to their stakeholders (Lee et al., 2016), paving
the way for public value co-generation (Lee et al., 2012).
Different interlocutors can be involved in OI, which enacts a vivid and viable innovation
ecosystem (Fu and Mu, 2014). In most cases, public sector entities embrace a collaborative
economy perspective (Cohen et al., 2016), involving private companies in public–private
partnerships (PPPs) to accomplish boundaryless innovation (Scuotto et al., 2016). Mutual
exchanges between public sector entities and private partners create opportunities for cross-
fertilization of knowledge (Hennala et al., 2011), which improves the distributed ability to
anticipate environmental trends (Van der Duin et al., 2014) and generate new ideas (Venturini
and Verbano, 2017). This has a twofold contribution on public value generation (Katsonis and
Botros, 2015). On the one hand, it expedites the public sector entities’ ability to avoid
disruption in the delivery of public services (Mergel et al., 2014) and to tackle the challenges
that compromise public value creation (Martins et al., 2015). On the other hand, it nourishes
the collective innovation potential, catalyzing the establishment of a co-creating effort for
continuous public value generation through the involvement of talents from the private
sector (Lee et al., 2017).
Beyond involving private companies in OI, public sector entities may adhere to a public
private people partnership (PPPP) approach (Katsonis and Botros, 2015), empowering
citizens to actively partake in the generation of public value (Molinari, 2011). Drawing on
extant literature, citizens may participate in different stages of the public value creation
process, based on their level of knowledge and experience (Seidel et al., 2013). They can
contribute to the design of platforms hosting the exchanges between public sector entities
and the community (Charalabidis et al., 2011). Besides, they can act as collectors and/or
classifiers of data, extracting new insights and ideas from them to push forward public
governance and management (Mergel, 2018). Finally, they can be involved in the
co-production of public services, being engaged in initiatives which are intended to
enhance the individual and collective well-being (Mainka et al., 2016).
Whilst literature emphasizes the importance of OI for the viability of public sector entities
(Zimmermann and Pucihar, 2015), it is still not clear which kind of interventions are required
to set the conditions for involving stakeholders in public vale generation and fully capturing
the benefits of OI (Fuglsang, 2008). Transparency and participation have been identified as
the pillars on which OI strategies should be established (Mergel, 2015). They should be
considered throughout the design and implementation of the OI strategy. This entails
clarifying the rationale laying behind the adoption of OI, embedding openness in
management practices, incentivizing stakeholders’ participation in the design of
collaborative architectures (Zheng and Hu, 2018) and continuously assessing the
implications of OI on public value generation (Mergel and Desouza, 2013).
MD 3.5 Green cluster: preparing the ground for OI
61,13 Various shortcomings prevent the implementation of OI in the public sector, which are
inherited by the prejudice towards public value co-creation rooted in the conventional
bureaucratic model (Dos Santos et al., 2015). Institutional hurdles, such as inconsistent rules
regulating stakeholders’ participation in public service co-production and the absence of an
integrated view inspiring partners’ action and communication, slow down the design and
the implementation of OI (Ferraris et al., 2020). Moreover, the mismatch between the
114 stakeholders’ skills and expertise, the complexity of problems to be addressed, and the public
sector entities’ limited ability to stick to transparency have been claimed to produce
disengagement (Chatwin and Arku, 2017), ushering stakeholders’ unwillingness to partake in
a boundaryless approach to public value co-creation (Thapa et al., 2015).
Public sector entities should undertake tailored initiatives to cope with these problems and
prepare the ground for OI (Randhawa et al., 2019). Scholarly research highlighted that twofold
interventions are needed, addressing the technological and the social sides of OI (Paskaleva
and Cooper, 2018). From a technological point of view, a virtual terrain on which OI takes its
roots should be prepared (Car
e et al., 2018). Technologies facilitate the alignment between the
new forms of governance embraced by public sector entities and the evolving societal and
cultural trends experienced by the community, creating opportunities for public value
co-creation (Dezi et al., 2018). Technologies should be put at the service of stakeholders’
engagement, curbing the barriers that undermine their ability to contribute to public value
generation through data provision and classification, idea generation, service co-production
and outcome evaluation (Dıaz-Dıaz and Perez-Gonzalez, 2016). From a social point of view, the
success of OI relies on three factors. Firstly, it requires a focus on partners’ experiences,
consistently with a co-producer-centred model of OI (Konsti-Laakso, 2017). Secondly, a rich
network of social ties among partners should be arranged to facilitate knowledge inflows and
outflows (Schmidthuber and Hilgers, 2018). Social ties should be imbued with mutual trust,
which is a secret sauce in the recipe for OI in the public sector (Ferraris et al., 2018). Thirdly,
attention should be paid to the motivations triggering the stakeholders’ participation to OI,
which are affected by the scope of the project (Wijnhoven et al., 2015), as well as by the
monetary and non-monetary incentives used to foster stakeholders’ involvement
(Schmidthuber et al., 2019).
A multi-level framework should be designed to match the technological and the social
sides of OI, accounting for the stakeholders’ contributions to public value generation (Kube
et al., 2015). It is articulated in a three-layered architecture, consisting of: (1) digital platforms
allowing the integration of machine and human reasoning (Androutsopoulou et al., 2017); (2)
social media enabling stakeholders to share and report their ideas and perspectives (Loukis
et al., 2017); and (3) collective offline events, such as civic hackathons and living labs, which
build a physical space devoted to public value co-creation and enrich the relationship between
public sector entities and stakeholders (Yuan and Gasco-Hernandez, 2021).

3.6 Blue cluster: oiling the mechanisms for OI

Innovation in the public sector has been traditionally conceptualized sticking to a closed
perspective, which overlooks the strengths of inter-organizational relationships (Kinder,
2010). This is consistent with the consolidated bureaucratic culture of the public sector, which
represents a constraint for innovation and discourages collaborative processes aimed at
value co-creation (Van Duivenboden and Thaens, 2008). To overcome such hurdles, the
implementation of OI requires the design of context-specific interventions (Mroczkowski and
Miller, 2017), which are tailored to the complexity of the external environment and to the
political, social and economic challenges faced by public sector entities (Koch et al., 2011).
OI models rely on four principles, which are constitutive elements of collaborative
innovation (Lundgren and Westlund, 2017). Firstly, they should be accessible, enabling all
stakeholders to participate in value co-creation. Secondly, they should be transparent, Open
ensuring equity and fairness. Thirdly, they should be participative, empowering innovation in
stakeholders to fully express their potential for public value co-creation. Fourthly, they
should adopt an ethics of sharing, promoting the continuous exchange of information and
the public
resources. These core attributes can be variously blended, producing a variety of OI sector
approaches (Feller et al., 2008). Among others, Feller et al. (2011) identified four different
configurations of OI, which are characterized by: (1) the aggregation of service co-producers
in an integrated ecosystem led by public sector entities and directed towards public value 115
generation; (2) the establishment of a syndication of value co-creators, which is based on
resource sharing and is coordinated by public sector entities; (3) the implementation of a
consumption approach, according to which public sector entities act as regulators and
delegate public value generation to stakeholders; and (4) the design of a co-creating system,
entailing a partnership between public sector entities and private partners to advance the
public value generation capability.
The feasibility of these models depends on a set of requirements, which oil the
mechanisms of OI. Public sector entities should develop proper network management
capabilities, aligning the stakeholders’ needs and expectations and fostering their activation
for the purpose of public value co-creation (Belyaeva et al., 2020). Structural and cultural
changes in the design of public sector entities are needed (Parveen et al., 2015), with the
introduction of boundary spanning units to hybridize traditional public management
practices with insights and perspectives collected from other institutional fields (Fu and
Xiong, 2011). Since resistances to change are likely to appear, OI intermediaries should be
involved, delegating to them the responsibility for orchestrating the connections and
exchanges across the stakeholders participating in public value co-creation (Bakici et al.,
2013). Ubiquitous digital infrastructures facilitate the transition towards OI (Edelmann et al.,
2014), augmenting the public sector entities’ capability to establish positive connections with
stakeholders, energizing and empowering them (Koch et al., 2013). Structural changes should
be accompanied by a transformation of human resource management practices. Public
servants should be empowered and engaged in designing management solutions which are
consistent with OI (Hameduddin et al., 2020). Finally, yet importantly, stakeholders’
empowerment implies their participation in the evaluation of OI initiatives (Konsti-Laakso
and Rantala, 2018), which should contemplate its substantive outcomes, its implications on
democratic accountability and its effects on procedural legitimacy, building a greater
awareness of OI’s impact on public value generation (Kokkinakos et al., 2012).

4. Discussion
4.1 Unravelling OI in the public sector
This literature review provides us with intriguing insights to answer the research questions.
The role of public sector entities in enacting OI is evolving. An indirect approach based on
financial and relational aids characterized the early attempts of public sector entities to
exploit OI. These initiatives primarily aimed at promoting the establishment of knowledge
ecosystems from the outside, according to an inside-out approach aimed at soliciting
stakeholders to overcome barriers to collaboration and join forces to boost local and national
development (Jugend et al., 2020). At a later stage, public sector entities shifted towards
promoting OI through open public data, undertaking an inside-out approach (Kassen, 2017).
Stakeholders’ access to information which is collected, classified and elaborated by public
sector entities is conceived of as an artifact stimulating the implementation of inbound and
outbound innovation practices at the crossroad of the public and the private spheres
(Palumbo and Fakhar Manesh, 2021). Open government data pave the way for the latest stage
of OI evolution in the public sector, which is targeted at establishing a fully-fledged
MD partnership between public sector entities and stakeholders to advance public value
61,13 generation according to a co-creation view and embracing a hybrid – inside-out and outside-
in – perspective (Casprini and Palumbo, 2022).
In line with this evolution, a transformation of the scope of OI is acknowledged. The
unpredictability of the external environment and the complexity of public management
issues make OI essential to enhance the public sector entities’ value creation capability and
sustain their long-term viability (Lee et al., 2012). Engaging partners in boundaryless
116 innovation is crucial to overcome shortcomings in public finance (Mu and Wang, 2022).
Besides, it overcomes the rigidity associated with the bureaucratic nature of public sector
entities, facilitating the contamination of management practices inherited from the past with
more flexible approaches developed in the private sector (Khanal, 2022). This is critical to
improve the adaptability of public sector entities to environmental uncertainty, ensuring
public value generation against unforeseen disruption (Heimst€adt and Reischauer, 2019) and
ushering organizational resilience (Zhang et al., 2022). It is worth noting that OI
accommodates technological and institutional changes, complying with the increasing
pervasiveness of digital technologies (Ciasullo et al., 2022) – which set the conditions for a
digital collaborative economy – and with the transition towards people-centeredness in
public management (Palumbo, 2016) – which is underpinned by citizens’ participation in
public value generation (Mainka et al., 2016).
A socio-technical perspective should be adopted to achieve OI in the public sector
(Paskaleva and Cooper, 2018). On the one hand, knowledge sharing and resource integration
are spurred by the availability of pervasive and reliable communication infrastructures,
within which exchanges across public sector entities and partners are contextualized. On the
other hand, OI is continuously nurtured by the stakeholders’ commitment to an inter-
organizational culture rooted in the value of collaboration and established on the principles of
transparency, accessibility, fairness and sharing (Lundgren and Westlund, 2017). Limited
ability to manage the intertwinement between the technical and the social side of OI
undermines the effectiveness of collaborative innovation, restraining the depth and breadth
of knowledge sharing and integration among public sector entities, privately-owned
organizations and citizens (Schmidthuber and Hilgers, 2018).

4.2 An integrative framework to unleash OI and avenues for future research

Figure 4 graphically synthesizes the study findings, arranging them into an integrative
framework which consolidates the results of this literature review and highlights the
manifold manifestations of OI in the public sector. The intensity of public sector entities’
involvement in knowledge ecosystems denotes different forms of OI. Since public sector
entities are likely to miss adequate competencies to handle inter-organizational networks
targeted to innovation, they usually embrace a senior partnership role. In this circumstance,
public sector entities are primarily interested in establishing a positive environment for
nurturing inter-organizational relationships, creating robust ties across the stakeholders who
contribute to public value generation. This happens in diverse ways, including financial and
relational support, with the main purpose of advancing the stakeholders’ willingness to
participate in innovation ecosystems. Specific examples of the senior partnership model are
sectoral programs fostering collaborative research in economic domains which are
considered strategic for local and national development. They can be implemented
enacting a positive climate for OI and facilitating exchanges among companies, research
institutions, public sector entities and the community.
Senior partnership can be understood as the initial step of the journey undertaken by
public sector entities towards OI. Although it entails an indirect participation to knowledge
ecosystems, it enables the acknowledgement of the challenges that prevent OI and sets the
conditions for a deeper involvement of public sector entities in boundaryless innovation.
 Low Senior
Aiding OI Open
partnership
model Financial
aids
Relational
aids
innovation in
the public

Public finance
constraints
sector
Level of involvement of the public sector

Nurturing OI through Oiling the Preparing the ground for OI

public open data mechanisms for OI
Accessibility Institutional (policies and
Macro-level: enacting a regulations tailored to OI)
favourable institutional

Institutional

Pressures
Technological (network of
climate for data sharing
117

changes
Public-data transactions between partners)
driven enabled by:
Meso-level: Empowering Transparency
ency Empowerment Ethics
- Digital platforms
model stakeholders to collaborate of sharing
- Social media
- Living labs

Technological
Micro-level: Handling the

advancements
“hard” and “soft” sides of Social (trust and motivation to
public data -driven OI Participatory participate in public value co-
approach creation)

Creating public value coupled

Value
Figure 4.
co-creation- An interpretive model
driven
High model
From PPP to of the evolution of open
inbound PPPP outbound innovation in the
public sector
Source(s): Authors’ own creation

Since financial aids and relational support are not necessarily conducive to stakeholders’
engagement, they should be accompanied with a committed effort of public sector entities to
steer outflows and inflows of knowledge. This prompts the second step of OI, which adheres
to a public data-driven framework. Public open data act as triggers of innovation
opportunities at the crossroad of the public and the private sectors. Enabling stakeholders to
use public data is conducive to their engagement in public value co-creation and augments
the spaces for OI. A tripartite intervention is required for this purpose. At the macro level,
public sector entities should create a favourable atmosphere for inter-organizational
collaboration, boosting the stakeholders’ willingness to cooperate and curbing the perceived
drawbacks of OI, such as appropriability hazards. At the meso level, public sector entities
should empower stakeholders, avoiding backlash in open data accessibility and nurturing a
vivid network of inter-organizational relationships. Lastly, the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sides of OI
should be addressed at the micro level, implementing adequate technological solutions to
sustain a public data-driven OI framework and encouraging stakeholders to participate in
public value co-generation.
This propels a gradual transition towards a new normality of public value generation,
which relies on public sector entities’ ability to establish co-creating relationships with their
stakeholders, here included private companies, third sector organizations and the
community. OI is eventually managed as a public value co-generation model. It is based
either on an inside-out approach, which is consistent with public data-driven OI and admits
stakeholders to take advantage of public sector entities’ assets, or on an outside-in approach,
which maintains the senior partnership model and enables public sector entities to absorb
knowledge and competencies developed in the private sector to advance public value
creation. A combination of the two approaches is possible, paving the way for coupled OI. In
this case, public value co-creation reaches its peak when citizens participate in OI according to
a PPPP approach. Alongside contributing to public service co-production, citizens may have
a role in co-designing the physical and virtual spaces where OI is realized (e.g. implementing a
distributed network model which is continuously evolving based on the users’ input) and in
generating big public open data, which feed the vivacity of OI.
Exploiting OI in a perspective of public value co-creation requires a fertile ground.
Institutional, technological, and social interventions are concomitantly necessary to prepare
MD the terrain for OI. The void of public policies and regulation about OI should be filled,
61,13 fostering common interpretations of innovation strategies, overcoming institutional and
cultural barriers to stakeholders’ involvement and escaping the mismatch of expectations
brought by public sector entities, private companies and citizens. Secondly, technological
investments are needed to build reliable and accessible hybrid platforms, hosting multiple
interactions between public sector entities and stakeholders. Timely access to open data,
unconstrained opportunities for collaboration and continuous exchanges across partners are
118 crucial for augmenting the contribution of OI to public value generation. Lastly, public-value
driven OI relies on a thick network of binding relationships among stakeholders. From this
point of view, it requires social interventions aimed at creating mutual trust and incentivizing
the individual and collective participation to public value generation.
Several oiling mechanisms should be crafted to foster the impact of OI on public value
generation. OI initiatives should be based on accessibility, ensuring the broad access to
opportunities for public value co-creation to relevant stakeholders. This entails implementing
tailored interventions aimed at facilitating the involvement of disadvantaged categories in OI
ecosystems. In fact, several stakeholders (e.g. social and cultural minorities) may be unaware
of collaborative innovation initiatives or may have less resources to participate in them.
Moreover, transparency should inspire OI. Partners should be able to get all information they
need to contextualize their role in public value generation. Their access to relevant data and
information should be thoroughly ensured. This calls for a participatory approach to the
design and implementation of OI: stakeholders should be enabled to partake in all the steps of
OI initiatives, starting from the arrangement of inter-organizational platforms until the
evaluation of outcomes. Lastly, an ethics of sharing should inspire public value-driven OI,
which is consistent with the establishment of a fully-fledged partnership between public
sector entities and stakeholders to augment public value generation. Accessibility,
transparency, participation and ethics of sharing nurture the stakeholders’ empowerment
for their involvement in public-value driven OI, catalysing their contribution to the
generation of public value.

4.3 Limitations, implications and avenues for future research

The study findings should be read acknowledging the limitations which affected this review.
Firstly, consistently with the study aim, our research focused on OI, overlooking germane
concepts such as distributed innovation and networked innovation. Whilst this decision
permitted us to maintain the spotlight on the study domain, shedding light on the strategies
and initiatives taken by public sector entities to exploit OI in order to cope with wicked public
management issues, it constrained the breadth of our research. Secondly, the items included
in this literature review were collected from Scopus®, which represented the sole data source
of this study. Nonetheless, the large coverage of Scopus® and the results of the cross-check
with WoS™ confirm the comprehensiveness of our literature review. Lastly, the interpretive
approach used to systematize items might have allowed for subjective biases in the
articulation of the findings’ report. Nevertheless, it permitted us to delve into the key insights
delivered in the scholarly literature, pushing forward what we currently know about OI in the
public sector.
Conceptual and practical implications can be extrapolated from the study results. From a
theoretical perspective, a public value-driven interpretation of OI is proposed. It consists with
the transversality of challenges faced by public sector entities and complies with recent
advancements in the public management literature, which emphasize the need for shifting
towards an ecosystem perspective to enhance public value co-creation. OI is typically
initiated by public sector entities through financial and relational support, access to open data
and networking aimed at engaging private companies, third sector organizations and citizens
in inbound, outbound and coupled efforts targeted at value co-generation. The establishment Open
of a collaborative ecosystem to augment public value generation is essential to cope with the innovation in
financial and management constraints experienced by public sector entities and achieve a
greater organizational flexibility and adaptability. However, OI does not inherently
the public
determine public value co-creation, which calls for strategic, management and cultural sector
alignment across public sector entities and stakeholders.
These conceptual insights inspire the practical implications of our literature review.
Institutional, technological and social interventions fostering OI should be carefully designed 119
and accomplished to facilitate the calibration of diverging expectations brought by the
stakeholders involved in collaborative innovation. To achieve such alignment, public value-
driven OI should be rooted in accessibility, transparency and ethics of sharing. They set the
conditions for empowering stakeholders and sustain their committed contribution to public
value generation, enacting a participatory inter-organizational climate which is conducive to
continuous inbound, outbound and coupled OI.
Further research is needed to push forward our understanding of OI in the public sector.
Drawing on the integrative framework reported above, three main avenues for further
developments are envisioned. Theoretical advancements are required to frame OI according
to a public value generation perspective. This entails finding an alignment across OI, public
value co-creation and public service co-production to build new public management
archetypes that are fitting with the wicked issues faced by the public sector entities.
Contextualizing OI to public value co-creation and public service co-production is expected to
advance what we know about the role and the scope of OI in the public sector, providing us
with insightful implications for theory and practice. Empirical research is necessitated to
shed light on the antecedents of effective OI ecosystems and inspire public management
decisions. On the one hand, attention should be given to the institutional, technological and
social determinants of positive exchanges between public sector entities and stakeholders,
collecting evidence of the interventions that should be taken to prepare the terrain for public
value-driven OI. On the other hand, public management models conducive to boundaryless
innovation should be investigated, framing the practices that lead to vivid and viable
knowledge ecosystems for public value co-creation. Last, but not least, longitudinal studies
examining the unfolding dynamics of OI ecosystems’ establishment and development should
be accomplished. More specifically, future research should be targeted at collecting
lengthwise evidence of the determinants and implications of collaborative innovation in the
public sector, illuminating the manifold implications of inbound, outbound and coupled OI
initiatives involving private companies, third sector organizations and citizens in public
value co-creation.

5. Conclusion
OI embodies a new model of public value generation which is based on the public sector
entities’ ability to empower and engage external stakeholders in initiatives aimed at coping
with wicked public management issues. The role of public sector entities in enacting OI-based
ecosystems is evolving. An inside-out model characterized earlier attempts to establish
knowledge ecosystems intended to boost economic and social development. Financial and
relational aids express the public sector entities’ desire to enable external stakeholders to
participate in value co-creation, expanding the reach of the public sector. Applying openness
to public data further advances the inside-out perspective and, implicitly, accompanies it with
an outside-in perspective. Stakeholders accessing open data provide public sector entities
with feedback information and use such data to participate in public management processes.
This augments the public sector entities’ ability to extrapolate insights from the external
environment and to deal with the evolving demands and expectations of the community.
MD Such process paves the way for a new conceptualization of OI, which is eventually
61,13 understood as a public management model setting the conditions for boundaryless public
value co-creation. Tailored management decisions are required to foster the transition
towards a public value-based interpretation of OI. Firstly, the institutional and cultural
barriers to stakeholders’ involvement inherited from the bureaucratic model should
be removed, erasing formal and informal obstacles to OI. Secondly, public sector entities
should build-up reliable and dependable hybrid platforms hosting continuous interactions
120 among stakeholders and catalysing inflows and outflows of knowledge. Lastly, the values
of accessibility, transparency, fairness and sharing should be continuously
maintained, propelling the stakeholders’ willingness and desire to participate in public
value co-creation.

References
Ahn, J., Lee, W. and Mortara, L. (2020), “Do government R&D subsidies stimulate collaboration
initiatives in private firms?”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 151, 119840.
Almirall, E., Lee, M. and Majchrzak, A. (2014), “Open innovation requires integrated competition-
community ecosystems: lessons learned from civic open innovation”, Business Horizons, Vol. 57
No. 3, pp. 391-400.
Alves, H. (2013), “Co-creation and innovation in public services”, The Service Industries Journal,
Vol. 33 Nos 7/8, pp. 671-682.
Androutsopoulou, A., Karacapilidis, N., Loukis, E. and Charalabidis, Y. (2017), “Towards an integrated
and inclusive platform for open innovation in the public sector”, in Katsikas, S. and Zorkadis, V.
(Eds), E-democracy – Privacy-Preserving, Secure, Intelligent E-Government Services, Springer,
Cham, pp. 228-243.
Ansell, C. and Torfing, J. (2021), Public Governance as Co-creation: A Strategy for Revitalizing the Public
and Rejuvenating Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
 Campbell, D., Gingras, Y. and Larivi
ere, V. (2009), “Comparing bibliometric statistics
Archambault, E.,
obtained from the web of science and Scopus”, Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, Vol. 60 No. 7, pp. 1320-1326.
Assar, S., Boughzala, I. and Isckia, T. (2011), “eGovernment trends in the web 2.0 era and the open
innovation perspective: an exploratory field study”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Vol. 6846, pp. 210-222.
Bakici, T., Almirall, E. and Wareham, J. (2013), “The role of public open innovation intermediaries in
local government and the public sector”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 311-327.
Balzano, M. (2022), “Serendipity in management studies: a literature review and future research
directions”, Management Decision, Vol. 60 No. 13, pp. 130-152.
Barahona, C.J. and Elizondo, M.A. (2014), “Introducing a disruptive service innovation: a national
dilemma in E-Procurement”, Management Decision, Vol. 52 No. 9, pp. 1782-1800.
Bartlett, D. (2017), “Champions of local authority innovation revisited”, Local Government Studies,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 142-149.
Bekkers, V. (2012), “Why does e-government looks as it does? Looking beyond the explanatory
emptiness of the e-government concept”, Information Polity, Vol. 17 No. 3, 4, pp. 329-342.
Bekkers, V. and Tummers, L. (2018), “Innovation in the public sector: towards an open and
collaborative approach”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 84 No. 2,
pp. 209-213.
Belyaeva, Z., Shams, S., Santoro, G. and Grandhi, B. (2020), “Unpacking stakeholder relationship
management in the public and private sectors: the comparative insights”, EuroMed Journal of
Business, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 269-281.
Blais, A., Blake, D.E. and Dion, S. (1990), “The public/private sector cleavage in North America: the Open
political behavior and attitudes of public sector employees”, Comparative Political Studies,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 381-403. innovation in
Boyack, K.W. and Klavans, R. (2010), “Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation:
the public
which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?”, Journal of the sector
American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 61 No. 12, pp. 2389-2404.
Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (2010), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
121
Cano-Kollmann, M., Hamilton, R. and Mudambi, R. (2017), “Public support for innovation and the openness
of firms’ innovation activities”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 421-442.
Caputo, A., Manesh, M.F., Farrukh, M., Farzipoor Saen, R. and Randolph-Seng, B. (2022), “Editorial:
over a half-century of management decision: a bibliometric overview”, Management Decision,
Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 2129-2147.
Car
e, S., Trotta, A., Car
e, R. and Rizzello, A. (2018), “Crowdfunding for the development of smart
cities”, Business Horizon, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 501-509.
Casprini, E. and Palumbo, R. (2022), “Reaping the benefits of digital transformation through Public-
Private Partnership: a service ecosystem view applied to healthcare”, Global Public Policy and
Governance, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 453-476.
Casprini, E., Dabic, M., Kotlar, J. and Pucci, T. (2020), “A bibliometric analysis of family firm
internationalization research: current themes, theoretical roots, and ways forward”,
International Business Review, Vol. 29 No. 5, 101715.
Chan, C. (2013), “From open data to open innovation strategies: creating e-services using open government
data”, 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, Hawaii, pp. 1890-1899.
Charalabidis, Y., Koussouris, S. and Ramfos, A. (2011), “A cloud infrastructure for collaborative digital
public services”, 3rd International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science,
IEEE, Athens, pp. 340-347.
Chatfield, A. and Reddick, C. (2017), “A longitudinal cross-sector analysis of open data portal service
capability: the case of Australian local governments”, Government Information Quarterly,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 231-243.
Chatwin, M. and Arku, G. (2017), “Co-Creating an open government action plan: the case of sekondi-
takoradi metropolitan assembly, Ghana”, Growth and Change, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 374-393.
Cheah, S.-Y. and Ho, Y.-P. (2020), “Effective industrial policy implementation for open innovation: the
role of government resources and capabilities”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 151, 119845.
Chesbrough, H. and Bogers, M. (2014), “Explicating open innovation: clarifying an emerging paradigm
for understanding innovation”, in Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds), New
Frontiers in Open Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 3-28.
Ciasullo, M.V., Orciuoli, F., Douglas, A. and Palumbo, R. (2022), “Putting Health 4.0 at the service of
Society 5.0: exploratory insights from a pilot study”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 80,
101163.
Cohen, B., Almirall, E. and Chesbrough, H. (2016), “The city as a lab: open innovation meets the
collaborative economy”, California Management Review, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 5-13.
Colovic, A., Caloffi, A. and Rossi, F. (2022), “Crowdsourcing and COVID-19: how public
administrations mobilize crowds to find solutions to problems posed by the pandemic”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 756-783.
Common, R.K. (1998), “Convergence and transfer: a review of the globalisation of new public
management”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 440-450.
Conradie, P., Mulder, I. and Choenni, S. (2012), “Rotterdam open data: exploring the release of public
sector information through co-creation”, 18th International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation, Munich, IEEE, pp. 1-11.
MD Criado, J.I. and Guevara-Gomez, A. (2021), “Public sector, open innovation, and collaborative
governance in lockdown times. A research of Spanish cases during the COVID-19 crisis”,
61,13 Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 612-626.
Cunningham, B.J. and Kempling, J.S. (2009), “Implementing change in public sector organizations”,
Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 330-344.
Dabic, M., Maley, J., Dana, L.P., Novak, I., Pellegrini, M.M. and Caputo, A. (2020), “Pathways of SME
internationalization: a bibliometric and systematic review”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 55,
122 pp. 705-725.
Davies, G.H., Roderick, S. and Huxtable-Thomas, L. (2019), “Social commerce Open Innovation in
healthcare management: an exploration from a novel technology transfer approach”, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 356-367.
De Coninck, B., Gasco-Hernandez, M., Viaene, S. and Leysen, J. (2021), “Determinants of open
innovation adoption in public organizations: a systematic review”, Public Management Review,
Published on-line ahead of print, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2021.2003106.
De Vries, H., Tummers, L. and Bekkers, V. (2018a), “A stakeholder perspective on public sector
innovation: why position matters”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 84
No. 2, pp. 269-287.
De Vries, H., Tummers, L. and Bekkers, V. (2018b), “The diffusion and adoption of public sector
innovations: a meta-synthesis of the literature”, Perspectives on Public Management and
Governance, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 159-176.
Demircioglu, M.A. and Audretsch, D.B. (2020), “Conditions for complex innovations: evidence from
public organizations”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 45, pp. 820-843.
Dezi, L., Pisano, P., Pironti, M. and Papa, A. (2018), “Unpacking open innovation neighborhoods: le
milieu of the lean smart city”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 1247-1270.
Dıaz-Dıaz, R. and Perez-Gonzalez, D. (2016), “Implementation of social media concepts for
e-government: case study of a social media tool for value Co-creation and citizen
participation”, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 104-121.
Dos Santos, A.C., Zambalde, A.L., Veroneze, R.B., Botelho, G.A. and de Souza Bermejo, P.H. (2015),
“Open innovation and social participation: a case study in public security in Brazil”, Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9265, pp. 163-176.
Edelmann, N., H€ochtl, J. and Sachs, M. (2014), “Collaboration for open innovation processes in public
administrations”, in Charalabidis, Y. and Koussouris, S. (Eds), Empowering Open and
Collaborative Governance, Springer, Berlin, pp. 21-37.
Erakovic, L. and Wilson, M. (2006), “The interaction of market and technology in radical
transformation: the case of Telecom New Zealand”, International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 468-489.
Felıcio, T., Samagaio, A. and Rodrigues, R. (2021), “Adoption of management control systems and
performance in public sector organizations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 124 No. 1,
pp. 593-602.
Feller, J., Finnegan, P. and Nilsson, O. (2008), “‘We have everything to win’: collaboration and open
innovation in public administration”, 29th International Conference on Information Systems,
Valencia, ISD.
Feller, J., Finnegan, P. and Nilsson, O. (2011), “Open innovation and public administration:
transformational typologies and business model impacts”, European Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 358-374.
Fernandes, C., Ferreira, J. and Peris-Ortiz, M. (2019), “Open innovation: past, present and future
trends”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 578-602.
ujar-Nagore, I., Giachi, S. and Fernandez-Esquinas, M. (2016), “New
Fernandez-Zubieta, A., And
organizational arrangements for public-private research collaboration”, Journal of the
Knowledge Economy, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 80-103.
Ferraris, A., Santoro, G. and Papa, A. (2018), “The cities of the future: hybrid alliances for open Open
innovation projects”, Futures, Vol. 103, pp. 51-60.
innovation in
Ferraris, A., Santoro, G. and Pellicelli, A. (2020), “‘Openness’ of public governments in smart cities:
removing the barriers for innovation and entrepreneurship”, International Entrepreneurship
the public
and Management Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 1259-1280. sector
Fu, X. and Mu, R. (2014), “Enhancing China’s innovation performance: the policy choices”, China and
World Economy, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 42-60.
123
Fu, X. and Xiong, H. (2011), “Open innovation in China: policies and practices”, Journal of Science and
Technology Policy in China, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 196-218.
Fuglsang, L. (2008), “Capturing the benefits of open innovation in public innovation: a case study”,
International Journal of Services, Technology and Management, Vol. 9 Nos 3/4, pp. 234-248.
Fuglsang, L. and Hansen, A.V. (2022), “Framing improvements of public innovation in a living lab
context: processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement”, Research Policy,
Vol. 51 No. 1, 104390.
Gagliardi, D., Schina, L., Sarcinella, M., Mangialardi, G., Niglia, F. and Corallo, A. (2017), “Information
and communication technologies and public participation: interactive maps and value added for
citizens”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 153-166.
Gasco, M. (2017), “Living labs: implementing open innovation in the public sector”, Government
Information Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 90-98.
Gershman, M., Roud, V. and Thurner, T. (2019), “Open innovation in Russian state-owned
enterprises”, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 199-217.
Gryszkiewicz, L., Lykourentzou, I. and Toivonen, T. (2016), “Innovation labs: leveraging openness
for radical innovation?”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 68-97.
Guerrero, M. and Urbano, D. (2017), “The impact of Triple Helix agents on entrepreneurial
innovations’ performance: an inside look at enterprises located in an emerging economy”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 119, pp. 294-309.
Haley, B. (2016), “Getting the institutions right: designing the public sector to promote clean
innovation”, Canadian Public Policy, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 54-66.
Ham, J., Lee, J.-N., Kim, D. and Choi, B. (2015), “Open innovation maturity model for the government:
an open system perspective”, 36th International Conference on Information Systems: Exploring
the Information Frontier, Cologne, AIS, pp. 1-11.
Hameduddin, T., Fernandez, S. and Demircioglu, M. (2020), “Conditions for open innovation in public
organizations: evidence from Challenge.gov”, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration,
Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 111-131.
Heimst€adt, M. and Reischauer, G. (2019), “Framing innovation practices in interstitial issue fields:
open innovation in the NYC administration”, Innovation, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 128-158.
Hellberg, A. and Hedstr€om, K. (2015), “The story of the sixth myth of open data and open
government”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 35-51.
Hennala, L., Parjanen, S. and Uotila, T. (2011), “Challenges of multi-actor involvement in the public
sector front-end innovation processes”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 364-387.
Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., N€atti, S. and Pikkarainen, M. (2021), “Orchestrating for lead user
involvement in innovation networks”, Technovation, Vol. 108, 102326.
Isaac-Henry, K. and Painter, C. (1991), “Organisational response to environmental turbulence: the
management of change in English local government”, International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 5-20.
Jugend, D., Jabbour, C., Alves Scaliza, J., Rocha, R., Junior, J., Latan, H. and Salgado, M. (2018),
“Relationships among open innovation, innovative performance, government support and firm
MD size: comparing Brazilian firms embracing different levels of radicalism in innovation”,
Technovation, Vols 74/75, pp. 54-65.
61,13
Jugend, D., Fiorini, P., Armellini, F. and Ferrari, A. (2020), “Public support for innovation: a systematic
review of the literature and implications for open innovation”, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 156, p. 119985.
Kankanhalli, A., Zuiderwijk, A. and Tayi, G.K. (2017), “Open innovation in the public sector: a
research agenda”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 84-89.
124
Kassen, M. (2017), “Open data in Kazakhstan: incentives, implementation and challenges”,
Information Technology and People, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 301-323.
Katsonis, M. and Botros, A. (2015), “Digital government: a primer and professional perspectives”,
Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 42-52.
Khanal, S. (2022), “Open or shut case? Exploring the role of openness in public sector innovation”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, published online ahead of print, doi: 10.1080/
23276665.2022.2116585.
Kinder, T. (2010), “E-government service innovation in the scottish criminal justice information
system”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 21-41.
uller, J. and Brunswicker, S. (2011), “Online crowdsourcing in the public sector: how to
Koch, G., F€
design open government platforms”, in Ozok, A. and Zaphiris, P. (Eds), OCSC 2011: Online
Communities and Social Computing, Springer, Cham, pp. 203-212.
Koch, G., Rapp, M. and Kr€oger, N. (2013), “Harnessing the innovation potential of citizens: how open
innovation can be used to co-develop political strategies”, in Pfeffermann, N., Minshall, T.
and Mortara, L. (Eds), Strategy and Communication for Innovation, Springer, Berlin,
pp. 63-83.
Kokkinakos, P., Koussouris, S., Panopoulos, D., Askounis, D., Ramfos, A., Georgousopoulos, C. and
Wittern, E. (2012), “Citizens collaboration and co-creation in public service delivery: the
COCKPIT project”, International Journal of Electronic Government Research, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 44-62.
Konsti-Laakso, S. (2017), “Stolen snow shovels and good ideas: the search for and generation of local
knowledge in the social media community”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 134-139.
Konsti-Laakso, S. and Rantala, T. (2018), “Managing community engagement: a process model for
urban planning”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 268 No. 3, pp. 1040-1049.
Kovacs, A., Van Looy, B. and Cassiman, B. (2015), “Exploring the scope of open innovation: a
bibliometric review of a decade of research”, Scientometrics, Vol. 104, pp. 951-983.
uller, J. (2015), “Explaining voluntary citizen online participation
Kube, M., Hilgers, D., Koch, G. and F€
using the concept of citizenship: an explanatory study on an open government platform”,
Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 85 No. 8, pp. 873-895.
Kumar, S., Sahoo, S., Lim, W.M. and Dana, L.P. (2022), “Religion as a social shaping force in
entrepreneurship and business: insights from a technology-empowered systematic literature
review”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 175, 121393.
Leckel, A., Veilleux, S. and Dana, L. (2020), “Local Open Innovation: a means for public policy to
increase collaboration for innovation in SMEs”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 153, 119891.
Lee, S.M., Hwang, T. and Choi, D. (2012), “Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries”,
Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 147-162.
Lee, J.N., Ham, J. and Choi, B. (2016), “Effect of government data openness on a knowledge-based
economy”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 91, pp. 158-167.
Lee, S., Noh, M. and Seul, J. (2017), “Government-led regional innovation: a case of ‘Pangyo’ IT cluster
of South Korea”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 848-866.
Liu, H.K. (2017), “Crowdsourcing government: lessons from multiple disciplines”, Public Open
Administration Review, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 656-667.
innovation in
Lopes, A.V. and Farias, J.S. (2022), “How can governance support collaborative innovation in the
public sector? A systematic review of the literature”, International Review of Administrative
the public
Sciences, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 114-130. sector
Loukis, E., Charalabidis, Y. and Androutsopoulou, A. (2017), “Promoting open innovation in the public
sector through social media monitoring”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 34,
pp. 99-109. 125
Lundgren, A. and Westlund, H. (2017), “The openness buzz in the knowledge economy: towards
taxonomy”, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 975-989.
Mainka, A., Castelnovo, W., Miettinen, V., Bech-Petersen, S., Hartmann, S. and Stock, W. (2016),
“Open innovation in smart cities: civic participation and co-creation of public services”,
Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 53
No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Malsbender, A., Hofmann, S. and Becker, J. (2014), “Aligning capabilities and social media affordances
for open innovation in governments”, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 317-330.
Martins, T.C.M., de Souza Bermejo, P.H. and de Souza, W.V.B. (2015), “Open innovation for citizen
coproduction”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9265, pp. 177-188.
Meijer, A.J., Curtin, D. and Hillebrandt, M. (2012), “Open government: connecting vision and voice”,
International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 10-29.
Mergel, I. (2015), “Opening government: designing open innovation processes to collaborate with
external problem solvers”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 599-612.
Mergel, I. (2018), “Open innovation in the public sector: drivers and barriers for the adoption of
Challenge.gov”, Public Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 726-745.
Mergel, I. and Desouza, K. (2013), “Implementing open innovation in the public sector: the case of
Challenge.gov”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 882-890.
Mergel, I., Bretschneider, S.I., Louis, C. and Smith, J. (2014), “The challenges of Challenge.gov:
adopting private sector business innovations in the federal government”, 47th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, IEEE.
Molinari, F. (2011), “Living Labs as multi-stakeholder platforms for the eGovernance of innovation”,
5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Tallinn, ACM,
pp. 131-140.
Mongeon, P. and Paul-Hus, A. (2016), “The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a
comparative analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 106, pp. 213-228.
Mroczkowski, T. and Miller, M. (2017), “Envisioning smart development in Poland from a triple helix
systems perspective: a critical assessment of the morawiecki plan”, Journal of the Knowledge
Economy, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 513-535.
Mu, R. and Wang, H. (2022), “A systematic literature review of open innovation in the public sector:
comparing barriers and governance strategies of digital and non-digital open innovation”,
Public Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 489-511.
Niehaves, B. (2010), “Open process innovation: the impact of personnel resource scarcity on the
involvement of customers and consultants in public sector BPM”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 377-393.
Orlando, B., Ballestra, L., Magni, D. and Ciampi, F. (2021), “Open innovation and patenting activity in
health care”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 384-402.
Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B. and Hulland, J. (2017), “Review articles: purpose, process, and
structure”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
MD Palumbo, R. (2016), “Contextualizing co-production of health care: a systematic literature review”,
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 72-90.
61,13
Palumbo, R. and Fakhar Manesh, M. (2021), “Travelling along the public service co-production road: a
bibliometric analysis and interpretive review”, Public Management Review, Published online
ahead of print, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2021.2015222.
Palumbo, R., Petrolo, D. and Fakhar Manesh, M. (2022), “What makes work smart in the public sector?
Insights from a bibliometric analysis and interpretive literature review”, Public Management
126 Review, Published online ahead of print, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2022.2152479.
Parveen, S., Senin, A. and Umar, A. (2015), “Organization culture and open innovation: a quadruple
helix open innovation model approach”, International Journal of Economics and Financial
Issues, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 335-342.
Paskaleva, K. and Cooper, I. (2018), “Open innovation and the evaluation of internet-enabled public
services in smart cities”, Technovation, Vol. 78, pp. 4-14.
Paul, J. and Criado, A.R. (2020), “The art of writing literature review: what do we know and what do
we need to know?”, International Business Review, Vol. 29 No. 4, 101717.
Paul, J., Lim, W.M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A.W. and Bresciani, S. (2021), “Scientific procedures and
rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR)”, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 1-16.
Pedersen, K. (2020), “What can open innovation be used for and how does it create value?”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2, p. 101459.
Pesh, U. (2008), “The publicness of public administration”, Administration and Society, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 170-193.
Queyroi, Y., Carassus, D., Maurel, C., Favoreu, C. and Marin, P. (2022), “Local public innovation: an
analysis of its perceived impacts on public performance”, International Review of
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 493-510.
Radnor, Z., Osborne, S.P., Kinder, T. and Mutton, J. (2014), “Operationalizing Co-production in public
services delivery: the contribution of service blueprinting”, Public Management Review, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 402-423.
Randhawa, K., Wilden, R. and West, J. (2019), “Crowdsourcing without profit: the role of the seeker in
open social innovation”, R&D Management, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 298-317.
Sandoval-Almazan, R., Ramon Gil-Garcia, J. and Valle-Cruz, D. (2017), “Going beyond bureaucracy
through gamification: innovation labs and citizen engagement in the case of ‘Mapaton’ in
Mexico City”, in Paulin, A., Anthopoulos, L. and Reddick, C. (Eds), Beyond Bureaucracy. Public
Administration and Information Technology, Springer, Cham, pp. 133-149.
Sandoval-Almazan, R. and Valle-Cruz, D. (2017), “Open innovation, living labs and public officials”,
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic
Governance, New Delhi, Association for Computer Machinery.
Schmidthuber, L. and Hilgers, D. (2018), “Unleashing innovation beyond organizational boundaries:
exploring citizen sourcing projects”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 41
No. 4, pp. 268-283.
Schmidthuber, L., Piller, F., Bogers, M. and Hilgers, D. (2019), “Citizen participation in public
administration: investigating open government for social innovation”, R&D Management,
Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 343-355.
Scuotto, V., Ferraris, A. and Bresciani, S. (2016), “Internet of things: applications and challenges in
smart cities. A case study of IBM smart city projects”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 357-367.
Seidel, C.E., Thapa, B.E.P., Plattfaut, R. and Niehaves, B. (2013), “Selective crowdsourcing for open
process innovation in the public sector”, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Seoul, Association for Computing Machinery.
Smith, G. and Sandberg, J. (2018), “Barriers to innovating with open government data: exploring Open
experiences across service phases and user types”, Information Polity, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 249-265. innovation in
Smith, G., Sochor, J. and Karlsson, I.C. (2019), “Public–private innovation: barriers in the case of
the public
mobility as a service in West Sweden”, Public Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 116-137. sector
Spender, J.C., Corvello, V., Grimaldi, M. and Rippa, P. (2017), “Startups and open innovation: a review
of the literature”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-30.
127
Susha, I., Gr€onlund, A. and Janssen, M. (2015), “Driving factors of service innovation using open
government data: an exploratory study of entrepreneurs in two countries”, Information Polity,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 19-34.
Tate, M., Bongiovanni, I., Kowalkiewicz, M. and Townson, P. (2018), “Managing the “Fuzzy front end”
of open digital service innovation in the public sector: a methodology”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 39, pp. 186-198.
Thapa, B., Niehaves, B., Seidel, C. and Plattfaut, R. (2015), “Citizen involvement in public sector
innovation: government and citizen perspectives”, Information Polity, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Tsiotsou, R.H. and Boukis, A. (2022), “In-home service consumption: a systematic review, integrative
framework and future research agenda”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 145, pp. 49-64.
Van der Duin, P., Heger, T. and Schlesinger, M. (2014), “Toward networked foresight? Exploring the
use of futures research in innovation networks”, Futures, Vol. 59, pp. 62-78.
Van Duivenboden, H. and Thaens, M. (2008), “ICT-driven innovation and the culture of public
administration: a contradiction in terms?”, Information Polity, Vol. 13 Nos 3-4, pp. 213-232.
van Eck, N. and Waltman, L. (2010), “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for
bibliometric mapping”, Scientometrics, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 523-538.
van Eck, N.J. and Waltman, L. (2017), “Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer
and VOSviewer”, Scientometrics, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 1053-1070.
Venturini, K. and Verbano, C. (2017), “Open innovation in the public sector”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1337-1358.
Vera-Baceta, M.-A., Thelwall, M. and Kousha, K. (2019), “Web of science and Scopus language
coverage”, Scientometrics, Vol. 121, pp. 1803-1813.
Waltman, L. and van Eck, N.J. (2012), “A new methodology for constructing a publication-level
classification system of science”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, Vol. 63 No. 12, pp. 2378-2392.
Wijnhoven, F., Ehrenhard, M. and Kuhn, J. (2015), “Open government objectives and participation
motivations”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Yang, Z. and Kankanhalli, A. (2013), “Innovation in government services: the case of open data”, in
Dwivedi, Y.K. (Ed.), Grand Successes and Failures in IT. Public and Private Sectors, Springer,
Bangalore, pp. 644-651.
Yuan, Q. and Gasco-Hernandez, M. (2021), “Open innovation in the public sector: creating public value
through civic hackathons”, Public Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 523-544.
Zhang, D., Li, S. and Zheng, D. (2017a), “Knowledge search and open innovation performance in an
emerging market: moderating effects of government-enterprise relationship and market focus”,
Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 634-647.
Zhang, N., Zhao, X., Zhang, Z., Meng, Q. and Tan, H. (2017b), “What factors drive open innovation in
China’s public sector? A case study of official document exchange via microblogging (ODEM)
in Haining”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 126-133.
MD Zhang, Y., Wang, W., Mi, L., Huang, C., Xiao, H., Shang, K., Qiao, L. and Wang, L. (2022),
“Organizational resilience in development: a systematic review based on bibliometric analysis
61,13 and visualization”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 83, 103408.
Zheng, C. and Hu, M.C. (2018), “An exploration of the application of universities as artificial
institutional entrepreneurs: the case of China”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. e1697.
Zheng, F., Jiao, H. and Cai, H. (2018), “Reappraisal of outbound open innovation under the policy of
China’s ‘Market for Technology’”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 30
128 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Zimmermann, H.D. and Pucihar, A. (2015), “Open innovation, open data and new business models”, in
Doucek, P., Chroust, G. and Oskrdal, V. (Eds), 23rd Interdisciplinary Information and
Management Talks, Information Technology and Society, Podebrady, pp. 449-458.

Zupic, I. and Cater, T. (2015), “Bibliometric methods in management and organization”, Organizational
Research Methods, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 429-472.
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Bakici T., Almirall The role of public 2013 Article Technology B 2 The article Public OI Blue 32
Appendix
E., Wareham J. open innovation Analysis and investigates the role intermediaries
intermediaries in Strategic of public OI orchestrate the
local government Management intermediaries, collaboration among
and the public examining how they public sector entities
sector set the conditions for and privately-owned
collaboration organizations,
between public sector playing a critical role
entities and privately- in executing
owned companies innovation projects
Belyaeva Z., Unpacking 2020 Review EuroMed Journal of C 1 The article presents Public sector entities Blue 13
Shams S.M.R., stakeholder Business the wide spectrum of may miss the
Santoro G., relationship stakeholder competences and
Grandhi B. management in the management in the resources to innovate
public and private public and the private through an OI
sectors: the sectors, with a approach, even
comparative specific focus on OI though open
insights strategies are
essential to solve
current public
management issues
Georgousopoulos Applying open 2013 Book E-Government N/A N/A The article advances A shift towards Blue 6
G., Ziouvelou Z., innovation Chapter Success Factors an OI model based on citizen-centeredness
Ramfos R., strategies to and Measures: democratic and user
Kokkinakos P., eGovernment for Theories, Concepts, engagement between empowerment is
Anshu J., better public and Methodologies service providers and needed to realize the
Gangadharan G.R., services recipients; citizenship full potential of OI in
Taher H. is put at the core of the public sector,
public service enabling user-driven
delivery innovation of public
services

(continued )
sector

129
the public
innovation in
Open

literature review
included in the
Table A1.
The list of records
 MD

130
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Edelmann N., Collaboration for 2014 Book Empowering Open N/A N/A The article The pervasiveness of Blue 13
H€ochtl J., Sachs M. open innovation Chapter and Collaborative conceptually ICTs, the increasing
processes in public Governance: discusses the new digital literacy of
administrations Technologies and paradigm of citizens, and the
Methods for Online collaborative stakeholders’
Citizen innovation triggered willingness to
Engagement in by digitalization participate in value
Public Policy co-creation enable OI
Making and boundaryless
innovation practices
Feller J., Finnegan Open innovation 2011 Article European Journal A* 4 The article explores Public sector entities Blue 94
P., Nilsson O. and public of Information how OI strategies can use various
administration: Systems transform public approaches and
Transformational administration, practices to
typologies and investigating the implement outside-
business model implications of in, inside-out, and
impacts networking on the coupled OI processes;
creation and OI nurtures new
exploitation of new business models for
ideas the public sector
Feller J., Finnegan “We have 2008 Conference ICIS 2008 N/A N/A The article Different Blue 10
P., Nilsson O. everything to win”: Paper Proceedings - investigates Swedish configurations of OI
Collaboration and Twenty Ninth municipal authorities’ inspire knowledge
open innovation in International initiatives to move inflows and outflows
public Conference on from isolated across the
administration Information innovation to ecosystems enacted
Systems purposive leveraging by public sector
of OI entities; tailored
actions should be
taken to engage
stakeholders in such
configurations and
stimulate them to
share knowledge

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Fu X., Xiong H. Open innovation in 2011 Review Journal of Science N/A N/A The article reviews Public sector entities Blue 26
China: Policies and and Technology the evolutionary play a critical role in
practices Policy in China trend of OI policies supporting OI and
and practices in the oiling collaborative
Chinese context, innovation; alongside
contemplating the protecting
role of globalization intellectual property
rights, they facilitate
stakeholders’
participation to
international
technological
exchanges and to
large scientific
endeavours
Hameduddin T., Conditions for open 2020 Article Asia Pacific Journal N/A N/A The article examines Employees’ Blue 11
Fernandez S., innovation in public of Public whether empowerment is
Demircioglu M.A. organizations: Administration organizational and needed to enhance OI
evidence from individual factors performance; public
Challenge.gov predict the adoption servants should
of OI in the public possess adequate
sector knowledge and skills
to deal with the
unprecedented
challenges triggered
by OI

(continued )
sector

131
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

132
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Kinder T. E-Government 2010 Article Financial A 3 The article argues the Embracing a top- Blue 15
service innovation Accountability and need for a down perspective,
in the Scottish Management reconceptualization adopting a
criminal justice of e-government technology-driven
information system projects in light of the orientation, and
scholarly debate on pursuing over-
OI ambitious process
reduce the
effectiveness of OI in
the public sector
Koch G., F€
uller J., Online 2011 Conference Lecture Notes in N/A N/A The article Whilst design Blue 29
Brunswicker S. crowdsourcing in Paper Computer Science investigates if, and frameworks derived
the public sector: (including under which from research on OI
How to design open subseries Lecture conditions, in the private sector
government Notes in Artificial crowdsourcing can be partially
platforms Intelligence and platforms can be applied to the public
Lecture Notes in applied to pave the sector, attention
Bioinformatics) way for OI in the should be paid to
public sector community
management and
offline events, which
are essential to make
stakeholders willing
to participate in
public value
co-creation

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Koch G., Rapp M., Harnessing the 2013 Book Strategy and N/A N/A The paper examines Public sector entities Blue 5
Kr€oger N. innovation Chapter Communication for how an online should pay attention
potential of citizens: Innovation co-creating approach to stakeholders’
How open can be designed recruitment and
innovation can be according to an OI activation strategies,
used to co-develop perspective to as well as to
political strategies collaboratively community
develop a political management; to
strategy with experts achieve continuous
and citizens stakeholders’
engagement, offline
and virtual
interactions should
be concomitantly
exploited
Kokkinakos P., Citizens 2012 Article International C N/A The article OI in the public sector Blue 27
Koussouris S., collaboration and Journal of investigates the new is conducive to
Panopoulos D., co-creation in public Electronic opportunities for engaging,
Askounis D., service delivery: Government mass collaboration motivating, and
Ramfos A., The COCKPIT Research between citizens and empowering citizens
Georgousopoulos project public in the public service
C., Wittern E. administrations to delivery decision
enact public value making process,
co-creation capitalizing on
innovative digital
technologies to
enhance democracy
and empower people

(continued )
sector

133
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

134
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Konsti-Laakso S., Managing 2018 Article European Journal A* 4 The study develops a To achieve Blue 14
Rantala T. community of Operational process model for effectiveness,
engagement: A Research managing attention should be
process model for community paid to what kinds of
urban planning engagement in urban stakeholder groups
planning participate in OI and
investigating the how the participation
implications of OI is accomplished;
a comprehensive
engagement of
stakeholders creates
meaningfulness,
which advances
commitment to OI
Lundgren A., The openness buzz 2017 Article Environment and B 3 The article introduces Accessibility, Blue 5
Westlund H. in the knowledge Planning C: Politics a taxonomy to transparency,
economy: Towards and Space analyse the concept of participation, and a
taxonomy openness and logic of sharing
illuminate the should deeply inspire
distinguishing OI initiatives,
attributes of OI enacting cultural
embeddedness of
public value co-
creation
Mroczkowski T., Envisioning Smart 2017 Article Journal of the C N/A The article embraces Context-specific and Blue 10
Miller M. Development in Knowledge the Triple Helix permanent
Poland from a Economy perspective to explore mechanisms of
Triple Helix the attributes of the interaction at the
Systems plan for innovation- junctions among the
Perspective: a based development public sector entities
Critical Assessment for Poland and the privately-
of the Morawiecki owned companies
Plan involved in the
innovation
ecosystem is needed
to accomplish OI

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Parveen S., Senin Organization 2015 Article International C N/A The study analyses The adoption of a Blue 13
A.A., Umar A. culture and open Journal of the relationship quadruple helix
innovation: A Economics and between approach increases
quadruple helix Financial Issues organizational the stakeholders’
open innovation culture and OI, willingness to
model approach contemplating how a participate in OI,
quadruple helix stimulating risk-
approach influences taking propensity
the implementation of and adding to the
collaborative commitment towards
innovation OI
Van Duivenboden ICT-driven 2008 Article Information Polity C N/A The article sheds The traditional Blue 26
H., Thaens M. innovation and the light on the bureaucratic
culture of public relationship existing organizational
administration: A between ICT- culture of public
contradiction in innovations and the sector entities
terms? culture of public prevents the
administration, with implementation of OI
a focus on OI initiatives; to
overcome this issue,
the reciprocity
between innovation
and organizational
culture should be
exploited

(continued )
sector

135
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

136
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Androutsopoulou Towards an 2017 Conference Communications in N/A N/A The article To advance the Green 5
A., Karacapilidis integrated and Paper Computer and investigates how the effectiveness of OI,
N., Loukis E., inclusive platform Information combination of integration should be
Charalabidis Y. for open innovation Science existing ICTs support achieved between
in the public sector and advance OI collaboration and
implementation in the decision support tool,
public sector as well as between
data collection and
analysis tools; this
enacts a
collaborative
environment
allowing
stakeholders
immersion in OI
Car
e S., Trotta A., Crowdfunding for 2018 Article Business Horizons B 2 The article advances OI initiatives have Green 18
Car
e R., Rizzello A. the development of an explorative been found to
smart cities approach to contribute to the
investigate the civic creation of new forms
crowdfunding of community
phenomenon and its development by
ability to promote promoting new
community spheres of
development through relationships
OI between the public
and private sectors;
this primarily
happens through
citizens’ involvement
and the wisdom of
the crowd

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Chatwin M., Co-creating an 2018 Article Growth and B 2 The article Information Green 9
Arku G. Open Government Change investigates OI at the transparency, public
Action Plan: The subnational level in participation, and
Case of Sekondi- developing countries, accountability are
Takoradi shedding light on the conducive to
Metropolitan motivations of public increased
Assembly, Ghana sector entities to stakeholders’
utilize the participation to OI;
stakeholders’ public sector entities
capabilities which fall short in
ensuring
transparency and
accountability are
not able to take
advantage of
stakeholders’
involvement
Dezi L., Pisano P., Unpacking open 2018 Article Management B 2 The paper examines Since public sector Green 20
Pironti M., Papa A. innovation Decision how public sector entities lack the
neighborhoods: le entities encourage the knowledge and
milieu of the lean entry of privately- management
smart city owned companies capabilities to thrive
and citizens in public in OI-activated
collaborations contexts, ICTs and
digital tools should
be exploited to foster
the public sector
entities’ capacity to
adopt an
entrepreneurial
approach and a start-
up mentality to steer
public value co-
creation initiatives

(continued )
sector

137
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

138
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Dıaz-Dıaz R., Perez- Implementation of 2016 Article Journal of B 1 The study intends to Several ingredients Green 27
Gonzalez D. social media Organizational and broaden the are needed in the
concepts for End User knowledge on recipe for OI
e-Government: Case Computing ambitious social effectiveness, such
study of a social media projects as: the public sector
media tool for value implemented by local entities’ commitment
co-creation and public in the project, the
citizen participation administrations for creation of a
e-Government, community manager
according to an OI to engage
perspective stakeholders, and the
implementation of a
technological
infrastructure which
is secure and easy to
use
Ferraris A., The cities of the 2018 Review Futures B 2 The study examines The success of OI Green 32
Santoro G., Papa A. future: Hybrid the strategies strategies is affected
alliances for open followed and the by the richness and
innovation projects challenges met by the vividness of the
privately-owned network of
companies in stakeholders with
arranging OI which public sector
strategies with public entities interact; the
sector entities inclusion in a vivid
network encourages
explorative alliances
and nurtures OI

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Ferraris A., “Openness” of 2020 Article International C 1 The article analyses Lack of rules, blurred Green 18
Santoro G., public governments Entrepreneurship OI in public responsibilities and
Pellicelli A.C. in smart cities: and Management governments and tasks, inadequate
removing the Journal addresses the inter-organizational
barriers for barriers and communication, risk
innovation and challenges that public adversity, and
entrepreneurship governments face in limited resources
smart city represent the most
development relevant barriers to
OI
Konsti-Laakso S. Stolen snow shovels 2017 Article Government N/A 3 The study Stakeholders’ Green 16
and good ideas: The Information investigates how participation in OI
search for and Quarterly citizen online shows a networked
generation of local communities support nature; a
knowledge in the OI practices in the contributors-centred
social media public sector and approach should be
community which contributions taken to stimulate
are produced stakeholders’
participation and
increase their
retention in OI
initiatives

(continued )
sector

139
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

140
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Kube M., Hilgers Explaining 2015 Article Journal of Business N/A 2 The paper develops a Stakeholders use Green 16
D., Koch G., voluntary citizen Economics framework to make their participation in
F€
uller J. online participation sense of citizen OI initiatives to learn
using the concept of participation in OI and push forward
citizenship: an initiatives enacted by their own ideas;
explanatory study public sector entities whilst faith in the
on an open political system does
government not significantly
platform affect participation,
easiness of use of the
tools and platforms
used to enact OI
increase
stakeholders’
engagement in public
value co-creation
Loukis E., Promoting open 2017 Article Government N/A 3 The article advances Monitoring social Green 56
Charalabidis Y., innovation in the Information a novel method of media enacts a
Androutsopoulou A. public sector Quarterly monitoring social passive
through social media to set the citizensourcing,
media monitoring conditions for OI in which is conducive to
the public sector promoting and
supporting OI with
limited efforts and
generates a greater
degree of
stakeholders’
participation to
public value
co-creation

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Paskaleva K., Open innovation 2018 Article Technovation A 3 The study proposes a To achieve effective Green 19
Cooper I. and the evaluation new stakeholders’
of internet-enabled operationalization of participation in OI,
public services in co-production and public sector entities
smart cities co-evaluation of civic should make an
services in smart effort to integrate
cities, introducing OI innovation
management with
evaluation
capabilities, merging
the hard and soft side
of OI
Randhawa K., Crowdsourcing 2019 Article R and D A 3 The article examines Since the motives Green 17
Wilden R., West J. without profit: the Management the organizational and societal goals of
role of the seeker in choices of public public sector entities
open social sector entities that are fundamentally
innovation crowdsource from different from those
citizens to drive OI of privately-owned
and develop new companies, OI
ways to address strategies should
societal problems linger on the intrinsic
motivation of
stakeholders and
leverage their
identity,
emphasizing their
contribution to
public value
generation

(continued )
sector

141
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

142
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Santos A.C.D., Open innovation 2015 Conference Lecture Notes in N/A N/A The article OI enables public Green 12
Zambalde A.L., and social Paper Computer Science appreciates the sector entities to cope
Veroneze R.B., participation: A (including implications of with relevant public
Botelho G.A., De case study in public subseries Lecture community management issues
Souza Bermejo security in Brazil Notes in Artificial participation in through
P.H. Intelligence and addressing major crowdstorming,
Lecture Notes in local problems, transforming
Bioinformatics) relying on OI enacted individual
by advanced ICTs knowledge in
collective
intelligence;
however, tailored
incentive schemes
should be devised to
overcome the
resistances to
partake in public
value co-creation
Schmidthuber L., Unleashing 2018 Article International B 2 The article The OI phenomenon Green 21
Hilgers D. Innovation beyond Journal of Public investigates the OI paves the way for a
Organizational Administration phenomenon beyond greater attention
Boundaries: the entrepreneurial paid by public sector
Exploring domain, focusing on entities to
Citizensourcing open government citizensourcing,
Projects which entails the
active participation
of people in giving
advice to public
sector entities and
co-designing and
co-producing public
services

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Schmidthuber L., Citizen 2019 Article R and D A 3 The study Drawing on Social Green 17
Piller F., Bogers M., participation in Management investigates what Determination
Hilgers D. public motivates citizens to Theory, the authors
administration: participate in OI and argue that
investigating open how such motivations involvement in OI is
government for influence their intrinsically
social innovation involvement motivated;
conversely, external
regulation reduces
the individual
willingness to share
ideas and to actively
participate in public
value co-creation
Thapa B.E.P., Citizen involvement 2015 Article Information Polity C N/A Embracing the Different factors Green 19
Niehaves B., Seidel in public sector government motivate people to
C.E., Plattfaut R. innovation: perspective and participate in OI
Government and looking at OI, the initiatives aimed at
citizen perspectives article attempts to tackling public
highlight key issues management issues;
affecting citizens’ financial incentives
involvement are not always
effective; socio-
demographic
variables and
previous experiences
play a role in
determining the
individual desire to
participate in OI

(continued )
sector

143
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

144
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Wijnhoven F., Open government 2015 Article Government N/A 3 The study attempts Whilst socio- Green 106
Ehrenhard M., objectives and Information to identify the demographic
Kuhn J. participation Quarterly motivations for attributes do not
motivations participation in OI seem to affect
and open government stakeholders’
focusing on the free/ willingness to
libre open-source participate in OI, the
software complexity and
ambitiousness of OI
projects reduce the
individual desire to
partake in public
value co-creation
Yuan Q., Gasco- Open innovation in 2021 Article Public A 4 The paper Collective events, Green 5
Hernandez M. the public sector: Management investigates the such as hackathons,
creating public Review outcomes of OI in the foster stakeholders’
value through civic public sector, involvement in
hackathons pointing out its public value
contribution to public co-creation,
value generation facilitating the
encounter between
public sector entities’
expectations and
stakeholders’
contributions
Bartlett D. Champions of local 2017 Article Local Government A 2 The article provides a A shift from Purple 6
authority Studies conceptual boundary spanning
innovation revisited advancement of to social capitalism is
public sector needed to advance
innovation the engagement of
champions, who are stakeholders in
involved in aligning exploiting public
stakeholders in OI open data and other
networks relevant resources
for value co-creation

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Bekkers V., Innovation in the 2018 Article/ International C 3 The article discusses Innovation in the Purple 23
Tummers L. public sector: Editorial Review of the changing public sector is
Towards an open Administrative perspective of the inherently conceived
and collaborative Sciences public management of as an open process
approach literature on of collaboration; to
innovation-related boost public value
issues generation, the
different notions of
value held by
stakeholders should
be aligned, fostering
their cooperation
Chatfield A.T., A longitudinal 2017 Article Government N/A 3 The article Public sector entities Purple 51
Reddick C.G. cross-sector Information investigates if and should invest in their
analysis of open Quarterly how open data portal own open
data portal service service capabilities government data
capability: The case differ in terms of open portals rather than in
of Australian local data provision, data outsourcing;
governments format variety, open furthermore, they
data policy intensity, should be leaders in
and entrepreneurial sharing public data
data service, focusing through their open
on open government government portals
data initiatives

(continued )
sector

145
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

146
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Gagliardi D., Information and 2017 Article Government N/A 3 The study examines Alongside opening Purple 55
Schina L., communication Information how open data may data-banks, public
Sarcinella M.L., technologies and Quarterly be used to provide sector entities should
Mangialardi G., public participation: innovative services make an effort to
Niglia F., Corallo A. interactive maps together with simple meet the citizens’
and value added for and standardized needs through the
citizens elaborations and direct provision of
innovative relevant services
visualization fostering
techniques participation in
public value
co-creation
Gasco M. Living labs: 2017 Article Government N/A 3 The study intends to Living labs can be Purple 83
Implementing open Information understand the role of conceived of as OI
innovation in the Quarterly living labs as intermediaries,
public sector intermediaries of facilitating the
public OI stakeholders’ access
to relevant data and
information to
participate in public
value creation
initiatives
Gryszkiewicz L., Innovation labs: 2016 Review Journal of C N/A The article embraces A collaborative Purple 16
Lykourentzou I., Leveraging Innovation an exploratory culture should be
Toivonen T. openness for radical Management perspective to established to
innovation? investigates how the unleash the potential
principle of openness of OI in the public
unfolds throughout sector, relying on
the innovation stakeholders’
process in the public long-term
sector engagement, mutual
trust, and
commitment to
public value
generation

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Ham J., Lee J.-N., Open innovation 2015 Conference 2015 International N/A N/A The article develops a A holistic approach Purple 13
Kim D.J., Choi B. maturity model for Paper Conference on government-level OI should be embraced
the government: An Information maturity model to to understand the
open system Systems: Exploring understand data- relationships and
perspective the Information driven OI practices in interactions between
Frontier, ICIS 2015 the public sector public sector entities
and the external
environment,
acknowledging the
enablers and the
barriers to OI
Hellberg A.-S., The story of the 2015 Article Transforming B 2 The study adopts a Although Purple 47
Hedstr€om K. sixth myth of open Government: storytelling approach stakeholders might
data and open People, Process and to describe the efforts appreciate the access
government Policy implemented by to public open data,
public sector entities they do not
to realize an open necessarily use them;
government agenda public sector entities
should create
incentives to the use
of public open data
and should provide
people with the
knowledge and skills
to effectively use
them

(continued )
sector

147
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

148
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Kassen M. Open data in 2017 Article Information N/A 3 The paper analyses Enabling the access Purple 30
Kazakhstan: Technology and how open data boost to public open data
incentives, People public sector does not affect the
implementation and innovation, shedding fundamentals of the
challenges light on engagement political system and
initiatives that falls short in
stimulate citizens and advancing
stakeholders’ traditional
participation to democratic
public value creation institutions; attention
should be paid to
setting an
institutional climate
which is conducive to
stakeholders’
willingness to use
public open data
Malsbender A., Aligning 2014 Article Australasian A 1 The paper advances a Alongside Purple 11
Hofmann S., capabilities and Journal of framework for participation and
Becker J. social media Information supporting the use of collaboration,
affordances for Systems social media transparency is
open innovation in affordances for required to enable OI
governments service innovation in and facilitate
the public sector stakeholders’
involvement in
addressing public
management issues.
Public sector entities
should develop
specific capabilities
to implement
infrastructures
enabling
stakeholders’ access
to public open data

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Sandoval-Almazan Going beyond 2017a Book Public N/A N/A Relying on Public sector entities Purple 6
R., Ramon Gil- bureaucracy Chapter Administration Technology can embrace a
Garcia J., Valle- through and Information Enactment capacity building
Cruz D. gamification: Technology Framework and perspective that
Innovation labs and conceptual empowers people
citizen engagement advancements on and stakeholders,
in the case of gamification, the providing them with
“Mapaton” in study investigates data and information
Mexico City how citizens can be to solve public
involved in an OI management issues
effort aimed at public and participate in
value co-generation public value
generation
Sandoval-Almazan Open innovation, 2017b Conference ACM International N/A N/A The article reports a The generation of Purple 7
R., Valle-Cruz D. living labs and Paper Conference specific case of OI, mutual trust is
public officials: The Proceeding Series adopting the OI essential to make
case of “mapaton” Process Phases to interlocutors
in Mexico determine the involved in OI willing
requisites to the to use public open
implementation of data for the purpose
successful OI of value creation

(continued )
sector

149
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

150
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Smith G., Sandberg Barriers to 2018 Article Information Polity C N/A The article attempts Perceived barriers to Purple 24
J. innovating with to identify the the use of open
open government barriers and government data are
data: Exploring obstacles preventing shaped by the
experiences across users of open motivations, pre-
service phases and government data to conditions, approach,
user types participate in OI and objectives taken
initiatives that are by relevant
beneficial to society stakeholders;
increased provision
of open data does not
generate value, if
extant barriers to
their use perceived
by stakeholders are
not tackled
Susha I., Gr€onlund Driving factors of 2015 Article Information Polity C N/A The article identifies To facilitate the use Purple 37
A., Janssen M. service innovation and discusses the of open data, public
using open driving factors of sector entities should
government data: open data adoption enhance the
An exploratory for service innovation transparent access,
study of as well as the
entrepreneurs in interoperability and
two countries combinability of
data; moreover,
continuous support
should be ensured to
stakeholders
interested in public
open data

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Tate M., Managing the 2018 Article International A* 2 The article Public sector entities Purple 25
Bongiovanni I., “Fuzzy front end” of Journal of illuminates the should engage with
Kowalkiewicz M., open digital service Information barriers and the formalization of
Townson P. innovation in the Management obstacles to effective clear and compelling
public sector: A OI, with a specific guidelines, stimulate
methodology focus on Fuzzy Front- a nurturing
End public-sector institutional
innovation environment, nourish
interorganizational
relationships, and
create appropriate
boundary spanning
appointments to
overcome obstacles
and barriers to OI
Yang Z., Innovation in 2013 Conference IFIP Advances in N/A N/A The article intends to Bad data formats, Purple 38
Kankanhalli A. government Paper Information and shed light on the disruptions in timely
services: The case Communication reasons and factors release of public data,
of open data Technology that inhibit the and lack of data
stakeholders’ interest granularity represent
to innovate using major shortcomings
open data preventing the
stakeholders’
willingness to use
public open data

(continued )
sector

151
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

152
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Zhang N., Zhao X., What factors drive 2017 Article Government N/A 3 Embracing the Alongside hard Purple 33
Zhang Z., Meng Q., open innovation in Information Technology- factors, such as the
Tan H. China’s public Quarterly Organization- IT competences of
sector? A case study Environment public servants and
of official document framework, the article stakeholders
exchange via explores the factors involved in OI, soft
microblogging that drive OI factors – including
(ODEM) in Haining the support and
commitment of top
managers – are
essential to enable
public sector to fully
exploit OI
Almirall E., Lee M., Open innovation 2014 Article Business Horizons B 2 The authors compare OI is effective when Red 81
Majchrzak A. requires integrated the approaches taken public sector entities
competition- by six cities opening balance the needs of
community their data for the entire ecosystem
ecosystems: innovation, in ways that foster
Lessons learned contrasting competition and
from civic open collaborative and collaboration
innovation competitive ways of simultaneously
organizing external
sources
Assar S., eGovernment 2011 Conference Lecture Notes in N/A N/A The contribution The implications of Red 14
Boughzala I., trends in the web Paper Computer Science assesses the OI on the
Isckia T. 2.0 era and the open (including transformation development and
innovation subseries Lecture potential associated implementation of
perspective: An Notes in Artificial with OI on e- new public services
exploratory field Intelligence and government and rely on the timely
study Lecture Notes in envisions the availability of open
Bioinformatics) development trends data, on a solid and
of innovative public robust institutional
services setting, and on
interoperability of
data and documents

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Bekkers V. Why does 2012 Article Information Polity C N/A The article The success of Red 8
e-government look conceptually e-government is
as it does? Looking advances the affected by the public
beyond the distinctive role of OI sector entities’ ability
explanatory in filling the to establish a viable
emptiness of the emptiness of the OI program,
e-government e-government considering the
concept concept stakeholders’ ability
and willingness to
link and share ideas
for co-creating value
Chan C.M.L. From open data to 2013 Conference Proceedings of the N/A N/A The article The creation of open Red 82
open innovation Paper Annual Hawaii investigates the government data
strategies: Creating International strategies to facilitate portal is not enough
e-services using Conference on organizations and to prompt public
open government System Sciences citizens to use open value co-creation: the
data government data and emphasis should
participate in public move beyond using
value generation public open data to
promote
co-production of
valuable public
services

(continued )
sector

153
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

154
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Charalabidis Y., A cloud 2011 Conference Proceedings - 2011 N/A N/A The article advances OI enables public Red 6
Koussouris S., infrastructure for Paper 3rd IEEE a structured model sector entities to
Ramfos A. collaborative digital International for enabling OI and develop and
public services Conference on participative implement
Cloud Computing development of innovative and
Technology and public services sophisticated public
Science, CloudCom exploiting the power services, achieving
2011 of cloud computing increased efficiency
and effectiveness to
meet the evolving
expectations of the
community through
collaboration
Cohen B., Almirall The city as a lab: 2016 Article California A 3 The article advances Public sector entities Red 75
E., Chesbrough H. Open innovation Management the role of cities as should arrange clear
meets the Review drivers and catalysts and compelling
collaborative of OI, engaging incentives to
economy companies and stimulate relevant
citizens in boosting stakeholders’
local growth and participation in
improving the quality innovation
of life ecosystems; a culture
based on innovation
and creativity should
inspire public sector
entities efforts to
engage stakeholders
in public value
co-creation

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Conradie P., Rotterdam open 2012 Conference 2012 18th N/A N/A The article examines Embracing a value Red 18
Mulder I., data: Exploring the Paper International how the co-creation co-creation
Choenni S. release of Public Conference on paradigm can be perspective is
Sector Information Engineering, applied to public understood as a
through co-creation Technology and sector information precondition for
Innovation, ICE release, stimulating implementing public
2012 - Conference ideas’ exchange information release
Proceedings among stakeholders on local level; clear
identifiable
incentives for
participation should
be set to encourage
stakeholders’
participation in value
co-creation
Davies G.H., Social commerce 2019 Article Journal of Strategic A 2 The article Embracing an OI Red 5
Roderick S., Open Innovation in Marketing investigates the strategy may enable
Huxtable- healthcare policy context within public sector entities
Thomas L. management: an which an OI approach to overcome barriers
exploration from a based on and issues inherited
novel technology collaboration across by conventional
transfer approach public sector entities, bureaucratic
higher education approaches, such as
institutions, and fragmentation,
privately-owned limited absorptive
companies generates capacity, and rigidity
significant
opportunities for
innovation in health
care

(continued )
sector

155
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

156
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Fernandez-Zubieta New Organizational 2019 Article Journal of the C N/A The article OI efforts led by Red 6
A., Andujar- Arrangements for Knowledge investigates public sector entities
Nagore I., Giachi S., Public-Private Economy Cooperative Research are generally
Fernandez- Research Centres as a characterized by a
Esquinas M. Collaboration particular form of limited involvement
targeted OI, which is of privately-owned
aimed at enacting an companies in the
innovation ecosystem definition of strategic
plans, as well as in
the control and
supervision of the
innovation
ecosystem
Fu X., Mu R. Enhancing China’s 2014 Article China and World B 1 The study examines Horizontal OI- Red 10
innovation Economy the policy choices oriented policies
performance: The implemented by the focusing on broader
policy choices Chinese government fields (e.g. education,
in the extended R&D, and
national innovation infrastructures) are
performance more effective than
framework to enact selective ones in
OI fostering the
establishment of a
viable and vivid
innovation
ecosystem; multiple
stakeholders should
be involved in OI to
develop the set of
capabilities,
incentives, and
institutions required
to boost innovation
performance

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Fuglsang L. Capturing the 2008 Article International N/A N/A The paper Public sector entities Red 32
benefits of open Journal of Services, investigates how the should take actions
innovation in public Technology and public sector benefits to get advantage of
innovation: A case Management from OI, shedding external ideas and OI,
study light on service including strategic
development and reflexivity, scaling
innovation in the up of innovative
public sector ideas, and
encouraging
continuous
co-production
Guerrero M., The impact of 2017 Article Technological A 3 The study analyses Linkages across Red 77
Urbano D. Triple Helix agents Forecasting and the implications of the companies,
on entrepreneurial Social Change connections across universities, and
innovations’ enterprises, public sector entities
performance: An universities, and facilitate the access
inside look at government on to knowledge and
enterprises located innovation funding
in an emerging performance opportunities,
economy promoting the
establishment of a
vivid OI-based
ecosystem
Heimst€adt M., Framing innovation 2019 Article Innovation: C N/A The study adopts a OI is a viable Red 6
Reischauer G. practices in Management, field framing alternative to the
interstitial issue Policy and Practice perspective to explain established
fields: open the use of OI innovation practices
innovation in the strategies by public in the public sector;
NYC administration sector entities to cultural resonance is
advance innovation conducive to an
enhanced public
sector entities’ ability
to take advantage of
OI

(continued )
sector

157
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

158
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Hennala L., Challenges of multi- 2011 Article European Journal C 1 The article The cognitive Red 32
Parjanen S., actor involvement of Innovation investigates how the diversity of
Uotila T. in the public sector Management involvement of stakeholders
front-end stakeholder groups in involved in OI is
innovation advancing public argued to increase
processes: service production the likelihood of new
Constructing an increases knowledge
open innovation innovativeness generation;
model for moreover, it
developing well- stimulates the
being services emergence of new
ideas
Katsonis M., Digital 2015 Article Australian Journal A 2 The article examines OI is typically Red 26
Botros A. Government: A of Public OI as an innovative handled as a
Primer and Administration approach intended to strategic
Professional enable public management tool,
Perspectives administration which is intended to
reforms and advance enable public sector
the effectiveness and entities to tap into
efficiency of public resources that are not
services available in the
public realm

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Lee J.-N., Ham J., Effect of 2016 Conference Procedia Computer The article illustrates The openness of Red 15
Choi B. Government Data Paper Science the implications of government data has
Openness on a government data positive effects on the
Knowledge-based openness on a generation of a
Economy knowledge-based valuable knowledge
economy at the bases, boosting
national level firms’
competitiveness at
the individual and
collective levels;
alongside enabling
the access to data,
public sector entities
should provide
stakeholders with
opportunities to
create knowledge
and generate new
ideas

(continued )
sector

159
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

160
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Lee S.M., Hwang Open innovation in 2012 Article Management B 2 The study OI enables public Red 181
T., Choi D. the public sector of Decision investigates the state sector entities to
leading countries of the art of OI exploit external ideas
practices in the public and resources to
sector of leading solve public
countries management issues
that fall outside their
control; an
integrative
management
approach is needed to
engage public
servants in
interventions aimed
at leveraging
external resources
and ideas
Lee S.Y., Noh M., Government-led 2017 Article European Planning N/A 2 The paper Public sector entities Red 5
Seul J.Y. regional innovation: Studies investigates a should implement
a case of ‘Pangyo’ regional innovation tailored strategic
IT cluster of South cluster, shedding investment
Korea light on the historical, initiatives and should
institutional, and deliver continuous
regional factors administrative
affecting the support to relevant
implementation of OI stakeholders,
stimulating their
participation to OI
and advancing
innovation
performance

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Mainka A., Open innovation in 2016 Conference Proceedings of the N/A N/A The article discusses OI permits public Red 17
Castelnovo W., smart cities: Civic paper Association for development in the sector entities to
Miettinen V., Bech- participation and Information field of public involve stakeholders
Petersen S., co-creation of public Science and services co-creation in increasing the
Hartmann S., services Technology and investigates the value of public open
Stock W.G. role of information data, facilitating their
science to set the use for the design of
conditions for OI value-added services
Martins T.C.M., Open innovation for 2015 Conference Lecture Notes in N/A N/A The article reviews Ideas’ crowdsourcing Red 6
de Souza Bermejo citizen Paper Computer Science the interplay between is conducive to OI: it
P.H., de Souza coproduction (including ideas crowdsourcing drives the re-
W.V.B. subseries Lecture and coproduction of emergence of service
Notes in Artificial innovations to enact coproduction and
Intelligence and OI in the public sector solicits the
Lecture Notes in transformation of
Bioinformatics) people from passive
consumers to active
citizens who are
engaged in solving
social problems
Mergel I. Open innovation in 2018 Article Public A 4 The research intends OI is facilitated by Red 56
the public sector: Management to discover and the alignment
drivers and barriers Review examine the intra-, between the mandate
for the adoption of inter-, and extra- of the innovation
Challenge.gov organizational factors policy and the
driving or hindering mission of public
OI in the public sector sector entities;
however, system-
inherent barriers
prevent OI from a
procedural and
technological
perspective

(continued )
sector

161
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

162
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Mergel I. Opening 2015 Article Social Science N/A N/A The article OI generally unfolds Red 59
Government: Computer Review systematizes through 4 steps
Designing Open government including: 1) idea
Innovation crowdsourcing and generation, 2) idea
Processes to peer-production incubation, 3) idea
Collaborate with initiatives, pointing validation, and 4)
External Problem out the phases of the idea implementation;
Solvers OI process stakeholders’
participation in such
process is stimulated
through monetary
and non-monetary
rewards
Mergel I., The challenges of 2014 Conference Proceedings of the N/A N/A The study defines the Since changes in the Red 20
Bretschneider S.I., Challenge.gov: Paper Annual Hawaii underlying concept of public sector are
Louis C., Smith J. Adopting private International OI and applies it to initiated by a political
sector business Conference on the theory of mandate, OI can be
innovations in the System Sciences publicness and public primarily used to
federal government goods creation realize incremental
changes or tweaks,
avoiding disruptions
in the delivery of
existing services

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Mergel I., Implementing open 2013 Article Public B 4* The article highlights The main challenges Red 166
Desouza K.C. innovation in the Administration the organizational related to the
public sector: Review barriers that public implementation of OI
The case of managers encounter for public value
Challenge.gov during the co-creation entail: 1)
implementation attracting attention
process of OI and encouraging
participation
through incentives;
2) facilitating the
establishment of
communities of
practice; and 3)
retaining
stakeholders in OI
initiatives
Molinari F. Living Labs as 2011 Conference ACM International N/A N/A The article explores Living labs can be Red 8
multi-stakeholder Paper Conference Living Labs as conceived of as
platforms for the Proceeding Series territorial policy PPPPs and multi-
eGovernance of instruments for stakeholder
innovation stimulating OI in platforms, which
rural areas enact an
infrastructure for
user-centric OI living
a life of its own
Niehaves B. Open process 2010 Article Business Process B 2 The study Personnel resource Red 42
innovation: The Management investigates the scarcity has been
impact of personnel Journal implications of OI on found to hinder the
resource scarcity on process innovation, implementation of OI
the involvement of examining how initiatives aimed at
customers and resource scarcity process innovation
consultants in affect innovation
public sector BPM performance

(continued )
sector

163
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

164
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Scuotto V., Ferraris Internet of Things: 2016 Article Business Process B 2 The article addresses OI is expected to Red 152
A., Bresciani S. Applications and Management the combination bridge the gap
challenges in smart Journal between Internet of between the IoT push
cities: a case study Things (IoT) and OI, and the urban policy
of IBM smart city investigating how it pull in demand-
projects affects the driven cycles of
development of urban experimentation,
areas and firms’ fostering innovation
innovativeness performance at the
individual and
collective levels
Seidel C.E., Thapa Selective 2013 Conference ACM International N/A N/A The article analyses Expert citizens are Red 8
B.E.P., Plattfaut R., crowdsourcing for Paper Conference the willingness of more willing to be
Niehaves B. open process Proceeding Series citizens to participate involved in OI
innovation in the in crowdsourcing for initiatives aimed at
public sector - Are innovation to enrich coping with public
expert citizens theory and practice in management
really willing to the field of challenges; tailored
participate? collaborative incentives should be
innovation crafted to motivate
and engage non-
expert citizens
Van der Duin P., Toward networked 2014 Article Futures B 2 The article examines OI enacts networked Red 33
Heger T., foresight? how innovation foresight, which
Schlesinger M.D. Exploring the use of networks and expands the resource
futures research in foresight are base available and
innovation associated, focusing engages a diversified
networks on the latter type, pool of stakeholders
scope, and role in efforts aimed at
public value
generation

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Venturini K., Open innovation in 2017 Article Business Process B 2 The study deals with Making it possible to Red 9
Verbano C. the public sector: Management the OI phenomenon, share the costs and
Resources and Journal investigating how risks of innovation
performance of technological, human, with external
research-based social, and financial partners, OI boosts
spin-offs resources are the public sector
systematized to entities’ access to
accomplish new ideas and
boundaryless knowledge,
innovation overcoming the
constraints which
affect the action of
public sector
organizations
Zheng C., Hu M.-C. An exploration of 2018 Article Journal of Public B 1 The article examines Relying on Red 4
the application of Affairs the nature of universities, public
universities as government– sector entities are
artificial university–industry able to explore the
institutional links and attempts to frontier of knowledge
entrepreneurs: The apply the concept of development and
case of China “institutional exploitation,
entrepreneurship” to advancing
universities technology transfer
through an OI
approach

(continued )
sector

165
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

166
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Zimmermann H.- Open innovation, 2015 Conference IDIMT 2015: N/A N/A The study Privately-owned Red 12
D., Pucihar A. open data and new Paper Information investigates how data companies and
business models Technology and made publicly entrepreneurs are
Society - accessible represent a expected to benefit
Interaction and basis for the from public open
Interdependence - generation of public data, collecting
23rd value insights on
Interdisciplinary innovative services
Information and products which
Management Talks meet with the
evolving
expectations of
customers and
generate increased
value for the
community
Ahn J.M., Lee W., Do government 2020 Article Technological A 3 The study examines The study findings Yellow 15
Mortara L. R&D subsidies Forecasting and if and how cast a shade on the
stimulate Social Change government Research implications of state
collaboration and Development subsidies for
initiatives in private subsidy play a vital innovation
firms? role in forming a collaboration. The
desirable effects of state
technological subsidy on the
progress, with a effectiveness of OI
specific focus on OI follow non-linear,
inverted U-shaped
path: hence, policy
makers should
arrange
sophisticated
strategies and tools
to promote OI

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Cano-Kollmann M., Public support for 2017 Article Industrial and A 3 The study Institutions and Yellow 37
Hamilton R.D., innovation and the Corporate Change empirically government policies
Mudambi R. openness of firms’ investigates the have been argued to
innovation relationship between play a more
activities publicly funded important role than
schemes to support money in fostering OI
innovation and the when policy makers
degree of openness of face budgetary
privately-owned constraints
companies’
innovation practices
Cheah S.L.-Y., Effective industrial 2020 Article Technological A 3 The study Alongside providing Yellow 12
Ho Y.-P. policy Forecasting and investigates the technology and
implementation for Social Change characteristics and funds to relevant
open innovation: implications of stakeholders, public
The role of government support sector entities should
government in the form of develop adequate
resources and technology transfer capabilities to
capabilities project funding that effectively deploy
aims to encourage Industrial Policy
firms to participate in programmes and
OI fully exploit OI
Gershman M., Open innovation in 2019 Article Industry and B 3 The study In spite of the SOEs’ Yellow 6
Roud V., Thurner Russian state- Innovation investigates the role tendency to become
T.W. owned enterprises of Russian State- more deeply involved
Owned Enterprises in OI, it is still
(SOE) in promoting handled as a
open innovation complementary
innovation activity

(continued )
sector

167
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

168
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Jugend D., Fiorini Public support for 2020 Article Technological A 3 The article assesses Four dimensions Yellow 14
P.D.C., Armellini innovation: A Forecasting and what types of public have been developed
F., Ferrari A.G. systematic review Social Change practices for to describe the public
of the literature and innovation comprise support for OI,
implications for the terms “public namely: (i) financial
open innovation support for support for R&D
innovation” and activities; (ii)
“government support development
for innovation” and through innovation;
their relationship (iii) support for
with OI sectorial programs;
and (iv) university–
industry–
government
collaboration (triple
helix)
Jugend D., Jabbour Relationships 2018 Article Technovation A 3 The article State support has Yellow 46
C.J.C., Alves among open investigates the been found to play a
Scaliza J.A., Rocha innovation, relationship among clear effect on
R.S., Junior J.A.G., innovative OI, innovative innovation. Non-
Latan H., Salgado performance, performance, and monetary support
M.H. government government support (e.g. facilitating
support and firm for innovation in two networking and
size: Comparing different samples, coordinating
Brazilian firms which relate to collaboration) may be
embracing different incremental more effective in
levels of radicalism innovation and enabling OI and
in innovation radical innovation improving industrial
competitiveness

(continued )
 Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Leckel A., Veilleux Local Open 2020 Article Technological A 3 The study calls for Public sector entities Yellow 31
S., Dana L.P. Innovation: A Forecasting and the arrangement of should promote
means for public Social Change practical policy localized trust, which
policy to increase instruments intended pinpoints the
collaboration for to establish local OI networking of
innovation in SMEs ecosystems industry-, research-
and public-sector
organizations; it
facilitates the access
to external
knowledge, while at
the same time
establishing a
diverse regional
innovation
ecosystem
Orlando B., Open innovation 2021 Article Journal of B 2 The study Effective OI relies on Yellow 9
Ballestra L.V., and patenting Intellectual Capital investigates the high public
Magni D., activity in health relationship between expenditures. OI is
Ciampi F. care OI and intellectual the most suitable
property in the field model for the health
of health care industry, improving
innovation
performance and
intellectual capital
Zhang D., Li S., Knowledge search 2017 Article Management B 2 The article OI is boosted by Yellow 11
Zheng D. and open Decision investigates the positive relationships
innovation interplay between between privately-
performance in an knowledge search owned companies
emerging market: and OI performance and public sector
Moderating effects in light of entities, which can
of government- appropriability unleash innovation
enterprise hazards in emerging efforts by protecting
relationship and markets the results achieved
market focus through OI

(continued )
sector

169
the public
innovation in
Open

Table A1.
 MD

170
61,13

Table A1.
Document ABDC AJG Cited
Authors Title Year type Source title ranking ranking Study aims Main findings Cluster by

Zheng F., Jiao H., Reappraisal of 2018 Article Technology B 2 The study The combination of Yellow 6
Cai H. outbound open Analysis and investigates China’s the government’s
innovation under Strategic ‘Market for trend to improve
the policy of China’s Management Technology’ policy, institutional
‘Market for examining the arrangement and the
Technology’ transferring effects of privately-owned
Multinationals’ companies’ trend to
outbound OI in this outbound OI paves
specific context the way for increased
opportunities for
boundaryless
collaboration
Note(s): N 5 94
Source(s): Authors’ own creation
About the authors Open
Rocco Palumbo, PhD. is Associate Professor of Organization Studies at the University “Tor Vergata” of
Rome. His main research topics include, but are not limited to, organizational change, human resource innovation in
management practices in public sector organizations, and innovation. Rocco Palumbo is the the public
corresponding author and can be contacted at: rocco.palumbo@uniroma2.it sector
Elena Casprini, PhD. is Associate Professor of Management at the Department of Business and Law,
University of Siena. Her main research interests include open innovation, public-private partnerships,
and change management. 171
Mohammad Fakhar Manesh, PhD. is Lecturer at the Department of Management of the Lincoln
International Business School. His research interests include digitization, organizational change, and
innovation.

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