Open Innovation

Conclusion

As an OI practitioner, I have noticed that the works available in this sphere fall overall into two highly distinct classes, as much in terms of intrinsic quality as volume.

On the one hand, there are many works, or should I say publications, from diverse and varied organizations and individuals that since the birth of social networks have been disseminating their opinions, and observations, by seeking to influence the perceptions of the greatest number of people. These works, while not lacking in relevance, being for example photographs of modern case studies, or potential trends, are no less debatable for at least one reason. The element of how this shared knowledge is compiled is often overlooked. In undertaking any reflection, it is appropriate to be clear as to the issue to which we wish to respond, and the ideas, concepts and even theories which enable us to clarify the issue. Moreover, it is indeed appropriate to state the design for works undertaken and to explain the given methodology for selecting case studies and the collection of data and the analytical method. Finally, it is a matter of objectively assessing the given work for its reliability (the replication of another’s research to produce identical results), internal validity (relevance and accuracy of results) and external validity (the spread of results), with the objective of ensuring the robustness of the design. In other words, a “scientific” approach is only rarely, if at all, used by the organizations ...