Open Innovation Adoption Barriers: A Multidimensional Meta-Synthesis and Contextual Prioritization Framework

Authors

  • Ehsan Afsari Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Management, Faculty of Social Sciences, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5391-8920
  • Mahdi Nasrolahi Associate Professor, Department of Management, Faculty of Social Sciences, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4546-9059

Keywords:

open innovation, adoption barriers, meta-synthesis, innovation management, absorptive capacity, organizational resistance, qualitative prioritization

Abstract

The objective of this study was to systematically identify, synthesize, classify, and prioritize the barriers to open innovation adoption by developing an integrated multidimensional framework that explains the interrelated organizational, behavioral, structural, capability-based, inter-organizational, and institutional obstacles that hinder effective implementation of open innovation across diverse organizational contexts. This study employed a qualitative meta-synthesis design following the seven-step procedure proposed by Sandelowski and Barroso. A systematic search was conducted across Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and specialized innovation management journals. The search covered studies published between 2003 and 2025 and used combinations of keywords related to open innovation barriers, challenges, and resistance. An initial pool of 312 studies was identified and subjected to relevance screening, conceptual boundary assessment, and quality appraisal. Ultimately, 24 peer-reviewed empirical studies were retained for analysis. Data extraction and synthesis were performed through open coding, axial coding, and selective coding procedures. A qualitative prioritization matrix based on frequency of occurrence and depth of emphasis across studies was subsequently applied to determine the relative significance of identified barriers. The meta-synthesis revealed a comprehensive taxonomy consisting of six major dimensions and 26 subcategories of barriers to open innovation adoption. The six dimensions included cultural-behavioral, organizational-managerial, knowledge and capability, structural-process, inter-organizational and network, and institutional-environmental barriers. Qualitative prioritization demonstrated that the most critical barriers were resistance to external ideas (Not-Invented-Here syndrome), organizational risk aversion, structural rigidity, misaligned incentive systems, and weak absorptive capacity. The findings further indicated that barriers are highly interdependent and operate as a systemic configuration rather than as isolated constraints. Contextual analysis showed substantial variation across organizational settings: bureaucratic constraints dominated public organizations, resource limitations and skill deficits were particularly salient in SMEs, structural inertia and cultural resistance characterized large firms, and ecosystem weakness and inter-organizational mistrust were especially prominent in emerging economies. Overall, cultural and structural barriers emerged as the most influential constraints on successful open innovation adoption, exceeding the relative importance of technological factors. The study concludes that the successful adoption of open innovation depends primarily on overcoming deeply embedded cultural, organizational, and governance-related barriers rather than merely addressing technological challenges. The proposed multidimensional framework advances understanding of how barriers interact across organizational levels and provides a practical basis for prioritizing interventions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] J. West and M. Bogers, "Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation," (in English), Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 814-831, 2014, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12125.

[2] M. Bogers et al., "The Open Innovation Research Landscape: Established Perspectives and Emerging Themes across Different Levels of Analysis," (in English), Industry and Innovation, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 8-40, 2017, doi: 10.1080/13662716.2016.1240068.

[3] B. Bigliardi, G. Ferraro, S. Filippelli, and F. Galati, "The Past, Present and Future of Open Innovation," (in English), European Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1130-1161, 2021, doi: 10.1108/EJIM-10-2019-0296.

[4] S. Nambisan, M. Wright, and M. Feldman, "The Digital Transformation of Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Progress, Challenges and Key Themes," (in English), Research Policy, vol. 48, no. 8, p. 103773, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.018.

[5] A. Hanelt, R. Bohnsack, D. Marz, and C. Antunes Marante, "A Systematic Review of the Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organizational Change," (in English), Journal of Management Studies, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1159-1197, 2021, doi: 10.1111/joms.12639.

[6] A. Natalicchio, A. Messeni Petruzzelli, U. Panniello, and A. C. Garavelli, "Open Innovation and Digital Transformation: A Systematic Integration of Research Streams," (in English), Technovation, vol. 129, p. 102861, 2024.

[7] K. Kokubun, "Digitalization, Open Innovation, Ambidexterity, and Green Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Narrative Review and New Perspectives," 2025, doi: 10.20944/preprints202504.0009.v1.

[8] M. Greco, M. Grimaldi, and L. Cricelli, "An Analysis of the Open Innovation Effect on Firm Performance," (in English), European Management Journal, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 501-516, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.008.

[9] A. Ferraris, G. Santoro, and L. Dezi, "How MNC's Subsidiaries May Improve Their Innovative Performance? The Role of External Sources and Knowledge Management Capabilities," (in English), Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1-20, 2020.

[10] A. Ferraris, A. Mazzoleni, A. Devalle, and J. Couturier, "Big Data Analytics Capabilities and Knowledge Management: Impact on Firm Performance," (in English), Management Decision, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 1923-1936, 2020, doi: 10.1108/MD-07-2018-0825.

[11] M. F. Mubarak, G. Jucevicius, M. Shabbir, M. Petraite, M. Ghobakhloo, and R. Evans, "Strategic foresight, knowledge management, and open innovation: Drivers of new product development success," Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, vol. 10, p. 100654, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2025.100654.

[12] I. Farida and D. Setiawan, "Business Strategies and Competitive Advantage: The Role of Performance and Innovation," Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 163, 2025, doi: 10.3390/joitmc8030163.

[13] H. Chesbrough and S. Brunswicker, "A Fad or a Phenomenon? The Adoption of Open Innovation Practices in Large Firms," (in English), Research-Technology Management, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 16-25, 2014, doi: 10.5437/08956308X5702068.

[14] D. Antons and F. T. Piller, "Opening the Black Box of Not Invented Here: Attitudes, Decision Biases, and Behavioral Consequences," (in English), Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 193-217, 2015, doi: 10.5465/amp.2013.0091.

[15] M. Bogers, N. J. Foss, and J. Lyngsie, "The Human Side of Open Innovation: The Role of Employee Diversity in Firm-Level Openness," (in English), Research Policy, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 218-231, 2018.

[16] M. Deif, A. Bounceur, S. Mouakket, M. Hafez, and M. Elhoseny, "A multi-agent framework for detecting and forecasting silent resistance in organizational communication: Implications for open innovation dynamics," Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 11, p. 100646, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100646.

[17] M. Bogers, H. Chesbrough, S. Heaton, and D. J. Teece, "Strategic Management of Open Innovation: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective," (in English), California Management Review, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 77-94, 2019, doi: 10.1177/0008125619885150.

[18] S. Duchek, "Absorptive Capacity as a Microfoundation of Organizational Resilience," in Academy of Management Proceedings, 2019, vol. 2019, 1 ed., doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2019.14527abstract.

[19] N. Lakemond, L. Bengtsson, S. Cedergren, and K. Laursen, "Match and Manage: The Use of Knowledge Matching and Project Management to Integrate Knowledge in Collaborative Inbound Open Innovation," (in English), Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 333-352, 2016, doi: 10.1093/icc/dtw004.

[20] A. Raj, G. Dwivedi, A. Sharma, A. B. Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, and S. Rajak, "Barriers to the Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies in the Manufacturing Sector: An Inter-Country Comparative Perspective," (in English), International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 224, p. 107546, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107546.

[21] A. Chauhan, S. K. Jakhar, and C. Chauhan, "The Interplay of Circular Economy with Industry 4.0 Enabled Smart City Drivers of Healthcare Waste Disposal," (in English), Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 279, p. 123854, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123854.

[22] S. Luthra, D. Garg, and A. Haleem, "Critical Success Factors of Green Supply Chain Management for Achieving Sustainability in Indian Automobile Industry," (in English), Production Planning & Control, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 339-362, 2015, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2014.904532.

[23] S. Strazzullo, R. Mauriello, V. Corvello, L. Cricelli, and M. Grimaldi, "How open innovation can improve companies' corporate social responsibility performance?," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1-16, 2025, doi: 10.1111/beer.12535.

[24] A. J. Asaleye and T. Ncanywa, "Complexity of renewable energy and technological innovation on gender-specific labour market in South African economy," Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 100492, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100492.

Downloads

Published

2026-11-01

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Afsari, E. ., & Nasrolahi, M. (2026). Open Innovation Adoption Barriers: A Multidimensional Meta-Synthesis and Contextual Prioritization Framework. Future of Work and Digital Management Journal, 1-15. https://www.journalfwdmj.com/index.php/fwdmj/article/view/279

Similar Articles

51-60 of 187

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.