This paper presents the findings of a quantitative survey study involving 50 respondents from German and Swiss labor markets, examining which innovation model — open or closed — best supports organizational operations, success, and sustainable growth. Using cross-tabulation and chi-square analyses, the study finds that open innovation is preferred by 66% of respondents as the most suitable model. The paper further identifies key success factors for implementing innovation models, including incorporating innovation into business strategy, establishing a supportive corporate culture, and ensuring employees understand innovation processes. The results demonstrate statistically significant links between these success factors and effective innovation implementation, as well as between innovation broadly and organizational growth trajectories, profitability, and sustainability. Limitations and implications for business practice are also discussed.
The questionnaire for this study was administered to 50 respondents. The data obtained from these participants was credible for analysis since there were no substantive missing values. The questions were based on a Likert scale, which made it easier for participants to provide their responses and enhanced reliability. Data obtained from this instrument was analyzed using descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation analysis, and chi-square analysis.
This study had 50 respondents working in German and Swiss labor markets, though the research was not restricted to participants of German or Swiss origin. The respondents came from a variety of nationalities: German (14, 28%), Swiss (6, 12%), Italian (7, 14%), Indian (7, 14%), Spanish (3, 6%), Polish (3, 6%), Lebanese (2, 4%), English (2, 4%), Danish (2, 4%), Georgian (2, 4%), Salvadorean (1, 2%), and Lithuanian (1, 2%).
The study respondents included C-level executives — CEOs, COOs, HR Managers, HR Advisors, Directors, Co-directors, Consultants, and Assistant Directors — who had worked in their respective companies for periods ranging from less than one year to more than five years. In terms of gender, 72% of respondents were male and 28% were female. With regard to location, 58% worked in German labor markets and 42% worked in Swiss labor markets.
The central research question guiding this study was the determination of the most suitable innovation model — closed or open — that helps organizations achieve their innovation goals and how such models can be successfully implemented. As previously noted, this research issue was informed by the complexities involved in understanding the most suitable model customized to an organization's innovation goals (Sviokla & Wasden, 2010). The respondents in this study were working in companies that had implemented different innovation models. Among them, 56% worked in companies using an open innovation model, while 44% used closed innovation models.
When asked which innovation model would be most suitable for an organization's operations, success, and sustainable growth, 66% of respondents indicated that open innovation is the more suitable model. This was followed by closed innovation at 14%, a combination of both models at 10%, and "unsure or not applicable" at 10%. These results suggest that organizations should primarily consider adopting open innovation models. If open innovation is unsuitable as a sole model, a combination of both open and closed innovation should be explored before defaulting to closed innovation alone.
The researcher then examined whether these recommendations were attributable to the respondents' country of operation. Using cross-tabulation and chi-square analyses, an evaluation was carried out to determine the existence of any link between country of operation and the suggested innovation model. This analysis helped determine whether the recommended model could be generalized across different operational contexts. Among German-based respondents (58% of the sample), 17.24% recommended closed innovation, 58.62% recommended open innovation, 10.35% recommended both, and 13.79% were unsure. Among Swiss-based respondents (42%), 9.52% recommended closed innovation, 76.20% recommended open innovation, 9.52% recommended both, and 4.76% were unsure.
Using a chi-square score of 2.138, a degree of freedom (df) of 3, and a significance level of 0.05, a p-value of 0.544 was generated. This result is not significant at p < 0.05, which means the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Consequently, the country of operation was found to have no impact on the recommended innovation model. The respondents' preference for open innovation was not determined by where their organizations were located, nor was it necessarily based on the type of innovation model already adopted by their respective companies.
For further reading on the distinction between these two approaches, see the Wikipedia overview of open innovation, which outlines the conceptual foundations first formalized by Henry Chesbrough.
An analysis of key success factors for innovation model adoption was also conducted, drawing on two research objectives: determining necessary success factors for effective implementation of innovation models, and determining the concept and learning process of closed and open innovation. Several factors were identified and included in the questionnaires: incorporating innovation in business strategy and operations; reviewing innovation models and processes toward continued success; ensuring employees understand and implement innovation models; establishing a corporate culture that promotes and enhances innovation; and considering organizational processes and factors when choosing an innovation model.
To determine whether these factors play a crucial role in successful implementation of innovation models, the researcher examined respondents' Likert scale scores. A score between 3 and 5 was considered high, while a score of 1–2 was considered low. If the number of respondents with high scores was significantly elevated, the factor was deemed crucial for innovation model adoption.
The results showed high scores across all key success factors. Consideration of organizational factors when choosing an innovation model ranked highest at 86%, followed by incorporating innovation in business strategy and implementing innovation throughout the organization (both at 82%). Establishing a corporate culture that promotes innovation scored 78%, reviewing and/or changing innovation models and processes scored 76%, ensuring innovation is at the frontline of operations scored 74%, and ensuring employees understand and implement innovation scored 72%.
Cross-tabulation analysis was applied to each factor using respondents' high scores (3–5). The chi-square analysis yielded an overall chi-square score of 16.37, with 12 degrees of freedom (df = [7−1] × [3−1] = 12) and a cumulative probability value (p) of 0.0175. Because this p-value is less than the significance level of 0.05, the variables are statistically associated. This confirms a positive link between successful innovation model implementation and the identified key success factors. Each factor is therefore crucial for the effective implementation of innovation models and processes within an organization.
These findings align with broader academic research on implementing new technology in organizations (Dorothy & Kraus, 1985), which emphasized organizational and cultural readiness as prerequisites for successful adoption.
"Innovation's statistical link to growth and profitability"
"Findings interpreted against each research objective"
"Study constraints and practical recommendations for managers"
Innovation, especially continuous innovation, has emerged as an important aspect of business strategies and business models given the significant changes in the business environment and market conditions. The significance of innovation in the business world has gained considerable traction in recent years due to the rapid technological advancements reshaping competitive landscapes. The two most commonly used innovation models are open innovation and closed innovation, which differ in their processes and focus. Closed innovation is based on the premise that internal sources are most suitable for leading innovation processes, as they are less susceptible to external competition. In contrast, open innovation is premised on the idea that businesses need to capitalize on innovative ideas and factors from outside their boundaries.
You’re 38% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.