Unlocking Value through Strategic Openness

1. Introduction

In today's interconnected and rapidly evolving world, organizations across sectors are increasingly embracing openness as a strategic imperative. From open innovation in the private sector to open data in government, open collaboration in science, and open educational resources, strategic openness is transforming the way institutions operate and create value.

This article explores the concept of strategic openness from a global perspective. It examines key use cases across different domains, proposes metrics for measuring the impact of open initiatives, outlines a roadmap for implementation, analyzes the return on investment, discusses challenges and risks, and provides an outlook on the future of openness. Through this comprehensive analysis, the essay aims to provide decision-makers with actionable insights for harnessing the power of openness to drive innovation, enhance transparency, foster collaboration, and unlock new opportunities in an increasingly open world.

2. What is Strategic Openness?

Strategic openness refers to the deliberate and systematic practice of engaging external stakeholders, sharing resources, and collaborating across boundaries to achieve organizational goals and create shared value (Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014). It represents a shift from traditional models of closed innovation, proprietary data, and siloed knowledge production towards more open, networked, and participatory approaches.

The concept of openness has its roots in the open source software movement, which demonstrated the power of distributed collaboration and free sharing of code (Raymond, 1999). Over time, the principles of openness have been applied to various domains, leading to the emergence of open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003), open data (Janssen et al., 2012), open science (Bartling & Friesike, 2014), and open education (Wiley & Hilton, 2009), among others.

At its core, strategic openness is driven by the recognition that organizations can benefit from leveraging external knowledge, resources, and creativity to supplement their internal capabilities (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007). By opening up their boundaries and engaging in collaborative ecosystems, organizations can access diverse perspectives, tap into distributed expertise, and co-create solutions to complex challenges.

However, strategic openness is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Organizations must carefully consider their goals, capabilities, and context to determine the appropriate level and form of openness (Dahlander & Gann, 2010). They must also navigate the challenges and risks associated with openness, such as intellectual property concerns, quality control, and sustainability.

3.Use Cases

Open Innovation in Technology

Open innovation has become a key strategy for technology companies seeking to accelerate their research and development efforts, enter new markets, and stay ahead of the competition. By collaborating with external partners, such as universities, startups, and even competitors, companies can access new ideas, technologies, and talent that they might not have in-house.

One prominent example is the open innovation program at Procter & Gamble (P&G), called Connect + Develop (Huston & Sakkab, 2006). Through this program, P&G partners with external innovators to develop new products and technologies. For instance, P&G collaborated with a small Italian company to develop the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser, which became a bestselling product. By leveraging open innovation, P&G has been able to increase its product success rate and reduce development costs.

Another example is the Open Compute Project (OCP), a collaborative community founded by Facebook to redesign hardware technology for data centers (Beres, 2019). The OCP brings together companies like Intel, Google, and Microsoft to openly share designs and best practices for energy-efficient and scalable computing infrastructure. By adopting OCP designs, Facebook has reported savings of over $2 billion in infrastructure costs.

Open Data in Government

Governments around the world are embracing open data as a means to promote transparency, accountability, and innovation. By making non-sensitive government data freely available and accessible to the public, open data initiatives aim to enable citizen engagement, data-driven decision-making, and the development of new services and applications.

One notable example is the United States' Data.gov platform, which was launched in 2009 to provide access to federal government datasets (Goëta & Janssen, 2020). The platform hosts over 200,000 datasets from various agencies, covering topics such as climate, health, education, and public safety. By making this data openly available, Data.gov has spurred innovation and entrepreneurship, with numerous apps and services being built on top of government data.

Another example is the Open Government Partnership (OGP), a multilateral initiative launched in 2011 to promote open government practices worldwide (Calderón, 2017). The OGP currently has 78 member countries that have committed to developing action plans for transparency, accountability, and citizen participation. For instance, as part of its OGP commitments, Indonesia launched the One Map Policy to create a unified and openly accessible geospatial data portal, which has helped to resolve land disputes and improve natural resource management.

Open Collaboration in Science

Open collaboration is transforming the way scientific research is conducted, disseminated, and translated into practice. By fostering transparency, reproducibility, and collective intelligence, open science initiatives aim to accelerate the pace of discovery, enhance the quality and reliability of research outputs, and democratize access to knowledge.

One example is the Human Genome Project (HGP), an international scientific collaboration that aimed to sequence the entire human genome (Pevsner, 2015). The HGP adopted an open data policy, making all genetic sequences freely available in public databases within 24 hours of generation. This open approach accelerated the pace of genomic research and enabled scientists worldwide to contribute to the project, leading to the completion of the first draft of the human genome in 2001.

Another example is the Open Science Framework (OSF), an open-source platform for research collaboration and sharing (Nosek et al., 2015). The OSF enables researchers to manage their projects, store and share data and materials, and preregister their studies to enhance transparency and reproducibility. The platform has been used by over 200,000 researchers across various disciplines, fostering open and collaborative practices in scientific research.

Open Education

Open education refers to the practice of creating, sharing, and using openly licensed educational resources, such as textbooks, course materials, and online courses, to increase access to quality education and promote lifelong learning (UNESCO, 2019). Open educational resources (OER) are typically licensed under Creative Commons licenses that allow for free use, adaptation, and redistribution.

One prominent example is the MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW) initiative, which was launched in 2002 to provide free online access to course materials from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Brown & Adler, 2008). OCW currently offers over 2,400 courses across various subjects, reaching millions of learners worldwide. The success of OCW has inspired the creation of similar initiatives at other institutions, such as OpenYale and Open Learning Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University.

Another example is the Open Textbook Library, a repository of openly licensed textbooks that aims to reduce the cost of education and increase access to quality learning materials (Mishra et al., 2021). The library currently offers over 800 textbooks across various disciplines, which have been adopted by over 4,000 faculty members and have saved students an estimated $30 million in textbook costs.

These use cases demonstrate the potential of strategic openness to drive innovation, enhance transparency, foster collaboration, and increase access to knowledge and resources across different domains. However, to fully realize the benefits of openness, organizations must also develop appropriate metrics, implementation strategies, and governance frameworks, as will be discussed in the following sections.

4. Measuring Strategic Openness

To assess the effectiveness and impact of strategic openness initiatives, organizations need to establish clear metrics and evaluation frameworks. These metrics should be aligned with the specific goals and context of each initiative and should capture both quantitative and qualitative aspects of openness. In this section, we propose a set of metrics for measuring strategic openness across the four domains discussed in the previous section.

Metrics for Open Innovation

1. Number and diversity of external collaborations: This metric captures the extent to which an organization engages with external partners, such as universities, startups, or customers, in its innovation processes (Laursen & Salter, 2006). A higher number and diversity of collaborations can indicate a more open and inclusive approach to innovation.
2. Percentage of innovations sourced from external partners: This metric measures the proportion of new products, services, or processes that originate from outside the organization (Chesbrough, 2003). A higher percentage suggests a greater reliance on external knowledge and resources for innovation.
3. Speed and cost of innovation: Open innovation can potentially accelerate the pace of innovation and reduce development costs by leveraging external expertise and resources (Huston & Sakkab, 2006). These metrics can be used to compare the efficiency of open versus closed innovation approaches.
4. Revenue and market share from open innovations: Ultimately, the success of open innovation initiatives can be measured by their impact on the organization's bottom line (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007). Tracking the revenue and market share generated by products or services developed through open innovation can provide a tangible measure of its value.

Metrics for Open Data

1. Availability and accessibility of open data: This metric assesses the extent to which an organization's data is openly available and easily accessible to the public (Janssen et al., 2012). Factors to consider include the number and quality of datasets, the use of open data formats and licenses, and the presence of user-friendly interfaces and documentation.
2. Usage and impact of open data: This metric captures the extent to which open data is being used and creating value for various stakeholders (Attard et al., 2015). Indicators can include the number of data downloads, API calls, or applications built on top of open data, as well as case studies or testimonials demonstrating its impact.
3. Data quality and timeliness: The usefulness of open data depends on its quality, accuracy, completeness, and timeliness (Vetrò et al., 2016). Organizations can use data quality metrics, such as data completeness, consistency, and update frequency, to ensure that their open data is fit for purpose and meets user needs.
4. Community engagement and feedback: Open data initiatives should foster a collaborative relationship between data providers and users (Janssen et al., 2012). Metrics such as the number of community events, user feedback and ratings, or contributions from external stakeholders can indicate the level of engagement and co-creation around open data.

Metrics for Open Collaboration

1. Number and diversity of contributors: This metric captures the size and heterogeneity of the community involved in an open collaboration initiative (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006). A larger and more diverse group of contributors can bring different perspectives, skills, and resources to the collaboration.
2. Engagement and participation levels: This metric assesses the extent to which contributors actively participate in the collaboration process (Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2011). Indicators can include the frequency and quality of contributions, the number of interactions and discussions, or the retention rate of contributors over time.
3. Output quantity and quality: The success of open collaboration initiatives can be measured by the quantity and quality of their outputs, such as publications, software code, or designs (Levine & Prietula, 2014). Metrics can include the number of outputs produced, their impact and reach, or their adherence to quality standards and best practices.
4. Efficiency and speed of collaboration: Open collaboration can potentially accelerate the pace of problem-solving and innovation by leveraging distributed expertise and parallel work (Tapscott & Williams, 2006). Metrics such as the time to complete tasks, the number of iterations or revisions, or the ratio of effort to output can provide insights into the efficiency of the collaboration process.

Metrics for Open Education

1. Adoption and use of open educational resources (OER): This metric captures the extent to which educators and learners are adopting and using OER in their teaching and learning practices (UNESCO, 2019). Indicators can include the number of OER created, shared, or downloaded, the number of courses or programs using OER, or the percentage of curriculum covered by OER.
2. Cost savings and affordability: One of the main goals of OER is to reduce the cost of education and increase access to quality learning materials (Wiley & Hilton, 2009). Metrics such as the amount of money saved by students or institutions through the use of OER, or the reduction in textbook costs, can demonstrate the economic impact of open education.
3. Learning outcomes and student success: Ultimately, the effectiveness of OER should be measured by their impact on student learning and success (Pitt et al., 2019). Metrics can include student performance, retention, or completion rates in courses using OER, as well as student feedback and satisfaction with the quality and relevance of the materials.
4. Equity and inclusion: Open education initiatives aim to promote equitable access to education and reduce disparities based on socioeconomic status, geography, or other factors (Hodgkinson-Williams & Trotter, 2018). Metrics such as the diversity of learners accessing and using OER, or the availability of OER in different languages and formats, can indicate the level of inclusivity and accessibility of open education.

These metrics provide a starting point for organizations to measure and evaluate the impact of their strategic openness initiatives. However, the specific metrics and targets should be tailored to the goals and context of each initiative and should be regularly reviewed and updated based on feedback and learning. By establishing a robust measurement framework, organizations can track progress, identify areas for improvement, and demonstrate the value of openness to stakeholders.

5. Roadmap for Implementing Strategic Openness

Implementing strategic openness requires a systematic and phased approach that considers the organization's goals, capabilities, and context. In this section, we propose a four-phase roadmap for organizations to plan and execute their openness initiatives.

Phase 1: Assessment and Goal Setting

The first phase involves assessing the organization's current state of openness and setting clear goals and objectives for the initiative. Key activities in this phase include:

1. Evaluating existing practices and capabilities: Organizations should review their current processes, policies, and infrastructure related to openness, such as intellectual property management, data sharing, or external collaboration (Carayannis et al., 2015). This assessment can help identify strengths, gaps, and areas for improvement.
2. Identifying stakeholders and their needs: Organizations should map out the key stakeholders involved in or affected by the openness initiative, such as employees, partners, customers, or communities (Randhawa et al., 2016). Understanding their needs, expectations, and concerns can help shape the goals and scope of the initiative.
3. Defining goals and objectives: Based on the assessment and stakeholder analysis, organizations should define clear and measurable goals for the openness initiative (Razmi et al., 2009). These goals should be aligned with the organization's overall strategy and should specify the desired outcomes and benefits of openness.
4. Developing a business case: To secure support and resources for the initiative, organizations should develop a compelling business case that articulates the value and ROI of openness (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007). This business case should consider the costs, risks, and benefits of openness and should be tailored to the needs and priorities of key decision-makers.

Phase 2: Establishing Infrastructure and Policies

The second phase focuses on putting in place the necessary infrastructure, processes, and policies to support the openness initiative. Key activities in this phase include:

1. Developing an open strategy: Organizations should formulate a clear and coherent strategy that outlines the scope, approach, and governance of the openness initiative (Amrollahi et al., 2015). This strategy should define the types of resources, activities, and partnerships involved and should provide guidance on issues such as intellectual property, data management, or community engagement.
2. Building technical infrastructure: Depending on the type of openness initiative, organizations may need to invest in new technical infrastructure, such as open data portals, collaboration platforms, or content management systems (West & Gallagher, 2006). This infrastructure should be designed to support the goals of the initiative and should adhere to relevant standards and best practices.
3. Establishing policies and procedures: Organizations should develop clear policies and procedures to govern the openness initiative, such as data sharing agreements, contribution guidelines, or quality assurance processes (Al-Sharieh et al., 2018). These policies should be communicated to all stakeholders and should be regularly reviewed and updated based on feedback and learning.
4. Training and capacity building: To enable effective participation in the openness initiative, organizations should provide training and support to employees, partners, and other stakeholders (Feller et al., 2011). This can include training on open tools and practices, as well as building capacity in areas such as data management, collaboration, or community engagement.

Phase 3: Engaging Partners and Building Ecosystems

The third phase involves engaging external partners and building collaborative ecosystems around the openness initiative. Key activities in this phase include:

1. Identifying and recruiting partners: Organizations should identify and reach out to potential partners who can contribute to or benefit from the openness initiative, such as universities, startups, or user communities (Bogers et al., 2018). This can involve leveraging existing networks, attending events, or using online platforms to discover and connect with relevant partners.
2. Establishing partnership agreements: To facilitate effective collaboration, organizations should establish clear partnership agreements that outline the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of each party (Felin & Zenger, 2013). These agreements should address issues such as intellectual property rights, data sharing, resource allocation, or dispute resolution.
3. Fostering community engagement: Organizations should actively engage and nurture the community of stakeholders involved in the openness initiative, such as users, contributors, or advocates (West & O'mahony, 2008). This can involve creating communication channels, organizing events, providing support and recognition, or soliciting feedback and input from the community.
4. Leveraging network effects: As the ecosystem around the openness initiative grows, organizations should seek to leverage network effects to accelerate adoption and value creation (Iyengar et al., 2015). This can involve creating incentives for participation, facilitating matchmaking and collaboration among partners, or providing resources and support to enable third-party innovation.

Phase 4: Scaling and Optimizing

The fourth phase focuses on scaling the openness initiative and optimizing its performance and impact over time. Key activities in this phase include:

1. Monitoring and measuring performance: Organizations should continuously monitor and measure the performance of the openness initiative using the metrics and frameworks established in the previous phases (Gunasekaran et al., 2017). This can involve collecting and analyzing data on adoption, engagement, output, or impact, and using this data to inform decision-making and improvement efforts.
2. Iterating and adapting: Based on the monitoring and evaluation results, organizations should iterate and adapt their openness strategy, processes, and tools to optimize performance and impact (Camison & Villar-López, 2014). This can involve experimenting with new approaches, scaling up successful practices, or phasing out underperforming activities.
3. Expanding and diversifying: As the openness initiative matures, organizations should seek to expand its scope and impact by engaging new partners, addressing new challenges, or exploring new domains (Radziwill & Boadu, 2012). This can involve replicating the initiative in new contexts, adapting it to new sectors or regions, or leveraging it to create new products, services, or business models.
4. Institutionalizing openness: To ensure the long-term sustainability and impact of the openness initiative, organizations should seek to institutionalize it within their culture, processes, and structures (Bagherzadeh et al., 2021). This can involve integrating openness into the organization's strategy, governance, and performance management systems, and building a culture of transparency, collaboration, and innovation.

This four-phase roadmap provides a structured approach for organizations to plan and execute their strategic openness initiatives. However, the specific activities and timelines will vary depending on the type of initiative, the organizational context, and the available resources and capabilities. Organizations should adapt and customize this roadmap based on their unique needs and goals and should be prepared to iterate and adjust their approach based on feedback and learning.

6. Return on Investment (ROI) of Strategic Openness

Measuring the return on investment (ROI) of strategic openness initiatives is crucial for organizations to justify their investments, allocate resources effectively, and communicate the value of openness to stakeholders. However, calculating the ROI of openness can be challenging, as the benefits are often intangible, long-term, and distributed across multiple stakeholders. In this section, we discuss some approaches and considerations for quantifying the benefits, comparing the costs, and calculating the ROI of strategic openness.

Quantifying Benefits

The benefits of strategic openness can be diverse and multifaceted, spanning economic, social, and intellectual dimensions. Some common benefits include:

1. Innovation and R&D performance: Openness can enhance an organization's innovation and R&D performance by accessing external knowledge, resources, and capabilities (Laursen & Salter, 2006). This can lead to faster time-to-market, higher quality products or services, or increased patent output. These benefits can be quantified using metrics such as the number of new products launched, the revenue generated from new products, or the citation impact of patents.
2. Operational efficiency and cost savings: Openness can help organizations reduce costs and improve operational efficiency by leveraging external resources, avoiding duplication of efforts, or streamlining processes (Bengtsson et al., 2015). For example, using open-source software or open data can save organizations the cost of developing or acquiring proprietary solutions. These cost savings can be quantified by comparing the costs of open versus proprietary approaches or by measuring the efficiency gains in terms of time, resources, or quality.
3. Market access and competitiveness: Openness can help organizations enter new markets, reach new customers, or gain a competitive advantage by tapping into external networks and ecosystems (Appleyard & Chesbrough, 2017). For example, participating in open standards or open platforms can enable organizations to access larger markets or benefit from network effects. These benefits can be quantified using metrics such as market share, customer acquisition, or revenue growth in new markets.
4. Talent attraction and retention: Openness can help organizations attract and retain top talent by providing opportunities for learning, collaboration, and recognition (Henkel, 2006). For example, contributing to open-source projects or engaging in open innovation challenges can help employees develop new skills, build their reputation, or find meaning and purpose in their work. These benefits can be quantified using metrics such as employee engagement, job satisfaction, or retention rates.
5. Social and environmental impact: Openness can help organizations create positive social and environmental impact by sharing knowledge, resources, and solutions with wider communities (Haigh & Hoffman, 2012). For example, openly sharing research data or educational materials can accelerate scientific discovery or improve access to education. These benefits can be quantified using metrics such as the number of people reached, the social or environmental outcomes achieved, or the economic value created for society.

Comparing Costs

To calculate the ROI of strategic openness, organizations need to compare the benefits with the costs involved. Some common costs include:

1. Infrastructure and technology costs: Openness initiatives often require investments in new infrastructure, tools, or platforms to support collaboration, sharing, or innovation (Naqshbandi & Kaur, 2015). These costs can include hardware, software, cloud services, or maintenance expenses.
2. Personnel and training costs: Openness initiatives also require investments in personnel and training to build the necessary skills, capabilities, and culture (Lifshitz-Assaf, 2018). These costs can include hiring new staff, providing training and development programs, or allocating time and resources for employees to engage in open activities.
3. Intellectual property and legal costs: Openness initiatives may involve costs related to managing intellectual property rights, such as patents, copyrights, or trademarks (West, 2006). These costs can include filing, licensing, or enforcement expenses, as well as legal fees for negotiating agreements or resolving disputes.
4. Coordination and transaction costs: Openness initiatives often involve coordination and transaction costs related to searching, negotiating, and collaborating with external partners (Felin & Zenger, 2013). These costs can include time and resources spent on identifying partners, establishing agreements, or managing relationships.
5. Opportunity costs: Engaging in openness initiatives may also involve opportunity costs, such as forgone revenue from proprietary solutions or delayed time-to-market due to collaboration (Alexy et al., 2013). These costs should be considered when comparing the benefits and costs of openness versus alternative approaches.

ROI Calculations and Use Cases

Once the benefits and costs have been quantified, organizations can calculate the ROI of their openness initiatives using standard financial metrics such as net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), or payback period (Schrader, 2017). These metrics can help organizations compare the value of openness initiatives with other investments and make informed decisions about resource allocation and prioritization.

For example, a software company may calculate the ROI of contributing to an open-source project by comparing the development and opportunity costs with the benefits of increased market share, customer satisfaction, and innovation performance (Stuermer et al., 2009). An academic institution may calculate the ROI of sharing research data openly by comparing the infrastructure and personnel costs with the benefits of increased citation impact, funding opportunities, and societal impact (Tennant et al., 2020).

However, it is important to note that ROI calculations for openness initiatives are often based on assumptions and estimates and may not capture all the intangible or long-term benefits. Organizations should use ROI calculations as one input among others, such as strategic fit, stakeholder expectations, or ethical considerations, when making decisions about openness (Karhu & Botero, 2019).

Moreover, the ROI of openness initiatives may vary depending on the specific context, goals, and approach of each organization. Therefore, organizations should adapt and customize their ROI calculations based on their unique needs and circumstances and should be transparent about their assumptions and limitations.

7. Challenges and Risks

While strategic openness offers many potential benefits, it also involves significant challenges and risks that organizations need to be aware of and manage effectively. In this section, we discuss some common challenges and risks associated with openness and provide some strategies and best practices for addressing them.

Intellectual Property Concerns

One of the main challenges of openness is managing intellectual property (IP) rights, such as patents, copyrights, or trade secrets, in a way that balances protection and sharing (West, 2006). On the one hand, organizations may be reluctant to share their IP openly for fear of losing competitive advantage, revenue streams, or control over their innovations. On the other hand, overly restrictive IP policies can hinder collaboration, interoperability, and cumulative innovation.

To address these concerns, organizations can adopt various IP management strategies, such as:

1. Using open licensing models: Organizations can use open licensing models, such as Creative Commons or GNU licenses, to specify the terms and conditions under which their IP can be used, modified, or shared by others (Lessig, 2004). These licenses can help clarify the rights and obligations of users and contributors and facilitate legal sharing and reuse of IP.
2. Participating in patent pools or cross-licensing agreements: Organizations can participate in patent pools or cross-licensing agreements with other organizations to share their IP on a reciprocal basis and reduce the risk of patent infringement or litigation (Shapiro, 2001). These arrangements can help create a level playing field for innovation and enable access to a broader range of technologies and solutions.
3. Adopting defensive publishing or disclosure: Organizations can adopt defensive publishing or disclosure strategies to prevent others from patenting their innovations or blocking their use (Schultz & Urban, 2015). By publicly disclosing their inventions or ideas, organizations can establish prior art and reduce the risk of patent trolls or competitors claiming exclusive rights over their IP.
4. Developing open IP policies and governance: Organizations can develop clear and consistent policies and governance mechanisms for managing IP in open initiatives, such as contribution agreements, trademark policies, or dispute resolution procedures (Felin & Zenger, 2013). These policies can help align expectations, mitigate risks, and ensure fair and equitable treatment of all stakeholders involved.

Maintaining Quality and Trust

Another challenge of openness is maintaining the quality, reliability, and trustworthiness of the resources, data, or solutions shared openly (Cai et al., 2015). Without proper quality control or validation mechanisms, open initiatives may be vulnerable to errors, biases, or manipulations that can undermine their value and credibility. Moreover, openness may expose organizations to reputational risks if the shared resources are misused, misinterpreted, or associated with negative outcomes.

To maintain quality and trust in open initiatives, organizations can adopt various strategies, such as:

1. Establishing quality assurance processes: Organizations can establish rigorous quality assurance processes, such as peer review, testing, or certification, to ensure that the shared resources meet certain standards of accuracy, completeness, and reliability (Vetrò et al., 2016). These processes can involve both internal and external stakeholders and can be adapted to the specific needs and context of each initiative.
2. Providing documentation and support: Organizations can provide clear and comprehensive documentation and support for the shared resources, including user guides, tutorials, FAQs, or help desks (Cantor et al., 2020). This can help users understand how to interpret, use, and contribute to the resources properly and can prevent misunderstandings or misuses.
3. Building reputation and accountability systems: Organizations can build reputation and accountability systems that incentivize good behavior and penalize bad behavior in open initiatives (Mauer & Mauer, 2007). For example, they can use rating, feedback, or flagging mechanisms to signal the quality and trustworthiness of contributors or resources, or they can use sanctions or exclusions to discourage malicious or fraudulent activities.
4. Fostering a culture of transparency and integrity: Organizations can foster a culture of transparency and integrity in open initiatives by modeling and rewarding ethical and responsible behavior, such as disclosing conflicts of interest, acknowledging limitations or uncertainties, or correcting errors or mistakes (Nosek et al., 2015). This can help build trust and credibility with stakeholders and prevent reputational damage or backlash.

Sustainability and Funding

Ensuring the long-term sustainability and funding of open initiatives is another significant challenge, particularly for non-profit or public sector organizations (West & Gallagher, 2006). Open initiatives often rely on voluntary contributions, donations, or public funding, which can be unpredictable, insufficient, or subject to changing priorities or policies. Moreover, the benefits of openness may accrue to society as a whole rather than to the organizations that bear the costs, creating a misalignment of incentives and a free-rider problem.

To address these challenges, organizations can explore various sustainability and funding models, such as:

1. Developing value-added services or products: Organizations can develop value-added services or products that complement or build upon the openly shared resources, such as training, consulting, or customization services (Ågerfalk et al., 2015). These services can generate revenue streams that can help sustain the open initiative and create a virtuous cycle of investment and innovation.
2. Seeking diverse funding sources: Organizations can seek diverse funding sources that can provide stability and flexibility for the open initiative, such as membership fees, sponsorships, grants, or crowdfunding (Irwin, 2012). These sources can be aligned with the goals and values of the initiative and can be adapted to different stages of development or needs.
3. Collaborating with other organizations: Organizations can collaborate with other organizations that share similar goals or interests to pool resources, share costs, or create synergies for the open initiative (Feller et al., 2011). These collaborations can take various forms, such as consortia, alliances, or public-private partnerships, and can leverage the strengths and assets of each partner.
4. Advocating for policy and institutional support: Organizations can advocate for policy and institutional support that can create an enabling environment for open initiatives, such as open access mandates, open data policies, or open innovation funds (Tennant et al., 2020). These policies can provide recognition, incentives, and resources for organizations that engage in openness and can help mainstream and institutionalize open practices.

Change Management and Adoption

Implementing strategic openness often requires significant changes in the culture, processes, and skills of organizations, which can face resistance, inertia, or lack of awareness from employees, partners, or stakeholders (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al., 2012). Openness challenges traditional models of control, hierarchy, and secrecy and requires new mindsets, behaviors, and competencies, such as collaboration, sharing, and experimentation.

To manage change and foster adoption of openness, organizations can apply various strategies, such as:

1. Communicating a clear and compelling vision: Organizations can communicate a clear and compelling vision for openness that articulates its benefits, alignment with organizational goals, and value for stakeholders (Chesbrough & Brunswicker, 2014). This vision should be shared consistently and frequently through various channels and should be reinforced by leadership and champions.
2. Providing training and support: Organizations can provide training and support to employees and partners to build the necessary skills and capabilities for engaging in openness, such as data management, intellectual property, or community engagement (Feller et al., 2011). This training should be tailored to the specific needs and roles of each stakeholder group and should be complemented by ongoing coaching, mentoring, or peer learning.
3. Creating incentives and rewards: Organizations can create incentives and rewards that encourage and recognize the adoption of open practices, such as innovation challenges, hackathons, or awards (Boudreau & Lakhani, 2013). These incentives should be aligned with the goals and metrics of the initiative and should provide both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation for participants.
4. Piloting and iterating: Organizations can start with small-scale pilots or experiments of openness that can demonstrate quick wins, gather feedback, and build momentum for wider adoption (Feller et al., 2011). These pilots should be designed with clear objectives, metrics, and learning outcomes and should be iterated based on the results and insights gained.
5. Engaging stakeholders and building buy-in: Organizations can engage stakeholders, such as employees, partners, customers, or communities, in the design, implementation, and evaluation of open initiatives to build trust, ownership, and buy-in (Randhawa et al., 2016). This engagement should be authentic, transparent, and responsive to the needs and concerns of each stakeholder group and should seek to co-create value and impact.

8. Future Outlook

Looking ahead, the future of strategic openness is likely to be shaped by several emerging trends, potential applications, and evolving best practices. In this section, we discuss some of these future developments and their implications for organizations and society.

Emerging Trends

Some of the emerging trends that are likely to influence the future of strategic openness include:

1. Increasing demand for transparency and accountability: There is a growing demand from citizens, consumers, and regulators for greater transparency and accountability from organizations, particularly in areas such as data privacy, algorithmic decision-making, or environmental and social impact (Bertot et al., 2014). This demand is likely to drive more organizations to adopt open practices and disclose more information about their operations and outcomes.
2. Advancement of digital technologies: The rapid advancement of digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, or the Internet of Things, is creating new opportunities and challenges for openness (Chauhan et al., 2020). These technologies can enable new forms of collaboration, sharing, and innovation, but they also raise new questions about data ownership, security, and ethics that will require new governance frameworks and standards.
3. Shift towards open and inclusive innovation: There is a growing recognition that innovation is becoming more open, distributed, and inclusive, involving a wider range of actors and perspectives beyond traditional organizational boundaries (Bogers et al., 2018). This shift is likely to accelerate the adoption of open innovation practices and the formation of innovation ecosystems and platforms that enable co-creation and value sharing among diverse stakeholders.
4. Rise of social and environmental challenges: The world is facing urgent social and environmental challenges, such as climate change, inequality, or public health crises, that require collective action and open collaboration across sectors and borders (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013). These challenges are likely to drive more organizations to engage in open initiatives that can mobilize knowledge, resources, and solutions for the common good and create shared value for society.

Potential Applications

Some of the potential applications of strategic openness that may emerge in the future include:

1. Open governance and policymaking: Governments and public sector organizations may increasingly adopt open governance and policymaking practices, such as open budgeting, open legislation, or participatory decision-making, to enhance transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement (Wirtz & Birkmeyer, 2015). These practices can leverage digital technologies and platforms to enable real-time feedback, deliberation, and co-creation between governments and citizens.
2. Open supply chains and logistics: Companies may increasingly adopt open supply chain and logistics practices, such as sharing data, capacity, or assets with partners and competitors, to optimize efficiency, resilience, and sustainability (Dahlander & O'Mahony, 2016). These practices can leverage blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies to create transparent, secure, and trustworthy networks for collaboration and value exchange.
3. Open health and medicine: Healthcare organizations may increasingly adopt open health and medicine practices, such as sharing clinical trial data, biomedical research, or patient-generated data, to accelerate drug discovery, personalized medicine, and population health management (Angelis et al., 2017). These practices can leverage artificial intelligence and other advanced analytics to identify patterns, predict outcomes, and inform decision-making.
4. Open education and skills development: Educational institutions may increasingly adopt open education and skills development practices, such as sharing curricula, learning resources, or assessment tools, to enhance access, quality, and relevance of education and training (Ehlers, 2011). These practices can leverage online platforms and communities to enable peer learning, mentoring, and credentialing across formal and informal settings.

Evolving Best Practices

As strategic openness becomes more widespread and mature, organizations will need to continually evolve their best practices and standards to address new challenges and opportunities. Some of the areas where best practices may evolve include:

1. Governance and accountability: Organizations will need to develop more robust and adaptive governance and accountability mechanisms for open initiatives, such as multi-stakeholder boards, ethical frameworks, or impact assessment tools (Felin & Zenger, 2013). These mechanisms should ensure that open initiatives are aligned with societal values and expectations and can demonstrate their positive impact and value creation.
2. Data management and stewardship: Organizations will need to adopt more responsible and ethical data management and stewardship practices, such as data privacy, security, quality, and interoperability (Michener, 2015). These practices should respect the rights and preferences of data subjects and enable the responsible sharing and reuse of data for public benefit.
3. Intellectual property and licensing: Organizations will need to develop more flexible and interoperable intellectual property and licensing frameworks that can balance the interests of creators, users, and society (Ouyang & Xiao, 2021). These frameworks should enable the open sharing and reuse of knowledge and innovation while providing appropriate attribution, protection, and compensation for creators.
4. Collaboration and community engagement: Organizations will need to cultivate more inclusive and equitable collaboration and community engagement practices that can enable diverse participation, contribution, and value creation (Mergel et al., 2020). These practices should foster trust, respect, and mutual understanding among stakeholders and enable the co-creation of solutions that benefit all.

9. Conclusion

In conclusion, strategic openness is becoming an increasingly important and transformative approach for organizations across sectors and domains. By embracing openness, organizations can tap into external knowledge, resources, and creativity to drive innovation, enhance transparency, foster collaboration, and create shared value for society.

However, implementing strategic openness is not a simple or straightforward process. It requires careful planning, execution, and continuous improvement based on clear goals, metrics, and feedback loops. Organizations need to navigate complex challenges and risks, such as intellectual property concerns, quality and trust issues, sustainability and funding needs, and change management and adoption barriers.

To succeed in the open world, organizations need to develop new mindsets, skillsets, and toolsets that can enable them to effectively engage with external stakeholders, share resources and knowledge, and co-create solutions to complex problems. They need to adopt a strategic and systemic approach to openness that aligns with their mission, values, and capabilities and adapts to the changing needs and expectations of their stakeholders.

As the future unfolds, strategic openness is likely to become even more critical and pervasive, driven by the increasing demand for transparency and accountability, the advancement of digital technologies, the shift towards open and inclusive innovation, and the rise of social and environmental challenges. Organizations that can anticipate and harness these trends and evolve their best practices and standards will be better positioned to thrive and lead in the open world.

Ultimately, strategic openness is not just a business strategy or a management approach, but a philosophy and a way of being that recognizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of all actors and systems in society. By embracing openness, organizations can not only create value for themselves but also contribute to the greater good and help build a more open, inclusive, and sustainable world for all.

10. References

• Ågerfalk, P. J., Fitzgerald, B., & Stol, K. J. (2015). Software Sourcing in the Age of Open: Leveraging the Unknown Workforce. Springer.
• Alexy, O., George, G., & Salter, A. J. (2013). Cui bono? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 270-291.
• Al-Sharieh, S., Ait-Sahalia, Y., & Dimopoulos, A. (2018). Open Data and its Impact on the Economy. In Open Data and Knowledge Society (pp. 39-56). Springer, Cham.
• Amrollahi, A., Ghapanchi, A. H., & Talaei-Khoei, A. (2015). Using crowdsourcing tools for implementing open strategy: A case study in education. In 2015 Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2015. Americas Conference on Information Systems.
• Angelis, A., Kanavos, P., & Montibeller, G. (2017). Resource allocation and priority setting in health care: a multi-criteria decision analysis problem of value?. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research, 17(5), 435-450.
• Appleyard, M. M., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2017). The dynamics of open strategy: from adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 310-321.
• Attard, J., Orlandi, F., Scerri, S., & Auer, S. (2015). A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 399-418.
• Bagherzadeh, M., Markovic, S., Cheng, J., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2021). How Does Outside-In Open Innovation Influence Innovation Performance? Analyzing the Mediating Roles of Knowledge Sharing and Innovation Strategy. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(1), 129-144.
• Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (2014). Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Springer Nature.
• Bengtsson, L., Lakemond, N., Lazzarotti, V., Manzini, R., Pellegrini, L., & Tell, F. (2015). Open to a select few? Matching partners and knowledge content for open innovation performance. Creativity and innovation management, 24(1), 72-86.
• Beres, D. (2019). Facebook's Open Compute Project is driving data center innovation. CIO Dive.
• Bertot, J. C., Gorham, U., Jaeger, P. T., Sarin, L. C., & Choi, H. (2014). Big data, open government and e-government: Issues, policies and recommendations. Information polity, 19(1, 2), 5-16.
• Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., & Moedas, C. (2018). Open innovation: research, practices, and policies. California management review, 60(2), 5-16.
• Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner production, 45, 9-19.
• Boudreau, K. J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2013). Using the crowd as an innovation partner. Harvard business review, 91(4), 60-69.
• Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause review, 43(1), 16-20.
• Cai, Z., Huang, Q., Liu, H., & Liang, L. (2016). The moderating role of information technology capability in the relationship between supply chain collaboration and organizational responsiveness: Evidence from China. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.
• Calderón, C. (2017). The OGP: A global partnership for open and inclusive governance. In Achieving Sustainable E-Government in Pacific Island States (pp. 417-434). Springer, Cham.
• Camison, C., & Villar-Lopez, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of business research, 67(1), 2891-2902.
• Cantor, M., Nordberg, L., Pavone, B., & Shortt, M. (2020). Research Guide: Open Access Resources. Columbia University Libraries.
• Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2014). Business model innovation as antecedent of sustainable enterprise excellence and resilience. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(3), 440-463.
• Chauhan, C., Singh, A., & Luthra, S. (2021). Barriers to industry 4.0 adoption and its performance implications: An empirical investigation of emerging economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124809.
• Chesbrough, H., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California management review, 50(1), 57-76.
• Chesbrough, H., & Brunswicker, S. (2014). A fad or a phenomenon?: The adoption of open innovation practices in large firms. Research-Technology Management, 57(2), 16-25.
• Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation?. Research policy, 39(6), 699-709.
• Dahlander, L., & O'Mahony, S. (2016). One foot in, one foot out: how does individuals' external search breadth affect innovation outcomes?. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 280-302.
• Ehlers, U. D. (2011). From open educational resources to open educational practices. Elearning papers, 23, 1-8.
• Feller, J., Finnegan, P., & Nilsson, O. (2011). Open innovation and public administration: transformational typologies and business model impacts. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(3), 358-374.
• Felin, T., & Zenger, T. R. (2013). Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Research Policy, 43(5), 914-925.
• Goëta, S., & Janssen, M. (2020). Open data practices in the US federal governments: 10-year retrospect. In Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (pp. 239-250). Springer, Cham.
• Gunasekaran, A., Yusuf, Y. Y., Adeleye, E. O., Papadopoulos, T., Kovvuri, D., & Geyi, D. G. (2019). Agile manufacturing: an evolutionary review of practices. International Journal of Production Research, 57(15-16), 5154-5174.
• Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business. Organizational dynamics, 41(2), 126-134.
• Henkel, J. (2006). Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux. Research policy, 35(7), 953-969.
• Hodgkinson-Williams, C., & Trotter, H. (2018). A social justice framework for understanding open educational resources and practices in the Global South. Journal of Learning for Development-JL4D, 5(3), 204-224.
• Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., Olander, H., Blomqvist, K., & Panfilii, V. (2012). Orchestrating R&D networks: Absorptive capacity, network stability, and innovation appropriability. European Management Journal, 30(6), 552-563.
• Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop. Harvard business review, 84(3), 58-66.
• Irwin, D. (2012). Open data business models. Roadmap for open ICT ecosystems, 78.
• Iyengar, K., Sweeney, J. R., & Montealegre, R. (2015). Information technology use as a learning mechanism: The impact of IT use on knowledge transfer effectiveness, absorptive capacity, and franchisee performance. Mis Quarterly, 39(3), 615-641.
• Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information systems management, 29(4), 258-268.
• Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Lang, K. R. (2011). Boundary management in online communities: Case studies of the Nine Inch Nails and ccMixter music remix sites. Long Range Planning, 44(5-6), 440-457.
• Karhu, T., & Botero, A. (2019). OPENROI Deliverable 1.1: Working Document on Metrics for Measuring Openness.
• Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic management journal, 27(2), 131-150.
• Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. Penguin.
• Levine, S. S., & Prietula, M. J. (2014). Open collaboration for innovation: Principles and performance. Organization Science, 25(5), 1414-1433.
• Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2018). Dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA: The critical role of professional identity in open innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 63(4), 746-782.
• Mauer, C., & Mauer, A. (2007). Trust as a moderator for the impact of social interaction and goal congruence on radical innovation. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 3(2), 169-183.
• Mergel, I., Gong, Y., & Bertot, J. (2018). Agile government: Systematic literature review and future research. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 291-298.
• Michener, G. (2015). Policy evaluation via composite indexes: Qualitative lessons from international transparency policy indexes. World Development, 74, 184-196.
• Mishra, S., Bali, S., & Gibbons, S. (2021). Open Textbook Library: Sustainability and Strategies for Successful Adoption. In Social Justice and Education in the 21st Century (pp. 231-240). Springer, Cham.
• Naqshbandi, M. M., & Kaur, S. (2014). Do managerial ties support or stifle open innovation?. Industrial Management & Data Systems.
• Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., ... & Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422-1425.
• Ouyang, K., & Xiao, X. (2021). Compulsory licensing under the TRIPS Agreement: Policy options for China. In Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer. Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Pevsner, J. (2015). Bioinformatics and functional genomics. John Wiley & Sons.
• Pitt, R., Jordan, K., de los Arcos, B., Farrow, R., & Weller, M. (2019). The open textbook toolkit: Seeding successful partnerships for collaboration between academic libraries and university presses. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 7(1).
• Radziwill, N., & Boadu, J. (2012, July). Open Innovation for Sustainability: Using Competitive Markets to Drive Change. In PICMET'12: Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (pp. 2040-2046). IEEE.
• Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2016). A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(6), 750-772.
• Raymond, E. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 12(3), 23-49.
• Razmi, J., Sangari, M. S., & Ghodsi, R. (2009). Developing a practical framework for ERP readiness assessment using fuzzy analytic network process. Advances in Engineering Software, 40(11), 1168-1178.
• Schrader, C. (2018). A Simple Method to Determine ROI for Open Source Projects. Open Source Business Resource, (May 2018).
• Schultz, J., & Urban, J. M. (2012). Protecting open innovation: the defensive patent license as a new approach to patent threats, transaction costs, and tactical disarmament. Harv. JL & Tech., 26, 1.
• Shapiro, C. (2001). Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. Innovation policy and the economy, 1, 119-150.
• Stuermer, M., Spaeth, S., & Von Krogh, G. (2009). Extending private‐collective innovation: a case study. R&d Management, 39(2), 170-191.
• Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. Penguin.
• Tennant, J. P., Crane, H., Crick, T., Davila, J., Enkhbayar, A., Havemann, J., ... & Vanholsbeeck, M. (2019). Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing. Publications, 7(2), 34.
• UNESCO. (2019). Open Educational Resources (OER). Education Sector, UNESCO.
• Vetrò, A., Canova, L., Torchiano, M., Minotas, C. O., Iemma, R., & Morando, F. (2016). Open data quality measurement framework: Definition and application to Open Government Data. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 325-337.
• West, J. (2006). Does appropriability enable or retard open innovation. Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, 109-133.
• West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open‐source software. R&d Management, 36(3), 319-331.
• West, J., & O'mahony, S. (2008). The role of participation architecture in growing sponsored open source communities. Industry and innovation, 15(2), 145-168.
• Wiley, D., & Hilton III, J. L. (2018). Defining OER-enabled pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4).
• Wirtz, B. W., & Birkmeyer, S. (2015). Open government: origin, development, and conceptual perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(5), 381-396.