IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i14p5522-d1199080.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open Innovation for the Construction Sector: Concept Overview and Test Bed Development to Boost Energy-Efficient Solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Graziano Salvalai

    (Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (ABC), Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Marta Maria Sesana

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering and Mathematics, University of Brescia, 25123 Brescia, Italy)

  • Paolo Dell’Oro

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering and Mathematics, University of Brescia, 25123 Brescia, Italy)

  • Diletta Brutti

    (Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (ABC), Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy)

Abstract

Open innovation has recently emerged as an important concept in both academic research and industrial practice, and it is now also becoming increasingly important in the public policy field due to the innovation challenges in different domains, such as climate change, sustainability, and growth to name a few, but only in some value chains (i.e., automotive, manufacturing, aerospace). According to a report by McKinsey and Co., the construction industry lags behind others in adopting innovations; in fact, less than 1% of the construction industry’s revenue goes back into technology research and development. This work focuses on the current debate on the underdeveloped application of the open innovation (OI) approach to the construction sector. Namely, the foundational question is whether the OI model can be the answer to boosting innovation for the decarbonization of buildings. The research goal is to go a step further by analyzing its internal effectiveness, focusing on introducing and defining the Open Innovation Test Bed (OITB) concept. The study provides a systematic and bibliometric literature review of OI starting from a critical analysis of the concept definition and the evolution of the paradigm from the initial application to the first declination for the construction sector. All the steps analyzed allowed us to make an overall and comprehensive review of the OI concept, which is usually applied to other sectors, considering the ecosystem as the most effective declination of the OI paradigm for OITB development for building envelope solutions, thus providing answers to the two objectives identified in the introduction. Finally, the limitations of prior OI studies and the challenges for the OITB new construction paradigm are discussed, and we make recommendations for future opportunities and approach development to tackle and boost energy-efficient envelope solutions for the construction industries.

Suggested Citation

  • Graziano Salvalai & Marta Maria Sesana & Paolo Dell’Oro & Diletta Brutti, 2023. "Open Innovation for the Construction Sector: Concept Overview and Test Bed Development to Boost Energy-Efficient Solutions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:14:p:5522-:d:1199080
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/14/5522/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/14/5522/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pushpananthan, Gouthanan & Elmquist, Maria, 2022. "Joining forces to create value: The emergence of an innovation ecosystem," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    2. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    3. Ji Yeon Yang & Taewoo Roh, 2019. "Open for Green Innovation: From the Perspective of Green Process and Green Consumer Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Felin, Teppo & Zenger, Todd R., 2014. "Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 914-925.
    5. Wim Vanhaverbeke & Federico Frattini & Nadine Roijakkers & Muhammad Usman (ed.), 2018. "Researching Open Innovation in SMEs," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 10733, December.
    6. Francesco Cappa & Federica Rosso & Darren Hayes, 2019. "Monetary and Social Rewards for Crowdsourcing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marta Maria Sesana & Paolo Dell’Oro, 2024. "Sustainability and Resilience Assessment Methods: A Literature Review to Support the Decarbonization Target for the Construction Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-24, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schäper, Thomas & Jung, Christopher & Foege, Johann Nils & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Fainshmidt, Stav & Nüesch, Stephan, 2023. "The S-shaped relationship between open innovation and financial performance: A longitudinal perspective using a novel text-based measure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    2. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    3. Shi, Xianwei & Liang, Xingkun & Luo, Yining, 2023. "Unpacking the intellectual structure of ecosystem research in innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    4. Reiter, Andreas & Stonig, Joachim & Frankenberger, Karolin, 2024. "Managing multi-tiered innovation ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    5. Fu, Shihui & Sun, Yi & Gao, Xue, 2022. "Balancing openness and control to improve the performance of crowdsourcing contests for product innovation: A configurational perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    6. Chaudhary, Sanjay & Kaur, Puneet & Talwar, Shalini & Islam, Nazrul & Dhir, Amandeep, 2022. "Way off the mark? Open innovation failures: Decoding what really matters to chart the future course of action," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 1010-1025.
    7. Barrett, Gillian & Tsekouras, George, 2022. "A tango with a gorilla: An exploration of the microfoundations of open innovation partnerships between young innovative companies and multi-national enterprises," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    8. Just, Julian, 2024. "Natural language processing for innovation search – Reviewing an emerging non-human innovation intermediary," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    9. Marius Băban & Călin Florin Băban & Tudor Mitran, 2023. "Universities as an External Knowledge Source for Industry: Investigating the Antecedents’ Impact on the Importance Perception of Their Collaboration in Open Innovation Using an Ordinal Regression-Neur," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-23, March.
    10. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    11. Jianzhuang Zheng & Muhammad Usman Khurram & Lifeng Chen, 2022. "Can Green Innovation Affect ESG Ratings and Financial Performance? Evidence from Chinese GEM Listed Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-32, July.
    12. Rizvi, Syed Kumail Abbas & Rahat, Birjees & Naqvi, Bushra & Umar, Muhammad, 2024. "Revolutionizing finance: The synergy of fintech, digital adoption, and innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    13. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    14. Rubio-Andrés, Mercedes & Ramos-González, Mª del Mar & Sastre-Castillo, Miguel Ángel & Gutiérrez-Broncano, Santiago, 2023. "Stakeholder pressure and innovation capacity of SMEs in the COVID-19 pandemic: Mediating and multigroup analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    15. Angélica Pigola & Priscila Rezende Costa, 2022. "In search of understanding about knowledge and learning on innovation performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 3995-4022, July.
    16. Salgado, Stéphane & Hemonnet-Goujot, Aurelie & Henard, David H. & de Barnier, Virginie, 2020. "The dynamics of innovation contest experience: An integrated framework from the customer’s perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 29-43.
    17. Radziwon, Agnieszka & Bogers, Marcel, 2019. "Open innovation in SMEs: Exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 573-587.
    18. Luciana Cingolani & Tim Hildebrandt, 2022. "Incentive Structures for the Adoption of Crowdsourcing in Public Policy: A Bureaucratic Politics Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Jianfei Zhao & Anan Pongtornkulpanich & Wenjin Cheng, 2022. "The Impact of Board Size on Green Innovation in China’s Heavily Polluting Enterprises: The Mediating Role of Innovation Openness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-20, July.
    20. Bernd Ebersberger & Nils Mevenkamp, 2016. "Open Innovation in Eastern Europe and Central Asia," Journal of Business Administration Research, Journal of Business Administration Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 5(2), pages 8-19, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:14:p:5522-:d:1199080. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.