Despite the growing interest, Open Innovation (OI) in Intangible Assets (IAs) research is still fragmented and displays a limited contextual focus. This paper aims to provide a clearer view of these issues and represents a first step toward filling such research gap. A systematic literature review and a synthesis of highquality contributions with a focus on a general overview of research on OI and IAs in OI processes have been carried out. By critically evaluating the current body of literature and definitions, we have moved a step further toward comprehending the multiple facets of existing research and highlight several promising areas for future development. In particular, we have analyzed the role of IAs in OI practices by selecting a synthesis and a critical review of their different exploitations. We have combined multiple algorithms to produce a clear topical taxonomy of the multiple strands of research lying at the interface of OI and IAs.

Introduction

The topics of Intangible Assets (IA) and Open Innovation (OI) represent research themes among the most fertile in the last 30 years. Although they have developed almost independently of one another, a common conceptual theme has deeply interconnected their evolution: knowledge, in all its different definitions and interpretations. Interest in intangible assets (IAs) has casually arisen since the beginning of the past century (Veblen, 1908). But, only in the mid-twentieth century researchers’ attention was attracted by the work of Polanyi (1958) on tacit knowledge, which kept inside the seed of the future evolution of intangible assets. At the end of the twentieth century, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) presented their highly influential work on ‘‘the knowledge creating company’’ and paved the way for the formulation of tangible/intangible asset principles. Throughout the past 20 years, a wide array of studies by several authors dealt with the concept of non-physical assets, which proved to sustain the competitive advantage of firms. The role of IAs, therefore, has assumed an even more considerable relevance that has led to an increasing rate of publications in academic journals. As often happens in the evolution of a discipline, a sudden exploit of interest, which is deemed to be caused by a revolutionary cultural acquisition, is, in reality, a consequence of an evolution. This has been the case of Open Innovation (OI) as far as the innovation management field is concerned. Indeed, Dahlander and Gann (2010), in their extensive literature review, put into evidence that, sometime before Gann and Chesbrough burst with their work (2003) into the scientific literature on innovation, many authors had formulated concepts and questions related to OI, as absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990), how to obtain economic returns from innovation (Teece, 1986), the opposition between exploration versus exploitation (March, 1991). In particular, Mowery (2009) affirms that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, ‘‘many of the elements of the ‘‘Open Innovation’’ approach to R&D management [were] visible’’ and that closed innovation activities were even less in number than open innovation ones. Unquestionably, as further explained in the definition given by Chesbrough et al (2006), the role of OI paradigm for its capability of fostering technological projects from internal or external origins to market can be considered fundamental to business structures. Actually, an increasing number of firms have recognized the benefit of external knowledge to support their innovation activities (Chen et al, 2015).