In two seminal papers, Dahlander and Gann (2010) and Huizingh (2011) try to define openness as used in open innovation. Here, I try to use these definitions of openness in describing openness in education, drawing some lessons for both sectors.
Definitions on openness in innovation
Although Huizingh (2011) bases its definitions on Dahlander and Gann (2010), it is easier to start with his distinction between the innovation process and the innovation outcome. Openness in terms of the process is determined by the amount of knowledge which is obtained externally, or developed internally. The openness of the outcome is determined by the fact if the resulting process or product is proprietary or made freely available for external partners.
|Innovation process:||Innovation outcome:|
|Closed||Closed Innovation: proprietary innovation developed inhouse.||Public Innovation: the outcome is available for others, whereas the innovation was developed inhouse.|
|Open||Private Open Innovation: a proprietary innovation, developed with the input of external partners.||Open Source Innovation: both the development as the result of the innovation are open.|
Source: Huizingh (2011, p. 3)
Closed innovation is the traditional way innovations were developed. The aim of public innovation often is the development of a standard. For example, by making the PC the standard in computing during the 80’s, IBM could control part of the market for personal computers.
Another way to divide open innovation is to make a distinction between inbound and outbound innovation. In the definition of Huizingh (2011, p. 4): Inbound open innovation refers to internal use of external knowledge, while outbound open innovation refers to external exploitation of internal knowledge. Dahlander and Gann (2010) combined these types with the question whether there is money involved or not.
|Inbound Innovation||Outbound Innovation|
Source: Dahlander and Gann (2010, p. 702)
Revealing seems to be used to attract collaboration, especially in situations without strong IPR regimes. It also resembles Public Innovation of Huizing (2011), in aiming to set a market standard. Sourcing refers to the absorption of external available knowledge to create new products and services. The literature suggests an inverted U-shaped curve: searching for external knowledge will be profitable up to a certain level, after which the “over-search” will become more costly than profitable.
There seems to be a paradox in openness: as Huizingh (2011) states, companies perform more inbound than outbound activities (which recently confirmed by studies of the open innovation network, http://oi-net.eu/), yet inbound activities of one organization should generate reciprocal outbound effects from other organizations?
Openness in education
As we noted elsewhere (De Langen, 2013), there are a lot of definitions of openness in education. Openness in the sense of free to obtain (MOOCs), free to use (OER) or the absence of entry barriers (Open Universities).
If we define the process as a measure of openness of the process, leading to the product, we can distinguish between free to access, free to use or even collaboration in design and production. The outcome is the education, the course or the program. Traditional education is mostly distributed in a closed form: it is exclusively for students of the institution. Traditional education is often designed and developed by a single teacher, by an internal group of teachers (both examples of closed process) and in some cases with developers outside of the own institution (often subsidy-led) or the usage of open resources and MOOCs. The Open Outcome-side describes the production of open educational products and services. The closed production of open outcomes are typically of the production of MOOCs. A situation of open production and open outcomes is found in situations where communities both develop and use educational resources. For example in the case of knowledge bases and portals, developed and exploited by communities of fellow teachers; two examples are MERLOT and FEmTechNet.
|Educational process:||Educational outcome:|
|Closed||Closed Education: traditional education with an one-to-one relationship between students and teachers.||Free to use: the outcome (courses, programs) are open to use, but the teaching/developing process is closed. We can distinguish different regimes:
a. Traditional education without fees, as in large parts of Europe is practice; Open Universities
b. MOOCs, where the product is free, but the process of developing the course is proprietary.
c. Certain forms of Open Access, in the sense that the production process belongs to the researchers (holding the copyrights, sometimes having to pay a fee), whereas the published research results are free for the public.
|Open||Use of free: the use of free (open) resources to develop educational resources for traditional institutions; for example Lumen Learning offers to teach educators to use OER to develop courses and programs for usage within traditional institutions.||Open Education: Open educational resources, DOCCs, communities of practice and alike.|
If we look into the role of money in (open) education, than is the pecuniary side of the inbound knowledge acquisition the fact that most teachers use standard textbooks, produced and sold in a for-profit-business model by publishers. Of course, in traditional education teaching is one of the courses of income, however there are more opportunities. For example,
|Inbound education||Outbound education|
|Pecuniary||Acquiring textbooks and materials.||Selling knowledge, texts and competences.|
|Non-pecuniary||Sourcing: collaborating to acquire knowledge and resources.||Revealing: collaborating to supply knowledge, competences and resources.|
Another way to categorize education is based on Yunus et al. (2010). In their view, organizations optimize either financial profit or social value. On the other dimension, they distinguish the way organizations are financed: either they have to earn back the invested capital, or they don’t. In this last case, another organization will supply the funds necessary for the long term survival of the organization. Traditional HEI’s were placed either in the Not-for-profit category for public education; or in the For-profit-category for private educational firms. Interesting are those organizations (websites, portals, knowledge bases ect.) which resulted in the past years, as result of inter-organizational collaborations, subsidies or individual initiatives.
|No recovery of||Not sustainable in the long term||For profit organizations||Repayment of|
(depending on external funds)
|(Traditional) Not-for-profit organizations||Social businesses||Invested capital
Next to the educational knowledge and competences, their survival will depend on the capability to generate funds to reimburse the capital used in the production and exploitation of open education.
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation?. Research policy, 39(6), 699-709.
De Langen, F. H. T. (2013). Strategies for sustainable business models for open educational resources. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(2), 53-66.
Huizingh, E. K. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2-9.
Open Innovation in European industries (2015), study for the European Commission, http://oi-net.eu/.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehman-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43, 308-325.