Systematizing Barriers to Open Innovation Adoption: A Multi-Method Approach Based on Meta Synthesis, Fuzzy Interpretive Structural Modeling, and MICMAC Analysis

Abstract

Open innovation, as a dominant paradigm in innovation management, encourages organizations to deliberately leverage inbound and outbound knowledge flows to accelerate innovation and create value; however, its adoption and implementation are confronted with multifaceted barriers that are interwoven, multi-level, and dynamic. The central problem of this study is that although the existing literature has identified numerous barriers to open innovation, it has provided limited attention to the causal structure, hierarchical ordering, and the extent of mutual influence among these barriers. Accordingly, this study aims to identify, categorize, and model the structural dynamics of barriers to open innovation adoption. This research employs a sequential multi-method design. In the first phase, a systematic literature review grounded in the PRISMA 2020 framework was integrated with a meta-synthesis approach; relevant studies were extracted and analyzed from six reputable scientific databases. From 612 initial records, after removing duplicates and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 24 articles were selected for the final meta-synthesis. This phase yielded 23 barriers organized into six overarching dimensions: individual/behavioral, cultural, structural/managerial, knowledge/capability, relational/governance, and infrastructural/environmental barriers. In the second phase, Fuzzy-ISM and Fuzzy-MICMAC analysis were conducted, drawing on judgments from a panel of 14 academic and industrial experts. The findings reveal that weak knowledge absorptive capacity, misalignment between reward and motivation systems, and insufficient support from top management occupy the lowest hierarchical level, functioning as fundamental root drivers. A control-oriented and low-trust culture, weak learning and knowledge-sharing culture, and insufficient inter-organizational trust constitute linkage variables. By contrast, intellectual property concerns, difficulty in selecting appropriate partners, and limitations in financial and time resources emerge primarily as dependent outcome variables. The resulting structural framework provides managers with a prioritized intervention map, directing focus toward root-level levers rather than surface-level symptoms.