Purpose – The authors aim to investigate the concept of open innovation, identify different open innovation practices which help describe the continuum between closed and open innovation, and propose a framework that suggests an association between innovation contexts and practices. Design/methodology/approach – The authors first identify the variables to describe innovation contexts and practices. Such variables are developed based on the literature and on a previous paper by the same authors in 2011. Then, they establish an association between contexts and practices, and test it through cases drawn from the existing literature. Findings – The paper proposes a detailed assessment of open innovation practices and suggests the association between each of them and diverse innovation contexts. A few case examples drawn from the literature prove coherent with the theoretical framework underlying the proposed association. Practical implications – The authors’ results (and specifically the framework) enhance the organizations’ awareness of the open innovation concept and the possible practices to implement it, as well as supporting managers to better select open innovation practices in different contexts. Originality/value – This paper discusses the concept of open innovation practices to enhance the comprehension of the open innovation concept. Also, to the authors’ knowledge, the proposed association between context and practices is original in that there are no similar theoretical frameworks that help organizations selecting innovation practices.

Knowledge Supply Chains (KSCs) are the networks that provide knowledge supplies so nourishing one or more business processes carried out by a firm. KSCs are particularly crucial for innovation development processes. The need to recur to open KSCs during the accomplishment of such processes is indeed emphasized by the recent literature on open innovation (Kirschbaum, 2005; Chesbrough, 2006; Gassman, 2006; Van de Vrande et al., 2009). However, as scholars adopt different definitions of openness and stress different practices, it is not clear what open really means (Dahlander and Gann, 2010). Research is called for to further classify the different practices and, above all, to measure the impact of open vs. closed innovation so as to support companies in the identification of the right balance (Enkel et al., 2009). In the paper a methodology to map and analyze KSCs arising during an innovation development process is proposed. The methodology is described with specific reference to New Product Development (NPD) which is widely common as well as strategic in many firms. The methodology supports the characterization of the knowledge supplies (also in terms of the adopted collaboration approach) and the assessment of their criticality within the NPD process. Hence, it (1) contributes to make the concept of openness clearer and (2) provide companies with a clear picture of the process and its criticalities.