MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7104528703 · doi:10.1177/21582440251387390

Navigating Interdependencies In Collaborative Innovation: A Data-Driven Dematel Framework

2025· article· en· W7104528703 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCollaboration in agile enterprises
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLietuvos Mokslo Taryba
KeywordsInterdependenceBlueprintCorporate governanceKnowledge sharingOpen innovationDynamic capabilitiesCollaborative learningCompetitive advantagePrincipal (computer security)Serendipity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collaborative innovation is vital for organisational competitiveness, yet the literature still offers an incomplete picture of how its numerous drivers interact. This study advances that understanding by consolidating 34 factors from a content-centric review of recent research and distilling them to eight core variables: market dynamics, knowledge creation and acquisition, technological learning, trust, innovation culture, organisational learning, innovation capabilities and governance. We engage a ten-member panel of academics and industry experts and employ the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method - an innovative multi-criteria decision-making approach - to quantify the causal structure among these factors. The resulting network relationship map shows that trust, innovation culture and organisational learning form the principal engine of collaborative innovation, exerting the strongest net positive influence on the system. Knowledge creation and technological learning surface mainly as outcomes of this relational engine, while market dynamics and governance assume balanced, context-sensitive positions. Innovation capability emerges as a hinge factor, receiving almost as much influence as it delivers, thereby converting relational gains into competitive advantage. By integrating DEMATEL with network visualisation, the study provides one of the first data-driven blueprints for managing the dynamics of collaborative and open innovation. The reference model guides managers in prioritising actions—cultivating trust, fostering an experimentation-friendly culture, institutionalising learning routines and aligning governance with environmental turbulence - across both firm and network levels. Future research should examine the temporal evolution of these interactions and explore how emerging technologies such as AI, digital twins and blockchain further reshape collaborative innovation ecosystems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE OpenSame topicCollaboration in agile enterprisesFrench-language works237,207