Micro-Process of Open Innovation in Megaprojects Under Sense-Making Perspective

Abstract

Compared with traditional closed innovation, open innovation brings more new ideas, technologies, and resources to megaprojects, which is becoming increasingly important in the face of growing complexity and sustainability. Drawing on the application of sense-making theory in organizational change, this study conducts an empirical case study to explore how open innovation is carried out in megaprojects, as well as how to explain the processes at the micro level. The Changchun Metropolitan Circle Ring Expressway phase II project was selected as the analytical case and grounded coding technology was adopted to analyze the realization process of open innovation. The results revealed that managers as organizers first completed their own sense making and then influenced others’ sense making via sense giving to unify understanding and complete innovation mode transformation. Moreover, managers need to adjust sense making for themselves and sense giving for others according to interactive feedback. This study illustrated that open innovation strategies need to enact some new relevant routines in order for a cognitive reorientation to take place. A multi-level and multi-dimensional micro-mechanism and process was proposed to guide open innovation behavior in megaprojects.

1. Introduction

Megaprojects can be defined as complex and large-scale investment undertakings that significantly shape the trajectory of societies and economies and often require long-term commitments of resources and efforts [1]. These projects, spanning domains such as infrastructure development, energy exploration, and urban planning, stretch the boundaries of conventional project management paradigms. They encompass a wide range of endeavors aimed at promoting the sustainable development of society, economy, and ecology [2]. Given their complexity and sustainability, megaprojects represent an ideal setting for fostering innovation [3]. Their technical and organizational complexity necessitates substantial exploratory and exploitative innovation during the delivery process [4]. However, it is difficult for traditional independent innovation to meet the continued creative thinking in this area that will ensure the well-being and progress of urban populations in the future. Inter-organizational collaboration and large project networks promote the innovation process beyond the boundaries and inertia of a single organization and drive the transition toward open innovation [5].

Open innovation posits that valuable ideas can and should flow freely across organizational boundaries, fostering collaboration and the integration of diverse knowledge sources. This notion holds particular relevance in the context of infrastructure projects, where the complexity and uncertainty inherent in these endeavors demand a departure from closed, internally focused innovation models [6]. By embracing open innovation, megaprojects can tap into a broader spectrum of ideas, technologies, and solutions, enhancing their potential for success. For instance, partnerships with academic institutions, strategic alliances, and platforms or communities can bring in fresh perspectives and cutting-edge knowledge that might otherwise remain untapped [7]. However, the implementation of open innovation is not without hurdles. Issues such as intellectual property protection, disparate interests among collaborators, communication barriers, and so on impede the flow of knowledge and pose significant obstacles [8]. Thus, it is necessary to overcome organizational barriers and inertia to ensure that open innovation proceeds smoothly in megaprojects.

Even though the open innovation paradigm is in its maturity, its application in megaprojects has been scarcely studied [9]. In particular, there is no sufficient research studying the micro-level processes of how open innovation is carried out. In this sense, research lacks the current state of its implementation, the identification of prevailing challenges, and project management mechanisms to facilitate its effective adoption. When faced with changes in innovation strategy, the involved parties engage in meaning reconstruction to develop a meaningful framework to understand the nature of the intended strategic change [10]. Sense making is an appropriate concept to analyze how individuals or groups react to organizational changes [11,12]. Instead of relying solely on pre-defined models and hypotheses, the sense-making perspective allows for the continuous adjustment and refinement of the research framework to explain micro-level process activities. This study endeavors to delve into how managers coordinate internal cognitive differences and external structural connections through complex “sense making” and effective “sense giving” and successfully carry out open innovation within megaprojects under uncertain conditions. Micro-level processes are illustrated through a case study that follows open innovation from the initiation phase to the development phase. Through this exploration, we seek to provide valuable insights and experience that can guide the successful execution of open innovation.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Open Innovation in Megaprojects

Open innovation, initially presented by [13], is defined as an innovation paradigm that recognizes the value of ideas and knowledge from both internal and external sources, allowing for collaboration and cooperation beyond organizational boundaries. This approach places external ideas and external paths to the market on the same level of importance as that reserved for internal ideas and paths to the market during the Closed Innovation era. Chesbrough and Bogers further expanded upon the initial concept and described open innovation as a distributed innovation process based on purposively managed knowledge flows across organizational boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with the organization’s business model [14]. This means that organizations actively seek out external knowledge through various mechanisms, such as partnerships, collaborations, or acquisitions, to complement their own internal capabilities.

Open innovation typically focuses on knowledge inflows and outflows around organizational boundaries [15]. According to Chesbrough’s recommendations, open innovation has two underlying dimensions, reflecting two opposite directions of knowledge flow, inbound open innovation and outbound open innovation [13]. Inbound innovation refers to the search strategy integrating external knowledge sourcing to complement, strengthen, and speed up in-house innovation activities, while outbound innovation reflects the output of internal knowledge to the external environment and external exploitations of internal innovations [16]. In fact, the purposeful exit of knowledge or technology exploitation is an innovation activity that pervades technological capabilities outside the boundaries of organizations and the purposeful entry of knowledge or technology exploration is the innovation activity that uses external knowledge resources to change or improve the conventional technological development. In fully open conditions, organizations will use both routes, namely, the exploitation and exploration of technology, to achieve the maximum value of technological capabilities and even other competencies [16]. Gassmann et al. linked outside-in and inside-out knowledge flow and put forward the coupled innovation process [17]. Organizations adopting coupled innovation focus on both inbound and outbound modes and cooperate with others in the strategic network to obtain external knowledge and share knowledge [17].

Even though extant literature studies have extensively investigated open innovation, open innovation in infrastructure megaprojects is a relatively new and not fully understood phenomenon. Innovation development in infrastructure projects often spans the boundaries of an individual organization to promote inter-organizational collaboration. Knowledge and technologies interact purposefully across different organizations to coordinate their competencies and efforts to overcome individual limitations. Thus, it is necessary to overcome organizational barriers and inertia to ensure that open innovation proceeds smoothly. The project management perspective, as one of the rare research focuses in this field, underlines the importance of integrating open innovation with project management practice for implementing open innovation. According to a pilot project, Boscherini et al. explored how firms use project management experiences to motivate the organization to reform its strategy to open innovation [18]. Similarly, Melo et al. bridged project management and open innovation to build systematic open innovation project management capabilities through a process of four phases [19]. The findings of Lakemond et al. indicated that project management, as one of the knowledge governance procedures, has a significant positive effect on collaborative inbound open innovation performance [20]. For the open innovation field, these studies provide a project management-oriented approach to discuss open innovation’s adoption.

Although megaprojects are inclined to choose open innovation that integrates external knowledge and resources to improve dynamic adaptability and innovation performance, open innovation is likely to bring an increase in collaboration complexity that may elicit technology leakage, opportunism, free-riding, and so on. Moreover, inter-organizational dissimilarities in behavior, goals, and expectations trigger more complex processes and uncertainty, raising issues over intellectual property, interest disputes, and so forth [21]. Using open innovation in megaprojects often causes a dilemma. Determining how to properly use open innovation practices merits consideration. From the perspective of organizational arrangements and communication methods, Worsnop et al. affirmed the positive role of creating an appropriate communication and exchange environment for balancing open and closed innovation within the United Kingdom’s Crossrail Innovation Program [6]. Unlike the wide focus on the organizational level, Locatelli et al. paid more attention to the micro-foundations of open innovation in the megaproject, including the motivations, costs, and benefits perceived by the people involved in the innovation process [22]. Open innovation is not only associated with organizational situations, culture, and the outside environment but is also closely related to the human side [23,24]. On the individual level, open innovation may involve the terms of individual cognition, behavior, shared intention, etc. In fact, the effectiveness and success depend on individuals’ and organizations’ willingness to engage and ability to acquire and share high-quality knowledge.

2.2. Sense Making in Innovation Change

When transitioning toward open innovation, the sense-making perspective, as a crucial process in accomplishing a shift in established frames, is therefore appropriate to understand how individuals and organizations engage in the process of open innovation. Sense making is a process of constructing and forming understanding according to situational change, emphasizing the formation and reconstruction of meaning, and aiming to provide subjective interpretation for individual behavior to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity [25]. It retroactively makes something sensible in ways that are not purely cognitive. By engaging in sense making, individuals and organizations can better anticipate and respond to the challenges and opportunities that arise during the innovation change, making more informed decisions, building resilience, and so on.

As Weick et al. noted, sense making is a retrospective process in which individuals are engaged to create subjective interpretations, drawing on early action patterns and experiences in order to face new frameworks [26]. Indeed, sense making derives from what has already happened in the past, but it also expects and anticipates what is going on in the future. As well as its retrospective characteristic, sense making is social and grounded in identity [27]. It is shaped by a particular identity of the self and social interactions with others while dealing with interrupted situations [12]. Due to individuals’ different experiences and the different levels they are located in the organizational hierarchy, it is often common for them to have different or even conflicting interpretations of the same situation [27]. More specifically, sense making never takes place in isolation but is rather influenced by situational factors [12]. Emotions have been acknowledged as one of these factors [28], which are frequently involved in sense making, especially negative emotions [10,29]. Emotions do not merely affect sense-making efforts but also act as the crucial trigger to initiate sense making [30]. Negative emotions, such as fear of interruption and uncertainty about the new framework, hinder individuals’ ability to notice and extract cues and subsequently make sense of emerging situations [26]. Positive emotions, on the other hand, facilitate sense-making efforts to form coherent cognitive frameworks for interrupted activities [30].

Sense making and sense giving are two closely related processes that play a fundamental role in human cognition and action, particularly within organizational contexts [10]. Typically, these processes occur iteratively, with each influencing and shaping the other. According to Gioia and Chittipeddi, sense giving is the process of attempting to influence the sense making and meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality [10]. It involves actively providing information, explanations, or perspectives that shape how others perceive and understand a particular situation or organizational reality. Sense giving, as a leadership activity, embodies managers’ abilities to engage in discourse and communicate in the right way and at the right time and place [31]. Managers adopt communication and conversation to motivate subordinates to construct a consistent organizational identity and then organize their thoughts and actions. Linguistic factors play a crucial role in sense giving [32]. Moreover, if managers want to control the sense-giving process, they must also be able to influence others politically [33].

2.3. Theoretical Framework

Innovation change is not just a task for individuals; it is a collective endeavor that requires collaboration and communication across different functions, departments, and even organizations. As the realization of open innovation in megaprojects needs to integrate both inter- and intra-organizational levels from a multi-level perspective [34], we suggest two dimensions for an explanatory framework: sense making and sense giving. Initiating open innovation depends on participants’ cognition—making it sensible by sense making and action—and communicating the sense via sense giving [29]. Drawing on the strategy and organizational change literature [35,36], managers’ interpretations of new situations often take precedence over others; we thus propose that managers themselves first form an understanding of open innovation via sense making, then influence the sense making of intra-organizational individuals and external stakeholders as sense givers, and then eliminate cognitive disorder. More specifically, managers make sense of what open innovation implies by dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity and then communicating the new sense to others to reach a consensus. The process of open innovation can be conceptualized as the process of “meaning making” for oneself and “meaning giving” for others.

Drawing on strategic change, the transformation of innovation has experienced three stages: formation, implementation, and development. They are three interconnected and essential processes that guide the direction and growth of open innovation. Managers, who are capable of representing the interests and concerns of construction project organizations, directly dominate both sense-making and sense-giving processes, in this manner contributing to the transformation of innovation strategies. Managements’ sense making contributes to the strategy formulation occurring both at the intra and inter-organizational levels. Then, their sense giving also plays a direct role in strategy implementation by influencing lower-level individual sense making. Moreover, sense making in innovation change is not just a task for individuals; it is a collective endeavor that requires collaboration and communication across different functions, departments, and even organizations. Sense interaction in strategy development is essential. Through sense interactions at inter- and intra-organizational levels, individuals and organizations can build a shared understanding of the innovation challenge and develop more comprehensive and effective solutions.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Case Study

The purpose of this study is to understand how managers develop sense-making processes to carry out open innovation in megaprojects, as well as to understand how managers implement their sense-giving approaches to manage change and coordinate others’ cognition and reach a consensus to form a relatively consistent organization cognition. It is therefore appropriate to use the interpretative process research approach, which focuses on the current problems and phenomena without the need to control the environment and concentrate on a few variables. Also, our research is interested in exploring the meaning managers have constructed; that is, how they make sense of the innovation strategy and the experiences they have in it. Creswell argues that qualitative research focuses on constructivist knowledge claims that reflect the multiple meanings attached to individual experiences [37]. Thus, a qualitative research design was employed for this study.

Specifically, the single case study approach, as a form of qualitative research, is selected for this study. First of all, due to its particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic characteristics, a qualitative case study provides a rich description “how it is enacted” [38]. It is appropriate for analyzing the micro-process of open innovation and exploring sense behavioral approaches and strategies in depth. Secondly, managers’ sense-making and sense-giving strategies are an in-depth dynamic evolution process within different stages of innovation strategic change. The longitudinal case study approach is more suitable. Thirdly, compared with a multi-case study, a single case study focuses on a specific object and conducts a more in-depth enlightening analysis. It is very useful in understanding complex phenomena with long time spans and discovering the hidden rules behind them.

3.2. Case Selection

The selection of an appropriate case is vital for the in-depth case study. Cases that are “representative” and “transparently observable” are more likely to replicate and generalize the findings [39]. Considering our research purpose, as well as data accessibility and availability, we selected the Changchun one hour economic circle highway phase II project (abbreviated as CECH II hereinafter) as the analytical case in the study. The project was not chosen randomly for the following reasons.

Firstly, selecting a typical case for the topic of open innovation is not easy. While megaprojects are inclined to engage in an open innovation program, most of them still place emphasis on saving time and controlling budget [6], rather than sharing valuable ideas with each other, which means open innovation is actually adopted in very few projects. CECH II is a government-driven megaproject mainly for local economic development that has attracted relevant favorable policies as well as supporting funds. The government promotes innovation by subsidizing this project. To promote joint and long-term value creation, an open innovation model is adopted during project delivery. The attribute of resource integration is obvious; thus, it is suitable as an exploratory case study.

Secondly, a consortium formed by four subsidiaries of the China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) and government investors jointly construct the project. Public–Private Partnership (PPP) mode is adopted, integrating investment, construction, operation, and maintenance. The cooperation period is 30 years, including 4 years for construction and 26 years for operation and maintenance. Indeed, the PPP mode is conducive to improving projects’ innovation-driven ability and implementing and perfecting their R&D mechanism. Consortium contracting mode also encourages more subjects to participate in innovation. On the other hand, as an excellent international contracting enterprise, CCCC has always been committed to innovation, which maintains itself and its subsidiaries in positions of leading companies in the area of business. Prime contractors, as system integrators in the construction period, lead the most innovation activities [40]. Thus, the process itself involves multiple breakthroughs in technology and management innovation, as well as resource integration of multiple participants. It is bound to do more to ensure that open innovation is fully adopted and adhered to.

Thirdly, as a megaproject currently being undertaken, CECH II was initiated in 2021 and is expected to be completed in 2025. That is to say, this project has been ongoing for a long time, so the development process can be fully tracked and sufficient information for our research on open innovation can be provided. In addition, we have conducted much in-depth communication with the project personnel and clearly understand the building of an open innovation strategy, which allows access to more first-hand and second-hand information.

3.3. Data Collection

With the aim of improving reliability and validity, triangulation was realized through multivariate data collection. Data collection was mainly first-hand material, supplemented by second-hand material. Interviews and site observation, as typically first-hand data collection methods, were applied in this study. Second-hand data were obtained from internal publications, meeting minutes, investigation reports, and other publicly collected data. To generate real-time data, data collection was carried out in the strategy formation, implementation, and development stages. Data collection in the formation stage focused on the background of open innovation strategy, its formulation, and how managers viewed and understood it. The second phase of data collection concentrated on the implementation of an innovation strategy to capture the methods that managers adopt to give sense to others. The third phase was mainly about how to sense interactions drove the further development of the innovation strategy. Integrating multivariate data could hence provide abundant material to generate an in-depth understanding of managers’ sense-making and sense-giving processes.

The topic of the interviews was to ask managers to review “the process of recognizing and promoting open innovation strategy” and guide interviewees to objectively describe their own experiences. Thus, interviews were conducted with top managers and middle managers from CECH II to describe how they understand open innovation strategy and construct meaning in detail. Most of them were interviewed in three phases of data collection. Moreover, some employees and connected subject personnel participated in interviews to verify the relevant statements of these managers. All the interviewed managers were directly involved in the construction process and had a full understanding of this project, especially the open innovation strategy. Semi-structured interviews were applied to guide interviewees to make descriptions objectively and freely. To explore target issues, they were asked to elaborate on items closely related to implementing the open innovation strategy; for example, motivations, internal and external constraints, critical events, their feelings and cognition, the process of convincing oneself and others, their role and expectations, process mechanism, details as well as effects, etc. As the interviews progressed, researchers constantly compared the interview records of different interviewees, discussed ambiguity, and reached a consensus. The source and collection method of case data are shown in

Table 1. Source and collection method of case data.

Source	Number	Acquisition
Managers interviews	3 top managers and middle 4 managers	One-to-one semi-structured interviews varied from 30 to 60 min in length
Other interviews	5 employees and 3 external personnel	Semi-structured interviews varied from 15 to 50 min in length.
Site observation	a total of one month observation in three phases	Participative observation as the main method, e.g., innovation communication meeting, team activities
Second-hand data	Public reports and internal documents	Internal publications, meeting minutes, investigation reports

.

3.4. Data Analysis

After the initial purposive sampling for data collection and generation, the researchers coded and analyzed the initial data according to grounded theory. Grounded theory sets out to discover or construct an explanatory theory from data systematically obtained and analyzed using comparative analysis [41]. The NVivo 12 qualitative analysis software was used as a tool to code and analyze large amounts of data. There were three steps: open coding, spindle coding, and selective coding.

Open coding is the preliminary stage in data analysis, the purpose of which is to categorize and compare early data and look for similarities and differences to refine first-order themes [42]. During this coding, participants’ words, expressions, and important data are identified and labeled verbatim. This process is focused on certain items such as what the data suggest, whom the data represent, or whose thoughts are they. After this stage of analysis, a total of 36 first-order themes stemming from the initial data were created. For example, there were 15 first-order themes in the open innovation formulation stage. The process of open coding is illustrated in

Table 2. Example of open coding process.

Original Data	Conceptualization	First Order Themes
a1 At present, domestic infrastructure construction has been quite perfect, and fewer and fewer projects can be contracted. a5 Many companies are laying off workers.	aa1 Market saturation	A1 Fierce competition in market
a3 If there is no technological advantage, profits can only be compressed in the fierce competition, resulting in very little profit.	aa2 Fierce competition in the industry
a22 Saving research and development costs, saving time. Even small innovations that bring benefits to the project are good.	aa15 Challenges brought by open innovation	A5 Challenges and opportunities brought by open innovation
a30 Intellectual property rights, Distribution of benefits, and other issues will bring negative impact.	aa16 Opportunities brought by open innovation
a52 The company encourages new ideas and has supported some worthwhile ones. a53 Many employees have positive attitudes to new ideas.	aa21 Organizational culture	A9 Organizational innovation culture, policy support
a56 Providing certain financial support and convenience for innovation. a57 Bonus points in performance appraisal	aa22 Policy support

as an example.

Spindle coding, building on open coding, led to further refinement of the coding schema. By reviewing and identifying basic data, 36 first-order themes were refined into 16 second-order themes, while relationships between categories were also identified. There are 6 second-order themes in the formation stage, 6 second-order themes in the implementation stage, and 4 second-order themes in the development stage. The process of spindle coding is illustrated in

Table 3. Example of spindle coding process.

Second Order Themes	First Order Themes
XX1 Internal and external situation	A1 Fierce competition in market
	A2 The demand for high-quality development of construction industry
	A3 Internal capacity limitations, as well as external resource demand
XX2 Feasibility assessment	A4 Whether open innovation is reasonable in this megaproject
	A5 Challenges and opportunities brought by open innovation
	A6 Managers’ re-recognition and positioning of their own organizational identity
XX3 Positive emotion	A7 Optimistic and positive attitude towards the transformation of innovation mode
	A8 Interested in trying and exploring open innovation mode
XX4 Self-efficacy	A9 Organizational innovation culture, policy support
	A10 Approval and commitment from the high office in CCCC
XX5 Seeking external partners	A11 Seeking long-term and in-depth cooperation with existing partners
	A12 Opening up innovation channels and seeking new partners
XX6 Adjusting internal resources	A13 Cultivating employees with strong open mindset and open innovation ability
	A14 Departmental personnel adjustment
	A15 Formulating relevant incentive mechanism

as an example.

The core idea of selective coding is to link second-order themes together logically to construct a theoretical explanation. Ultimately, 16 second-order themes were merged into 8 aggregate themes at a higher level, which are connected in sequence according to the relationship between the themes and the logical connection and chronological order of their emergence to form the structure, as shown in

Table 4. Process of selective coding.

Stages	Aggregate Themes	Second Order Themes
Sense-making in formulation stage	X1 Cognition change	XX1 Internal and external situation
		XX2 Feasibility assessment
	X2 Emotion engagement	XX3 Positive emotion
		XX4 Self-efficacy
	X3 Action input	XX5 Seeking external partners
		XX6 Adjusting internal resources
Sense-giving in implementation stage	Y1 Sense-transferring	YY1 Vision guidance
		YY2 Behavior demonstration
	Y2 Sense-enhancing	YY3 Humanistic care
		YY4 Flexible management
	Y3 Sense-empowering	YY5 Empowerment and participation
		YY6 Coordination mechanism
Sense interaction in development stage	Z1 Formal sense interaction	ZZ1 Formal communication
		ZZ2 Feedback and evaluation
	Z2 Informal sense interaction	ZZ3 Informal communication
		ZZ4 Establishing personal relationships

. Accordingly, we can obtain the following “storyline”: in the open innovation formation stage, managers realize their own sense making through cognition change, emotion engagement, and action input; in the open innovation implementation stage, managers influence others’ sense making by means of sense giving, including sense transferring, sense enhancing, and sense empowering; in the open innovation development stage, individual and collective sense making achieve a compatible state via formal and informal sense interactions. This storyline is shown in Figure 1.

4. Case Description

4.1. Case Project

The Changchun one hour economic circle highway, as the planned principal arterial of China’s northeast region, will promote regional economic coordination and sustainable development. Regarding CECH II, as the second-phase project of the Changchun one hour economic circle highway, the planning length of the mainlines is 125 km, including two sections of mainlines, three sections of connector roads, and one section of service road. It connects multiple regions such as Nong’an, Jiutai, Shuangyang, and Yitong. These mainlines adopt the four-lane or six-lane expressway standard with a design speed of 120 km per hour and a roadbed average width of 27 m.

The case project includes a series of bridges, culverts, interchanges, and other facilities, as detailed below:

• Bridge facilities include 2 extra-large bridges, 4 large bridges, 22 medium bridges, and 3 small bridges to span important rivers, lakes, or other obstacles, as well as to meet the passage needs of different sections. In addition, there are 88 culverts used for drainage or the passage of small traffic.
• There are 14 interchanges overpasses and 16 separation overpasses. These overpasses are mainly used to separate different directions or different types of traffic flows to improve driving safety.
• This project also has complete facilities, including 51 footbridges, 56 passageways, 2 management offices, 2 maintenance work areas, 3 service areas, 2 parking areas, and 8 toll stations.

4.2. Open Innovation in Case Project

Open innovation much less reflects a dichotomy (open versus closed) than a continuum with varying degrees of openness [43]. Laursen and Salter proposed the concept of openness to distinguish between open and closed innovations and categorized openness into breadth and depth to measure the extent of external cooperation [44]. In the traditional innovation model, although some new technologies are developed through cooperation with external parties, the degree of cooperation is limited. Most ideas still come from internal research and development. On the other hand, open innovation emphasizes cooperation with external parties. More creative ideas come from the outside, and the number and frequency of external collaborators are significantly increased. Open innovation is realized through university–industry collaboration, technology alliances, technology outsourcing, open communities, and open platforms [45]. In the context of open innovation in megaprojects, university–industry collaboration has played a key role [3]. The existing literature studies regard collaborative innovation between industry and university as an important way to implement open innovation in megaprojects [9,22,25]. The interactions between industry and university have become extensive and intensive rather than casual or short-term. In order to better coordinate the interaction of cooperation parties and promote the internal and external exchange of innovative technologies and achievements, open innovation platforms have also been applied in megaprojects [6].

Open innovation in megaprojects can be more effectively driven when the main contractors are encouraged to search for and implement innovative solutions to minor problems [6]. Innovation is not necessarily coming up with unique delivery mechanisms; it can be new ideas to create value, e.g., technological process innovation, such as new construction approaches, tools, materials, and skills, and even pure organizational process innovation [9]. A series of small innovations, creations, inputs, and suggestions in technology, equipment, management, etc., aimed at solving the difficult and painful problems encountered in the construction process can also improve the construction efficiency, technical level, and project quality.

Similarly, open innovation in the case project is realized through university–industry collaboration, open platforms within group companies, and cooperation with relevant entities. According to Laursen and Salter’s recommendations, we adopted openness to distinguish open innovation from traditional innovation, which is reflected in the breadth and depth of innovative resource sharing [44]. The sources of innovation and openness for some innovation activities are shown in

Table 5. Sources of innovation and openness for some innovation activities.

Sources	Breadth	Depth	Categories
Universities	6	10	construction technology, e.g., roadbed settlement, structural safety management and forecasting, e.g., digital analytics sustainability, e.g., carbon emission reduction
Research institutes	3	6	construction technology, e.g., pile foundation reinforcement smart site, environmental monitoring
Open platforms	1	3	construction technology, e.g., bridge seismic cost management and forecasting
Subcontractors	3	2	service intelligent control smart energy system
Suppliers	3	2	advanced material construction accessories

. Breadth is defined as the number of external sources that are relied upon in innovation activities. The greater the number, the more conducive to broadening the knowledge base and increasing the variety of knowledge sources, which promotes the improvement of innovation performance. There has been a broad source of innovative ideas engaged with CECH II. These include six universities and five academic institutions, an open platform within a group of companies, three subcontractors, and suppliers. The ability to capture external innovations is not just about extensive sources of new ideas but also involves drawing knowledge heavily from these sources. Innovative firms often draw deeply from a small number of external sources [44]. The external search depth is defined as the extent to which innovation subjects draw intensively from external sources. Universities and research institutions are the main sources of external innovation for CECH II. There have been 16 ideas from universities and research institutions. Deep cooperation with universities and research institutions facilitates the transfer and sharing of tacit knowledge, often accompanied by the diffusion of key technological processes. During the construction period, innovation ideas with varying degrees of quality and maturity have contributed to innovation processes, many of which have been generated outside organizational boundaries. Notwithstanding that most of them are innovative solutions to minor problems, the remarkable benefits yielded by open innovation cannot be ignored.

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Sense Making in the Open Innovation Formulation Stage

It is commonplace to find that the majority of infrastructure projects initially have no clear concept of how to effectively conduct an open innovation process. In this respect, prior to embarking on this process, it is necessary for managers to deeply understand and effectively implement this kind of transformation. In this study, managers are those who directly participate in implementing innovation strategies and also play a direct role in influencing the sense making of players involved through their actions. For managers, sense making in the strategy formulation stage pertains to positioning oneself effectively within the particular situation to reach their maximum potential while constantly monitoring situation changes so as to make changes to the open plan accordingly. Stated simply, managers play the role of “organizers” and construct their own work meaning from cognition, emotion, and action. These themes in the formulation stage are shown in

Table 6. Development of themes in the open innovation formulation stage.

First Order Themes	Second Order Themes	Aggregate Themes
Fierce competition in market	Internal and external situation	Cognition change
The demand for high-quality development of construction industry
Internal capacity limitations, as well as external resource demand
Whether open innovation is reasonable in this megaproject	Feasibility assessment
Challenges and opportunities brought by open innovation
Managers’ re-recognition and positioning of their own organizational identity
Optimistic and positive attitude towards the transformation of innovation mode	Positive emotion	Emotion engagement
Interested in trying and exploring open innovation mode
Organizational innovation culture, policy support	Self-efficacy
Approval and commitment from the high office in CCCC
Seeking long-term and in-depth cooperation with existing partners	Seeking external partners	Action input
Opening up innovation channels and seeking new partners
Cultivating employees with strong open mindset and open innovation ability	Adjusting internal resources
Departmental personnel adjustment
Formulating relevant incentive mechanism

. The logical connection and chronological order of these themes to form managers’ sense making in the open innovation formulation stage is shown in Figure 2.

In the context of innovation culture, changes in internal and external situations can trigger project managers to break down existing cognition, promote their thinking about what is happening and what should be done, and thus form new cognition. Performance requirements as well as internal resource and capacity limitations challenge the traditional innovation model dominated by internal R&D capabilities, which usually involves seeking and generating ideas from within organizations. The increasing demand for external technologies has driven the transition toward an open innovation process. As one manager put it:

“The new round of technological revolution promotes the green, low-carbon and high-quality development of construction industry, which greatly changes the industry environment. Faced with severe industry competition, this project should change innovative thinking and behavior mode to enhance sustainable development”.

[Manager #1]

The internal and external situations aggravated managers’ crisis consciousness and stimulated the transformation of innovative ideas, focusing on the path to open innovation. Despite avoiding the limitations of traditional closed innovation, open innovation is still unfamiliar in the infrastructure construction industry, which causes inherent challenges; for example, determining whether adopting an open innovation model can improve the performance of this delivered project, raise issues about intellectual property, and adequate protection mechanisms are in place, and so forth. Managers’ assessments of open innovation involve, on the one hand, a perceptual evaluation of the project’s resources, that is, ensuring that there is sufficient capacity to undertake open innovation practices; and on the other hand, the search and acquisition of innovation knowledge for these problems arising from the project, identifying that the open innovation model can be an effective way to solve the existing problems. In addition, cognitive change involves the re-recognition of managers’ organizational identity. Management team members’ awareness of identity and future scenarios is an important element of sense making [46]. Project managers have access to both strategic management and operational levels to form a framework and then direct the inter-organizational relationship and intra-organizational participants in implementing the strategy as intended.

“I was aware of the task conflict and role tension brought about by open innovation. At first, I even had the idea of “retreating”, but I changed cognition and redefined work goals after meaning assessment. I have the ability to coordinate and arrange my own work, repositioning myself”.

[Manager #5]

Emotions play a very important role in the space between cognition and action. Emotional identification is an effective continuation of cognitive expansion and a prerequisite for behavioral engagement. It is now increasingly acknowledged that emotions influence sense making [28]. For project managers, emotional engagement for sense making is necessary in order to foster the realization of open innovation in practice, including positive emotions and self-efficacy. Positive emotions are usually associated with interest, optimism, and inspiration. When managers were interested in open innovation and had an optimistic attitude, positive emotions emerged, which expanded cognition and activated action tendencies.

“Negative emotions are likely to be involved in sense-making, as an open and distributed form of innovation process are assumed to call for more administration and inter-organizational engagement, which adds an extra burden to the already stressful work environment. Nonetheless, it is not a bad choice for this project to access external innovation resources through the open innovation model. From a long-term perspective, it is seen as a safeguard, particularly at times when there is a mismatch between internal innovation resources and demand. Moreover, open innovation as a planned change, which is considered safe, novel, and even challenging, tends to aroused more interest”.

[Manager #3]

Self-efficacy means that they have the confidence to overcome difficulties and fulfill challenging tasks, naturally leading to stronger beliefs and more time and effort invested in the strategic transformation. On the one hand, the change in organizational innovation culture from closed to open has brought policy support. On the other hand, top managerial approval from CCCC motivated and inspired project managers to promote open innovation. Policy support and superiors’ approval facilitated managers’ sense making through their self-efficacy that they were up to the task as expected.

“CCCC has a good innovation culture, which provides institutional guarantee for our project to carry out open innovation. Support from CCCC senior management attempts to open up innovation and offer to help in any way they can. In addition, the company put in place appropriate mechanisms to protect intellectual property”.

[Manager #1]

As cognitive and emotional engagement increased, stress and conflict decreased and managers engaged in deeper sense making. Behavioral engagement was put on the agenda. These managers’ activities contributing to open innovation formulation occurred both at the intra- and inter-organizational levels, encompassing both the search for external collaborators as well as internal innovation resource adjustment. Open innovation means that organizations can obtain valuable ideas from both internal and external sources, and these ideas can be brought into the infrastructure construction project through internal or external channels. To achieve this goal, managers need to actively seek and attract external partners in order to gain more knowledge, resources, and innovative perspectives. As one manager said:

“We look for reliable partners who know each other well, have complementary skills, have extensive experience, and can communicate openly. We recruit partners primarily from organizations or individuals who have worked with us before, and also open up new channels of innovation”.

[Manager #2]

On the other hand, organizations need to have the internal capacity to translate these external innovations into project outputs. Therefore, managers should focus on cultivating employees with open mindsets who are willing to accept viewpoints and ideas from outside sources while encouraging collaboration and knowledge sharing among them. In addition, relevant incentive mechanisms for open innovation need to be arranged, aimed at promoting more employee participation and driving this project toward openness. Specifically, incentive mechanisms can encourage employees to participate in open innovation activities through rewards and recognition while providing appropriate resource support. By fostering employees with an open mindset while adjusting the relevant incentive system, managers can better leverage the flow of knowledge resources from both within and outside their organization’s boundaries to improve project outcomes.

“These incentives include bonuses, promotion opportunities, etc. Additionally, performance standards are also a form of support policy used to evaluate and measure employees’ performance in open innovation. For example, active utilization of external knowledge sources by employees and contributions to internal knowledge output could be one of the evaluation indicators”.

[Manager #2]

5.2. Sense Giving in the Open Innovation Implementation Stage

Strategy implementation is a top-down dynamic management process. Open innovation was agreed upon at the project management level and then transmitted to the staff level. The tendency of managers’ sense giving was more obvious. The whole process was systematically organized and guided by project management, aiming to develop a new innovation strategy by influencing others’ sense making. Managers carry out sense giving to others through sense transferring, sense enhancing, and sense empowering. These themes in the implementation stage are shown in

Table 7. Development of themes in the open innovation implementation stage.

First Order Themes	Second Order Themes	Aggregate Themes
Intensive communication with collaborators	Vision guidance	Sense-transferring
Propagandizing vision to external partners to identify with each other and build consensus
Creating vision to internal employees
Managers’ words and deeds to set an example	Behavior demonstration
Sharing achievements and exchanging experience
Emotional support	Humanistic care	Sense-enhancing
Instant communication and praise
More human performance appraisal associated with open innovation	Flexible management
providing more future promotion opportunities
Giving employees more autonomy and decision-making power	Empowerment and participation	Sense-empowering
giving employees the right to participate in decision-making
Intellectual property protection mechanism	Coordination mechanism
Encouraging the sharing of knowledge and information

. The logical connection and chronological order of these themes to form managers’ sense giving in the open innovation implementation stage are shown in Figure 3.

Firstly, project managers changed others’ cognition about open innovation through multiple means of sense transferring and guided them to carry out their own sense making in the direction of managers’ expectations. The implementation objects of the manager’s vision guidance included not only the internal members but also the external partners. Managers used intensive communication to reassure partners, thereby identifying the core issues of open innovation. Interaction with partners creates a unified and comprehensive shared vision, which can reduce differences and promote cognitive and behavioral alignment. While managers initially played the role of organizers, employees played an increasingly important role in the process of innovation strategy implementation. However, the uncertainty of open innovation negatively affected employees’ cognition, so it was particularly important for managers to assign positive sense giving. For example, managers constantly showed employees that this project was in crisis, including increasing costs, higher environmental standards, energy conservation, and so on. They also compared themselves to their main competitors and highlighted their shortcomings compared to competitors.

“On the one hand, we actively propagate our vision about open innovation to external partners, which enables us to drives mutual recognition and achieve consensus. Usually we are honest with them about our purpose and hope that we can do something together. On the other hand, we have repeatedly raised the crisis in formal and informal communications, and it has been highlighted in meetings”.

[Manager #3]

Meanwhile, social cognitive theory proposes that individuals will imitate the actions of those around them and then adjust their own cognition and actions. Behavioral demonstrations provided examples of how positive open innovation can lead to improved outcomes for this project. The demonstration effect strengthened employees’ cognition and motivated them to actively seek out new ideas from outside sources, which can accelerate the pace of innovation while reducing costs associated with internal development. Managers set an example, creating a positive and healthy working atmosphere and conveying the corresponding value orientation and norms with their own words and deeds. In addition, teams or individuals with outstanding innovation performance were invited to participate in sharing sessions to share innovation experiences and establish demonstration effects. As an employee who demonstrated excellence put it:

“In the sharing session, I often said that there is more than one form of innovation, and closed innovation may not be the choice for each one, after all, the process is very difficult and requires a lot of efforts. Open innovation is indeed more valuable, and I hope more members will join in”.

[Employee #1]

Managers made others realize emotional engagement about open innovation via sense enhancing. Sense enhancing refers to the use of humanistic care and a series of flexible management measures to stimulate employees’ self-identity and self-efficacy so that they have a sense of trust in the organization and actively carry out open innovation in a relaxed organizational atmosphere. Even though some employees were optimistic about the prospect of open innovation, the pressure and uncertainty may lead to discomfort, confusion, and even resistance. For emotional resistance, managers mainly improved job satisfaction through emotional support such as commitment and conversation. Encouragement and praise can play a positive role in promoting the spiritual behavior of employees. In this project, managers communicated with employees in real time, praised and motivated their external activities, guided open innovation business, and provided assistance. The management measures of instant communication caused employees to perceive their own value and greatly stimulated their sense of self-efficacy.

“We believe that timely detection of problems and instant communication is the most direct and efficient way to motivate employees”.

[Manager #7]

“My efforts to obtain external innovation resources have been seen by the leadership, which makes me very gratified, so I am willing and confident to do better”.

[Employee #3]

Formulating a series of flexible management measures was the second level of sense enhancing. For example, more human performance appraisals stimulated employees’ sense of self-identity. Open innovation has been linked to the evaluation mechanism, in which external resource acquisition was used to assess performance and the flexible management mode combining subjective and objective characteristics was implemented. Flexible management maximizes the potential of employees so that they can find their own advantages and work with confidence. Corresponding to the performance mechanism, there were future promotion opportunities. Project managers provided more internal promotion opportunities for employees to be recognized and appreciated for their efforts so that employees can realize their own value through their own efforts. As an employee put it:

“The promotion mechanism is relatively fair, and those who can be promoted are more capable. We all agree on that. Those who actively participate in open innovation and have a strong ability to acquire external resources will have more promotion opportunities”.

[Employee #2]

Managers’ sense empowering works to enable employees to realize innovative behavior input through full authorization, decision participation, information sharing, and intellectual property protection in project management practices. The more autonomy and decision-making power employees have, the more responsibility and significance they will feel [47]. Through full authorization of superiors to subordinates, the power was delegated, and employees were encouraged to actively participate in open innovation, bold trial and error, and realize their self-value. Employees participating in open innovation activities had their own positioning and authority. With clear authority, they can make their own decisions. They devoted themselves wholeheartedly to work and actively performed their own job responsibilities while constantly looking for external innovation resources, giving full play to their own advantages. Decision participation is conducive to employees’ in-depth understanding of the process of decision formation, making it easier for them to understand the basis and context of managers’ sense making and reducing the obstacles of sense giving.

“For some people who participate in open innovation activities, on the one hand, we give them the right to participate in project decision-making to enhance their sense of ownership. On the other hand, we grant them the right to fully determine the external activities for which they are responsible, enhancing the sense of accomplishment”.

[Manager #4]

Opening up innovative ideas also raises intellectual property issues and entails that the project organization put in place appropriate protection mechanisms. For example, without patents, copyright management systems, and so forth, intellectual property issues will act as barriers to innovation, and the economic benefits of innovation may be difficult to achieve. In terms of the ownership of intellectual property or patent rights, CCCC and the project department of CECH II have launched a series of reform measures focused on the problematic nature. The effectiveness and success depend on the ability to pursue high-quality innovations as opposed to the quantity of new ideas. As a result, innovation management helped individuals and teams to discuss, select, and improve their ideas before implementing open innovation.

“We and external innovation subjects can collaborate formally and/or informally. Both sides have to agree on the sharing of intellectual property, sign license agreements upfront. The proportion of intellectual property that we own and can use is generally based on its own value and market prospects”.

[Manager #2]

To realize open innovation, knowledge sharing is an important prerequisite [48]. Knowledge sharing promotes knowledge flow, enables the sharing and integration of internal and external resources in time and space, stimulates synergies, and thus improves performance. A decrease in willingness to share knowledge will restrict innovation performance. Therefore, managers need to strengthen employees’ willingness to share knowledge. In project management practice, the project organization or employees share and exchange information, technology, and knowledge through formal and informal interaction channels. In addition, determining how to continuously share knowledge with external partners to promote innovation is the key to success. The amount of knowledge-sharing cooperation has a significant positive impact on promoting open collaborative innovation.

“Relatively speaking, individual knowledge or information is highly implicit and not easy to share. To this end, we create a culture of knowledge sharing and improve corresponding incentive mechanisms. For example, reducing information asymmetry between managers and employees, establishing mutual harmonious interpersonal relations, encouraging employees to actively contribute knowledge to share, and so on. On the other hand, we also limit the scope of shared knowledge to protect critical core technologies”.

[Manager #6]

5.3. Sense Interaction in the Open Innovation Development Stage

Different individuals have differences in cognitive ability, cognitive perspective, and cognitive involvement. When there is a great difference in individuals’ interest demands and understanding framework, managers should adjust their sense-making strategy in time to achieve the expected effect. To this end, managers promoted sense interaction process development as open innovation moved into its development phase at the inter- and intra-organizational levels. The themes in this stage are shown in

Table 8. Development of themes in the open innovation development stage.

First Order Themes	Second Order Themes	Aggregate Themes
Establishing well-developed meeting communication system	Formal communication	Formal sense interaction
A variety of communication and learning platforms
Encouraging employees to provide feedback	Feedback and evaluation
A transparent and open environment
Encouraging the activities of informal groups	Informal communication	Informal sense interaction
Chatting and interviewing with employees
Social activities	Establishing personal relationships
Showing respect and friendliness

. In order to carry out innovation change smoothly, it is necessary to engage in individual sense making and collective sense making to achieve a compatible state. Managers utilized formal and informal interactive feedback channels to engage internal employees and external partners in a process of collective sense making whereby they developed shared understanding or interpretation. Communication is an important means to contribute to cognitive consensus, which promotes the uploading and transmitting of cognition. This project has established a formal communication system within the organization, which is mainly implemented through meetings. At the inter-organizational level, formal inter-organizational meetings remain the dominant communication channel, whereas online and offline communication and learning platforms have also provided convenience for coordination. For example, this project provided practices for scientific research institutions or universities with cooperative relations and invited relevant researchers to work part-time in CECH II. The interaction in this stage mainly functioned to solve problems, including special problem seminars, on-site coordination meetings, and learning-type summary and exchange meetings to give feedback on the project implementation process. As one manager put it:

“At the project management level, in addition to regular meetings, there are also countermeasure meetings for individual issues. At the level of innovation practice, team meetings take place at any time. Meetings could thus be seen as a formal collective sense-making tool”.

[Manager #5]

Similarly, managers paid attention to feedback, which helped managers to understand whether employees made sense as expected, and also helped managers to revise their own cognition. Employees were encouraged to pass on their opinions or suggestions from the bottom up. At the same time, managers also took the initiative to inquiry employees and collect feedback information in a timely manner. A transparent and open environment makes employees or partners feel that their voices are valued and heard, which can increase their willingness to speak up and give feedback. Because information is smooth, the relevant person in charge can quickly understand the content of feedback and process and respond in a timely manner. They can effectively deal with the demands of all parties, accommodate diversity and innovation risks, and make communication highly ordered.

Sometimes, informal communication can be more effective than formal communication. The emergence of informal communication interactions has received increased attention; for example, the role of informal groups in coordinating employees’ cognition. In a workplace, informal groups can provide a sense of belonging and social support, and then enhance communication and collaboration. People in these groups often feel more comfortable expressing themselves and sharing their thoughts and feelings compared to formal settings. Informal groups tend to form a “groupthink” model, in which individuals always show a tendency to act in unison. For this project, encouraging activities that promote informal interaction among employees contributed to the consistency of their cognition about open innovation, but it is also important to ensure that these groups do not undermine the goals of the innovation strategy. Chatting with or interviewing employees in an informal manner also helped build rapport and trust, which created a friendly and open work environment where employees felt comfortable sharing their thoughts and concerns. Accordingly, managers used informal channels to make up for the shortcomings of formal interactive feedback, such as its monotonous, coercive, low-frequency, and slow nature. In addition, good personal relationships between internal and external personnel also facilitated knowledge and resource sharing with each other, as well as joint innovation tasks. Managers demonstrated respect and friendliness to external stakeholders through social activities such as gatherings and shared hobbies, maintained and developed personal relationships, and brought new resources, information, and opportunities for this project. A manager talked about some approaches when he interacted with partners:

“I keep close personal contact with the relevant personnel in external partners, and often follow their latest scientific research dynamic. We often invite each other to exchange experiences online/offline, building a trust relationship. Their suggestions are very relevant, especially those of the experts, and sometimes they can hit the nail on the head”.

[Manager #3]

6. Conclusions

6.1. Research Conclusions

From the perspective of sense-making theory, this study has addressed how managers carry out open innovation in megaprojects, with a focus on the framework to explain micro-level process activities. Open innovation strategy has three interconnected and essential stages: formation, implementation, and development. Sense making and sense giving, as two iterative processes, interplay across different stages. Innovation strategy change is a complex process wherein participants need to reconstruct their own meaning to break their previous understanding and form a new one. In the formation stage, managers as organizers complete their own sense making from cognition, emotion, and action to form a coherent understanding. The internal and external situations in which the project was located meant managers had to consider changing the traditional innovation mode. Then, after assessing the feasibility of open innovation, managers formed a cognition change. Emotional engagement was the continuation and expansion of cognition change. Managers’ positive emotions and self-efficacy enhanced their own emotional engagement. For instance, when they were optimistic about open innovation and had high self-efficacy, they were more likely to approach challenges with confidence and determination. After a clear understanding of the project organization and the external environment, managers further took practical actions in seeking external partners and adjusting internal resources. In this way, this project can be better positioned to adapt to innovation strategy change and overcome challenges.

Managers engaged in influencing others’ sense making about open innovation through their actions after creating an understanding for themselves. In the strategy implementation stage, managers’ sense giving played a leading role, through three progressive processes: sense transferring, enhancing, and empowering. These processes corresponded to the sense making of internal and external participants from cognition, emotion, and action, respectively. Managers enabled employees and external partners to achieve cognition changes through sense transferring such as vision guidance and behavior demonstration. By carrying out humanistic care and a series of flexible management measures, such as instant communication and praise, related performance appraisal, etc., managers stimulated employees’ self-efficacy and trust so as to achieve emotional engagement. Giving employees more autonomy and the right to participate in decision making achieved the goal of sense empowering employees. On this basis, with the corresponding coordination mechanism, such as intellectual property protection, employees’ action input was further guaranteed.

To achieve a shared understanding of open innovation between the individual and the collective, between inside and outside the project, formal and informal sense interactions were developed in the strategy development stage where managers’ sense making and sense giving influence, and are also influenced by others. Communication through formal and informal channels was still dominant. Moreover, creating a transparent and open organizational environment, as well as encouraging positive feedback from employees, can also effectively promote sense interaction. The realization process of open innovation strategy is not achieved overnight but shows complexity and hierarchical differences. Managers need to constantly adjust sense making for themselves and sense giving for others according to the outcome of interactive feedback. It is a dynamic, progressive, and iterative process.

6.2. Theoretical Contributions and Managerial Implications

Our findings theoretically extend the research on open innovation. Previous studies usually focused on the antecedents of open innovation and its positive impacts on organizations [5]. There is insufficient research on how to achieve OI. Sense-making theory offers a novel perspective to understand open innovation. This study further explains the dynamic process of how to promote the realization of OI on the basis of relevant research. A multi-level and multi-dimensional micro-process and mechanism is proposed to understand how to guide open innovation behavior. Moreover, OI is integrated into organizational change in the form of strategic change, which can significantly expand the application of sense-making theory. Some scholars have applied managers’ sense making and sense giving to coopetition strategic change and presented an understanding framework [29]. Drawing on this, we attempt to apply sense-making theory in the field of OI. Based on the structure of managers’ sense making and sense giving, the realization process of OI is explored.

Furthermore, the research also provides implications for open innovation project management. There have been relevant studies on OI in megaprojects, but the focuses have been different; for example, determining how to balance open and closed innovation in megaprojects [6], exploring how open innovation enhances productivity in the construction ecosystem [9], and the micro-foundations of open innovation in megaprojects [25]. Our study expands on the existing literature to analyze how to promote OI in megaprojects. In this study, managers’ sense-making behavior about implementing innovation changes was placed in a very specific case megaproject context, and relatively systematic research and theoretical exploration were carried out. According to the different levels of personnel, different sense-making strategies should be implemented. Managers rely mainly on their own awareness of situations to construct meaning for innovation change, while employees’ sense making is affected by situations and managers’ sense-giving behavior. Managers adopt appropriate management measures, such as flexible management, interaction, and feedback, to achieve a shared understanding of OI. Practically speaking, managers can modify others’ perceptions about the innovation mode change by providing tangible or intangible support. This case study illustrates that an open innovation strategy needs to enact some new relevant routines in order for a cognitive reorientation to take place.

6.3. Limitations and Further Research

Like most research, our findings inevitably have certain limitations. This study selected CECH II as one case to explore the process of promoting open innovation through an extensive analysis of related practices. In the future, cases can be supplemented and more megaprojects can be analyzed in comparison to perfect theoretical research. Future research will extend to multiple project cases of diverse categories to improve the generalization and extensibility of the conclusions. Additionally, this study took managers as the main interviewees and explored managers’ sense making and sense giving. In practice, sense behaviors may follow more complex paradigms, such as vertical and horizontal interactions, and sense making is an ongoing process that should be tracked more dynamically in the future.