The research addresses the slow evolution of the higher education system compared to the industry, particularly concerning innovation and the application of open innovation (OI). Knowledge transfer and cooperation are key aspects of OI, which argues that ideas are often implemented by those who didn't initially generate them. The study focuses on how OI and industry-university cooperation can benefit higher education, aiming to identify areas where business-like strategies can foster innovation and development within academia. The authors recognize the importance of the Triple Helix (Government-Industry-University) Innovation paradigm and the Quadruple Helix model (adding 'users'), emphasizing the collaborative nature of modern innovation. The research objective is to analyze existing studies and propose a framework for academics that addresses the need for innovation, accessibility, and global integration within the higher education system. The ultimate goal is to bridge the gap between the higher education system, the industry, and the government to create a more dynamic and responsive educational landscape. This involves addressing issues like the mismatch between employment market demands and graduate skills, insufficient contributions from academia to the business world and vice versa, and the slow adoption of digitalization in both higher education and industry.

The paper traces the concept of innovation from Schumpeter's 1912 work, highlighting its evolution from focusing solely on product development to encompassing broader aspects of organizational and societal change. Different types of innovation are explored: incremental (minor improvements), disruptive (new business models), and radical (new technologies and markets). The literature review then transitions to the open innovation (OI) paradigm, which emphasizes the importance of knowledge flows and collaboration across organizational boundaries. The authors discuss the transformative impact of OI on businesses and industries and its relevance to the service sector, specifically higher education. The review highlights the need for a shift from traditional closed innovation models to open models that leverage external knowledge and collaborations. The discussion includes examples of OI in practice, such as the GE Open Innovation Manifesto and NASA's collaboration with business schools. Finally, the literature review examines existing research on the challenges and opportunities of applying OI principles to higher education, focusing on issues such as globalization, digitalization, and shifting demographics.

The study employs a qualitative discourse analysis of scholarly works on open innovation (OI) and its application to higher education. Initially, 48 bibliographic sources (mostly from 2020-2023) were analyzed, focusing on keywords like open innovation, higher education, knowledge transfer, knowledge networks, and disruptive trends. The most relevant 21 articles were selected based on their content. These sources were categorized according to Wardyn-Runiewicz's (2022) QH map of innovation, which categorizes knowledge sources into four categories: market and social trends generated by society, managerial knowledge generated by companies, technological knowledge generated by industry, and scientific knowledge generated by universities and R&D institutions. A frequency analysis of the categorized sources was conducted to assess the distribution across the QH categories. The analysis focused on identifying common themes and patterns related to strategic partnerships, OI ecosystems, and the integration of OI principles in higher education. This qualitative analysis formed the basis for developing the proposed higher education service life cycle model, which is designed to address the research question of how OI dimensions can drive radical change in higher education and align it with industry and government perspectives.

The study reveals a shift in innovation models from linear-sequential approaches to complex, networked systems integrating various stakeholders. The authors identify five generations of innovation models according to Rothwell (1994), culminating in the current OI paradigm where knowledge flow and collaboration are paramount. The analysis highlights the importance of strategic partnerships between universities and industry, ranging from formal R&D collaborations to informal knowledge exchanges. Examples of successful collaborations and their impact on organizational performance are discussed. The study examines the role of science parks and technology parks in fostering OI ecosystems, analyzing their varying structures and effectiveness in promoting innovation. The Quadruple Helix (QH) model, integrating users alongside universities, industry, and government, is presented as a key framework for collaborative innovation, particularly in service sectors like higher education. The research highlights the benefits of user-centered innovation and the iterative process involved in creating user-driven solutions. The study underscores the limitations of traditional higher education models in a rapidly changing landscape, calling for greater integration with industry and government. The analysis identifies several challenges faced by universities, including the mismatch between educational programs and market demands, low R&D investment, and a lack of practical application in educational curricula. Finally, the study proposes a higher education service life cycle model adapted from the product life cycle model, suggesting a phased approach to implementing OI-based changes in higher education, beginning with radical innovation in the introduction phase and evolving toward incremental improvements in subsequent phases (growth and maturity).

The findings emphasize the urgent need for higher education institutions to adopt OI principles to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world. The traditional closed innovation model is no longer sufficient, and universities need to actively engage with industry, government, and society to foster knowledge transfer and collaborative innovation. The proposed higher education service life cycle model provides a practical framework for implementing OI principles, enabling institutions to adapt their programs and services to meet evolving market needs and societal challenges. The QH model provides a valuable framework for understanding and managing these complex interactions. The study's qualitative approach allows for nuanced interpretations of the literature, providing a valuable foundation for future quantitative research focusing on specific aspects of higher education and OI. The research contributes to a better understanding of how OI can transform higher education, bridging the gap between academia and the practical world.

The study concludes that the higher education system must embrace the principles of the open innovation (OI) paradigm to remain competitive and relevant. The traditional model of vertical integration is no longer suitable; higher education needs to collaborate with industry, government, and society to accelerate internal innovation. The proposed higher education service life cycle model offers a practical way to manage this transition. Further research could focus on quantitative analysis to refine the model and better understand its applicability across different contexts and institutional settings.

The study's main limitation is its reliance on a qualitative analysis of existing research, which may introduce subjective interpretations. A lack of primary data collection means that the findings are based on secondary sources and may not fully capture the complexities of implementing OI principles in diverse higher education settings. Future research using quantitative methods and primary data collection would help to address these limitations and validate the proposed model in a wider range of contexts.