Francesco Molinari
ABSTRACT
The extended involvement of all the key innovation stakeholders in a Living Lab's Public Private People Partnership (PPPP) marks a clear difference with respect to both the User Centered Design and the Participatory Decision-Making approaches. We propose to assimilate Living Labs to multi-stakeholder platforms, which self-instantiate into repeated collaboration trials, each adopting the user driven, open innovation approach for the development and deployment of technology. This brings the issue of eGovernance into the focus of Living Lab's research, both in association with trials' structuration as well as 'legitimization' of results obtained in the broader context of territorial innovation policy, particularly in rural areas. A number of potentially testable propositions are derived from this elaboration, which we believe can be taken as guideline for an initial comparison and performance evaluation of extant initiatives. In this context, the importance of coordination of the multi-stakeholder platform is discussed and potential areas for future exploration are presented.
- Arauzo-Carod, J.-M., Liviano-Solis, D., and Manjón-Antolín, M. 2010. Empirical Studies in Industrial Location: An Assessment of their Methods and Results. Journal of Regional Science 50, 3 (August), 685--711.Google Scholar
- Mumford, L. 1961. The City in History, Harcourt Brace, New York.Google Scholar
- Florida, R. 2004. Cities and the Creative Class, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
- Bettencourt, L. M. A., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kühnert, C., and West, G. B. 2007. Growth, Innovation, Scaling, and the Pace of Life in Cities. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 17, 7301--7306.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Orlando, M. J., and Verba, M. 2005. Do Only Big Cities Innovate? Technological Maturity and the Location of Innovation. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review, 2nd Quarter, 31--57.Google Scholar
- Eden District Council, Eden 2006--2016. Developing the Economy of Eden. A 10 Year Plan. Retrieved online at: http://www.eden.gov.uk/EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=3668&type=full&servicetype=AttachmentGoogle Scholar
- Leamer, E. E., and Storper, M. 2001. The Economic Geography of the Internet Age. Journal of International Business Studies 32, 641--665.Google ScholarCross Ref
- http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/04/0416_virtual_worlds/index_01.htmGoogle Scholar
- Malecki, E. J. 2003. Digital Development in Rural Areas: Potentials and Pitfalls. Journal of Rural Studies 19, 201--214.Google ScholarCross Ref
- http://www.openlivinglabs.euGoogle Scholar
- http://www.c-rural.euGoogle Scholar
- Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V-P., and Kulkki, S. 2005. State of the Art in utilizing the Living Labs Approach to User-centric ICT Innovation -- a European Approach. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Santoro, R-, and Conte, M. 2009. Living Labs in Open Innovation Functional Regions: In: Proceedings of the ICE09 Conference.Google Scholar
- Von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, US.Google Scholar
- Lahti, P., Kangasoja, J., and Huovila, P. (Eds.) 2006. Electronic and Mobile Participation in City Planning and Management. Experiences from INTELCITIES an Integrated Project of the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Union. Cases Helsinki, Tampere, Garðabær/Reykjavik and Frankfurt. Picaset Oy, Helsinki - ISBN 952-473-646-2.Google Scholar
- http://www.freeband.nlGoogle Scholar
- Schaffers, H., Guerrero Cordoba, M., Hongisto, P., Kallai, T., Merz, C., and van Rensburg, J. 2007. Exploring Business Models for Open Innovation in Rural Living Labs. In: 13
th
International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, Sophia-Antipolis, France, 4--6 June, pp. 13 ff.Google Scholar
- Schaffers, H., and Kulkki, S. 2007. Living Labs. An Open Innovation Concept fostering Rural Development. Tech Monitor, September-October, 30--38.Google Scholar
- Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Steins, N. A., and Edwards, V. M. 1998. Platforms for Collective Action in Multiple-Use CPRs. Paper presented at Crossing Boundaries, the 7
th
Annual Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Vancouver, British Columbia, June 10th--14th.Google Scholar
- Reichart, S. 2002. Die Gestaltung des Produktinnovations prozesses. In: M. Reichert (Ed.) Prozessmanagement mit System. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
- Almirall, E., and Wareham, J. 2008. Living Labs and Open Innovation: Roles and Applicability. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks (eJOV), Vol. 10 "Special Issue on Living Labs", August.Google Scholar
- European Commission, Information Society and Media 2008. Study on the Potential of the Living Labs Approach including its Relation to Experimental Facilities for Future Internet related Technologies. Final Report, 30th November.Google Scholar
- Molinari, F., Wills, C., Koumpis, A., and Moumtzi, V. 2011. A citizen-centric platform to support networking in the area of e-Democracy. In H. Rahman (Ed.), Cases on Adoption, Diffusion and Evaluation of Global E-Governance Systems: Impact at the Grass Roots, IGI Global Publishing Co.Google Scholar
- Moulaert, F. and Sekia, F. 2003. Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey. Regional Studies 37, 3, 289--302.Google ScholarCross Ref
- DTI 2004. Innovation through People Centred Design -- Lessons from the USA. Global Watch Mission Report, October.Google Scholar
- OECD 1997. Technology Incubators: Nurturing Small Firms. Paris, OECD Press.Google Scholar
- Cooke, P. 2001. From Technopoles to Regional Innovation Systems: The Evolution of Localised Technology Development Policy. Canadian Journal of Regional Science/Revue canadienne des sciences régionales, XXIV:1 (Spring/Printemps), 21--40.Google Scholar
- Moore, J. F. 1996. The Death of Competition - Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems. Harper Business, New York.Google Scholar
- Nachira, F., Nicolai, A., Dini, P., Le Louarn, M. and Rivera Leon, M. (Eds.) 2007. Digital Business Ecosystems. European Commission, DG INFSO, Brussels.Google Scholar
- Aydalot, P. 1986. Milieux Innovateurs en Europe. GREMI, Paris.Google Scholar
- Weill, P., and Ross, J. W. 2004. IT Governance on One Page. MIT Sloan Working Paper No. 4517-04; CIS Research Working Paper No. 349.Google Scholar
- De Sanctis, G., and Poole, M. S. 1994. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science 5, 2, 121--147.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hargrave, T. I., and Van de Ven, A. H. 2006. A Collective Action Model of Institutional Innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31, 4, 864--888.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rukanova, B., Henriksen, H. Z., and Van Stijn, E. 2009. Bringing IS Innovation in a Highly Regulated Environment: A Collective Action Perspective. Research Memoranda 0012. VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.Google Scholar
- Van Stiijn, E., Rukanova, B., Wensley, A., and Tan, Y. H. 2009. Moving an e-Innovation from a Living Lab to the real world. Politically savvy framing in ITAIDE's Beer Living Lab. Proceedings of the 22nd Bled eConference on "eEnablement: Facilitating an Open, Effective and Representative society".Google Scholar
- Molinari, F., and Zanella, L. 2009. Living Labs for Wild Fire Prevention in Rural Environments. Proceedings of the mGov2009 conference, Barcelona.Google Scholar
- Ferrari, V., Mion, L., and Molinari, F. 2011. Innovating ICT innovation: Trentino as a Lab. Proceedings of the ICEGOV2011 conference, Tallinn. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kujala, S. 2003. User Involvement: A Review of the Benefits and Challenges. Behaviour and Information Technology 22, 1, 1--16.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Feurstein, K., Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K. A., Thoben, K.-D., and Schumacher, J. 2007. Living Labs: A New Development Strategy. In: J. Schumacher and V.-P. Niitamo (Eds.), European Living Labs. A New Approach for Human Centric Regional Innovation, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Berlin, pp. 1--14.Google Scholar
- Shamsi, T. A. 2007. Living Labs: Good Practice in Europe. in: J. Schumacher and V.-P. Niitamo (Eds.), European Living Labs. A New Approach for Human Centric Regional Innovation, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Berlin, pp. 15--30.Google Scholar
- Santoro, R., and Bifulco, A. 2006. The 'Concurrent Innovation' paradigm for Integrated Product/Service Development, ESoCE NET White Paper, May.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Living Labs as multi-stakeholder platforms for the egovernance of innovation
Recommendations
Innovating ICT innovation: Trentino as a lab
ICEGOV '11: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceIn this paper, we describe the Living Lab PPPP (Public/Private/People Partnership) pursued by 'Trentino as a Lab' (TasLab), an initiative promoted by the Autonomous Province of Trento, Italy, whereby the creation of new ICT services, products and social ...
Open Innovation, Living Labs and Public Officials: The Case of "Mapaton" in Mexico
ICEGOV '17: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernancePublic officials around the world are aware that solutions on public problems need a closer relation to citizens. The era of a government in isolation that has all the answers is ending. More and more co-production, collaboration and peer production ...
eGovernance implementation model for public sector innovation
ICEGOV '12: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceThis study examines the process of innovation in the Federal Government Agencies of Pakistan to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. Research objective of this study is to provide an eGovernance Implementation Model of how ...
Comments