|Journal||Electronic Journal of e-Government|
|Publication status||Published - Dec 2012|
Access to Document
- Ejeg-volume10-issue2-article251Final published version, 405 KB
FingerprintDive into the research topics of 'Innovation of eParticipation Strategies Using Living Labs as Intermediaries'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
Innovation of eParticipation Strategies Using Living Labs as Intermediaries. / Cleland, Brian; Mulvenna, Maurice; Galbraith, Brendan; Wallace, JG; Martin, Suzanne.In: Electronic Journal of e-Government, Vol. 10, No. 2, 12.2012, p. 120-132.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Innovation of eParticipation Strategies Using Living Labs as Intermediaries
AU - Cleland, Brian
AU - Mulvenna, Maurice
AU - Galbraith, Brendan
AU - Wallace, JG
AU - Martin, Suzanne
N1 - Reference text: APCQ (2008) Successfully Embedding Innovation: Strategies and Tactics; APQC Publications, Houston, Texas Atkins, M. (2010) Five Key Concepts for Sustainable Innovaiton. Industry Week, July 2010, Vol. 259 Issue 7, p53-54 Bekkers, V. (2004). Virtual policy communities and responsive governance: Redesigning on-line debates. Information Polity, 9(3/4), 193−203. Bergvall-Kareborn, B., Ihlstrom Eriksson, C., Stahlbrost, A., and Svensson, J. 2009.A Milieu for Innovation - Defining Living Labs. Paper read at The 2nd ISPIM Innovation Symposium - Stimulating Recovery - The Role of Innovation Management, 6-9 December 2009, at New York City, USA. Bessant, J. and Rush, H. (1995) Building bridges for innovation: The role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, 24: 97–114. Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. S. (2005).Analyzing the representativeness of Internet political participation. Political Behavior, 27(2), 183−216. Bowden, A. (2005) Knowledge for Free? Distributed Innovation as a Source of Learning. Public Policy and Administration, 20; 56-68. Chang, W.-Y. (2005). Online civic participation, and political empowerment: Online media and public opinion formation in Korea. Media, Culture and Society, 27(6), 925−935. Chesbrough H. (2003) Open Innovation. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. Chesbrough, H. (2006) Open Business Models. Harvard Business School: Boston, MA. Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (eds), (2007) Open Innovation. Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: University Press. Chesbrough, H. M. and Appleyard, M. (2007) Open Innovation and Strategy, California Management Review 50(1):57-76 Coakes, E., Smith, P., (2007) Developing communities of innovation by identifying innovation champions, Learning Organization; 2007, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p74-85. Curwell, S., Deakin, M., Cooper, I., Paskaleva-Shapira, K., Ravetz, J., &Babicki, D. (2005) Citizens' expectations of information cities: Implications for urban planning and design. Building Research and Information, 33(1), 55−66. Desouza, K. et al, (2008) Customer-driven Innovation, Research Technology Management; May/Jun2008, Vol. 51 Issue 3, p35-44 Di Gangi, P.M., and Wasko, M. (2009) Steal my idea! Organizational adoption of user innovations from a user innovation community: A case study of Dell IdeaStorm. Decision Support Systems 48 (1):303-312. Dutton, W., Steckenrider, J., Rosschristensen, D., Lynch, L., Goldfarb, B., Hirschberg, L., et al. (1984).Electronic participation by citizens in US local government.Information Age, 6(2), 78−97. Fagan, H., Newman, McCusker, & Murray (2006). E-consultation: Evaluating appropriate technologies and processes for citizens' participation in public policy. Final report from the eConsultation research project. Retrieved July, 2006, from http://www.e-consultation.org/files/ecrp_report.pdf Følstad, Asbjørn, Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Information and Communication Technology: A Literature Review, Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. Foxon, T.J., R. Gross, A. Chase et al. (2005). UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures. Energy policy, 33 (16): 2123-2137. Brian Cleland, et al. www.ejeg.com 131 ISSN 1479-439X Galbrath, B., McAdam, R. (2011) The promise and problem with open innovation, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management Vol. 23, Iss. 1 Gowans, G., Campbell, J., Astell, A., Ellis, M., Norman, A and Dye, R., 2009. Designing CIRCA (Computer Interactive Reminiscence and Conversation Aid). A multimedia conversation aid for reminiscence intervention in dementia care environments. Dundee: University of Dundee - School of Design.Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Howells, J. (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation.Research Policy, 35(5): 715–28. Huizingh, E., (2011) Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives, Technovation, Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages 2-9 Jansen, G., Dowe, C., &Heimann, U. (2006). Facilitating active citizenship, E-participation in UK and Germany. Berlin: British Council Germany Retrieved January, 2007, fromwww.britishcouncil.de/e/society/e_participation.htm Lichtenthaler, U. and Ernst, H. (2008) Intermediary services in the markets for technology: Organizational antecedents and performance consequences.Organizational Studies, 29: 1003–38. Luthje, C., Herstatt, C., and von Hippel, E. (2005) User-innovators and "local" information: The case of mountain biking. Research Policy 34 (6):951-965. Macintosh, A. & Coleman, S. (2004) Promise and Problems of E-Democracy, Challenges of online citizen engagement, OECD Macintosh, A., & Smith, E. (2002). Citizen participation in public affairs.In R. T. a. K. Lenk (Ed.), EGOV 2002 (Vol. LNCS 2456, pp. 256–263). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Mitchell, William J. (2003) Me++ : the cyborg self and the networked city, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Moore, M. H. (2005). Break-Through Innovations and Continuous Improvement: Two Different Models of Innovative Processes in the Public Sector. Public Money & Management, 25 (1): 43-50 Moore, M. H., J. Hartley (2008) Innovations in governance. Public Management Review, 10 (1): 3-20. Morrison, P.D., Roberts, J.H., and Von Hippel, E. (2000) Determinants of User Innovation and Innovation Sharing in a Local Market.Management Science, 13-15. Mulvenna, M., Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Galbraith, B., Wallace, J., Martin, S., (2010) Living Labs Are Innovation Catalysts, Innovation through Knowledge Transfer, Springer Berlin Heidelberg Mulvenna, M., Galbraith, B. and Martin, S. (2009) Enriching the Research & Development Process Using Living Lab Methods: The TRAIL Experience. eChallenges-2009 Conference Proceedings,. (Eds: Cunningham, P and Cunningham, M), IIMC International Information Management Corporation, pp. 63-71. Mulvenna, M.D., Martin, S., McDade, D., Beamish, E., de Oliveira, A., Kivilehto, A., (2011) TRAIL Living Labs Survey 2011: A survey of the ENOLL living labs, University of Ulster, 40 pages, ISBN-978-1-85923-249-1. Mulvenna, M.D., Martin, S., (2012) Living Labs: Frameworks and Engagement, In: Howlett, R.J.; Gabrys, B.; Musial-Gabrys, K.; Roach, J. (Eds.), Innovation through Knowledge Transfer, Springer. Nauta, F. &Kausbergen, P. (2009). OECD Literature review.Public sector innovation.Lectoraatinnovatie rapport. Pratchett, L. (2004) Barriers to e-Democracy, Local government experiences and responses, http://www.icele.org/downloads/Researchreport.pdf Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., Flak, L. (2008) The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area, Government Information Quarterly, Volume 25, Issue 3, July 2008, Pages 400-428. Samuelson, Paul A. (1954) The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure, Review of Economics and Statistics 36 (4): 387–389. Sanford, C. and Rose, J. (2007) Characterizing eParticipation, International Journal of Information Management, Volume 27, Issue 6, December 2007, Pages 406-421. Schot, J., Geels, Frank W., (2008) Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management; Sep2008, Vol. 20 Issue 5, p537-554. Schuurman, D., De Moor, K., De Marez, L., Evens, T. (2011) A Living Lab research approach for mobile TV, Telematics and Informatics, Volume 28, Issue 4 Singlaub, K. (2008) Innovation in Public Management: What the Future Will Demand of Us. Public Management, 90 (6): 8-14. Stewart, J. and Hyysalo, S. (2008) Intermediaries, user, and social learning in technological innovation, International Journal of Innovation Management, 12 (3) (2008), pp. 295–325 Stuiveling S.J. (2007) Van Slingelandt-lecture 2007: Hardopdenken (Thinking out loud). The Hague: The Netherlands Court of Audit. Termeer, C.J.A.M., Wesseling, H. and Zouridis, S. (2005) De knop om: innovatie in de publieke sector (Switching the knob: innovation in the public sector). Bestuurskunde (Public Administration), 7/8: 9-12. Thomke, S., and von Hippel, E. (2002) Customers as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value. Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business School Publication Corp. Van Dijk, J. (2000). Models of democracy and concepts of communication. In K. L. Hacker, & J. Van Dijk (Eds.), Digital democracy, issues of theory and practice. London: Sage publications. Vigoda-Gadot, E. A. Shoham, N. Schwabsky and A. Ruvio (2008). Public sector innovation for Europe: a multinational eight-country exploration of citizens’ perspectives. Public Administration, 86 (2): 307–329. vonHippel, E. (1998) Economics of product development by users: The impact of `sticky' local information. Management Science 44:629-644.
PY - 2012/12
Y1 - 2012/12
N2 - The paper explores whether Living Labs, acting as open innovation intermediaries, can address some of the challenges surrounding the sustainable adoption of eParticipation tools and methods. We begin by analysing the existing literature on Living Labs and Open Innovation, and the extent to which Living Labs can act as innovation intermediaries as envisioned by Chesbrough (2006), Wolpert (2002) and others. We then consider the research on eParticipation, and in particular some of the risks and challenges surrounding the sustainability of innovation in this area. In the second part of the paper, focusing on the PARTERRE project, we present the methodology and key findings of six eParticipation pilots. Further comments and analysis based on these findings is provided, examining issues such as inter-cultural barriers, technological factors, organisational concerns and participant feedback. Finally, we present some conclusions in the light of the findings.
AB - The paper explores whether Living Labs, acting as open innovation intermediaries, can address some of the challenges surrounding the sustainable adoption of eParticipation tools and methods. We begin by analysing the existing literature on Living Labs and Open Innovation, and the extent to which Living Labs can act as innovation intermediaries as envisioned by Chesbrough (2006), Wolpert (2002) and others. We then consider the research on eParticipation, and in particular some of the risks and challenges surrounding the sustainability of innovation in this area. In the second part of the paper, focusing on the PARTERRE project, we present the methodology and key findings of six eParticipation pilots. Further comments and analysis based on these findings is provided, examining issues such as inter-cultural barriers, technological factors, organisational concerns and participant feedback. Finally, we present some conclusions in the light of the findings.
M3 - Article
VL - 10
SP - 120
EP - 132
JO - Electronic Journal of e-Government
JF - Electronic Journal of e-Government
SN - 1479-439X
IS - 2