Open Innovation 1

(1)

Information Information Society and Society and Media Media Communications Communications Networks,

Networks,ContentsContents and Technology and Technology

Open Innovation

2013

(2)

(3)

(4)

Open

Innova

tion

2013

(5)

LEGAL NOTICE

By the European Commission, Directorate-General or Communications Networks, Content and Technology

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on its behal is responsible or the use which might be made o the inormation contained in the present publication. The European Commission is not responsible or the external websites reer-red to in the present publication.

Disclaimer: This report represents the views of the authors, and is not the oﬃcial position of the European Com-mission services.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported licence, available at www.creativecommons.org

You are ree to share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and to remix — to adapt the work, under the ollowing conditions:

Attribution — You must attribute this work to the author, but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use o the work.

Non-commercial — You may not use this work or commercial purposes.

Share alike — I you alter, transorm or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar licence to this one.

• For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.

• Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. More inormation on the European Union is available on the Internet ( http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be ound at the end o this publication. Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce o the European Union, 2013 ISBN 978-92-79-25864-0

doi:10.2759/87245 © European Union, 2013

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Luxembourg

P   -   (ECF)

(6)

FOREWORD . . . 4

INTRODUC TION . . . 5

ACK NOWLEDGE MENTS . . . 6

EXECU TIVE SUMMARY . . . 7

CHAPTER I

POL ICY DE VELOPM ENT . . . 9

1.1. European Commission innovat ion strategies and support or innovation — why and how . . . 9

1.2. Innovation ecosystems: a conceptual ramework . . . . . . .18

1.3. Why is a European model or star t-ups necessar y? . . . .30

CHAPTER II

TRE NDS AND COU NTRY REPORT S. . . 34

2.1. Open innovation towards smarter cities . . . .34

2.2. Collaborative innovatio n ecosystems or solving societ al challenges . . . .42

2.3. Innovating with and or the public sector . . . . . . .49

CHAPTER III

INTERES TING CA SES A ND EXA MPLES . . . 54

3.1. Open innovation in smart cities: the rise o digita l entrepreneurs . . . .54

3.2. Participative innovation in smart ur ban lighting . . . .59

3.3. Smarter water: why open innovation is essential or managing the world ’s most essential resource . . . .71

3.4. Open data — the new oil or smar ter EU cities . . . . . . .76

3.5. Crowdsourcing in large companies . . . . . . .82

3.6. Horizon 2020: Regional Innovation Ecosystems — rom theor y to practice . . . .87

(7)

Welcome to the ourth edition o the innovation yearbook, co-published with the Open Innovation Strategy and Policy Group (OISPG). This Open Inno-vation 2013 yearbook is intended to provide stimuli or thoughts and actions in the ﬁeld o service inno-vation, especially related to the inormation and knowledge society.

The core unction o the yearbooks has not changed,

but the evolving context has led to a change in the name o the yearbooks: starting as Service tion yearbooks and now continuing as Open

Innova-tion yearbooks. The drive or open innovaInnova-tion

ecosys-tems, platorms and processes that enable stronger

interaction between all stakeholders, namely private,

public, people and, ofen, even NGO actors, is com-mon throughout the series. The triple helix (public–

private–people partnership) has grown into a quadru-ple or even penta–helix aiming or sustainability, both in economic and societal terms.

In the European context , open innovation is now used

as a synonym or modern, highly dynamic and

inter-active processes. Linear and sequent ial mindsets are

slowly changing to be more opportunistic, more

dar-ing and more action-oriented. We need to move rom

having ‘perect plans or yesterday’ to an innovation culture which osters experimentation and prototyp-ing in real-world settprototyp-ings. This new innovation

cul-ture leads to simultaneous technological and societal innovation and encouragement. We need to be daring

and also experiment with disruptive approaches as gradual improvement does not properly reﬂect the potential that the omnipresent, ast-developing ICT

provides or parallel innovations.

Real-world settings with experimental approaches turn the user into a co-creator in the innovation process, instead o just being a recipient o the services or products. The new role o the user is

an advantage as eedback on what is successul and what is not can be discovered very rapidly: this enables solutions which create real value t o move faster and more successfully. ‘Failing fast’ means that we are also less likely to ail in t he big things because corrections to the innovation pathway are easier to take on board at the earlier stages. This scalability o success, and t he possibility to multiply it, is the critical element that shapes the market or uture knowledge-intensive services and products in Europe. We have, compared to other regions o the world, the unique asset o the most advanced and demanding users (be they citizens

or user industries). That valuable component in the

innovation process needs to be reinorced in our approach. We need to move rom innovation clus-ters to innovation ecosystems with a new kind o mental approach. Co-creativit y and well-designed processes reduce riction between the diﬀerent pro-cesses that support innovation. This also includes the legal and policy rameworks which need to cut red tape and, at the same time, create a saety net or innovation by experimentation.

I wish you all inspiring reading o this Open Innova-tion 2013 yearbook! I hope it stimulates new t hink-ing and creates ideas on how to move towards ric-tionless innovation systems in Europe.

Bror Salmelin

Advisor, Innovation Systems European Commission,

Directorate-General or Communications Networks,

Content and Technology

(8)

The objective o our Innovation yearbook 2013 is to create a maniesto and platorm or sustain-able growth ensustain-abled through Innovation 2.0. Our goal is to build towards a collective vision/ambi-tion and leverage our collaborative intelligence and muscle to create a virtuous circle o sustainable growth which enables new services, sustainability, improved quality o lie and new jobs.

We need a collective vision and architecture o a new sustainable Europe. Important elements o this are contained in President Barroso’s Europe 2020 strat-egy and the related ﬂagship initiatives towards a smart, inclusive and sustainable economy. A sup-porting vision, ‘Digital Europe’ and related ideas have been developed by the Intel Labs Europe team and collaboration partners across Europe and presented at the annual Intel European Research and Innova-tion Conerences which have had a theme o building a smart, inclusive and sust ainable society.

In parallel, the EU Open Innovation Strategy and Policy Group has been monitoring, developing and evolving a new paradigm and set o

methodolo-gies, which we call ‘Innovation 2.0’, to help achieve

broader-scale innovation beneﬁts that leverage and beneﬁt broad sets o stakeholders. In the Innova-tion 2.0 paradigm, we identiy distinct characteris-tics which leverage diverse concepts and practices including the principle o shared value (Port er and Kramer), open innovation (Chesbrough), co-creation (Ramaswamy), high expectation entrepreneurship

(Formica et al.) and triple helix innovation (Etzko-wicz). We believe that the eﬀective collaboration o governments, academia, industry and citizens working together can drive structural changes and improvements ar beyond the scope o what any one entity can achieve on its own.

Looking orward, we believe an important devel-opment could be a shif rom linear value chains to sustainable value cycles (Haque) which more intensely recycle resources to produce services, products and ecosystems which are built to last longer, without compromising resources, the envi-ronment or communities.

In synergistic alignment with the goals o Europe 2020, we hope this Innovation 2.0 yearbook can provide examples o best practice which, when synthesised and practiced, can provide a blueprint and design patterns or a sustainable Europe which can then act as a beacon or the rest o our global society.

Proessor Martin Curley

Chair, EU Open Innovation Strategy and Policy Group

Vice-President and Director, Intel Labs Europe, Intel Corporation

(9)

Acknowledgements

Last name First name Company/organisation E-mail

Aart s Emile Intelligent Lighting Institute, Eindhoven University o Technology

[email protected] Costello Gabriel J. Galway-Mayo Institute o Technology [email protected] Curley Martin Intel Labs Europe and Innovation Value Institute,

National University o Ireland, Maynooth

[email protected] de Lama Nuria Atos Research and Innovation [email protected] den Ouden Elke Intelligent Lighting Institute, Eindhoven

University o Technology

[email protected]

Distinguin Stéphane aberNovel Stephane.distinguin@

abernovel.com

Dombowsky Paul Ideavibes [email protected]

Donnellan Brian Innovation Value Institute, National University o Ireland, Maynooth

[email protected] Erkinheimo Pia TIVIT Ltd (the Strategic Centre or Science,

Technology and Innovation in the Field of ICT)

pia.erkinheimo@tivit.ﬁ

Keeling Mary IBM [email protected]

Komninos Nicos Aristotle University o Thessaloniki, Urban and Regional Research

[email protected] Kulkki Seija Department o Management and International

Business, Aalto University School o Business,

seija.kulkki@aalto.ﬁ

Kune Hank Educore [email protected]

Launonen Pentti Aalto University, Center or Knowledge and Innovation Research (CKIR)

pentti.launonen@aalto.ﬁ Markkula Markku Aalto University Finland, Committee of the Regions markku.markkula@aalto.ﬁ Pallot Marc Centre or Concurrent Enterprise,

Nottingham University Business School

Marc.pallot@9online.r Salmelin Bror European Commission, Directorate-General or

Communications Networks, Content and Technology

[email protected] Sargsyan Gohar CGI Group Inc., Adviser, Future IT and

Amsterdam University o Applied Sciences

[email protected]

Sashinskaya Maria IBM Belgium [email protected]

Schaﬀers Hans Center or Knowledge and Innovation Research (CKIR), Aalto University

hans.schaﬀers@aalto.ﬁ

Schulze Corinna IBM Europe [email protected]

Turkama Petra Center or Knowledge and Innovation Research (CKIR), Aalto University

petra.turkama@aalto.ﬁ Valkenburg Rianne Intelligent Lighting Institute, Eindhoven

University o Technology

[email protected] Edited by:

Honka Anni European Commission, Directorate-General or Communications Networks, Content and Technology

(10)

This yearbook Open Innovation 2013 (with the sub-theme ‘Open Innovation 2.0’) ollows the series o Service Innovation yearbooks published in 200 9–10 and Open Innovation 2012. The yearbooks have three complementary parts: (i) policy development; (ii) trends and weak signals in service innovation; and (iii) insight into cases and open innovation development in countries and regions.

The purpose o the yearbook series is t o stimulate thinking and discussion on modern innovation

pro-cesses and practices, and to share best experience

o real cases, making the implementation o the new paradigms easier and aster.

This year’s edition highlights two main perspec tives: ﬁrstly, the disruptive nature o Open Innovation 2.0 and, secondly, the nature o open innovation eco-systems which are ostering jobs and sustainable growth. There are many examples o modern eco-system thinking in this year’s yearbook, both in smart city contexts as well as regional contexts. The ﬁrst part o this yearbook describes the new innovation and research policy approach to the orthcoming Horizon 2020 ramework, namely the mash-up and holistic approach, new innovation-supporting instruments such as open and disrup-tive innovation, SME instruments as well as more take-up-oriented innovation procurement-oriented instruments.

The challenges or these open innovation ecosys-tems is in the leadership and common desire to be attractive to all kinds o players rom large to small, in strong a nd trusted interrelationships. The innovation processes need to provide high connectivity across t he ecosystem (including soci-ety), to be open to ostering interaction and joint

growth in an organic, non-predetermined way. This

opportu nistic approach can be called an ‘organicsa-tional approach’, combining the organisa‘organicsa-tional and organic aspects.

Can these ecosystems be created by a control approach, or do we need to have a more catalytic, encouraging approach? The latter is what will be seen in the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 activity. Martin Curley et al. speak about modern approaches to innovation ecosystems and develop

interesting metrics and conceptual rameworks based on the practical experience and theoretical studies. In an attempt to provide a description and taxonomy o Open Innovation 2.0, the key charac-teristics o the emerging Open Innovation 2.0 para-digm are described. The goal is to help innovation practitioners and academics achieve results rom innovation which are more predictable, probable and proﬁtable and to drive innovation impact s ar beyond the scope o what any one organisation could achieve on its own.

Distinguin’s article discusses the challenge o new entrepreneurship and argues that an entirely new approach in Europe is needed. In the article, the author poses well-justified questions to remove the barriers or fluid creation o new entrepreneurship in the connected world. T his would require a holistic perspective including policy and legislation support and increasingly also fluidity or the seed capital market.

The second part o this yearbook ocuses str ongly on open innovation ecosystems. The context o smart(er) cities is interlinked with open in novation both conceptually and through examples in real settings. The challenge is change and transorma-tion towards a smarter city, which is more participa-tive, inclusive and empowering, instead o an imagi-nary ideal uture vision.

There is strong evidence that open innovation in

smart cities will drive jobs and growt h signiﬁcantly

orward. The innovation ecosystem, in the spirit o Living Labs, brings orward the quadruple helix model where the citizens have a strong say in the innovation process. Thus, it creates, or example, the market or personalised, but modular, services constantly at the pace enabled by ICT development.

This, in turn, is crucial when we look at the success

rate o innovation in real-world settings, and like-wise or the innovation speed and scalability. In the article by Kulkki, the collaborative innova-tion ecosystem concept is discussed together with practical approaches. This article discusses Europe as an innovation Union and calls or new orms o strategic collaborative action that implies integration o research and innovation instruments and public and private actors or collaborative RDI and entre-preneurship. The public sector has a strong driving

(11)

role in the creation o these open innovation envi-ronments, as well as to drive the ‘rules o the game’. The public sector has strong purchasing power and is also responsible or delivering a broad range o services to the citizens and the business world. In the article by Turkama et al., the role o the public sector is also well highlighted through practical examples. Public sector innovation is increasingly recognised as an essential mechanism or maintaining the quality and scope o services whilst reducing costs. Cross-sectorial collaboration and coordination is increas-ingly seen as a solution to the most pressing social problems. While public sec tor innovation holds great potential, it still has many barriers and challenges that require urther research and experimentation. This chapter provides a ramework or thinking, debate and action on innovation models and prac-tices in the public sector rom both research and practical point o views. It explores the similari-ties and diﬀerences between much studied private sector innovations and the distinct actors in pub-lic–private innovation, and proposes a typology or better understanding diﬀerences in the innovation landscapes. Special emphasis is placed on trans-ormative innovations with potential or broad soci-etal and economic impact.

In the article by Sargsyan, open innovation is inter-linked very strongly to entrepreneurship. Open services innovation is about engaging users as co-creators o the new services and eventual beneficiar-ies in terms o share-o-profit, users, IPR (intellectual property rights), shared ownership, etc. The digital uture o Europe is highly dependent on the digi-tal single market and citizens’ participation in city, region and country governance. The digital entrepre-neurs raised rom these individuals have an essen-tial role to play to boost the EU economy. The article shows how important open inrastructures and open innovation processes designed or co-creation and sharing are in creating entirely new kinds o entre-preneurial structures and wealth t hroughout society. The Dutch case described by Aarts et al. on user contribution to lighting solutions clearly shows how a simultaneous win–win or creating better envi-ronments and new business approaches together creates economic and environmental sustainability. We also have an interesting new opening in the water management area and open, participative innovation in the article by Keeling. It is oreseen that water will be one o the very critical resources in the near uture and, thereore, this topic fits very

well into the theme o a sustainable society seeking new solutions and approaches.

Open data is one o the important trends which can be used as an ingredient or very many innovative services. Open data is ostered by EU policies. How-ever, to make data easily usable, semantic stand-ardisation is needed and access must be ensured as widely as possible to data. The article by Schulze et al. illustrates the connected city, the entrepreneurial city and the creative city integrated by data ﬂows across various traditional boundaries: the case o mobility in London is used as example o this.

Crowd(re)sourcing is described in t he article by

Erkin-heimo et al. Practical examples on how crowd(re)-sourcing can and has been used in large companies

give valuable hints o the implementation drivers and hinders o crowdsourcing. Europe is, or the moment , lagging behind, but catching up ast with, the leading regions — or example, the United States.

Open innovation in regional settings in the article by Markkula et al. describes how this new innova-tion approach is aﬀecting the regional policies and related Horizon 2020 actions o the European Com-mission. As a practical context, the Espoo case is described. The Innovation Dynamo is one o the concepts developed, which can very ruitully be multiplied and developed in other regions, together with innovation camps and new entrepreneurship Venture Garages as described in the ar ticle.

The article by de Lama interlinks the public–private partnership project on the Future Internet (FI PPP) with open innovation through Open Innovation Labs enabling the platorm use or third part ies.

Seeing the very rich contents o Open Innova-tion 2.0, this year one can also clearly see that open innovation is one o the key approaches to sustain-able growth and it is also a driver or balanced soci-etal development. The disruptive nature o Open Innovation 2.0 leads to new challenges also in the innovation-related activities both rom process and environment perspectives. The orthcoming years will show how Europe is able to renew its innovation systems. Horizon 2020 will be crucial, interlinked

with national and regional innovation systems. The

decision-makers and leaders need to have the cour-age to look beyond the linear extrapolation o t he

past. Real innovation, by deﬁnition, is disruptive, as

shown in this Open Innovation 2.0 p ublication. Open Innovation 2.0: the next winner.

(12)

1.1. European Commission innovation strategies and support for

innovation — why and how

Abstract

This article describes the background and drivers o

the approach the Europea n Commission takes to oster

research, development and innovation in a balanced way. The article elaborates the innovation approach rom the open innovation perspective and highlights

some o the new thinking to support the Europe 2020 objectives and, moreover, the Innovation Union objec-tives or European competitiveness, jobs and growth.

The ocus is on a holistic view or innovation which integrates the various European Commission instru-ments and the national and regional actions, and reinorces the whole process on modern innovation. A strong systematic innovation approach is sug-gested to ensure the ull impact o the merge and

integration o societal and techn ological innovations.

European policy background

The European Commission has deﬁned it’s

objec-tives through the Europe 2020 programme building

on the three main pillars described in Table 1 [1]. When looking more in detail at the various actions, we see that these actions, besides research and competitiveness, also tackle t he grand challenges

o society, namely demographics, energy and environment.

One o the ﬂagships o the Europe 2020 strategy is the ‘Innovation Union’ which covers holistically the innovation process capturing all phases rom very basic research to take-up o results. It even touches issues such as market creation by simultaneous societal and technological development.

What is important in the ﬂagship o Innovation Union is that it integrates in its approach Euro-pean, national and regional innovation instruments in a new way, also highlighting the transorma-tion rom linear to more parallel open innova-tion processes, even innovainnova-tion ecosystems. That approach also leads to new seamless designs o the unding instruments under the orthcoming ramework, namely Horizon 2020 and its related Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). At the time of writing this article, the discussion on the multi-annual ﬁnancial ramework (i.e. the budget) o the EU is still going on. T hus, I base the thinking and argumentation on the Commission proposals as well as the trends we see to change the whole innovation landscape.

CHAPTER I

Policy development

Table 1: The three main pillars o Europe 2020 [1]

Smart Growth Sustainable Growth Inclusive Growth

Innovation ‘Innovation Union’

Climate, energy and mobility ‘Resource eﬃcient Europe’

Employment and skills

‘An agenda or new skills and jobs’ Education

‘Youth on the move’

Competitiveness

‘An industrial policy or the globalisation era’

Fighting poverty

‘European platorm against poverty’ Digital society

(13)

Figure 1: Innovation Union commitments

In Figure 1, one can see the 34 Innovation Union

commitments, which are all part o creating the new

set o innovation instruments and ecosystems in Europe. Some o the instruments are more closely related to research unding, and some, or exam-ple, to the new regional policies. When analysing the objectives more in detail, we see how they are inter-dependent and some are clearly critical

inrastruc-tures or an innovation society with strong horizontal links across disciplines and the stakeholders.

Some instruments uel innovation take-up and its wider deployment (e.g. No 17, Pre-commercial pro-curement). Some tackle special segments, or exam-ple the SME instruments (Nos 7, 11) as well as in

so-called smart specialisation (No 24), where the regional strengths are the base or innovation activities.

It is also essential to inject new means or the inno-vation process and create interlinkages between the available instruments.

For the European Commission’s Directorate-General or Communications Networks, Content and Technology, the Digital Agenda or Europe (DAE) is very important. It integrates policies, regu-lation and research by bringing orward t he knowl-edge society or all. Actions range rom inrastruc-ture regulation to privacy and, o course, it sets research priorities as well. DAE actions can be seen as the critical enablers or innovation, jobs and growth in an inclusive society.

In the DAE, the ollowing seven pillars are described, giving a good overview o the approach ostering

innovation [2].

• Pillar 1: A vibrant digital single market • Pillar 2: Interoperability and standards • Pillar 3: Trust and security

• Pillar 4: Fast and ultra-fast Internet access

• Pillar 5: Research and innovation

• Pillar 6: Enhanci ng digital literacy, skills and

inclusion

• Pillar 7: ICT-enabled beneﬁts or EU society

To ollow the progress o the various actions under the pillars (101 altogether), a scoreboard metrics has been developed. The scoreboard cov-ers not only the topical aspects, but a lso moni-tors the various countries’ actual situation on particular actions. This best practice sharing and benchmarking is a good tool to learn rom each other. It also speeds up the general development by identiying the bottlenecks in the process. As can be seen from Figure 2 (1_{), the use o the}

Internet has developed relatively well, as has also the basic connecti vity. The change rom ﬁxed networks to mobile broadband networks might

(1₎ _{More inormation is available online on the DAE}

website, section Scoreboard (http://ec.europa.eu/ digital-agenda/).

(14)

shit the development pace signiicantly when access will be more aordable and genuinely broadband in nature. Hence, or example, roaming or data is an important issue to lower the barriers or the use o modern and aﬀordable IC T.

The Europe 2020 strategy sets a very impor-tant policy agenda or the EU to better integrate its innovation actions on all levels and to solve

societal and development challenges. Due to the recent ﬁnancial crisis, competitiveness and growth have risen in importance. This is well reﬂected also in the conclusions o the European Council o 1 and 2 March 2012 and is reinorced in the

overall policy development during the past year. It reinorces the ollowing objectives or the innova-tion agenda [4].

(15)

• ‘Creating the best possible environment or

entrepreneurs to commercialise their ideas and

create jobs and putting demand-led innovation

as a main driver o Europe’s research and devel-opment policy.’

• ‘The importan t role played by industry or

Euro-pean growth, competitiveness, exports and job creation and as a driver or productivity and innovation.’

The research, development and innovation support

rom the Commission will reﬂect the new approach. Key instruments will be the Horizon 2020 pro-gramme together with the Connec ting Europe

Facil-ity (CEF) [5].

Horizon 2020 is the financial instrument imple-menting the Innovation Union [6], a Europe 2020 flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe’s global competitiveness. Running rom 2014 to 2020 with a proposed EUR 80 billion budget, t he EU’s new pro-gramme or research and innovation is part o the drive to create new growth and jobs in Europe. Horizon 2020 provides major simplification through a single set o rules. It will combine all research and innovation unding currently provided through t he

Framework Programmes for Research and Techni-cal Development, the innovation-related activities of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and the European Institute o Innovation and Technology (EIT).

The proposed support or research and innovation

under Horizon 2020 will, according to the

Commis-sion’s proposal [7] :

• strengthen the EU’s position in science with

a dedicated budget o EUR 24 598 million: this will provide a boost to top-level research in Europe, including an increase in unding o 77 % or the very successul European Research Council (ERC);

• strengthen industrial leadership in

innova-tion with a budget o EUR 17 938 million: this includes major investment in key technologies, greater access to capital and support or SMEs;

• provide EUR 31 748 million to help address

major concerns shared by all Europeans such as climate change, developing sustainable trans-port and mobility, making renewable energy more aordable, ensuring ood saety and security, or coping with the challenge o an age-ing population.

Figure 3: Balanced mix o privacy, culture and innovation

Legal &

Self-regulatory

Access &

Technology

Economy &

Society

Balancing the mix

(e.g. privacy, culture,

(16)

In the approach the European Commission is tak-ing, the integration o economical, technological, societal and legal aspects are integrated to achieve full impact (Figure 3). Hence, the glue between the various aspects o the tool sets described above to oster innovation is currently thoroughly elaborated, in order to provide a ﬂying start to the new rame-work, Horizon 2020, in the year 2014.

Changed innovation process

It is important when planning or new innovation support activities to see the new innovation

para-digms shifing rom linear innovation models to strongly parallel ones. Successul innovation

com-bines several disciplines, all stakeholders and

soci-etal and t echnological drivers.

The linear innovation model may still be valid or some industries, or example related to drug research, but the more we shif to knowledge soci-ety-related innovation, the stronger we see t he par-allelism o the diﬀerent innovation elements. They both increase the speed o innovation as well as the success rate o the deployment.

Referring to the bridge analogy (Figure 4), we actu -ally should speak about a set o bridges, each having their speciﬁc role in t he process leading to strong cross-ertilisation o ideas, technologies and the societal drivers. All the s takeholders (industry, research, public sector and the user community) need to be involved.

The wisdom o crowds (crowdsourcing, crowdund-ing, etc.) is a strong element in modern innova-tion processes but, so ar, we do not have much evidence o successul large-scale crowdsourcing

activities, except, perhaps, the best known example: the Linux operating system. However, it is evident that crowd resourcing is growing due to the easier connectivity o act ors sharing common values and objectives. Hence, in modern innovation systems, we need to pay attention to the processes support-ing better use o the power o the crowds.

This user-centric, sharing-based innovation ecosys-tem approach is very much open: it also demands new types o IPR which oster sharing and value creation based on creative commons.

Figure 4: The bridge analogy

T h e v a l l e y o f d e a t h

Technological facilities Pilots lines demonstrators Globally competitive manufacturing facilities

Science Technology Products Production

Market T e c h n o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h P r o d u c t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t C o m p e t i t i v e m a n u f a c t u r i n g Knowledge Research & Technology organisations Industrial consortia Anchor companies

T h e v a l l e y o f d e a t h

(17)

The approach we can observe, or example, in the Living Labs, encourages open interaction between users and suppliers t hroughout the innovation and development process. This leads to real-lie proto-types and experiments and to scalable and multi-pliable solutions which shape the markets. Rapid

prototyping means also aster innovation processes, and aster eedback on the successul solutions. However, on the other hand, it also means ailing ast, and not wasting time, energy and money on solutions which have no market potential: continu-ous user involvement is thus essential.

Figure 5: The bridges

Figure 6: The evolution o innovation

Closed

Innovation

Centralised

inward-looking

innovation

Externally

focused,

collaborative

innovation

Ecosystem

centric,

cross-organisational

innovation

Open

Innovation

Networks

(18)

Innovation dynamics have increased, also leading to new requirements or successul and sustainable innovation ecosystems (Figure 6). E xperimenting and prototyping better enable trials o entirely new and risky solutions and also call or a new type o daring leadership.

Thus, the characteristics o sustainable innovation are the ollowing.

• It is ull o disruptions! • It is about (value) choices!

• It is beyond (political) buzzwords! • It is holistic!

All this means increased risk-taking (in a managed way) but, at t he same time, greater gains or suc-cessul and, ofen daring, new solutions. Does the approach in Horizon 2020 allow modern innovation? My answer is deﬁnitely ‘Yes’, but it requires courage to take the new approach in prac tice.

New instruments

As I write this article, new instruments which sup-port aster innovation cycles, with higher return rates, are being developed at the Directorate-General or Communications Networks, Content and Technology.

The new approach to support innovation in a more holistic manner can, or example, be seen in the tools developed or the new Horizon 2020 ramework.

Firstly, as mentioned earlier, the whole Hori

-zon 2020 programme structure supports

demand-orientation that links interdisciplinary thinking to problem-solving. The science-driven innovation part o the programme supports the growth o new sci-ence and technology-based results to be harvested in the other parts o t he programme.

The new tools current ly in discussion are, or exam-ple, the extension o the piloting approach current ly in the seventh ramework programme. The pilots

were used, or example, in the IST P SP programme

to veriy, in large-scale pilots, the platorm think-ing in cross-border applications. These pilots were driven by public sector organisations. E xamples o these can be ound in eHealth, eGovernment and eProcurement.

In the new approach, piloting is extended beyond the downstreaming, to prototyping, testing and demonstrations in real-world settings. This, as dis-cussed earlier, enables aster identiﬁcation o t he potentially successul approaches but, likewise,

helps to ail ast, avoiding costly ailures at a too late stage. The pilot/experimentation approach enables seamless integration o demand-side inno-vation with a technology-enabled approach. Users will be also in important role in this approach — ideally, involved in all stages o the projects. Pre-commercial procurement and public procure-ment o innovation will be reshaped and ex tended to, ideally, provide the necessary bridge rom prototypes and experiment s to scale-up. Public sec-tor procurers have t remendous purchasing power, meaning that their impact on take-up o modern solutions can be o crucial importance.

Importantly, inducement prizes will also be pro-posed. They drive real solutions which are ofen application-oriented. Prizes attract new constitu-encies who are not usually involved in EU projects. Prizes also publicly highlight well the issues to be solved. Current thinking is based on three catego-ries o prizes, namely: grand prizes (up to EUR 10 million); major prizes (up to EUR 6 million); and sectorial prizes (up to EUR 1 million). Prizes ideally bridge research results to commercialisation with-out predetermining the struct ure or technology o the solution.

From the open innovation perspective, perhaps (besides prizes) the most interesting scheme is the non-descriptive, open, light and ast scheme which supports disruptive innovation. This approach does not predetermine the topic area, but proposes a cross-sectorial approach and leads to high rewards and high impacts. The risk level o this initiative is rather high, but by dividing the process into phases, the risk is managed. At the same time, it maintains the openness and incentive in the scheme.

One o the targets o this scheme is to create new markets through the disruptive approach, which

very ofen also involves the strong presence o the

problem owner (clientele, citizens) in the project execution. At its best, it enables co-creativity in innovative solutions.

The scheme is divided into three phases: the ﬁrst is a easibility study and demonstration, unded up to some EUR 50 000. Afer this period, the most promising 20 % can continue or 6–9 months to the next phase, which consists o validation and trialling the solution in real-world settings. Fund-ing or this experimentation p hase would be up to some EUR 2 million or a ma ximum o 18 months. At the end o the second phase, prizes could also be granted or the most successul based on the impact and scalability o the solution.

(19)

SME unding has been discussed thoroughly. One o the issues is to see clearly that one size does not ﬁt all: the ocus needs to be on growth-hungry and even on atypical SMEs and entrepreneurs. SME-enablers are critical also rom the perspective that SMEs are ofen very dynamic and knowledge-able players in business ecosystems and bring agil-ity and ocused solutions to speciﬁc problems. It is important to realise that the (IC T-oriented) SMEs do not have ‘children’s’ tickets as they are immediately exposed to global competition. This is especially true or the new generation o web entrepreneurs. It is very important that a European dimension is maintained in the SME actions in Horizon 2020. One possible approach could be to adapt the US-based SBIR (Small B usiness Innovation Research) approach to the European context. Further details of the SME instrument are still open when writing this text, but I am sure that the new approaches will be welcomed among the most dynamic innovation actors.

Organisational changes

to ﬁt the challenge

Reﬂecting this new approach o the European Com-mission’s Directorate-General or Communications Networks, Content and Technology, the organisation

is also well tuned with its Net Innovation Unit ocusing

on Internet entrepreneurship — t he Innovation Unit is ocusing on modern innovation methods and their

implementation in the new Horizon 2020 programme.

Likewise, the new Stakeholders Unit has a signiﬁcant

role: to discuss with our constituency the strategy and operations to oster innovation in a more holistic

man-ner. It is also important that, in this context, there is

a widened stakeholder debate, more than that seen in the more ocused programming approach.

All these ac tivities aim at more ﬂuid innovation inter-action ranging rom ideation to experimentation an d

execution. Hence, it is also important to s ee how, at the actors’ level, all these instruments are used to create a meaningul integrated approach: one could

say innovation ecosystem and action within. The

iso-lated non-interacting projects based on sequential

innovation models are likely not to be mainstream.

Innovation ecosystem thinking —

for full impact

Successul innovation ecosystems seem to have the ollowing drivers already in the design phase, based on the observations o the expert group advising the Directorate-General or Communications Net-works, Content and Technology on innovation [8]:

• success rate and speed are the keys;

• reedom is prerequisite or creativity;

• courage leads to strong commitment and

ur-ther engagement;

• wealth/well-being creation is the value driver

instead o cost minimising;

• openness o the ecosystem attracts inwards

investment (intellectual, capital).

Services and concepts require a good knowledge o the local market; hence, the ecosystems need to have a strong local presence in real-world set-tings. The local setting means, in turn, that the role o the individual, t he citizen, becomes increasingly important.

When the dynamics o market creation is achieved, the local ecosystems become a source or highly reliable market evaluations or companies, and are thus tempting to both intellectual and capital investment locally. In turn, the involvement o users leads to a signiﬁcant reduction in societal, techno-logical and business risks.

For SMEs and start-ups, the greatest benet is that

they will be able to assess the market attitude to their ideas, concepts, products or services at a very early stage. For large companies, the experimen-tation on new business models and, thus, business model innovation is both aster and easier.

Conclusions

The design o new innovation ecosystems, such as urther development o the Living Labs, requires a strong vision as to how to get all the stakehold-ers more act ively involved. User-centricity is not enough, as we need to have user-driven innova-tion more irmly in place. The users turn rom objects to acti ve subjects, where they are involved in all stages, including very early ideation and prototyping.

This approach, together with open platorms, open data and open processes, makes it possible to bring technology closer to people and organisational

needs and, at the sa me time, to shape uture

mar-ket development.

In these ‘next-generation’ Living Labs, open plat-orms also enable new types o ent repreneurship, such as micro-multinationals, and even social enterprises beyond the traditional business models. Challenges or these open innovation ecosystems are leadership and the comm on desire to be attrac-tive to all kinds o players rom large to small, in strong and tr usted interrelationships. They need to provide high connectivity across the ecosystem (including society) and to openly oster interaction

(20)

and joint growth in an organic, non-predetermined way. This opportunistic approach can be called an ‘organicsational approach’, combining the organisa-tional and organic aspects.

Can these ecosystems be created by a control approach? Or, do we need to have a more catalytic, encouraging approach? The latter is what you will see in the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 activity. You are welcome to join in!

References

[1] European Commission (2010), Communicat ion rom the Commission, EUROPE 2020 — A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 ﬁnal, Brussels (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF).

[2] Europea n Commission (2010), Communication rom the Commission to the European Parliament, t he Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee o the Regions, A Digital Agenda or Europe, COM(2010) 245 ﬁnal/2, Brussels ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0245:FIN:EN:PDF). [3] European Commission (2012), Digital Agenda for Europe: Scoreboard 2012, Brussels (http://ec.europa.eu/ digital-agenda/en/scoreboard).

[4] European Council (2012), The conclusions of the European Council , 1 and 2 March 2012, Brussels

(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/ pressdata/en/ec/128520.pd ).

[5] Europea n Commission, press release (2011), Connecting Europe Facility: Commission adopts plan for €50 billion boost to European networks, Brussels (http://europa.eu/rapid/ press-release_IP-11-1200_en.htm ).

[6] European Commission (2011), Communic ation rom the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee o the Regions, Horizon 2020 — The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Brussels (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=COM:2011:0808:FIN:en:PDF).

[7] European Commission, Research and Innovation (2012), The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Brussels (http://ec.europa.eu/research/ horizon2020/index_en.cm?pg=h2020).

[8] Open Innovation Strategy and Policy Group (2012) (http://www.openinnovation-platorm.eu/).

Contact

Bror Salmelin

Advisor, Innovation Systems

European Commission, Directorate-General or Communications Networks, Content and Technology

(21)

1.2. Innovation ecosystems: a conceptual framework

Introduction

Why is an innovation successul in one organisation and met with resistan ce in another? How is it that certain innovations diﬀuse easily through an envi-ronment while others just spin t heir wheels? What are the implications o new paradigms such a sopen

innovation or our very understanding o the term? These are some o the questions t hat increasingly exercise the minds o managers, entrepreneurs, policymakers and academics as t hey grapple with the perennially important topic o innovation. Afer almost hal a century o intense research and theorising, the academic contribution to answer-ing these questions is less than convincanswer-ing. For example, in a review o the proliﬁc growth in inno-vation publications, Wole [1] concluded that it had made little contribution to the understanding o

innovative behaviour in organisations. The results presented were largely ‘inconclusive, inconsistent and characterised by low levels o explanation’ (p. 405). More recently, Fagerberg [2] states that our understanding o how innovation operates is still ragmentary and ‘that urther conceptual and applied research is needed’ (p. 20). Whilst Teece [3] says ‘no study o innovation can ever claim to have the last word on the subject’. The phenom-enon is too complex, dynamic and adaptive to ﬁt

into a single conception or any extended period o

time. Such characteristics prompt the examination o whether it is appropriate to look at new theories. Figure 1 outlines the progression of innovation from a closed innovation paradigm, to an open innova-tion paradigm, to the recent ormulainnova-tion in terms o innovation networks.

The evolution o innovation toward an ecosystem centric, cross-organisational coniguration cre-ates a compelling logic and case or exploring an ecological theory perspective [4]. Such an analysis prompts this research objective: to develop a theo-retical ramework that can position the person as the cornerstone o the innovation phenomenon an d incorporate the broad spectrum o teams, organisa-tions, inter-organisational networks and public pol-icy, while treating these interconnections as dynamic

interactions subject to the contingencies o time and history. The ramework that we build on is that o ecological systems theory (EST), which provided a new perspective or research in human develop-ment when it was introduced by Urie Bronenbrenner [4]. The benefits o the ramework include: providing a resh perspective or researchers to investigate the phenomenon; integrating the complexities and deficiencies identified in the literature; and present-ing innovation as a dynamic interactive process resulting rom the encounter between people and

Figure 1: Evolution o innovation (Source: Salmelin

(http://www.slideshare.net/globalorum11/2-bror-salmelin) aer Chesbrough, Forrester and Von Hippel)

Closed

Innovation

Centralised

inward-looking

innovation

Externally

focused,

collaborative

innovation

Ecosystem

centric,

cross-organisational

innovation

Open

Innovation

Networks

(22)

their environment with its technological capability. Some commentators use the metaphor o a biologi-cal ecosystem to describe the nature o a business ecosystem. A key characteristic o an ecosystem is that it is evolving with organic, diverse and symbiotic attributes. The principle o synergy is central — the idea that through collaboration, entities can deliver something which is unattainable on one’s own. Eco-systems are also complex adaptive Eco-systems. Once the raw materials are put in place and the initial relationships and couplings established, they are ofen sel-organising and sel-regulating

accord-ing to Darwinian principles. In Knowledge Driven

Entrepreneurship (Springer pu blications), Andersson,

Curley and Formica dene a business ecosystem as ‘a network, or coalition, o resources, competencies, potential, energy, commitments, and promises to realise a shared proﬁtable uture’. Geographical or virtual ecosystems can span or traverse a number o

business ecosystems. Figure 2 shows the mapping of

the Innovation Value Institute as a n innovation eco-system which will be described in more detail later.

Background

The seminal Minnesota Innovation Research Program

(MIRP) concludes that urther theoretical

develop-ment is required to incorporate local and global

phe-nomena ‘at diﬀerent levels o analysis, such as how individualsrelate to project teams, teams to organi-sations, organisations to a larger industry commu-nity’ [5] (p. 641). Storey [6], in his review o key

arti-cles rom over 30 years o research, emphasises the

growing prevalence o alliances and inter-organisa-tional networks with their increasing importance or

innovation. A prominent theme emerging rom stud-ies in the area is the subject o social relationships that includes actors such as ‘persuasion, inﬂuence, politics and power’ [6] (p. xxvii). The growing

signiﬁ-cance o theopen innovation paradigm has prompted

West, Vanhaverbeke and Chesbrough [7] to propose a research ramework with the ollowing classiﬁ-cations: individual, organisational, value network, industry/sector and national institution [7] (p. 288). In related work, Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt [8] sug-gest that emerging orms o value networks must be examined at the level o diﬀerent nested layers.

These diverse layers span the spectrum rom the individual; to ﬁrms/organisations; through Dyads; and on to inter-organisational networks, ultimately reaching national/regional innovation systems. Fon-seca [9] — building on the work o Stacey [10] — argues that innovation needs to be viewed in a much

more human-centred way, conceptualised as a com-plex responsive process o relating between people. Lester and Piore [11] propose that the great project o developing a creative economy r ests on t he uniquely human capacities o rational analysis and creativity. They deﬁne these two undamental pro-cesses as analysis and interpretation and express

their concern at the increasing neglect o the latter in management strategies.

Analysis of prior theory and research

Many scholars trace the introduction o innova-tion into the realm o economic and social change to Joseph Schumpeter’s seminal work [12],Theorie

der Wirtschaflichen Entwicklung (Theory o

Eco-nomic Development). Schumpeter’s writing spanned

Figure 2: Innovation Value Institute as an innovation ecosystem Macrosystem Exosystem Mesosystem Microsystem Individual Public Policy Industry Sector IVI Community IVI Research Workgroup IVI Researcher

(23)

a period o 40 years rom his undergraduate days at the University o Vienna to his term as Proes-sor o Economics at Harvard [13]. According to Marz [14], he is one o the ew social scientists who bequeathed an ‘intellectual legacy that continues to attract new generations o students teachers, scholars and politicians’ [14] (p. xv). Innovation, and bank credit, according to Schumpeter, are the eco-nomic mechanisms ‘that deﬁne a large part o the history o mankind’ [13]. In hisTheory o Economic

Development , he classiﬁed innovation into ﬁve

cat-egories: new products (or goods); new methods o production (or processes); new sources o supply (or hal-manuactured goods); the exploitation o new markets; and new ways to organise business. In Schumpeter’s original schema, innovation is acplished by ‘entrepreneurs’ who developed new com-binations o existing resources [15]. However, in his later works, he came to regard the large corpora-tion as the innovative engine driving the develop-ment o leading economies [16]. His emphasis on

theentrepreneur being a single individual changed

to viewing the concept as capable o being embod-ied by a collaborating team o people. In the 1940s, he published his classicCapitalism, Socialism and Democracy which, in a salient point or contem-porary economics, predicted the demise o capi-talism becoming a victim o its own success [17]. McCraw [18] concludes that the history o inorma-tion technology conﬁrms Schumpeter’s thinking. On the signiﬁcance o the pioneer and innovator (i.e. the entrepreneur), he has this observation to make.

The pleasure derived from being creative and from pushing through sporadic innovations is t he prime

actor rom which t he acquisition o economic power

is derived.

Later in his career, Schumpeter paid increas-ing attention to history ‘as key to understandincreas-ing not only capitalism but economic lie in general’ (McCraw [18], p. 248).

Fagerberg [2] makes the fundamental distinction between invention and innovation: the ormer is regarded as the ‘first occurrence’, while the latter is the ‘first attempt to carry it out into practice’. This is in line with Van de Ven’s [19] assertion that ‘an invention or creative idea does not become an innovation until it is implemented or institutional-ised’. Storey [6] concludes that the very meaning o the term ‘innovation’ has been both controversial and problematical. One o the main challenges o a review o innovation is the range o definitions rom a wide body o literature. In their analysis o the terms innovation and innovativeness rom 21 empirical studies in the new product develop-ment (NPD) literature, Garcia et al. [20] discovered that ‘no less than 15 construc ts and at least 51 dis-tinct scale items’ were used leading to a great deal o ambiguity (p. 110). The Minnesota Innovation Research Program (MIRP) resulted in important pio-neering work on innovation and its publications are generally known as the Minnesota studies [5]. The MIRP was carried out by approximately 40 research-ers who conducted longitudinal studies o 14 inno-vation cases during the 1980s. Four basic factors are implicit in their work: new ideas, people, trans-actions and institutional context. The increasingly important role o academia in supporting innovation in knowledge-based societies has led to the devel-opment o a number o models rom national sys-tems o innovation (NIS) [21] to the more recent tri-ple helix model o university–industry–government relations [22]. The ragmentation o organisational-driven innovation by the diffusion o ICT has resulted in the move towards open and user-led innovation. Furthermore, the development of social networking and networks o practice is currently the subject o growing academic interest.

Table 1 summarises some important t heoretical contributions to innovation studies described in this

introductory section. However, this sample is by no means exhaustive given the voluminous and

eclec-tic nature o innovation studies.

Table 1: Some historically important contributions to innovation studies

Date Source Contribution

1930s Schumpeter Introduced the concept to social studies

1960s Wilson The innovation dilemma

1970s Zaltman et al. Contingency theory

1980s Walton Interaction o individual, org. and environment

1980s Pettigrew Context, content and process

1980s Van de Ven et al. Minnesota studies

1990s Slappendel Innovation perspectives

2000s Christensen Disruptive innovation

2000s Henderson and Clark Innovation types

(24)

In the course o his work, McInerney [23] assem-bled over 30 author-centric definitions o innova-tion rom publicainnova-tions since 1960. These were built, like Russian dolls, rom antecedent work by Rah-manseresht [24] and that o Zain [25]. A list o these innovation definitions are presented in Appendix 1. A content analysis o the innovation definitions was

carried out by converting the au thor-centric

deﬁni-tions in the lit erature into a concept-centric ormat, and then published [26]. This was in order to iden-tiy the most common concepts and al so ones that may require urther attention [27].

To summarise, prior research does not adequately encompass the innovation spectrum which can be broadly described as ollows: the person as the pro-tagonist o the innovation phenomenon, operating in an ecological milieu spanning rom immediate collaborators and organisations to national

sys-tems embedded in a cultural context. Furthermore, existing theories do not suﬃciently account or the

dynamic relationship between person and environ-ment that is contingent on the ﬂow o time and history.

Theoretical development

Elsewhere, we have proposed the ecological sys-tems theory (EST) as a meta-theoretical rame-work or the study o innovation and inormation

systems [28]. We have also used the EST to exam-ine a particular ecosystem — t he Innovation Value

Institute [29]. In this paper, we will argue that the EST can illuminate an historical analysis o inno-vation deﬁnitions in order to develop a conceptual ramework to assist urther wor k in the general innovation area. With this aim, we will now intro-duce the ecological systems theory and suggest

that it provides a suitable ramework or

research-ers to approach the topic o innovation ecosystems. Ecological theories: an overview

This section provides an overview o prominent eco-logical theories and provides a background to our argument that the ramework o Urie Bronenbren-ner is most suitable to meet the presen t theoretical deﬁciencies in inormation systems (IS) innovation research.

Firstly, we will dene the term ‘ecology’ for the pur-pose o this paper. The ecological approach is nor-mally taken as the interaction between an organism

and its environment [30]. However, a recent

explana-tion o the term in the Oxord Dicexplana-tionary o English (2005) deﬁnes ecology as ‘a branch o biology that deals with the relations o organismsto one another

and their physical surroundings’. Thereore, we would

like to build on this concept o the primacy o the

relationship to others by oﬀering the ollowing

deﬁni-tion:an ecological approach is the stu dy o the rela-tionships between a person and their environment

and to other collaborators within the environment .

Kurt Lewin is regarded as both the ather o social psychology and o action research, and is amous

or his assertion that there is nothing as pract ical as

a good theory. He believed that a undamental goal o researchers is to put their theories into action in order to make the world a better place in which to live. Lewin trained in Europe during the early years o the 20th century and his academic training was greatly inﬂuenced by the Gestalt movement. Gestalt

psychology proposes that an organised whole is

per-ceived as more than the sum o its parts [31]. Bor-rowing an analogy rom physics, he developed his

psychologicalﬁeld theory which evolved into his con-ception oecological psychology and this was urther

reﬁned in the 1950s by his students Roger Barker and Herbert Wright [32]. Lewin argued that scientiﬁc research requires a transition rom the static

classi-ﬁcations o what he termed an Aristotelian paradigm to a dynamicGalilean paradigm. The latter examines

the underlying theoretical processes which bring

about the observed phenomenon [33].

J. J. Gibson was another inﬂuential theorist who introduced an ecological approach to the study o perception psychology. This arose rom his work on pilot selection and the spatial challenges result-ing rom ﬂyresult-ing aircraf [30]. Gibson [34] proposed that the contemporary account o natural vision

as a sequence o snapshots, aperture vision, be

replaced by a dynamic perspective that took into accountambient vision andambulatory vision. He developed his theory by considering an animal or person and their environment as an inseparable and mutual pair. Furthermore, the environment rang-ing rom atoms to galaxies consists o structural units organised in such a way that smaller units are

embedded in larger units in what he terme d

nest-ing. From the point of view of perception, the most

important levels are the ecological levels o the habitat which can be perceived by the sense organs such as things we can ‘look at and eel, or smell and taste, and events we can listen to’ [34] (p. 9).

Organisational ecology is a prominent body o theory

in sociological research that examines the interac-tions within and between populainterac-tions o

organisa-tions. Its chie apologist, Michael Hannan, introduced

the idea in the 1970s building on evolutionary per-spectives such as adaption and selection. Hannan developed his early work by engaging in the debates

initiated by the inﬂuential Amos Hawley whose struc-tural theory had launched a branch o research in the

(25)

ﬁeld o sociology [35]. Hawley’s emphasis on the

crit-ical role o technology — in what he termed human

ecology — is o particular interest to this study. However, afer 30 years o mainly empirical work in

organisational ecology there is a major concern with

the ragmentation o research in the area. Hannan

and his collaborators have recently sought to address

this issue by undertaking a project o theoretical

integration and uniﬁcation that investigates the

rela-tionships between the distinct ragments [36]. Pre-vious studies in organisational ecology had utilised

theories involving such concepts a s ‘legitimation, age

dependency, competition and inertia’ [36] (p. 290). Their current proposal oﬀers deeper

conceptualisa-tions through adopting an approach based on a non-monotonic logic , together with uzzy-set theory , which, they argue, changes the undamental

theo-retical core o the discipline.

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory Urie Bronenbrenner spent most o his proessional career as Professor of Human Development, Fam-ily Studies and Psychology at Cornell University. His development o the ecological systems theor y [4] is regarded as having revolutionised studies in these areas by shattering barriers and building bridges among the social science disciplines. Previous to Bronenbrenner’s work, the study o human devel-opment was compartmentalised among psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics and political

sci-ence. However, through the concept o the ecology o

human development, these disparate environments

were integrated into a holistic concept ual ramework

o interdependent nested systems where human

development was viewed as a continuum [37].

Bron-enbrenner viewed a ‘child’s development within the context o the system o relationships that orm his or her environment’ with each complex ‘layer’ inﬂu-encing the development [38]. His own conception o the theory was as ‘a set o nested structures, each inside the next, like a set o Russian dolls’ [4]. He acknowledges the debt he owes to the theories o Kurt Lewin who expressed behaviour as a unction ‘o the interplay between person and environment’ in the form of a classic equation shown below.

Fur-thermore, Bronenbrenner aﬃrms that his theoretical

ramework originated rom Lewin’s antecedent work that places behaviour in context: ‘situational, inter-personal, sociological, cultural, historical and above

all theoretical’ [3] (p. 43).

B = f(PE)

Lewin’s well-known ormula expresses behaviour

(B) as a combined unction(  ) o orces rom within

a person (P ) and rom the external environment

(E ) [32].

Bronenbrenner argued that Lewin’s ormulation did not include a time dimension and proposed his

own version o the equation or the area o human

development. Here, development is regarded as a unction o the person interacting with the envi-ronment. This includes the eﬀects o both con-stancy and change (the time dimension) on per-sonal characteristics throughout the lie span which is captured in the ollowing equation.

D = f (PE)

Bronenbrenner affirmed that a major motivation or his work was to provide both psychological and sociological depth to Lewin’s theories. From an inormation systems viewpoint, it is significant that he claimed his theory differed rom antecedent research models in that he analysed the

environ-ment in systems terms. His theory is shown

dia-grammatically in Figure 3.

We will now, ﬁrstly, describe each nested layer o the modiﬁed Bronenbrenner model where the ‘pat-terned behaviour’ is determined by the ollowing. 1. Individual level: intrapersonal actors —

char-acteristics such as knowledge, attitudes, behav-iour, sel-concept, skills, etc., including the developmental history o the person.

2. Microsystem: interpersonal processes and pri-mary groups — ormal and inormal social net-work and social support systems, including the amily, work group and riendship networks. 3. Mesosys tem: instit utional actors — social

institutions with organisational characteristics, with ormal (and inormal) rules and regulations or operation.

4. Exosystem: community actors — relationships among organisations, institutions, and inormal networks within deﬁned boundaries.

5. Macrosystem: public policy — local, state and national laws and policies.

6. Chronosyst em: this was a later addition by Bronenbrenner [5]. The concept ‘encompasses

change or consistency over time not only in the

characteristics o the person but also o the environment in which t hat person lives’ [39]. 7. We have present ed our argument that

Bron-enbrenner’s theory best matches the criteria developed earlier due to its comprehensive topology, its ocus on relational interactions, and its synthesis o the concepts o ecology and systems. We will now present our adaptation o the model to address two main issues: incor-poration o technology and emphasising the importance o collaboration in the IS innovation process.

(26)

Elements of an ecological systems theory for IS innovation

Based on the oregoing analysis, we will now pre-sent our ramework to analyse innovation bas ed on

Bronenbrenner’s theory. The struc ture is based on

the implicit assumption that innovation originates rom the human person but is significantly influ-enced by interaction and interconnection with the five other layers. We conceptualise our argument by modiying both Lewin and Bronenbrenner’s equa-tions in a ormat that explicitly included the time dimension:

I_(t) = f(P_(t) E_(t)) (equation 1)

The next step is to propose a ormula to capture the theoretical concept o an EST or IS innovation which builds on both Lewin and Bronenbrenner but speciﬁcally includes two extra dimensions: technol-ogy as an integral component o inormation sys-tems and the interpersonal interconnections that are essential to the innovation process. The subject

o technology is not speciﬁcally addressed in

Bron-enbrenner’s ﬁnal work . However, it is alluded to via a quotation rom the work o Lev Vygotsk y who was

inﬂuential on the development o ecological sys-tems theory. As pointed out earlier, theorists such as Hawley have stressed the importance o tech-nology when seeking to understand human ecology. The relational aspect is captured in

Bronenbren-ner’s description o the ecological microsystem.

However, we propose that the concept is e xplicitly included in our ormulation given its impor tance or the innovation process which, in both the initiation and implementation stages, cannot be carried out in total isolation.

ISI(t) =  (P (t) R (t) E (t) T (t)) (equation 2) Where:

ISI = inormation systems innovation P = person

R = relational connections to collaborators within

the innovation context E = environment

T = technological capability

The adapted ramework or IS innovation is

illus-trated in Figure 4. Figure 3: Ecological systems ramework [28]