Open innovation and the evaluation of internet-enabled public services in smart cities

Technovation

Volumn 78, Issue , 2018, Pages 4-14

  Paskaleva, Krassimira ^a   Cooper, Ian ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b The Eden Centre   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Co evaluation; Co production; Innovation management; Open innovation; Smart city services; Stakeholder management

Indexed keywords

SMART CITY;

CO-EVALUATION FRAMEWORK; CO-PRODUCTION; INNOVATION MANAGEMENT; INTERNET ENABLED SERVICES; OPEN INNOVATION; RESEARCH EXPERIENCE; STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT; TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION;

WEB SERVICES;

EID: 85050491536     PISSN: 01664972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2018.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Al-Yaseen, H., Eldabi, R., El-Haddadeh, R., Post Implementation evaluation of IT systems: a close review of practice. Irani, Z., Lowe, P., (eds.) Evaluating Information Systems: Public and Private Sectors, 2008, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 134–151.
2. Albury, D., Fostering innovation in public services. Public Money Manag. 25:1 (2005), 51–56.
3. Almirall, E., Lee, M., Wareham, J., Mapping living labs in the landscape of innovation methodologies. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2:9 (2012), 12–18.
4. Almirall, E., Wareham, J., Living labs and open innovation: roles and applicability. Electron. J. Virtual Organ. Netw. 10:3 (2008), 21–46.
5. Ansell, C., Torfing, J., (eds). Public Innovation through Collaboration and Design© 2014 – Routledge.
6. Axelsson, K., Melin, U., Lindgren, I., Exploring the importance of citizen participation and involvement in e-government projects: practice, incentives and organization. J. Transform. Gov. - People, Process Policy 4:4 (2010), 299–321.
7. Bommert, B., Collaborative innovation in the public sector. Int. Public Manag. Rev. 11:1 (2010), 15–33.
8. Borins, S., Encouraging innovation in the public sector. J. Intellect. Capital. 2:3 (2001), 310–319.
9. Bovaird, D., Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Adm. Rev. 67:5 (2007), 846–860.
10. Bovaird, T., Loeffler, E., From engagement to co-production: the contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 23:4 (2012), 1119–1138.
11. Bovaird, T., Loeffler, L., User and community co-production of public services: what does the evidence tell us?. Int. J. Public Adm. 39:13 (2016), 1006–1019.
12. Boyle, D., Harris, M., The Challenge of Co-production: How Equal Partnerships between Professionals and the Public Are Crucial to Improving Public Services. 2009, New Economic Foundation, NESTA, London.
13. Brandsen, T., Honingh, M., Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions. Public Adm. Rev. 76:3 (2016), 427–435.
14. Cahn, E., Gray, Ch, 2013. Co-production from a normative perspective. New Public Governance, the Third Sector, and Co-Production 7:129.
15. Chen, J., Tsou, H., Ching, R., Co-production and its effects on service innovation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 40:8 (2011), 1331–1346.
16. Chesbrough, H., Open Services Innovation: Rethinking Your Business to Grow and Compete in a New Era. 2011, Wiley, New York.
17. Cooper, I., Paskaleva, K., Concilio, G., Rizzo, F., Goetz, C., Marsh, J., Barroco, J., 2012. Smart City Services Evaluation and Impact Assessment Report, Peripheria Project, 〈http://www.peripheria.eu/content/peripheria-evaluation-and-impact-assessment〉.
18. Duignan, P., 2009. Selecting impact/outcome evaluation designs: a decision-making table and checklist approach, In: Outcomes Theory Knowledge Base, article no. 256. 〈http://knol.google.com/k/paul-duignan-phd/selecting-impactoutcomeevaluation/2m7zd68aaz774/115〉.
19. Damanpour, F., Schneider, M., Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: assessing the role of managers. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 19:3 (2009), 495–522.
20. De Bonis, L., Trapani, F., For a “living (Lab)” approach to smart cities. Riva Sanseverino, E., Riva Sanseverino, R., Vaccaro, V., (eds.) Smart Cities Atlas, 2017, Springer, Cham.
21. Dollery, B., Grant, B., Akimov, A., A typology of shared service provision in Australian Local Government. Aust. Geogr. 41:2 (2010), 217–231.
22. Durose, C., Mangan, C., Needham C., Rees, J., 2014. Evaluating co-production: pragmatic approaches to building the evidence base, Co-production Panel, Political Studies Association Conference, April.
23. Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., Gruber, T., Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 39:2 (2011), 327–339.
24. ENoLL (European Network of Living Labs), 2018. Effective members, 〈 http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/livinglabs/effectivemembers〉.
25. EnoLL (European Network of Living Labs) undated. What are Living Labs, 〈http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/node/1429〉.
26. European Union, 2018. Marketplace of the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities, 〈https://eu-smartcities.eu〉.
27. Flak, L., Jeremy, R. 2005. Stakeholder Governance: Adapting Stakeholder Theory to E-Government, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Article 31.
28. Frederickson, H., Smith, K., Public Administration Theory and Primer. 2012, Westview Press, Boulder, Co.
29. Gottfridsson, P., Joint service development – the creations of the prerequisite for the service development. Manag. Serv. Qual. 22:1 (2012), 21–37.
30. Grimsley, M., Meehan, A., e-Government information systems: evaluation-led design for public value and client trust. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 16:2 (2007), 134–148.
31. Gronroos, C., Value co-creation in service logic: a critical analysis. MarketingTheory 11:3 (2011), 279–301.
32. Gummesson, E., Service management: an evaluation and the future. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 5:1 (1994), 77–96.
33. Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., Torfing, J., Collaborative innovation: a viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Adm. Rev. 73:6 (2013), 821–830.
34. Hilgers, D., Ihl, C., Citizen sourcing: applying the concept of open innovation to the public sector. Int. J. Public Particip. 4:1 (2010), 67–88.
35. Holgersson, J., Karlsson, F., Public e-service development: Understanding citizens’ conditions for participation. Gov. Inf. Q. 31:3 (2014), 396–410.
36. Fu-Ren, Lin, Pei-Shan, Hsieh, Analyzing the sustainability of a newly developed service: an activity theory perspective. Technovation 34:2 (2014), 113–125.
37. Huizingh, E., Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives. Technovation 3:10 (2011), 2–9.
38. Irani, Z., Love, P.E.D., Jones, S., Learning lessons from evaluating eGovernment: reflective case experiences that support transformational government. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 17:2 (2008), 155–164.
39. Jager, B., User-involvement in public services innovation. Osborn, S., Brown, L., (eds.) In Handbook of Public Service Innovation, 2013, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
40. James, O., Managing citizens expectations of public service performance: evidence from observations and expectations in local government. Public Adm. 8:4 (2011), 1419–1435.
41. JISC, 2009. Facilitating open innovation: lansdcpaes and feasibility study. PERA - The innovation network. 〈 http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/bce/facilitatingopeninnovationstudyfinalreport.pdf〉.
42. Joel, W., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., Chesbrough, H., Open innovation: the next decade?. Res. Policy 43:5 (2014), 805–811.
43. Jones, S., Hackney, R., Irani, Z., Towards e-government transformation: conceptualising “citizen engagement. Transform. Gov.: People, Process Policy 1:2 (2007), 145–152.
44. Jun, K., Weare, Ch, Institutional motivations in the adoption of innovations: the case of E-government. J. Public Adm. Res., Theory 21:3 (2010), 495–519.
45. Kettl, D., The Global Public Management Revolution. 2005, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
46. Komninos, N., Intelligent cities: towards interactive and global innovation environments. Int. J. Innov. Reg. Dev., 1(4), 2009 (337-335).
47. Kuk, G., Janssen, M., The business models and information architectures of smart cities. J. Urban Technol. 18:2 (2011), 39–52.
48. Larios, V. Gomez, L., Mora, O., Rocio, M., Villanueva-Rosales, N., 2016. Living labs for smart cities: A use case in Guadalajara city to foster innovation and develop citizen-centered solutions, 2016 IEEE 12-15 Sept. 2016International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2).
49. Lee, J., Lee, H., Developing and validating a citizen-centric typology for smart city services. Gov. Inf. Q. 31 (2014), 93–105.
50. Lin, F.-R., Hsieh, P.-S., Analyzing the sustainability of a newly developed service: An activity theory perspective. Technovation 34:2 (2010), 113–125.
51. Lin, F.-R., Linders, D., From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Gov. Inf. Q. 29:4 (2012), 446–454.
52. Lindgren, I., Jansson, G., Electronic services in the public sector: a conceptual framework. Gov. Inf. Q. 30:2 (2013), 163–172.
53. Löffler, E., Parrado, S. Bovaird, T., 2008. Ryzin van G. 2008. Citizens and the co-production of public services. White paper commissioned by Ministry of Budget, Public Finance and Public Services, France.
54. Meijer, A., Networked co-production of public services in virtual communities: from a government-centric to a community approach to public service support. Public Adm. Rev. 71:4 (2012), 598–607.
55. Műlder, I., Stappers, P.J., 2009. Co-creating in Practice: Results and Challenges, In: ICE International Conference on Concurrent Enterprises, 22–24 June, Leiden, The Netherlands.
56. Műlder, I., Velthuas, D., Kriesn, M., The living labs harmonization cube: communicating living lab Essentials. Electron. J. Virtual Organ. Netw. 10 (2008), 1–14.
57. Mulgan, G., Albur, D., Innovation in the Public Sector. 2003, Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office, UK.
58. Nabatchi, T., Sancino, T., Sicilia, M., Varieties of participation in public services: the who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Adm. Rev. 77:5 (2017), 766–776.
59. Nesti, G., Living labs: a new tool for co-production?. Bisello, A., Vettorato, D., Stephens, R., Elisei, P., (eds.) Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions. Green Energy and Technology., 2017, Springer, Cham.
60. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., The Knowledge Creating Company: how Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. 1995, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
61. Nyström, A.-G., Leminen, S., Actor roles and role patterns influencing innovation in living labs. Ind. Mark. Manag. 43:3 (2014), 483–495.
62. OECD, Together for Better Public Services: partnering with Citizens and Civil. Society, 2011, OECD, Paris.
63. OECD, Innovation in the Public Services: Context, Solutions and Challenges. 2012, OECD, Paris.
64. Osborne, S., Brown, L., Introduction: innovation in public services. Osborne, S., Brown, L., (eds.) Handbook of Innovation in Public Services, Edward Elgar., 2013.
65. Osborne, S., Radnor, Z., Vidal, I., Kinder, T., A sustainable business model for public service organizations?. Public Manag. Rev. 6:2 (2014), 165–172.
66. Osborne, S., Radnor, Z., Strokosch, K., Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment?. Public Manag. Rev., 2016.
67. Paskaleva, K., The smart city: a nexus for open innovation? Intelligent buildings. Int. J. 3 (2011), 153–171.
68. Paskaleva, K., Vitaanen, J., Mechant, P., 2012. Smart Citizens in Smart Cities: An Evaluation Strategy and Method, SmartiP Project report D7.1. http://www.smart-ip.eu/SmartiP EU Project Report.
69. Paskaleva, K., Cooper, I., Linde, P., Peterson, B., Götz, Ch, Smart city stakeholder engagement: making living labs work. Bolívar, M.R.B., (eds.) Transforming City Governments for Successful Smart Cities, 2014, Springer.
70. Paskaleva, K., Cooper, I., Co-production and governance for smart city services: learning from practice: Introduction. Int. J. Serv. Technol. Manag., 2017 (Special issue on Smart City and Service Innovation: 1-12).
71. Paskaleva, K., Cooper, I., Innovations in co-created smart city services. Bolívar, M.R.B., (eds.) Setting Foundations for the Creation of Public Value in Smart Cities, 2018, Springer.
72. Paskaleva, K., Cooper, I., Goncilo, G., Tools and techniques for co-producing smart city services: does one size fit all?. Bolívar, M.R.B., (eds.) Smart Technologies for Smart Governments: Transparency, Efficiency and Organizational Issues, Public Administration, 2016, Springer.
73. Patton, M., Toward distinguishing empowerment evaluation and placing it in a larger context. Am. J. Eval. 18:1 (2005), 147–163.
74. Percy, S.L., Citizen participation in the coproduction of urban services. Urban Aff. Q. 19 (1984), 431–436.
75. Pestoff, V., Co-production and third sector social services in Europe—Some crucial conceptual Issues. Pestoff, T., Verschuere, B., (eds.) New public governance, the third sector and co-production, 2012, Routledge, London.
76. Pollitt, Ch., Geert, B., Löffler, E., 2006. Making quality sustainable: co-design, co-decide, co-produce, co-evaluate, Report of the 4QC Conference, Tempere:1–22.
77. Rondinelli, D., 2013. Reinventing government: the imperatives of innovation and qualaity: 〈http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan010867.pdf〉.
78. Sanderson, I., Evaluation, learning and the effectiveness of public services’. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 9:5/6 (1996), 90–108.
79. Sancino, A., The meta coproduction of community outcomes: towards a citizens’ capabilities approach. Volunt.: Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 27:1 (2016), 409–424.
80. Santos, A., Open innovation research: trends and influences – a bibliometric analysis. J. Innov. Manag. 3:2 (2015), 131–165.
81. Schuurman, et al. The Impact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contributions and Outcomes. Technol. Innov. Manage. Rev. 1:6 (2016), 7–16.
82. Sicilia, M., Guarini, E., Sancino, A., Andreani, M., Ruffini, R., Public services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 82:1 (2016), 8–27.
83. SmartiP, n.d. SmartiP: Smart citizens in smart cities. 〈http://www.smart-ip.eu〉.
84. SmartiP DoW, 2010. SmartiP project description of work. Confidential document.
85. Sørensen, E., Torfing, J., Metagoverning collaborative innovation in governance networks. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 47:7 (2017), 826–839.
86. Ståhlbröst, A., Holst, M., The Living Lab Methodology Handbook. 2012, Plan Sju kommunikation AB, Sweden.
87. Strokosch, K., Osborne, S., Brown, L., (eds.) Co-production and Innovation in Public Services: Can Co-production Drive Innovation?, 2013, Handbook of Innovation in Public Services, Edgar Elgar.
88. Van den Ryzin, G., Immerwahr, S., Importance-performance analysis of citizen satisfaction surveys. Public Adm. 85:1 (2007), 215–226.
89. Vargo, S., Maglio, P., Akaka, M., On value and value co-creation: a service systems and service logic perspective. Eur. Manag. J. 26 (2008), 145–152.
90. Veeckman, C., van der Graaf, S., The City as Living Laboratory: Empowering Citizens with the Citadel Toolkit. Technol. Innov. Manage. Rev. 5:3 (2015), 6–17.
91. Viitanen, J., Kingston, R., The role of public participation GIS in local service delivery. Reddick, C., (eds.) Strategies for Local E-Government Adoption and Implementation: Comparative Studies., 2009, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 611–630.
92. Voorberg, V., Bekkers, J., Tummers, L., A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking On the social innovation journey. Public Manag. Rev. 17:9 (2014), 1333–1357.
93. Yazdizadeh, A., Tavasoli, A., Living labs as a tool for open innovation: a systematic review. Int. J. Human. Cult. Stud., 2016 (Special issue).