.This workshop gives you hands-on experience of developing gameplay concepts with a practical tool that will challenge you to see your ideas in a new light. We will reveal unconscious biases, and help you to be both creative and pragmatic with your early designs. Mata and Thomas, who ran 2018’s paper prototyping workshop, are back to help you explore ‘ideation systems’: what they are, why they feel good to use, and why they often don’t fulfil the needs of individuals or companies. At the end of the session you will have learnt and used a new method for stimulating your own creativity, and a way to sanity-check your ideas before you commit to an expensive path of exploration. The workshop will help anyone involved with game concepting and early prototype development – from large companies to indie teams. At the end of the session you will have learnt and used a new method for stimulating your own creativity, and a way to sanity-check your ideas before you commit to an expensive path of development. You’ll be able to take this method back to your studio and use it with the rest of your team to create new concepts for your projects and enhance both morale and collaboration.
Many interesting smart textile concepts have been developed, however there are only a few relevant examples of concepts that are producible and valuable for our society. The so-called ‘killer application’ has not been found yet. That is why it is extremely important that multi-disciplinary parties team-up during the ideation process to come up with innovative solutions (Toeters, 2007). The goal of STS CRISP (Crisp, 2011) is to integrate existing knowledge from partners in the separate domains of textile (soft materials), technology and service providers. To investigate the different kinds of expertise necessary for the development of Smart Textile Services we initiated an assignment to develop new Smart Textile Services concepts for elderly that can be used during rehabilitation (ten Bhömer, Tomico, Kleinsmann, Kuusk & Wensveen, 2012) and executed this project in 2 different institutes: Saxion University of Applied Sciences and Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e). Through some pre-set contact moments, the use of a gatekeeper (Vertooren, 2007) active in both institutes, and analyzing the final reports we are able to acquire an insight in the different approaches and focus preferences of the institutes. The analysis lead to the following observations: 1. Saxion students spend more time researching existing technologies and how to implement them in their concepts. A more theoretical approach from what is already there, applying existing materials and opportunities that are already there. 2. The TU/e students consistently focused on on user research to find out their perspectives. More user-centered. 3. Saxion students start with ideation and validate this by analyzing what is available in the market at the beginning of the process. 4. TU/e students work from a societal perspective towards user focus and an idea. TU/e students found out that there is a lot more steps after prototyping. Saxion takes the next step: where TU/e students stop, they continue. Out of these observations we can conclude that the institutes are active on different levels on the time-to-market line. We have to take into account that every collaborator has a different time-to-market horizon. For the STS CRISP consortium this means that efforts have to be made to define the time-to-market expertise of the partners. As a next step, we will continue to explore this concept of parallel collaboration assignments and start a new collaboration assignment in sequence in different institutes. Test the time-to-market approach and gather strategies to create a more in depth approach to relevant marketable products can speed up the process of bringing concepts to the market, so that it can have a true added value for society.
MULTIFILE
From the article: Though organizations are increasingly aware that the huge amounts of digital data that are being generated, both inside and outside the organization, offer many opportunities for service innovation, realizing the promise of big data is often not straightforward. Organizations are faced with many challenges, such as regulatory requirements, data collection issues, data analysis issues, and even ideation. In practice, many approaches can be used to develop new datadriven services. In this paper we present a first step in defining a process for assembling data-driven service development methods and techniques that are tuned to the context in which the service is developed. Our approach is based on the situational method engineering approach, tuning it to the context of datadriven service development. Published in: Reinhartz-Berger I., Zdravkovic J., Gulden J., Schmidt R. (eds) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS 2019, EMMSAD 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 352. Springer. The final authenticated version of this paper is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20618-5_11.
MULTIFILE
In 2021, Citython editions were held for the European cities of Eindhoven (Netherlands), Bilbao and Barcelona (Spain), Hamburg (Germany), and Lublin (Poland). Within this project, BUAS contributed to the organization of CITYTHON Eindhoven in cooperation with CARNET (an initiative by CIT UPC) and City of Eindhoven – an event which gives young talent the opportunity to work with mentors and experts for the development of innovative urban solutions. Participants of CITYTHON Eindhoven worked on three challenges:- Traffic safety in school zones - Travel to the campus- Make the city healthy The event took place between 18 May and 2 June 2021 with various experts, for example from ASML, City of Eindhoven and University of Amsterdam, giving inspirational talks and mentoring students throughout the ideation and solutions development process. The teams presented their solutions during the Dutch Technology Week and the winners were announced by Monique List-de Roos (Alderman Mobility and Transport, City of Eindhoven) on 2 June 2021. The role of BUAS within this project was to assist City of Eindhoven with the development of the challenges to be tackled by the participating teams, and find relevant speakers and mentors who would be supporting the students for the development of their solutions and jury members who would determine the winning teams. The project ended with a round table “Green and Safe Mobility for all: 5 Smart City(thon) Case studies” on November 17 organized as part of Smart City Expo World Congress 2021 in Barcelona. This project is funded by EIT Urban Mobility, an initiative of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), a body of the European Union. EIT Urban Mobility acts to accelerate positive change on mobility to make urban spaces more livable. Learn more: eiturbanmobility.eu.Collaborating partnersCARNET (Lead organisation); Barcelona Institute of Technology for Habitat; Barcelona City Council; Bilbao City Hall; City of Hamburg; City of Eindhoven,; City of Lublin; Digital Hub Logistics Hamburg; Technical University of Catalonia, Tecnalia; UPC Technology Center.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
Breda University of Applied Sciences, Master Imagineering programme students and FHGR, University of Graubuenden, Chur, students from the Digital Business Management, Bachelor programme follow a joint module that has three specific virtual components of interaction: the Experience Design Course, he Ideation Block (Design Hackathon) and the Sustainability and Impact generation (Implementation phase). Further on the joint interaction consists of: joint online lectures and workshops (on a weekly basis); joint online assignments (on a bi-weekly basis) supported by meet-up’s and consultancy sessions and joint online collaborative creative sessions and presentations (regularly).The content that the International Virtual Collaboration encompasses is: The VUCA world we are currently living in (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous). Tools to innovate and flourish within and beyond VUCA; Experience and Transformation design through business and social canvas modeling; Innovation games and Appreciative Inquiry and Social and business impact generation and assessment.The final joint output that the students (in groups) create (the project is running until mid-January 2023 and then analysis and data processing until March 2023) will be a design concept/model for a specific case/organization with strategic implementation plan and recommendation report.
