Uit het vooronderzoekvan het project Duurzamelearning communities: Oogstenin de Greenportblijkt dat12 factorenhierbijvan belangrijk zijn. Deze succesfactoren staan centraal in de interactieve tool Seeds of Innovation. Ook komen uit het vooronderzoek, aangevuld met inzichten uit de literatuur en tips om de samenwerking door te ontwikkelen en meer gebruik te maken van de opbrengsten 12 succesfactoren met toelichting, belangrijkste bevindingen en tips voor ‘hoe nu verder’, Poster, Walk through, De app die learning communities helptde samenwerkingnaareenhogerplan te tillenen innovatieveopbrengstenoptimaalte benutten.
MULTIFILE
In this policy brief we recommend that in order to face numerous societal challenges such as migration and climate change, regional governments should create a culture of innovation by opening up themselves and stimulate active citizenship by supporting so called Public Sector Innovation (PSI) labs. These labs bring together different types of stakeholders that will explore new solutions for societalchallenges and come up with new policies to tackle them. This method has been developed and tested in a large EU funded research project.
DOCUMENT
This paper analyses Amsterdam’s Startup-in-Residence (SiR) programme as new type of policy to engage startups in the development of urban innovation through a challenge-based public procurement of innovation (PPI) process. The programme is being mimicked by other cities and government agencies, but so far there has not been a rigorous, theoretically-informed analysis of the approach. In this paper, we specify and focus on the role of city-based, public-affiliated intermediaries as initiators, moderators and influencers of conversations between startups and the local government. The main contribution of SiR as a PPI intermediation programme has been to launch new types of fruitful conversations on several levels, that lead to institutional innovations rather than direct solutions for urban problems or startup development. In this sense, SiR fulfils a role inquiring and ascribing urban challenges with values and notions of “worth” that preceded and shaped innovation directions. We also suggest that engaging startups is effective for only a limited bandwidth urban challenges; different types of intermediation are required to foster collaborative innovation in more complex settings.
DOCUMENT
Public innovation has come of age. It is now a distinctive field in its own right, and no longer overly reliant on evidence, concepts and norms derived from private sector research (for example Arundel et al., 2019; Windrum & Koch, 2008; Hartley, 2005; Bekkers & Tummers, 2018). A key feature of public innovation is its publicness—it occurs in, and is linked to, a formal political context rather than being driven by market pressures.
MULTIFILE
At first glance, Public Sector Innovation (PSI) Labs are gaining prominence within academic literature, the European Union (EU) and beyond. However, because of the relative newness and conceptual ambiguity of this concept, the exact contribution of these labs to theory and practice is still unclear. In addition, most research has been looking at case studies. This publication breaks new ground by elaborating on the concept and also by looking at the perception of these labs in different contexts, by comparing multiple labs in multiple countries. In doing so, we raised the question: ‘What is the perceived added value of Public Sector Innovation labs for further developing theory as well as for society?’ In order to answer this question, by way of an experiment, we combined theoretical research together with focus groups with members of the EU funded project Multi Disciplinary Innovation for Social Change (SHIINE) in combination with questionnaires to selected PSI labs, thus providing us with rich data. Our experimental methodology uncovered a conceptual bias that is probably existent in similar studies and needs to be acknowledged more. In addition, we found that PSI labs have developed over time into an amalgam of two competing concepts. To conclude, we believe that the specific potential of PSI labs as an internal space for innovation within institutions is underutilised. We believe this could be improved by acknowledging the specific aim of PSI labs in a co-creative setting between relevant stakeholders, such as Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).
DOCUMENT
More than 25!years after Moore’s first introduction of the public value concept in 995, the concept is now widely used, but its operationalization is still considered difficult. This paper presents the empirical results of a study analyzing the application of the public value concept in Higher Education Institutions, thereby focusing on how to account for public value. The paper shows how Dutch universities of applied sciences operationalize the concept ‘public value’, and how they report on the outcome achievements. The official strategy plans and annual reports for FY2016 through FY2018 of the ten largest institutions were used. While we find that all the institutions selected aim to deliver public value, they still use performance indicators that have a more narrow orientation, and are primarily focused on processes, outputs, and service delivery quality. However, we also observe that they use narratives to show the public value they created. In this way this paper contributes to the literature on public value accounting.
DOCUMENT
The promotor was Prof. Erik Jan Hultink and copromotors Dr Ellis van den Hende en Dr R. van der Lugt. The title of this dissertation is Armchair travelling the innovation journey. ‘Armchair travelling’ is an expression for travelling to another place, in the comfort of one’s own place. ‘The innovation journey’ is the metaphor Van de Ven and colleagues (1999) have used for travelling the uncharted river of innovation, the highly unpredictable and uncontrollable process of innovation. This research study began with a brief remark from an innovation project leader who sighed after a long and rough journey: ‘had I known this ahead of time…’. From wondering ‘what could he have known ahead of time?’ the immediate question arose: how do such innovation journeys develop? How do other innovation project leaders lead the innovation journey? And could I find examples of studies about these experiences from an innovation project leader’s perspective that could have helped the sighing innovation project leader to have known at least some of the challenges ahead of time? This dissertation is the result of that quest, as we do know relatively little how this process of the innovation project leader unfolds over time. The aim of this study is to increase our understanding of how innovation project leaders lead their innovation journeys over time, and to capture those experiences that could be a source for others to learn from and to be better prepared. This research project takes a process approach. Such an approach is different from a variance study. Process thinking takes into account how and why things – people, organizations, strategies, environments – change, act and evolve over time, expressed by Andrew Pettigrew (1992, p.10) as catching “reality in flight”.
MULTIFILE
This article focuses on the innovation partnership (IP) model. This model opens new avenues for public bodies, including cities, to co-create solutions together with private companies or other innovators. It was introduced in 2014, but so far public bodies have been hesitant to adopt it: it is only scarcely used. In the UIA-funded DIACCESS project, started in 2019, the Swedish city of Växjö has embraced this model to co-develop smart city solutions with suppliers, and has so far already learned many lessons that are very relevant for other cities. In this zoom-in, we explain how the IP model works; then, we scrutinize how Växjö has adopted it: what problems were encountered in the various stages, and what lessons can be learned from that?
LINK
This report presents research on success factors of learning communities with a case study of the Innovation Lab Hanze International Business Office (further – Innovation Lab HIBO) at Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen, the Netherlands. The research project is a part of the broader research programme on innovation of education and the success factors of learning communities carried on by a number of researchers at Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen (further – Hanze University AS).In answering the main research question on success factors of learning communities and, specifically, the Innovation Lab HIBO, two sub-questions were formulated: the first deals with school level expectations about the Innovation Lab HIBO, whereas the second explores what are the institutional expectations and guidelines regarding living labs at Hanze University AS. The research focus is on formalised expectations about the goals and outcomes of living labs, as attaining the established goals and outcomes would testimony a successful activity of a living lab. The factors that facilitate or determine whether the goalsand outcomes of living labs are achieved are therefore the success factors.The analysis of both school level expectations about the Innovation Lab HIBO and the institutional expectations and guidelines regarding living labs reveals a number of success factors, conditions, and preconditions. As these do not coincide, it is argued that finding the right balance between local, school level, expectations and the institutional goals is crucial for the successful performance of living labs. Another important factor for successful performance of the living lab and, specifically the Innovation Lab HIBO, is development of a learning community. This process would require strengthening of an open organisationalculture and facilitation of exchange of ideas and learning process.The research project was carried on in the period from February 1, 2020, till August 30, 2020. From September 2020 the follow up research is planned into operationalization of success factors, definition of performance criteria, performance evaluation, development of suggestions for improvement of performance, and development of a blueprint for the establishment of innovation labs.
DOCUMENT
The vast literature on accountability in the public sector (usually called ‘public accountability’originating from political science and public administration tends to emphasize the positive dimension of holding authorities to account. As formulated by one prominent scholar in the field, ‘[a]ccountability has become an icon for good governance’: it is perceived as ‘a Good Thing, and, so it seems, we can’t have enough of it’ (Bovens, 2005: 182, 183). Accountability has, thus, become one of the central values of democratic rule – varying on a well-known American slogan one could phrase this as ‘no public responsi bility without accountability’.
MULTIFILE
