In large organizations, innovation activities often take place in separate departments, centers, or studios. These departments aim to produce prototypes of solutions to the problems of operational business owners. However, too often these concepts remain in the prototype stage: they are never implemented and fall into what is popularly termed the Valley of Death. A design approach to innovation is presented as a solution to the problem. However, practice shows that teams that use design nevertheless encounter implementation challenges due to the larger infrastructure of the organization they are part of. This research aims to explore which organizational factors contribute to the Valley of Death during design innovation. An embedded multiple case study at a large heritage airline is applied. Four projects are analyzed to identify implementation challenges. A thematic data analysis reveals organizational design, departmental silos, and dissimilar innovation strategies contribute to the formation of, and encounters with, the Valley of Death. Arising resource-assignment challenges that result from these factors are also identified. Materialization, user-centeredness, and holistic problem framing are identified as design practices that mitigate encounters with the Valley of Death, thus leading to projects being fully realized. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmj.12052 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-de-lille-8039372/
MULTIFILE
Digital innovation in education – as in any other sector – is not only about developing and implementing novel ideas, but also about having these ideas effectively used as well as widely accepted and adopted, so that many students can benefit from innovations improving education. Effectiveness, transferability and scalability cannot be added afterwards; it must be integrated from the start in the design, development and implementation processes, as is proposed in the movement towards evidence-informed practice (EIP). The impact an educational innovation has on the values of various stakeholders is often overlooked. Value Sensitive Design (VSD) is an approach to integrate values in technological design. In this paper we discuss how EIP and VSD may be combined into an integrated approach to digital innovation in education, which we call value-informed innovation. This approach not only considers educational effectiveness, but also incorporates the innovation’s impact on human values, its scalability and transferability to other contexts. We illustrate the integrated approach with an example case of an educational innovation involving digital peer feedback.
The model of the Best Practice Unit (BPU) is a specific form of practice based research. It is a variation of the Community of Practice (CoP) as developed by Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) with the specific aim to innovate a professional practice by combining learning, development and research. We have applied the model over the past 10 years in the domain of care and social welfare in the Netherlands. Characteristics of the model are: the interaction between individual and collective learning processes, the development of (new or better) working methods, and the implementation of these methods in daily practice. Multiple knowledge sources are being used: experiential knowledge, professional knowledge and scientific knowledge. Research is serving diverse purposes: articulating tacit knowledge, documenting the learning and innovation process, systematically describing the revealed or developed ways of working, and evaluating the efficacy of new methods. An analysis of 10 different research projects shows that the BPU is an effective model.
With increasing penetration rates of driver assistance systems in road vehicles, powerful sensing and processing solutions enable further automation of on-road as well as off-road vehicles. In this maturing environment, SMEs are stepping in and education needs to align with this trend. By the input of student teams, HAN developed a first prototype robot platform to test automated vehicle technology in dynamic road scenarios that include VRUs (Vulnerable Road Users). These robot platforms can make complex manoeuvres while carrying dummies of typical VRUs, such as pedestrians and bicyclists. This is used to test the ability of automated vehicles to detect VRUs in realistic traffic scenarios and exhibit safe behaviour in environments that include VRUs, on public roads as well as in restricted areas. Commercially available VRU-robot platforms are conforming to standards, making them inflexible with respect to VRU-dummy design, and pricewise they are far out of reach for SMEs, education and research. CORDS-VTS aims to create a first, open version of an integrated solution to physically emulate traffic scenarios including VRUs. While analysing desired applications and scenarios, the consortium partners will define prioritized requirements (e.g. robot platform performance, dummy types and behaviour, desired software functionality, etc.). Multiple robots and dummies will be created and practically integrated and demonstrated in a multi-VRU scenario. The aim is to create a flexible, upgradeable solution, published fully in open source: The hardware (robot platform and dummies) will be published as well-documented DIY (do-it-yourself) projects and the accompanying software will be published as open-source projects. With the CORDS-VTS solution, SME companies, researchers and educators can test vehicle automation technology at a reachable price point and with the necessary flexibility, enabling higher innovation rates.
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.
Despite their various appealing features, drones also have some undesirable side-effects. One of them is the psychoacoustic effect that originates from their buzzing noise that causes significant noise pollutions. This has an effect on nature (animals run away) and on humans (noise nuisance and thus stress and health problems). In addition, these buzzing noises contribute to alerting criminals when low-flying drones are deployed for safety and security applications. Therefore, there is an urgent demand from SMEs for practical knowledge and technologies that make existing drones silent, which is the main focus of this project. This project contributes directly to the KET Digital Innovations\Robotics and multiple themes of the top sectors: Agriculture, Water and Food, Health & Care and Safety. The main objective of this project is: Investigate the desirability and possibilities of extremely silent drone technologies for agriculture, public space and safety This is an innovative project and there exist no such drone technology that attempts to reduce the noises coming from drones. The knowledge within this project will be converted into the first proof-of-concepts that makes the technology the first Minimum Viable Product suitable for market evaluations. The partners of this project include WhisperUAV, which has designed the first concept of a silent drone. As a fiber-reinforced 3D composite component printer, Fiberneering plays a crucial role in the (further) development of silent drone technologies into testable prototypes. Sorama is involved as an expert company in the context of mapping the sound fields in and around drones. The University of Twente is involved as a consultant and co-developer, and Research group of mechatronics at Saxion is involved as concept developer, system and user requirement verifier and validator. As an unmanned systems innovation cluster, Space53 will be involved as innovation and networking consultant.
