Advertisement

Transparency Driven Public Sector Innovation: Smart Waterways and Maritime Traffic in Finland

  • Vaida MeskauskieneEmail author
  • Anssi Öörni
  • Anna Sell
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 341)

Abstract

Finland is set to take the lead in developing maritime digitalization and autonomous shipping. This transformation rests on transparency efforts by Finnish government, characterized by participatory democracy and co-creation of services in public sector, the end of innovation deficit in public services through introduction of dedicated innovation budgets and open data movement for re-usability purposes. The research employs action research methodology and aims to analyse two forms of transparency driven innovation that took place during 2016–2018 as part of waterway digitalisation initiative by Finnish Transport Agency: ‘Open Data Innovation’ as opening up government processes and data and ‘Open Door Innovation’ approach as transforming service delivery. Both approaches initially resulted in number of innovative services, unintended consequences occurred in later stages of digitalization phase due to the lack of interest from businesses and greater public. We conclude with lessons learned and share recommendations for government to succeed in digitalizing one of the most conservative industries.

Keywords

Transparency Public sector innovation Smart government Open data Digitalisation Maritime industry 

References

  1. 1.
    Liuhtio, K.: The maritime cluster in the Baltic Sea region and beyond. Centrum Balticum Foundation, 18 May 2016Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karvonen, T., et al.: The Finnish maritime cluster: towards the 2020s. In: Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. University of Turku (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Finnish Marine Industries: A Strategic Research Agenda For The Finnish Maritime Cluster 2017–2025Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Makkonen, T., Inkinen, T., Saarni, J.: Innovation types in the Finnish maritime cluster. WMU J. Marit Aff. 12, 1–15 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Scholl, H.J., Scholl, M.C.: Smart governance: a roadmap for research and practice. In: iConference 2014, pp. 163–176 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.9776/14060
  7. 7.
    Gil-Garcia, J.R.: Towards a smart state? Inter-agency collaboration, information integration and beyond. Inf. Polity 17, 269–280 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2012-000287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    T., W. C. Key: Smart IT. In: IEEE IT Proceedings, pp. 20–23, February 2009Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bingham, L.B., Nabatchi, T., O’Leary, R.: The new governance: practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Adm. Rev. 65(5), 547–558 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gil-Garcia, J.L., Helbig, N., Ojo, A.: Being smart: emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector. Gov. Inf. Q. 31, I1–I8 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Grimes, J.M.: Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: e-Government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Gov. Inf. Q. 27(3), 264–271 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reddick, C.G., Turner, M.: Channel choice and public service delivery in Canada: comparing e-government to traditional service delivery. Gov. Inf. Q. 29(1), 1–11 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schnackenberg, A.K., Tomlison, E.C.: Organizational transparency: a new perspective on managing trust in organization-stakeholder relationships. J. Manag. 42(7), 1784–1810 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaptein, M.: Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of organizations: the corporate ethical virtues model. J. Organ. Behav. 29, 923–947 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dubbnik, W., et al.: CSR, transparency and the role of intermediate organisations. J. Bus. Ethics 82, 391–406 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graafland, J.J., Eijffinger, S.: Corporate social responsibility of Dutch companies: benchmarking, transparency and robustness. De Economist 152, 1–24 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berggren, E., Bernshteyn, R.: Organizational transparency drives company performance. J. Manag. Dev. 26, 411–417 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meijer, A.: Government transparency in historical perspective: from the ancient regime to open data in the Netherlands. Int. J. Public Adm. 38(3), 189–199 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.934837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davies, T.: Open data barometer: 2013 global report (2013). www.opendataresearch.org/
  20. 20.
    Linders, D., Wilson, S.C.: What is open government? One year after the directive. In: 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (Dg.o 2011), pp. 262–271. ACM, College Park (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lourenço, R.: An analysis of open government portals: a perspective of transparency for accountability. Gov. Inf. Q. 32(3), 323–332 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu, H., Robinson, D.G.: The new ambiguity of ‘open government’. UCLA Law Rev. Discl. 59, 178–208 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2012489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eisenhardt, K.: Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(4), 532–550 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yin, R.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods (1989)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reason, P., Bradbury, H. (eds.): Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, London (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gill, J.: Research as action: an experiment in utilising the social sciences. In: Heller, F. (ed.) The Use and Abuse of Social Science. Sage, London (1983)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuronen, J., Tapaninen, U.: Maritime safety in the Gulf of Finland. Center for Maritime Studies, University of Turku (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Arundel, A., Casali, L., Hollanders, H.: How European public sector agencies innovate: the use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods. Res. Policy 44(7), 1271–1282 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Felina, T., Zenger, T.R.: Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Res. Policy 43(5), 914–925 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.09.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kauhanen-Simanainen, A., Suurhasko, M.: From open data to innovative knowledge exploitation: open data program 2013–2015 final report. Ministry of Finance Publications, 31 September 2015. http://vm.fi/julkaisu?pubid=6902
  33. 33.
    Lee, S.M., Hwang, T., Choi, D.: Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries. Manag. Decis. 50(1), 147–162 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211194921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wolfe, R.A., Putler, D.S.: How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups? Organ. Sci. 13, 64–80 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Katz, R., Allen, T.J.: Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: a Look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Manag. 12(1), 7–20 (1982).  https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.1982.12.issue-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Spital, F.: An analysis of the role of users in the total R&D portfolios of scientific instrument firms. Res. Policy 8(3), 284–296 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gray, P.H., Parise, S., Iyer, B.: Innovation impacts of using social bookmarking systems. MIS Q. 35, 629–643 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bogers, M., Afuah, A., Bastian, B.: Users as innovators: a review, critique, and future research directions. J. Manag. 36, 857–875 (2010)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    von Hippel, E.: Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Salge, T.O., Farchi, T., Barrett, M.I., Dopson, S.: When does search openness really matter? A contingency study of health-care innovation projects. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 30(4), 659–676 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chen, M., Miller, D.: Competitive dynamics: themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. Acad. Manag. Ann. 6, 135–210 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    O’Toole, J., Bennis, W.: What’s needed next: a culture of candor. Harvard Bus. Rev. 87(6), 54–61 (2009)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Oke, A.: Authentically leading groups: the mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. J. Organ. Behav. 32, 4–24 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Langergaard, L.L.: Understanding of ‘users’ and ‘innovation’ in a public sector context. In: Sundbo, J., Toivonen, M. (eds.) User-Based Innovation in Services, pp. 203–226. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2011)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lee, M.J., Almirall Mezquita, E., Wareham, J.: Open data & civic apps: 1st generation failures - 2nd generation improvements. Commun. ACM 59(1), 82–89 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lappalainen, J.: Transforming maritime safety culture – evaluation of the impacts of the ISM Code on maritime safety culture in Finland. Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies University of Turku A46 2008 (2008). http://www.merikotka.fi/metku/Lappalainen_2008_transforming_maritime_safety_cultu
  47. 47.
    Hänninen, H.: Negotiated risks - the Estonia accident and the stream of bow visor failures in the Baltic ferry traffic. Doctoral Thesis, Helsinki School of Economics, A-300 (2007)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kotter, J.P.: Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1995) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information SystemsÅbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations