Abstract
An emerging trend in the public sphere is to use a system of hackathons and accelerators originating from the digital entrepreneurship to quickly and creatively nurture collaborative projects to tackle societal problems. To induce institutional change, these projects need to engage with the public sector organizations. While the literature of projectification has emphasized the embeddedness of projects in policy networks, the mechanisms of interaction between projects and permanent organizations have been poorly studied. These mechanisms are more important given the heightened tempo of digitally inspired project development tools. In this chapter I conceptualize the mechanism of interaction as interfaces. I argue that the main functions of interfaces are to provide suitable cognitive and organizational distance for creativity, create arenas for developing legitimacy of new ideas, and ensure flexible channels for knowledge management. Empirical study of a forestry-related hackathon project in Estonia supports the argument that although digitally inspired project governance tools are indeed capable of producing promising disruptive ideas, their eventual impact depends on how interfaces position them vis-à-vis the larger policy network.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Due to the legislative encouragement by the European Comission, the issue of public procurement was subsequently recognized and addressed in Estonia by making amendments to the procurement regulation. See the European Union’s guidelines for Innovation Procurement, Commission Notice from 18.6.2021 https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/45975
References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2018). Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux030
Bakker, R. M., Cambré, B., Korlaar, L., & Raab, J. (2011). Managing the project learning paradox: A set-theoretic approach toward project knowledge transfer. International Journal of Project Management, 29(5), 494–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.002
Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352), eaan1114. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114
Bogers, M., Zobel, A.-K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., Frederiksen, L., Gawer, A., Gruber, M., Haefliger, S., Hagedoorn, J., Hilgers, D., Laursen, K., Magnusson, M. G., Majchrzak, A., McCarthy, I. P., Moeslein, K. M., Nambisan, S., Piller, F. T., & Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2017). The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 8–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1240068
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887
Budd, L. (2007). Post-bureaucracy and reanimating public governance: A discourse and practice of continuity? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 20(6), 531–547. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550710818403
Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society, 19(3), art56. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190,356
Chang, B., Kang, S., & Jung, T. (2019). Price and output elasticities of energy demand for industrial sectors in OECD countries. Sustainability, 11(6), 1786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061786
Costa, V., & Monteiro, S. (2014). Knowledge processes, absorptive capacity and innovation: Contributions for a systematic literature review. Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM, 3(1990), 1164–1172.
de Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2014). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research. Public Administration, 2014, 320090. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209
Denning, S. (2019). Post-bureaucratic management goes global. Strategy & Leadership, 47(2), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-01-2019-0009
Drori, I., & Honig, B. (2013). A process model of internal and external legitimacy. Organization Studies, 34(3), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612467153
Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2013). Systematising policy learning: From monolith to dimensions. Political Studies, 61(3), 599–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00982.x
Edwards, R., Howe, J., & Font-Palma, C. (2022). Accelerating sustainability transitions: The case of the hydrogen agenda in the North West region of England. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 18(1), 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2082108
Faissal Bassis, N., & Armellini, F. (2018). Systems of innovation and innovation ecosystems: A literature review in search of complementarities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 28(5), 1053–1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-018-0600-6
François, V., & Philippart, P. (2019). A university spin-off launch failure: Explanation by the legitimation process. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(4), 1188–1215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9648-y
Gliedt, T., Hoicka, C. E., & Jackson, N. (2018). Innovation intermediaries accelerating environmental sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174(2018), 1247–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.054
Godenhjelm, S., Sjöblom, S., & Jensen, C. (2019). Project governance in an embedded state. In D. Hodgson, M. Fred, S. Bailey, & P. Hall (Eds.), The projectification of the public sector (1st ed., pp. 149–168). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315098586-9
Godenhjem, S. (2013). Project impact in a multi-level context: The case of the European Fisheries Fund evaluation in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 17(2), 79–101.
Gong, Y., & Janssen, M. (2012). From policy implementation to business process management: Principles for creating flexibility and agility. Government Information Quarterly, 29, S61–S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.08.004
Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12026
Hodgson, D. E. (2004). Project work: The legacy of bureaucratic control in the post-bureaucratic organization. Organization, 11(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508404039659
Johnson, P., & Robinson, P. (2014). Civic Hackathons: Innovation, procurement, or civic engagement?: Civic Hackathon: Procurement or civic engagement? Review of Policy Research, 31(4), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12074
Johnson, P., Wood, G., Brewster, C., & Brookes, M. (2009). The rise of post-bureaucracy: Theorists’ fancy or organizational praxis? International Sociology, 24(1), 37–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580908100246
Josefsson, J., Widenfalk, L. A., Blicharska, M., Hedblom, M., Pärt, T., Ranius, T., & Öckinger, E. (2021). Compensating for lost nature values through biodiversity offsetting – Where is the evidence? Biological Conservation, 257(109), 117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109117
Kangro, K., & Lepik, K.-L. (2022). Co-creating public services in social hackathons: Adapting the original hackathon concept. Public Money & Management, 42(5), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2021.1940584
Karo, E. (2011). The evolution of innovation policy governance systems and policy capacities in the Baltic States. Journal of Baltic Studies, 42(4), 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/01629778.2011.621739
Karo, E., & Kattel, R. (2016). How to organize for innovation: Entrepreneurial state and organizational variety. In Working papers in technology governance and economic dynamic (Vol. 66, p. 39).
Karo, E., Kattel, R., & Lember, V. (2015). Teadus- ja arendustegevuse ning innovatsioonipoliitika valitsemise väljakutsed ja võimalused 2015–2020: Mittelineaarne innovatsioonipoliitika ning uued koostöö ja koordineerimise platvormid poliitikakujundamisse. https://majandus.ut.ee/sites/default/files/www_ut/tips_uuringu_5.3_loppraport.pdf
Kattel, R., & Mergel, I. (2019). Estonia’s digital transformation: Mission mystique and the hiding hand. In P. Hart & M. Compton (Eds.), Great policy successes (pp. 143–160). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198843719.003.0008
Kimble, C., Grenier, C., & Goglio-Primard, K. (2010). Innovation and knowledge sharing across professional boundaries: Political interplay between boundary objects and brokers. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 437–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.02.002
Kingdon, J. W. (2014). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Pearson new international edition). Pearson.
Kivimaa, P., Laakso, S., Lonkila, A., & Kaljonen, M. (2021). Moving beyond disruptive innovation: A review of disruption in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 38, 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.12.001
Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M. S., et al. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
Kollwitz, C., & Dinter, B. (2019). What the hack? – Towards a taxonomy of hackathons. In T. Hildebrandt, B. F. van Dongen, M. Röglinger, & J. Mendling (Eds.), Business process management (Vol. 11,675, pp. 354–369). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26,619-6_23
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lukszo, Z., Farahani, S., & Weijnen, M. P. C. (2021). Shaping an inclusive energy transition. Next Generation Infrastructure. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74,586-8
Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A Theory of The Temporary Organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–455.
Mergel, I., & Desouza, K. C. (2013). Implementing open innovation in the public sector: The case of Challenge.gov. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 882–890. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12141
Michels, A., & Meijer, A. (2008). Safeguarding public accountability in horizontal government. Public Management Review, 10(2), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030801928490
Morris, P. W. G. (1983). Managing project interfaces—Key points for project success. In D. I. Cleland & W. R. King (Eds.), Project management handbook (pp. 16–55). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470172353.ch2
Munck af Rosenschöld, J. (2019). Inducing institutional change through projects? Three models of projectified governance. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(4), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1606702
Munck af Rosenschöld, J., & Vihma, P. (2022). Achieving social-ecological fit in projectified environmental governance: Exploring vertical and horizontal dimensions. Environmental Science & Policy, 136, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.013
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services. A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927
Pustovrh, A., Rangus, K., & Drnovšek, M. (2020). The role of open innovation in developing an entrepreneurial support ecosystem. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 152(119), 892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119892
Richterich, A. (2019). Hacking events: Project development practices and technology use at hackathons. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 25(5–6), 1000–1026. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517709405
Sabel, C. F., & Simon, W. H. (2011). Minimalism and experimentalism in the administrative state. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1600898
Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651
Sjöblom, S., Andersson, K., & Skerratt, S. (2016). Sustainability and short-term policies: Improving governance in spatial policy interventions. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved from http://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4468597
Soltanifar, M., Hughes, M., & Göcke, L. (Eds.). (2021). Digital entrepreneurship: Impact on business and society. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53,914-6
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
Szczukiewicz, K., & Makowiec, M. (2021). Characteristics and specificities of local innovation accelerators: A case of Poland. 23.
Torfing, J., Sørensen, E., & Røiseland, A. (2019). Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Administration & Society, 51(5), 795–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716680057
Vihma, P., & Toikka, A. (2021). The limits of collaborative governance: The role of inter-group learning and trust in the case of the Estonian “Forest War”. Environmental Policy and Governance. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1952
Vihma, P., & Wolf, S. A. (2022). Between autonomy and embeddedness: Project interfaces and institutional change in environmental governance. Critical Policy Studies, 2022, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2054841
Acknowledgments
Financial support of the Academy of Finland grant no. 338553 is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vihma, P. (2023). Interfaces in Project-Based Innovation Governance: Can Hackathons Hack into Policy Processes?. In: Fred, M., Godenhjelm, S. (eds) Projectification of Organizations, Governance and Societies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30411-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30411-8_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-30410-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-30411-8
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)