Co-creating Networked Educational Innovations via Process Simulations

  • Riitta Smeds
  • Svante Suominen
  • Päivi Pöyry-Lassila
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8264)


Three facilitated, discussion-based process simulation workshops were arranged to enable the actors of an emerging school network to co-develop their educational processes. The workshops applied specific visual boundary objects in subsequent phases. The workshop data and the follow-up interviews show that the workshops supported a stepwise double co-creation of novel ideas for educational innovations, and of the necessary ties for their successful implementation. More analysis of the longitudinal data is still needed to refine and test this hypothesis.


Boundary Object Educational Innovation Joint Issue Merger Process Simulation Project 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Carlile, P.R.: A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Organization Science 13(4), 442–455 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carroll, J.M.: Five reasons for scenario-based design. Interacting with Computers 13(2000), 43–60 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ewenstein, B., Whyte, J.: Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as ’Epistemic Objects’. Organization Studies 30(7), 7–30 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fenton, E.M.: Visualising Strategic Change: The Role and Impact of Process Maps as Boundary Objects in Reorganisation. European Management Journal 25(2), 104–117 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hardy, C., Lawrence, T.B., Grant, D.: Discourse and Collaboration: The Role of Conversations and Collective Identity. Academy of Management Review 30(1), 58–77 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huhta, E., Smeds, R.: Supporting the Management of educational service development in a school network through participative simulations. In: Schönsleben, P., Vodicka, M., Smeds, R., Riis, J. (eds.) Learning and Innovation in Value Added Networks. Proceedings of the 13th IFIP 5.7 Special Interest Group Workshop on Experimental Interactive Learning in Industrial Management, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, Druckpartner Rubelmann, Hemsbach, Germany, May 24-25, pp. 37–46 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kristensen, M., Kyng, M., Palen, L.: Participatory Design in Emergency Medical Service: Designing for Future Practice. In: Proceedings of CHI 2006 Conference, Montréal, Québec, Canada, April 22-27, pp. 161–170 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mumford, E.: Participative Systems Design: Structure and Method. Systems, Objectives, Solutions 1, 5–19 (1981)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paavola, S., Hakkarainen, K.: The Knowledge Creation Metaphor – An Emergent Epistemological Approach to Learning. Science & Education 14, 535–557 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salmi, A., Pöyry-Lassila, P., Kronqvist, J.: Supporting Empathical Boundary Spanning in Participatory Workshops with Scenarios and Personas. Special Issue of International Journal of Ambient Computing and Intelligence (IJACI) 4(4), 21–39 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smeds, R., Jaatinen, M., Hirvensalo, A., Kilpiö, A.: SimLab process simulation method as a boundary object for inter-organizational innovation. In: Hussein, B., Smeds, R., Riis, J. (eds.) Multidisciplinary Research on Simulation Methods and Educational Games in Industrial Management. Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Experimental Interactive Learning in Industrial Management: NTNU Trondheim, NTNU Trondheim, Norway, June 11-13, pp. 187–195 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smeds, R., Pöyry-Lassila, P.: Co-designing Value Networks in Process Simulations. In: Smed, R. (ed.) Co-designing Serious Games. Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Experimental Interactive Learning in Industrial Management of the IFIP Working Group 5.7., in Collaboration with the EU Network of Excellence GaLA. Aalto University Publication Series, Science + Technology (October 2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Star, S.L.: The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In: Huhns, M., Gasser, L. (eds.) Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufman, Menlo Park (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vargo, S., Lusch, R.: Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36, 1–10 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riitta Smeds
    • 1
  • Svante Suominen
    • 1
  • Päivi Pöyry-Lassila
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, SimLabAalto University School of ScienceFinland

Personalised recommendations