The Co-production of Social Innovation: The Case of Living Lab
Our article aims to reflect on some key concepts that have emerged in the recent literature on innovation. In particular, it will seek convergence between social and open innovation within the framework of Smart Cities. The Smart cities are embedded in the last 20 years processes of change that have altered conditions and modalities of innovation and knowledge generation. The city is still, like Robert Park in 1915, the “social laboratory” par excellence for the study of human behavior in a modern urban environment. If we consider recent debate on Smart city definition, we can find that ICT can be a powerful tool for building the collaborative digital environment that enhances the intelligent capacity of localities . In that sense we can consider use the most used definition: “a city may be called smart when investments in human and social capital and traditional (transport) and modern (ICT) communication infrastructure fuel sustainable economic development and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance”. Early as at this definition we can find the pillars of our reflection: the innovation as social innovation , the new role of the 2.0 citizen–public, the issue of governance.
KeywordsInnovation Open innovation Triple helix Quadruple helix Living labs
- 2.Aime, M., & Cossetta, A. (2010). Il dono al tempo di Internet. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
- 4.Arvidsson, A., & Giordano, A. (2013). Societing reloaded. Milano: Egea.Google Scholar
- 5.Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Holst, M., & Ståhlbröst, A. (2009). Concept design with a living lab approach. In Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences. http://originwww.computer.org/portal/web/search/advanced?p_p_id=searchadvanced_WAR_pluginssearch_INSTANCE_eO7R&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1.
- 7.Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2011). Open innovation diplomacy and a 21st century fractal research, education and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem: building on the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix innovation concepts and the Mode 3 knowledge production system. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2(3), 327–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Carù, A., & Cova, B. (Eds.). (2007). Consuming experience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 10.Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
- 11.Chesbrough‚ H., Vanhaverbeke‚ W.‚ & West‚ J. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford university press.Google Scholar
- 12.Chesbrough‚ H. (2011). Open services innovation. Rethinking your business to growth.Google Scholar
- 13.Crozier, M. (1987). Etat modeste, état moderne, stratégie pour un autre changement. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
- 15.D’Andrea, L. (2006). L’innovazione come processo sociale. Conoscenza & Innovazione. http://conoscenzaeinnovazione.org.
- 16.Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of economic literature‚1120−1171.Google Scholar
- 18.Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V. P., & Kulkki, S. (2005). State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation-a European approach. Lulea: Center for Distance-spanning Technology. Lulea University of Technology Sweden: Lulea. Online under: http://www.cdt.ltu.se/main.php/SOA_LivingLabs.pdf.
- 20.European Commission (2009). Living Labs for user-driven open innovation. Directorate General for Information Society and Media, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
- 21.European Commission (2013). Guide to social innovation, DG Regional and Urban policy and DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.Google Scholar
- 22.Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage.Google Scholar
- 24.Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 25.Martini, E. (2011). Socializzare per innovare. Loffredo Napoli: Il modello della Tripla Elica.Google Scholar
- 26.Mitchell, W. J. (2005). Constructing complexity. In Computer aided architectural design futures 2005 (pp. 41–50). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- 27.Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Art.Google Scholar
- 28.Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. (1996). Co-opetition. London: HarperCollinsBusiness.Google Scholar
- 29.Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43.Google Scholar
- 30.Paskaleva K., E-governance ad an enabler of the smart city, in Deakin, M. (2013) Smart cities: Governing, modelling and analysing the transition.Google Scholar
- 31.Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 388–441.Google Scholar
- 34.Sennett, R. (2012). Together: the rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- 35.Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. Penguin.com.