Smart City pp 221-235 | Cite as

The Co-production of Social Innovation: The Case of Living Lab

  • Anna CossettaEmail author
  • Mauro Palumbo
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)


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 [30]. 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.


Innovation Open innovation Triple helix Quadruple helix Living labs 


  1. 1.
    Addis, M., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). On the conceptual link between mass customisation and experiential consumption: an explosion of subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1(1), 50–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aime, M., & Cossetta, A. (2010). Il dono al tempo di Internet. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arvidsson, A. (2005). Brands a critical perspective. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arvidsson, A., & Giordano, A. (2013). Societing reloaded. Milano: Egea.Google Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. 6.
    Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). ‘Mode 3’and’Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3), 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carù, A., & Cova, B. (Eds.). (2007). Consuming experience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chesbrough‚ H., Vanhaverbeke‚ W.‚ & West‚ J. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford university press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chesbrough‚ H. (2011). Open services innovation. Rethinking your business to growth.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crozier, M. (1987). Etat modeste, état moderne, stratégie pour un autre changement. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D’Andrea, L. (2006). L’innovazione come processo sociale. Conoscenza & Innovazione.
  16. 16.
    Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of economic literature‚1120−1171.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics and Society, 29(1), 5–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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:
  19. 19.
    Etkowitz, H., & Leyedesdorf, f L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation; from National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Elix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    European Commission (2009). Living Labs for user-driven open innovation. Directorate General for Information Society and Media, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Commission (2013). Guide to social innovation, DG Regional and Urban policy and DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Humphreys, A., & Grayson, K. (2008). The intersecting roles of consumer and producer: A critical perspective on co-production, co-creation and prosumption. Sociology Compass, 2(3), 963–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martini, E. (2011). Socializzare per innovare. Loffredo Napoli: Il modello della Tripla Elica.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mitchell, W. J. (2005). Constructing complexity. In Computer aided architectural design futures 2005 (pp. 41–50). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. 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. 28.
    Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. (1996). Co-opetition. London: HarperCollinsBusiness.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43.Google Scholar
  30. 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. 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
  32. 32.
    Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption the nature of capitalism in the age of the digital prosumer. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sako, M., & Helper, S. (1998). Determinants of trust in supplier relations: Evidence from the automotive industry in Japan and the United States. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34(3), 387–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sennett, R. (2012). Together: the rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations