Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
There is a vast literature on this phenomenon: see for example Sako and Helper [33].
References
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.
Aime, M., & Cossetta, A. (2010). Il dono al tempo di Internet. Torino: Einaudi.
Arvidsson, A. (2005). Brands a critical perspective. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 235–258.
Arvidsson, A., & Giordano, A. (2013). Societing reloaded. Milano: Egea.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Carù, A., & Cova, B. (Eds.). (2007). Consuming experience. London: Routledge.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Chesbrough‚ H., Vanhaverbeke‚ W.‚ & West‚ J. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford university press.
Chesbrough‚ H. (2011). Open services innovation. Rethinking your business to growth.
Crozier, M. (1987). Etat modeste, état moderne, stratégie pour un autre changement. Paris: Fayard.
Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659–669.
D’Andrea, L. (2006). L’innovazione come processo sociale. Conoscenza & Innovazione. http://conoscenzaeinnovazione.org.
Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of economic literature‚1120−1171.
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics and Society, 29(1), 5–42.
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.
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.
European Commission (2009). Living Labs for user-driven open innovation. Directorate General for Information Society and Media, Bruxelles.
European Commission (2013). Guide to social innovation, DG Regional and Urban policy and DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
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.
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.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.
Martini, E. (2011). Socializzare per innovare. Loffredo Napoli: Il modello della Tripla Elica.
Mitchell, W. J. (2005). Constructing complexity. In Computer aided architectural design futures 2005 (pp. 41–50). Netherlands: Springer.
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Art.
Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. (1996). Co-opetition. London: HarperCollinsBusiness.
Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43.
Paskaleva K., E-governance ad an enabler of the smart city, in Deakin, M. (2013) Smart cities: Governing, modelling and analysing the transition.
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.
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.
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.
Sennett, R. (2012). Together: the rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. Yale University Press.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. Penguin.com.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cossetta, A., Palumbo, M. (2014). The Co-production of Social Innovation : The Case of Living Lab . In: Dameri, R., Rosenthal-Sabroux, C. (eds) Smart City. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06160-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06160-3_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06159-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06160-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)