Advertisement

Going Beyond Bureaucracy Through Gamification: Innovation Labs and Citizen Engagement in the Case of “Mapaton” in Mexico City

  • Rodrigo Sandoval-AlmazanEmail author
  • J. Ramon Gil-Garcia
  • David Valle-Cruz
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 25)

Abstract

Public managers face new challenges to their decision making that extend beyond their current knowledge and prior experiences. To answer these challenges, they need help from actors outside government, including expert citizens. Gamification and innovation labs are emergent strategies to address these knowledge gaps in public administrations, which offer interesting opportunities to engage citizens, but also present important challenges. Using the Technology Enactment Framework and recent theoretical developments on gamification, open data intermediaries, and living labs, this paper analyzes the role of gamification and innovation labs in the public sector. The study is based on semi-structured interviews with public managers, government officials, and other stakeholders involved in an innovation project in Mexico City, called “Mapaton,” which uses gamification techniques to engage citizens in mapping transportation routes. We identify some of the characteristics of gamification as an open innovation strategy in government and explain how gamification and innovation labs help government go beyond traditional bureaucratic structures and rules.

Keywords

Gamification Innovation labs Living labs Open innovation Digital government Open government 

References

  1. Al-Khanjari, Z. A. (2013). Developing a Common Personalization Framework for the E-Application Software Systems. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, 5, 188–195. JOUR.Google Scholar
  2. Almirall, E., Lee, M., & Wareham, J. (2012). Mapping living labs in the landscape of innovation methodologies. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9), 12–18. Retrieved from http://timreview.ca/article/603
  3. Bakici, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). The role of public open innovation intermediaries in local government and the public sector. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(3), 311–327. http://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.764983 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bingrong, L., Ying, Y., Daquan, H., & Zheng, Y. (2015). Big Data Based Job-residence Relation In Chongqing Metropolitan Area. Planners, 5, 17.Google Scholar
  5. Bissell, D. (2016). Micropolitics of Mobility: Public Transport Commuting and Everyday Encounters with Forces of Enablement and Constraint. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(2), 394–403.Google Scholar
  6. Blok, V., & Lemmens, P. (2015). The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In Responsible Innovation 2 (pp. 19–35). Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Almirall, E. (2010). Open Versus Closed Innovation. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 27–47. http://doi.org/10.1108/00251749510084653 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The Era of Open Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–41. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015090 Google Scholar
  9. Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Innovation intermediaries: enabling open innovation. ResearchTechnology Management, 50, 256. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/dp/1422104273\nhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/8/37915612.pdf
  10. Cosgrave, E., Arbuthnot, K., & Tryfonas, T. (2013). Living Labs, Innovation Districts and Information Marketplaces: A Systems Approach for Smart Cities. Procedia Computer Science, 16, 668–677. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166. http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions, 19, 14–17. http://doi.org/10.1145/2212877.2212883 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L., & Dixon, D. (2011a). Gamification: Toward a definition. In ResearchGate (pp. 12–15).Google Scholar
  15. Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011b). Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts (p. 2425). ACM Press. http://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979575
  16. Einsiedel, E. F. (2014). Publics and their participation in science and technology. Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 125.Google Scholar
  17. Erkut, G., & Sezgin, E. (2014). Institutional change and new challenges. Spatial Planning Systems and Practices in Europe: A Comparative Perspective on Continuity and Changes, 236.Google Scholar
  18. Følstad, A. (2008). Living Labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: a literature review. The Electronic Journal of Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10(August), 99–131.Google Scholar
  19. Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–356. JOUR.Google Scholar
  20. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Helbig, N., & Ojo, A. (2014). Being smart: Emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 31, I1–I8. JOUR. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.09.001
  21. Gutwirth, S., & Friedewald, M. (2013). Emergent technologies and the transformations of privacy and data protection. Computer Law & Security Review, 29(5), 477–479. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2013.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(4), 236–245. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? - A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3025–3034). http://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
  24. Helfat, C. E. (2006). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 86–88. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2006.20591014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hughes, T., & Carlson, D. (2015). How party polarization makes the legislative process even slower when government is divided. USApp–American Politics and Policy Blog.Google Scholar
  26. Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining Gamification: A Service Marketing Perspective. In Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference (pp. 17–22). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2393132.2393137
  27. Kronenberg, J. (2015). Why not to green a city? Institutional barriers to preserving urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 12, 218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lapouchnian, A., & Yu, E. (2014). Exploiting Emergent Technologies to Create Systems That Meet Shifting Expectations. In Proceedings of 24th Annual International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (pp. 371–374). Riverton, NJ, USA: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, S. M., Hwang, T., & Choi, D. (2012). Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries. Management Decision, 50(1), 147–162. http://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211194921 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leminen, S. (2013). Coordination and Participation in Living Lab Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(1), 5–14.Google Scholar
  31. Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A.-G. (2012). Living Labs as Open-Innovation Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, (September 2012: Living Labs), 6–11.Google Scholar
  32. MaryAnn Kajewski. (2007). Emerging technologies changing our service delivery models. The Electronic Library, 25(4), 420–429. http://doi.org/10.1108/02640470710779835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mergel, I. (2014). Opening Government: Designing Open Innovation Processes to Collaborate With External Problem Solvers. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 599–612. http://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314560851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mergel, I. (2015). Open collaboration in the public sector: The case of social coding on GitHub. Government Information Quarterly. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.004 Google Scholar
  35. Mergel, I., & Desouza, K. (2013). Implementing Open Innovation in the Public Sector: The Case of Challenge. gov. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 882–890. http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12141.Open CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mitchell, W. J. (2004). Me ++: The Cyborg Self and the Networked City. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Nielsen, P., & Nielsen, P. (2011). LIVING LABS: A USER-ORIENTED APPROACH TO PUBLIC- PRIVATE INNOVATION NETWORKS.Google Scholar
  38. Paolillo, P. L., Rossati, M., Festa, L., & Quattrini, G. (2015). The Use of Territorial Information Systems to Evaluate Urban Planning Decisions in Transformation Areas: The Case for Parco della Valle del Lambro in Lombardy, Italy. In Computational Science and Its Applications–ICCSA 2015 (pp. 525–539). Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Santoro, R., & Conte, M. (2009). Living Labs in Open Innovation Functional Regions. In 15th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising. Leiden, NL. 2009. (pp. 1–13).Google Scholar
  40. Sayogo, D. S., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2015). Analyzing the Influence of Governance Structure Determinants on the Success of Inter-Organizational Information Sharing Initiatives. Proceedings of the 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-48). GEN.Google Scholar
  41. Schumacher, J., & Feurstein, K. (2007). Living Labs – the user as co-creator. In ICE 2007 Proceedings: 13th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising.Google Scholar
  42. SETRAVI-INEGI. (2007). Mapaton CDMX. Ciudad de México. Retrieved from http://www.pidesinnovacion.org/pdf/Caso-de-estudio_Mapaton.pdf
  43. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Tukiainen, T., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2015). Cities as Collaborative Innovation Platforms. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(10), 16–23.Google Scholar
  45. Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. (2011). Managing the Challenges of Becoming an Open Innovation Company: Experiences from Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1(1), 19–25.Google Scholar
  46. Winch, G. M., & Courtney, R. (2007). The Organization of Innovation Brokers: An International Review. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(6), 747–763. http://doi.org/10.1080/09537320701711223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (Vol. 5). http://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0b013e31822dda9e
  48. Zhang, P. (2008). Technical opinion Motivational affordances: reasons for ICT design and use. Communications of the ACM, 51(11), 145. http://doi.org/10.1145/1400214.1400244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazan
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Ramon Gil-Garcia
    • 2
    • 3
  • David Valle-Cruz
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad Autónoma del, Estado de MéxicoTolucaMexico
  2. 2.University at Albany, State University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Centro de Investigación y Docencia EconómicasMexicoMexico

Personalised recommendations