Skip to main content

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

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

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-54142-6_9
  • Chapter length: 17 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-54142-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    A platform of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning of MIT, which allows the generation and real-time updating of information on the transport routes of the city.

  2. 2.

    The General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) defines a common format for public transportation schedules and associated geographic information. GTFS "feeds" allow public transit agencies to publish their transit data and developers to use that data to write applications.

  3. 3.

    API https://github.com/LabPLC/MapatonAPI.

  4. 4.

    Mapaton Dashboard http://datos.mapatoncd.mx/#1.

  5. 5.

    Database (http://datos.labcd.mx/dataset/mapaton-cdmx-gtfs.

  6. 6.

    GTFS: https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs/reference?hl=es#agencytxt.

References

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bingrong, L., Ying, Y., Daquan, H., & Zheng, Y. (2015). Big Data Based Job-residence Relation In Chongqing Metropolitan Area. Planners, 5, 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Almirall, E. (2010). Open Versus Closed Innovation. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 27–47. http://doi.org/10.1108/00251749510084653

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions, 19, 14–17. http://doi.org/10.1145/2212877.2212883

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L., & Dixon, D. (2011a). Gamification: Toward a definition. In ResearchGate (pp. 12–15).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Einsiedel, E. F. (2014). Publics and their participation in science and technology. Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 125.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • Kronenberg, J. (2015). Why not to green a city? Institutional barriers to preserving urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 12, 218–227.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Leminen, S. (2013). Coordination and Participation in Living Lab Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(1), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • MaryAnn Kajewski. (2007). Emerging technologies changing our service delivery models. The Electronic Library, 25(4), 420–429. http://doi.org/10.1108/02640470710779835

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, W. J. (2004). Me ++: The Cyborg Self and the Networked City. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, P., & Nielsen, P. (2011). LIVING LABS: A USER-ORIENTED APPROACH TO PUBLIC- PRIVATE INNOVATION NETWORKS.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Schumacher, J., & Feurstein, K. (2007). Living Labs – the user as co-creator. In ICE 2007 Proceedings: 13th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising.

    Google Scholar 

  • SETRAVI-INEGI. (2007). Mapaton CDMX. Ciudad de México. Retrieved from http://www.pidesinnovacion.org/pdf/Caso-de-estudio_Mapaton.pdf

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tukiainen, T., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2015). Cities as Collaborative Innovation Platforms. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(10), 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sandoval-Almazan, R., Ramon Gil-Garcia, J., Valle-Cruz, D. (2017). Going Beyond Bureaucracy Through Gamification: Innovation Labs and Citizen Engagement in the Case of “Mapaton” in Mexico City. In: Paulin, A., Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C. (eds) Beyond Bureaucracy. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54142-6_9

Download citation