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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 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.
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.
- 4.
Mapaton Dashboard http://datos.mapatoncd.mx/#1.
- 5.
- 6.
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.
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
Bingrong, L., Ying, Y., Daquan, H., & Zheng, Y. (2015). Big Data Based Job-residence Relation In Chongqing Metropolitan Area. Planners, 5, 17.
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.
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.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Almirall, E. (2010). Open Versus Closed Innovation. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 27–47. http://doi.org/10.1108/00251749510084653
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
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
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
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
Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions, 19, 14–17. http://doi.org/10.1145/2212877.2212883
Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L., & Dixon, D. (2011a). Gamification: Toward a definition. In ResearchGate (pp. 12–15).
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
Einsiedel, E. F. (2014). Publics and their participation in science and technology. Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 125.
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.
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.
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–356. JOUR.
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
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
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
Hughes, T., & Carlson, D. (2015). How party polarization makes the legislative process even slower when government is divided. USApp–American Politics and Policy Blog.
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.
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.
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
Leminen, S. (2013). Coordination and Participation in Living Lab Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(1), 5–14.
Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A.-G. (2012). Living Labs as Open-Innovation Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, (September 2012: Living Labs), 6–11.
MaryAnn Kajewski. (2007). Emerging technologies changing our service delivery models. The Electronic Library, 25(4), 420–429. http://doi.org/10.1108/02640470710779835
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
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
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
Mitchell, W. J. (2004). Me ++: The Cyborg Self and the Networked City. MIT Press.
Nielsen, P., & Nielsen, P. (2011). LIVING LABS: A USER-ORIENTED APPROACH TO PUBLIC- PRIVATE INNOVATION NETWORKS.
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.
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).
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.
Schumacher, J., & Feurstein, K. (2007). Living Labs – the user as co-creator. In ICE 2007 Proceedings: 13th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising.
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.
Tukiainen, T., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2015). Cities as Collaborative Innovation Platforms. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(10), 16–23.
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.
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54142-6_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54141-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54142-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)