“It’s the Conversation, Stupid!”

Social Media Systems Design for Open Innovation Communities
  • Aldo de Moor
  • Mark Aakhus


Open innovation is about crossing boundaries to create networked synergies in/across collaborative communities. Conversations are the lifeblood of communities, building the common ground of shared meanings, beliefs, interests, norms, goals, trust and social capital. A fundamental challenge for open innovation lies in the successful crafting of the social media systems supporting the community conversations. Innovation communities (which are not limited to business interests but also include public and civic organisations and communities) therefore need to continuously make sense of the conversation context of the tools they use. We provide a conceptual lens with which to examine this sociotechnical conversation context. We illustrate the use of this lens with a plausible scenario of open innovation in the societal stakeholder networks around climate change research.


Open Innovation Twitter User Conversation Context Collaborative Community Sociotechnical System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aakhus, M. (1999). Science court: A case study in designing discourse to manage policy controversy. Knowledge, Technology & Society, 12(2), 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aakhus, M. (2007). Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aakhus, M., & Rumsey, E. (2010). Crafting supportive communication online A communication design analysis of conflict in an online support group. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(1), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California management review, 50(1), 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, 13, 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Efimova, L., & de Moor, A. (2005). Beyond Personal Webpublishing: An Exploratory Study of Conversational Blogging Practices. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-38), Hawaii, January 2005. IEEE.Google Scholar
  8. Leadbeater, C. (2009). We-think: mass innovation, not mass production. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  9. Manlow, V., Friedman, H., & Friedman, L. (2010). Inventing the future: using social media to transform a university from a teaching organisation to a learning organisation. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 21(1), 47–64.Google Scholar
  10. de Moor, A (2007). A Practical Method for Courseware Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web (PragWeb 2007), Tilburg, the Netherlands, October 2223, 2007. ACM International Conference Proceedings Series, 280: 57–63.Google Scholar
  11. de Moor, A. (2010). Conversations in Context: A Twitter Case for Social Media Systems Design. In Proceedings of I-SEMANTICS 2010, September 1–3, Graz, Austria. ACM, 1–8.Google Scholar
  12. De Moor, A., & Aakhus, M. (2006). Argument support: From technologies to tools. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything. London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  14. West, J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2008). Getting clear about communities in open innovation. Industry & Innovation, 15(2), 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zittrain, J. (2009). The future of the internet–and how to stop it. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Aakhus, M., & Jackson, S. (2005). Technology, interaction, and design. In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 411–437). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Dixon, D. 2009. Pattern Languages for CMC Design. In: Whitworth, B. and De Moor Handbook of Research on Socio-Technical Design and Social Networking Systems., A. Hershey, PA: IGI, 402–415.Google Scholar
  3. Fraser, M., & Dutta, S. (2008). Throwing sheep in the boardroom: How online social networking will transform your life, work and world. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Hunter, M., Menestral, M., & Bettignies. (2008). Beyond control: Crisis strategies and stakeholder media in the Danone Boycott of 2001. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(4), 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: Winning in a world transformed by social technologies. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  6. Shum, B. (2006),. Sensemaking on the Pragmatic Web: a Hypermedia Discourse Perspective. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, Stuttgart. Germany, 21–23 September, 2006, 22–37.Google Scholar
  7. Taylor, J., Groleau, C., Heaton, L., & van Every, E. (2001). The computerization of work: A communication perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition a new foundation for design. New York, NY: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CommunitySenseTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.School of Communication & InformationRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations