Encouraging Open Community Innovation: Outils-Réseaux’s Modular Approach

  • Lorna Heaton
  • Florence Millerand
  • David Delon
  • Florian Schmitt
  • Laurent Marseault
  • Jessica Deschamps


Increasingly, individuals, groups and communities are participating actively in the process of technological innovation. Indeed, the novelty of Web 2.0 technologies and platforms appears to lie in the fact that the user has the possibility to produce—and not just consult—a vast array of content and tools. Users are more and more aware of their capacity for making and changing technologies, but participation does not happen automatically for most people. This chapter is a case study of Outils-Réseaux, a French group whose mission is to encourage the development and use of collaborative tools by associative movements. Drawing on interviews and an analysis of the content of various Wiki pages, we reflect on how Outils-Réseaux’s actions and approach participate in community innovation, in which the community itself is an essential element of the innovation. We explore the coevolution of both technical infrastructure (tools for collaboration) and the community, and show how Outils-Réseaux mediates between the (social) world of users and the technical world of software developers. We place particular emphasis on the modularity of the group’s approach to illustrate how it helps reconfigure boundaries for innovation and collaboration. First, we outline Outils-Réseaux’s general approach and several guiding principles. We then describe several “success stories” that illustrate key elements of the approach: simplicity, modularity, user-driven innovation. We conclude with reflections on emergent, community innovation and relate our experiences to academic literature on open, collaborative innovation.


Open Innovation Success Story Ordinary User Collaborative Technology Lead User 
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.



This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada.


  1. Baldwin, C. Y. & von Hippel, E. (2009) Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation. MIT Sloan School Working Paper 4764-09 Retrieved from (May 10, 2010)
  2. Baldwin, C. Y., Hienerth, C., & von Hippel, E. (2006). How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and a case study. Research Policy, 35(9), 1291–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dittrich, Y. (2002). Doing empirical research on software development: Finding a path between understanding, intervention, and method development. In Y. Dittrich, C. Floyd, & R. Klischewski (Eds.), Social thinking-software practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organisation Science, 18(2), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franke, N., & Schreier, M. (2002). Entrepreneurial opportunities with toolkits for user innovation and design. International Journal on New Media Management, 4(4), 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franke, N., & Shah, S. (2003). How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy, 32(1), 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mackay, H., Carne, C., Benyon-Davies, P., & Tudhope, D. (2000). Reconfiguring the user: Using rapid application development. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 737–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Millerand, F., & Baker, K. S. (2010). Who are the users? Who are the developers? Webs of users and developers in the development process of a technical standard. Information Systems Journal, 20(2), 137–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Merkel, C. B., Clitherow, M., Farooq, U., Xiao, L., Ganoe, C. H., Carroll , J. M. & Rosson, M. B. (2005) Sustaining computer use and learning in community computing contexts: Making technology part of “who they are and what they do.” Journal of Community Informatics, 1(2). Retrieved from (May 10, 2010)
  12. Perrenoud, P. (1983) La pratique pédagogique entre l’improvisation réglée et bricolage. Éducation & Recherche, n° 2, 198-212 (republished in Perrenoud, P. (1994) La formation des enseignants entre théorie et pratique, Paris, L’Harmattan, 21–41).Google Scholar
  13. Raymond, E. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  14. Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (2003). Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Van Oost, E., Verhaegh, S., & Oudshoorn, N. (2009). From innovation community to community innovation: User‐initiated innovation in wireless Leiden. Science, Technology and Human Values, 34(2), 182–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Hyssalo, S. (2009). User innovation and everyday practices: Micro-innovation in sports industry development. R&D Management, 39(3), 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. von Hippel, E. (2001). Innovation by user communities: Learning from open-source software. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 82–86.Google Scholar
  3. von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the ‘private-collective’ innovation model: Issues for organisation science. Organisation Science, 14(2), 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorna Heaton
    • 1
  • Florence Millerand
    • 2
  • David Delon
    • 3
  • Florian Schmitt
    • 3
  • Laurent Marseault
    • 3
  • Jessica Deschamps
    • 3
  1. 1.Département de communicationUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.UQAM, Communication sociale et publiqueMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Outils-Réseaux, TelaBotanica, Institut de BotaniqueMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations