Votre recherche

La transformation numérique et l’innovation collaborative ou les notions associées « d’intelligence collective », de « design thinking », « d’agilité » sont en passe de devenir les principaux concepts à la mode du management dans les organisations privées et publiques, au moins au sein des sièges et des directions centrales. Partant d’une description des spécificités des bouleversements introduits par la transition numérique et des technologies capacitantes qu’elle promeut, nous montrons comment les opérateurs sont parfois en demande de plus d’innovations numériques pour améliorer leurs conditions de travail et les services rendus au public, pour autant que celles-ci ne soient pas substitutives et excessivement rationalisantes. Les démarches d’innovation collaborative, soutenues par le haut management de manière parfois paradoxale, contribuent à faciliter ces mutations.

Digital platforms help develop the open value co-creation strategic alliances, reshape traditional B2B relationships, and promote inclusive social innovation. This research explores the nature of coopetition between the digital platform and its participants. The focus is on how the platform-based alliance balances the contradiction between value creation and appropriation. The support evidence derives from a Stackelberg game in the context of cooperative advertising. Either the platform or the participant supporting advertising in the alliance prompts a Pareto improvement for all players. But the increased profit would be mainly occupied by the dominant platform. The incentive mechanism of profit sharing can promote the alliance to co-create value in a sustainable manner. The game illustrates the significance of cooperative relationships to co-create a larger total value and the existence of an unequal win-win relationship in the strategic alliance. The contradictory logic of cooperation and competition can be accommodated in the platform-based alliance. The dynamic coopetition is involved in a partially convergent interest structure and impacted by power asymmetry. The results highlight the balance between the tensions and harmonies through value creation and appropriation. • Social innovation through value co-creation in the platform-based alliance. • The dynamic coopetition to balance the contradictory logic of value creation and appropriation. • An unequal win-win relationship in cooperative advertising. • The partially convergent interest structure is impacted by power asymmetry.

Creative collaboration happens when a creative process is undertaken by two or more individuals, teams, entities, or organizations for a project or challenge of common concern. Typically, the project is too challenging to be undertaken alone; and if done satisfactorily, the outcome is would be both novel and useful. Members can collaborate either physically or remotely through electronic (online creative collaboration) or other means at all or different phases of the project.

- Features interdisciplinary expertise from economics, law, technology and social science on the practice of co-creation - Provides best-practices and management approaches to successful co-creation - Enables research-based and practice-relevant understanding of the background and concepts around co-creation

From the perspective of sustainability, this paper analyzes how stakeholders realize sustainable social innovation through co-creation. Through literature and case analysis, based on the group classification of social networks, this paper proposes three elements of social innovation: place creation, situation creation and relationship structure, and further sorts out the co-creation of meaning co-creation, behavior co-creation and value co-creation. The research shows that co-creation is a practical activity based on cultural identity, group interaction and resource integration, and stakeholders can achieve the goal of sustainable social innovation through meaning co-creation, behavior co-creation and value co-creation.

The concept of co-creation includes a wide range of participatory practices for design and decision making with stakeholders and users. Generally co-creation refers to a style of design or business practice characterized by facilitated participation in orchestrated multi-stakeholder engagements, such as structured workshops and self-organizing modes of engagement. Co-creation envelopes a wide range of skilled social practices that can considerably inform and enhance the effectiveness of organizational development, collaboration, and positive group outcomes. New modes of co-creation have emerged, evolving from legacy forms of engagement such as participatory design and charrettes and newer forms such as collaboratories, generative design, sprints, and labs. Often sessions are structured by methods that recommend common steps or stages, as in design thinking workshops, and some are explicitly undirected and open. While practices abound, we find almost no research theorizing the effectiveness of these models compared to conventional structures of facilitation. As co-creation approaches have become central to systemic design, service design, and participatory design practices, a practice theory from which models might be selected and modified would offer value to practitioners and the literature. The framework that follows was evolved from and assessed by a practice theory of dialogic design. It is intended to guide the development of principles-based guidelines for co-creation practice, which might methodologically bridge the wide epistemological variances that remain unacknowledged in stakeholder co-creation practice.

University-community engagement is emerging as an important channel for social innovation, requiring universities to act as change agents in their local settings. The role of change agent presents new challenges for universities as it requires going beyond institutional borders to collaborate with non-traditional partners such as informal enterprises, and to stimulate and support innovation that may be seen as relevant to a given local setting only. Universities are thus grappling with finding suitable mechanisms and models for engaging in institutional contexts that are vastly different from traditional formal university- and firm-based settings. Based on empirically rich case study research in a South African township, the paper presents new conceptual insights on how universities can catalyse social change in resource-poor local settings through strategically selecting mechanisms and models of engagement that align with locally-embedded institutions, practices and needs. Four types of engagement models are identified, each relate to different models of entrepreneurship and innovation and thus different modes of learning. The typology distinguishes between dominant, traditional knowledge transfer models, and emergent, socially responsive models that show greater promise for promoting collective agency and effecting systemic social change. The typology can be used to assess current practice and inform future strategies.

Stories of community resilience and rapid innovation have emerged during the global pandemic caused by COVID-19. As communities, organizations, and individuals have had to shift modalities during the pandemic, they have identified ways to sustain community well-being. Prior to COVID-19, colleges and universities were hailed as anchors of economic and social resilience and well-being for communities of place. In this light, this commentary highlights stories of rapid community innovation occurring at Hobart & William Smith Colleges in the Finger Lakes region of New York. A series of vignettes are presented showcasing lessons and on-going questions regarding rapid pivots, community values, and diversity and inclusion during (and after) the pandemic. Overall, these insights can inform future local collaborative development efforts post-COVID-19 between colleges/universities and their local community.

The failure of the deterritorialised innovation policy addressing the regions based on the “one-size-fits-all” policymaking made the Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) become the Holy Grail of the European cohesion. This policy strategy is part of a multilevel framework, which encompasses national and regional vectors harmonising transversal strategies and combining different aspects to generate a consistent policy mix. This growth strategy will reinforce the existence of an innovative and knowledge-based society, which aims to raise welfare, promote responsible practices, modernise economic activity and spread prosperity.Sustainable growth will optimise the use of resources, boost the efficiency levels, generate competitiveness and respect the environment. Inclusive growth will promote social and territorial cohesion which is sought after in the convergence policy, which has slowed down the pace after the financial crisis.The development of regional competitive advantages will rely on the establishment of relevant linkages between the Academia and the private institutions in knowledge creation and transfer. In this vein, the University is expected to play a central role, facing important challenges and requiring transformations, mostly in the case of less favoured regions.Productivity raise, construction of comparative advantages, market consolidation and profit maximisation, required to avoid the obsolescence of firms, will rely in the prosecution of innovative activities. Despite being risky, these activities are sought by firms as a source of economic performance increase, being the building blocks of a profit maximisation strategy. The velocity at which innovation occurs will differ among industrial sectors due to their singularities along with other firm structural characteristics, still, those who perform innovative activities are more prone to achieve higher standards of turnover growth and profits. The organisational competences concerning human capital, knowledge absorption, accumulation and diffusion will enhance the innovation capabilities, thus generating advantages. In this path, Universities will be determinant as they may leverage the success of the entrepreneurial innovativeness throughout the provision of relevant knowledge, productive techniques and methods. Absorbing, transforming and exploiting the general knowledge provided by the University will be the firms’ incumbency which will reflect the speed and the success of the individual’s innovative performance. Considering the reinforced role of the Academia as a knowledge producer and therefore inside the innovation process, the existence of incipient connections with firms will be unbearable.What enables and hinders University-firm linkages is, so far, overlooked in the literature demanding for the comprehensive analysis, in particular the causes of its failure, and the accurate policy mix that overcome the situation is vital for a successful RIS3.The singularities of this policy framework require redirection of the tools and actions to be taken such as incentives, grants, loans and subsidisation strategies. Empirical results shed light to the significant difference observed in the classification of the University as a source of information for innovation between public monies recipients and other firms. Among public funding beneficiaries, the Academia is an important source of knowledge to draw upon; conversely, for the other firms, it seems of poor importance the knowledge conveyed in the contact. In general, firms fail to consider the University as a relevant source of information for innovation, which seems to be incompatible with the establishment of smart specialisation strategies.These unexplored connections, which pledge the success of the present innovation policy, and reinforce the importance of its appraisal to fully understand the determinants of University-firm linkages and its connection to public subsidisation, encompassing the identification of the most effective beneficiaries. The econometric estimations, relying on the CIS, were run considering a panel of firms operating in Portugal, which provides the empirical evidence for a moderate innovation milieu which is poorly done so far as most of the studies focus on innovation leader.The findings reinforce the existence complementarities among policy instruments and highlight that new avenues of research should explore other policy instruments such as open innovation frameworks.

Cet article étudie les caractéristiques des structures de transfert technologique et des laboratoires d’innovation ouverte gérés par les universités et organismes de recherche. Il compare leurs rôles comme intermédiaires des relations science–entreprises en fonction des modes 2 et 3 de production des connaissances proposés par Etzkowitz & al (1997) et Carayannis & al (2009). Basée sur une comparaison de cas multiples en France, nous analysons leur rôle dans le développement des relations science-entreprise. Cet article identifie aussi les modes de coordination entre ces deux types d’intermédiaires. Dans certains cas, ils coordonnent leurs activités de manière ponctuelle alors que, dans d’autres cas, la complémentarité de leurs activités s’organise sur la durée.

Twelve papers examine knowledge, learning, and innovation in order to enhance competitiveness. Papers also explore perspectives of cross-sector collaboration, intrafirm and interfirm connections, gender, and relational marketing. Papers discuss knowledge, learning, and innovation--research into cross-sector collaboration; entrepreneurial competencies and firm performance in emerging economies--a study of women entrepreneurs in Malaysia; whether online cocreation influences lead users' and opinion leaders' behaviors; knowledge and innovation in Portuguese enterprises; social ties and human capital in family small- and medium-sized entrepreneurial internationalization; perceived social support and social entrepreneurship--gender perspectives from Turkey; entrepreneurship challenges and gender issues in the African informal rural economy; the construction of a professional identity of a female entrepreneur; knowledge creation and relationship marketing in family businesses--a case-study approach; the gender question and family entrepreneurship research; a composite-index approach to detecting reporting quality--the case of female executives in family firms; and influencing factors in customers' intention to revisit resort hotels--the roles of customer experience management and customer value. Ratten is Associate Professor at La Trobe University. Braga is Associate Professor of the Technology and Management at the Polytechnic Institute of Porto. Marques is Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Innovation, Markets and Organization Research Group in the Centre for Transdisciplinary Development Studies at the University of Tras-os-Montes and Alto Douro. No index.

Notre présentation porte sur la relation partenariale qui prend forme entre des praticiens et des chercheurs dans le cadre de recherches impliquant une relation étroite entre ces deux acteurs. Dans la littérature, ce type de recherche se retrouve sous des dénominations différentes : recherche collaborative, recherche-action, recherche partenariale, recherche participative. Ces dénominations impliquent une relation étroite entre chercheurs et praticiens tout au long du processus de recherche. Cette collaboration est concrétisée par le terme de coconstruction des connaissances dont se réclament ces différentes appellations. Nous postulons que cet espace de production cognitive repose sur un dialogue

This paper explores the governance of social innovation throughout quadruple helix partnerships between civil society, business, government, and academic actors. Particular attention is given to the participation of universities in such partnerships as an expression of public and community engagement under broad third mission goals. Quadruple helix partnerships may favour the governance of projects aiming at social innovation, but conflicts and drawbacks can hinder the alignment of partners’ contributions. To tackle this issue, we develop a conceptual framework that points out four key phases in such governance processes: i) identification of a common nexus, ii) building of shared strategies, iii) implementation, and iv) learning feedbacks. We apply this framework to three Italian projects under the new EU Urban innovative actions’ program. Different alignment pathways and barriers in the governance process emerge and are discussed. The results show that quadruple helix partnerships for social innovation work smoothly if a solid common nexus between partners is in place. The University is used as a focal actor to understand the mechanisms underpinning each phase and the role it may play in such partnerships.

Social innovation has been increasingly regarded as an instrument through which transformative structural change, necessary to address grand societal challenges can be achieved. Social innovations are encouraged by the emergence of innovation systems that support changes not exclusively driven by a techno-economic rationality. In the context of this special issue, there has been both little understanding of social innovation systems within mainstream innovation ecosystem approaches and little analysis of the roles played by universities in social innovation systems. We here focus on the institutional complexity of universities and their field-level dynamics as serving as a potential break on the institutionalisation of social innovation. To deepen our understanding of this, we utilise a literature around institutional logics to foreground characteristics of organisational fields with regard to social innovation. Drawing on empirical data gathered in two public universities located in different countries, we show that in one case the potential of social innovation is undermined by two dominant institutional logics, in the other its permeation across the organisational field is seriously challenged by a more powerful dominant logic. The institutional logic approach is useful to highlighting the barriers to building productive innovation ecosystems incorporating social considerations, and helps to explain the persistent difficulties in reframing ecosystems approaches to reflect wider societal dynamics.

Quelles sont les conditions de la maximisation de l’impact, et notamment sa pérennisation, du mécénat de compétence tech au profit des organisations dont la mission relève directement et prioritairement de la gestion du bien commun au service de l’intérêt général ? Telle est la question de recherche que la Fondation Devoteam a posée à l’ESSEC au moment de la mise en place de son programme #TechFor-People, afin de s’assurer de la pertinence de ce programme pour répondre aux besoins sur le long terme des structures de l’ESS (Économie Sociale et Solidaire) en transformation digitale. Afin de répondre à cette problématique l’ESSEC a réalisé une évaluation d’impact social fondée sur les cadres théoriques de la théorie du changement et de la théorie des parties prenantes, avec l’analyse de besoin, une collecte de données qualitatives ex-ante ainsi qu’une collecte de données quantitative ex-ante et ex-post. L’analyse de ces collectes révèle une dichotomie spécifique aux structures de l’ESS utilisant le programme que nous avons catégorisées en Tech Driven d’une part, ou Tech Powered d’autre part, avec des besoins et des conditions de pérennisation spécifiques en fonction de la catégorie qui leur correspond.

Widening income and knowledge inequalities have led to growing expectations for universities to integrate social innovation in their core missions as a response to societal problems. This systematic review of literature provides an overview of the state-of-the-art of knowledge on the role of the university in enabling social innovation through its missions of teaching, research and third mission. It also identifies knowledge gaps in the field. A bibliometric approach wasused to identify and analyze books, journal articles and reports examining factors driving social innovation activities at universities, organizational and insitutional change to accommodate such activities as well as their impact. The review reveals that the literature on university engagement in socially-oriented activities as part of the third mission of the university is conceptually well developed and a growing field of inquiry. It also points to gaps in the knowledge base; relatively few studies address issues related to institutional change and incentive structures that influences the ability of universities to engage in social innovation. Likewise, impact studies on social innovation activities at universities are scarce. Further research that builds an impact measurement framework would support the process of integrating social innovation activities in the three missions of the university.

Frugal innovation has gained prominence based on its potential contribution to sustainable development and the new opportunities that it offers to low-income customers. This paper aims to analyse the strategic knowledge transfer practices implemented by an entrepreneurial university for fostering frugal innovations within an emerging economy. Design/methodology/approach This study adopted a case study methodological approach. The selected case was the University of Campinas (Unicamp), one of the leading universities in Brazil in terms of research quality and technology transfer. The study built upon 14 interviews with key informants and secondary sources of data (official and public documents). Findings The findings highlight the multidimensional dynamics of frugal innovations arising from university–industry relationships. Key dimensions considered include the internal capabilities of universities to foster frugal innovations and connect them to markets, the surrounding innovation ecosystems in which the university is embedded and the overarching institutional framework. Research limitations/implications The analysis of strategic management practices for frugal innovation requires an evolutionary perspective, but the findings lacked sufficient longitudinal information for a formal evaluation. Also, as our empirical analysis is based on an in-depth case study of one university, further validation in other contexts would be necessary. Practical implications This study offers new insights regarding the effectiveness of university-business collaboration partnerships for developing frugal innovations in emerging economies. Policymakers should promote societal programs enhancing the active participation of all agents involved in the entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystem. University managers should understand the challenges and the opportunities behind the adoption of an inclusive and societal orientation. Social implications By adopting frugal innovation practices, universities can enhance their contribution of meeting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Originality/value The literature on frugal innovation has emphasized the importance of networking between different types of firms, NGOs and governments, but the role of universities in frugal innovation remains mostly unexplored. This study addresses this gap by exploring how entrepreneurial universities participate in frugal innovations to meet societal challenges.

Discusses the measurement of innovation and the use of the resulting indicators to shape policy, exploring whether innovation can be measured everywhere, not just in the business sector, in a rapidly changing world. Reviews systems, innovation, and innovation policy. Details current innovation policies. Describes scoreboards and their use for monitoring existing innovation policy. Focuses on the implementation of innovation policy. Presents the general definition of innovation applicable in all economic sectors and considers the importance of language in the innovation discourse. Provides the conceptual framework for the specification of the statistical measurement of innovation. Addresses non-sector-specific innovation in the informal economy, green economy, social innovation, and innovation resulting from the use of general-purpose technologies. Examines global challenges for innovation such as sustainability restrictions. Considers the future of innovation in the digital economy, informal economy, and social innovation. Gault is Professorial Fellow at UNU-MERIT, Professor Extraordinary at Tshwane University of Technology, and Visiting Professor at the University of Johannesburg. Index.

The main aim of the paper is to question the viability of measuring social innovation with the current state of knowledge on the one hand, and to make suggestions for better measurement of it on the other. To reach this aim, the literature on the traditional measures of technological innovation and the previous attempts of measuring social innovation is surveyed. Despite relatively narrow scope of the literature mainly originated from the very recent and pioneer experiments, one may argue that the first findings do not present a promising picture for future studies. Therefore, existing trials to measure social innovation have to be critically screened to ascertain problematic areas, and hence, to provide plausible solutions. The problems with social innovation metrics are not only limited with obtaining concrete and trustworthy results, but also extended to statistical, methodological and even conceptual spheres.

La mesure de l’impact social est devenue un sujet majeur dans le débat relatif au financement de l’innovation sociale. Plusieurs rapports de référence ont été publiés dans ce sens. Ces travaux récents, en s’inscrivant tous dans le cadre logique de la gestion axée sur les résultats (GAR), également appelée « théorie du changement », renouvellent la construction d’une relation problématique : le lien causal et la mesure de sa preuve. À partir d’une approche institutionnaliste de l’innovation sociale, cet article expose les impasses de la GAR dans l’évaluation des innovations sociales et souligne que d’autres voies sont possibles. Les auteurs proposent ainsi de placer l’aspiration sociale au cœur du processus d’évaluation.