Votre recherche

Les Living Labs (LLs) sont de nouvelles formes de laboratoires mettant en œuvre des approches collaboratives et expérimentales centrées sur les utilisateurs. Récemment, les capacités des LLs à développer des réseaux d’innovation ouverts et collaboratifs ont été soulignées. Mais les recherches sont encore peu nombreuses, alors même que le phénomène ne cesse d’évoluer en pratique. En s’appuyant sur l’analyse longitudinale d’une initiative en cours, les « Concept Maturity Levels Santé », impulsée par le Forum des Living Labs en Santé et Autonomie, cet article présente une recherche abductive visant à explorer et caractériser la manière dont les LLs peuvent contribuer, au-delà de projets d’innovation temporaires, à structurer des écosystèmes d’innovation ouverts et collaboratifs sur le long terme. En sus de contribuer à la littérature sur les LLs, l’article ouvre de nouvelles pistes de caractérisation des écosystèmes communautaires d’innovation jusqu’ici encore peu étudiés.Code JEL : M100

Les Living Labs (LLs) sont de nouvelles formes de laboratoires mettant en œuvre des approches collaboratives et expérimentales centrées sur les utilisateurs. Récemment, les capacités des LLs à développer des réseaux d’innovation ouverts et collaboratifs ont été soulignées. Mais les recherches sont encore peu nombreuses, alors même que le phénomène ne cesse d’évoluer en pratique. En s’appuyant sur l’analyse longitudinale d’une initiative en cours, les « Concept Maturity Levels Santé », impulsée par le Forum des Living Labs en Santé et Autonomie, cet article présente une recherche abductive visant à explorer et caractériser la manière dont les LLs peuvent contribuer, au-delà de projets d’innovation temporaires, à structurer des écosystèmes d’innovation ouverts et collaboratifs sur le long terme. En sus de contribuer à la littérature sur les LLs, l’article ouvre de nouvelles pistes de caractérisation des écosystèmes communautaires d’innovation jusqu’ici encore peu étudiés.Code JEL : M100

Upon election in 2015, the Justin Trudeau Liberal government announced its intention to transform government operations by bringing nonprofit and private sector partners into the center of public sector decision making through new structures such as Policy Hubs and Innovation labs. These collaborative arrangements were intended to yield the benefits of Michael Barber’s theory of deliverology by breaking through the public sector aversion to risk and change and by creating new spaces for devising effective solutions to the increasingly complex social and economic challenges facing government. A preliminary examination of the use of policy hubs and innovation labs in Canada between 2015 and 2020 indicates that the results have been mixed for the nonprofit sector partners. Collaborative relations have offered nonprofit sector partners new opportunities and access to influence policy decisions. However, this influence also poses risks to their independence, legitimacy and effectiveness as policy advocates. Both public and nonprofit sector partners in PILs should heed certain cautions in choosing future partnerships or they may find their ability to achieve meaningful policy change is limited.

Upon election in 2015, the Justin Trudeau Liberal government announced its intention to transform government operations by bringing nonprofit and private sector partners into the center of public sector decision making through new structures such as Policy Hubs and Innovation labs. These collaborative arrangements were intended to yield the benefits of Michael Barber’s theory of deliverology by breaking through the public sector aversion to risk and change and by creating new spaces for devising effective solutions to the increasingly complex social and economic challenges facing government. A preliminary examination of the use of policy hubs and innovation labs in Canada between 2015 and 2020 indicates that the results have been mixed for the nonprofit sector partners. Collaborative relations have offered nonprofit sector partners new opportunities and access to influence policy decisions. However, this influence also poses risks to their independence, legitimacy and effectiveness as policy advocates. Both public and nonprofit sector partners in PILs should heed certain cautions in choosing future partnerships or they may find their ability to achieve meaningful policy change is limited.

For decades, the cooperative enterprise (CE) produces market goods and/or provides services in the interest to its members, such as communities, customers, and suppliers. The upsurge of interest in social enterprises, and their balancing of social and economic interests, has also led to a renewed interest in CEs, often seen as a specific type of social enterprise. However, from an organizational perspective, this renewed interest has been both limited and scattered over a variety of fields. In this paper, we systematically review papers on CE in the mainstream organizational literature, defined as literature in the fields of economics, business, management and sociology. Our review integrates and synthesizes the current topics in the mainstream organizational literature and provides a number of avenues for future research. In addition, we compare our findings in the organizational literature to the social issues literature as these appeared to be quite complimentary. We found multilevel studies, determination of social impact—in particular measurable impact, managerial practices for sustainable (organisational) development, and the entrepreneurial opportunity generation process as the four key avenues for future research.

For decades, the cooperative enterprise (CE) produces market goods and/or provides services in the interest to its members, such as communities, customers, and suppliers. The upsurge of interest in social enterprises, and their balancing of social and economic interests, has also led to a renewed interest in CEs, often seen as a specific type of social enterprise. However, from an organizational perspective, this renewed interest has been both limited and scattered over a variety of fields. In this paper, we systematically review papers on CE in the mainstream organizational literature, defined as literature in the fields of economics, business, management and sociology. Our review integrates and synthesizes the current topics in the mainstream organizational literature and provides a number of avenues for future research. In addition, we compare our findings in the organizational literature to the social issues literature as these appeared to be quite complimentary. We found multilevel studies, determination of social impact—in particular measurable impact, managerial practices for sustainable (organisational) development, and the entrepreneurial opportunity generation process as the four key avenues for future research.

Social innovation is related to new products, services, and models aiming to improve human well-being and create social relationships and collaborations. The business model innovation (BMI) context can foster social innovation and can be applied in social innovation projects and initiatives. What is important for social BMI is the social mission, which needs to be defined in order to be able to move forward with the strategy, the value proposition, and the best practices of the business. Based on the existing social innovation literature and case studies, this paper proposes an “ecosystem” approach that can provide an integrated framework for social business models. This approach adopts the quadruple/quintuple helix innovation models which are able to promote social innovation, enabling a locus-centric and triple-bottom-line-centric entrepreneurial process of knowledge discovery and exploitation. Such a framework may help to study the role, nature, and dynamics of social co-opetitive fractal ecosystems, given emphasis on civil society, political structures, environment, and sustainability. In addition, the social innovation case studies presented in this paper highlight that targeted open innovation is a key element for social BMI.

Social innovation is related to new products, services, and models aiming to improve human well-being and create social relationships and collaborations. The business model innovation (BMI) context can foster social innovation and can be applied in social innovation projects and initiatives. What is important for social BMI is the social mission, which needs to be defined in order to be able to move forward with the strategy, the value proposition, and the best practices of the business. Based on the existing social innovation literature and case studies, this paper proposes an “ecosystem” approach that can provide an integrated framework for social business models. This approach adopts the quadruple/quintuple helix innovation models which are able to promote social innovation, enabling a locus-centric and triple-bottom-line-centric entrepreneurial process of knowledge discovery and exploitation. Such a framework may help to study the role, nature, and dynamics of social co-opetitive fractal ecosystems, given emphasis on civil society, political structures, environment, and sustainability. In addition, the social innovation case studies presented in this paper highlight that targeted open innovation is a key element for social BMI.

Social innovation is conceptualised as having two intimately related pillars: institutional innovation and locally embedded innovation, in the sense of social economy. Two main research questions were addressed: how political, institutional innovation is fostered and how does it influence social economy? A mixed methods research was conducted in the Mühlviertel NUTS3 region. Despite a framework of enhanced autonomy and institutional innovation for the main stakeholders, both macro and micro analysis illustrate a lack of intermediate space to: a) link the innovative agenda to high-state political agendas, and b) link institutional innovation to social economy.

Social innovation is conceptualised as having two intimately related pillars: institutional innovation and locally embedded innovation, in the sense of social economy. Two main research questions were addressed: how political, institutional innovation is fostered and how does it influence social economy? A mixed methods research was conducted in the Mühlviertel NUTS3 region. Despite a framework of enhanced autonomy and institutional innovation for the main stakeholders, both macro and micro analysis illustrate a lack of intermediate space to: a) link the innovative agenda to high-state political agendas, and b) link institutional innovation to social economy.

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.

With the advent of smart cities (SCs), governance has been placed at the core of the debate on how to create public value and achieve a high quality of life in urban environments. In particular, given that public value is rooted in democratic theory and new technologies that promote networking spaces have emerged, citizen participation represents one of the principal instruments to make government open and close to the citizenry needs. Participation in urban governance has undergone a great development: from the first postmodernist ideals of countering expert dominance to today’s focus on learning and social innovation, where citizen participation is conceptualized as co-creation and co-production. Despite this development, there is a lack of research to know how this new governance context is taking place in the SC arena. Addressing this situation, in this article, we present an exhaustive survey of the research literature and a deep study of the experience in participative initiatives followed by SCs in Europe. Through an analysis of 149 SC initiatives from 76 European cities, we provide interesting insights about how participatory models have been introduced in the different areas and dimensions of the cities, how citizen engagement is promoted in SC initiatives, and whether the so-called creative SCs are those with a higher number of projects governed in a participatory way.

With the advent of smart cities (SCs), governance has been placed at the core of the debate on how to create public value and achieve a high quality of life in urban environments. In particular, given that public value is rooted in democratic theory and new technologies that promote networking spaces have emerged, citizen participation represents one of the principal instruments to make government open and close to the citizenry needs. Participation in urban governance has undergone a great development: from the first postmodernist ideals of countering expert dominance to today’s focus on learning and social innovation, where citizen participation is conceptualized as co-creation and co-production. Despite this development, there is a lack of research to know how this new governance context is taking place in the SC arena. Addressing this situation, in this article, we present an exhaustive survey of the research literature and a deep study of the experience in participative initiatives followed by SCs in Europe. Through an analysis of 149 SC initiatives from 76 European cities, we provide interesting insights about how participatory models have been introduced in the different areas and dimensions of the cities, how citizen engagement is promoted in SC initiatives, and whether the so-called creative SCs are those with a higher number of projects governed in a participatory way.

Nous proposons un regard réflexif sur deux expériences de recherche-projet menées dans le cadre de thèses de doctorat. Notre réflexion porte sur les apports et limites de cette démarche dans le cadre de projets ancrés dans les champs de la santé et du handicap, plus spécifiquement des troubles du sommeil et des troubles du spectre de l’autisme. La proposition repose sur la démonstration de l’intérêt de la conception participative propre à la recherche-projet dans ces domaines sensibles au sein desquels l’enjeu de l’inclusion des acteurs apparaît comme majeur.

Nous proposons un regard réflexif sur deux expériences de recherche-projet menées dans le cadre de thèses de doctorat. Notre réflexion porte sur les apports et limites de cette démarche dans le cadre de projets ancrés dans les champs de la santé et du handicap, plus spécifiquement des troubles du sommeil et des troubles du spectre de l’autisme. La proposition repose sur la démonstration de l’intérêt de la conception participative propre à la recherche-projet dans ces domaines sensibles au sein desquels l’enjeu de l’inclusion des acteurs apparaît comme majeur.

Antecedents of innovation precede their implementation and probably influence which innovations and whether they are approved and implemented. Antecedents have been identified in a considerable number of types of innovation. Are they the same in these types? A systematic literature review (SLR) of antecedents of policy innovation found 594 antecedents, 508 of them unique, in 87 articles on trailblazing and adoption. So many antecedents suggest a lack of clarity about what the antecedents of policy innovation may be. They have been clarified for policy innovation. In this paper the antecedents of policy innovation are compared to antecedents of private, public sector and social innovation identified in literature reviews, SLRs and metaanalyses to see whether common or different antecedents are identified in these literatures. While the literature often implies antecedents of different types of innovation are the same by lumping them together, they were found to vary somewhat by type of innovation, especially trailblazing and higher-level factors and clusters. External antecedents were only found to be important for policy innovation and dissemination; political antecedents were particularly important for trailblazing; internal antecedents were important for all types of innovation. Literature on antecedents of private innovations did not consider external or political antecedents. Four research questions are addressed: Q. 1: At what level should antecedents of innovation be analyzed and compared? Q. 2: How do antecedents identified for different types of innovation compare—private, public and public-social sectors? Q. 3: How do clusters identified for different types of public sector innovation compare— processes; trailblazing and adoption of policy; dissemination; private, public, public-social sectors? Q. 4: Do a common set of unique and grouped antecedents, factors and clusters influence all types of innovation equally or are their antecedents discernably different? Key words: antecedents of innovation, comparison of antecedents, types of innovation, systematic literature review.

Antecedents of innovation precede their implementation and probably influence which innovations and whether they are approved and implemented. Antecedents have been identified in a considerable number of types of innovation. Are they the same in these types? A systematic literature review (SLR) of antecedents of policy innovation found 594 antecedents, 508 of them unique, in 87 articles on trailblazing and adoption. So many antecedents suggest a lack of clarity about what the antecedents of policy innovation may be. They have been clarified for policy innovation. In this paper the antecedents of policy innovation are compared to antecedents of private, public sector and social innovation identified in literature reviews, SLRs and metaanalyses to see whether common or different antecedents are identified in these literatures. While the literature often implies antecedents of different types of innovation are the same by lumping them together, they were found to vary somewhat by type of innovation, especially trailblazing and higher-level factors and clusters. External antecedents were only found to be important for policy innovation and dissemination; political antecedents were particularly important for trailblazing; internal antecedents were important for all types of innovation. Literature on antecedents of private innovations did not consider external or political antecedents. Four research questions are addressed: Q. 1: At what level should antecedents of innovation be analyzed and compared? Q. 2: How do antecedents identified for different types of innovation compare—private, public and public-social sectors? Q. 3: How do clusters identified for different types of public sector innovation compare— processes; trailblazing and adoption of policy; dissemination; private, public, public-social sectors? Q. 4: Do a common set of unique and grouped antecedents, factors and clusters influence all types of innovation equally or are their antecedents discernably different? Key words: antecedents of innovation, comparison of antecedents, types of innovation, systematic literature review.

The paper organizes and summarizes the conditions (antecedents) researchers and practitioners identified as occurring prior to trailblazing and adoption of public policy (including program) innovation, as identified in a systematic literature review. The review identified 87 relevant documents and 594 antecedents. Trailblazing of innovation is Rogers’ (1995) first two stages of adoption—innovation (invention) and early adoption (identified here as second and third adoptions in a government’s community or population). The antecedents are analyzed into grouped antecedents, factors and clusters. The most-mentioned grouped antecedents were citizen pressure, process, structure and political culture. The most-mentioned factors were innovation drivers, people, policy/process, and context. The factors were organized into clusters—external, political and internal. Based on number of mentions the literature considered the internal cluster the most important. The most-mentioned factors in external cluster were context and people; in political cluster, drivers, political context and political actors; in internal cluster, innovation process, drivers, people and internal environment. Multiples more antecedents were identified for internal cluster than the others. Lack of consistent definitions and the mixing of stages and levels in the literature has hampered understanding of antecedents and placed limitations on this study. The literature sometimes distinguished external and internal cluster; the current analysis also considers a political cluster, which is especially important to trailblazing of public policy innovations.

The paper organizes and summarizes the conditions (antecedents) researchers and practitioners identified as occurring prior to trailblazing and adoption of public policy (including program) innovation, as identified in a systematic literature review. The review identified 87 relevant documents and 594 antecedents. Trailblazing of innovation is Rogers’ (1995) first two stages of adoption—innovation (invention) and early adoption (identified here as second and third adoptions in a government’s community or population). The antecedents are analyzed into grouped antecedents, factors and clusters. The most-mentioned grouped antecedents were citizen pressure, process, structure and political culture. The most-mentioned factors were innovation drivers, people, policy/process, and context. The factors were organized into clusters—external, political and internal. Based on number of mentions the literature considered the internal cluster the most important. The most-mentioned factors in external cluster were context and people; in political cluster, drivers, political context and political actors; in internal cluster, innovation process, drivers, people and internal environment. Multiples more antecedents were identified for internal cluster than the others. Lack of consistent definitions and the mixing of stages and levels in the literature has hampered understanding of antecedents and placed limitations on this study. The literature sometimes distinguished external and internal cluster; the current analysis also considers a political cluster, which is especially important to trailblazing of public policy innovations.

Methodology for systematic literature reviews (SLRs) is not well developed in public policy compared to the health field. This paper explores use of the health PRISMA protocol for SLRs to guide an SLR of antecedents of trailblazing and adoption of public policy innovation and whether it is a suitable protocol for public policy. Trailblazing is the first two stages—invention and early adoption—of Rogers’ (1995) five stages of innovation adoption in a governmental or organizational population. Completing applicable items in the checklist, a SLR of 87 peerreviewed publications identified 594 antecedents; trailblazing/adoption and empirical/nonempirical studies are distinguished and the theories reflected are identified.