IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v26y2017i5d10.1007_s10726-017-9524-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing Open Innovation in Urban Labs

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Scozzi

    (Politecnico di Bari)

  • Nicola Bellantuono

    (Politecnico di Bari)

  • Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo

    (Politecnico di Bari)

Abstract

Urban labs are open innovation ecosystems, i.e. places, either promoted by companies or local institutions or spontaneously established by active citizens, wherein the current problems and challenges associated with a city are discussed and possibly innovative solutions are designed and implemented. Urban labs usually face complexity in managing the contributions of several heterogeneous actors. The paper presents the Urban Lab Methodology (ULM), which supports the management of urban labs by integrating Soft System Methodology with an open innovation framework previously developed by the authors. The former is a methodology to facilitate the structuration and solution of complex problems involving different stakeholders, whereas the latter aims at suggesting an association between the innovation context and the open innovation practices to be adopted. ULM is used to analyze the case study of Manifesto della Città Vecchia e del Mare (“The Old Town and Sea Manifesto”), a urban lab created in Taranto (Italy) in 2014. The analysis shows that theoretical prescriptions are to a great extent coherent with the real course of action and ULM is relatively easy to be adopted.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara Scozzi & Nicola Bellantuono & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo, 2017. "Managing Open Innovation in Urban Labs," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 857-874, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:26:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-017-9524-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-017-9524-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-017-9524-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-017-9524-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Felin, Teppo & Zenger, Todd R., 2014. "Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 914-925.
    2. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.
    3. Georgiou, Ion, 2008. "Making decisions in the absence of clear facts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 299-321, February.
    4. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    5. Saebi, Tina & Foss, Nicolai J., 2015. "Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 201-213.
    6. Small, Adrian & Wainwright, David, 2014. "SSM and technology management: Developing multimethodology through practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(3), pages 660-673.
    7. Eric von Hippel & Georg von Krogh, 2003. "Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 209-223, April.
    8. Alexy, Oliver & Reitzig, Markus, 2013. "Private–collective innovation, competition, and firms’ counterintuitive appropriation strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 895-913.
    9. Arnold Reisman & Muhittin Oral, 2005. "Soft Systems Methodology: A Context Within a 50-Year Retrospective of OR/MS," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 164-178, April.
    10. Lane, David C. & Oliva, Rogelio, 1998. "The greater whole: Towards a synthesis of system dynamics and soft systems methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 214-235, May.
    11. Mingers, John & White, Leroy, 2010. "A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1147-1161, December.
    12. Valentina Lazzarotti & Raffaella Manzini, 2009. "Different Modes Of Open Innovation: A Theoretical Framework And An Empirical Study," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(04), pages 615-636.
    13. Du, Jingshu & Leten, Bart & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 2014. "Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 828-840.
    14. Paul Trott & Dap Hartmann, 2009. "Why 'Open Innovation' Is Old Wine In New Bottles," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(04), pages 715-736.
    15. I Munro & J Mingers, 2002. "The use of multimethodology in practice—results of a survey of practitioners," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 53(4), pages 369-378, April.
    16. Brown, Joyce & Cooper, Ceri & Pidd, Michael, 2006. "A taxing problem: The complementary use of hard and soft OR in the public sector," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 666-679, July.
    17. Jackson, Mike C., 2001. "Critical systems thinking and practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 233-244, January.
    18. Pol, Eduardo & Ville, Simon, 2009. "Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 878-885, December.
    19. Tether, Bruce S. & Tajar, Abdelouahid, 2008. "Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1079-1095, July.
    20. Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2010. "Mapping the changes in management science: A review of 'soft' OR/MS articles published in Omega (1973-2008)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(1-2), pages 46-56, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tóth, Csilla & Fehérvölgyi, Beáta & Háry, András & Kovács, Zoltán, 2024. "Az innovációs ökoszisztémák ágazati sajátosságai és osztályozásának lehetőségei [Sectoral features of innovation ecosystems and an opportunity for classification]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 957-987.
    2. Joanna Helman, 2020. "Analysis of the Local Innovation and Entrepreneurial System Structure Towards the ‘Wrocław Innovation Ecosystem’ Concept Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Richard Beecroft, 2018. "Embedding Higher Education into a Real-World Lab: A Process-Oriented Analysis of Six Transdisciplinary Project Courses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    4. Granstrand, Ove & Holgersson, Marcus, 2020. "Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 90.
    5. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    6. Mario Barchi & Marco Greco, 2018. "Negotiation in Open Innovation: A Literature Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 343-374, June.
    7. James Cunningham & Alistair R. Anderson, 2018. "Inspired or Foolhardy: Sensemaking, Confidence and Entrepreneurs’ Decision-Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 393-415, June.
    8. Bartosz Piziak & Magdalena Bień & Wojciech Jarczewski & Katarzyna Ner, 2023. "Exploring Urban (Living) Labs: A Model Tailored for Central and Eastern Europe’s Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-19, August.
    9. Bo Liu & Yun-Fei Shao & Guowei Liu & Debing Ni, 2022. "An Evolutionary Analysis of Relational Governance in an Innovation Ecosystem," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, April.
    10. Nicola Bellantuono & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo & Barbara Scozzi, 2021. "Measuring the Openness of Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    11. Nicola Bellantuono & Francesco Paolo Lagrasta & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo & Barbara Scozzi, 2021. "Well-Being and Sustainability in Crisis Areas: The Case of Taranto," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-23, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Small, Adrian & Wainwright, David, 2018. "Privacy and security of electronic patient records – Tailoring multimethodology to explore the socio-political problems associated with Role Based Access Control systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 344-360.
    2. Nicola Bellantuono & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo & Barbara Scozzi, 2021. "Measuring the Openness of Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Yildirim, Ercan & AR, Ilker Murat & Dabić, Marina & Baki, Birdogan & Peker, Iskender, 2022. "A multi-stage decision making model for determining a suitable innovation structure using an open innovation approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 379-391.
    4. van Criekingen, Kristof & Freel, Mark & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2021. "Open innovation deficiency: Evidence on project abandonment and delay," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-006, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Shaikh, Maha & Levina, Natalia, 2019. "Selecting an open innovation community as an alliance partner: Looking for healthy communities and ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    6. Hannigan, Timothy R. & Seidel, Victor P. & Yakis-Douglas, Basak, 2018. "Product innovation rumors as forms of open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 953-964.
    7. Payam Hanafizadeh & Mohammad Mehrabioun, 2018. "Application of SSM in tackling problematical situations from academicians’ viewpoints," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 179-220, April.
    8. Cenamor, Javier & Frishammar, Johan, 2021. "Openness in platform ecosystems: Innovation strategies for complementary products," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    9. Andræs Barge-Gil, 2013. "Open Strategies and Innovation Performance," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 585-610, October.
    10. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    11. Mingers, John, 2015. "Helping business schools engage with real problems: The contribution of critical realism and systems thinking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 316-331.
    12. Lindomar Subtil Oliveira & Márcia E. Soares Echeveste & Marcelo Nogueira Cortimiglia & Aline C. Gularte, 2019. "Open Innovation in Regional Innovation Systems: Assessment of Critical Success Factors for Implementation in SMEs," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(4), pages 1597-1619, December.
    13. Maha Shaikh & Emmanuelle Vaast, 2016. "Folding and Unfolding: Balancing Openness and Transparency in Open Source Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 813-833, December.
    14. Roman Teplov & Ekaterina Albats & Daria Podmetina, 2019. "What Does Open Innovation Mean? Business Versus Academic Perceptions," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(01), pages 1-33, January.
    15. Schäper, Thomas & Jung, Christopher & Foege, Johann Nils & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Fainshmidt, Stav & Nüesch, Stephan, 2023. "The S-shaped relationship between open innovation and financial performance: A longitudinal perspective using a novel text-based measure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    16. Robert Stanisławski, 2020. "Open Innovation as a Value Chain for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Determinants of the Use of Open Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-24, April.
    17. Elisa Salvador & Francesca Montagna & Federica Marcolin, 2013. "Clustering recent trends in the Open Innovation literature for SME strategy improvements," Post-Print hal-02535438, HAL.
    18. Colin C. J. Cheng & Eric C. Shiu, 2021. "Establishing a typology of open innovation strategies and their differential impacts on innovation success in an Asia-Pacific developed economy," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 65-89, March.
    19. Small, Adrian & Wainwright, David, 2014. "SSM and technology management: Developing multimethodology through practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(3), pages 660-673.
    20. Wright, George & Cairns, George & O'Brien, Frances A. & Goodwin, Paul, 2019. "Scenario analysis to support decision making in addressing wicked problems: Pitfalls and potential," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(1), pages 3-19.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:26:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-017-9524-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.