Open Innovation 2.0 Yearbook 2013 - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

100 O P E N I N N O V A T I O N 2 0 1 3 was used to design the original ACSI concept, and has been adopted in developing ACSI-style interventions for the EUE programme. Two additional aspects were added to the original five, creating the concept of an innovation dynamo to challenge the thinking of T3 ecosystem participants. The Innovation Dynamo (Figure 2) harnesses the five discovery skills to two aspects of the innovation process essential to realising innovation in practice: implementing and creating impact. • Associating is the ability to make connections, linking seemingly unrelated issues and ideas in new fruitful combinations. • Questioning leverages the power of provocative questions to create new perspectives and modes of thinking. • Observing is the key to understanding how things in the world work, and why people behave as they do. Figure 2: The Innovation Dynamo • Experimenting means going with best guesses and not being afraid of failing your way forward. It is an essential skill of innovators. • Networking allows us to tap into collective and distributed intelligence for insight, explanation, expertise, and inspiration, as well as critical thinking. • Implementing is the litmus test for innovators — realising a good idea in practice. • Creating impact — and celebrating it. This is the proof of the pudding: does a new product, service or realised idea actually create value for its users — and for the ecosystem? If it does, then we should celebrate it, making it clear to all those involved that this innovation works. This is how the Innovation Dynamo generates innovation power and the energy required to maintain the ecosystem. Working with these skills, pioneering innovation regions are able to leverage their potential to create societal impact. Changing mindsets is an important and often difficult aspect of the innovation process, but it is essential both on an individual and a collective level. Thinking in outcomes instead of outputs, and thinking in ecosystems instead of areas, is required for progress to be made and pioneering regions to prosper. Mov- ing from proprietary ownership to open innovation, from personal interest to partnership, from following to initiating, from risk-aversion to experimentation — these are building blocks that the culture of innovation Europe is looking for, and which the Horizon 2020 programme hopes to achieve. They mark
shifts in deep understanding that are necessary in order to create value in society. Metaphors such as the Innovation Dynamo, the pioneering region, the ramp for societal innovation, the Espoo Innovation Garden (a 3-day EUE-related workshop held in January 2013), and the image of T3 as a ‘lighthouse for innovative practice in Finland and Europe’, are importance vehicles for creating shared stories of what is important in a region, and can help focus energy and attention. The innovation ramp feeds people, innovative impulses and engaged energy into the process. Test beds allow ideas to be tried and improved with the people they are intended to reach. Demonstrations of what projects are achieving — even if only a prototype, and far from complete — add excitement to the mix, and communicate to partners that something is happening. Bringing people, programmes, and pioneering regions together is an important way to diffuse innovation expertise throughout Europe. Benchlearning and bench-doing will accelerate knowledge dissemination. Doing things on the right scale and in the appropriate place will allow regions to get the most out of future smart specialisation strategies. Scaling will provide insight into what is regional, national or transnational in innovation processes. Horizon 2020’s focus on excellence allows vanguard regions to exemplify what is possible, and through its ‘stairway to excellence’ concept help other regions to benefit from effective research infrastructures and orchestration processes, in order to reduce the innovation divide. These are some of the ways in which the challenges of the opening chapter — challenges relevant to pioneering innovation regions and innovation ecosystems across Europe — can be met. References [1] EU Committee of the Regions (2011), Working Document on Horizon 2020, Rapporteur Markku Markkula, Opinion CdR 402/2011. [2] Curley, M. (2012), Introduction, Open Innovation 2012, European Commission, p. 5. [3] Prahalad, C. K., Krishnan, M. S. (2008), The New Age of Innovation, McGraw-Hill, pp. 1–25. [4] Launonen, M., Viitanen, J. (2011), Hubconcepts — The Global Best Practice for Managing Innovation Ecosystems and Hubs, Hubconcepts Inc., Helsinki, p. 331. [5] Markkula, M., Kune, H. (2012), ‘Pioneering regions and societal innovations as enablers for the Europe 2020 strategy’, Open Innovation 2012, European Commission, p. 56. [6] Tuffs, R., Markkula, M., Hoyer, B. (2012), ‘Workshop Horizon 2020 and Pre-commercial Public Procurement – Defining Key Instruments for the European Future’, unpublished. [7] EU Committee of the Regions (2012), ‘Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — Horizon 2020’, Opinion CdR 402/2011 final. [8] New Club of Paris (2013), ‘Implementing Pioneering Innovation Regions’ (forthcoming, unpublished). [9] Lin, C. Y., Edvinsson, L. (2011), National Intellectual Capital: A Comparison of 40 Countries, Springer. [10] CESAER (2011), CSI — The CESAER SMART Initiative, Stimulating the Modernisation Agenda for Research and Technology. [11] EU Committee of the Regions (2010), ‘Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Digital Agenda for Europe’, Opinion CdR 104/2010 final. [12] Viitanen, J., Markkula, M., Ripoll Soler, C. (2013), ‘The Changing Realities in the Systemic Development of Regional Innovation Ecosystems: From “Triple Helix” to RIE’, forthcoming article in ‘The Knowledge Triangle’. [13] Mikkelä, K., Miikki, L. (2013), ‘The New Role of Space in Implementing Knowledge Triangle’, forthcoming article in ‘The Knowledge Triangle’. [14] Joustra, D. J., Kune, H., De Vries, C. A. (2011), Pattern Language for Sustainable Spatial Development, Report for the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. [15] City Innovations model (http://www.kaupunkiinnovaatiot.fi/in-english). [16] Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., Christensen, C. M. (2009), ‘The Innovator’s DNA’, Harvard Business Review. Contact Markku Markkula Advisor to the Aalto Presidents, Aalto University Committee of the Regions, Member, Chair EPP/CoR Task Force Europe 2020 markku.markkula@aalto.fi Hank Kune Director, Innovation and Enterprise, Educore Founding Partner, Future Center Alliance hankkune@educore.nl 101
Page 1 and 2:
doi 10.2759/87245 KK-AI-12-001-EN-C
Page 3 and 4:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Open Innovation
Page 5 and 6:
Contents FOREWORD . . . . . . . . .
Page 7 and 8:
Introduction The objective of our I
Page 9 and 10:
Executive summary This yearbook Ope
Page 11 and 12:
CHAPTER I Policy development 1.1. E
Page 13 and 14:
shift the development pace signific
Page 15 and 16:
In the approach the European Commis
Page 17 and 18:
Innovation dynamics have increased,
Page 19 and 20:
and joint growth in an organic, non
Page 21 and 22:
their environment with its technolo
Page 23 and 24:
In the course of his work, McInerne
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 3: Ecological systems framew
Page 27 and 28:
innovation maturity level such as t
Page 29 and 30:
[13] Oakley, A. (1990), Schumpeter
Page 31 and 32:
Innovation does not necessarily imp
Page 33 and 34:
where Europe remains an abstraction
Page 35 and 36:
[4] Giannakouris, K., Smihily, M. (
Page 37 and 38:
The term ‘smart city’ has attra
Page 39 and 40:
Improve-My-City is an application d
Page 41 and 42:
participate, and a proof of this is
Page 43 and 44:
models could dynamically evolve ove
Page 45 and 46:
even learn to pilot, experiment and
Page 47 and 48:
European ICT companies are collabor
Page 49 and 50:
‘smart specialisation platform’
Page 51 and 52: 2.3. Innovating with and for the pu
Page 53 and 54: Case study: Helsinki City Home Care
Page 55 and 56: Thus, the city has acted as a co-cr
Page 57 and 58: Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the
Page 59 and 60: There are many European initiatives
Page 61 and 62: 3.2. Participative innovation in sm
Page 63 and 64: LIGHT HOUSE Figure 2: The reference
Page 65 and 66: who’s allowed to do what? Who is
Page 67 and 68: Figure 6: Elements of the roadmap f
Page 69 and 70: The roadmap shows that much is alre
Page 71 and 72: Concrete actions for the short term
Page 73 and 74: 3.3. Smarter water: why open innova
Page 75 and 76: industrial users’ infrastructure
Page 77 and 78: [27] UN Office for the Coordination
Page 79 and 80: There is, however, a general agreem
Page 81 and 82: to more personalisation on data-sha
Page 83 and 84: [14] The official website of the UK
Page 85 and 86: the organisation to meet demand in
Page 87 and 88: Table 2: Challenges of the company
Page 89 and 90: 3.6. Horizon 2020: Regional Innovat
Page 91 and 92: The thrust of the recommendations f
Page 93 and 94: Table 2: Possible 1-year work proce
Page 95 and 96: programme (Figure 1). Participants
Page 97 and 98: The active agents of the metropolis
Page 99 and 100: • active cross-sectoral communica
Page 101: Working with patterns is not a new
Page 105 and 106: We are now approaching the end of t
Page 107 and 108: The Open Innovation Lab: innovation
Page 109 and 110: References [1] http://www.fi-ppp.eu
show all

Open Innovation 2.0 Yearbook 2013 - European Commission - Europa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?