Open Innovation 2.0 Yearbook 2013 - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

86 O P E N I N N O V A T I O N 2 0 1 3 all stakeholders, including the crowd/audience itself? 5. What does success look like and where will success be documented? 6. What is needed to motivate participation? (A lot of research knowledge is available regarding social media participation, and crowdsourcing and working in particular.) Crowdsourcing, for those who have not explored and exploited it as a way of creating value, is a bit like skydiving: you need to trust your crowd, your audience, your followers and fans, since they are the ones that represent the real value of your company. As stated in his book, Lindgaard [5] says a fundamental question is being raised (by Erkinheimo): who creates more value, a bored professional or an enthusiastic amateur? References [1] Boutin, P. (2006), ‘Crowdsourcing: Consumers as Creators’, Bloomberg Businessweek, 12 July 2006 (http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-07-12/ crowdsourcing-consumers-as-creators). [2] Benkly, Y. (2007), The Wealth of Networks, Yale University Press. [3] Jolla Mobile (2012) (http://jollatides.com/). [4] Surowiecki, J. (2004), The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, Anchor Publishing. [5] Lindgaard, S. (2012), ‘Nokia: Engaging the passion of amateurs’, interview with Pia Erkinheimo, Social Media for Corporate Innovators & Entrepreneurs: Add Power to Your Innovation Efforts, p. 17 (http://www.15inno. com/2012/08/16/freebooks/). Contact Paul Dombowsky Founder, Ideavibes paul@ideavibes.com Pia Erkinheimo Head of Crowds & Communities, TIVIT Ltd pia.erkinheimo@tivit.fi
3.6. Horizon 2020: Regional Innovation Ecosystems — from theory to practice Three challenges to put theory into practice The name of the EU’s new funding programme for research and innovation — Horizon 2020 — reflects its ambition to deliver ideas, growth and jobs for the future. The EU Committee of the Regions (CoR) has stressed that the key issues throughout Europe address ways of speeding up the implementation of the most relevant flagship activities, and ways of learning to exploit existing research knowledge by sharing best practices and other relevant knowledge. The CoR is challenging both the European Commission and the regions themselves to get the most out of Horizon 2020. Local and regional authorities face the challenge of developing cross-territorial and pan-European cooperation. In particular, they need to be able to develop joint platforms, such as innovation forums and test beds for cooperation, by integrating real and virtual worlds, in order to foster open innovation and regional innovation ecosystems. Active European cooperation would result in economies of scale and the creation of wider markets for local businesses and other local developments. Smart specialisation — as the key guiding principle both of Horizon 2020 and of cohesion policy — is opening up new avenues to all this [1]. Professor Martin Curley, Director of Intel Labs Europe, challenged the readers of the EU Open Innovation 2012 yearbook with his message: ‘Open Innovation 2.0 could be defined as the fusion of Henry Chesbrough’s open innovation concept and Henry Etzkowitz’s triple helix innovation concept. Triple helix is about achieving structural innovation improvements through proactive collaborations between industry, academia, and government. The impact of this collaborative innovation goes well beyond the scope of what any organisation could achieve on their own’ [2]. Effective regional innovation ecosystems (RIEs) work through the three Horizon 2020 pillars — Excellent Science, Industrial Leadership, and Societal Challenges — to address local problems, regional issues, and grand societal challenges. Innovative practice is important here. Looking at RIEs and their role as Europe’s pioneering innovation hubs, we see unique possibilities to lift strategic planning above the level of policies and papers in order to achieve innovation outcomes that can be experienced on the street. Increasingly, innovation ecosystem thinking is being described — and prescribed — for RDI organisations, business clusters, and regions. Now that the concept appears in policy and strategy papers, it is time to address the practice beyond the theory. Back in 2008, Professor C. K. Prahalad challenged universities to create a new role for themselves by defining three critical aspects of innovation and value creation: (i) value will increasingly be co-created with customers; (ii) no single firm has the knowledge, skills, and resources it needs to cocreate value with customers; (iii) the emerging markets can be a source of innovation. And one of his main conclusions should be considered especially thoroughly when creating the new role for universities: the competitive arena is shifting from a product-centric paradigm of value creation to a personalised experience-centric view of value creation [3]. In this article, we want to deepen this approach to open and societal innovation by referring to the results of CoR European workshops and using examples of work at Finland’s Energising Urban Ecosystems programme (EUE), the Aalto Camp for Societal Innovation, and the New Club of Paris. In this way, we hope to sketch a practical framework for meeting the challenges of the CoR, Curley and Prahalad. The world is moving towards an era of true value network competition and advantage, where innovation and knowledge brokering will take place in increasingly open, shared settings. Digitalisation and globalisation have changed the business world in a few years. Companies and other organisations create value through networks in which they cooperate and compete simultaneously. The future success of innovation ecosystems is measured increasingly in innovation actors’ abilities to connect and manage their talent, partnerships, clusters and practical innovation processes — in integrating the local knowledge base into the global innovation power grid. Active networking relationships with global top-runner environments boost local abilities to attract a continuous flow of global players [4]. Modernising the triple helix concept will not take place on its own. Strong commitment to collaborative change, together with the prioritisation of appropriate measures, is needed. Good methods needed for implementation will be developed and the use of any necessary instruments will be partly financed through the EU cohesion policy funds. 87
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: Table 2: Challenges of the company
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 and 102: Working with patterns is not a new
Page 103 and 104: shifts in deep understanding that a
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?