Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Creativity and innovation in localized spaces of collaboration

Creativity and innovation in localized spaces of collaboration

Presented at: The 3rd Participatory Innovation Conference, PIN-C will be held in Lahti, Finland on 18-20 June 2013. http://www.lut.fi/web/en/pin-c-2013

Ignasi Capdevila (MosaiC, HEC Montréal)
Jarkko Moilanen (University of Tampere)

Ca885e6fec0c28dd2effcd58e506778b?s=128

Jarkko Moilanen, PhD

June 18, 2013
Tweet

Transcript

  1. Creativity and innovation in localized spaces of collaboration Ignasi Capdevila

    (MosaiC, HEC Montréal) Jarkko Moilanen (University of Tampere)
  2. INTRODUCTION – The creativity necessary to develop innovative products is

    often located outside organizations, but in the same local creative milieu. • Economic geography • Creative cities (Florida, Landry, Jacobs) • Innovation management • Open inovation (Chesbrough) • Innovation by users (von Hippel)
  3. LOCALIZED SPACES OF COLLABORATION (LSC) Hacker Space Fab Lab Living

    Lab Co-working Space Maker Space Incubator Design Lab Change Lab ArtScience Lab Innovation lab Future lab Social Innovation Lab Collaboration jam Protospace Media factory Techshop Think-tank lab Urban Hub
  4. DEFINITION OF LOCALIZED SPACES OF COLLABORATION 1) They are spaces

    open to the public 2) They encourage the free sharing of knowledge, information, tools and collaboration among its members on a non-proprietary basis 3) They have a cultural, educational or social concern (although they may also have a commercial purpose)
  5. Literature and Theory Research on innovation in economic geography has

    emphasized the importance of tacit knowledge transfer (Polanyi 1966; Gertler 2003; Maskell & Malmberg 1999; Howells 2002; Howells 2012) The transfer of tacit knowledge requires frequent interactions facilitated by: • Face to face contact • Geographical proximity • But cognitive proximity is also necessary (Boschma 2005) to attain the required absorption capacity (Nooteboom et al. 2007).
  6. Literature and Theory(2) • Knowledge communities play a crucial role

    in the flow of knowledge (Brown & Duguid, 2000; Wenger 1999, Wenger & Snyder 2000). • But communities have been studied mainly in an organizational context (Wenger, 2000; Wenger & Snyder, 2000; Cohendet Amin & P 2004). • The role of communities outside organizations has rarely been an object of research. • However, a multitude of LSC have emerged in recent decades, giving rise to the phenomenon of "fabbing" (Troxler 2010) • Research question: to define a typology of LSC.
  7. DATA LSC denominatio n Data sources Amount of LSC in

    the world Amount of studied LSC Fab Labs http://wiki.fablab.is/w iki/Portal:Labs About 220 30 Co-working spaces http://wiki.coworking. com/w/page/293030 49/Directory About 2500 30 Hacker spaces http://hackerspaces.o rg/wiki/List_of_Hacke r_Spaces About 800 30 Living Labs http://www.openlivin glabs.eu/livinglabs 319 30
  8. Methodology Large amount and diversity of LSC: 1. Definition LSC

    2. Four main denominations 3. Exploratory analysis of 120 EPC
  9. Methodology Identify commonalities and differences between LSC: – Identification of

    the most quoted words ("project" and "projects" represent 0.93%) – Qualitative analysis to identify two main axes – Identifying keywords – Filtering results – Numerical value for each of the four aspects
  10. Methodology Id Aspect Coded keywords A Projects mainly lead by

    INSTITUTIONS network, research, city, public, partners, university, students, education, infrastructure, industry, government, country, researchers, businesses, national, institutions, enterprises B Projects mainly lead by USERS community, ideas, involved, together, artists, interested, inventors, personal, idea C FOR PROFIT projects or focusing on local ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT work, innovation, business, research, services, office, partners, entrepreneurs, products, companies, professional(s), team, management, service, company, industry, private, production, market, businesses, economic, enterprises D Projects NON PROFIT projects or focusing on SOCIAL ISSUES social, environment, rural, free, students, artists, education, society, educational
  11. RESULTS

  12. RESULTS

  13. DISCUSSION Focus on individuals goals Focus on organizational goals Economic

    main driver Co-working space Open business Social main driver Hacker space, maker space, Fab Lab Living Lab
  14. UPPERGROUND Open Businesses Co-working spaces Living Labs Fab Labs Maker

    spaces Hacker spaces UNDERGROUND DISCUSSION MIDDLEGROUND
  15. CONCLUSION Contribution: the first definition of a typology of the

    emerging phenomenon of LSC. Benefits: 1. Availability of primary data. 2. Quantification of keywords simplifies the characterization of LSC. 3. Methodology applicable to other 4000 existing LSC. Limitations: •.Simplification by keywords loses data richness •.Translation of sources risks losing linguistic nuances
  16. IGNASI.CAPDEVILA@HEC.CA JARKKO.MOILANEN@UTA.FI Thanks!