Conference Agenda

Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).

 
Session Overview
Session
20-PM2-02: ST7.1 - (Open) Innovation Paths Towards Society 5.0
Time:
Thursday, 20/Jun/2019:
2:45pm - 4:15pm

Session Chair: Tindara Abbate, University of Messina
Session Chair: Barbara Aquilani, University of 'Tuscia' of Viterbo
Session Chair: Anna Codini, University of Brescia
Session Chair: Michela Piccarozzi, Univerty of ?Tuscia' of Viterbo
Location: Amphi Sauvy

Session Abstract

Society 5.0 can be defined as “a human-centered society that balances economic advancement with the resolution of social problems by a system that highly integrates cyberspace and physical space", as proposed in the 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan for Japan (http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/society5_0/index.html).

Society 5.0 aims to put the individuals at its very core to built “a society whose members have mutual respect for each other, transcending the generations, and a society in which each and every person can lead an active and enjoyable life” (http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/society5_0/index.html).

Therefore, in “Society 5.0 people, things and systems [will be] all connected in cyberspace and optimal results obtained by [artificial intelligence] exceeding the capabilities of humans are fed back to physical space” (http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/society5_0/index.html).

Consequently, how value will be created or co-created in Society 5.0 is still unknown.

New technologies (eg. Internet of Things, robotics, artificial intelligence, etc.) will be encompassed in all human activities, achieving a balance between economic development with social problems and/or issues solutions.

Given the above, in the transition to Society 5.0 innovation and /or open innovation will play an essential role, because the locus of innovation of societies is in firms.

Indeed, innovation is now even more affected, especially in the manufacturing context, by the challenge of Industry 4.0 which encompasses production processes, efficiency, data management, relationship with consumers, competitiveness, etc.

Even if management literature on both industry 4.0 and society 5.0 are still at an early stage, recently a new definition of Industry 4.0 has been proposed in the management domain, able to combine the manufacturing side of the Fourth Industrial Revolution with its expected outcomes and the role of a purposely formulated strategy. This puts in the spot light the role of management in the transition to Industry 4.0 and hopefully to Society 5.0.

Indeed, “industry 4.0 refers to the integration of Internet of Things technologies into industrial value creation enabling manufacturers to harness entirely digitized, connected, smart, and decentralized value chains” (Prause, 2017, p. 423) able to “deliver greater flexibility and robustness to firm competitiveness and enable them to build flexible and adaptable business structures, [acquiring] the permanent ability for internal evolutionary developments in order to cope with a changing business environment” (Koether, 2006, p. 583), “as the result of a purposely formulated strategy implemented over time” (Piccarozzi, Aquilani, Gatti, 2018).

In this context, the link between Industry 4.0 and Society 5.0 represents a gap in literature as well as the role played by sustainability in this scenario and, last but not least, the role of innovation and especially open innovation. Finally, how value will be created or co-created in this complex scenario represents a great challenge for both firms and academics.

Both conceptual and empirical papers will be considered as well as all research methodologies following the paper aim.


Show help for 'Increase or decrease the abstract text size'
Presentations

The Rush for Patents in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: An Exploration of Patenting Activity at the European Patent Office

Mario Benassi, Elena Grinza, Francesco Rentocchini

University of Milan, Italy

Context

Despite the interest related to 4IR from practitioners and policy makers, less attention has come from academia. Our paper aims at filling this gap and provides an in-depth description of the technological trends, geographic distribution, and business-level dynamics of the 4IR in the EU from patent- and firm-level perspectives.

Literature

Although the 4IR has attracted increasing interest from policymakers and practitioners, academic studies in management and economics are rare and sporadic. Moreover, they have only examined specific topics relating to the 4IR (particularly AI and software and related technologies) so far without analyzing the overall phenomenon (e.g., Bessen, 2017, Felten et al., 2018, Webb et al., 2018). Furthermore, these works have focused on the US. The only exception is a recent study from the EPO, which provides a preliminary description of 4IR-related patenting activity in the EU (EPO, 2017). This study is mainly a methodological one as it provides a novel method to identify and classify 4IR technologies via patent information. Although the work from EPO provides a basic overview of 4IR applications filed at the EPO, the empirical work is limited to the description of basic trends and the geographic distribution of inventors of 4IR patents.

Literature Gap

There is no study providing an in-depth description of the technological trends, geographic distribution, and business-level dynamics of the 4IR in the EU from patent- and firm-level perspectives. The few existing studies on 4IR concentrate on specific technological sectors in the US, and completely overlook the firm-level perspective.

Research Questions

Our paper aims at providing an in-depth description of the technological trends, geographic distribution, and business-level dynamics of the 4IR in the EU from patent- and firm-level perspectives.

Methodology

We conduct an empirical assessment of the development of technologies related to the 4IR via the analysis of patents filed at the EPO between 1985 and 2014. We employ a new matched patent-firm data set provided by the Bureau Van Dijk: ORBIS-IP. In order to identify 4IR patents, we adopt the classification recently proposed by the EPO (2017), which maps 4IR technologies to CPC classes. Our methodology is quantitative. We provide several tables and graph as well as of a novel cluster analysis aimed at understanding firm-level patterns concerning specialization in particular 4IR technological fields.

Empirical Material

Our main source of data is ORBIS-IP, a large data set provided by the Bureau Van Dijk. ORBIS-IP is a recently released data set combining rich firm-level and patent-level information for more than 300 million companies and more than 110 million patent records. To construct our data set, we did an intense work of data mining from ORBIS-IP. First, we collected 4IR patent applications based on the CPC codes individuated by the EPO classification. Second, after selecting those patent applications that were filed at the EPO between 1985 and 2014 – our object of analysis – we gathered additional information on those patent applications. ORBIS-IP provides a firm identifier, called “bvdid”, which uniquely identifies each company present in the data set. Besides general information on applicants, ORBIS-IP also indicates, for each patent application, the bvdid of the applicant(s), whenever it exists. Third, endowed with bvdid identifiers, we collected relevant firm-level information of the applicants. As a result, we obtained a matched patent-firm data set. Our final sample comprises patent- and firm-level longitudinal information for 41,767 companies that filed 758,218 4IR patents over the period 1985-2014.

Results

We find evidence of a surge in patenting activity related to the 4IR in the past three decades. Between 1985 and 2014, the number of 4IR patent applications has increased tenfold, much more compared to general patenting, which “only” quadrupled. Among 4IR patent applications, patenting activity in core technologies has experienced the highest growth in the past decade and now represents the leading technological area in 4IR. The US is the undisputed leader in relation to the overall number of 4IR patent applications, accounting for nearly 30% of 4IR patent applications at the EPO. Yet, when we take into consideration the relative specialization of firms, the picture changes considerably with countries such as China and Canada in the spotlight. Firms filing 4IR patents have become progressively younger on average, thus suggesting that new players have entered the 4IR stage. At the same time, our results display a constant growth in the average number of 4IR patent applications filed yearly by each company, with the increase explained mainly by incumbent firms filing 4IR patent applications over time rather than new entrants progressively populating the 4IR world. Finally, we find that firms tend to specialize in few technological areas and avoid differentiation.

Contribution to Scholarship

We are the firsts to provide a thorough description of the 4IR patenting activity both at the patent and at the company level. Furthermore, our work provides an in-depth exploration of the 4IR, which is more European-centric compared to previous works. This is important as the bulk of the literature employs data from the USPTO, despite the importance of the EPO in worldwide patenting. Finally, our paper represents a starting point for studies assessing the impact of 4IR technologies on firms, as it sets out a new matched patent-firm data set.

Contribution to Practice

Our exploration offers several contributions to practice. It can be used as a tool to assess the recent trends in 4IR technologies and the characteristics of firms competing in the 4IR arena, relating to geographical distribution, age, and intensity in 4IR patenting. Moreover, our study offers a description of the strategies those firms are pursuing, in terms of 4IR technological fields that they cover.

Fitness

Our paper has a perfect fit with key themes of the R&D Management conference in general and to Theme 7: Industry 4.0 in particular. Industry 4.0 is a crucial theme to the academic debate on innovation dynamics, and our paper provides an unprecedented description on this front.

Bibliography

J. E. Bessen, Automation and Jobs: When Technology Boosts Employment, Boston University School of Law, Law & Economics Paper No. 17-09 (2017)

EPO, Patents and the Fourth Industrial Revolution: The inventions behind digital transformation, European Patent Office, Munich, DE, (2017)

E. W., Felten, M. Raj, and R. Seamans, A Method to Link Advances in Artificial Intelligence to Occupational Abilities, AEA Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 108, pp. 54-57, (2018)

M. Webb, N. Short, N. Bloom, N. and J. Lerner, Some Facts of High Tech Patenting, NBER Working Paper No. 24793 (2018)



The challenging transition from Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0: the role of open innovation and value co-creation.

Barbara Aquilani1, Michela Piccarozzi2, Tindara Abbate3, Anna Codini4

1Department of Economics, Engineering, Society and Business Organization - University of 'Tuscia' of Viterbo, Italy; 2Department of Economics, Engineering, Society and Business Organization - University of 'Tuscia' of Viterbo, Italy; 3Department of Management - University of Messina, Italy; 4Department of Economics and Management - University of Brescia, Italy

Context

Advanced manufacturing solution, augmented reality, cloud and big data are technologies pertaining to Industry 4.0. However, these same technologies can optimize people's lives and social coexistence in the future leading to the so-called “Society 5.0”. In this transition especially open innovation and value co-creation can play an important role.

Literature

Industry 4.0 is almost about manufacturing, but grounds on new technologies (Prause, 2017, p. 423) to adapt to changing environments (Koether, 2006, p. 583). It is “the result of a purposely formulated strategy implemented over time” (Piccarozzi, Aquilani, Gatti, 2018) able to lead to competitive advantage. The latter today grounds on innovation, the most important function of a firm (Von Hippel, 2005) often realized through open innovation processes not only with experts, firms, other organizations, etc., but also with customers (Aquilani and Abbate, 2014a; 2014b). Customers, from their side, desire to be involved in firms’ innovation processes and ask for a part of the co-created value (Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2014). All individuals are part of the societydesired as “human-centered” able to “balance economic advancement with the resolution of social problems by a system that highly integrates cyberspace and physical space (eg. Society 5.0) (http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/society5_0/index.html).

Literature Gap

Society 5.0 has not yet studied at large and no papers were retrieved about links between Industry 4.0 and Society 5.0. Moreover, open innovation and value co-creation roles have not been studied at all in the transition from Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0 leaving the firms’ contribution unstudied.

Research Questions

Which are the most suited technologies to support the transition from Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0?

What role and how open innovation and value co-creation can support this transition?

Which is the interplay among the mentioned models and big data and why are they all necessary to achieve the transition?

Methodology

The study first performs a brief literature review on Industry 4.0 – encompassing also its technologies such as big data-, Society 5.0, value co-creation and open innovation and then builds a conceptual framework to understand how these models and technologies can enable and support the transition from Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0. Therefore, this is a conceptual paper aimed at developing an unexplored domain.

Empirical Material

Not relevant.

Results

As the domain of the research is quite new, we expect to draw a first picture of which models and/or tools could be more effective to enable and support the transition from Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0. Indeed, firms are the locus of innovation, they operate in societies and are influenced by them. Moreover, individuals who are the key for open innovation and value co-creation processes are the same that expect to live in “a human-centered society that balances economic advancement with the resolution of social problems by a system that highly integrates cyberspace and physical space” (http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/society5_0/index.html). This framework would represent a first step towards the comprehension of what firms can do in order to enable this transition, but also which benefits, opportunities and threats can come from it. In this framework, indeed, it would be clear which main objectives can drive the decision making processes at a strategic level and which return can come from them where, for example sustainability play an important role. Some managerial implication are expected.

Contribution to Scholarship

We expect to start systematizing the literature on open innovation, value co-creation and industry 4.0 embracing a new approach focused on individuals desiring a better society and aware that technologies already used in firms can greatly help in building better societies.

Moreover, putting together different streams of literature, not still studied as a whole, would, hopefully, provide a first insight about firms as the engine to create better societies. Obviously, firms would seek to obtain benefits and new/different opportunities in respect to the past and should be aware that various and/or unknown threats can emerge and need to be managed and/or avoided. Therefore, we intend to understand which will be the drivers of future strategic decision-making processes and why some of them could emerge as essentials instead of others, together with new/different trade-offs and challenges to be met.

Contribution to Practice

The envisaged framework will provide a wider and more comprehensive picture to managers about their opportunities and threats in an changing context. It would help in envisaging a clearer link about all challenges coming along being aware of their links and mutual relationships. Moreover, firms could better understand which individuals’ need and request are more important for them, not only strictly related to their relationship with firms but at a more general level. This would enable them to find new and/or different way to co-create value and to share it with them.

Fitness

The general theme of innovation is the core of the R&D Management conference and Industry 4.0, open innovation and value co-creation all falls in this domain. Research, industry and society are all themes encompassed in the proposed paper, also considering their mutual relationships and interplay in a comprehensive framework.

Bibliography

Aquilani, B. and Abbate, T. (2014a), «Open Innovation through Customers: Collaborative Web-Based Platforms for Ethically and Socially Responsible New Products - Part 1», in KAUFANN H.R., KHAN PANNI F.M.A. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Consumerism in Business and Marketing: Concepts and Practices, Business Science Reference (IGI Global), Hershey (PA): 335-374.

Aquilani, B. and Abbate, T. (2014b), «Open Innovation through Customers: Collaborative Web-Based Platforms for Ethically and Socially Responsible New Products - Part 2», in KAUFANN H.R., KHAN PANNI F.M.A. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Consumerism in Business and Marketing: Concepts and Practices, Business Science Reference (IGI Global), Hershey (PA): 375-412.

Koether, R. (2006), Taschenbuch der Logistik, 2nd ed., Hanser Verlag GmbH Co KG: Leipzig, Germany.

Piccarozzi, M., Aquilani, B. and Gatti, C. (2018), “Industry 4.0 in Management Studies: A Systematic Literature Review”, Sustainability, vol. 10, (paper n. 3821); doi:10.3390/su10103821

Prause, G. and Atari, S. (2017), “On sustainable production networks for Industry 4.0”, Entrep. Sustain vol. 4, 421–431.

Ramaswamy, V. and Ozcan, K. (2014), The co-creation paradigm, Stanford University Press, Stanford (CA).

Von Hippel, E. (2005), Democratizing innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).

http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/society5_0/index.html



Designed 4 all: How IoT technologies may foster inclusiveness, tourist experience and economic growth

Paola Beccherle1, Andrea Ganzaroli1, Ivan De Noni2

1Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy; 2Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy

Context

Audiobooks, which were originally designed for visually impaired people, is one of the fastest growing market segments. This paper starts to reflect on how designing technologies for all may contribute to society 5.0. This done in the field of tourist accessibility for visually impaired people.

Literature

Regarding the promotion of cultural heritage, it was highlighted by Wecker et al. (2017) that it is possible, through the IoT, to create combined cultural paths, both indoor and outdoor, using the same touristic app. In this way it is possible to create a cross-promotion between museums and points of interest located in the city.

Meliones and Sampson (2018) have shown how it is possible to combine in one audioguide, using IoT technology, cultural contents and proximity acustic directions, bringing added value in terms of accessibility.

Some authors, such as Levesque and Boeck (2015), have highlighted how proximity marketing can improve consumer experience and customer loyalty through a high degree of personalization. This is true not only for large companies but also for small and medium-sized local businesses, which can improve their income through a direct link between online and physical world [Coursaris C.K., Sung, J., & Swierenga, S., 2010].

Literature Gap

Much has been done about the opportunities offered by IoT to individual sectors. However, the combination of proximity marketing, wayfinding and audioguides to create a unique, sustainable and synergistic system remains to be investigated.

Research Questions

-Is it possible, both technically and substantively, to integrate wayfiding, digital guide to cultural heritage and proximity marketing in one single smartphone application?

- Is it possible to make the product scalable and adaptable to different cities?

Methodology

In order to comprehend how and if there is the possibility to combine the three previously described features, a study was conducted on an indoor/outdoor guide system in the city of Venice called “VATE Project”. It consists of a smartphone tour guide with geo-referenced contents that are activated near the points of interest of Piazza San Marco. A test was conducted with eight blind people to specifically try the wayfinding system. After the trial, a questionnaire was then given to them. In addition to this it has been useful to conduct a survey among tourists and commercial activities.

Empirical Material

Not applicable.

Results

The experimentation showed that it is possible to combine the various functionalities both at a technical level and at a content level, with great interest from all the stakeholders involved.

On the other hand, it is possible to make the product scalable, starting from a quality content management system (CMS) platform and a good team specialized in audiodescription for the creation of content for the visually impaired.

The solution thus tested opens up to various other possibilities: gamification, integration and cross-promotion of indoor / outdoor cultural paths promoting the artistic heritage, alert in case of emergencies, activation of crowdfunding campaigns etc.

Contribution to Scholarship

The present research can give the academic community a starting point to do research in this interdisciplinary field that is still underdeveloped, but which offers many possibilities: it is a new way of thinking about the creation of value.

Contribution to Practice

The contribution of this research to the practice lies in thinking of a new type of tourism product in which all the agents of the tourism sector (tourists, local businesses, municipalities, museums, etc.) benefit from it by creating a win-win relationship. A product that combines different functions in an innovative way and guarantees the correct inclusiveness and accessibility of the cultural tourism experience.

Fitness

The paper fully falls within the concepts of Society 5.0 and Industry 4.0 since it exposes the potential of the IoT for the resolution of social problems such as accessibility of cultural tourism experience by people with visual impairment, promoting at the same time local business activities and cultural Heritage.

Bibliography

1. Levesque N., Boeck H., (2015). Proximity Marketing as an Enabler of Mass Customization and Personalization in a Customer Service Experience. Conference: 8th World Conference on Mass Customization, Personalization, and Co-Creation (MCPC 2015), Montreal, Canada

2. Coursaris, C.K., Sung, J., Swierenga, S.J., (2010) Effects of Message Characteristics, Age, and Gender on Perceptions of Mobile Advertising – An Empirical Investigation among College Students, Mobile Business and 2010 Ninth Global Mobility Roundtable (ICMB-GMR), 2010 Ninth International Conference

3. Wecker, A.J., Kuflik, T., Stock, O., (2017) AMuse: Connecting Indoor and Outdoor Cultural Heritage Experiences, IUI'17 Companion, March 13-16, Limassol, Cyprus

4. Meliones A., Sampson, D., (2018) Blind MuseumTourer: A System for Self-Guided Tours in Museums and Blind Indoor Navigation, Technologies 2018, 6, 4

5. Small J., Darcy S., & Packer. T. (2012). The embodied tourist experiences of people with vision impairment: Management implications beyond the visual gaze, Tourism Management, 33, 941-950

6. Baker S. M., Stephens D. L., & Hill R. P. (2002). How can retailers enhance accessibility: giving consumers with visual impairments a voice in the marketplace, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Volume 9, Issue 4, July 2002, 227-239

7. Magnusson C., Rassmus-Gröhn K., Szymczak D., (2014). Exploring History: a Mobile Inclusive Virtual Tourist Guide, NordiCHI '14 Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational, Pages 69-78, Helsinki, Finland — October 26 - 30, 2014

8. Abiodun Adegbile, David Sarpong, (2018) "Disruptive innovation at the base-of-the-pyramid: Opportunities, and challenges for multinationals in African emerging markets", critical perspectives on international business, Vol. 14 Issue: 2/3, pp.111-138

9. Seong Ok Lyu, (2016). Which accessible travel products are people with disabilities willing to pay more? A choice experiment, Tourism Management 59 (2017) 404-412

10. Darcy, Simon (2003). Disabling Journeys: The tourism patterns of people withimpairments in Australia, working paper in Braithwaite, R.W. and Braithwaite,R.L.(Eds.). Riding the Wave of Tourism and Hospitality Research. Proceedings of the CAUTHE Conference, Coffs Harbour. CD-ROM, Southern Cross University, Lismore

11. O’ Neill, M., & Ali Knoght, J. (2000). Disability tourism dollars in Western Australia hotels. FIU Hospitality Review 18 (2), 72-88

12. Darcy S., Taylor T. (2009). Disability citizenship: An australian human rights analysis of the cultural industries. Leisure Studies, 28 (4), 419-442

13. Richards V., Pritchard’s A., & Morgan’s N. (2010). (Re)Envisioning tourism and visual impairment, Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 37, Issue 4, October 2010, Pages 1097-1116

14. Daniels M. J., Drogin Rodgers E. B., Wiggins B. P. (2004). “Travel Tales”: an interpretive analysis of constraints and negotiations to pleasure travel as experienced by persons with physical disabilities, Tourism Management, 26, 919-930

15. Darcy, S. (2010). Inherent complexity: Disability, accessible tourism and accomodation information preferences. Tourism Management, 31(6), 816-826

16. Ray, N. M., & Ryder, M. E. (2003). “Ebilities” tourism: An exploratory discussion of the travel needs and motivations of the mobility-disabled. Tourism Management, 24, 57-72

17. Smith, R. W., Austin, D. R., & Kennedy, D. W. (2001). Inclusive and special recreation: Opportunities for persons with disabilities (4th ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark Publishers.

18. Mothiravally V., Ang S., Baloch G. M., Kulampallil T. T., & Geetha S., (2014). Attitude and Perception of Visually Impaired Travelers: A Case of Klang Valley, Malaysia, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 144, 20 August 2014, Pages 366-377

19. Michopoulou E., Buhalis D., (2013). Information provision for challenging markets: the case of the accessibility requiring market in the context of tourism, Information & Management, 50, 229-239

20. Carmen C., Amérigo M., Durán M., (2017): Study of an inclusive intervention programme in pictorial perception with blind and sighted students, European Journal of Special Needs Education

21. Cozzi, P.G., Turismo&Web: marketing e comunicazione tra mondo reale e virtuale, Scienze e professioni del turismo, Franco Angeli editore, Milano, 2012

22. Eugenia Devile & Elisabeth Kastenholz (2018) Accessible tourism experiences: the voice of people with visual disabilities, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 10:3, 265-285

23. Hassan A. Karimi, M. Bernardine Dias , Jonathan Pearlman, and George J. Zimmerman, Wayfinding and Navigation for People with Disabilities Using Social Navigation Networks, EAI Endorsed Transactions on Collaborative Computing, 06 -10 2014, Volume 01, Issue 2, e5

24. Hayhoe, S. (2013) Expanding Our Vision of Museum Education and Perception: An Analysis of Three Case Studies of Independent Blind Arts Learners, Harvard Educational Review, Vol 83 (1): 67–86.

25. Kwai-sang Yau M., McKercher B., Packer, T.L., (2004) Traveling with a disability: More than an Access Issue, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp 946-960

26. Puértolas-Montañés, J.A., Mendoza-Rodríguez, A., Sanz-Prieto I., Smart Indoor Positioning/Location and Navigation: A Lightweight Approach, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Multimedia, Vol. 2, Nº 2., 43-50

27. Scheyvens R., Biddulph R., (2017) Inclusive tourism development, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 20, 2018, Issue 4: Inclusive Tourism

28. Schnitzler, V., Giannopoulos, I., Holscher, C., Barisic, I., (2016). The interplay of pedestrian navigation, wayfinding devices, and environmental features in indoor settings, ETRA '16, March 14 - 17, Charleston, SC, USA

29. Rajnish Tiwari, Katharina Kalogerakis and Cornelius Herstatt (2016). Frugal Innovations in the mirror of scholarly discourse: Tracing theoretical basis and antecedents, R&D Management Conference 2016 “From Science to Society: Innovation and Value Creation” 3-6 July 2016, Cambridge, UK

30. Corsi, S., Minin, A.D. & Piccaluga, A. (2015). New Product Development in Emerging Economies: Innovation in Reverse from China, in D. Archibugi & A. Fillpetti (eds), The Handbook of Global Science, Technology, and Innovation, Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp.228-244.



Building a framework for the use of servitization and public-private networks for public social innovation

Alberto Peralta, Luis Rubalcaba, Javier Carrillo-Hermosilla

University of Alcala, Spain

Context

This is an ongoing research that aims to investigate value co-creation oriented to describe strong evidence-based foundations for public-private network strategies and mechanisms to enhance innovation within the public administrations. The overall goal of this project is to improve efficiency and the effective transformation of public service delivery

Literature

This study builds on theoretical frameworks including service innovation approaches like Gallouj, et al. (2018), Van der Have & Rubalcaba (2016) or Windrum, et al. (2016), and collective innovation theory (Gallouj, 2002).

The new public governance paradigm assumes public services as services and not as goods, similar to a “servitization” strategy, which means activating the movement from public products and services to solutions (Paiola et al., 2013, in Weigel & Hadwich, 2018), as a means to public service innovation. Our concept of public “servitization” represents a synthesis of the service science’s central role of humans to innovate service systems (Maglio & Spohrer, 2008), the role of skills and capabilities in the supply of services (Gallouj & Weinstein, 1997), the “Service-Dominant logic” co-creation of value by the recipient of that value and its provider (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), the Public Service Logic and the collaborative dimension of public institutions (Osborne, 2018)

Literature Gap

How social and services innovation in the public sector can be addressed using the servitization strategy. Our objectives: 1. Description of existence of PPN experiences and their relationship with servitization practices; 2. Deriving theoretical preliminary implications for multiagent frameworks in the public sector; 3. Deriving measurement, managerial, and policy implications

Research Questions

How can social and services innovation be addressed using the servitization strategy in the PPN context?

Methodology

Review of relevant literature in Spanish and English.

Case studies

Empirical Material

Not relevant, being this a conceptual paper

Results

Our results may describe how the co-creation of value for individuals and society through the servitization strategy developed by PPNs help resolve potential conflicts between those two recipients of value. Lessons will be drawn on:

a) the potential impacts of various configurations of networks on public service quality, efficiency and performance

b) the advantages/disadvantages of different types of network models

c) the implications for maximizing the effectiveness of resources in these networks using servitization, deriving theoretical preliminary hypotheses for multiagent frameworks in the public sector

d) the role of policy-makers in supporting the servitization strategy and the development of public-private networks

There are some foreseeable limitations to this servitization approach through PPNs to innovation of the public sector such as: silos and lack of skills, abiding laws, norms and habits

Contribution to Scholarship

The contribution of the paper clarifies how a servitization strategy activates social and services innovation for a greater good within a public administration, deriving theoretical implications of multiagent frameworks for goals the Administrations seek, related to their prevalent or most active guiding paradigm: better efficiency and coverage (TPA); increased competitiveness and adaptation (NPM); and improved ability to dynamically place the citizen and her needs in the center (NPG).

Contribution to Practice

The contribution of the paper clarifies how a servitization strategy activates social and services innovation for a greater good within a public administration, deriving theoretical implications of multiagent frameworks for goals the Administrations seek, related to their prevalent or most active guiding paradigm: better efficiency and coverage (TPA); increased competitiveness and adaptation (NPM); and improved ability to dynamically place the citizen and her needs in the center (NPG).

Fitness

This research presents a novel conceptual approach to public-private networks, from a well-known strategy like servitization. It opens a perspective to social and services innovation, its aims and means of development and implementation, involving agility and non-linear processes, more adequate to the social and ecological environments of our current societies.

Bibliography

Gallouj, F. (2002). Innovation in services and the attendant old and new myths. Journal of Socio-Economics, 31, 137–154.

Gallouj, F., Rubalcaba, L., Windrum, P., & Toivonen, M. (2018). Understanding social innovation in service industries. Industry and Innovation, 25(6), 551–569.

Gallouj, F., & Weinstein, O. (1997). Innovation in services. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 537–556.

Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci., 36(18). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0058-9

Osborne, S. P. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Management Review, 20(2), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461

Van der Have, R., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social innovation: an emerging research field? Research Policy, 45(9), 1923–1935.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036

Weigel, S., & Hadwich, K. (2018). Success factors of service networks in the context of servitization – Development and verification of an impact model. Industrial Marketing Management, 74(April 2017), 254–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.06.002

Windrum, P., Schartinger, D., Rubalcaba, L., Gallouj, F., & Toivonen, M. (2016). The Co-Creation of MultiAgent Social Innovations: A Bridge Between Service and Social Innovation Research. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(2), 150–166.



 
Contact and Legal Notice · Contact Address:
Privacy Statement · Conference: R&D Management Conference 2019
Conference Software - ConfTool Pro 2.6.129+TC
© 2001 - 2019 by Dr. H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany