Joining a collaborative space: is it really a better place to work?

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignasi Capdevila
Keyword(s):  
Social Innovation ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Collaborative Spaces ◽  
Innovation Modes ◽  
Living Labs ◽  
Collaborative Space ◽  
Coworking Spaces ◽  
Innovation Approach

Purpose Collaborative spaces such as Fab Labs, Living Labs, coworking spaces, hackerspaces, makerspaces, etc. are localized spaces that offer open access to resources. The purpose of this paper is to explain what motivates participants in such spaces, according to different innovation logics. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on qualitative studies of 43 collaborative spaces in Paris and Barcelona. Findings This paper proposes a typology of different collaborative spaces to understand what motivates their participants. The classification is based on the innovation approach of each type of space: methods and techniques of ideation, social innovation, open innovation and user-driven innovation. Research limitations/implications The classification of collaborative spaces clearly identifies different innovation approaches. However, it might result to be too simplistic and may not represent all spaces under the same denomination. Practical implications This paper provides some guidelines for managers who run or intend to open a collaborative space. In bottom-up innovation modes, to increase the commitment of the participants, managers should provide the tools and resources needed to successfully achieve the goals of the members’ projects. In top-down innovation modes, managers should rather focus on designing an attractive and rewarding process of ideation. Originality/value This paper contributes to the understanding of collaborative spaces; it shows that participants’ engagement is related to the nature of the innovation activities that take place in collaborative spaces, and it compares different types of spaces to explain their differences and similarities.

scholarly journals Systemic innovation labs: a lab for wicked problems

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 348-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Zivkovic
Keyword(s):  
Social Innovation ◽  
Wicked Problems ◽  
Design Solution ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Urban Transition ◽  
Public Sector Innovation ◽  
Living Labs ◽  
Systemic Innovation ◽  
Innovation Approach ◽  
Systemic Design

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to question the appropriateness of current lab types for addressing wicked problems. A new lab type, a Systemic Innovation Lab, is proposed which combines the features of existing labs that are suited to addressing wicked problems. Design/methodology/approach Characteristics of initiatives that are considered appropriate for addressing wicked problems and existing lab types that contain any of these characteristics are identified. These lab types are Social Innovation Labs, Living Labs, Urban Living Labs, Urban Transition Labs and Public Sector Innovation Labs. The proposed new lab type is reasoned by combining the features of existing labs that are suited to addressing wicked problems. How the new lab would work in practice is illustrated with a case study. Findings When addressing wicked problems, labs need to take a systemic design and not a service design approach. They also need to focus on addressing complex problems, take a place-based and transition approach, enable coherent action by diverse actors, involve users as co-creators, support a networked governance approach and recognize government as an enabler of change. Practical implications This paper provides a new lab type designed specifically for addressing wicked problems. This new lab supports practitioners that take a systemic design, solution ecosystem and systemic innovation approach. Systemic design is based on a core set of principles that are a crossover between design and complexity theory. Originality/value For the first time, this paper analyzes different lab types to determine their appropriateness for addressing wicked problems. It also proposes a new lab type whose sole purpose is addressing wicked problems.

Strengthening social innovation in higher education institutes – an organizational change process involving staff and students

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Prantl ◽  
Susanne Freund ◽  
Elisabeth Kals
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Organizational Change ◽  
Change Process ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Academic Staff ◽  
Administrative Staff ◽  
Third Mission ◽  
Cultural Changes ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Innovation Activities

Purpose In recent decades, higher education institutes (HEIs) have come under pressure to cooperate with society as a whole. This shift towards an increased focus on third mission and social innovation activities implies a substantial organizational change process for many HEIs, as they need to initiate both structural and cultural changes. This paper provides guidance for such change processes by examining the views and attitudes of academic and administrative staff, as well as students within the HEIs over a period in which the HEIs increase their focus on social innovation. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a longitudinal quantitative approach consisting of a survey of administrative and academic staff, as well as students at two German HEIs. The authors studied members’ attitudes towards third mission and social innovation activities (N = 3470). Findings Results suggest that the university members’ attitudes towards third mission and social innovation are positive but change to some extent over time. Different aspects shape the attitudes within the three groups (administrative staff, academic staff and students). Furthermore, attitudes vary among academic employees who are involved in the process and those who are not. Practical implications The findings provide useful information for university managers and anyone aiming to promote social innovation at HEIs. Originality/value The study examines how attitudes of university members change whenever social innovation takes place at HEIs. This study includes data on the participation and empowerment of all HEI members in view of the important role that HEIs can play as supporters of social innovation.

Classifying changes. A taxonomy of contemporary coworking spaces

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Orel ◽  
Will Martin Bennis
Keyword(s):  
Broad Spectrum ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Work Environments ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Past ◽  
Shared Workspaces ◽  
Coworking Spaces

Purpose During the past decade, the coworking concept has expanded and evolved along with the industry associated with it, so that references to coworking often refer to notions quite distinct from the original conception. The purpose of this paper is to establish a classification of contemporary coworking environments and clarify the scholarly, as well as the industry usage of a coworking model. Design/methodology/approach The paper reviews popular and scientific literature and the authors’ field experience in the industry to derive three defining features of coworking and distinct categories that help clarify the concept and can be used to identify and evaluate coworking spaces. Findings The main finding behind the following paper is the taxonomy of contemporary coworking spaces that takes into account the broad spectrum of shared workspaces that commonly receive the coworking label, specifies the features required to warrant that label and provides a framework for understanding the defining factors of a coworking model. The taxonomy showcases four unalike types of coworking spaces and the three types of non-coworking shared offices that are repeatedly and somewhat mistakenly labeled as coworking environments. Originality/value Understanding the core differentiation between unalike models would enable scholars to guide and structure the study to evolve in coworking research. The taxonomy can be seen as a base for further research in the field of coworking that helps ensure scholars are sufficiently specific and distinctive in the shared subject of their research, suggests a roadmap for future coworking research and provides a tool to evaluate real-world examples of work environments concerning the degree they fit the coworking concept.

Understanding innovation in Canadian wine regions: an exploratory study

2019 ◽  
Vol 121 (4) ◽  
pp. 882-896 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Doloreux ◽  
Anthony Frigon
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Wine Industry ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Business Innovation ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Innovation Modes ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Strategy Innovation ◽  
Cool Climate

Purpose Despite the importance of innovation in and the growth of the wine industry in recent years, empirical research devoted to innovation in this industry remains scarce. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to filling this gap by exploring innovation among Canadian wine firms. Design/methodology/approach The data used in this paper are drawn from an original firm-level survey conducted between April and July 2018 to study the business and innovation strategies of Canadian winery firms over the 2015–2017 period. Findings First, the study has identified four innovation modes which are distinct in terms of firms’ strategy, innovation activities, and knowledge sourcing and openness. The second finding is that these different innovation modes are associated with different innovation outputs. The third finding is that there here is a tendency for certain innovation modes to better reflect firms in some regions, although all innovation modes are represented to different degrees in each of the three wine regions. Originality/value Empirical research devoted to innovation in this industry remains scarce. This paper contributes to filling this gap by exploring innovation among Canadian wine firms. These firms deal with several challenges and opportunities arising from the production and transformation of cool-climate grapes that impact on business innovation approaches.

Corporate social innovation: an Indian moving company drives industry change

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 59-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tulsi Jayakumar
Keyword(s):  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Emerging Economy ◽  
Shared Value ◽  
Logistics Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Corporate Social

Purpose This paper aims to understand how emerging economy firms can use the growing emphasis on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability as an opportunity to drive corporate social innovations (CSIs) so as to create shared value and gain competitive advantage. Design/methodology/approach The paper applies a case study design. Building on in-depth interviews with company officials, document analysis and secondary sources, the paper presents a model of CSIs. Findings The case study presents evidence of how Agarwal Packers and Movers Limited – an Indian family managed business firm operating in the fragmented, unorganized and highly competitive household relocation segment of the Indian logistics industry – used socio-environmental sustainability challenges to drive CSIs. These innovations helped it to differentiate itself from competitors and gain competitive advantage, while creating shared value simultaneously. Practical implications Indian firms have been lagging behind on both sustainability/CSR and innovations. Driven by domestic regulatory requirements, as also the need to compete in a globalizing economy, emerging economy firms may strategize to integrate their sustainability agenda with innovations to influence both organizational and societal outcomes. Originality/value Firm innovations, even in advanced countries, have been driven by market triggers, with ideas internal to the firm. The paper contributes to the limited research on innovations in emerging economy firms and shows how they may “leapfrog” their growth pathways by systematically integrating their sustainability agenda with innovation activities.

scholarly journals Social business and social innovation: the Brazilian experience

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Graziella Maria Comini ◽  
Rosa Maria Fischer ◽  
Edison Quirino D'Amario
Keyword(s):  
Social Innovation ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Social Business ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Environmental Value ◽  
Contextual Elements ◽  
Multiple Case ◽  
Social Logic

PurposeThe aim of this article is to contribute to the field of social businesses, particularly considering the dimension of social innovation.Design/methodology/approachThe authors adopted a qualitative approach, whose purpose is to gather in-depth insights into a problem to understand its contextual elements and interrelations. The authors used an exploratory descriptive design and a multiple case study, which allows the identification of similarities and differences in the research subjects. They developed a scale that enables the classification of the operation logic of the social businesses analyzed.FindingsIt became evident that social businesses present a few differences in their modus operandi: those based on a social logic are more concerned with the generation of socio-environmental value, however with small-scale innovation; in contrast, social business guided by a market logic do not intend to generate socio-environmental value in different dimensions and are more concerned with the wider range of their innovations.Research limitations/implicationsThis research analyzed social businesses from a founder and manager perspective and did not comprise all stakeholders. The purpose of this study was not to measure the effective impact generated by innovation, but to understand its potential to generate socio-environmental value.Practical implicationsThe generation of socio-environmental value and the strategies to expand practices of social innovation are associated with the operation logic of social business.Originality/valueThe created scale allowed the classification of social businesses in terms of operation logic (greater emphasis on market or social aspects) and proposes a few dimensions to evaluate a socio-environmental innovation.

Interlinkages and paths of German factories' manufacturing and R&D strategies in China

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steffen Kinkel ◽  
Oliver Kleine ◽  
Janis Diekmann
Keyword(s):  
New Product Development ◽  
Manufacturing Industry ◽  
Manufacturing Companies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Innovation Modes ◽  
Key Sectors ◽  
Innovation Strategies ◽  
Development Paths ◽  
Depth Interviews

Purpose – As a consequence of the sluggish growth in Europe caused by the Euro-crisis, many German companies are currently expanding their manufacturing and innovation activities in fast-growing China – or intend to do so. The paper aims to provide new practical and theoretical insights on how German manufacturing companies are readjusting and further developing their production and innovation strategies in China and which future paths they plan to follow to make the most out of their foreign factories in this market. Design/methodology/approach – Based on in-depth interviews with the top management of 18 German manufacturing companies in China, this paper analyzes the present state, interlinkages and future development paths of their local manufacturing and innovation strategies, employing Ferdows' framework of foreign factory roles. Findings – The authors find that up to now most of the surveyed factories represent an additional type of an advanced server factory, characterized by a “Chinese gap” in new product development (NPD) and basic innovations. Based on that the authors propose five guiding principles on how foreign factories in China can cope with the upcoming challenges in China and make the most of their local strategies. Originality/value – The research provides unexpected insights of a high strategic relevance for practitioners currently engaged in optimising their global production and innovation footprint. It challenges established frameworks on foreign production and innovation modes by comparing them to the established practice of frontrunner companies from key sectors of the German manufacturing industry.

scholarly journals Multiplex boundary work in innovation projects: the role of collaborative spaces for cross-functional and open innovation

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Ungureanu ◽  
Carlotta Cochis ◽  
Fabiola Bertolotti ◽  
Elisa Mattarelli ◽  
Anna Chiara Scapolan
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Support ◽  
Open Innovation ◽  
Boundary Work ◽  
External Boundary ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Collaborative Spaces ◽  
Innovation Projects ◽  
Collaborative Space

PurposeThis study investigates the role of collaborative spaces as organizational support for internal innovation through cross-functional teams and for open innovation with external stakeholders. In particular, the study focuses on collaborative spaces as tools for multiplex (i.e., simultaneous internal and external boundary management in innovation projects).Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted a qualitative study in a multi-divisional organization that set up in its headquarters a collaborative space for collaborative product development. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and participant observations.FindingsFindings highlight that the relation between expectations and experiences about the collaborative space impact on employees' ability to perform boundary work inside and outside the organization. In addition to the collaborative space's affording role for expectations about hands-on collaborative innovation (space as laboratory), the study also highlights a set of collaboration constraints. These latter are generated by perceived boundary configurations (i.e. degree of boundary permeability and infrastructure in internal and external collaborations) and by discrepancies between expectations (space as laboratory) and actual collaboration experiences in the space (i.e. space as maze, cloister, showcase and silo). We show that space-generated constraints slow down internal and external boundary work for innovation and generate a trade-off between them.Originality/valueUsing the process-based perspective of boundary work, the paper connects studies on cross-functional teaming and open innovation through the concept of “multiplex boundary work.” It also contributes to the literature on boundary work by showing the challenges of using collaborative spaces as organizational support tools for multiplex boundary spanning.

Decentering social innovation: the value of dispersed institutes in higher education

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Lough
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Global Networks ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Technology Transfer Offices ◽  
The Social ◽  
Technology Services ◽  
Living Labs ◽  
Core Conditions

Purpose This paper aims to illustrate how dispersed institutes of social innovation operating as intermediary actors within higher education institutions (HEIs) may help overcome many of the institutional bureaucracies and structures that inhibit social innovation in higher education. Design/methodology/approach This paper reviews core conditions for social innovation, along with the opportunities, challenges and tensions that emerge as HEIs work to apply these conditions in practice. It then describes how dispersed institutes enact principles of decentralization, localization and collaboration in pursuit of social innovation. Findings Five main ways that dispersed institutes enable social innovation were identified in this review, including bridging academic–practice divides, enabling co-creation and co-production with users, facilitating experiential and co-curricular education, supporting interdisciplinary collaborations and generating customized and place-based solutions. Practical implications Findings suggest four strategies that HEIs can use to support dispersed institutes, including prioritizing social purpose organizations as institutional partners, incentivizing public engagement and collaboration, leveraging their convening power to strengthen global networks among dispersed institutes and using budgeting models that reflect the importance of creating both economic and social value. Originality/value Although innovation labs in HEIs have long been a feature of natural sciences and technology services, they are still comparatively new for the social sciences and humanities. This paper addresses a gap in the literature on the value contributed by dispersed institutes of social innovation operating within HEIs such as living labs, makerspaces, incubators and excubators, social innovation parks, cooperation accelerators and technology transfer offices.

Responsible innovation and social innovation: toward an integrative research framework

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 742-755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karsten Bolz ◽  
Anne de Bruin
Keyword(s):  
Social Innovation ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Responsible Innovation ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policy Practice ◽  
Integrative Framework ◽  
Integrative Research ◽  
Conceptual Paper ◽  
Innovation Study

PurposeResponsible innovation (RI) and social innovation (SI) are two fields of innovation study experiencing burgeoning policy, practice and research interest. Despite this rapid rise in popularity, the scholarly literature in these two related areas of innovation study remains quite separate, stymieing the growth of shared research insights. The purpose of this paper is to propose a pragmatic, process-based framework that lends itself to advancing systematic research in both fields while retaining their distinct identities.Design/methodology/approachThis conceptual paper outlines an analogy-inspired framework that builds on the logical thinking put forward by Philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine in 1962. It focusses on key processes that cross-cut both fields.FindingsReflexivity, collaboration and design are identified as three broad core processes that span both the RI and SI fields and form the basis of an integrative framework that highlights the scope for cross-field research pollination.Originality/valueThe literature that draws these two fields together is virtually non-existent. The paper uses analogy to facilitate awareness of the parallels between these two areas of innovation study. The integrative framework put forward in the paper is of value for advancing cumulative research in innovation fields of critical importance to the society.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document