White Spaces Innovation in Sweden - Innovation policy for ... - Vinnova
White Spaces Innovation in Sweden - Innovation policy for ... - Vinnova White Spaces Innovation in Sweden - Innovation policy for ... - Vinnova
WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENwith system change. Roberto Verganti talks about innovation of meaning (Verganti,2009). Including new types of instruments that affect the policy mix like demand sideprograms may influence the conditional probabilities establishing new pathways betweenregimes – path interdependence – which by stimulating demand can influencewhat turns out to be the adjacent possible .Figure 5.4 System innovation and system optimizationSource: Rotmans J, from presentation to the OECD on Transitions & Transition Management for sustainabledevelopment, 2002In making the level of integration a distinguishing aspect of the innovation responseRotmans also points to the importance of governance or orchestration in addressinggrand challenges. What kind of governance and who has the authority to perform it areissues here. In governance terms the previous arguments point to governance of businesstransactions as well as governance of relational issues associated with interactionand connectivity exemplified with framing of issues and mobilizing a diverse set ofstakeholders for visioning activities. Grand challenges include specific governanceissues concerning thin markets and market shaping. It is obvious that companies play acrucial role in this together with policy as regulator, risk taker and market shaperthrough innovative procurement and being first user in some areas (e.g. societal demanddriven innovation).The major implications of what has been said from an innovation perspective is firstthat one might assume that wicked issues present potential business cases but that theapproach to define them and develop them requires an experimental approach and involvementof many stakeholders. These are requirements for collaborative governance.From a governance point of view this analysis leads to the conclusion that forms of104
WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENgovernance are dependent on the rationale for intervention/action. If the focus is ontransactions and exploitation then companies are well positioned to be orchestrators.Those forms of governance that strive to shape and “co-ordinate” frames and lead toinnovation of meaning require more of public/civic governance and/or self-organisationresponsive to external constraints.A process model for making Grand Challenges actionableCollaborative governance in this particular context is about aligning issues, actors, (includingusers), processes and assets to develop and deliver products. Figure 5-5 illustratesthe “content” of orchestration. The basic premise is that a grand challenge has tobe interpreted and framed in a collaborative process to be made actionable. The eventlogic illustrated there is that the Grand Challenges are defined at a societal level. Theway they are framed in that perspective is most often not a framing that is actionable.There is a need for issues to be interpreted and translated by constellations of stakeholders.Because they are so complex or wicked the process of making them actionable in ameaningful way must meet certain requirements in terms of how the process of interpretationis orchestrated and who should be involved in the process. This is captured by thedesign arrow between issues and actors. We saw in chapter 4 that design thinking isemerging as a fruitful approach to cope with complexity in such a way that differinginterpretations and intentions can be represented and lead to a shared interpretation thatis meaningful and actionable. The typical feature of applying design thinking is to workwith visualisation of ideas and concepts and use prototypes that are provisional but“testable”. This means that many views, perspectives and constraints are shaped into a“totality” and iteratively given more precise and detailed features. Using a concept fromcommunications theory these prototypes can function as boundary objects that allowconversation and sense-making between actors with very diverse backgrounds. As weshowed in chapter 4 theatre may also be used to open for interaction and sense-making.However, this initial shared interpretation defines a community of stakeholders withdifferent concrete meaning for different subgroups, individual companies, businessnetworks, clusters or business ecosystems. So design thinking is given more precisecontent in various contexts because different types of users may be involved as oneexample or that business models differ (e.g. sustainable cities versus personalisedhealthcare). The term interaction fields is being used to label these different contextsand is shown by the vertical arrow linking actors to products in Fig 5-5. The word isselected to stress that in situations where there are shared problems and where thereexist interdependencies between actors, interaction is a key for coordinated action (coaction)to deliver solutions that may be innovations. From an orchestration or governanceperspective interaction can be based on self-organisation, network managementor contractual relationships as in a strategic alliance. It may also be so that this type ofdealing with complexity could be useful for designing a relevant policy mix instead ofhoping for ministries/governments to sort this out in administrative fashion. Having this105
- Page 55 and 56: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENen
- Page 57 and 58: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENFi
- Page 59 and 60: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENth
- Page 61 and 62: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDEN3.
- Page 63 and 64: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDEN3.
- Page 65 and 66: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDEN3.
- Page 67 and 68: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENAn
- Page 69 and 70: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENai
- Page 71 and 72: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENhe
- Page 73 and 74: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENin
- Page 75 and 76: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENHu
- Page 77 and 78: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDEN4
- Page 79 and 80: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENti
- Page 81: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENdu
- Page 84 and 85: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENFi
- Page 86 and 87: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENre
- Page 88 and 89: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENan
- Page 90 and 91: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENse
- Page 92: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDEN
- Page 96 and 97: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENph
- Page 98 and 99: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENan
- Page 100 and 101: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDEN5
- Page 102 and 103: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENpr
- Page 104 and 105: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENFi
- Page 108 and 109: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENki
- Page 110 and 111: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENRe
- Page 112 and 113: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENGu
- Page 114 and 115: WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENSt
- Page 116 and 117: VINNOVA ReportVR 2011:01 Hundra år
- Page 118: VINNOVA develops Sweden’s innovat
WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENwith system change. Roberto Verganti talks about <strong>in</strong>novation of mean<strong>in</strong>g (Verganti,2009). Includ<strong>in</strong>g new types of <strong>in</strong>struments that affect the <strong>policy</strong> mix like demand sideprograms may <strong>in</strong>fluence the conditional probabilities establish<strong>in</strong>g new pathways betweenregimes – path <strong>in</strong>terdependence – which by stimulat<strong>in</strong>g demand can <strong>in</strong>fluencewhat turns out to be the adjacent possible .Figure 5.4 System <strong>in</strong>novation and system optimizationSource: Rotmans J, from presentation to the OECD on Transitions & Transition Management <strong>for</strong> susta<strong>in</strong>abledevelopment, 2002In mak<strong>in</strong>g the level of <strong>in</strong>tegration a dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g aspect of the <strong>in</strong>novation responseRotmans also po<strong>in</strong>ts to the importance of governance or orchestration <strong>in</strong> address<strong>in</strong>ggrand challenges. What k<strong>in</strong>d of governance and who has the authority to per<strong>for</strong>m it areissues here. In governance terms the previous arguments po<strong>in</strong>t to governance of bus<strong>in</strong>esstransactions as well as governance of relational issues associated with <strong>in</strong>teractionand connectivity exemplified with fram<strong>in</strong>g of issues and mobiliz<strong>in</strong>g a diverse set ofstakeholders <strong>for</strong> vision<strong>in</strong>g activities. Grand challenges <strong>in</strong>clude specific governanceissues concern<strong>in</strong>g th<strong>in</strong> markets and market shap<strong>in</strong>g. It is obvious that companies play acrucial role <strong>in</strong> this together with <strong>policy</strong> as regulator, risk taker and market shaperthrough <strong>in</strong>novative procurement and be<strong>in</strong>g first user <strong>in</strong> some areas (e.g. societal demanddriven <strong>in</strong>novation).The major implications of what has been said from an <strong>in</strong>novation perspective is firstthat one might assume that wicked issues present potential bus<strong>in</strong>ess cases but that theapproach to def<strong>in</strong>e them and develop them requires an experimental approach and <strong>in</strong>volvementof many stakeholders. These are requirements <strong>for</strong> collaborative governance.From a governance po<strong>in</strong>t of view this analysis leads to the conclusion that <strong>for</strong>ms of104
Change language