Search results

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.

The paper is based on qualitative studies of 43 collaborative spaces in Paris and Barcelona.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how physical spaces intersect with innovation and innovativeness, and what the most relevant attributes of physical space are for innovation.

The paper reflects the changing nature of innovation, from technological advancements to services and meaning changes, and argues that the development of innovative spaces similarly embodies a diverse set of values such as collaboration, openness, and sustainability. Using a literature review, interviews, and benchmarking data, the paper examines the relationship between physical environment and innovation.

The findings from both the literature review and the interviews underline innovation as a communicative and human-centred process. As a result five attributes of innovative space are presented: collaboration enabling, modifiability, smartness, attractiveness, and value reflecting.

The results provide perspectives to the challenge of how to support innovation creation by developing physical spaces. The paper adds to the conceptual development of innovative space and outlines physical space as an innovative service.

This 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).

The 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.

Findings 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.

Using 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.

The purpose of this paper is to study the operation mechanism of the ecosystem of crowd innovation space. Though the crowd innovation space is a new product of China's innovation-driven strategy, there are some barriers in operation. So, this problem is worthy of study.

In this study, data were obtained through four-month field investigation and semistructured interview, then classified and analyzed through grounded theory, because grounded theory is conducive to the exploration and discovery of new theories.

This study finds that the relationship between makerspace and entrepreneurs is strong social relational embeddedness. The relationship between crowd innovation space and governments and investment institutions is economic relational embeddedness. Under these social network ties, entrepreneurs, crowd innovation space, social investment institutions and so on can interact directly with each other to different degrees, carry out value cocreation activities and improve the benefits of all elements in the ecosystem and the ecosystem itself.

This study researches the operation mechanism of crowd innovation space ecosystem and identifies the ties between various elements in the ecosystem on the perspective of social network, which is conducive to improve the self-generating capacity of crowd innovation space and enhance the success rate of entrepreneurship.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that if the authors want to understand the role of heaviness, space and journey in innovation, the authors have to start with the interaction itself, that is the exchange process taking place between economic actors. Three major aspects will be considered: the first is that heaviness, space and journey imply restrictions, the second is that these aspects can be positively utilised in innovation processes, and the third is their joint importance to contemporary policy. All innovation processes must bypass and build on existing investments in social and material resources, related across time and space.

The theoretical foundation is a basic IMP observation: exchange has a content. Exchange is captured as an interaction process that creates specific imprints on material and social resources involved – across firm boundaries, and across time and space. The methodology is a consequence of the research question and the theoretical point of departure and is based on three earlier IMP studies, where heaviness has been measured in different ways. The authors utilize two earlier presented case studies to focus on the heaviness, space and journey dimensions.

Three main aspects are discussed: the first aspect concerns the need for utilisation of others heaviness in order for the innovation to gain heaviness in itself. The second aspect concerns the consequences that the search for heaviness has for the creation of an innovation space. The third aspect concerns the innovation journey; the specific interaction patterns between significant actors as well as places hosting heavy using, producing and developing activities created through interactions over time.

In order to change or to establish a new economic exchange interface, there is an urgent need to be aware of and utilise heaviness, to find out in what way existing investments made in related interfaces can be taken advantage of. In order to do that, there is a need for a better understanding of the function of heaviness, spatial and journey aspects included.

In contemporary policy, certain heaviness is recognised, however, only in a non-business developing setting. The first conclusion is that heaviness of established producing and using settings is a policy blind spot. This implies that analytical policy approaches are not equipped for recognitions or of estimations of heaviness, nor as a hindrance or as a possibility in producing and using settings. The second conclusion is that the policy definition of the role of place implies neglecting the innovation space. The third conclusion is that there is a need for policy to recognise the innovation journey and its consequences.

If the policy is expected to have regional effects, policy analysis has to start out from the established heaviness of the region and consider how it can be taken advantage of.

The paper draws attention to an aspect neglected in policy attempts to boost innovation, that the mobilising support has to come from actors representing heavy producing and using networks – and that these already have space and journey characteristics. A peripheral actor can come up with a suggestion for change – but it cannot alone mobilise the resources necessary for an innovation to get a space and journey in relation to established resource constellations.

Altmetrics is a complementary method in scientometrics for evaluating the performance of individuals, organizations, institutions and countries in social media. Due to the large volume of data related to the interactions in science, technology and innovation, there is no choice but to develop and implement accurate models for analysis and decision making. The Quadruple Helix Model examines the scientific outcomes in four spaces of innovation, knowledge, consensus and government with a distinctive attention to the “innovation space”. In other words, it aims to find the connection between the academic space and other sectors of a society (public, media and government) to see if scientific outputs respond appropriately to their needs.

The present paper studied the impact of health-related researches in D8 countries) including Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt and Nigeria) using the Altmetrics scores of their indexed journal in the Web of Science (WOS). The results demonstrated distribution of interactions of the mentioned four spaces in health science researches in terms of social media, geographical distribution and theme for D8 countries. This was conducted using content analysis, scientometric and altmetric indicators in the WOS and Altmetrics.com databases.

In D8 countries, more interaction has taken place in the knowledge and innovation spaces; however, there exist Quadruple imbalances in these countries. Moreover, some interactions have been observed in all social networks, displaying that users consider health topics in D8 countries, and clinical sciences has gotten more interaction in all the four spaces.

The application of this model using altmetrics data with current approach has been conducted for the first time.

This paper aims to discuss the complexities and foresight of Mars colonization. There are many pioneers competing in a space race to Mars, for example, Elon Musk – SpaceX, Jeff Bezos – Blue Origin and Richard Branson – Virgin Orbit. The analyses are focused on the aerospace industry – the process of space adventures to Mars.

This study offers new methodological approaches – the development of a complexity metric and system innovation mode – to analyze how the complexities relate to the systemic nature of innovation. The complexity metric and system innovation model can be applied in various industries. These analysis tools can help gain insights into the strategies for achieving the diffusion of commercial space.

The analyses of findings have shown that, despite various attempts among the pioneers in a space race to colonize Mars (Elon Musk – SpaceX, Jeff Bezos – Blue Origin and Richard Branson – Virgin Orbit, among others), the aerospace industry has not yet reached a stage of commercialization. The commercial space to Mars is of low systemic nature at present. Many companies compete in a space race to develop technologies on a proprietary basis. However, the highest complexity level suggests a multinational and intergovernmental collaboration to achieve economies of scale and economies of scope as well as accelerate the process of technology diffusion – successful commercial space for the interplanetary settlement.

The main contribution that shows originality and value of this paper is the development of a complexity metric and system innovation model which can be used to explore how the complexities relate to the systemic nature of innovation and how they relate to the strategies in managing technological innovations. The new methodological approaches can be used and applied to various industries.

The purpose of this paper is to explore trends in entrepreneurship spaces developed by universities to support entrepreneurship education. It identifies characteristics that make a space conducive to innovation and explains whether current spaces adequately conform to those characteristics. More generally, this paper seeks to clarify what is being built, for which purposes and with what results.

Given the novelty of this research, the paper uses a multiple-method approach to allow for an iterative examination between theory and data. Multiple data and methods were used, including an action research method, a systematic survey of 57 entrepreneurship spaces at US universities and a thematic and content analyses of interviews carried out with individuals directly involved in the functioning of such spaces.

The paper presents a prescriptive model aimed at guiding the practitioner in the design of an entrepreneurship space. It identifies five types of entrepreneurship spaces that differentially support entrepreneurial activities and rely on different characteristics. These characteristics are centrally important for innovation and entrepreneurship spaces.

There are a number of practical implications from the work. It identifies key challenges in the design of entrepreneurship spaces and shows which questions to consider in the decision-making process.

The paper advances research on entrepreneurship spaces, an important yet poorly understood phenomenon. It reviews and introduces the literature on how space can support innovation, entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial “spirit’” and proposes a typology of entrepreneurship spaces, providing a path toward more robust and comprehensive theory building.

Various studies indicate that men and certain masculinities are ascribed a normative role in innovation policies and innovation networks. This article aims to analyse which feminist approaches have been used in order to articulate and perform resistance to the hegemonic “masculinist” discourses on innovation, applying the concept of paradoxical space coined by Rose. The paper specifically focuses on Swedish gender and innovation research and development (R&D) projects, as Sweden has been depicted as progressive in the theoretical and practical development of this field.

The paper analyses feminist approaches used in the “margin to the mainstream” of innovation R&D. The analysis is conducted on research and evaluation – where the authors have been involved as “outsiders within”. The empirical material is gathered through literature searches and interviews.

The paper concludes that three approaches to feminist resistance, outlined by Rose, are used in the analysed material: movements between the centre and margin; reaching beyond representation and definition, and paradoxical spaces used as separatism. A fourth approach – using paradoxical space for recognising differences in terms of, for example, “race”, class and sexuality – is mainly lacking in the material, except in a few cases. The theoretical contribution lies in clarifying and delineating the occurrence of different approaches to the application of a gender perspective on innovation R&D, and in highlighting the implication for gendered innovation discourses in policy, research and practice.

Implications based on the analysis include the need for applying different approaches to feminist resistance against the masculinist central discourse on innovation, since different approaches are able to perform resistance against the different aspects of the masculinist discourses. The findings indicate that policy support and specific calls in the field of gender and innovation are necessary for the development of this field. Further, policy support should enable various approaches to feminist resistance.

The article contributes by providing an overview of programs, projects and studies concerning gender and innovation R&D in Sweden – thus delineating the forefront of the scientific and practical field of gender and innovation. It also links feminist theories to practical efforts, identifying different approaches to feminist resistance towards a masculinist central discourse on innovation.

Suppliers stand in the wake of a new diversified strategic momentum in the global production network, where innovation is growing in importance. The term “supplier-driven innovation” is coined in contrast to the current hype on user-driven innovation; this paper aims to discuss the wicked problems for suppliers to actively engage in customers’ innovations.

A qualitative case study of eight Danish suppliers.

The wicked problem of supplier-driven innovation is generated by two intertwined constraints: the ability to engage customers in the co-creation of attractive offers and the ability to include technological knowledge and capabilities residing in the upstream network of suppliers.

This research combines an industrial network approach with perspectives generated through design management literature aiming to develop an innovative space for co-creation across diverse organizational, technological and managerial domains in the global production system.

To participate in supplier-driven innovation, partners need to co-create an innovative space for joint development.

Co-creation enriches the understanding of the diversity of forms of interaction, ranging from information and knowledge exchange and mutual adaptation processes to experimentation with processes of co-creation. Through a complementary view on how suppliers co-create innovative spaces of action in the upstream spaces of technical knowledge as well as the downstream spaces of preferential needs, the research contributes insights about the characteristics of the wicked problems that suppliers need to handle in bridging and expanding these spaces for innovative actions.