%0 Journal Article %J Technology Innovation Management Review %D 2020 %T More for Less? Sharing Economy as a Driver of Public Welfare Innovation %A Eva Pallesen %A Marie Aakjær %K innovation %K public sector %K sharing economy %K technology %K welfare state %X This article investigates sharing economy as a path to welfare innovation. It is based on a case where a digital platform is activated in order to support sharing among citizens with lung disease, and thereby increase health and well-being. The case exemplifies how sharing economy currently is taken up by public actors in the attempt to prolong the goals of the public sector beyond itself. This implies drawing everyday sharing practices into a new middle between formal organization and private relations. In a critical response to literature on sharing economy that tends to reduce "sharing" to "transaction", the article draws attention to how sharing entangles with hopes, fears, and affectual engagements of everyday life, and to how it interacts with technology in unforeseen ways and beyond anticipated outcomes. Based on the analysis, the article concludes that there may be good reasons for public welfare authorities to engage in facilitating sharing among citizens. This is not because it is likely to provide "more for less" in relation to predetermined goals, but rather because it can open up other kinds of welfare outcomes that cannot be produced by public organizations themselves. %B Technology Innovation Management Review %I Talent First Network %C Ottawa %V 10 %P 19-27 %8 05/2020 %G eng %U timreview.ca/article/1353 %N 5 %1

University College Absalon Eva Pallesen is Docent (Senior Associate Professor), PhD in Center of Management and Experience Design at University College Absalon, Denmark. Her research focuses on welfare innovation, management and entrepreneurship in the public sector. She has published in international journals such as Organization Studiesand Methodological Innovations. Before entering academia, she worked as Head of Methodology Department in the Danish Evaluation Institute and as Head of Section in the Danish Ministry of Education.

%2

University College Absalon Marie Aakjær is Associate Professor, PhD in Center of Management and Experience Design at University College Absalon, Denmark. Marie has a background in design and her research areas cover social innovation, learning and co-creation with particular interest in the interaction among citizens, civil society and public sector organizations. She has published in international journals such as International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, and Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management.

%& 19 %R http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1353 %0 Journal Article %J Technology Innovation Management Review %D 2017 %T Innovation in the Public Sector: Exploring the Characteristics and Potential of Living Labs and Innovation Labs %A Dimitri Schuurman %A Piret Tõnurist %K collaborative innovation %K innovation labs %K living labs %K Open innovation %K public sector %K user innovation %X Living labs and innovation labs share many common traits and characteristics. Both concepts are linked to the public sector, and both concepts can be regarded as coping mechanisms to deal with contemporary changes in the innovation landscape and within society as a whole. Both build on past initiatives and practices, but are also struggling to find their own clear identity and “raison d’être”. Because both concepts are largely practice-driven, their theoretical underpinnings and foundations are mostly established after the fact: making sense of current practice rather than carefully researching and planning the further development. However, despite their similarities and common ground, most researchers treat living labs and innovation labs as separate literature streams. Here, starting from a review of the current issues and challenges with innovation in the public sector, we look for links between both concepts by analyzing the current definitions, the predecessors, and the “state of the art” in terms of empirical research. Based on these findings, we summarize a set of similarities and differences between both concepts and propose a model towards more collaboration, mutual exchange, and integration of practices between innovation labs, which can be regarded as initiators of innovation, and living labs, which can be regarded as executors of innovation. Thus, we add to the conceptual development of both concepts and propose a roadmap for the further integration of both the theory and practice of living labs and innovation labs. %B Technology Innovation Management Review %I Talent First Network %C Ottawa %V 7 %P 7-14 %8 01/2017 %G eng %U http://timreview.ca/article/1045 %N 1 %1 imec – MICT – Ghent University Dimitri Schuurman is the Team Lead in User Research at imec.livinglabs and a Senior Researcher at imec – MICT – Ghent University in Belgium. He holds a PhD and a Master’s degree in Communication Sciences from Ghent University. Together with his imec colleagues, Dimitri developed a specific living lab offering targeted at entrepreneurs in which he has managed over 100 innovation projects. Dimitri is responsible for the methodology and academic valorization of these living lab projects and coordinates a dynamic team of living lab researchers. His main interests and research topics are situated in the domains of open innovation, user innovation, and innovation management. His PhD thesis was entitled Bridging the Gap between Open and User Innovation? Exploring the Value of Living Labs as a Means to Structure User Contribution and Manage Distributed Innovation. %2 Tallinn University of Technology Piret Tõnurist is a Policy Analyst for the OECD and holds a research fellowship in Tallinn University of Technology’s Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance in Estonia. She is a co-chair of the European Group for Public Administration permanent study group Behavioral Public Administration. She has previously worked as a consultant in the Parliament of Estonia (the Riigikogu) and as a performance auditor for the National Audit Office. Her main research interests are connected to public sector innovation, co-creation, innovation policy management (including state-owned companies) and energy technologies. She holds a PhD in Public Administration (Technology Governance) from Tallinn University of Technology and a MSc in policy evaluation from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium. %R http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1045 %0 Journal Article %J Technology Innovation Management Review %D 2013 %T Q&A. What Are the Components of Canada's Innovation Ecosystem and How Well Is it Performing? %A David B. Watters %K academia %K commercialization %K innovation %K innovation ecosystem %K performance %K policy %K private sector %K public sector %B Technology Innovation Management Review %I Talent First Network %C Ottawa %V 3 %P 38-41 %8 09/2013 %G eng %U http://timreview.ca/article/727 %N 9 %1 Global Advantage Consulting Group David B. Watters is President and CEO of the Global Advantage Consulting Group in Ottawa, Canada, which helps public and private sector organizations to develop growth strategies, to develop new collaboration networks and business models, to design new support services for industry, to enter new commercial markets, and to design measurement systems to monitor performance. His firm also designs and builds “ecosystem maps” to visualize client investments in programs and projects in areas of new technology development, innovation/commercialization expansion, energy/climate change, and trade. David holds an Economics degree from Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada, as well as a Law degree in corporate, commercial, and tax law from Queen’s Law School. As an adjunct Professor at the University of Ottawa's School of Management, he taught International Negotiation to MBA students for seven years. His 30-year career in the Government of Canada included responsibilities as an Assistant Deputy Minister in a variety of economic ministries including Industry Canada, the Treasury Board, and Finance Canada. %R http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/727