Public–Private Innovation Networks in Services

Innovation sociale et innovation de service : première ébauche d'un dialogue nécessaire

“…Les RIPPS décrivent des collaborations (coopérations) entre organisations de services publiques et privées et du tiers secteur dans le domaine de l"innovation (Gallouj, Rubalcaba et Windrum, 2012). Ils diffèrent des réseaux d"innovation traditionnels de plusieurs manières.…”

“…Cependant, dans l"innovation sociale, comme dans l"innovation de service, ce qui domine c"est l"ouverture (« openness ») et l"interaction, mais aussi l"informel et le non programmé. Les dispositifs que nous avons appelés les Réseaux d"innovation publics privés dans les services (RIPPS) (Gallouj, Rubalcaba et Windrum, 2012) sont des arrangements institutionnels nouveaux qui rendent compte de la manière dont différents acteurs interagissent pour produire, non seulement des innovations technologiques, mais aussi des innovations sociales ou de service.…”

Open Service Innovation in Smart Cities: A Framework for Exploring Innovation Networks in the Development of New City Services

“…These public-private innovation networks in services enrich the traditional concepts of innovation networks and public-private partnerships and are a new means of approaching, from a network-based perspective, a field of innovation that is still largely underexploited, namely innovation in public services [14]. Thus, it is believed that ServPPINs can provide a useful lens to advance the understanding of networked innovation within the complex and fast-changing landscape of smart cities, by better addressing the complexity of interactions between public, private, third-sector organisations and users/citizens communities in the development of innovative social services.…”

“…The relational configuration of ServPPINs can widely vary depending on the actors involved, their role and the degree of formality of relationships among them. Further, it is subject to change during the networks' lifecycle, which can be described in terms of the three main phases of initiation, emergence and wider implementation or uptake [14]. Empirical research on the structure and operation of these networks in transport, health, tourism, knowledge-intensive and public services highlights that their success is determined by four main interrelated sources [15]: a) the role of both internal and external drivers, including trust, pro-innovation culture, leadership, a right strategy between bottom-up or top-bottom approaches, financial and political support, technological opportunities and policies concerning innovation, public procurement, employment and skills, sectoral development; b) the integration within wider systemic and social networks; c) the ability to overcome barriers in areas such as the rigidity of public administrations, the existence of different interests and incentive systems, free riding, asymmetric information and networking competences, appropriability; d) the reduction of evolutionary inefficiencies, concerning the risk of not being efficient enough to adapt to the changing phases of networks' lifecycle.…”

“…In particular, the structure and operation of SmartServPPINs can be characterized by a "caretaker" mode, in which one actor plays the role of conductor, hub actor or systems integrator, or by a "distributed" nature, in which responsibilities are more diffused among the actors. Moreover, their functioning can be based on a top-down approach, driven by public action, as well as by bottom-up initiative, based by the voluntary engagement of other actors [14]. In Amsterdam Smart City, for example, the Climate Street project, aimed at testing innovative technologies, logistics and energy management solutions for making the city's shopping streets more sustainable, was characterized by key role of the Utrechtsestraat Business Association as the initiator and champion of the innovation process.…”