Bottom‐up solutions in a time of crisis: the case of Covid‐19 in South Korea

Abstract

Innovation systems have seen diverse actors attempting to tame the Covid‐19 crisis, under varying degrees of government direction. Largely neglected in scholarly and public attention, however, are ‘bottom‐up’ solutions arising from the periphery of innovation systems. Drawing on inductive case research on a fringe doctor who invented the idea of the drive‐through testing system, and two university student teams that developed coronavirus applications, this study examines how peripheral actors generate innovative, bottom‐up solutions at speed in a time of crisis. Our findings reveal that, in a crisis situation, bottom‐up solutions transpire on the basis of three innovation drivers: (a) peripheral status, expediting the commence of innovation activities; (b) interdisciplinary collaboration, enabling access to a greater spectrum of knowledge and perspectives; and (c) prior knowledge, prescribing the direction of solution generation. We also identify that system intermediaries support the innovation activities of peripheral actors, thereby helping bottom‐up solutions to become more customer facing. Such functions of intermediaries include demand articulation, technical assistance, and promulgation of generated solutions. Our findings offer theoretical implications for the literature on innovation in a time of crisis and practical implications for governments and organizations preparing themselves for the potential second wave of coronavirus emergencies, or even a completely new form of future crisis.

The top‐down pattern of social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Bricolage and agility in response to COVID‐19: cases from China

“…A growing body of SE studies agrees that governments tend to be more active in promoting SE generating social value and attention on unaddressed social needs (Moore, 2005; Shockley and Frank, 2011; Leyden, 2016). Against this background, public health crises challenge institutional and economic actors to face a challenging task providing society with essential medical supplies characterized by high‐standard quality (Park et al, 2021). As demonstrated by previous studies, critical challenges are not easily realizable under ordinary circumstances, so they are even more difficult to pursue in times of crisis, lack of resources, severe medical conditions, and reduced mobility of people and goods.…”

R&D management at a time of crisis: what are we learning from the initial response to the COVID‐19 pandemic?

“…Other examples highlighted the role not only of ‘users’ in this phase of the pandemic (e.g. doctors (Park et al, 2021 ) or patients (Garcia, 2021 )), but also self‐organizing entrepreneurial agents (e.g. university students creating apps to identify where face masks are available) (Park et al, 2021 ).…”

“…doctors (Park et al, 2021) or patients (Garcia, 2021)), but also self-organizing entrepreneurial agents (e.g. university students creating apps to identify where face masks are available) (Park et al, 2021). However, the top-down impetus to solve the crisis was not absent in the collection: for example, in the United Kingdom, a number of consortia appeared as a result of the government incentives to identify new sources of ventilators (von Behr et al, 2021), while Crupi et al (2021) describe the responses to the Chinese government's call for entrepreneurial firms to embrace the social challenge of delivering medical supplies.…”

Thrown off track? Adjustments of Asian business to shock events

“…Hence, beyond the recent surge of research on the Covid-19 shock and its implications for businesses (e.g. Dai et al, 2021 ; Liu et al, 2020 ; Park et al, 2021 ), a larger share of research in this direction could have been expected. This might hint at a higher level of salience and immediacy of regulatory and market-based shocks in Asian countries and a higher volatility in this regard.…”

“…Second, a substantial share of this literature deals with the level of risk taken by companies and organisational actors in crisis management responses and connected to post-shock outcomes like learning and strategy changes (Chan & Cui, 2016 ). A higher level of risk in this connection might involve responding to the shocks with innovation in terms of technologies, products, or organisational processes in order to adapt to the shock experience (Park et al, 2021 ). Lower levels of risk are reflected in adaptations based on imitation or other non-innovative changes in business management like building up resource slack, investing in insurances, reduction of corporate spending, or even reducing innovativeness through more conservative product portfolios or organisational processes (Habel et al, 2020 ).…”