Public user innovation: exploring the support mechanisms and user roles in a public organisation

Abstract

PurposeThis article expands literature on user innovation by exploring the mechanisms that support user innovations in the context of a public organisation. Research has hitherto documented support mechanisms for user innovation in producer companies, where users contribute in early or temporary innovation phases as external non-employees or lead-users engaged by the producer. Complementarily, this paper explores a lesser known area of support mechanisms, those that support internal user innovations in a public sector setting.Design/methodology/approachEmploying a qualitative study of a Norwegian public hospital at the interface between users (personnel and patients) and organisational support (facilitators who orchestrate user innovations), this article analyses in-house user innovation based on observations, text documentation and interviews over a four-year period.FindingsIn this public hospital, holistic organisational facilitation of “public user innovators” formed the key support mechanism built on “people” (facilitating co-creation), “process” (facilitating ideas, project realisation and implementation) and “coordination” (facilitating systems and communication). The findings show that public and producer organisational mechanisms both resemble and differ in many respects, as illustrated by the framework developed to describe these characteristics, such as that producers insource users, while the public organisation outsources production.Originality/valueThe originality of the article lies in the identification and description of “public user innovation”, a new term developed from this study of a public organisation in contrast to the dominant literature on producer companies. This article contributes new insights by differentiating the roles of user innovators and the mechanisms that support such innovations. New implications are drawn from the public side of organisational support in user innovation research.

How innovation tournaments promote makers' product innovation: economic or social incentives?

“…Mukherjee and Jain, 2022;Tabar es and Kuittinen, 2020;Stock et al, 2015) and economic value (e.g. Fosstenløkken, 2022;Corsini et al, 2021;Hamdi-Kidar et al, 2019) of user and maker innovations, this study finds social value in terms of makers' product popularity.…”

“…Prior studies have discussed both the technical (Mukherjee and Jain, 2022; Tabarés and Kuittinen, 2020; Schuhmacher and Kuester, 2012; Stock et al. , 2015) and economic value of products (Fosstenløkken, 2022; Corsini et al. , 2021; Yang and Han, 2019; Hamdi-Kidar et al.…”

“…1. Producer innovation paradigm underlines that innovation is carried out by paid innovators, who depend on firms to produce and commercialize their innovative products to satisfy their own requirements (Fosstenløkken, 2022; von Hippel, 2017). Free innovation paradigm suggests that a functionally novel product, service, or process that was developed by innovators at private cost during their unpaid discretionary time and is not protected by its developers, and so is potentially acquirable by anyone without payment—for free (Tabarés and Kuittinen, 2020; von Hippel, 2017).…”

“…Prior literature has also focused on organizational crowdsourcing innovation to investigate the technical and economic value of users in firm innovation. Scholars have discussed users' technical value, including idea quality, novelty and feasibility (Mukherjee and Jain, 2022;Tabar es and Kuittinen, 2020;Stock et al, 2015;Schuhmacher and Kuester, 2012) and economic value, including idea implementation, commercialization and frugality (Fosstenløkken, 2022;Corsini et al, 2021;Hamdi-Kidar et al, 2019;Yang and Han, 2019;Siguaw et al, 2006). However, the social value of different types of makers has received little attention.…”

“…Scholars have discussed users' technical value, including idea quality, novelty and feasibility (Mukherjee and Jain, 2022; Tabarés and Kuittinen, 2020; Stock et al. , 2015; Schuhmacher and Kuester, 2012) and economic value, including idea implementation, commercialization and frugality (Fosstenløkken, 2022; Corsini et al. , 2021; Hamdi-Kidar et al.…”