Co-production for innovation: the urban living lab experienceFootnote^*

^*A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP), Panel Co-production as a Policy Tool: Design Impediments and Implementation Challenges held in Milan on 1–4 July 2015.

References

• Alford, J. (2002). Why do public-sector clients coproduce? Toward a contingency theory. Administration & Society, 34, 32–56.10.1177/0095399702034001004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almirall, E., Lee, M., & Wareham, J. (2012, September). Mapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2, 12–18.
   Google Scholar
• Baccarne, B., Schuurman, D., Mechant, P., & De Marez, L. (2014). The role of urban living labs in a smart city. XXV ISPIM Innovation Conference, Proceedings. Presented at the XXV ISPIM Innovation Conference, Manchester.
   Google Scholar
• Bajgier, S. M., Maragah, H. D., Saccucci, M. S., Verzilli, A., & Prybutok, V. R. (1991). Introducing students to community operations research by using a city neighborhood as a living laboratory. Operations Research, 39, 701–709.10.1287/opre.39.5.701
   Google Scholar
• Bakici, T., Almirall, E., Mezquita, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). A smart city initiative: The case of Barcelona. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4, 135–148.10.1007/s13132-012-0084-9
   Google Scholar
• Bason, C. (2013). Engaging citizens in policy innovation: Benefiting public policy from the design inputs of citizens and stakeholders as ‘experts’. In E. A. Lindquist, S. Vincent, & J. Wanna (Eds.), Putting citizens first engagement in policy and service delivery for the 21st century (pp. 75–82). Canberra: Australian National University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bason, C., Mygind, J., & Sabroe, R. (2013). Co-production. Towards a new welfare model. Copenhagen: MindLab.
   Google Scholar
• Battaglia, A., & Tremblay, D. G. (2011). 22@ and the innovation district in barcelona and montreal: A process of clustering development between urban regeneration and economic competitiveness. Urban Studies Research, 2011, Article ID 568159, 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Bekkers, V., Edelenbos, J., & Steijn, B. (2011). Linking innovation to the public sector: Contexts, concepts and challenges. In V. Bekkers, J. Edelenbos, & B. Steijn (Eds.), Innovation in the public sector (pp. 3–32). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230307520
   Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T., & Downe, J. (2008, December). Innovation in public engagement and co-production of services. Policy paper commissioned by the Department of Communities and Local Government, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Boyle, D., & Harris, M. (2009). The challenge of co-production. How equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services. Discussion paper, Nesta, London.
   Google Scholar
• Bozzon, A., Houtkamp, J. M., Kresin, F., de Sena, N. H. A., & de Weerdt, M. (2016). From needs to knowledge. A reference framework for smart citizens initiatives. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions.
   Google Scholar
• Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76, 427–435.10.1111/puar.12465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brudney, J. L., & England, R. E. (1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43, 59–65.10.2307/975300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carstensen, H. V., & Bason, C. (2012). Powering collaborative policy innovation: Can innovation labs help? The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 17(1), Article 4.
   Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christiansen, J., & Bunt, L. (2012). Innovation in policy: Allowing for creativity, social complexity and uncertainty in public governance. London: Nesta.
   Google Scholar
• Coenen, T., van der Graaf, S., & Walravens, N. (2014). Firing up the city – A smart city living lab methodology. Interdisciplinary Studies Journal, 3, 118–128.
   Google Scholar
• Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. (2000). The new public service, serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60, 549–559.10.1111/puar.2000.60.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. (2007). The new public service. serving rather than steering. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media (2009). Living labs for user-driven open innovation. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Eskelinen, J., Robles García, A., Lindy, I., Marsh, J., & Muente-Kunigami, A. (2015). Citizen-driven innovation. A guidebook for city mayors and public administrators. Washington: The World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Henriquez, L. (2015). The Amsterdam smart citizens lab. Towards community driven data collection. Amsterdam: Waag Society.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policy. principles and instruments. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., Kekez Koštro, A., & Poocharoen, O. (2015, July 3). Merging policy and management thinking to advance policy theory & practice: Understanding co-production as a new public governance tool. Paper presented to the International Conference on Public Policy II, Milan.
   Google Scholar
• Joshi, A., & Moore, M. (2004). Institutionalised co-production: Unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments. The Journal of Development Studies, 40, 31–49.10.1080/00220380410001673184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kantola, T., Hirvikoski, T., Lehto, P., Ankholaakko, T., Kukkonen, M. L., & Partamies, S. (2014). Towards co-creation of ehealth services. Interdisciplinary Studies Journal, 3, 192–205.
   Google Scholar
• Kulkki, S. (2014). Cities for solving societal challenges towards human-centric socio-economic development? Interdisciplinary Studies Journal, 3, 8–14.
   Google Scholar
• LERU. (2016, October). Citizen science at universities: Trends, guidelines and recommendations. Advice Paper No. 20. Retrieved from http://www.leru.org/files/publications/LERU_AP20_citizen_science.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Meijer, A. (2012). Co-production in an information age. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance the third sector and co-production (pp. 192–208). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, W. J. (2003). Me++ : The cyborg self and the networked city. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Molinari, F. (2011). Best practices database for living labs: Overview of the living lab approach. Alcotra Innovation Project. Deliverable 2.3. Retrieved from http://www.alcotra-innovation.eu/progetto/doc/Best.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mulder, I. (2012, September). Living labbing the Rotterdam way: Co-Creation as an enabler for urban innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2, 39–43.
   Google Scholar
• Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77, 766–776.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nesti, G. (2016). Living labs: A new tool for co-production? In A. Bisello, D. Vettorato, R. Stephens, & P. Elisei, (Eds.), Smart and sustainable planning for cities and regions (pp. 267–281). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communication & Strategies, 65, 17–37.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2012). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. American Review of Public Administration, 43, 135–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy and development. World Development, 24, 1073–1087.10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Senach, B., & Scapin, D. (2010, August). Living lab research landscape: From user centred design and user experience towards user co-creation. First European Summer School ‘Living Labs’, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Paskaleva, K., Cooper, I., Linde, P., Peterson, B., & Götz, C. 2015. Stakeholder engagement in the smart city: Making living labs work. In M. P. Rodríguez-Bolívar (Ed.), Transforming city governments for successful smart cities (pp. 115–145). Public Administration and Information Technology 8, Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Patchen, M. (2006). Public attitudes and behavior about climate change. Purdue climate change research center outreach publication, 601. East Lafayette, IN: University of Purdue.
   Google Scholar
• Pestoff, V. (2006). Citizens as co-producers of welfare services: Preschool services in eight European countries. Public Management Review, 8, 503–519.10.1080/14719030601022882
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production and third sector social services in europe some crucial conceptual issues. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance the third sector and co-production (pp. 13–34). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pierson, J., & Lievens, B. (2005, November). Configuring living labs for a ‘thick’ understanding of innovation. EPIC, 2005, 114–127.
   Google Scholar
• Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society, 43, 842–868.10.1177/0095399711418768
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steen, K., & Van Bueren, E. (2017). Urban living labs. A living lab way of working. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions.
   Google Scholar
• Tonurist, P., Kattel, R., & Lember, V. (2015). Discovering innovation labs in the public sector. Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics, No. 61., Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Tallin.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Horn, C., & Boonstra, R. (2014). Eindrapportage smart citizen kit amsterdam meten is weten? Amsterdam: Waag Society.
   Google Scholar
• Van Timmeren, A., Pimentel, M. H., & Reynolds, A. (2015). Ubikquity & the illuminated city: From smart to intelligent urban environments. Delft: TU Delft Publication.
   Google Scholar
• Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The State of the art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas, 23, 1083–1101.10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management Science, 48, 821–833.10.1287/mnsc.48.7.821.2817
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. (2011). Managing the challenges of becoming an open innovation company: Experiences from Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 15, 223–231.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar