The main research question of my research was “How different stakeholders experience and view open innovation and collaboration in a city-renewal process?”. It focused on the experiences and views of the different stakeholders in the specific project of city development related to tourism. The project was led by the public sector, the City of Vantaa. The main research question answers how the participants experienced the innovation process. It can be stated that the stakeholders had both positive and negative feelings and attitudes related to the project they were involved. Open innovation and collaboration was experienced as a positive matter. Ten of the eleven participators felt that their voice was heard during the development project. However, many participants brought up the matters which have been effecting to the project. For
example, the methods used in the project were experienced very positively.
Additionally, the Interaction Expert from the public sector’s side during the project had a positive feedback. However, scattered responsibility and lack of communication were the matters which were experienced as the negative matters during the project.
The first sub-question of my research was ”How the stakeholders experience the possibilities of city renewal with the help of open innovations and collaboration?”. It focuses on the possibilities open innovation approach enables to different stakeholder’
operations or business and what experiences the innovation process has created.
Additionally, it leads to the findings of how the innovation and collaboration could be advanced. In my research, all participators felt that Kuusijärvi has potential to be a popular tourism destination in Vantaa at least in some extend. The number of visitors can be increased; however, the size of the place is limited and the lake may not resist more visitors. Kuusijärvi could, however, be a starting point for other outdoor activities that swimming. For example, the place could be considered as the gate to Sipoonkorpi Natural park or other places nearby, as planned.
The second sub-question was “How the public sector has been able to advance the development of innovations from the stakeholders’ point of view?”. It concentrates on the public sector’s role as advancing the innovations and collaboration. The result show that the city of Vantaa is a contributor of developing innovations. It has used several tools such as residential meetings and surveys related to development projects.
Additionally, Vantaa is testing new innovations with the residents. The participants were seen the public sector rather advancing the development of innovations than decelerating them. However, communication, networking and collaboration with other municipalities could be more effective and could lead even more fruitful innovation development. The relation between the research questions, the results and the key concepts can be seen from the table 8.
Table 8. The research questions, the results and the key concepts.
Question Results Key concept
How different stakeholders experience and view open innovation and
collaboration in a city-renewal
How the stakeholders experience the possibilities of city renewal with the help of open innovations and collaboration?
How the public sector has been able to advance the development of
The summary of the main findings can be seen from the figure 5. The results show that there were many experiences and views involved in the research. The results reveal that all the different stakeholders were glad about developing the area. When interviewing the participators, it was brought up that all the participants had a positive feeling about developing the Kuusijärvi area. Moreover, almost all participators felt that they have had an opportunity to disclose their own ideas and that their voice was heard during the development project.
The participators discussed positive and negative issues in the interviews. The survey, residential meeting and workshops was experienced positive and effective methods to innovate the area and getting different stakeholders to collaborate with each other.
Most of the interviewees experienced that they were able to share their ideas and opinions during the development process and that all stakeholders’ voice was heard equally. Arranging the meetings with the Communication Expert was considered as a good way to go through the meeting neutrally and effectively. However, after the meetings most of the participants did not know the status of the project. The further schedule was not informed to them and there was lack of communication after the proposal was released. Based on the results I state that the City of Vantaa has a great opportunity to advance the communication and make the open innovation processes more effective. Vantaa has been already using the open innovation models in other fields. However, in the field of tourism the development can become more fruitful if the local authority concentrates to humanity, advancing networking and managing the leader role more carefully (Selby et al. 2011). Moreover, it is important that the local authority is aware of the opportunities related to tourism in the area (Selby et al. 2011).
The different stakeholders may not be aware of how much the City is already advancing the tourism in the area. The communication should be directed to the local entrepreneurs and more collaboration in innovation could be achieved. Because Kuusijärvi’s central location, other municipalities around the area could be connected into innovation processes.
When comparing the positive and negative feelings between the public sector and entrepreneurs and residents, I noticed that positive feelings were related more to the public sector’s participants. Entrepreneurs and residents had positive attitudes as well but they were showing also negative feelings during the interviews as well. The public sector participants were more optimistic about the time schedule and they did not suffered poor communication and sharing information as entrepreneurs and residents did. Even all stakeholder groups had all kinds of feelings and experiences, I state that, in my research, there was dividing of positive and negative feelings between the public sector and the other stakeholder groups seemed. The public sector had more positive and optimistic attitude in general towards conducting development plan. This I interpreted from the secure essence and bright voice. Entrepreneurs’ and residents’
feelings and expressions in the interviews were more related to suspiciousness and insecurity. The participators expressed themselves through insecure body language and tense in their voice. However, both positive and negative feelings and expressions were related to all stakeholders. Based on these perceptions I state that participators’
attitude is dependent on the background and work placement and to avoid lack of external communication sharing information should be managed effectively.
It can be said that the scattered responsibility of Kuusijärvi’s development plan was the main finding of the analysis. Responsibility was mentioned several times during the interviews. The participators experienced that there was not only one facet from the City of Vantaa who is responsible of different activities on the area. All participators brought up that the City of Vantaa has at least four different departments or city-owned-firms who are operating in Kuusijärvi. This was experienced very confusing because stakeholders did not know who to contact when needed. All the participators agreed, both employees from the City and entrepreneurs in the area, that there should be one certain facet to take the responsibility of all matters considering the area.
The unawareness of further development and plans came up during the interviews.
After releasing the proposal several participators did not know about the status of the project. As Tukiainen et al. (2015) recommends in their study, the leader role in a development process of creating new innovations is important. Taking citizens and private and public organizations into the process of innovation have been a beneficial approach to achieve new innovations. This model also the city of Vantaa has used.
However, communication after the workshops could have been conducted more effectively. It is recommended that communication is taken into consideration during the whole innovation process and that the leader is updating and sharing information during every stage of the project to all participants (Sipilä and Tyrväinen 2005). (Sipilä and Tyrväinen 2005; Tukiainen et al. 2015.)
Due to lack of unawareness, all interviewees were hoping that Kuusijärvi would have
“one host” who could share information about the development plan and organize maintenance and managing in the area. It is recommended that the City if Vantaa would invest more human resources and address one specific facet which could take care the communication across the City if Vantaa departments and to other stakeholders. When considering the roles specifically in the tourism business, the importance of networking and communicating is vital (Mendonça et al. 2015; Selby et al. 2011). The public sector has an important role when creating new communication streams and sharing information. Moreover, the public sector should participate to advance the creation of tourism infrastructure and attractions. The City of Vantaa could consider Moore’s (2009) concept of networked government which could be adapted to local authority level.
Aberthany and Clark’s model of four types of tourism innovation could be beared in mind when local authority is beginning new development projects in the field of tourism. Additionally, developing the technology related to the filed helps networking with the cluster and advance collaboration (Gomezelj 2016). (Gomezelj 2016; Mendonça et al. 2015; Moore 2009; Selby et al. 2011; Tukiainen et al. 2015.)
One of the findings were related to advancing innovation and collaboration between different stakeholders. The results revealed that even collaboration has been done with other operators, there is hardly any collaboration between Vantaa and neighbor municipalities. Some participators wished that Sipoo and Vantaa would collaborate and this way advance the innovation processes. Selby et al. (2011) emphasizes the role of the local authority as the supporter and the leader of creating networks around tourism business. Moreover, Mendonça et al. (2015) highlight strategic alliances where the small- and medium-sized tourism companies have combined their knowledge and share information aiming to satisfy the customers’ requirements the best way possible. Selby et al. (2011) emphasizes the role of the local authority as the supporter and the leader of creating networks around tourism business. Moreover, Mendonça et al. (2015) highlight strategic alliances where the small- and medium-sized tourism companies have combined their knowledge and share information aiming to satisfy the customers’
requirements the best way possible. Additionally, these networks gain more turnover.
The city of Vantaa is collaboration many private firms, educational institutions and the City’s residents. It is suggested that they would start collaboration with other smaller municipalities, for example with Sipoo, in the field of tourism. (Mendonça et al. 2015;
Selby et al. 2011.)
Figure 5. Summary of the key findings.
From the academic point of view my thesis will give new knowledge about implementing open innovations and developing collaboration in the field of tourism.
The existing studies conducted about open innovation in the public sector, participatory planning, collaborative innovation and open city innovation from the perspective of city renewal in Finland and in other countries (Selby et al. 2011; Juujärvi & Lund 2016;
Tukiainen et al. 2015) from many different fields. However, studies concerning innovations and collaboration in tourism has not gained much attention. This research fills the gap between innovative city renewal and tourism. Focusing on this specific project in Kuusijärvi I gain new knowledge about different stakeholders’ collaboration
and innovation process in a city renewal process (the City of Vantaa 2016; Juujärvi &
Lund 2016; Mattsson & Sørenssen 2015; Selby et al. 2011; Tukiainen et al. 2015.)
There are limitations related to my research. First, the interviews were conducted in Finnish. Additionally, secondary data have been written in Finnish. Because my research is in English there can be slight differences in the translations of the interviews. Second, it is worth to mention that the participators to the open-ended interviews were chosen randomly. If I would have interviewed other persons, the results would have differed.