Open city innovations. Because managing the cities and the determinants of the public sector have been changing, reinvention is needed. According to Matsson & Sørenssen (2015) besides private companies’ additionally public sectors are reinventing themselves
with the help of open innovations, more specifically, open city innovations. In their article Mattson and Sørenssen (2015) point out that the theory of open innovation has an important role for cities that are renewing their businesses related to financial, human and social capital. In open city innovation, there are many operators who are collaborating with the city development. Operators can be public, private or collective and they are involved in the city planning process. These types of innovations are related to service innovations, for example.
The concept of open city innovation is strongly based on Chesbrough’s open innovation model, in which ideas and inputs come from many different sources and where inflows and outflows support and accelerate new innovations (Matsson & Sørenssen 2015). It is characteristic for the open city innovation that there are different operators from both the public and the private sector. Furthermore, collective actors are involved. Open city innovations are related to complex city renewal projects and multi-directional processes. (Matsson & Sørenssen 2015.)
Collaborative innovation. There are two proposals for collaborative innovation definition. Eggers and Singh (2009) define collaborative innovation as “a form of innovation assets of a diverse base of organizations and individuals to discover, develop and implement within and outside organizational boundaries” (Eggers & Singh 2009, 98).
Nabisan (2008, 11) suggests that collaboration innovation is an approach “to innovation and problem solving in the public sector that relies on harnessing the resources and the creativity of external networks and communities to amplify or enhance the innovation speed as well as the range and quality of innovation outcomes”. Collaborative innovation can be related to the concept of networked government. Moore (2009) writes that the concept of networked government includes effective coordination across government organizations and the possible integration of both for profit and nonprofit sector organizations. This leads the production systems which are designed to achieve public purposes (Moore 2009, 191). Bommert (2010) has written about signification of
collaboration innovation for the public sector. Collaborative innovations could solve policy-related challenges in the public sector. According to Bommert (2010) and Hartley, Sørensen and Torfing (2013) there is a need to find new ways to innovating because the public sector faces new issues which cannot be handled with old innovation models.
Climate change, aging society and financial crisis are matters which require new forms to manage. Additionally, citizens are expecting to be involved in collaboration and planning processes. The most characteristic of the concept is that the innovation process is open up and operators from organizations, private and public sector and citizens are involved. The locus of innovation is determined according to the availability of innovation assets, not by the formal boundaries of a bureaucratic organization (Bommert 2010). This avoids processes which are hierarchical and closed. Collaborative innovation is suitable for the public sector as a new form of innovation because it offers possibilities to solve unfamiliar issues. Additionally, collaborative and public innovation can have more advantages than traditional closed model. These cannot be managed with bureaucratic closed form. According to Bommert there are also challenges in collaborative innovation in the public sector. One is giving up the authority when opening the innovation process. Tukiainen et al. (2015) suggest that cities should take leader role when creating new innovations and offer platforms for collaborative innovations. Taking citizens and private and public organizations into the process of innovation and creating dialogue new innovations can be created and everyday life improved. (Bommert 2010; Eggers & Singh 2009; Hartley et al. 2013; Moore 2009;
Nabisan 2008; Tukiainen et al. 2015.)
Participatory planning. According to Sipilä and Tyrväinen (2005), more and more people are interested to participate to decision-planning processes. In the participatory planning approach, different stakeholders such as local authorities, entrepreneurs and city residents are changing their views and ideas. This way managerial level can gain new information of individuals’ needs, wishes and solve problems. Buchy and Hoverman (2000) introduce four good key methods to how participatory planning can be
implemented. Those are commitment and clarity, time-sufficiency, involving people and sharing skills. The first key factor, commitment and clarity, deals with the planning organization. It must have clear objectives. It should pay attention to whether its aim is to share information to stakeholders, look for opinions or share the control of the project. Reasonable amount of time should be prepared for the project. There’s a need for long-lasting process because the advantages of interaction “can only be seen after several group meetings” (Sipilä & Tyrväinen 2005). The third key activity includes representativeness of the involved people and fourth deals with the knowledge and skills of all stakeholders which are affecting to the planning process. (Buchy & Hoverman 2000; Sipilä & Tyrväinen 2005.)
It is noted that participatory planning may have negative effects such as be time consuming (Sipilä & Tyrväinen 2005). When different stakeholders and bigger groups of people are involved to the planning process, it requires more time than making a project among experts of the field. Moreover, it is not always clear how equally different stakeholders have participated to the project. Some active members’ opinions may be emphasized more than others’. However, participatory planning may avoid conflicts more effectively when all stakeholders are participating to decision-making process.
Sipilä and Tyrväinen (2005) emphasize that it is common that participatory planning projects lead to compromises where individual expectations are not completely fulfilled.
In participatory projects the main aim is to find balance between different solutions which satisfy all different stakeholders at least moderately.
There are three different methods how participatory involvement can be implemented.
Those are open meetings, group methods and individual methods (Sipilä & Tyrväinen 2005). In open meetings, public authority can share information to different stakeholders. Moreover, it is possible to introduce the project objectives. Group methods are suitable for discussion and understanding. Van Herzele (2005) emphasizes the importance of group discussions and claims that it is the best innovation method of
the 20th century. Methods can be conducted in the natural atmosphere, for example in the actual place which is aimed to be developed. Real environment may increase the involvement and the interest of the participants. Individual methods such as interviews, surveys and participation based on technology are cost-effective commonly used data collecting tools. However, the possibilities for feedback are limited (Sipilä & Tyrväinen 2005; Van Herzele 2005).