From the perspective of the study’s topic, theory of open innovation, collaboration innovation, participatory planning, open city innovations and tourism are the most relevant concepts of the thesis. When organization adopts open innovation, the company’s boundaries become permeable and that allows combining the company resources with the external collaborators. For example, companies can cooperate with business incubation centers, academic institutions such as universities or companies from the private and the public sector can have same targets (Eriksson et al., 2014).
Because the determinants of the public sector have been changed during the recent years (Mattsson and Sørenssen 2015) old and traditional closed model may not carry the business any longer. As facing new challenges, such as growth in population, cities must offer a sustainable environment for the citizen’s and adapt new development visions such as open and smart cities. Moreover, Bommert (2010) argues that the public sector needs to find new ways of innovating because todays’ innovations does not meet the needs of radical changes such as climate change, obesity or aging society.
Collaboration innovation is a suitable tool for the public sector to create new innovations because it includes better possibilities to solve problems than old closed model. The arguments of Eriksson et al., Mattson and Sørenssen and Bommert create basis for the framework of the research. The theoretical framework of this study can be seen in the figure 4. (Bommert 2010; Eriksson et al. 2014; Mattson and Sørenssen 2015.)
There are also some critical issues considering the mentioned theories related to open innovation. First, it is very important that humanity has been kept in mind during the collaboration and innovation process. Communication with different stakeholders is important during all stages of process. All benefits from human interaction and correct communication. As Sipilä and Tyrväinen (2005) highlights, in the participatory planning process different stakeholders are changing their views and ideas. This means that even the purpose is to create new innovations, basically different people are interacting with each other’s. Then, communication is in central role and the leader should coordinate the conversation neutrally. Theories of open innovation and collaborative innovation have not emphasized the matter that there should be a neutral person who leads the conversation in the innovation process. Participatory planning theory has considered it.
(Sipilä & Tyrväinen 2005.)
City renewal processes draw stakeholders’ attention. It may also raise emotional feeling among residents. These matters have left without attention in the theories of open innovation, collaboration innovation and participatory planning. Emotions may cause conflicts and this must be taken into consideration in the innovation processes and when collaborating with different stakeholders. Especially, the public sector may seem bureaucratic and dominating facet to residents and they might be skeptic about how seriously their ideas and views are considered. Some residents may feel that their thoughts are not heard and the local authority may decide about the innovations according to their will eventually. Innovation and collaboration processes may cause also differences in cultural views.
From the perspective of an employee it may not be as rewarding to innovate in the public sector as in the private sector. For example, the public sector may not be willing to invest money in testing than the private sector (Mulgan & Albury 2003). This is because cities may have not prepared to invest money in innovation processes. Often private sector is keeping the innovation processes shorter in time and expecting the
new ideas to work directly. Private sector is more flexible with the testing and may be willing to invest more in the testing phase. (Mulgan & Albury 2003.)
Even open innovation theories highlight that the approach saves in time and in money, there are matters related to those which must be considered. Managing the schedule of all different stakeholders may be challenging between the different stakeholder.
Especially, within a large group it can be difficult to manage time and make correct facets to communicate with each other’s. Additionally, the innovation processes may be money-consuming if they are dependent on technology and it is required to build new tools for the process, for example. (Antikainen, Mäkipää & Ahonen 2010; Mulgan &
Albury 2003.)
As the literature reveals there are studies conducted where collaboration, open innovation, the public sector and city renewal are combined. However, tourism sector has remained after. Several studies (Jamrog, Vickers & Bear 2006; Juujärvi & Lund 2016;
Mattsson & Sørenssen 2015) recommend the public sector to take advantage of collaboration between different stakeholders. Studies show that with the help of collaboration and open innovation processes can be conducted more effectively and they create more success to all participants (Bommert 2010; Mattsson & Sørenssen 2015). Open innovation processes should be taken also to tourism sector to support the development of small and medium-sized firms and micro-entrepreneurs. Moreover, open innovation processes create new knowledge to local authorities, they are cost-effective, resources can be directed to correct aims and more information can be shared (Mendonça et al. 2015). When innovation processes between different stakeholders are managed accordingly and the aims of the project are understood the advantages of collaboration, open innovation, participatory planning and city renewal in tourism sector can be successful (Bommert 2010; Jamrog et al. 2006; Juujärvi & Lund 2016;
Mattsson & Sørenssen, 2015; Selby et al. 2011.)
Juujärvi and Lund (2016) have researched a project of sub-urban construction in Finland from the perspective of innovation and collaboration. In their research, they focus on urban living lab theory and implementation of it with different stakeholders, including the public sector. It is recommended that besides companies, also the public sector adapts new ways to implement and carry out new innovations in Finland. (Jamrog et al.
2006; Juujärvi & Lund 2016.)
Figure 4. Theoretical framework of the study.
My research draws form the academic literature of open innovation, open city innovation and collaborative innovations. My framework combines conceptual and research based- ideas of open innovation in the public sector, open city innovation as renewing the city, collaborative innovations between the public and the private sector, developing tourism destinations and economic possibilities of nature-based tourism in Finland. (Bommert 2010; Jamrog et al. 2006; Juujärvi & Lund 2016; Mattsson &
Sørenssen 2015; Mendonça et al. 2015; Selby et al. 2011.)
3 METHODOLOGY
In this section I introduce the methodology, research approach and how the data for the empirical study has been collected. Describing the case project and field of business gives a good understanding for the reader. Moreover, describing the practical case creates a starting point for the whole case study.