Business School
Open Innovation and Collaboration between different stakeholders:
Experiences and views in a city renewal project
Master's thesis, Innovation Management Suvi Aalto (245750) May 02, 2017
ABSTRACT
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Master’s Program in Innovation Management
AALTO, SUVI: Open Innovation and Collaboration between different stakeholders:
Experiences and views in a city renewal project Master’s Thesis: 86 pages and 1 appendix (1 page) Supervisor: Päivi Eriksson
May 2017
Key concepts: Open Innovation, stakeholders, collaboration, city renewal, public sector, tourism
The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of different stakeholders in a city renewal project where open innovation model is used. Open innovation and collaboration have become common models to use in the private sector. It is important that also the public sector involves public, private and collective actors in their city development processes. This study concentrates on the roles, collaboration, opportunities and boundaries of open innovation process in the public sector.
Based on the previous literature, the open and collaborative innovation can be more beneficial to the public sector than the closed innovation model. Because open innovation is wide concept it can be related to more specific concepts such as collaborative innovation, participatory planning and open city innovation. Additionally, this research is related to tourism and the roles in tourism business. These concepts create the framework for the study.
This study was conducted as a qualitative case study research. The data for this empirical research was collected by conducting face-to-face open-ended interviews. The stakeholders were participated to one city development project led by the local authority. The participators were from the public sector, entrepreneurs, residents and associations. The data was analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
This empirical study emphasizes the importance of responsibility, communication and sharing information in the public sector. The results reveal that the stakeholders have both positive and negative experiences during the development project. The positive experiences were related to the interaction and methods used during the open innovation project. Moreover, developing the city was seen as a positive matter. The negative experiences were related to unawareness of the schedule, the scattered responsibility and lack of communication during the project.
TIIVISTELMÄ
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta Kauppatieteiden laitos
Innovaatiojohtaminen
AALTO, SUVI: Avoin innovaatio ja yhteistyö eri sidosryhmien välillä: Kokemuksia ja näkemyksiä kaupunkisuunnitteluprojektista / Open Innovation and Collaboration between different stakeholders: Experiences and views in a city renewal project Pro gradu -tutkielma, 86 sivua. 1 liite (1 sivu)
Tutkielman ohjaaja: Päivi Eriksson Toukokuu 2017
Avainsanat: Avoin innovaation, sidosryhmät, yhteistyö, kaupunkisuunnittelu, julkinen sektori, turismi
Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on selvittää eri sidosryhmien kokemuksia kaupunkisuunnitteluprojektissa, jossa on käytetty avoimen innovaation mallia. Avoimen innovaation malli sekä eri sidosryhmien yhteistyö on tullut yleiseksi malliksi yksityisellä sektorilla. On tärkeää, että myös julkinen sektori omaksuu eri sidosryhmät kuten julkiset, yksityiset sekä käyttäjät omiin kehitys- ja innovaatioprosesseihinsa. Tämä tutkimus keskittyy eri sidosryhmien kokemuksiin ja näkemyksiin, rooleihin ja yhteistyöhön sekä innovaatioprojektin mahdollisuuksiin ja rajoituksiin julkisella sektorilla.
Perustuen aikaisempaan kirjallisuuteen, avoimen innovaation malli sekä yhteistyö voi olla julkiselle sektorille hyödyllisempi kuin suljetun innovaatiomallin käyttäminen. Koska avoimen innovaation käsite on laaja, voidaan siihen yhdistää muita innovaatiomalleja.
Tähän tutkimukseen on liitetty myös yhteisöllinen innovaatio, osallistava suunnittelu ja avoin kaupunkisuunnittelu. Lisäksi tutkimus huomioi matkailun käsitteen ja eri roolit matkailun liiketoiminnassa. Nämä konseptit yhdessä luovat viitekehyksen tutkimukselle.
Tämä empiirinen tutkimus soveltaa kvalitatiivista tapaustutkimusta. Tutkimuksen aineisto kerättiin käyttäen avointa haastattelumuotoa. Haastattelut toteutettiin kasvotusten ja taltioitiin käyttäen nauhuria. Haastateltavat koostuivat eri sidosryhmien edustajista, jotka osallistuivat julkisen sektorin johtamaan kaupunkisuunnitteluprojektiin. Haastatteluihin osallistui julkisen sektorin työntekijöitä, yrittäjiä, paikallisia asukkaita sekä eri yhdistysten edustajia.
Tämä tutkimus korostaa vastuun, kommunikaation ja informaation tärkeyttä.
Tutkimuksen tulokset osoittavat, että eri sidosryhmillä oli sekä positiivisia että negatiivisia kokemuksia projektista. Positiiviset kokemukset liittyivät vuorovaikutukseen sekä kehityshankkeen eri lähestymistapoihin. Negatiiviset kokemukset liittyivät aikatauluun, hajanaiseen vastuunjakoon sekä ontuvaan kommunikaatioon.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In my study, I was pleased to research a topic which I was interested in already in the beginning of my studies. I wanted to explore how the open innovation model is used in
the public sector and how different stakeholders experience the approach.
I would first like to thank my thesis supervisor, Professor Päivi Eriksson who has helped me throughout this thesis and giving me the advice when needed. I couldn’t wish better
guide for this project.
I would also like to thank the persons participating to the interviews and making my research possible. Moreover, I would like to thank the city of Vantaa which addressed
the case to me.
Finally, I want to thank and express my gratitude to my family.
Juuso Aalto, my husband, I thank you for supporting me and giving me the time I needed throughout my studies and while conducting this thesis.
Amanda, Lukas & Fiona, my children, thank you for being the sunshine of my life.
Suvi Aalto
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ... 7
1.1 Open innovation and collaboration in city renewal ... 7
1.2 The purpose of the study ... 8
1.3 Key concepts of the study ... 10
1.4 Structure of the thesis ... 11
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 13
2.1 Open Innovation ... 13
2.2 Open innovation models ... 15
2.3 Previous Studies of Open Innovation models ... 19
2.5 Tourism ... 20
2.5.1 Tourism innovation ... 21
2.5.2 The role of different stakeholders in tourism business ... 24
2.6 Theoretical framework in this study ... 26
3 METHODOLOGY ... 30
3.1 Introduction to the case ... 30
3.2 Methodological approach ... 32
3.3 Data collection ... 34
3.4 Analysis of the data ... 38
4 ANALYSIS AND THE RESULTS ... 48
4.1 General description of the project ... 49
4.2 Stakeholders experiences and views of the development process ... 53
4.2 Roles during the process and in practice ... 59
4.3 Advancing innovation and collaboration between stakeholders ... 62
4.4 Boundaries and challenges related to the development ... 65
4.5 Summary of the research results ... 68
5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ... 71
5.1 Theoretical implications ... 71
5.2 Key findings of the city renewal project ... 72
5.2 Future study and managerial implications ... 80
REFERENCES ... 82
APPENDIX ... 87 Appendix 1. APPROVAL ... 87
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Open innovation and collaboration in city renewal
The focus of my research is on the tourism business of the City of Vantaa. The aim is to study different stakeholders’ experiences in the area and explore how the open innovation idea helps advance tourism business. The research produces new knowledge about people’s innovativeness and opens up the opportunities and alternatives to implement open innovation with the City of Vantaa and its stakeholders.
The study combines the research literature on open and collaborative innovation and tourism in the city context. The data collection will concentrate on one specific project.
The main research question and sub-questions have been formed for my research. The research will be beneficial for those who work on the public sector in Finland and are facing similar issues. The results encourage other cities to consider the concept of open innovations in the process of developing city planning and tourism business.
The study focuses on the Kuusijärvi outdoor recreational center in the city of Vantaa.
Although Vantaa is developing part of its services with the help of the open innovation model, tourism development has not been included into these activities. There is a lack of knowledge about experiences of collaboration and open innovation between Vantaa City and its stakeholders. Therefore, my research addresses the experiences and views of different stakeholders in one specific project led by the City of Vantaa; “Kuusijärvi to Sipoonkorpi Natural Park’s gate”. Vantaa’s city planning department has prepared a development proposal for Kuusijärvi the last two years. The proposal was released in the spring 2016. Vantaa has used open and collaborative innovation approach in the development process. I collected the experiences about the process in my research.
(The City of Vantaa 2016.)
1.2 The purpose of the study
Organizations are using more and more open innovation in product and service development and seeking collaboration with different operators. The open innovation method has been mostly used in large companies (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke & Wes 2014) it is important that this method will be adapted to public organizations as well.
Additionally, collaboration seems to be the key factor in the field of tourism (Gomezelj 2016; Mendonça, Varajão & Oliveira 2015; Selby, Petäjistö & Huhtala 2011). It is stated that the open innovation method advances organizations forward on their businesses and that is why the public sector should use the concept, too (Bommert 2010; Mattsson
& Sørenssen 2015). Not only cities will benefit from collaboration and open innovations but other operators no matter what size may find it fruitful. (Bommert 2010;
Chesbrough et al. 2014; Gomezelj 2016; Mattsson & Sørenssen 2015; Mendonça et al.
2015; Selby et al. 2011.)
The purpose of the study is to analyze knowledge about one specific tourism development project. The project has been conducted with the open innovation model and in collaboration with different stakeholders. The project enables to study the experiences of the open innovation process where collaboration, city renewal and tourism are combined.
The main research question of my thesis is
How different stakeholders experience and view open innovation and collaboration in a city-renewal process?
The sub-questions are:
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 innovations from the stakeholders’ point of view?
The main research question focuses on the experiences of different stakeholders in the specific project in the field of tourism which is led by local authority, the City of Vantaa.
The data for the research is collected by interviewing the participants from the private and the public sectors. There are small-, medium-sized and micro-entrepreneurs, workers from the City of Vantaa and residents who are the end-users of the products and services. The main research question answers how the stakeholders experienced the innovation process.
The first sub-question focuses on the possibilities of the open innovation model to enable different stakeholders’ operations or business, and what experiences the innovation process has created. The second sub-question concentrates on the public sector’s role in advancing the development of innovations of the project.
There are studies conducted of participatory planning, collaborative network, urban living labs and collaborative innovation from the perspective of city renewal in Finland and elsewhere (Selby et al. 2011; Juujärvi & Lund 2016; Tukiainen, Leminen &
Westerlund 2015) and in many different fields. However, studies concerning innovation and collaboration in tourism have not gained much attention. This research focuses on the gap between innovative city renewal and tourism.
The methodological approach of my study is qualitative case study. To collect more specific data from the stakeholders related to the topic, I have conducted interviews as the primary data collection method. More specifically, qualitative interviews are used as the method for primary data collection. The data collection concentrates on the stakeholders who are involved in the operations in one recreational center in the City of
Vantaa. Qualitative content analysis was implemented for the purpose of analyzing the content and meanings in the interview data (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016).
The practical contribution of my research is to provide new knowledge about the experiences concerning collaboration and innovations. Knowledge may be beneficial for those who work in the public sector or the tourism business in Finland. The results may encourage other cities to consider the concept of open innovation in the processes of developing city planning. (Mattsson and Sørenssen 2015; the City of Vantaa 2016.)
1.3 Key concepts of the study
Open innovation, collaborative innovation in the public sector, tourism and tourism innovation are the most relevant concepts in my study. These concepts are important from the case study’s point of view because the project was about innovating together something new. In the case, the public authority has a leader role, which is focused on tourism. To be able to understand the case all the mentioned concepts are important for the study.
Because the determinants of the public sector have been changed during the recent years (Mattsson & Sørenssen 2015), the closed innovation 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 is a suitable tool for the public sector to create new innovations because it includes better possibilities to solve problems than the closed innovation model. (Bommert 2010; Mattsson & Sørenssen 2015.)
Open innovation, collaboration and participatory planning are important concepts for the research because the City of Vantaa is using these kinds of approaches in different projects considering city planning, healthcare and in early childhood education department, for example. Researching the experiences of this certain project in tourism new knowledge about how the public sector has implemented open innovation and collaboration with stakeholders can be created. With the relevant theories and the case, the research questions can be examined. (Bommert 2010; Mattsson & Sørenssen 2015;
the City of Vantaa 2016.)
1.4 Structure of the thesis
The research report includes five chapters and attachments. First, the topic of the study, purpose and key concepts are introduced in the introduction part. Theoretical background in chapter two provides a literature view of the relevant theories.
Moreover, it introduces how open innovation, collaborative innovation, city renewal and open city innovations have been examined previously. In the third chapter, the methodology of the research is described. The section introduces the case study approach, data collection and analysis. Analysis and the results are introduced in the fourth chapter. The last chapter includes discussion and conclusion about the research.
Figure 1. Research structure.
The research structure is presented in the figure 1. it includes the different parts of the study.
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical background
Theoretical framework of the research 3. Methodology
4. Analysis and the results 5. Conclusion and Discussion
Open innovation
Collaborative innovation Participatory planning Open city innovation
Tourism Tourism innovation Nature-based tourism
Public sector
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The literature review has an important role in the research. First, it gives the researcher the ability to understand the practical problem which has been chosen. Second, the researcher must be aware of the latest knowledge about the related theory of the topic (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016, 45). Furthermore, the researcher must discuss the topic and reflect it to relevant theories and earlier researches. According to Eriksson and Kovalainen (2016, 46), the purpose of the literature in research is that “the researcher explores, summarizes, compares and analyses critically what has been written about the topic before”. (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016.)
2.1 Open Innovation
During the recent year’s great amount of organizations have started to use open innovation in their innovation management process. But what exactly does open innovation mean?
The term “open innovation” was created by Henry Chesbrough in 2004. Open innovation means “that valuable ideas can come from inside or outside the company and can go to market form inside or outside the company as well “(Chesbrough 2003, 43). Chesbrough’s studies are focusing on technology management and innovations. His book, Open Innovation, was released 2003 and handled a new paradigm of organizing and managing the resource and development. His other books, Open Business Models (2006) and Open Service Innovations (2006) extended the idea of open innovations to the areas of business models, intellectual property management and markets. The difference between open and closed innovation is that in closed innovation, the ideas, investigations, developments and inventions required to place a product in the market, are generated within the company. In the system of open innovation, the company can
use external resources such as technology and at the same time make available their own innovations to other organizations.
Figure 2. Closed innovation model (Adapted from Chesbrough 2003).
There are several advantages in opening the innovation process to the flow of ideas and knowledge both internally and externally. First, the time and costs can be reduced in innovation projects. Secondly, cooperation leads to solutions and innovations in the form products, services, patents, technologies and ideas which the company cannot create on its own due to lack of time, resources and knowledge. Thirdly, inventions and solutions can be published even the company would be missing the correct knowledge or resources. (Chesbrough 2003; Wilkinson & Birmingham 2003.)
Figure 3. Open innovation model (Adapted from Chesbrough 2003).
The open innovation model has been criticized for being too imprecise and a combination of other already existing concepts (Matsson & Sørenssen 2015). It has been argued that innovation has always been open. Chesbrough (2003) argues that open innovations are not always the opposite of “closed innovations” and merely an alternative to it. Additionally, the difference between the concept of open innovation and other interactive innovations is not clear-cut (Matsson & Sørenssen 2015). Because the open innovation theory is a wide concept I must relate it with other, more specific, concepts. (Chesbrough 2003; Matsson & Sørenssen 2015.)
2.2 Open innovation models
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).
2.3 Previous Studies of Open Innovation models
Chesbrough et al. (2014) have explored the open innovation and previous studies. The most used design in open innovation studies is a case study. Open innovation is related to the field of business, management, social science and natural and physical science.
Additionally, the theory has extended to the fields of engineering, geography, computer science and chemistry. Studies have been implemented mostly about business strategies, product development models, innovation processes, toolkits, Universities, environmental contexts, forms, networks and industry.
It is noted that low-technology industries are understudied (Chesbrough et al. 2014).
The most common topics related to open innovation research are about firms, knowledge, technology, strategies and value. The focus of exploration is more on the inbound -side than outbound -side. This is concerned with the problem of how companies can leverage external knowledge and technology to accelerate internal innovation (Chesbrough et al. 2014). Lately, open innovation research studies have started to be more related to services, outsourcing and entrepreneurship (Chesbroughet al. 2014.)
The most commonly used research strategy for open innovations is case study. As Huizingh (2010) notes in his article, usually with new concept the used research method
is case study approach. He also argues that “Case study research increases our understanding of how things work and enables us to identify important phenomena”.
Chesbrough et al. (2014) have explored the open innovation research, the related areas of the research and the breadth of the research. Open innovation has attracted the most attention on the areas of business, management, social science and natural and physical science. Besides management and business, open innovation has breadth for the categories of engineering, geography, computer science and chemistry (Chesbrough 2014). (Chesbrough 2014; Huizingh 2010.)
2.5 Tourism
Tourism is the greatest industry from the perspective of employment and expenditure (Kuenzi & McNeely 2008). The term “tourism” was incepted during the 19th century (WTO 2010). Since then the term and the theory has been divided into several different branches. Tourism is an umbrella term for a remarkable field. According to Murphy (1985, 9) tourist is a non-resident who is heading to a destination where the person is not staying permanently. This definition has been modified since then. Hall and Lew (2009, 41) define tourism as “a form of voluntary human mobility associated with the temporarily movement of people from their usual home environment and subsequent return. Leisure holidays, traveling in different purposes and visits of a different kind are examples of tourism. The World Tourism Organization (WTO) has defined the period for a trip related to tourism which is not more than one year in a host destination (WTO 2010). Tourism is a service-intensive industry, and mostly dominated by small- and medium-sized enterprises. This means low market entry barriers, but, on the other hand, also low growth rates, weak internalization and relatively poor qualification levels (Stickdorn 2009: 247-248). The components of a tourism experience are not necessarily the same as those of service experience. Tourists and trips are diverse and tourism experiences are often linked to other customer or service experiences. The tourism experiences may vary due to socio-demographic characteristics, like age and gender, as
well as to cultural diversity and personal traits. (Lew 2009; Murphy 1985; Stickdorn 2009; World Tourism Organization 2010.)
2.5.1 Tourism innovation and nature-based tourism
Nowadays people have more free time, but it’s more fragmented. The populations are ageing. Tourists ask for more individual services, but on the other hand different reference groups, involved around a certain hobby, for example, are increasing in number. Aspiring lifelong learning means that people want to see and learn new things also when travelling. More and more people can travel and, according to Mager (2009, 31) expectations of customers are constantly rising and customer loyalty is decreasing.
This calls for improvement and innovation to keep customers and to win new ones.
(Mager 2009.)
According to Gomezelj (2016) increasing the capacity of innovation in the field of tourism is the key factor in tourism development and success. Innovation in tourism has been understood as the tool for achieving competition and economic success.
Additionally, innovations related to environmental sustainability needs to be considered. According to Santos (2014), tourist destinations are forced to create and implement innovative approaches to attract more potential customers. This leads to differentiation and providing unique experiences. To avoid copying the concept by competitor tourism enterprises must innovate continuously. (Gomezelj 2016; Santos 2014.)
Gomezelj (2016) introduces Abernathy and Clark’s definition of four types in tourism innovations: (1) regular, (2) niche, (3) revolutionary and (4) architectural. Regular type of tourism innovations includes increasing productivity, staff efficiency and improving quality. Niche type of tourism innovations consist improving already existing products and services, networking and seeking new business opportunities. For revolutionary
tourism innovation, it is characteristic that new methods on the market are developed with the help of technologies. Architectural type of tourism innovation concentrates on developing new events, attractions and efficient infrastructure with the most optimal way (Gomezelj 2016.) Later, Hjalager (2009) introduced five different types of tourism innovation which are (1) product or service innovations, (2) process innovations, (3) managerial innovations, (4) marketing innovations and (5) institutional innovations.
Products and services which can be related to new firm or destination and which are beneficial for tourists only because they are new belong to Hjalager’s product or service innovations. Process innovations are systems which are actively used in the background and aim to more efficient business. Managerial innovations relate to the new ways of organizing business, empowering staff and improving workplace satisfaction. Marketing innovations include new marketing concepts. Institutional innovations mean new structures in organization and changes in clusters or networks. (Gomezelj 2016; Hjalager 2009.)
According to Gomezelj (2016), there are advantages if a tourism organization implements new innovations in collaboration with other stakeholders. When networking with the cluster, the knowledge can be exchanged. Knowledge is the key factor when competitive innovations are created. Additionally, Comezelj (2016) states that “in the tourism sector, public and private institutions should be involved in networks; the innovation activity and the success of these networks critically depend on the involvement of knowledge-intensive firms in the network”. (Gomezelj 2016.)
Studies considering tourism innovation has remained relatively small area of researches if compared to other industries (Hjalager 2010). From several tourisms innovation models, this study focuses on product and service innovation. In product and service innovation observation of customer behavior is important and enterprises may predict what products and services consumers are willing to have in the future. In this study, the city of Vantaa is innovating new products and services with the other stakeholders.
According to Hjalager (2010) collaboration between different operations may foster new tourism innovations. This is shown by previous studies which have been focused on tourism innovations and innovation policies. However, it is crucial that leading in innovation processes have been considered carefully. Moreover, Hjalager argues that “a balance between cooperation and competition is essential for such a processes, but so is an accepted and trustworthy leadership, no matter whether this leadership is borne from below of top-managed as a part of policy strategy”. (Hjalager 2010.)
In the literature, nature-based tourism has gain its first form as a “nature travel” where education, recreation and adventure were related. Eco-tourism has been connected to nature tourism. Lucas (Valentine 1992, 108) defined nature-based tourism as a form of
“tourism which is based on the enjoyment of natural areas and the observation of nature”. Later, he specified that nature-based tourism “has a low impact environmentally, is labor intensive and contributes socially and economically to the nation” (Valentine 1992, 108). Valentine suggests (1992, 108) that nature-based tourism is primarily concerned with the direct enjoyment of some relatively undisturbed phenomenon of nature. When mass tourism has been criticized of its contamination nature-base tourism is related to ethical and responsible travel. Nature-oriented tourist is interested to go new places avoiding crowded ones. According to Kuenzi and McNeely (2008), nature-based tourism is the fastest growing branch in tourism. It means traveler visits national parks or other forest areas, in other words, the wilderness. It can also include adventure-related activities which may have physical risks. Because people live in cities and are not close to nature excursions into forests have been increasing. At the same time, people have realized that they are disconnecting from the nature and want to get back in touch with nature (Kuenzi & McNeely 2008; Valentine 1992).
Very often nature-based tourism is based on micro- and small enterprises.
Entrepreneurs who are operating as tour guides, adventure providers or fishermen are big part of the field. Selby et al. (2011) write that tourism business opportunities in
nature-based tourism are based on entrepreneurs’ attitudes and public organizations contribution. It is seen that the decision-makers’ attitudes affect development policy and the distribution of resources. Also, Nyback and Hansen (2008) state that the public sector policies affect entrepreneurship in nature-based tourism. Policies that limit risk for nature-based tourism enterprises can serve to make them more entrepreneurial and more innovative. Moreover, Valentine (1992) writes about business opportunities related to nature-based tourism. Different countries have excellent potential to recover the costs of national parks and other recreational forests with nature-based tourists.
(Kuenzi and McNeely 2008; Nyback & Hansen 2008; Selby et al. 2011; Valentine 1992.)
2.5.2 The role of different stakeholders in tourism business
Previous studies reveal that when a nature and recreational are, a natural park, for example, it is common that small and medium-sized companies are providing products and services but the management of the area belongs to the public sector. This common model is also used in Kuusijärvi recreational are. There are several private enterprises offering products and services. The owner of the place is the city of Vantaa. Selby et al.
(2011) have researched the different roles of stakeholders on the areas of Finnish natural parks and have noticed that most service and product providers in recreational areas are small of very small businesses who don’t necessarily aim to grow their business but are in the business because of their lifestyle. Moreover, these small enterprises may lack of efficiency, marketing ability and long-term strategy. However, these entrepreneurs are in significant role when considering the products and service providers in the field of tourism in Finland.
As the other remarkable factor in the field of Finnish tourism is the public sector such as cities and government’s enterprises. They are in the role of creating the pre-conditions for the tourism service sector. Selby et alt. argues that “the public sector inputs act as catalyst to encourage enterprise, to stimulate the demand for products and services, and
where necessary, to create specialized factors of production. local authors therefore play a vital role in promoting and developing tourism in their areas”. (Petäjistö & Huhtala 2010; Selby et al. 2011.)
Local community authority can be councilors, decision-makers of community or advisory personnel, for example. Selby et alt. (2011) emphasize that it is important that the public sector is aware of the tourism opportunities in the area and that they understand how limited resources and skills entrepreneurs may have. For this reason, the public authority can be in the developing process when innovating new services and products and developing the area. Moreover, the public sector has important role in creating communication streams and share information and support private sector in innovation processes. It is also important that local authority is participating to create tourism infrastructure and attractions, support in different marketing activities.
Local authority has a role in developing and supporting tourism business and taking it further. it is important that the local authority is interested in developing tourism and is an equal leader in the process. Even tourism has not gain as much attention as other fields in Finland, community authors such as city personnel and politicians may begin to focus on the field because it will have positive impact in economy and employment.
(Selby et al. 2011.)
Small and medium-sized enterprises are facing different challenges in their businesses today (Mendonça et al. 2015). Economic crises and raising amount of international chains entering to markets, for example, are factors making enterprises’ survival unstable. To be more competitive, small and medium-sized firms should be networking and cooperate with each other (Mendonça et al. 2015). These strategic alliances which aim to reach the common objectives are called cooperation networks. Small and medium-sized firms combine their forces and share knowledge. The main aim is to satisfy the customers’ requirements the best way possible. Additionally, collaboration
networks make firms more flexible, sharing information and resources and gain more turnover. In operating networks information technology plays important role.
Mendonça et al. (2015) introduces a software-based solution for networking in tourism sector. With the help of technology-based system different stakeholders can relate to moderator, cooperators and clients. (Mendonça et al. 2015.)
2.6 Theoretical framework in this study
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.
3.1 Introduction to the case
Kuusijärvi is located in the east of the City of Vantaa border. The place is used year around by individual residents, entrepreneurs and the public sector. Swimming, taking sauna, running, hiking, berry and mushroom picking and other outdoor recreations are the most popular activities. Entrepreneurs are providing different products and services such as renting sport equipment and guiding services to other companies and individual consumers. Additionally, there is a popular beach which is mostly used by Vantaa and Helsinki City’s residents. During the summer residents from the north such as Kerava, Hyvinkää, Järvenpä and Mäntsälä are spending time at Kuusijärvi as well.
Due to lack of resources, investing in the environment and buildings around the place has been neglected. The City of Vantaa is planning to invest more to Kuusijärvi area and improve its operations and ethical quality bearing ecological aspects in mind (the City of Vantaa 2016, 4). The location of Kuusijärvi is near of Sipoonkorpi’s national park which is seen as an advantage when trying to attract more visitors, both international and the city’s residents, to the wider forest area. Kuusijärvi is relatively easy to reach from the Helsinki-Vantaa airport and for that reason the place is one of the most important destinations to offer for tourists. During the recent two years, the place has gained boost by new entrepreneurs. There are approximately 30 different enterprises involved in the area. Most of them are small entrepreneurs who are implementing different kinds of activities for visitors. Besides the City of Vantaa Administration of Forests
(Metsähallitus), Vantaa Association (Vantaa-Seura) and Zemppi registered association are other organizations which are involved at Kuusijärvi. (the City of Vantaa 2016.)
The “heart” of Kuusijärvi is a restaurant-cafeteria building where people usually go first when they enter to the place. Renting sauna buildings and tickets to saunas are sold there. The cafeteria’s entrepreneur is the connection link between micro-entrepreneurs and many facets of the City of Vantaa. The entrepreneur is in cooperation with several micro- and small and medium-sized firms who are operating in Kuusijärvi and Sipoonkorpi Natural Park areas. Additionally, cafeteria’s staff takes all the feedback from the consumers and send it forward if they know who is responsible of the certain matters. There are many departments from the City of Vantaa involved in the Kuusijärvi that it is common the entrepreneurs do not know who to give feedback to (the City of Vantaa 2016.)
The study is based on the experiences of different stakeholders who are operating or involved in Kuusijärvi area. The City of Vantaa has prepared a proposal of a project plan which considers the development of while Kuusijärvi area. In the proposal, the City of Vantaa introduces Kuusijärvi and its nearest parts as the future’s place of recreational and well-being tourism. Moreover, the proposal includes the baseline, plans for the required actions and aims how to create Kuusijärvi more attempting and easier to reach.
When conducting the proposal, the City of Vantaa has focused on the interaction and cooperation between the different stakeholders. These stakeholders are other facets of other the public sector such as Administration of Forests (Metsähallitus), entrepreneurs who are operating in Kuusijärvi, end-users such as residents and different associations such as Vantaa-Seura (Vantaa-Association) ans Zemppi Ry. The City of Vantaa have managed two open meetings where different stakeholders were invited to innovate and develop the future’s Kuusijärvi. Moreover, during the spring 2015 the City of Vantaa conducted a survey for the firms who operate in Kuusijärvi. The aim of the survey was to
solve the opinions of different stakeholders about the situation and facilities of the place. (the City of Vantaa 2016; Muukka et al. 2016.)
3.2 Methodological approach
Qualitative research is often compared with quantitative research method. Eriksson &
Kovalainen (2016, 4) argue that it is “easier to make comparisons between qualitative and quantitative research methods than defining qualitative research method”. The most characteristic for qualitative research is that it is used to produce and interpret social and cultural related issues. Very often in qualitative research approaches the data collection and analysis are inclined to social and cultural relations and aiming to produce comprehensive understanding of the research problem. For a long time, qualitative research approach has been used as the first phase of the studies on the fields of social science and business. Usually, the rest of the studies have been implemented as the quantitative researches. Additionally, qualitative research approach has been used to provide better understanding of issues which have been impossible to solve with a quantitative research. However, it is possible to conduct a qualitative research separately and without any connection to a quantitative research (Eriksson &
Kovalainen 2016, 5).
I have chosen the qualitative research approach for my thesis. It is characteristic for the qualitative approach that it focuses on interpretation and emphasizes subjectivity (Kohlbacher 2006). The qualitative approach enables a holistic understanding of the issues studied (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008, 5). The qualitative method helps to better understand the theory of open innovation and collaboration among the stakeholders.
Additionally, the qualitative approach is suitable for the method of the research because the human habits and behavior are studied (Shuttleworth 2014). Silverman (2001, 258) describes that qualitative research is relatively flexible, it studies what people are doing in their natural environment and the technique is suitable for both processes and
outcomes (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008; Kohlbacher 2008; Shuttleworth 2014; Silverman 2001.)
Very often in qualitative research approaches the data collection and analysis are inclined to social and cultural relations and aiming at comprehensive understanding about the research problem. For a long time, the qualitative research approach has been used as the first phase of the studies on the fields of social science and business.
Usually, the rest of the studies have been implemented as the quantitative researches.
Additionally, the qualitative research approach has been used to provide better understanding about issues which have been impossible to solve with a quantitative research. However, it is possible to conduct a qualitative research separately and without any connection to a quantitative research (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008;
Kohlbacher 2006; Shuttleworth 2014.)
The research method chosen is a case study research. It is an excellent choice when the aim is to generate contextual in-depth information by using different data sources (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016, 131). According to Eriksson and Kovalainen (2016, 145) the most important feature in a case study research is the ability to create and solve “a case” which can be related to an organization, a group of people, individuals, events, or processes, for example. Different sources for data collection such as minutes of the meetings, statistics, brochures and previous surveys for analysis can be implemented.
According to Bryman (2012, 68) the case study design is related to qualitative methods such as unstructured interviewing because these methods are considered helpful when generating an intense and detailed examination of a case. This is why the case study research is the most suitable described as a research strategy (Bryman 2012; Eriksson &
Kovalainen 2016, 145.)
3.3 Data collection
To collect more specific data from the stakeholders involved in the case, qualitative interviewing was chosen for the method. More specifically, face-to-face interviews was the primary data collection method. Interviewing is a practical and productive way to collect data which cannot be found in published form (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008, 80-81). The aim was to collect data from the stakeholders who were working in the Kuusijärvi’s area or involved in the recreational center in any level. Because the project is recent and little written documentation exists, interviewing is the most appropriate method. Additionally, qualitative interviews produce a great amount recent and useful data for future analysis and the response rate for the questions is always 100 percent (Wilkinson and Birmingham 2003). (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008; Wilkinson &
Birmingham 2003.)
According to Warren (2011) a qualitative interview is based on a conversation where researchers are asking questions and listening and the interviewee are answering. The participants are considered as meaning makers instead of passive facets with ready set of answers. The purpose of the qualitative interview is to produce interpretation based on the respondents talk. Additionally, the aim is to understand the respondents’
experiences and life worlds (Warren 2011). According to Eriksson and Kovalainen (2016, 91), the aim of the qualitative interviews is to produce data for the research. The difference between the daily conversations is that the researcher is prepared in advance. Additionally, during the interview, the interviewer focuses on the research topic and questions and builds the conversation around them. These elements were important from my study’s perspective. (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016; Warren 2011.) By interviewing the participants from public and private sector and other related operators there became a conception about unique experiences, expectation, and practices. The interpretation of the interviewees’ collective view of the current situation was created. I implemented a qualitative interview for the stakeholders of Kuusijärvi
such as entrepreneurs, the city of Vantaa and Metsähallitus to have an idea what are their experiences of open innovation and collaboration about the development of travel business in Kuusijärvi and what possibilities open innovation would give in the future.
Moreover, I was interested in the role of the City of Vantaa from the interviewee’s point of view.
I was pleased to interview these 11 different participators to my research. When asking them to give an interview, all of them agreed immediately after the first inquiry.
Because of this I state that the topic of my research is important to them and that they were willing to discuss face-to-face about the development plan. During the ten interviews, I felt that I was a person easy to approach and that all participators gain an opportunity to tell their views about their situation, experiences about the project and opinions about the city of Vantaa. To discuss generally with someone who is not from the private of the public sector either. I was unbiased facet who listened what others had to say. I state that listening is the main factor in this kind of project. There is a list of participants I asked to have an interview and they all participated:
Laura Muukka, Landscape-Architect, City planning department, the City of Vantaa Pia-Elina Tasanko, Communication Expert, City planning department, the City of Vantaa Annukka Rasinmäki, Special Planner, The national park authority, Administration of Forests (Metsähallitus)
Maarit Engberg, PR-women in Tourism department, the City of Vantaa Rea Hakala, Entrepreneur, Cafe Kuusijärvi
Juha Mäkäräinen, Entrepreneur, Exture Ltd.
Rolf Törrönen, Entrepreneur and Zemppi Registered Association representative Mikko Siemann, Hiking Guide, Like2hike Ltd.
Kati Tyystjärvi, a member of City Council, the City of Vantaa Association (Vantaa-Seura) representative, and a resident of Kuusijärvi-area
Jari Ansio, Entrepreneur and resident of the Kuusijärvi-area
Ari Talusén, Entrepreneur, Artic Hike Helsinki Ltd.
There are three different types of qualitative interviews: structured and standardized, guided and semi-structured and unstructured, informal, open and narrative interviews.
In the structured and standardized qualitative interview type, the questions are the same for all participants. Most of the questions are “what” type of questions. A guided and semi-structured interview includes “what” and “how” questions and they can contain variations. The aim is to recapitulate the topic and issues. Unstructured, informal, open and narrative interview types are relatively flexible. They are prepared with guiding questions or core concepts but the participants are free to take the conversation in any direction. The questions include both “what” and “how” type of questions. (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016, 93-95.)
Open-ended interview was the best alternative for my research when interviewing the stakeholders. If the interviews are too standardized and the same questions are presented to all respondents, there was a risk that part of the valuable information will be missing. In open-ended interviews, the participants could have decided themselves to which direction they want to take the conversation and give the most relevant information from their own perspective. However, the conversation should not be too unofficial and the topic needs to be present all the time when interviewing.
The preliminary questions for the interviewees were related to collaboration and innovation development, open innovation possibilities, the roles of different stakeholders, user aspects, tourism, residents, entrepreneurship, creating new innovations, users’ experiences and development of city planning and collaboration.
Because I used the unstructured approach I let the interviewees direct the discussion.
However, I planned to ask some questions to keep up the discussion. I asked from the participants, for example:
How they have experience the collaboration between stakeholders at Kuusijärvi
How did the project have been planned and implemented?
How the project was carried out?
How they have affected to the project What are the experiences about the project?
What they think about the project afterwards.
What is the next step?
There are several ways how the interviews and information from conversations could have been saved. From videotaping, writing notes during or after the interviews and using a tape recorder I choose to use the tape recorder when recorded the interviews.
This was because when writing the notes during or after the interview something valuable could have been left out from the notes and the concentration to the interview could have been interrupted. Recording with a camera documenting the interview can be awkward for some people (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2016, 99). Recording only audio can be more relaxed way for interviewees. This was the main reason I choose to use tape recorder. Moreover, when interviews were taped it was easier to remember what people have said and how they have said it. The pauses, overlaps and tone of the voice could be verified from recorder (Silverman 2001, 161).
The different documents such as the proposal of Kuusijärvi, meeting memos, employees’ diaries, written concepts and presentations were the sources for secondary data. These “naturally occurring materials” (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008, 78) support to mapping the past innovation creation and management. Additionally, the secondary data was useful when forming the final questions for the qualitative interview. Related to Kuusijärvi project there was a proposal, marketing material and survey conducted earlier. (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008; Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016; Silverman 2001.)
During the interviews, I made several interpretations about participators’ voices, body language and their expressions. I noticed that the more participators were involved
physically to Kuusijärvi, meaning that the more they visited in the area during their free time or had business operators there, the more emotional they were about the place.
Especially, residents were the most attached to the place and interested to develop it on a concrete level. Moreover, residents were showing their emotional feeling in their tone and body language during the conversation. I interpret that they were the most honest group when discussing about possibilities and challenges of the place. They were also showing their negative feelings very honestly. If compared to entrepreneurs and the participators from the public sector I noticed that entrepreneurs discussed more sincerely about the development plans but have not so strong emotional bond to the place as the residents have. The third group, employees from the public sector, were the least emotional while discussing about Kuusijärvi and development project. For them the development plan was a task among their other working tasks. As a conclusion, I state that the more the participators were involved to the place and spent time in Kuusijärvi the more they had emotional bonds related to the place.
3.4 Analysis of the data
As the analysis method, I used a qualitative content analysis. In qualitative content analysis, the data is examined by categorizing, seeking differences and similarities and summarizing (Saaranen-Kauppinen & Puusniekka 2006). The emphasis is on “what is said” and “what is done” (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2016, 119). The aim is to growth the understanding about the phenomenon of the study in the certain context which was open innovation and collaboration experiences among different stakeholders.
The data used in qualitative content analysis can be based on different types of texts such as notes, minutes of the meetings, statistics or reports, or audio-visual data such as video recordings, tape recordings or pictures. With different sources of data rich and detailed interpretation can be provided. When the data is collected from several sources, it will be more realistic and reliable. Additionally, all used sources help the
