Exploring Brokering Situations in an Innovation Boundary Context
|Forfattere||Lars-Olof Johansson, Ulrika Lundh Snis and Lars Svensson|
|Institusjon||Halmstad University, University West|
|Nøkkelord||Innovation, learning, boundary context, brokering situations, communities of practice|
|Utgiver||Tapir Akademisk Forlag|
|Adresse utgiver||Besøksadresse: Akademika Forlag Nardoveien 12, Trondheim Postadresse: Akademika Forlag Postboks 2461 Sluppen 7005 Trondheim|
AbstraktThis paper is based on studies of a living lab process, which is an open, usercentric,
innovation approach, where several actors from industry, user groups and
academia are involved. We aim to describe and analyze the dynamics in an innovation
boundary context based on a living lab process. An action-oriented research approach
was applied and the empirical results are from The Find Project (TFP), with the aim of
customizing an ICT product based on the needs of a user group. The findings are
analyzed from a community of practice perspective where the three different
communities i) researchers from Halmstad Living Lab (HLL), ii) ICT developers
(ICTD), and iii) next of kin’s to demented elderly persons (NOKD) represented the
units of analysis. The analysis identified several boundary situations that played a vital
role for the innovation process. The contribution of our research to innovation theory is
a process model describing the dynamics in an innovation boundary context with regard
to boundary objects-in-use as well as to brokering. The research highlights two different
levels of brokering: i) product/service brokering; and ii) process brokering.
ReferanserAldrich, H. and D. Herker (1977). \"Boundary Spanning Roles and Organizational Structure.\" Academy of Management Review(2): 217-230.
Ancona, D. G. and D. F. Caldwell (1992). \"Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams.\" Administrative Science Quarterly 37(4): 634-665.
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., C. I. Eriksson, et al. (2009). A Milieu for Innovation – Defining Living Labs. ISPIM 2009, New York.
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., M. Holst, et al. (2009). Concept Design with a Living Lab Approach. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2009.
Boland, R. and R. Tenkasi (1995). \"Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing \" Organization Science 6(6): 350-372.
Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid (1991). \"Organizational Learning and Communities-of- Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation \"
Organization Science 2(1): 40-57.
Buzan, T. (1995). The MindMap book. London, BBC Books.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). The Era of Open innovation. Managing innovation and change. D. Mayle, Sage.
Cook, S. D. N. and J. S. Brown (1999). \"Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing.\"
Organization Science 10(4): 381-400.
Eriksson, M., V.-P. Niitamo, et al. (2005) \"State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation - a European approach.\"
Hippel, E. v. (2005). Democratizing innovation, MIT Press.
Hislop, D. (2004). The Paradox of Communities of practice:Knowledge sharing between communities. Knowledge Networks:Innovation through Communities
of practice. P. M. Hildreth and C. Kimble. London, Idea group.
Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Levina, N. and E. Vaast (2005). \"THE EMERGENCE OF BOUNDARY SPANNING
COMPETENCE IN PRACTICE: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
AND USE OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS.\" MIS Quarterly 29(2): 29.
Lundkvist, A. (2004). User networks as sources of innovation. Knowledge
Networks:Innovation through Communities of practice. P. M. Hildreth and C. Kimble. London, Idea group.
Manville, B. (2004). Building customer communities of practice for business value:Success factors from Saba Software and other case studies. Knowledge Networks:Innovation through Communities of practice. P. M. Hildreth and C. Kimble. London, Idea group.
McKay, J. and P. Marshall (2001). \"The dual imperatives of action research \" IT and People 14(1): 46-59.
OECD (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, OECD Publishing.
Preece, J., Y. Rogers, et al. (2002). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, Wiley.
Schein, E. H. (1987). The Clinical perspective in fieldwork.
Schein, E. H. (1995). \"Process consultation, action research and clinical inquiry: are they the same?\" Journal of Managerial Psychology 10(6): 14-19.
Star, S. (1990). \"The structure of ill-structured solutions: boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving.\" Distributed artificial intelligence 2. Ståhlbröst, A. (2008). Forming Future IT - The Living Lab Way of User Involvement. Doctoral Thesis, Luleå University of Technology.
Svensson, J. and C. I. Eriksson (2009). Challenges with User involvement in a Living Lab context. eChallenges 2009, Istanbul.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., R. Mcdermott, et al. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
Yoo, Y., K. Lyytinen, et al. (2008). Distributed Innovation in Classes of Networks. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Forrige artikkel Neste artikkel