open innovation policy

Open Innovation & Smart Cities

 

OI in the PS - coverThis is a quite old article that Henry Chesbrough and I wrote and got published in English on September 2014 due to the interest expressed by a large number of international delegations.

Our vision is changing, because Open Innovation is a moving field, particularly in the Public Sector and Smart Cities. However the one that we presented is still in many ways completely valid.

Here you can find the whole article and following the conclusions:

Innovation and cities are two concepts that have always gone hand in hand. Geoffrey West, who for many years was the director of the well-known Santa Fe Institute, has described the positive correlation between the size of cities and their innovation capacity in terms of a power-law (Bettencourt et al., 2007). That is, a city that is 10 times larg- er is 17 times more innovative, but a city that is 50 times big- ger is 130 times more innovative.

Large cities have always been considered places that welcome subcultures (Fischer, 1995) and non-conven- tional residents (Florida, 2005).

In this article, we have described the theory that the prevalent model of innovation in cities continues to be based on a structure of providing predefined services. This model does not include elements that enable cities to reinvent themselves, which is what is sought in smart city proposals (Florida, 2010).

The reinvention of cities, which should lead us closer to smart cities, requires the reinvention of the governance of cities themselves, particularly in terms of the manage- ment of innovation. This point is further supported if we consider the reality of cities as entities that compete for talent and creativity (Florida, 2008), in a world where competition is increasingly defined by the capacity to innovate, not just by efficiency or productivity.

In the article, we have focused particularly on inter- mediaries in innovation processes, particularly public intermediaries. We centred on a specific mechanism: the use of urban space as an area for research and experi- mentation by the citizens themselves through urban labs.

The existence of intermediaries is possibly one of the most relevant characteristics of open innovation process- es. However, although open innovation is prevalent in the private sector, it is only just beginning to be intro- duced in the private sector. Urban labs will definitely undergo considerable transformation in the coming years, and shape this new scenario of open innovation in the public field.

We need more experimentation and less dogmatism in policy

The need to become more competitive, or as expressed in other words “to grow”, has become an omnipresent topic in our society. Now, it is not only a topic of discussion in both the media and the public speeches but also a recurrent theme of debate in our companies, our professional life and even in our personal life. Spain is a country with 26% unemployment, with poor scores year after year on the Pisa assessment and who´s universities rank extremely low in world rankings. It could be said that the country has a major problem of compatibility.

It could be thought that in front of such dramatic panorama, the government would propose several new policies with the aim to flip the situation. However, it is clear that this is not the case, as a change has not been achieved. Even that it must be mentioned, that the desire to create change, nor the effort to diagnose and interpret the current problems, cannot be neglected from the existing implemented policies.

A few weeks ago, Risto Mejide (a well known publicist and public figure), interviewed Pablo Iglesias, the leader of Podemos –a raising left wing party in Spain-. The second one mentioned his proposal to create a minimum basic rent for everyone in Spain. At a point were both the viability and the details of the proposal are still unclear, what surprises isn’t the proposal itself –which clearly is not a new policy- but the interpretation of the consequences that implementing such policy could have.

Risto Mejide, highlighted two main issues in regards to the proposal. First, he remarked that it would be an extremely challenging policy to implement in times of crisis because the economic burden that it carries with it. Second, he mentioned that it would create an indolent publicly paid class. Arguments to which Pablo Iglesias curiously did not respond with social terms but with compatibility terms as he arguments that if workers enjoy a minimum basic rent they will not be force to accept the first job that comes across because their basic necessities will be cover. And consequently, companies will have to re-invent their business model to compete in more aspects than price.

From this simple proposal, two interpretations can be drawn upon the effects that it could have to Spanish society. But, can we know which one is true? Are Spaniards going to become indolent citizens living out of public money? Will this policy further reduce the national entrepreneurship spirit? Or vice versa, having a minimum salary guaranteed for everyone will allow Spain to become some sort of Silicon Valley as the number tech startups grows because the workers have the capacity to accept only those jobs that offer them a just compensation?