Doing Together: Co-Designing the Socio-Materiality of Services in Public Sector
Pages 1 - 14
Abstract
This article examines a systemic innovation model into which the relational approach of actor-network theory ANT has been incorporated. The article examines what the relational approach can contribute to the conceptualization of services and to the co-development and co-design activities of them. The article operates in the context of public welfare and health services, but its analysis might be applied in any other sector and with any other object of development as well. The article presents the systemic innovation model developed in a national Innovillage project in 2009-2013 in Finland. Further, the article studies how the model has been translated into practice in the design activities of a strategic development program of social and health sector run by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland. In the discussion analytical and practical challenges of the model are specified and its further development is discussed.
References
[1]
Akrich, M. 1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In Bijker, W., & Law, J. Eds., Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change pp. 205-224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[2]
Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B., & Monaghan, A. 2002a. The key to success in innovation part I: The art of interessement. International Journal of Innovation Management, 62, 187-206.
[3]
Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B., & Monaghan, A. 2002b. The key to success in innovation part II: The art of choosing good spokepersons. International Journal of Innovation Management, 62, 207-225.
[4]
Bason, C. 2010. Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society. University of Bristol: The Policy Press.
[5]
Boudreau, K. 2007 Does opening a platform stimulate innovation? The effect on systemic and modular innovations. MIT Sloan Research Paper 4611-06, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved October 2, 2014 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=913402
[6]
Çalışkan, K., & Callon, M. 2010. Economization, part 2: Research programme for the study of markets. Economy and Society, 391, 1-32.
[7]
Callon, M. 1991 Techno-economic Networks and Irreversibility. In Law, J. Ed., A Sociology of Monsters. Sociological Review Monograph 132-164. London: Routledge.
[8]
Callon, M., Méadel, C., & Rabeharisoa, V. 2002. The Economy of Qualities. Economy and Society, 312, 194-217.
[9]
Chesbrough, H. 2003. The Era of Open Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 443, 35-41.
[10]
Chesbrough, H. 2006 Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation. In H. Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J. Eds., Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm 1-12. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[11]
Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. 2004 Towards a theory of open innovation: three core process archetypes. Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference, Lisbon, Portugal.
[12]
Harbers, H. Ed. 2005. Inside the Politics of Technology: Agency and Normativity in the Co-Production of Technology and Society. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
[13]
Hong Kong. Kristensen, F.B. and Sigmund, H. eds 2008 Health technology assessment handbook 2nd edition, Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health TechnologyAssessment, National Board of Health, Retrieved October 2, 2014 from http://www.sst.dk/publ/Publ2008/MTV/Metode/HTA_Handbook_net_final.pdf
[14]
Innovation unit; Disciplined innovation model. Retrieved February 3, 2015 from http://www.innovationunit.org/our-services/how-we-work/methodologies/disciplined-innovation
[15]
Kirschbaum, R. 2005. Open Innovation in Practice. Research-Technology Management, 484, 24-28.
[16]
Koivisto, J. 2007. What evidence-base? Steps towards relational evaluation of social interventions. Evidence and Policy, 34, 527-537.
[17]
Koivisto, J., Anttila, H., Ikonen, T., & Reiman-Mööttönen, P. 2010. A systematic model for evaluating the patient aspects of health technologies. Evidence & Policy, 61, 33-49.
[18]
Koivisto, J., Englund, K., Lyytikäinen, M., Peränen, N., Pitkänen, N., Pohjola, P., & Virtanen, K. 2014 Innovillage tools for sustainable change. Discussion paper 5/2014. National Institute for Health and Welfare.
[19]
Koivisto, J., Vataja, K., & Seppäänen-Järvelä, R. 2008. Relational Evaluation of Organizational Development Activities. International Journal of Public Administration, 3110, 1167-1181.
[20]
Kraal, B. J. 2007 Actor-network inspired design research: Methodology And reflections. In Proceedings Internationl Association of Societies for Design Research. Retrieved February 3, 2015 from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/8869/1/8869.pdf
[21]
Kristensen, F. B., Horder, M., & Poulsen, P. B. Eds. 2001. Health technology assessment handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment, National Board of Health.
[22]
Latour, B. 1986 The powers of association. In: J. Law Ed, Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge 264-280. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
[23]
Latour, B. 1987 Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Cambridge, M: Harvard University Press.
[24]
Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[25]
Law, J. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.
[26]
Law, J. 2007 Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics. Retrieved October 2, 2014 from http://www. heterogeneities. net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf
[27]
Nickelsen, N. C., & Binder, T. 2008. Design and heterogeneous engineering: Toward an actor network perspective on design . Artifacts, 23-4, 164-175.
[28]
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. 2009 From meaning making to joint construction of knowledge practices and artefacts - A trialogical approach to CSCL. In C. O'Malley, Suthers, D., Reimann, P. & Dimitracopoulou, A. Eds., Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices 83-92, Conference Proceedings, International Society of the Learning Sciences ISLSRhodes, Creek.
[29]
Parida, V., Westberg, M., & Frishammar, J. 2012. Inbound innovation activities in high-tech SME's: The impact on innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 502, 283-209.
[30]
Pohjola, M., Pohjola, P., Paavola, S., Bauters, M., & Tuomisto, J. 2011. Pragmatic Knowledge Services. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 173, 472-497.
[31]
Sanders, E.B.-N. & Stappers, P.J. 2008 Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts. Special Issue: Design Participation-s, 41, 5-18.
[32]
Sawhney, M., Verona, G., & Prandelli, E. 2005. Collaborating to create: The Internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Issue Journal of Interactive Marketing, 194, 4-17.
[33]
Storni, C. 2012. Unpacking design practices: The notion of things in the making of artifacts. Science, Technology & Human Values, 371, 88-123.
[34]
Storni, C., & Venturini, T. 2012 Designing Society, socializing design - an enquiry on the performative relationship between ANT and Design, Session at the Biennial Conference ofthe European Association for the Study of Science and Technology EASST 2012, Copenhagen.
[35]
Yaneva, A. 2009. Making the social hold: Towards an Actor-Network theory ofdesign. Design and Culture, 13, 273-288.
[36]
Yu, E., & Sangiorgi, D. 2014 Service Design as an approach to New Service Development: reflections and future studies. ServDes. 2014. Fourth Service Design and Innovation conference. Retrieved October 2, 2014 from http://www.servdes.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Yu-E-Sangiorgi-D.pdf
Recommendations
Rethinking, "Rethinking: Post-Human Boundaries": Pre-given or Performed?
Our rejoinder engages with two issues central to Ramiller's orientation to sociomaterial and posthumanism research. The first is the acceptance of pre-given boundaries between self and technology. The second is that appropriation of technology is a ...
An integrative semiotic methodology for IS research
Semiotics studies the production, transmission and interpretation of meaning represented symbolically in signs and messages, primarily but not exclusively in language. For information systems (IS) the domain of semiosis consists of human and non-human ...
Enterprise systems and government organizational changes: a socio-materiality analysis
ICEGOV '12: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceAdvocates of Enterprise Systems argue that such systems promise many advantages to government organizations, such as enhancing performance, transparency, accountability and efficiency. However, the fulfillment of these promises is not easy to establish. ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Publisher
IGI Global
United States
Publication History
Published: 01 July 2015
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 14 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in