Distributed Innovation is an emerging framework for a novel method of new product/service development, where knowledge from within and outside the organisation is shared in an evolutionary dialogue, which consistently produces high quality results. Literature on open source software development and new product development involving ‘lead users’, are the main contributors to the discussion about the creative potential locked within service users. There is a growing thread of literature which seems to apply the underlying principles of Distributed Innovation in the public sector; this article looks at the process of learning from users in this paradigm. It aims to critically evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of Distributed Innovation within the public sector generally and local government specifically. When considering the great innovative potential held by service users, the ultimate goal of thisarticle is to answer two questions: can Distributed Innovation provide a source of learning: if so, is this knowledge for free?
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andriani, P (2001), ‘Diversity, knowledge and complexity theory: some introductory issues’ , International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol 5, No 2, pp. 257-274 .
2.
Bennington, J. (2000), ‘ The modernization and improvement of government and public services’, Public Money & Management, April-June, pp.3-8.
3.
Bryman, A. (2001), Social Research Methods, ( Oxford: Oxford University Press ).
4.
Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2003), Business Research: a Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students, (2nd ed.) ( Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan ).
5.
Dolfsma, W. (2004), ‘The process of new service development - issues of formalization and appropriability’ , International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol 8, No 3, pp. 1-19 .
6.
Ethiraj, S.K. and Levinthal, D. (2002), ‘Modularity and innovation in complex systems’, Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings 2002.
7.
Franke, N. and von Hippel, E. (2003), ‘Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: the case of Apache security software’ , Research Policy, Vol 32, pp. 1199-1215 .
8.
Guardian . (2004), ‘Blair sets out seven policy challenges for election run-up’. [http://society.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5006374-108586,00.html] [Accessed 15 October 2004].
9.
Hartley, J. , Butler, M.J.R. and Bennington, J. (2002), ‘Local government modernization: UKL and comparative analysis from an organizational perspective’ , Public Management Review, Vol 4, No 3, pp. 387-404 .
10.
Jeppesen, L.B. and Molin, M.J. (2003), ‘Customers as co-developers: learning and innovation outside the firm’ , Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol 15, No 3, pp. 363-383 .
11.
Kuwabara, K. (2000), ‘Linux: a bazaar at the edge of chaos’ , First Monday, Vol 5, No 3. [http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_3/kuwabara/index] [Accessed 17 August 2003].
12.
Leadbeater, C. (2003), ‘Open innovation in public services’, in T. Bentley and J. Wilsdon (eds), The Adaptive State: Strategies for Personalising The Public Realm, ( London: DEMOS ).
13.
Leadbeater, C. (2004), Personalisation Through Participation: A New Script for Public Services, ( London: DEMOS ).
14.
Lee, G.K. and Cole, R.E. (2003), ‘From a finn-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: the case of the Linux kernel development’ , Organization Science, Vol 14, No 6, pp. 633-649 .
15.
Lerner, J. and Tirole, J. (2002), ‘Some simple economics of open source’ , The Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol 50, No 2, pp. 197-234 .
16.
Lloyd, M. (2002),For richer, for poorer? An exploration of community engagement in policy making and regeneration partnerships. Unpublished MBA dissertation, University of Durham.
17.
Local Government Association (2004), Independence, Opportunity, Trust: A Manifesto for Local Communities, ( London: Local Government Association ).
18.
Mulgan, G. , Steinberg, T. and Salem, O. (2005), Wide Open: Open Source Methods and their Future Potential, ( London: DEMOS ).
19.
National Consumer Council (2004a), Future Services: Are You Being Served?, ( London: NCC ).
20.
National Consumer Council (2004b), Making Public Services Personal: A New Compact for Public Services, ( London: NCC ).
21.
New Local Government Network (2004), Making Choices: How Can Choice Improve Local Public Services?, ( London: NLGN ).
22.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, ( New York: Oxford University Press ).
23.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005a), Citizen Engagement and Public Services: Why Neighbourhoods Matter, ( London: ODPM ).
24.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005b), New Localism - Citizen Engagement Neighbourhoods and Public Services: Evidence from Local Government, ( London: ODPM ).
25.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005c), Securing Better Outcomes: Developing a New Performance Framework, ( London: ODPM ).
26.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005d), Vibrant Local Leadership, ( London: ODPM ).
27.
Pierre, J. and Stoker, G. (2000), ‘Towards Multi-Level Governance’, in P. Dunleavy , A. Gamble , I. Holliday and G. Peele (eds), Developments in British Politics, ( Basingstoke: Macmillan ).
28.
Raymond, E.S. (2001), The Cathedral & The Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, (Revised Ed.) ( Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly ).
29.
Rothwell, R. (1994), ‘Towards the fifth-generation innovation process’ , International Marketing Review, Vol 11, No 1, pp. 7-31 .
30.
Rushkoff, D. (2003), Open Source Democracy: How Online Communication is Changing Offline Politics, ( London: DEMOS ).
31.
Sawnhey, M. and Prandelli, E. (2000), ‘Communities of creation: managing distributed innovation in turbulent markets’ , California Management Review, Vol 42, No 4, pp. 24-54 .
32.
Thomke, S. (2003), Experimentation Matters, ( Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press ).
33.
Thomke, S. and von Hippel, E. (2002), ‘Customers as innovators: a new way to create value’ , Harvard Business Review, Vol 80, No 4, pp. 74-81 .
34.
von Hippel, E. (1994), ‘Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation’ , Management Science, Vol 40, No 4, pp. 429-439 .
35.
von Hippel, E. and Katz, R. (2002), ‘Shifting innovation to users via toolkits’,Management Science , Vol 48, No 7, pp. 821-833 .
36.
von Hippel, E. , Thomke, S. and Sonnack, M. (1999), ‘Creating breakthroughs at 3M’ , Harvard Business Review, Vol 77, No 8, pp. 47-57 .
37.
Weber, S. (2004), The Success of Open Source, ( Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press ).
