IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v11y2021i3p74-d599704.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Value Co-Creation in Living Labs—Results from Three Case Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Nathalie Haug

    (Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, 78464 Konstanz, Germany)

  • Ines Mergel

    (Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, 78464 Konstanz, Germany)

Abstract

Living Labs—innovation units established to introduce new methods and approaches into public sector organizations—have received a lot of attention as methods for experimentation and open innovation practices in public sector organizations. However, little is known so far about how they co-create public value and which conditions influence these co-creation practices. Therefore, the research questions are: which organizational factors influence the process of public value co-creation and which outcomes and values are produced as a result? The research questions were answered by employing a qualitative research approach conducting semi-structured interviews with employees and participants of three living labs in Germany and Austria. The results show top-level support and lab leadership as the most important context factors. Living labs produce tangible and intangible outcomes. The tangible outcomes are the products developed within the lab, and the intangible outcomes are created by the interaction between the lab’s participants. The main contributions are twofold: first, context factors are identified that lead to the success of co-creation processes within living labs. Second, the study contributes to the literature on public value because it is shown that participation in living labs itself leads to added value in addition to the tangible and intangible outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathalie Haug & Ines Mergel, 2021. "Public Value Co-Creation in Living Labs—Results from Three Case Studies," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-22, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:74-:d:599704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/11/3/74/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/11/3/74/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Veronika Zavratnik & Argene Superina & Emilija Stojmenova Duh, 2019. "Living Labs for Rural Areas: Contextualization of Living Lab Frameworks, Concepts and Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Piret Tõnurist & Rainer Kattel & Veiko Lember, 2017. "Innovation labs in the public sector: what they are and what they do?," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(10), pages 1455-1479, November.
    3. Curtis, Sarah & Gesler, Wil & Smith, Glenn & Washburn, Sarah, 2000. "Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative research: examples in the geography of health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(7-8), pages 1001-1014, April.
    4. Jacob Torfing, 2019. "Collaborative innovation in the public sector: the argument," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 1-11, January.
    5. Michael McGann & Emma Blomkamp & Jenny M. Lewis, 2018. "The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 249-267, September.
    6. Anna, Petrenko, 2016. "Мaркування готової продукції як складова частина інформаційного забезпечення маркетингової діяльності підприємств овочепродуктового підкомплексу," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 2(1), March.
    7. Nicky J. Welton & Howard H. Z. Thom, 2015. "Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 564-566, July.
    8. Colin Elman & John Gerring & James Mahoney, 2016. "Case Study Research," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 45(3), pages 375-391, August.
    9. Lars Fuglsang & Anne Vorre Hansen & Ines Mergel & Maria Taivalsaari Røhnebæk, 2021. "Living Labs for Public Sector Innovation: An Integrative Literature Review," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, June.
    10. Mónica E. Edwards-Schachter & Cristian E. Matti & Enrique Alcántara, 2012. "Fostering Quality of Life through Social Innovation: A Living Lab Methodology Study Case," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(6), pages 672-692, November.
    11. John Bryson & Alessandro Sancino & John Benington & Eva Sørensen, 2017. "Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(5), pages 640-654, May.
    12. Carina Veeckman & Laura Temmerman, 2021. "Urban Living Labs and Citizen Science: From Innovation and Science towards Policy Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    13. Louise Bloom & Romily Faulkner, 2016. "Innovation spaces: lessons from the United Nations," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(8), pages 1371-1387, August.
    14. Anna Whicher & Tom Crick, 2019. "Co-design, evaluation and the Northern Ireland Innovation Lab," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 290-299, May.
    15. W. H. Voorberg & V. J. J. M. Bekkers & L. G. Tummers, 2015. "A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1333-1357, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maria Cerreta & Gaia Daldanise & Ludovica La Rocca & Simona Panaro, 2021. "Triggering Active Communities for Cultural Creative Cities: The “Hack the City” Play ReCH Mission in the Salerno Historic Centre (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Yilmaz, Ozge Celik & Ertekin, Ozhan, 2024. "Towards setting a standard for evaluating living labs with case studies in Turkiye," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lars Fuglsang & Anne Vorre Hansen & Ines Mergel & Maria Taivalsaari Røhnebæk, 2021. "Living Labs for Public Sector Innovation: An Integrative Literature Review," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, June.
    2. John, Laura, 2022. "Rethinking digital governance - How collaborative innovation strategies advance the development of digital innovations in public organisations," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 7(5), pages 1400-1418.
    3. Schiuma, Giovanni & Santarsiero, Francesco, 2023. "Innovation labs as organisational catalysts for innovation capacity development: A systematic literature review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    4. Fuglsang, Lars & Hansen, Anne Vorre, 2022. "Framing improvements of public innovation in a living lab context: Processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    5. Vassallo, Jarrod P. & Banerjee, Sourindra & Zaman, Hasanuzzaman & Prabhu, Jaideep C., 2023. "Design thinking and public sector innovation: The divergent effects of risk-taking, cognitive empathy and emotional empathy on individual performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    6. Santarsiero, Francesco & Schiuma, Giovanni & Carlucci, Daniela & Helander, Nina, 2023. "Digital transformation in healthcare organisations: The role of innovation labs," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    7. Jacob Torfing & Eva Sørensen, 2019. "Interactive Political Leadership in Theory and Practice: How Elected Politicians May Benefit from Co-Creating Public Value Outcomes," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Alfonso Unceta & Xabier Barandiaran & Natalia Restrepo, 2019. "The Role of Public Innovation Labs in Collaborative Governance—The Case of the Gipuzkoa Lab in the Basque Country, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-16, November.
    9. Wolfgang Frimmel & Martin Halla & Jörg Paetzold, 2019. "The Intergenerational Causal Effect of Tax Evasion: Evidence from the Commuter Tax Allowance in Austria," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(6), pages 1843-1880.
    10. Philippon, Thomas & Camara, Boubacar & Pessarossi, Pierre, 2017. "Backtesting European Stress Tests," CEPR Discussion Papers 11805, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Noella Edelmann & Ines Mergel, 2021. "Co-Production of Digital Public Services in Austrian Public Administrations," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, February.
    12. Ada Scupola & Lars Fuglsang & Faiz Gallouj & Anne Vorre Hansen, 2021. "Understandings of Social Innovation within the Danish Public Sector: A Literature Review," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, May.
    13. Akter, Shahriar & Babu, Mujahid Mohiuddin & Hossain, Md Afnan & Hani, Umme, 2022. "Value co-creation on a shared healthcare platform: Impact on service innovation, perceived value and patient welfare," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 95-106.
    14. Sojeong Kim & Adam M. Wellstead & Tanya Heikkila, 2023. "Policy capacity and rise of data‐based policy innovation labs," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(3), pages 341-362, May.
    15. Indre Kalinauskaite & Rens Brankaert & Yuan Lu & Tilde Bekker & Aarnout Brombacher & Steven Vos, 2021. "Facing Societal Challenges in Living Labs: Towards a Conceptual Framework to Facilitate Transdisciplinary Collaborations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, January.
    16. Norbert Laurisz, 2019. "The Role of Stakeholders in Development of Social Economy Organizations in Poland: An Integrative Approach," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Desmarchelier, Benoît & Djellal, Faridah & Gallouj, Faïz, 2021. "Which innovation regime for public service innovation networks for social innovation (PSINSIs)? Lessons from a European cases database," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    18. Anne Vorre Hansen & Lars Fuglsang & Faïz Gallouj & Ada Scupola, 2022. "Social entrepreneurs as change makers: expanding public service networks for social innovation," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(10), pages 1632-1651, October.
    19. Laura Rodrigo & Isabel Ortiz-Marcos & Miguel Palacios, 2024. "A typology of social innovation: A comparative study of clustering methodologies," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 3283-3322, December.
    20. Joshua B Cohen, 2022. "Institutionalizing public engagement in research and innovation: Toward the construction of institutional entrepreneurial collectives [Limits of Decentered Governance in Science-society Policies]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 673-685.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:74-:d:599704. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.