From crowdsourcing to inclusiveness: the European experience of innovation prize for grands challenges

Objectives of the paper For about a decade, the European Commission (EC) and the governments involved have been committed to transforming their modes of action towards greater transparency, interoperability and citizen satisfaction (European Commission, 2016, Mergel and al, 2019). This desire for metamorphosis is intrinsically linked to the deployment of new technologies. Indeed, the digital transition in the public sector is introducing new ways of working and interacting with stakeholders. This affects the design and implementation of all public policies, including policies to support research and innovation at European level. In 2016, the European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, Carlos Moedas, published a report entitled "Open innovation - Open Science". This report defines the principles of the Open Innovation (OI) concept for the EC, setting out the main directions for the future. Firstly, the OI movement should rely on crowdsourcing to stimulate the development of a broad innovative ecosystem (Estellés-Arolas, et al 2012 ; Guittard and Schenk, 2016). Secondly, it must be inclusive: integrating stakeholders, especially citizens, into innovative processes. Our objective is to study a device recently implemented by Europe to respond to the need for more open and inclusive innovation. This is the innovation prizes linked to the EC's digital portal, and in particular that of DG RTD. These prizes were launched during the Horizon 2020 programme and are part of a dynamic towards open science (See the report: Open Innovation, open science, open to the world. A vision for Europe, 2016). An innovation prize is commonly defined as a challenge launched and financed by a sponsor (private and/or public), dealing with various issues (technological, societal, environmental), and for which the winner(s) receive(s) a monetary or non-monetary prize (Scotchmer, 2006, Adler, 2011). Research question Five years after the publication of the Moedas report, the objective of this article is to understand how the EC, through the innovation prizes mechanism, has been engaged in an Open Innovation and public crowdsourcing movement. Specifically, our research question is: Does public crowdsourcing through prizes paves the way for more stakeholder inclusiveness in order to response to Grand Challenges (Kuhlmann and Rip, 2018). Methodology In order to answer this question we study the functioning of two European innovation prizes - Blockchain for Social Good and Affordable High-Tech for Humanitarian Aid, focusing on their capacity to integrate the engagement of various stakeholders during the different stages of the prizes. Earlier research conducted on the first prizes initiated by the EC was rather critical: they were not enough in line with the recommendations of the 2016 Moedas's report (Liotard and Revest, 2021). The two recent prizes examined in this article show some progress in terms of openness, collaboration and inclusiveness. From a methodological point of view, we rely on the examination of official site documents, as well as on interviews with European Commission competition managers over the period. Regarding the primary data, we analyze the functioning of innovation prizes launched by the EC between 2015 and 2020. A systematic study of the available materials was conducted to specify the operation of the European portal. These materials come from several sources, including documentary and digital sources essentially from the European Commission's website (especially that of DG RTD) and external sources. We conducted 8 interviews between March 2019 and April 2020 with actors involved in such schemes: prizes managers within DG RTD and DG Connect . We focus our attention on inclusiveness raising two questions: i) at which steps of the prize's process, inclusiveness could be observed (design, launch, competition, assessment) and ii) what forms does inclusiveness takes? What kind of co-devices mechanisms? To do so, interviews were very helpful. The interview grid for managers had three main headings: Before, during and after the competition. First, questions deals with general rules regarding the competition: the criteria for choosing the prize subject, the type of candidates, the type of operational rules and award mechanism . A second set of questions relates to the involvement of the prize managers in the process: the organization of a preparatory phase, the prize launch, the interactions with the candidates, the management of the competition and the selection of solutions. First results The two cases examined tend to show a voluntary approach from the European Commission towards more cooperation and inclusiveness, yet efforts still need to be made to make the competition process even more open. Concretely, recommandations could take two directions. On the one hand, it seems necessary to involve multi-disciplinary stakeholders, leading to a richer knowledge base. On the other hand, the stakeholders should be more active at different steps of the process : the design of the competition, a continuous involvement of stakeholders from the prize's launch to the assessment of the winner(s) (Mergel, 2020). This notably implies the implementation of co-production devices at all stages of the competition chain. In the discussion, we also propose to rely on a stronger use of communities (West and Sims, 2018). Main references Adler, J. H., (2011). Eyes on a climate prize: Rewarding energy innovation to achieve climate stabilization. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 35, 1. Commission Européenne, (2016). Open Innovation, open science, open to the world. A vision for Europe. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Disponible sur : https://op.europa.eu/fr/publication-detail/-/publication/3213b335-1cbc-11e6-ba9a-01aa75ed71a1 Estellés-Arolas, E., González-Ladrón-De-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information science, 38(2), 189-200. Guittard, C., Schenk, E. (2016). Crowdsourcing et développement d'un écosysteme d'affaires : une étude de cas. Innovations, 1(16), 39-54. Kuhlmann, S., Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and public policy, 45(4), 448-454. Liotard, I. et Revest V. (2021). Open Innovation and prizes : is the European Commission really committed ? GROWINPRO Working Paper, 46/2021 Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. Mergel, I. (2020). La co‑creation de valeur publique par les directions du numérique : une comparaison internationale. Action Publique, Recherche et Pratique, 6, 6-16. Scotchmer, S. (2006). Innovation and incentives. Cambridge MA, The MIT Press. West, J. Sims, J. (2018). How firms leverage crowds and communities for open innovation. In: Afuah, A., Tucci C., Viscusi G., (Eds), Creating and Capturing Value through Crowdsourcing, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 58-96.