Systemic Innovation Model Translated into Public Sector Innovation Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTThis paper explores a systemic innovation model and its translation into public sector innovation practice in the welfare and health field. This systemic innovation model has been developed in the Innovillage project (2009-2013) and it has been incorporated into an open web-based development environment for enabling and enhancing collaborative innovation activity. Innovillage is a national innovation community for innovation activities in the welfare and health field in Finland. The paper argues for a systemic and collaborative innovation practice where the actors with respect to the object of development co-design, co-develop and co-enact the object through the innovation process. The paper consists of three parts. The first part defines the basic concepts and content of the systemic innovation model. The second part describes the structure of the web-based development environment for enabling and enhancing collaborative innovation activity. The third part analyses the user experiences of collaborating and co-developing in the web-based environment. In the discussion implications are drawn, on the basis of the analysis of user experiences, for the further development of the systemic innovation model, web-based development environment and public sector innovation practice.Keywords: public sector innovation, systemic innovation model, socio-materiality, involvement, co-development.IntroductionThis paper explores a systemic innovation model developed in the Innovillage project (2009-2013) and its translation into public sector innovation practice in the welfare and health field. The model has been incorporated into an open web-based development environment for enabling and enhancing collaborative innovation activity. The Innovillage project as a whole developed a national innovation community in the social and health field in Finland. Innovillage is coordinated by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and jointly maintained and further developed by the National Institute for Health and Welfare, the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, and the Finnish Society for Social and Health.During the last decade innovation has become the organizing concept that drives almost every research, development and policy agenda. However, the fuzzy discussion about innovations has vitiated the whole concept. People typically identify innovations with ideas, models or inventions, and then every research and development project seems to produce innovations. Innovations are also talked about as if they were objects which could be transferred from site to site as such. Once an innovation has been made, it can be implemented everywhere. 3This innovation model shifts the focus of innovation discourse from the blurred concept of innovation to the socio-material constituents of the objects of development and from the userdriven or user-centered innovation process to the co-creation and co-development activities of shared objects of development. It studies any kind of object of development, a product, a technology, a service, etc., as a socio-material system or assemblage. When designing any kind of object of development, it is vital to notice every element that has to be mobilized to translate it into practice, to enact it, and to get it to work.The innovation model proposes a collaborative innovation activity, where the actors or stakeholders with respect to the object of development are recruited and involved in the innovation activity from the very beginning. The argument runs as follows: because any kind of object, such as a technology, a product, a service, and a structure, is studied as a socio-material assemblage and practice that is locally constituted by heterogeneous elements (human actors, artifacts, rules, laws...), it is useful to persuade, recruit and involve the potentially relevant actor groups with respect to the object under development in co-developing and co-designing it. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".