Advertisement

Public-Private Innovation Networks: The Importance of Boundary Objects, Brokers and Platforms to Service Innovation

  • Lars Fuglsang
  • John Damm Scheuer
Part of the Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy book series (SSRI)

Abstract

Collaboration across organisational boundaries is becoming more important for service innovation. But coordination across boundaries is not unproblematic, as shown in the literature. Actors have different working routines, different practices, time schedules, values, frames of reference, specialisations, cultures, habits, and so on. This is especially true in public-private collaboration where people have different professional roles, professional values and different conceptions of the user/citizen/client. Following the literature on boundary objects, it is argued that actors in such a context must collaborate in a disunified way by constructing a boundary object that can tie them together. The contribution of the chapter is to examine, in two Danish case studies, organisational aspects of this collaboration by looking into the specific roles of the broker and platform organisation, and the links between them, for shaping inter-organisational collaboration. The chapter compares innovation activities in two public-private innovation networks in services (ServPPINs) and discusses the role of brokers, platform organisation and boundary objects in the two cases.

Keywords

Social World Boundary Object Health School Service Innovation Organisational Boundary 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This chapter is written as part of the research project ServPPIN, which is partly financed by the EU 7th Framework Programme. The full title of the project is The contribution of public and private services to European growth and welfare, and the role of public-private innovation networks.

References

  1. Becker HS (1974) Art as collective action. Am Sociol Rev 39:767–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker HS (1986) Doing things together. Northwestern University Press, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  3. Burt RS (1992) Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Callon M (ed) (1998) The laws of the market. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciborra CU (1996) The platform organization: Recombining strategies, structures and surprises. Organ Sci 7:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciborra CU, Lanzara GF (1994) Formative contexts and information technology: Understanding the dynamics of innovation organizations. Account Manag Inf Technol People 4:61–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke AE (1991) Social worlds/arenas theory as organizational theory. In: Maines DR (ed) Social organization and social process: Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins H, Evans R, Gorman M (2007) Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in Hist Philos Sci 38:657–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denis JL, Lamothe L, Langley A (2001) The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Acad Manage J 44:809–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denis JL, Langley A, Rouleau L (2007) Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: Rethinking theoretical frames. Hum Relat 60:179–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flanagan JC (1954) The critical incident technique. Psychol Bull 51:327–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuglsang L (2007) Critical incident teknikken. In: Fuglsang L Hagerdorn-Rasmussen P, Olsen PB (eds) Teknikker i samfundsvidenskaberne. Roskilde Universitetesforlag, FrederiksbergGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuglsang L (2010) Bricolage and invisible innovation in public service innovation. J Innovation Econ 5:67–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fujimura J (1992) Crafting science: Standardised packages, boundary objects, and translation. In: Pickering A (ed) Science as practice and culture. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Galison P (1997) Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Galison P (1999) Trading zone: Coordinating action and belief. In: Biagioli M (ed) The science studies reader. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Heckscher CC, Adler PS (eds) (2006) The firm as a collaborative community: reconstructing trust in the knowledge economy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodge GA, Greve C (2005) The challenge of public-private partnerships: Learning from international experience. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jarzabkowski P, Matthiesen J, Van de Ven AH (2009) Doing which work? A practice approach to institutional pluralism. In: Lawrence TB, Suddaby R, Leca N (eds) Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organization. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Kellogg KC, Orlikowski WJ, Yates JA (2006) Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in post bureaucratic organizations. Organ Sci 17:22–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Konkurrencestyrelsen (2009) Konkurrenceredegørelsen 2009. Konkurrencestyrelsen, KøbenhavnGoogle Scholar
  22. Kraatz MS, Block ES (2008) Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In: Greenwood R, Oliver C, Sahlin-Andersson K , Suddaby R (eds) Handbook of organizational institutionalism. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Mead GH (1938) The philosophy of the act. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. Meyerson D, Weick KE, Kramer RM (1996) Swift trust and temporary groups. In: Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds) Trust in organizations. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  25. Nachi M (2004) The morality in/of compromise: Some theoretical reflections. Soc Sci Inform 43:291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Obstfeld D (2005) Social networks, the tertius iungensorientation, and involvement in innovation. Admin Sci Quart 50:100–130Google Scholar
  27. OECD (2008) Public-private partnerships: In pursuit of risk sharing and value for money. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. Shibutani T (1955) Reference groups as perspectives. Am J Sociol 60:562–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations,’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science 19:387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strauss AL (1978) A social worlds perspective. In: Densin N (ed) Studies in Symbolic Interaction, vol 1, JAI Press, GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  31. Strauss AL, Schatzman L, Bucher R, Erlich D, Sabshin M (1964) Psykiatric Ideologies and Institutions. Free Press, GlencoeGoogle Scholar
  32. Styhre A, Lind F (2009) The softening bureaucracy: Accommodating new research opportunities in the entrepreneurial university. Scand J Manag 26:107–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sundhedsstyrelsen (2005) Kronisk sygdom: Patient, sundhedsvæsen og samfund. Sundhedsstyrelsen, KøbenhavnGoogle Scholar
  34. Vlaar PWL, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2006) Coping with problems of understanding in interorganizational relationships: Using formalization as a means to make sense. Organ Stud 27:1617–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Windrum P (2008) Innovation and entrepreneurship in public services. In: Windrum P Koch P (eds) Innovation in public sector services: Entrepreneurship creativity and management. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Fuglsang
    • 1
  • John Damm Scheuer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationBusiness and Information Technologies, Roskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations