ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The development of business ecosystems in smart cities is currently hampered by the absence of established approaches for facilitating long-term value and sustainability. In our view, the underlying reason is the lack of collective action involving various organizations in the design process. Collective action for the good of the whole ecosystem does not take place in existing participatory practices because of the dominating role of a single customer or designer organization (in urban development projects typically the owner-developer or lead architect), who uses their bargaining and decision-making power over others. This leads to sub-optimal behaviour where the system is optimized for the goals of one strong organization instead of collectively developed system-level goals of the business ecosystem as a whole. The Cuckoo’s Nest approach addresses this problem by inviting various expert organizations to design the system and assigning each organization design rights for the ecosystem and its system-level goal. The Cuckoo’s Nest approach enhances collective action among the organizations by making individuals from various organizations consider the interests, goals, objectives, and value-adding elements of other organizations – not just those of their own organizations. With the Cuckoo’s Nest approach, the business ecosystem comes first, and single organizations’ goals or specific design features come second. This article discusses the outcomes of two workshops where the Cuckoo’s Nest approach was used for the purpose of developing business ecosystems in connection with smart city development projects within the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. We outline the steps involved in the Cuckoo’s Nest approach and how they were applied in these two smart city projects, and we describe how it is being refined for further use in other locations and contexts. Available at: https://timreview.ca/article/1039
Content may be subject to copyright.
Technology Innovation Management Review December 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 12)
26
www.timreview.ca
The Cuckoo’s Nest Approach for Co-Creating
Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities
Karlos Artto, Riikka Kyrö, Tuomas Ahola,
Antti Peltokorpi, and Kristiina Sandqvist
Introduction
The current global megatrends of rapid urbanization
and digitalization are placing great pressure on the sus-
tainability of our cities and are bringing about major
changes in the living environment of city dwellers. Sim-
ultaneously, these trends also offer increased possibilit-
ies for sustainable urban development following the
principles of circular economy, including the exploita-
tion of existing infrastructure and services while taking
advantage of new technology. Additionally, smart city
strategies include engaging citizens and local busi-
nesses in the development of their communities. In-
deed, participatory planning has been a growing trend
in urban development projects in the past few decades.
End users have been increasingly engaged in design
processes using different collaborative methods. While
this is a clear improvement compared to a designer-
centric approach, the existing participatory planning
methods generally involve a pre-defined object of
design, as well as a professional designer to lead the
process.
The development of business ecosystems in smart cities is currently hampered by the ab-
sence of established approaches for facilitating long-term value and sustainability. In our
view, the underlying reason is the lack of collective action involving various organizations
in the design process. Collective action for the good of the whole ecosystem does not take
place in existing participatory practices because of the dominating role of a single cus-
tomer or designer organization (in urban development projects typically the owner-de-
veloper or lead architect), who uses their bargaining and decision-making power over
others. This leads to sub-optimal behaviour where the system is optimized for the goals of
one strong organization instead of collectively developed system-level goals of the busi-
ness ecosystem as a whole. The Cuckoo’s Nest approach addresses this problem by invit-
ing various expert organizations to design the system and assigning each organization
design rights for the ecosystem and its system-level goal. The Cuckoo’s Nest approach en-
hances collective action among the organizations by making individuals from various or-
ganizations consider the interests, goals, objectives, and value-adding elements of other
organizations – not just those of their own organizations. With the Cuckoo’s Nest ap-
proach, the business ecosystem comes first, and single organizations’ goals or specific
design features come second. This article discusses the outcomes of two workshops
where the Cuckoo’s Nest approach was used for the purpose of developing business eco-
systems in connection with smart city development projects within the Helsinki Metro-
politan Area. We outline the steps involved in the Cuckoo’s Nest approach and how they
were applied in these two smart city projects, and we describe how it is being refined for
further use in other locations and contexts.
The stars up close to the moon were pale; they
got brighter and braver the farther they got out
of the circle of light ruled by the giant moon.
Ken Kesey (1935–2001)
In One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1962)
Technology Innovation Management Review December 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 12)
27
www.timreview.ca
The Cuckoo’s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities
Karlos Artto, Riikka Kyrö, Tuomas Ahola, Antti Peltokorpi, and Kristiina Sandqvist
This article stems from the premise that, despite ad-
vancements in end-user and community participation,
planning practice has continued to put the designer-
architect in the leading role and to identify the physical
environment as the ultimate goal of the process. Mod-
ern solutions, such as the cave automatic virtual envir-
onment (CAVE;
tinyurl.com/pcraeq7
) and living labs, allow
for users to experience the facility that is being de-
signed but therefore also inherently impose the facility
design on the user. In an attempt to shake this tradi-
tion, Aalto University’s Project Business Research
Group developed a novel approach to collaborative
design: the Cuckoo’s Nest approach. The focus of this
new approach is on business ecosystem development,
and it gives individuals the freedom and independence
to use all their previous personal or business expertise
in the process.
The Cuckoo’s Nest approach focuses on developing a
business ecosystem and its system-level goal through
collective action. With this process, we invite individu-
als representing different professions and fields of busi-
ness to collectively create a multi-organizational
network. Invitations are extended to all organizations
related to the ecosystem under design, not only the
known developers and designers or intended users. The
Cuckoo’s Nest design process builds on the services
and processes that the organizations are willing to de-
velop in collaboration with others. The process steers
the organizations towards seeing the "bigger picture"
and the business ecosystem as a whole, rather than sub-
optimizing and promoting their own individual busi-
nesses. This principle is supported by the theories of
business networks, which suggest that: i) networks are
dependent on the different resources possessed by
their organizations (Hakanen & Jaakkola, 2012), ii) that
relationships between organizations can be character-
ized by their competing or complementing offerings
(Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2011), and iii) that net-
work development is a purposeful activity coordinated
by a focal firm (Ritala et al., 2012).
The context of the current study is smart city develop-
ment, and it explores two case projects where the
Cuckoo’s Nest approach and associated workshop
method was used to design business ecosystems (Autio
& Thomas, 2014). Both case workshops focused on
smart city development projects within Finland's Hel-
sinki Metropolitan Area: i) the Otaniemi Metro Centre
and ii) the Ruskeasuo Health Park. The ecosystem for
the Otaniemi Metro Centre focuses on a planned facil-
ity to be built on a campus of Aalto University. The
Ruskeasuo Health Park's ecosystem focuses on a hospit-
al campus. During the associated case workshops for
each case, real estate developers and architects particip-
ate in the workshop as peers, not as facilitators or in oth-
er pre-established roles. The same principle also
applied to larger retail chains, which often dominate re-
tail development projects. During the Cuckoo’s Nest
workshops, smaller retailers and other small organiza-
tions had equal weight in contributing to the design of
the business ecosystem.
These two cases represent an application and refine-
ment of the Cuckoo's Next approach. This article intro-
duces the study (and the new approach) by first
providing background on existing participatory ap-
proaches. Then, the study design, including the case de-
scriptions and the workshop process is described. Next,
the outcomes of the two workshops are analyzed. Fi-
nally, we offer conclusions and look ahead to the future
of the two cases and the application of the Cuckoo's
Nest approach to new contexts and locations.
Background: Existing Participatory Approaches
Participatory planning is a form of co-design and has
been well represented in urban development projects
for at least two decades. End users have been engaged
in city planning processes using different participatory
methods, such as workshops, discussion forums, and in-
terviews. Engaging in dialogue with the community is
generally considered good practice and professionalism
on behalf of the planner (Forester, 1999). Consequently,
different participatory methods have also been intro-
duced in planning school curricula. Booher and Inner
(2002) argue that planners need to have management,
facilitation, mediation, and negotiation skills. Participat-
ory planning methods have been developed for and
used in different built environment projects, whether an
individual building or an urban neighbourhood (Sanoff,
2000). In Finland, the location of the current study, urb-
an planning has become significantly more community
focused in recent years, and participatory methods are
widely used (Horelli, 2013).
End user experiences have been particularly well accom-
modated in the design of healthcare environments (e.g.,
Bowen et al., 2013; Carmel-Gilfilen & Portillo, 2016; Elf
et al., 2016; Luck, 2003; Perkins, 2013) and modern
learning environments (e.g., Brown & Long, 2006; Kyrö
& Artto, 2015; Kyrö et al., 2016; Rytkönen, 2015). Bowen
and colleagues (2013) introduce a case of experience-
based design from the healthcare sector, which utilized
Technology Innovation Management Review December 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 12)
28
www.timreview.ca
The Cuckoo’s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities
Karlos Artto, Riikka Kyrö, Tuomas Ahola, Antti Peltokorpi, and Kristiina Sandqvist
the method of storytelling. Similarly, in healthcare, a
group of design students found that user stories en-
hanced their empathy and thus made for a better
design (Carmel-Gilfilen & Portillo, 2016). Regarding the
focus on designing the business that takes place in the
facility (and not designing the facility as being separ-
ated from the actual business ecosystem), Elf and col-
leagues (2016) introduce a method called group
modelling, where workshops are used for the primary
purpose of the development of the healthcare organiza-
tion and processes; the plans of the facility are then pre-
pared only after the organization and processes have
been designed properly in the group modelling exer-
cise.
Meanwhile, Redström (2006) finds the whole concept of
participatory design problematic, because the per-
ceived end user does not exist until a designer creates
something for them to use. His argument is that the per-
ceived user cannot know how they will experience the
designed object once it is finalized, therefore design
should be left solely in the hands of the architect or pro-
fessional designer. With the help of modern design
tools, such as virtual environments, his argument
seems philosophical at best, invalid at worst. Sanders
and Stappers (2008) argue that, in recent years, the user
has actually been promoted from an object of the
design (user-centered design) to a co-designer,
however, the designer still has a key role in giving form
to the design. They also point out how co-design chal-
lenges existing power structures, which may be difficult
for those who are used to being in charge of the design
process. Luck (2003) considers that the difference
between user and designer is sometimes blurred due to
the major role given to end users. Horelli (2013) goes
even further and suggests that participatory ap-
proaches should move towards self-organized particip-
ation instead of top-down, staged participation.
The various participatory approaches are used for col-
lectively defining the system (e.g., a project, its out-
come, or the ecosystem), and therefore collective
action is at the core of such approaches. Broader theor-
izing on collective action can be found in Ostrom
(1990) and Olson (1965). To facilitate the collective ac-
tion to leverage knowledge integration and networked
innovation, selecting appropriate boundary objects are
of importance (Mäenpää et al., 2016). To enhance
knowledge integration and innovation, the aim of
boundary objects should be to even out the power
structures and achieve a common understanding
between the various actors, and to allow for putting fo-
cus on the business ecosystem design and not merely
the facility design. Kjolle and Blakstad (2014) used a
boundary object in the form of a design brief to en-
hance collaboration and innovation among actors parti-
cipating to a workshop. For workplace design, Broberg,
Andersen, and Seim (2011) list several possible bound-
ary objects, including layouts, usability tests, focus
group interviews, to-scale or full-size mockups, com-
puter visualization, and slideshows, as well as the activ-
ities of testing and visiting other workplaces.
Participatory approaches are also linked to the prin-
ciples of open innovation, where both internal and ex-
ternal actors are included in the innovation process
(Chesbrough, 2003). Furthermore, Chesbrough (2007)
argues that setting up relationships with different or-
ganizations such as suppliers, competitors, comple-
mentors, research institutes, and end customers is
crucial for scalable, practical, and effective innovation.
Additionally, in line with the service-dominant logic, in-
novation development should always be targeted at a
customer need (Vargo & Lusch, 2004).
Study Design
In this section, we outline the overall design of our
study and introduce the two cases before detailing the
new Cuckoo's Nest approach, which is designed to
overcome the shortcomings of existing participatory ap-
proaches, as described in the previous section. The re-
search was conducted as action research with
observation as the main data collection method. Data
was collected from two workshop sessions, where the
research team participated as facilitators. All workshop
discussions were also recorded and transcribed for re-
search use. The study is qualitative and exploratory,
and it focuses on two different campus development
projects. Selecting two cases for the workshops gave a
better indication of how the Cuckoo’s Nest approach
can be applied and how the results may vary in differ-
ent contexts. The following subsections introduce the
context and basic characteristics of the two cases and
workshops.
Case 1: Otaniemi Metro Centre
The first case for the Cuckoo’s Nest was a future shop-
ping centre located on the Aalto University campus in
Otaniemi, Espoo. Aalto University is the leading uni-
versity of technology, business, and arts in Finland.
Most existing buildings on campus date back to the
1950–60s and were designed by the renowned Alvar
Aalto, after whom the university is now named. The
campus attracts architecture enthusiasts from around
the world, in addition to students, faculty, and visitors
to the university. The shopping centre will be de-
Technology Innovation Management Review December 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 12)
29
www.timreview.ca
The Cuckoo’s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities
Karlos Artto, Riikka Kyrö, Tuomas Ahola, Antti Peltokorpi, and Kristiina Sandqvist
veloped in connection with a new university building
and a metro station. The new metro line of the city of
Espoo will have several new stations, and new shop-
ping centres are planned at almost every station. It was
therefore seen as crucial for the Aalto University station
shopping centre to be unique and attractive enough to
compete with other new shopping centres in nearby
stations.
Local businesses were invited to join the workshop. It
was decided that the focus would be on retail chains
that would have experience in operating in a shopping
centre setting. Preliminary discussions were held with
40 people, of whom 20 agreed to participate and even-
tually 17, representing the public (2) and private (15)
sectors, were present in the workshop. The owner-de-
veloper of the shopping centre was also present,
however, the research team was solely responsible for
the organizing the workshop and sending invitations to
the organizations. The workshop was held on March
13, 2015, in a newly developed social learning environ-
ment on the university campus. The place was purpose-
fully selected because it allows for group working and
offers relaxed surroundings. The participants were di-
vided into three groups so that the groups were as di-
verse as possible, representing different fields of
business, profession, gender, and age (Table 1).
In addition to the facilitators for the overall workshop,
each group had a separate facilitator and a secretary
who focused on taking field notes and pictures. Alto-
gether, eight researchers from the research team were
present at the workshop.
Case 2: Ruskeasuo Health Park
The second campus development project was initiated
when the owner of a hospital campus signified interest
in improving the vacancy rates on campus and energiz-
ing the campus with new activity. The campus hosts a
rehabilitation hospital and a few smaller organizations,
such as retailers of assistive devices. The hospital cam-
pus has a long history, dating back to the 1940s, when
injured veterans returning from the war needed to be
treated and rehabilitated in Helsinki. The campus is
located centrally in the Ruskeasuo area of Helsinki,
with great recreational opportunities due to the nearby
Central Park. Currently, senior citizens represent the
main customer segment, and the owner wishes to de-
velop the campus into a full-service "wellbeing cam-
pus" with a wide range of offerings from the health and
wellbeing industry. The workshop, therefore, focused
on finding the right type of service compilation for the
new campus.
For this workshop, the researchers invited many public
and third sector organizations to participate in the work-
shop, because these sectors are active in the health and
wellbeing industry. The owner also participated in the
workshop, but not in a leading role. Invitations were
sent to 21 individuals, and 13 participants representing
the public (4), private (3), and third (6) sectors took part
in the workshop on June 5, 2015. It was decided that the
workshop would be held on the campus, and the most
suitable place was a large meeting room in the hospital.
The participants were again divided into three groups so
that each group would have a diverse set of individuals
(Table 2).
Table 1. Cuckoo’s Nest workshop participants for the
Otaniemi Metro Centre
Technology Innovation Management Review December 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 12)
30
www.timreview.ca
The Cuckoo’s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities
Karlos Artto, Riikka Kyrö, Tuomas Ahola, Antti Peltokorpi, and Kristiina Sandqvist
In addition to the facilitators for the overall workshop,
each group had a separate facilitator and a secretary
who focused on taking field notes and pictures. Alto-
gether, seven researchers from the research team were
present at the workshop.
The Cuckoo’s Nest Approach
The Cuckoo's Nest approach takes its name from Ken
Kesey’s (1962) novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,
and it highlights an entrepreneurial focus that encour-
ages all individuals to think freely and differently from
others. Just like the patients in Ken Kesey’s book, who
sought to advance the good for everyone, our workshop
participants are encouraged to consider the ecosystem
as a whole. Furthermore, like in the Cuckoo’s Nest ap-
proach, the thinking of individuals should not be con-
strained by the ideas of single strong organization such
as the designer or developer – or "the giant moon" refer-
enced in the opening quotation to this article – using its
power to draw the attention of others for the advance-
ment of this one strong organization’s goals only.
This section introduces the final form of the workshop
method for the Cuckoo's Nest approach, which was de-
veloped further from its original form based on the ex-
periences from the first workshop. The workshop
format includes five consecutive phases as illustrated in
Figure 1 and described below:
1. Memory Lane: The workshop is initiated with all parti-
cipants in one group, and everyone is asked to recall
and share a positive personal memory related to the
theme of the workshop. This exercise is meant to cre-
ate inclusiveness and prime the participants to the
workshop and upcoming tasks. It also functions as
an introduction. After this first phase, the parti-
cipants are divided into groups. The number of
groups and group size can be adjusted depending on
the context. Based on our experience from the two
Cuckoo’s Nest workshops described here, we suggest
that a group size of four to six individuals can en-
hance appropriate variation in results while still in-
tegrating knowledge for innovative ecosystem design
among the group members. Regarding the number
of groups, we see that the number can potentially be
constrained by the availability of facilitators and sec-
retaries assigned to each group separately, and the
available workshop space.
2. Actor Domino: The second phase of the workshop
creates the ecosystem design by suggesting an appro-
priate business and service mix. Each group is given
a pack of "actor cards" from which they can select the
best business ecosystem compilation by suggesting a
set of business actors that would make an appropriate
whole (as an ecosystem). The cards are of different
colour based on the business sector (e.g., café, res-
taurant, grocery store, clothing store, hardware, recre-
ation, or services provided by banks or libraries).
Some of the cards include specific brand names;
some only indicate the sector. The task is first done in-
dividually and participants are not allowed to choose
their own businesses in the mix. This task forces parti-
cipants to compromise and to think about the good of
the whole business ecosystem, not just their own or-
ganizations. Following the individual task, the Actor
Domino process is restarted, but this time as a group
activity. The groups are asked to combine the best
suggestions from each individual to come up with a
new unique set of business ecosystem constituents.
3. Doll House: The third phase of the workshop is the
only phase that focuses on the layout of the ecosys-
tem in relation to space. The name Doll House refers
Table 2. Cuckoo’s Nest workshop participants for the
Ruskeasuo Health Park
Technology Innovation Management Review December 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 12)
31
www.timreview.ca
The Cuckoo’s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities
Karlos Artto, Riikka Kyrö, Tuomas Ahola, Antti Peltokorpi, and Kristiina Sandqvist
to a miniature house that is modelled and decorated
according to a child’s or family’s own liking. The
rooms can be of different size and be located in differ-
ent parts of the house. For this assignment, the parti-
cipants are provided with a toolkit including
miniature figures, wall partitions, cardboard, and
tape. The number and placement of buildings, the
number of floors, the choice of building materials, as
well the location of the different business facilities are
decided within the group. Given that the ecosystem
in terms of its business and service compilation has
been designed already (in the previous phase), the co-
design process innately becomes activity-based. The
name Doll House refers to a physical space, but this
phase is not necessarily constrained by a requirement
to position the ecosystem in a specific location
(because the idea is to design the location and space
without unnecessary constraints). Therefore, if the
business ecosystem designed in the workshop is virtu-
al, we suggest that the Doll House phase includes a
positioning of the ecosystem as based on the mutual
relationships and connections of its members by oth-
er parameters than the physical location only.
4. Loyalty Card: The fourth phase of the workshop is in-
spired by the many loyalty programs initiated by re-
tail chains that seek to reward loyal customers and
promote brand identity. Each participant is invited
to suggest a name and a slogan for the ecosystem
based on the outputs of the previous phases, and
earlier discussions with the group. The group then
decides upon their joint suggestion for name and slo-
gan that would appear on the hypothetical loyalty
card for the ecosystem. This simple task plays an im-
portant role in determining the identity for the busi-
ness ecosystem, which would represent an
integrative force for the existence and purpose of the
ecosystem by the ecosystem members.
5. Speaker’s Corner: In this phase, each participating in-
dividual is asked to think about their own personal
views about the idealized ecosystem that the indi-
vidual wishes to see in the future. Based on this indi-
vidual and idealized view, each individual is asked to
step to a spot called the Speakers’ Corner and give a
three-minute speech to others on the theme of “my
ecosystem” to describe the kind of ecosystem that, in
their mind, constitutes the perfect business ecosys-
tem, and would bring them joy. The idea behind this
Speakers’ Corner phase is to allow for individuals to
establish a personal connection to the ecosystem of
“their own”, and also to share different views and
opinions, and also expose and encourage variation
among the participants’ opinions.
Figure 1. The five phases of Cuckoo’s Nest workshop
Technology Innovation Management Review December 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 12)
32
www.timreview.ca
The Cuckoo’s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities
Karlos Artto, Riikka Kyrö, Tuomas Ahola, Antti Peltokorpi, and Kristiina Sandqvist
During the entire workshop, the participants are re-
minded that they are not restricted by any existing
physical, economic, or emotional constraints. The lo-
gic is that the sense of freedom will produce a range of
"outside-the-box", altruistic ideas. The feasibility of
the suggestions is not assessed at all in the workshops.
Findings
In this section, we present the key outcomes of the two
case workshops. The findings are based on the extens-
ive written and photographic documentation that was
collected by the researchers during the workshops, as
well as the outputs created during the workshops (Act-
or Domino compilations, Doll House layouts, and Loy-
alty Cards).
The two workshops were conducted similarly but with
minor differences. First, the locations for the work-
shops were different, even though both were located
on the respective campuses. The setting on the uni-
versity campus was a modern social-learning environ-
ment whereas the other workshop was held in a more
traditional meeting room. However, the atmosphere in
both workshops was relaxed. Particularly for the
Health Park workshop, the opening phase of Memory
Lane – where participants were asked to recall a posit-
ive experience related to healthcare – clearly helped
create a sense of trust among all participants.
Second, some modifications were made in the latter
workshop based on experiences in the first workshop.
During the first workshop, the research team noticed
that the Speaker’s Corner where individuals were
asked to present their own idea of an ideal shopping
centre – drew the participants “back to reality” in an
unfortunate way. Despite very innovative and even
radical outputs from the first phases of the workshop,
the individual speeches comprised rather traditional
shopping centre compositions. In a way, the parti-
cipants started to question the feasibility of their own
ideas and started to speak on behalf of the organiza-
tions they represented. This phase was therefore
changed for the second workshop so, that the facilitat-
ors presented the ideas created by the group.
However, this modification resulted in a bleak, less ex-
uberant atmosphere. For good or bad, the Speaker’s
Corner phase utilized in the first workshop forced the
participants to step out of their comfort zone. Despite
the minor, brief uneasiness for the participating indi-
viduals, the Speaker’s Corner phase should remain an
integral part of the Cuckoo’s Nest approach in the fu-
ture.
Furthermore, the Doll House phase did not produce any
radical or even very detailed layouts during the first
workshop, and the groups spend much more time pon-
dering on the identity of the shopping centre. Therefore,
the phase was changed in the second workshop so that
the participants were not asked to come up with build-
ing layouts but rather focus on the activities on the cam-
pus. Interestingly, however, the groups did actually
come up with a rather detailed layout for the campus
anyway. For future workshops, the Doll House phase
will be introduced so that the groups are provided with
the basic design toolkit, as described in the previous sec-
tion. This way, the groups may themselves decide how
detailed their layout design will be.
Below, we share specific findings of the two case work-
shops.
Otaniemi Metro Centre
The shopping centre will be developed in connection
with a university building and the metro station. These
two prerequisites were the only ones given to the parti-
cipants. No restrictions on the facilities, number of ten-
ants, purpose of use, or other characteristics of the
shopping centre were given in advance.
The participants wished to see the Otaniemi Metro
Centre as very tech savvy and boast an ecological con-
science. A consensus was reached on the importance of
the building design, including façade and materials, in
depicting the ecosystem identity. The participants act-
ively discussed the salient features of the ecosystem,
starting from the beginning of the workshop when justi-
fying their choices for Actor Domino, and throughout
the Doll House phase when deciding the layout. As a res-
ult, the identity of the shopping centre, and how it
would be created, became a key topic. The campus sur-
roundings and the university community had a major
impact on the identity.
Many participants drew from their own unique shop-
ping experiences abroad and were, therefore, contem-
plating what Otaniemi campus and Finland as a country
could offer that other countries could not. Nature on the
one hand and technological advancements on the other
were discussed as potential niche attractions. Interest-
ingly, a traditional shopping centre in terms of layout
and service compilation was not preferred by anyone,
even though everyone admitted to visiting shopping
centres for the ease of finding everything under one
roof. However, the new shopping centre should be a
contemporary version of a traditional village that high-
lights the tech-savvy identity of the university campus.
Technology Innovation Management Review December 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 12)
33
www.timreview.ca
The Cuckoo’s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities
Karlos Artto, Riikka Kyrö, Tuomas Ahola, Antti Peltokorpi, and Kristiina Sandqvist
The participants' suggestions also strongly reflected
their own experiences and needs as consumers. Few
participants saw themselves as the target group for
shopping centres, and shopping centres in general
were thought to have a slightly outdated feel, even a
stigma. As a result, many novel and innovative sugges-
tions could be found in the outputs of the workshops.
Instead of traditional shops, the shopping centre would
include pop-up stores and showrooms. Traditional
shops in the future might just become places for testing
a product before ordering it and having it delivered dir-
ectly to your home. The suggestions reflect the mega-
trends of urbanization and digitalization, which are
affecting patterns of consumption. Traditional large re-
tail units located outside cities and out of reach of pub-
lic transport were thought to no longer be viable.
Shopping centres in the future will likely not require
owning and driving a car.
Every group highlighted the role of technology and art
students as the creative class that appreciates techno-
logy on the one hand and sustainability on the other.
Therefore, each group came up with ideas that support
digitalization, alternative transport, alternative means
of consumption, and diverse evening entertainment.
Even the facades of the building were thought to repres-
ent sustainability and the technological identity, with
wood and glass as the main material. The outcomes
from the three groups’ work are summarized below:
1. The first group wanted to focus on the offering, not
on specific brands. Not unlike current shopping
centres, large grocery stores open 24-hours per day
would function as a basis, and other retailers would
then follow. The group suggested restaurants and
pubs that are open late at night for the creative class,
and some facilities should be reserved for pop-ups.
Additional services would include showrooms with
warehouse pick-up locations for specialty stores. Eco-
logical solutions in the design and services of the
Metro Centre would define and strengthen the iden-
tity of the university. Ecology was even reflected in
building design and emphasis was placed on build-
ing adaptability and an attractive façade. A hall for
public lectures and other university events should be
located centrally and be visible from the metro sta-
tion entrance.
2. The second group also chose to focus on the offering,
not on specific brands. It was clear that no specialty
stores would be operated on campus, only supermar-
kets with good offerings. Restaurant services were
thought to be best represented through a food court
with "street food". The centre would also include art
and entertainment, such as a gallery or a community
centre. Some key concepts that were widely accepted
within the group were fast, easy, entertainment,
buzz, and flexible opening hours. As for the layout
and structure of the centre, modularity and adaptab-
ility were marked as important. The building would
boast a wooden façade to highlight the sustainability
preferences of the creative class, and digitalized ser-
vices in the centre would highlight the technology
signature of the university. However, the new build-
ing should not undermine the architectural legacy of
the university campus or the heritage of Alvar Aalto.
3. As with the other two groups, the third group also
wanted to focus on the service offering, instead of
specific brands. The student-customer segment
brought about the suggestion of a discount super-
market to fit student budgets. Evening entertainment
was also seen important for students, as were new di-
gitalized services and other new types of services,
such as sporting gear rental and a recycling service. A
pop-up marketplace was also discussed. University
and student services should be visible in the lobby,
for example, in the form of an information desk and
various course projects presented on walls. This
group focused on accessibility and good visibility
with a glass façade in their building design. City bikes
and bike racks would be available to accommodate
the students’ most popular means of transport.
Ruskeasuo Health Park
This section presents the outcome of the second case,
Ruskeasuo Health Park. Once again, the participants
were not given any prerequisites regarding budget, lay-
out, or types of services that would be welcomed to
campus. The participants were provided with some ba-
sic information about the site and location but were
asked to overlook any other physical constraints, such
as the existing buildings on site.
The campus was envisioned as an accessible and inclus-
ive community with lush green surroundings. A sense
of community between the different organizations on
campus was the driving force behind all three groups’
work. Although the main user group was thought to be
senior citizens, the groups were interested in making
the campus easily accessible and attractive to other
user groups as well. Accessibility was another key
concept that was repeated in the outputs with regard to
buildings and recreational activities. The role of the
Technology Innovation Management Review December 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 12)
34
www.timreview.ca
The Cuckoo’s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities
Karlos Artto, Riikka Kyrö, Tuomas Ahola, Antti Peltokorpi, and Kristiina Sandqvist
third sector, mainly different health associations, was
also emphasized in providing a wide range of services
beyond traditional public and private healthcare ser-
vice providers.
Compared to the outcome of the Otaniemi Metro
Centre, the Ruskeasuo Health Park workshop focused
on the site, rather than a building. Therefore, building
material choices were not discussed during the work-
shop. However, green roofs and walls were mentioned
as a means to highlight the nature-friendly identity of
the campus. Access to alternative transport, such as
nearby bike routes and a bus line to the campus, was
also seen as an important part of the new image of the
Health Park. The campus is located adjacent to Hel-
sinki’s Central Park, and the park was included in all
the group’s outputs as a major source of recreation. Ad-
ditionally, locally grown and organic food was dis-
cussed, and it was suggested that a community garden
should be included in the design. The outcomes of the
three group's work are summarized below:
1. Similar to the previous workshop, the first group
wanted to focus on services, particularly the service
offering of the whole campus, not of individual ser-
vice providers. The group saw a strong sense of com-
munity as the guiding principle. Wellbeing is a sum
of many parts, including recreation, dining, sports fa-
cilities, and culture. A number of third sector organiz-
ations would complement public health services.
Hotel services for long-distance guests were also
among the suggestions. Also, a "community feel bey-
ond generations" could be achieved, it was sugges-
ted, by locating student dorm rooms inside a nursing
home. This type of arrangement has been success-
fully implemented in the Netherlands and Finland
before. The neighboring Central Park of Helsinki,
with its nature and recreational opportunities, was
seen as a major asset.
2. The second group wanted the campus to provide
healthcare and experiences to the future customers.
They saw senior citizens, children, health tourists, re-
searchers, businesses, and local citizens as the key
customer groups. The long cultural history of the
campus was thought to be an attraction. This group
also wished to see third sector organizations and
smaller health technology startups in a central role.
The environmental friendliness was depicted with a
grocery store with organic food, and a restaurant
serving harvest from an onsite rooftop garden. Addi-
tional green roofs and wall would further demon-
strate green roofs, green walls to demonstrate envir-
onmental friendliness. The group also designed and
accessible theme park or adventure park. The recre-
ational activities should exploit the full potential of
the nearby Central Park. Hotel services could be
provided for long distance guests in a new building,
and an event hall and information centre should be
located centrally on the whole campus.
3. The third group saw community feel as the guiding
principle of the new campus and wished to co-create
a warm and welcoming to everyone. Both the local
community and international health tourists were ex-
pected to belong to the future customer segment.
The role of third sector organizations was deemed
important in complementing public services, which
may reflect both the context and high level of third
sector participation in this workshop. The group
wished to see a wide service offering including retail,
pharmacy, spa, and cafes. Accessible recreational
activities and sports halls were also among the
design suggestions. As a niche offering, the group ex-
pressed interest in providing wellbeing services, in-
cluding social services, mental health, and even
spiritual guidance. Finally, the group thought that a
new tramline running through campus might in-
crease opportunities for passersby to discover the
campus and its service offerings.
Discussion
Based on the feedback, everyone who took part in the
workshops were extremely satisfied. In addition to co-
creating innovative ideas, the workshops provided an
opportunity to meet and talk with other potential fu-
ture tenants, owners, and city officials. That way, even
if the smart city project will not be relevant for their
business in the future, they have opened communica-
tion channels with other businesses in the area.
Typically, co-design processes in the built environment
have engaged a limited group of pre-determined users
(e.g., Broberg et al., 2011), the design process has been
led by a designer (e.g., Kyrö & Artto, 2015), and efforts
have focused on facility design (e.g., Kjolle & Blakstad,
2014). These processes stand the risk of turning into a
"barrel of wishes", where the lead designer tries to com-
ply with the users’ wishes only to the extent that it does
not jeopardize the outcome desired by the owner of the
project (e.g., a real estate developer or a city). The key
difference in the Cuckoo’s Nest approach to existing
participatory methods is that the individuals are from a
Technology Innovation Management Review December 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 12)
35
www.timreview.ca
The Cuckoo’s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities
Karlos Artto, Riikka Kyrö, Tuomas Ahola, Antti Peltokorpi, and Kristiina Sandqvist
wider group of business representatives. It was clear
from the very beginning that not all of the organiza-
tions would have tenancy on the campuses. Compared
to the idea of service-dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch,
2004), the included individuals were not the end cus-
tomers. Furthermore, because the participants are all
professional users, the outcome is different from that of
a layman or citizen engagement group. The way that
the complementing and competing organizations are
brought together to ideate, with no direct benefit to
their own organization, allows for the development of
joint, system-level goal that benefits business as a
whole. These two features make it more likely that the
outcome is not about optimizing individual perform-
ance, but rather an optimal compilation with regard to
the general understanding of what constitutes a func-
tional business ecosystem.
As a result, the actor compilations were versatile, and
smaller actors were well represented in the outcomes.
For example, shopping centres in Finland typically host
one or both of the two largest retail chains in the coun-
try, the national alcohol monopoly, and a Swedish
clothing retailer, by default, and all other actors are fit-
ted around these major players. Even though both of
the largest retailers, as well as the national alcohol
monopoly had their representatives at the Cuckoo’s
Nest workshop, none of the groups suggested this tradi-
tional compilation. This is not to say the final shopping
centre will not host these major players; in all likeli-
hood, it will. However, in the business ecosystem cre-
ated in the workshop, the smaller actors had equal
weight as the larger players, despite the existing power
relations.
The strong focus on the technological identity of the
Otaniemi campus and the unwillingness to place tradi-
tional shops in the shopping centre was made possible
by the principles described above. Meanwhile, the di-
versity of workshop participants likely contributed to
the focus on small pop-up services and startups in the
Health Park workshop outcomes. Within the conservat-
ive field of healthcare, radical innovations tend to come
from smaller actors outside the field.
Conclusions
Although neither of the two projects will be realized ex-
actly as envisioned in the workshops, some ideas have
translated into reality in the projects. The Otaniemi
Metro Centre workshop participants met again one
month later for a follow-up discussion. The research
team presented the key outcomes of the workshop and
future trends in shopping centres in general. The con-
struction of the Otaniemi Metro Centre has started, and
discussions with potential tenants are ongoing. For the
Ruskeasuo Health Park case, the research team met
with the owner and the owner’s consultant after the
workshop to discuss the outcomes. Inspired by the
workshop, the Health Park now hosts third-party associ-
ations and small startups based on new health techno-
logies.
Finally, based on the two Cuckoo’s Nest workshop
cases, it seems that when the individuals are given free-
dom and independence to ideate without any con-
straints, or without the need to directly benefit their
own organization, they innately focus on the "common
good". The end-result of the process is a value-creating
business ecosystem, which has the capacity to create
value even for decades, adapt to ever-changing context
by renewing itself, and initiate new value-creating activ-
ities in the future.
Technology Innovation Management Review December 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 12)
36
www.timreview.ca
About the Authors
Karlos Artto is a Professor and Lead of Project Busi-
ness at Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland. Dr.
Artto’s long experience working in industry and the
multiple research projects he conducted with global
firms and domestic organizations provide a strong
empirical basis for his academic achievements. His
publications include more than 50 articles in refer-
eed journals and more than 200 academic papers,
book chapters, and books on project business and
the management of project-based firms. He belongs
to editorial boards of several project management
journals. Dr. Artto has supervised 12 doctoral disser-
tations and more than 180 master’s theses.
Riikka Kyrö is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Aalto
University School of Science, Finland. Dr. Kyrö
earned an M Sc in Real Estate Economics in 2005
from the Helsinki University of Technology and a
DrSc (Tech) in Real Estate Business in 2013 from the
Aalto University School of Engineering. Outside aca-
demia, she has six years of industry experience work-
ing with environmental consulting and
sustainability in corporate real estate management.
Dr. Kyrö has published nearly 30 academic articles
in the field of the built environment.
Tuomas Ahola is an Assistant Professor in the De-
partment of Industrial Management at the Tampere
University of Technology, Finland, as well as an Ad-
junct Professor of Project Management at the Nor-
wegian University of Science and Technology. Dr.
Ahola specializes in inter-organizational networks in
the context of project business. He has published
more than 15 peer-reviewed journal articles. Dr.
Ahola lectures on various content areas of project
business for both academic and industry audiences.
Antti Peltokorpi is an Assistant Professor of Opera-
tions Management in Construction at Aalto Uni-
versity School of Engineering, Finland. Dr.
Peltokorpi holds a DrSc (Tech) in Operations Man-
agement from the Aalto University School of Sci-
ence. His research includes studies on service
innovations, service production strategies, and pro-
duction planning and control. Dr. Peltokorpi's re-
search interests include value creation in business
networks and supply chains, especially in the built
environment, the construction industry, and health-
care.
References
Autio, E., & Thomas, L. D. W. 2014. Innovation Ecosystems:
Implications for Innovation Management. In M. Dodgson, D. M.
Gann, & N. Phillips (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation
Management: 204–228. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199694945.013.012
Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. 2002. Network Power in Collaborative
Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3):
221–236.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100301
Bowen, S., McSeveny, K., Lockley, E., Wolstenholme, D., Cobb, M. &
Dearden, A. 2013. How Was It for You? Experiences of
Participatory Design in the UK Health Service. CoDesign, 9(4):
230–246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2013.846384
Broberg, O., Andersen, V., & Seim, R. 2011. Participatory Ergonomics
in Design Processes: The Role of Boundary Objects. Applied
Ergonomics, 42(3): 464–472.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.09.006
Brown, M., & Long, P. 2006. Trends in Learning Space Design. In D. G.
Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces: 9.1–9.11. Boulder, CO: Educause.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. 2011. How to Design a Winning
Business Model. Harvard Business Review, 89: 100–107.
Carmel-Gilfilen, C., & Portillo, M. 2016. Designing With Empathy:
Humanizing Narratives for Inspired Healthcare Experiences.
HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9(2):
130–146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1937586715592633
Chesbrough, H. 2003. The Logic of Open Innovation: Managing
Intellectual Property. California Management Review, 45(3): 33–58.
Chesbrough, H. 2007. Business Model Innovation: It's Not Just about
Technology Anymore. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6): 12–17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10878570710833714
Elf, M., Eldh, A. C., Malmqvist, I., Öhrn, K., & von Koch, L. 2016. Using
of Group-Modeling in Predesign Phase of New Healthcare
Environments: Stakeholder Experiences. HERD: Health
Environments Research & Design Journal, 9(2): 68–81.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1937586715599650
Forester, J. 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging
Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hakanen, T., & Jaakkola, E. 2012. Co-Creating Customer-Focused
Solutions within Business Networks: A Service Perspective. Journal
of Service Management, 23(4): 593–611.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564231211260431
The Cuckoo’s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities
Karlos Artto, Riikka Kyrö, Tuomas Ahola, Antti Peltokorpi, and Kristiina Sandqvist
Kristiina Sandqvist is a MA student in Collaborative
and Industrial Design at Aalto University School of
Arts, Design and Architecture in Finland. Ms.
Sandqvist has industry experience as a service de-
signer and is interested in the development and ap-
plication of co-creation methods as well as the
emerging roles of designers as facilitators.
Technology Innovation Management Review December 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 12)
37
www.timreview.ca
Citation: Artto, K., Kyrö, R., Ahola, T., Peltokorpi, A., & Sandqvist, K. 2016. The Cuckoo's Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in
Smart Cities. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(12): 26–37. http://timreview.ca/article/1039
Keywords: business ecosystem, business network, campus development, co-creation, collective action, co-design, Cuckoo’s Nest Approach,
participatory planning, sustainability, smart cities
Horelli, L. (Ed.). 2013. New Approaches to Urban Planning – Insights
from Participatory Communities. Helsinki: Aalto University.
Keysey, K. 1962. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. New York: Viking
Press.
Kjolle, H. V., & Blakstad, S. H. 2014. Architects and End Users:
Boundary Objects in Participatory Briefing and Design. Nordisk
arktekturforskning (Nordic Journal of Architecture), 26(1): 35–64.
Kyrö, R., Peltokorpi, A.m & Artto, K. 2016. Engaging End-Users for
Sustainable Repurposing and Improved Occupancy. In
Proceedings of CIB World Building Congress WBC16, May 2016,
Tampere, Finland.
Kyrö, R., & Artto, K. 2015. The Development Path of an Academic Co-
working Space on Campus Case Energy Garage. Procedia
Economics and Finance, 21: 431–438.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00196-3
Luck, R. 2003. Dialogue in Participatory Design. Design Studies, 24(6):
523–535.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00040-1
Mäenpää, S., Suominen, A. H., & Breite, R. 2016. Boundary Objects as
Part of Knowledge Integration for Networked Innovation.
Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(10): 25–36.
https://timreview.ca/article/1025
Niemi, R., Rytkönen, E., Eriksson, R., & Nenonen, S. 2015. Scaling
Spatial Transformation: Smart Specialization of Urban
Capabilities in the Helsinki Region. Technology Innovation
Management Review, 5(10): 42–51.
https://timreview.ca/article/936
Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the
Theory of Groups. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of
Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Perkins, N. H. 2013. Including Patients, Staff and Visitors in the
Design of the Psychiatric Milieu: Notes from the Field. Facilities,
31(9/10): 379–390.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632771311324945
Redström, J. 2006. Towards User Design? On the Shift from Object to
User as the Subject of Design. Design Studies, 27(2): 123–139.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.06.001
Ritala, P., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Nätti, S. 2012. Coordination
in Innovation-Generating Business Networks-The Case of Finnish
Mobile TV Development. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 27(4): 324–334.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621211221698
Rytkönen, E. 2015. University Campuses in Spatial Transformation: A
Business Model Typology of Case Aalto University. Facilities,
33(13/14): 794–818.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-04-2014-0042
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. 2008. Co-Creation and the New
Landscape of Design. CoDesign: 41(1): 5–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
Sanoff, H. 2000. Community Participation Methods in Design and
Planning. New York: John Wiley.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R., F. 2004. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic
for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1): 1–17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
The Cuckoo’s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities
Karlos Artto, Riikka Kyrö, Tuomas Ahola, Antti Peltokorpi, and Kristiina Sandqvist
... The external change that is facilitating the development of living labs is the ability for a range of stakeholders to become freely involved in the process of innovation [100]. The service-dominant logic [48], open innovation [101], user innovation [29], user-centered design [102] or even social (rather than economic) innovation [103] have become possible due to the ability to create communities of interest for almost anyone. ...
... Because of this commitmentfacilitated by the knowledge economy and technological developments-living labs are footloose. They can be on campus [59,71,73,[106][107][108][109], off campus [9], in an STP [48], on a high street [110], local [65,90,97,111,112], precinct scale [113], urban [100,[114][115][116][117][118], suburban [40,66], rural [15], regional [101,105], peripheral [119] or city scale [68,99,102,116,[120][121][122][123]. They can also be virtual [124]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The increasingly entrepreneurial intent of universities implies the commercialization of knowledge and innovation through the triple helix of interactions between universities, industry and government. However, there remains a lack of clarity concerning best practice partnerships for innovation. This systematic literature review (SLR) provides insights onto the development of partnerships at the university–industry–government nexus and builds on the existing top-down/bottom-up approach for the creation of intermediaries of innovation. The SLR describes the evolution of these intermediaries, which is driven both by criteria set by partners and the globalization of the knowledge economy. This SLR reveals that the partnership structure most likely to further economic and broader societal goals is the living lab with the inherent focus on open innovation and co-creation. This SLR reveals that the living lab structure (and including sustainability labs and urban living labs) is the partnership structure utilized for innovation that addresses economic, social and environmental goals. Two areas are recommended for further research. One concerns the development of a deeper understanding of the relationship between the evolution in the structures of partnerships for innovation and how it is influenced by the globalization of the economy, society and environment, and changing modes of knowledge production. The other is to better understand why the living lab approach to partnership creation is best suited to the delivery of sustainable development objectives and how this learning can be applied to other models of partnership development at the university–industry–government nexus.
Article
Full-text available
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are being heralded by governments and international organizations as a means of augmenting co-production of public services and a number of major initiatives are being rolled out around the world. In parallel to these activities, a body of scholarly work is emerging that investigates the extent to which ICTs enable, or, pose a barrier to, public service co-production. This paper performs the first systematic review of this emerging literature, and provides insights into the main structural and cultural factors which act as an enabler of, or barrier to, ICT-enabled co-production across government and citizens world-wide.
Article
Full-text available
With the advent of smart cities (SCs), governance has been placed at the core of the debate on how to create public value and achieve a high quality of life in urban environments. In particular, given that public value is rooted in democratic theory and new technologies that promote networking spaces have emerged, citizen participation represents one of the principal instruments to make government open and close to the citizenry needs. Participation in urban governance has undergone a great development: from the first postmodernist ideals of countering expert dominance to today’s focus on learning and social innovation, where citizen participation is conceptualized as co-creation and co-production. Despite this development, there is a lack of research to know how this new governance context is taking place in the SC arena. Addressing this situation, in this article, we present an exhaustive survey of the research literature and a deep study of the experience in participative initiatives followed by SCs in Europe. Through an analysis of 149 SC initiatives from 76 European cities, we provide interesting insights about how participatory models have been introduced in the different areas and dimensions of the cities, how citizen engagement is promoted in SC initiatives, and whether the so-called creative SCs are those with a higher number of projects governed in a participatory way.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Participatory smart cities promote urban development and transformation by involving citizens and communities in participation and co-production exercises. However, to take advantage of the citizens' contribution to the success of smart city initiatives, interaction-defined and participation-based governance infrastructures should be implemented that return power to the people. An exploratory study shows that how the smart city collaborative/participatory govern-ance questions the traditional power relationships between city governments and citizens is a still underexplored topic. The paper aims to help bridge this theoretical gap by discussing citizens' co-production in smart city initiatives from the point of view of the power relationships. The main point of the paper is that to leverage the citizens' active contribution to develop a smart city, the power relationships between the city government and the citizens should be rebalanced, which entails a shift from a power-over domination-based logic to a power-with interactive and collaboration-based logic.
Article
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are being heralded by governments and international organizations as a means of augmenting co-production of public services and a number of major initiatives are being rolled out around the world. In parallel to these activities, a body of scholarly work is emerging that investigates the extent to which ICTs enable, or, pose a barrier to, public service co-production. This paper performs the first systematic review of this emerging literature, and provides insights into the main structural and cultural factors which act as an enabler of, or barrier to, ICT-enabled co-production across government and citizens world-wide.
Article
Purpose The smart city idea refers to new ways of organising city functions and urban life, which are believed to move production and consumption from global to local, manufacturing from competitive to collaborative, and business from a shareholder to a multiple-stakeholder point of view. Most previous research has focused on the societal level of smart cities, while less seems to be known about the management of business as part of smart cities. This paper presents a literature review on the state of the art of management research on smart cities. The following research question is addressed: How has previous research captured the management of organisations in smart cities? Design/methodology/approach A literature review using the search term “smart city/cities” in research on business, management and operational management was conducted for the purpose of capturing previous research. Findings were coded based on main ideas, central concepts and theories, thematic content of the articles related to the main ideas underpinning smart cities (digitalization, urbanization, and sustainability as antecedents, and local, collaborative and multiple-stakeholder manufacturing as indicators), and units of analysis. Findings The paper points to how most studies on the management of organisations as part of smart cities focus on sustainability and how digitalisation enables new businesses. Collaborative efforts are emphasised and the theoretical framing is fragmented. Issues related to the organising of business is also not problematised and the business network approach could, as discussed in the paper, provide valuable insights related to the collaborative efforts of organisations and the multiple-stakeholder perspective. Originality/value The paper is the first to capture and present an overview of previous research on the management of business as part of smart cities. Research on smart cities has focused on the policy and societal levels, and so far there is a lack of problematisation on how organisations may act, and potentially change their way of acting, should smart cities become a reality.
Article
Full-text available
Societies are shifting towards more complex structures and agile networks through spatial transformation. That shift affects the ways in which citizens interact with and within their physical and virtual surroundings. The interactions define purposes for the modern hybrid spaces, depending on individual demands in relation to space and time. As facilities per se are becoming less relevant, spatial concepts and service that support, attract, and engage modern individuals must be invented. The capabilities of user-orientated processes are important in terms of connectivity, co-creation, and communication, involvement in change, and control as well as governance. This article explores the potential scaling in diverse spatial transformations and summarizes the lessons learned from managing a campus as a small city to managing a larger-scale urban area. The study uses a case study methodology: the data was collected through interviews and document analysis. The framework of five urban capabilities (5Cs), which were initially introduced by the urbanist John Worthington, guided the content analysis of data. The results indicate that the lessons learned in the diverse urban projects can be scaled from a minor urban-area campus to a large urban area. Users of spaces have a need and will to collaborate, co-create, and impact their environments. This view expands the roles of decision makers and planners to controlling the uses of spaces for supporting grassroot initiatives. Consequently, active citizens engage and contribute, which can be a driving force for co-creation, shared ownership, and attractiveness of small- and large-scale areas.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the impacts of spatial transformation in the Network Society on facilities management principles in the context of an interdisciplinary university campus. Design/methodology/approach – This study reports a holistic case study with eight embedded units in one interdisciplinary university campus in Finland through a business model approach. Findings – The findings propose that spatial development projects should be examined holistically on three facilitation layers, namely, social, physical and virtual, through five business model lenses of Offering, Customers, Revenue Streams, Resources, and Cost Structure. Based on the findings, four main business model types can be identified and distinguished mainly in terms of collaborating with different partners and supporting a different core task of the university. Research limitations/implications – The cases are highly context-dependent, and their business models are ever evolving, which is why the dynamics of the development processes should be studied in more detail. The types of business models differ fundamentally, which is why their evaluation criteria could be tailored accordingly. Practical implications – The results suggest that the spatial transformation requires multiple supporting processes and principles, expanding the roles of the campus managers: finding a balance between localization and globalization, and individualism and communalism; collaborating with internal and external parties; identifying potential grass root spatial development projects to be supported; and engaging users in their expertise. The strengthening impact of social facilitation is capable of opening new business opportunities. Originality/value – This study indicates that the spatial transformation is happening in practice and offers guidelines for dynamically reacting to it from the facilities management perspective.
Article
Full-text available
Current research shows a relationship between healthcare architecture and patient-related outcomes. The planning and designing of new healthcare environments is a complex process. The needs of the various end users of the environment must be considered, including the patients, the patients' significant others, and the staff. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of healthcare professionals participating in group modeling utilizing system dynamics in the predesign phase of new healthcare environments. We engaged healthcare professionals in a series of workshops using system dynamics to discuss the planning of healthcare environments in the beginning of a construction and then interviewed them about their experience. An explorative and qualitative design was used to describe participants' experiences of participating in the group-modeling projects. Participants (N = 20) were recruited from a larger intervention study using group modeling and system dynamics in planning and designing projects. The interviews were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Two themes were formed, representing the experiences in the group-modeling process: "Participation in the group modeling generated knowledge and was empowering" and "Participation in the group modeling differed from what was expected and required the dedication of time and skills." The method can support participants in design teams to focus more on their healthcare organization, their care activities, and their aims rather than focusing on detailed layout solutions. This clarification is important when decisions about the design are discussed and prepared and will most likely lead to greater readiness for future building process. © The Author(s) 2015.
Article
Full-text available
Over the past few years, shared spaces for students, entrepreneurs and faculty have become popular on university campuses. This study aims at increasing understanding on how a new co-working space is developed on campus, and what the different stakeholders’ roles are in the development process. The single case study is a recently emerged ‘learning, networking, and innovation platform’ for energy, named the Energy Garage. The Energy Garage is available to all university students, faculty, and businesses with an interest in energy related topics. Using archived material and interviews with key stakeholders, the study analyses the development path of the Energy Garage, placing special focus on the role of students during the different phases. The study finds that, while the initiative for Energy Garage came from faculty, students have successfully been given a major role in the planning and operational management of the space. The findings provide an insight into other similar initiatives, which continue to gain popularity on university campuses.
Article
Companies have traditionally managed innovation as an internal process, relying upon their own skills and capabilities. However, this closed approach to innovation is no longer viable in a period of rapid diffusion of commercially valuable knowledge. If leading firms are to retain their capacity for innovation, they must begin to manage intellectual property via the logic of open innovation. Such an approach is much more fluid, emphasizing both the use of R&D produced outside the firm and the development of internal systems to reward commercially viable innovation within the firm.