Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Ruoslahti,
H.
Complexity
in
project
co-creation
of
knowledge
for
innovation.
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
(2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.12.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JIK-126;
No.
of
Pages
8
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
xxx
(2020)
xxx–xxx
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-innovation-and-knowledge
Regular
article
Complexity
in
project
co-creation
of
knowledge
for
innovation
Harri
Ruoslahti∗
Laurea
University
of
Applied
Sciences,
University
of
Jyväskylä,
Finland
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
19
June
2019
Accepted
19
December
2019
Available
online
xxx
JEL
classification:
H8
L0
M0
O3
Keywords:
Co-creation
Innovation
projects
Complexity
Time-to-innovation
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
The
European
Union
(EU)
promotes
collaboration
across
functions
and
borders
in
its
funded
innovation
projects,
which
are
seen
as
complex
collaboration
to
co-create
knowledge.
This
requires
the
engagement
of
multiple
stakeholders
throughout
the
duration
of
the
project.
To
probe
complexity
in
EU-funded
inno-
vation
projects
the
research
question
is:
How
does
complexity
affect
the
co-creation
of
knowledge
in
innovation
projects,
according
to
project
participants?
The
data
for
this
study
was
collected
from
project
experts
in
the
form
of
short
narratives,
using
a
questionnaire
based
on
the
elements
of
complexity
of
Mitleton-Kelly
(2003).
The
results
indicate
that
complexity
characterises
the
co-creation
of
knowl-
edge
in
innovation
projects
in
various
ways.
Most
emphasis
was
put
on
the
elements
Self-organisation,
Connectivity
and
interdependence,
Co-evolution,
and
Creation
of
new
order.
Thus,
although
this
study
demonstrates
that
the
elements
of
complexity
can
be
used
to
gain
insight
into
innovation
projects,
the
results
show
that
not
all
elements
of
complexity
are
equally
important
in
this
context
and
that
they
appear
in
a
certain
order.
Moreover,
understanding
the
complexity
of
collaboration
for
innovation
in
relation
to
the
input-throughput-output
model
of
organisational
communication
is
a
contribution
to
theory
that
may
help
future
projects
achieve
faster
innovation.
©
2020
Journal
of
Innovation
&Knowledge.
Published
by
Elsevier
Espa?a,
S.L.U.
This
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
CC
BY-NC-ND
license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Introduction
The
European
Union
(EU)
promotes
collaboration
across
func-
tions
and
borders,
and
involving
multiple
authorities,
academics,
practitioners,
and
industry.
The
aim
is
to
enhance
innovation
and
thus,
increase
the
competitive
advantage
of
Europe
(European
Commission,
2016).
For
example,
the
Horizon
2020
program
calls
for
European
research
and
development
initiatives
that
are
expected
to
strengthen
European
collaboration
for
innovation
(European
Commission,
2019).
These
EU-funded
innovation
projects
can
be
seen
as
complex
forms
of
cooperation
aimed
at
the
co-
creation
of
knowledge,
a
process
in
which
multiple
stakeholders
with
diverse
backgrounds
participate
(Ruoslahti,
2018).
Aaltonen
and
Sanders
(2005)
note
that
complexity
can
be
used
as
a
framework
of
sense
making.
Systems
emerge
through
interaction
between
its
agents,
the
peo-
ple,
processes,
technology,
governance,
etc.
(Aaltonen
&
Sanders,
2005),
however
these
emergent
systems
cannot
be
led
by
just
one
agent.
This
principle
can
be
applied
to
innovation
projects,
which
operate
through
collaboration
“facilitating
reciprocal
learning
and
co-evolution
between
the
partners”
(Mitleton-Kelly,
2005,
p.
38).
In
∗Corresponding
author.
E-mail
address:
harri.ruoslahti@laurea.fi
projects,
various
partners
try
to
make
sense
of
challenges,
including
diverse
input
to
co-create
innovations.
Diverse
input
can
facilitate
knowledge
creation
and
innovation
in
complex
problem-solving
(Valkokari,
Paasi,
&
Rantala,
2012).
EU-funded
innovation
projects
often
involve
a
high
number
of
participants
with
very
different
backgrounds
from
industry,
uni-
versities,
governments,
and
civil
society.
They
have,
therefore,
been
characterized
as
complex.
This
may
lead
to
a
bureaucratic
burden,
but
complexity
can
also
be
seen
as
a
positive
characteristic.
Bassett-
Jones
(2005)
for
example,
concludes
that,
diversity
can
enhance
creativity
and
innovation,
although
when
managed
poorly,
it
can
also
be
“a
cause
of
misunderstanding,
suspicion
and
conflict”
(p.
169).
Creativity,
the
source
of
new
ideas
and
creative
processes,
“is
a
complex
and
diffuse
construct”,
write
Alves,
Marques,
Saur,
and
Marques,
2007
(p.
28),
and
continue
to
note
that
“multidisciplinary
and
multisectoral
networks
can
play
important
roles
in
members’
competitiveness”
(p.
32),
as
diverse
input
helps
facilitate
innova-
tion
and
complex
problem-solving.
Based
on
experiences
of
several
EU-funded
projects,
this
study
aims
to
further
clarify
how
complexity
affects
the
functioning
of
innovation
projects
and,
in
particular,
time
to
innovation.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.12.004
2444-569X/©
2020
Journal
of
Innovation
&Knowledge.
Published
by
Elsevier
Espa?a,
S.L.U.
This
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
CC
BY-NC-ND
license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Ruoslahti,
H.
Complexity
in
project
co-creation
of
knowledge
for
innovation.
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
(2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.12.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JIK-126;
No.
of
Pages
8
2
H.
Ruoslahti
/
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
xxx
(2020)
xxx–xxx
Innovation
projects
This
section
looks
at
innovation
networks,
complex
co-creation,
innovation
projects,
and
organisational
communication
in
the
con-
text
of
EU-funded
innovation.
Multi-stakeholder
projects
EU-funded
innovation
projects
are
multi-stakeholder
projects.
Franco
and
Pinho
(2019)
note
that
innovation
needs
research
that
creates
technological
advancements
and
new
and
improved
products.
These
projects
are
required
to
include
multiple
actors
representing
e.g.
end-user,
industry,
and
academic
organisations
in
their
consortia
(European
Commission,
2019).
When
organisa-
tions
come
together,
“there
should
be
emphasis
on
post-merger
relationships,
and
the
development
of
an
emergent
culture
to
sup-
port
the
new
organisational
form”
(Mitleton-Kelly,
2005,
p.
39).
Although
her
study
focuses
on
mergers
and
acquisitions,
the
princi-
ple
could
be
useful
to
apply
also
to
forming
project
consortia.
Thus,
the
innovation
network
stakeholders
need
to
put
enough
emphasis
on
discussing
what
expectations
they
have
for
their
relationships
and
the
emergent
culture
during
the
innovation
project.
Projects
may
come
with
internal
crises
and,
therefore,
form
a
turbulent
envi-
ronment
for
several
years
in
time,
and
“as
many
crises
combine
different
kinds
of
threats,
cooperation
with
other
actors
is
needed
for
their
mitigation”
(Vos,
2017).
Networks
of
relationships
are
sus-
tained
through
communication,
feedback,
and
inter-dependence.
“When
they
meet
a
constraint
they
are
able
to
explore
the
space
of
possibilities
and
find
a
different
way
of
doing
things,
i.e.
they
are
creative
and
innovative”
(Mitleton-Kelly,
2005,
p.
45).
Stakeholder
management
offers
some
systematic
approaches
to
organise
the
relationship
between
organisations
and
the
stakehold-
ers
involved
(Roloff,
2008).
Innovation
projects
can
also
be
studied
as
systems;
and
systems
cannot
be
understood
by
analysing
their
parts
separately,
write
Aaltonen
and
Sanders
(2005),
their
global
features
should
be
seen
as
a
whole.
Understanding
knowledge
co-
creation
is
important,
as
innovation
and
creativity
are
sources
of
competitive
advantage
(Bagayogo,
Lapointe,
Ramaprasad,
&
Vedel,
2014).
Organisations
explore
alternative
ways
of
working
toward
their
tasks
(Mitleton-Kelly,
2005),
and
can
identify
opportunities
for
encounters
that
support
the
co-creation
of
value
in
business
by
mapping
end-user
processes
and
practices
(Payne,
Storbacka,
&
Frow,
2008).
Consequently,
managing
creative
knowledge
capital
is
about
“providing
the
conditions
and
circumstances
for
creativity
and
innovativeness”
(Wilenius,
2008,
p.
66).
To
create
new
knowl-
edge
Nonaka
and
Takeuchi
(1995)
advocate
dynamic
interactions
between
stakeholders.
Multi-stakeholder
networks
are
organisational
structures,
which
allow
collective
innovation
over
organisational
and
national
boundaries.
Objectives
and
actions
in
multi-stakeholder
networks
become
negotiated
by
the
participants,
as
their
participation
is
vol-
untary
(Roloff,
2008).
Collaboration
for
co-creation
of
knowledge
and
innovation
calls
for
a
common
problem,
and
ideally,
also
end-users
are
engaged
to
participate
actively
(Ruoslahti,
2018).
The
roles
of
the
stakeholders
may
change
over
time.
For
example,
end-users
are
often
active
in
the
beginning
when
project
requirements
are
set,
and
they
may
also
be
involved
in
the
development
and
testing
of
solutions.
Managers
predominantly
see
co-creation
as
a
way
to
generate
ideas
for
new
products
and
services
(Frow,
Nenonen,
Payne,
&
Storbacka,
2015).
Organisations
(e.g.
projects)
that
aim
at
innovation
benefit
from
networked
environments
that
encourage
and
facilitate
exploration
of
the
space
of
possibilities
(Mitleton-Kelly,
2005,
p.
50).
To
ensure
open
communication
enabling
co-creation
of
knowledge,
an
innovation
network
needs
to
manage
engaging
its
stakeholders
throughout
the
project,
and
be
aware
that
this
takes
both
time
and
effort.
Complexity
of
funded
projects
Innovation
projects
are
networks
that
aim
at
co-creative
col-
laboration.
They
need
facilitation
and
cooperation
tools.
When
network
stakeholders
agree
on
common
aims
which
also
per-
mit
each
stakeholder
to
reach
individual
goals,
they
are
already
co-creating.
These
common
aims
promote
active
stakeholder
par-
ticipation.
This
helps
co-create
knowledge
and
innovation.
In
turn,
and
collaboration
is
strengthened
by
bonds
of
trust
within
the
value
network
(Ruoslahti,
2018).
Open
innovation
is
based
on
voluntary
collaboration
and
is,
thus,
self-organising
(Leminen,
Westerlund,
&
Nyström,
2012).
EU-
funded
project
consortia
include
collaboration
between
different
types
of
partners:
businesses,
public
authorities,
universities,
and
end-users
(Valkokari
et
al.,
2012).
While
co-creation
results
from
complex
interactions
between
the
various
network
actors,
and
even
resource
integration
(Pinho,
Beirão,
Patrício,
&
Fisk,
2014),
commu-
nication
becomes
co-constructed
by
multiple
stakeholders,
who
have
different
interests
and
often
many
interdependencies
(Vos,
2017).
As
knowledge
co-creation
is
a
main
source
of
innovation
and
creativity
in
organisations
(Bagayogo
et
al.,
2014),
co-creation
to
develop
innovation
can
be
promoted
by
organisational
cultures
that
favour
innovativeness
and
participation
of
end-users
(Santos-
Vijande,
González-Mieres,
&
López-Sánchez,
2013).
Responding
to
and
influencing
emerging
events
allows
an
organisation
to
influ-
ence
its
future
(Aaltonen
&
Sanders,
2005),
while
Pirinen
(2015)
notes
that
knowledge
is
important
for
the
competitive
advantage
of
modern
organisations.
Knowledge
strengthens
the
collective
expertise
needed
in
today’s
competitive
global
economy.
Criteria
for
innovation
projects
by
the
European
Commission
include
the
involvement
if
user
communities,
evidence
of
reduced
time
or
costs
to
meet
innovation
purposes,
and
intensity
of
technol-
ogy
and
information
exchanges.
Understanding
the
different
ways
of
working
and
the
motivation
of
the
different
partners
is
needed
to
understand
collaboration
between
multiple
actors
in
innova-
tion
networks
(Valkokari
et
al.,
2012).
According
to
Mitleton-Kelly
(2005)
distributed
leadership
means
that
every
participant
feels
responsibility
to
explore
possibilities
and
take
initiatives
that
fit
the
overall
strategic
direction.
According
to
Aaltonen
and
Sanders
(2005),
in
the
currently
fast
changing
environments
organisations
must
understand
their
history
and
make
sense
of
both
future
devel-
opments
and
how
to
influence
these.
Organisations
make
use
of
knowledge
to
anticipate
future
needs
(Wilenius,
2008)
and,
simi-
larly,
innovation
projects
could
act
in
a
future-
oriented
way.
According
Poutanen,
Siira,
and
Aula
(2016)
communication
the-
ories
and
complexity
theory
have
common
roots.
Communication
can
be
considered
a
central
means
to
coordinate
organisational
activities,
to
achieve
organisational
goals,
and
support
a
process
of
organizing.
Innovation
projects
as
human
systems
are
self-
organising
entities.
This
begins
already
at
the
project
idea
and
proposal
phases.
People
exchange
ideas,
ways
of
working
and
relating.
Projects,
as
human
systems,
can
co-evolve
and
co-create
something
that
could
possibly
not
have
be
predicted
at
the
outset
(Mitleton-Kelly,
2005).
Poutanen
et
al.
(2016)
find
that
many
of
the
complexity-based
studies
that
they
examined,
emphasize
communication
as
infor-
mation
exchange
that
supports
knowledge
creation
by
networks
of
actors.
Co-creative
social
interaction
and
knowledge
sharing
raise
the
need
for
new
competencies
for
those
experts
and
professionals
sharing
competences
in
networks
(Pirinen,
2015).
End-users
should
be
active
participants
in
value
co-creation
when
designing
products
or
services
(Allen,
Bailetti,
&
Tanev,
2009).
The
processes
to
build
knowledge
and
innovation
are
“increasingly
complex,
multidisci-
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Ruoslahti,
H.
Complexity
in
project
co-creation
of
knowledge
for
innovation.
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
(2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.12.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JIK-126;
No.
of
Pages
8
H.
Ruoslahti
/
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
xxx
(2020)
xxx–xxx
3
plinary,
trust-based,
co-created,
path-depended,
and
globalized”
(Pirinen,
2015,
p.
323).
Co-creation
of
knowledge
calls
for
group
dynamics
in
collaboration.
Understanding
this
is
“of
particular
importance
in
this
age
where
innovation
and
creativity
have
become
a
source
of
competitive
advantage”
(Bagayogo
et
al.,
2014,
p.
632).
This
also
relates
to
having
a
clear
purpose,
roles
and
com-
mon
ways
of
working
in
the
project.
Building
trust
among
the
stakeholders,
with
leadership,
facilitation,
and
a
back-up
system
for
representatives
enhance
an
open
flow
of
communication
(Rajamäki
&
Ruoslahti,
2018).
Project
organisations
need
to
be
resilient
for
continuity
also
in
case
of
disturbances
(Rajamäki
&
Ruoslahti,
2018).
Similar
to
a
resilient
organisation,
the
project
organisation
needs
the
abil-
ity
“to
accommodate
several
heterogeneous
cultures,
provided
that
there
is
overall
coherence
that
provides
unity
of
purpose
and/or
values”
(Mitleton-Kelly,
2005,
p.
47).
Polyphony
and
diver-
sity
in
organisations
are
highlighted
in
the
complexity
perspective.
Continuous
balancing
of
opposing
tendencies
and
preservation
of
diversity
require
skills,
write
Poutanen
et
al.
(2016).
Mitleton-
Kelly
(2005)
brings
up
the
notion
of
co-evolutionary
integration
to
explain
that
where
organisations
cooperate
the
new
organ-
isation
inherits
characteristics
from
each
constituting
entity.
In
innovation
projects
multiple
stakeholders
together
try
to
make
sense
of
challenges
in
business
and
society,
sharing
experiences
to
bring
about
innovations.
These
projects
can
be
seen
as
com-
plex
evolving
systems,
a
concept
used
by
Mitleton-Kelly
(2003)
to
describe
organisations
characterized
by
various
elements
of
complexity
including,
for
example,
the
level
of
interconnected-
ness
of
the
parts
of
the
system.
Altogether,
she
mentions
ten
elements
of
complexity,
discussed
also
by
Aaltonen
and
Sanders
(2005).
In
this
paper,
the
elements
of
complexity
by
Mitleton-Kelly
(2003)
are
used
to
make
sense
of
the
complexity
of
innova-
tion
projects,
where
partners
come
together
(Connectivity
and
interdependence),
to
agree
on
roles,
goals,
and
ways
of
working
(Self-organisation).
All
project
partners
bring
their
individual
and
common
histories
into
the
collaboration
(Historicity),
and
together
they
explore
possibilities
to
reach
innovative
results
and
cre-
ate
new
knowledge
(Exploration-of-the-Space-of-Possibilities).
The
project
consortium
makes
decisions
on
which
path
to
take,
pre-
sented
in
the
project
proposal
and
further
plans
(Path
dependence).
Interaction
is
used
to
re-focus
the
project
plans
(Feedback),
as
the
project
will
encounter
changes,
both,
in
its
environment
and
among
the
partners
(Far-from-equilibrium).
The
project
partners
continue
working
together
and
influencing
each
other
(Co-evolution)
and,
consequently,
new
innovations
can
emerge
from
the
workflow
among
the
consortium
partners
(Emergence),
while
the
knowledge
gained
is
disseminated
and
new
collaborative
structures
are
cre-
ated
(Creation
of
new
order).
In
this
study
the
focus
is
on
innovation
projects
with
EU-funding.
Projects
create
knowledge
for
innovation
Research
and
development
collaborations
ultimately
aim
at
cre-
ating
knowledge
(Matt,
Robin,
&
Wolff,
2012).
“Innovation
is
as
an
idea,
practice,
behaviour,
or
artefact
that
is
perceived
as
being
new
by
the
adopting
unit”
(Eservel,
2014,
806).
It
is
a
competitive
advantage
(Bagayogo
et
al.,
2014)
that
is
increasingly
important
for
researchers
and
practitioners
(Eservel,
2014),
as
the
EU
calls
for
Europe-wide
innovation
by
its
current
Horizon
2020
funding
programme
(European
Commission,
2019).
New
opportunities
for
change
are
constantly
emerging
(Aaltonen
&
Sanders,
2005)
for
organisations
and
projects
alike.
“In
turbulent,
surprising,
con-
tinuously
evolving
marketplace
environments
only
flexible,
agile,
and
relentlessly
dynamic
organisations
will
thrive”
(Lengnick-Hall,
Beck,
&
Lengnick-Hall,
2011,
p.
243),
as
risks
in
network
collabora-
tion
cannot
be
avoided,
only
reduced.
(Vos,
2017),
while
knowledge
creation
processes
can
be
significantly
impacted
by
disseminating
knowledge
through
collaboration
(Abubakar,
Elrehail,
Alatailat,
&
Elc¸i,
2017).
EU-funded
projects
are
co-creation
networks
formed
by
research
and
development
consortia,
and
knowledge
management
in
networked
innovation
calls
for
a
strategic
approach
(Valkokari
et
al.,
2012).
However,
“EU-funded
projects
are
likely
to
involve
a
higher
bureaucratic
burden
than
spontaneous
collaborations”
(Matt
et
al.,
2012,
p.
900).
Organisational
innovativeness
is
sup-
ported
by
co-creation
with
customers
(Luoma-aho
et
al.,
2012),
and,
when
developing
services
and
processes
networking
is
considered
especially
important
(Tikanmäki,
Tuohimaa,
&
Ruoslahti,
2012),
as
in
co-creation
“designers
and
users
engage
in
mutual
enabling
roles”
(Kummitha,
2019,
p.
108).
Similarly,
in
EU-projects
the
role
of
end-users
is
emphasised.
Thus,
ensuring
that
the
consortium
project
fulfils
end-user
needs
calls
for
active
on-going
end-user
communication,
co-
creating
products
and
services
with
end-users
(Miettinen
&
Koivisto,
2009).
Major
problems
occur
when
organisations
are
put
together,
ignoring
the
diversity
of
people
and
cultures,
for
example,
by
a
lack
of
communication
with
stakeholders,
unclear
roles
and,
respon-
sibilities
(Mitleton-Kelly,
2005).
As
diversity
is
also,
according
to
Bassett-Jones
(2005),
“a
recognizable
source
of
creativity
and
inno-
vation
that
can
provide
a
basis
for
competitive
advantage”,
such
issues
need
to
be
taken
into
account
when
creating
innovation
projects.
To
increase
the
impact
of
the
project
commitment
and
active
participation,
already
in
the
early
stage
of
the
project
imple-
mentation,
by
partners
and
end-users
are
key
(Henriksson,
Harri,
&
Hyttinen,
2018).
EU-funded
innovation
projects
bring
together
organisations
and
professionals
who
usually
do
not
work
together.
In
this
way,
they
are
according
to
Norvanto
(2017),
p.
78)
a
unique
form
of
a
knowledge
community
enabling
the
participants
“to
enter
completely
new
domains
while
expanding
their
social
networks
and
learning
new
practices”.
Pirinen
(2015)
says
that
shared
exper-
tise
is
created,
taking
the
form
of
a
“body
of
knowledge
in
action”
(p.
327).
Co-creating
innovation
requires
dialogue
for
active
learning
processes
in
which
the
actors
mutually
affect
each
other
(Santos-
Vijande
et
al.,
2013).
Collaboration
in
EU-funded
innovation
projects
may
add
to
the
competencies
of
organisations
(Matt
et
al.,
2012).
Ruoslahti
and
Tikanmäki
(2017)
note
a
connection
between
the
elements
of
complexity
(Mitleton-Kelly,
2003)
and
the
time
that
it
takes
to
achieve
co-created
innovation:
“Added
complex-
ity
may
greatly
reduce
the
time
to
value
creation
and
innovation”
(p.
267).
This
may
be
a
crucial
success
factor
in
funded
innovation
projects,
as
they
have
pre-determined
periods
in,
which
to
achieve
their
results.
Vos
and
Schoemaker
(2004)
offer
a
process
model
that
divides
organisational
communication
into
three
phases:
input,
through-
put
and
output.
In
the
context
of
innovation
projects,
Input
communication,
for
example,
helps
involve
end-users
to
set
requirements,
Throughput
communication
facilitates
close
col-
laboration
and
knowledge
co-creation
for
innovation,
whereas
Output
communication
includes
disseminating
project
results
to
external
stakeholders
and
user
communities.
Vos
and
Schoemaker
(2004)
note
that
communication
contributes
to
value
creation
in
an
organisational
context
in
ways,
where
these
phases
are
not
linear
steps
but
rather
cyclically
interrelated
activities
in
often
chaotic
environments.
Distinguishing
between
these
three
types
of
communication
phases
can
help
understand
collaboration
within
innovation
projects
Most
EU-funded
projects
can
be
understood
as
co-creation
projects
benefiting
innovation
networks,
and
as
such
are
relatively
complex
and
can
be
more
or
less
diverse
(Ruoslahti,
2018).
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Ruoslahti,
H.
Complexity
in
project
co-creation
of
knowledge
for
innovation.
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
(2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.12.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JIK-126;
No.
of
Pages
8
4
H.
Ruoslahti
/
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
xxx
(2020)
xxx–xxx
Method
Based
on
experiences
of
several
EU-funded
projects,
this
study
aims
to
further
clarify
what
complexity
means
for
innovation
in
EU-
funded
projects.
Consequently,
the
research
question
of
this
study
is:
How
does
complexity
affect
the
co-creation
of
knowledge
in
innovation
projects,
according
to
project
participants?
The
research
focused
on
recent
EU-funded
innovation
projects
in
the
security
area.
The
six
projects
that
served
as
the
context
of
this
study
are:
1
Airborne
Information
for
Emergency
Situation
Awareness,
AIR-
BEAM,
2012–2015.
2
Automated
Border
Control
Gates
for
Europe,
ABC4EU,
2014–2018.
3
European
Test
Bed
for
the
Maritime
Common
Information
Shar-
ing,
EUCISE2020,
2014–2019.
4
Improving
the
Effectiveness
of
Capabilities
in
EU
Conflict
Preven-
tion,
IECEU,
2015–2018.
5
Gaming
for
Achieving
Peace,
GAP,
2016–2019.
6
Maritime
Integrated
Surveillance
Awareness,
MARISA,
2017–2019.
The
data
for
this
study
was
collected
by
expert
consultation,
as
such
a
qualitative
approach
can
provide
richness
and
depth
(Poutanen
et
al.,
2016).
Nine
experts
were
selected,
who
all
agreed
to
participate
in
this
study.
All
had
extensive
project
experience,
including
being
work
package
and
task
coordinator
in
one
or
more
of
the
EU-funded
projects
that
provided
the
context
for
this
study
and
are
listed
above.
All
project
consortia
consisted
of
various
part-
ners.
The
project
experts
were
approached
with
direct
requests
to
participate
as
respondents
in
this
study.
Eight
respondents
agreed
to
write
short
narratives
while
one
of
the
experts
preferred
to
be
interviewed
instead.
In
the
latter
case
the
researcher
reported
the
answers
in
a
similar
way.
Informed
consent
was
collected
from
each
participant
to
meet
with
the
principles
of
research
ethics.
To
ensure
the
anonymity
of
the
respondents,
their
comments
are
presented
in
a
way
that
they
cannot
be
attributed
to
or
be
interconnected
for
a
particular
respondent,
not
to
reveal
their
identity
and
affiliation.
The
respon-
dents
were
provided
with
a
questionnaire
consisting
of
11
open
questions.
For
each
question
they
were
asked
to
write
a
short
nar-
rative
on
their
views
related
to
the
EU-funded
innovation
project
they
were
part
of.
The
questions
were
based
on
the
ten
elements
of
complexity
by
Mitleton-Kelly
(2003).
The
data
was
collected
during
the
spring
of
2019.
The
narra-
tives
were
nicely
on
point,
per
question
up
to
230
words
in
length,
and
provided
the
insight
to
address
the
research
questions.
A
first
reading
of
the
material
showed
that
satisfaction
level
was
reached.
Next,
the
material
was
read
again
to
arrange
for
analysis
it
in
a
Data
Extraction
Table
(DET).
This
was
an
Excel
sheet,
where
the
rows
were
formed
by
the
respondents
and
the
columns
addressed
the
elements
of
complexity
as
explained
in
section
2.2.
The
units
of
analysis
were
phenomena
of
cooperation
that
were
identified
from
the
narratives
data.
The
analysis
focused
on
identifying
those
phenomena
that
occurred
more
often
in
the
data,
marking
citations
that
clearly
illustrated
what
the
elements
of
complexity
meant
in
the
context
of
innovation
projects.
Results
The
structure
of
this
Results
section
follows
the
elements
of
complexity
(Mitleton-Kelly,
2003;
Aaltonen
&
Sanders,
2005),
including
Connectivity
and
interdependence,
Self-organisation,
Historicity,
Exploration-of-the-space-of-possibilities,
Path
depen-
dence,
Feedback,
Far-from-equilibrium,
Co-
evolution,
Emergence,
and
Creation
of
new
order.
For
each
element,
a
short
description
is
given
based
on
the
author’s
explanation
but
in
this
case
applied
to
innovation
projects,
after
which
the
findings
are
presented.
Connectivity
&
interdependence
One
of
the
elements
of
complexity
concerns
interrelations,
in
this
case,
among
the
project
participants.
The
respondents
stress
that
in
order
to
create
innovation
value,
project
participants
need
to
collaborate
closely
in
the
project
to
deliver
output
through
joint
activities
for
the
planned
work
packages
and
tasks.
Thus,
partners
share
and
combine
their
different
areas
of
expertise
when
solving
real
case
problems.
Project
participants
stimulate
each
other
toward
broader
views.
When
working
in
parallel,
partners
depend
on
each
other
and
their
work
is
affected
if
they
have
to
wait
for
results
by
others.
The
respondents,
however,
also
note
that
some
innovation
project
part-
ners
may
compete
within
these
projects.
This
may
serve
to
blur
the
overall
innovation
goal,
and
even
prevent
the
consortium
pro-
ceeding
towards
it.
Thus,
some
respondents
noted
that
reaching
innovations
becomes
difficult
if
the
consortium
includes
compa-
nies
that
are
direct
competitors
in
the
market,
as
they
are
unwilling
to
openly
share
with
one
another.
The
respondents
strongly
feel
that
partners
in
innovation
projects
are
connected
and
interdependent.
One’s
performance
has
a
direct
effect
on
the
ability
of
others
to
perform
their
tasks,
as
project
output
is
compiled
by
combining
the
work
of
all
consor-
tium
participants.
Thus,
the
project
performance
of
one
partner
may
positively,
but
also
negatively,
influence
other
partners.
Self-organisation
Self-organisation
relates
to
spontaneous
order.
The
results
show
that
expert
project
partners
are
often
intrinsically
motivated
to
conduct
well
in
the
project,
and
by
doing
so
also
bring
expected
–
and
sometimes
unexpected
–
results.
“Well
planned
is
almost
done”,
notes
one
respondent.
A
project
can
gain
high-level
results,
when
the
project
proposal
is
well
planned
in
advance.
In
addition,
partner
motivation
and
expertise
are
important
in
gaining
good
results.
Workshops,
seminars,
and
questionnaires
are
proven
ways
of
working
together
to
identify
how
to
solve
issues,
note
the
respon-
dents.
It
shows
self-organisation
when
partners
come
together
to
address
issues
at
hand.
The
project
consortium
has
freedom
in
organising
project
work
packages,
tasks,
and
activities.
When
these
are
well
described
in
the
project
proposal,
the
consortium
has
a
better
chance
to
deliver
what
has
been
agreed,
once
the
project
becomes
funded.
Respon-
dents
note
that
the
level
of
self-
organisation
varies
from
project
to
project.
One
respondent
commented
that
most
projects
have
been
“really
well
organized”.
However,
also,
some
have
been
organised
poorly,
one
comment,
for
example
notes
that
participant
commit-
ment
may
greatly
differ:
“Having
worked
in
many
international
projects,
there
is
the
tendency
that
some
partners
in
consortia
can
follow
the
general
idea
and
plan
quite
well,
then
there
are
part-
ners
who
need
constant
reminding
of
their
duties,
and
there
are
partners
who
ignore
any
kind
of
reminding”.
The
results
emphasise
that
project
work
cannot
be
left
to
a
few
active
partners,
but
that
active
collaboration
is
needed
by
all
consortium
partners
to
achieve
optimal
levels
of
self-organisation
within
project
consortia.
The
ability
for
self-organisation
thus,
dif-
fers
from
consortium
to
consortium.
It
was
noted
that
normally,
a
core
group
will
develop
the
main
idea
and
goals,
and
then
also
drive
the
work
for
innovation.
Furthermore,
“the
coordinator
is
in
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Ruoslahti,
H.
Complexity
in
project
co-creation
of
knowledge
for
innovation.
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
(2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.12.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JIK-126;
No.
of
Pages
8
H.
Ruoslahti
/
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
xxx
(2020)
xxx–xxx
5
a
very
crucial
position”,
as
one
respondent
wrote,
and
the
funder
may
have
strict
guidance.
Historicity
Complexity
also
relates
to
the
different
histories
of
the
project
consortium
partners
and
other
related
stakeholders
involved.
Moreover,
each
individual
involved
brings
one’s
own
professional
and
educational
background
to
the
project
while
interacting
with
others.
The
respondents,
thus,
point
out
that
these
individual
and
organisational
histories
influence
project
consortia
in
many
ways.
On
the
one
hand,
partners
who
share
a
positive
history
often
work
well
together,
which
may
then
cause
that
“some
partners
might
feel
left
out”,
as
stated
by
a
respondent.
On
the
other
hand,
the
fact
that
some
partners
have
a
bad
shared
history
can
exert
a
negative
influence
on
the
project
as
a
whole.
A
related
point
of
view
brought
up
by
a
respondent
was,
that
when
partners
do
not
know
each
other’s
histories,
the
lack
of
established
reputations
may
lead
to
“unnecessary
highlighting
of
what
partners
have
done
in
the
past”.
Respondents
note
that
it
is
beneficial
to
include
partners
who
know
each
other
and
have
common
experiences
of
earlier
project
work,
but
not
to
exclude
partners
who
bring
other
beneficial
knowledge
and
experience
to
the
project
consortium.
Cultural
backgrounds
also
influence
the
way
in
which
partners
work
together,
as
this
influences
ways
of
working
and
communicating.
According
to
the
respondents,
motivated
expert
consortium
partners
help
deliver
the
best
results.
However,
expertise
usually
is
needed
in
many
different
fields
and,
thus,
all
project
partners
are
expected
to
bring
in
their
specific
expertise.
Partnerships
are
then
continued,
in
consequent
projects,
with
those
who
are
seen
to
be
the
most
motivated
experts.
As
stated
by
a
respondent:
“A
member
that
has
managed
well
in
a
previous
project
is
a
desired
partner
for
new
projects”.
Exploration-of-the-space-of-possibilities
The
space
of
possibilities
relates
to
flexibility
of
working
and,
thus,
space
to
find
different
solutions.
A
project’s
ability
to
explore
the
space
of
possibilities
depends,
as
one
respondent
notes,
on
“the
time
available,
meaning
the
extent
of
funding
and
people
in
the
project”.
The
productivity
and
success
of
any
project
consortium
are
based
on
its
people,
their
attitudes,
and
on
how
they
approach
the
project
work.
One
problem
that
was
addressed
by
a
respondent
is,
that
after
the
proposal
has
been
submitted
and
accepted,
there
“is
little
possibility
to
change
the
content
of
work
packages”.
Project
proposals
are
often
made
years
in
advance
and
require
a
high
level
of
detail.
Work
in
projects
is
expected
to
follow
the
planning
upon
which
the
decision
to
allocate
funding
was
based.
Adaptations
have
to
be
communicated
or
even
negotiated
with
the
funder,
which
may
hinder
the
exploration
of
possibilities.
The
respondents
acknowledge
that
exploring
possibilities
must
already
be
addressed
during
the
project
preparation
phase,
so
it
depends
heavily
on
project
planning
and
how
it
is
documented.
One
responded
notes,
about
addressing
a
specific
issue:
“if
this
is
embedded
to
the
project
then
the
result
will
be
achieved
at
least
in
some
level”.
The
funding
instrument
also
affects
the
ability
of
a
project
to
explore
the
space
of
possibilities.
However,
it
was
noted
that
an
innovative
group
can,
also
during
the
project,
think
flexibly
to
find
ways
to
arrange
the
content
and
events
of
the
project.
Path
dependence
Path
dependence
concerns
new
opportunities
being
influ-
enced
by
prior
decisions.
This
path
dependence
is
also
visible
in
innovation
projects.
Filling
niches
that
create
new
niches
and
opportunities
are
best
achieved
“via
continuum
of
innovation
pro-
jects”,
as
one
respondent
said.
How
project
partners
work
and
cooperate,
their
nationalities,
and
prior
backgrounds
impact
the
project’s
ability
to
identify
opportunities.
Results
indicate
that
filling
niches
can
create
paths
toward
new
opportunities.
One
respondent
noted
that:
“All
of
the
projects
I
have
been
involved
in
over
last
two
years
have
created
new
opportunities
–
some
of
them
are
already
implemented”,
and
another
that
“new
partnerships
are
always
built
in
consortiums.”
According
to
the
respondents,
partners
often
perform
at
differ-
ent
levels,
which
is
also
demonstrated
in
the
relations
between
them.
Some
partners
are
active
with
their
project
tasks
and
their
responsibilities,
duly
reacting
to
communication
from
work
pack-
age
and
task
coordinators.
On
the
other
hand,
some
partners
perform
slowly,
only
when
reminded.
Such
partners
who
do
not
conform
to
the
general
flow
of
work
disrupt
the
common
work-
ing
spirit:
“Then
there
are
partners
who
really
annoy
the
rest
of
partners
because
they
do
not
even
pretend
to
be
working”,
accord-
ing
to
a
respondent.
The
level
of
activity
will
affect
future
project
opportunities.
Feedback
Feedback
is
a
way
to
identify
what
changes
should
be
made
to
how
a
project
is
conducted.
In
most
cases,
feedback
was
looked
at
in
a
positive
way,
and
considered
even
“crucial”,
as
one
respondent
saw
it,
positive
feedback
“gives
joy
and
builds
trust”,
while
critique
should
be
given
“in
a
way
that
is
no
too
harsh”.
When
there
are
more
partners,
feedback
can
however,
become
a
difficult
issue.
Some
comments
show
that
the
role
and
effects
of
feedback
can
be
twofold:
“I
have
not
experienced
any
‘artificial’
need-to-be
feedback
in
the
recent
projects”
quoted
one
respondent,
while
another
quote
on
the
effects
of
feedback
states:
“Actually
the
role
is
big
but
the
effects
have
been
zero”,
and
a
third
wrote
that:
“Constructive
feedback
of
end
users
help
the
development
and
innovation
project”.
Results
show
that
on-going
analysis
of
project
results
are
needed
to
engage
expert
partners
and
core
stakeholders.
Feedback
whom
e.g.
the
Commission
of
the
European
Union,
stakeholders,
coordi-
nator,
industry,
and
others
is
essential
to
an
innovation
project.
However,
project
feedback
processes
are
often
seen
as
being
too
slow.
Therefore,
projects
need
to
focus
enough
on
collecting
and
responding
to
feedback,
which
is
seen
as
a
main
way
to
engage
partners
and
accomplish
when
needed
a
re-focus
in
project
tasks.
Far-from-equilibrium
In
fast
changing
or
extreme
situations
projects
will
need
to
make
major
adaptations.
Even
though
carefully
planned
project
propos-
als
set
the
goals
and
direction
for
EU-funded
innovation
projects,
they
are
often
far
from
a
state
of
equilibrium.
As
one
of
the
respon-
dents
says:
“Good
projects
follow
the
outside
world
continuously”.
Even
daily
politics
can
affect
a
project.
For
example,
changes
in
global
politics
can
set
back
a
lot
of
work,
which
happened
in
a
regionally
funded
innovation
project
with
Russian
partners
who
could
not
proceed
their
work
in
the
project,
when
Russia
was
sanc-
tioned.
The
many
partners
that
act
in
parallel
influence
each
other
dur-
ing
an
innovation
project.
Moreover,
the
project
coordinator
has
a
definite
effect
on
how
the
consortium
performs.
If
the
project
coordinator
is
weak,
it
is
difficult
to
find
consensus
which
can
be
problematic,
according
to
a
respondent,
especially
if
the
prepara-
tion
phase
involves
too
many
partners
to
be
effective.
This
would
require
coordination
intervention.
Some
respondents
experienced
that
a
small
core
team
can
best
plan
the
project
proposal,
making
a
project
idea
into
a
project
proposal.
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Ruoslahti,
H.
Complexity
in
project
co-creation
of
knowledge
for
innovation.
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
(2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.12.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JIK-126;
No.
of
Pages
8
6
H.
Ruoslahti
/
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
xxx
(2020)
xxx–xxx
Co-evolution
Co-evolution
of
partners
is
seen
in
partners
finding
mutual
ways
of
working
together,
having
positive
relationships
where
they
trust
and
appreciate
each
other
to
generate
good
results
and
new
ideas.
It
was
noted
that
disseminating
project
results
can
be
challenging,
despite
advances
in
social
media
and
other
mediums
of
communi-
cation.
“When
a
project
comes
to
an
end,
core
members
create
a
new
project”,
notes
one
respondent.
Thus,
a
project
continuum
that
builds
on
the
success
and
results
of
earlier
projects
become
possible.
These
partners
co-evolve
together,
which
promotes
the
emergence
of
new
ideas
and
innovations.
The
results
indicate
that
projects
identify
new
problems,
find
new
important
research
questions,
and
even
evolve
to
form
new
projects
or
even
businesses.
As,
discussed
earlier,
the
time
avail-
able,
the
histories,
attitudes
and
expertise
of
partners,
and
role
of
the
coordinator
are
issues
that
can
promote
success
of
failure.
Thus,
it
is
important
that
project
partners
find
ways
to
build
trust
and
collaborative
ways
of
working
together
toward
the
innovations
promised
in
the
project
proposal.
Emergence
The
respondents
view
that
new
results
in
innovation
projects
emergence
from
a
good
workflow
among
active
consortium
part-
ners.
One
project
example
was
quoted,
where
they
were
able
to
create
an
analysis
to
crosscheck
project
results
with
the
existing
operational
capabilities
and
legislation.
Many
that
influence
each
other
can
at
times
cause
confusion
and
at
other
times
develop
something
totally
new.
When
all
consortium
members
have
clear
tasks,
parallel
work
can
considerably
shorten
the
time
needed
for
innovation.
However,
it
was
also
noted
that
a
very
high
number
of
partners
in
the
con-
sortium,
may
make
it
longer
to
reach
innovations.
Project
consortia
were
perceived
to
undertake
project
activities
quite
well.
Common
ways
of
working
strengthen
trust
between
the
actors,
noted
one
respondent,
and
new
persons
bring
new
insights
to
projects.
End-user
experiences
are
seen
as
especially
important
to
project
results,
as
is
utilizing
the
extended
networks
that
consortium
part-
ners
each
have
of
their
own.
Innovation
partly
depends
on
how
active
and
how
much
partners
want
to
share
information,
and
how
open
they
are
to
input
from
within
and
outside
the
consor-
tium.
Means
for
this
may
be
e.g.
public
events,
webinars,
social
media
campaigns,
communications
and
disseminations
for
large
audiences.
In
most
projects,
next
to
solving
problems,
one
desired
result
is
also
to
find
new
problems
to
further
solve.
One
respondent
even
notes
that
university
partners
could
help
companies
also
in
other
innovation
processes
than
the
project.
Creation
of
new
order
Innovation
projects
aim
at
creating
impact
useful
outside
the
project
and
thus,
need
input
from
outside
the
group
of
project
part-
ners
involved.
A
consortium
is
influenced
by
the
information
that
flows
into
the
project
consortium
from
the
external
environment.
Information
that
is
related
to
the
ongoing
project
and
its
tasks
is
likely
to
influence
project
work,
depending
on
the
type
of
infor-
mation
and
how
it
is
related.
In
addition,
it
is
crucial
who
are
the
project
people
that
first
receive
the
information
and
if
they
actively
use
it
or
pass
it
on.
Seminars,
workshops,
questionnaires,
interviews,
and
con-
ferences
on
project
issues
and
its
goals
are,
according
to
the
respondents,
useful
ways
of
creating
new
order
innovation.
Thus,
dissemination
of
project
results
aims
to
affect
technologies
and
processes
by
taking
project
recommendations
into
wider
use.
Therefore,
new
ways
of
disseminating
project
results,
such
as
dur-
ing
the
project
creating
and
expanding
end
user
communities,
and
organising
intensive
and
digital
workshops
with
them,
have
been
utilized
in
the
projects.
The
respondents
remind
that
many
currently
active
pan-
European
networks
and
associations
have
been
created
in
the
course
of
funded
projects.
In
addition,
new
businesses
have
been
created
based
on
project
innovations.
These
examples
demonstrate
how
EU-funded
projects
are
intended
to
provide
not
only
results
in
the
form
of
new
knowledge
but
also
new
order
innovations.
Diverse
enough
input
is
needed
for
out
of
the
box
thinking
and
to
push
boundaries.
Linking
different
sectors
to
solve
very
complex
problems
can
help
shorten
the
time
needed
to
reach
solutions
and
shorten
time-to-innovation,
which
refers
to
the
time
from
when
the
consortium
partners
come
together
to
when
the
innovations
resulting
from
the
project
are
put
to