Enhancing Public Sector Digital Service Design through Pre-Commercial Procurement

This paper addresses the challenges in designing and provisioning digital services for public sector. The ongoing digitalization of public services calls for scalable models for ecosystem based collaborative service design. However, while digitalization of services has been studied extensively from technical and financial viewpoints, less focus has been devoted for the collaborative service design processes. In this paper, we present a critical analysis of an alternative approach to public sector driven ecosystem based service design. The analysis is based on a deductive review of earlier research on ecosystem based digital service design, and an inductive theory making based on a representative case study applying pre-commercial-procurement practices. The paper contributes to existing knowledgebase on ecosystem based digital service design. The managerial contribution is innovative approach to public sector service design process. The paper concludes with call for further research and practice on innovative digital service design models for public sector.

Keywords: Digital service design, Innovation ecosystem, Public-private-partnership, Pre-commercial procurement, Citizen engagement

Free Full-text PDF

How to cite this article:
Petra Turkama (Petra Jeffery). Enhancing Public Sector Digital Service Design through Pre-Commercial Procurement .International Journal of Service Science and Management, 2022, 4:11.  DOI: 10.28933/ijssm-2022-06-1505

References:

1. Arundel, A., Bloch, C., & Ferguson, B. (2019). Advancing innovation in the public sector: Aligning innovation measurement with policy goals. Research Policy, 48(3), 789-798.
2. Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Ritala, P. (2017). Network management in the era of ecosystems: Systematic review and management framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 23-36.
3. Autio, E., & Thomas, L. (2014). Innovation ecosystems. The Oxford handbook of innovation management, 204-288.
4. Benitez, G. B., Ayala, N. F., & Frank, A. G. (2020). Industry 4.0 innovation ecosystems: An evolutionary perspective on value cocreation. International Journal of Production Economics, 228, 107735.
5. Beverloo, Y., Wynstra, F., & Selviaridis, K. (2021, March). Designing pre-commercial procurement: how procurement practices facilitate commercialization of innovative solutions. In Annual IPSERA Conference 2021 (Online).
6. Bogers, M., Zobel, A. K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L. & Ter Wal, A. L. (2017). The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 8-40.
7. Cinar, E., Trott, P., & Simms, C. (2019). A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process. Public Management Review, 21(2), 264-290.
8. De Bonis, V., & Gandolfo, A. (2018). Pre-commercial Procurement and the Marketing of Innovation: A New Innovation Policy Instrument or “Old Wine in New Bottles”?. Internation al Journal of Marketing Studies, 10(4).
9. de Vasconcelos Gomes, L. A., Facin, A. L. F., Salerno, M. S., & Ikenami, R. K. (2018). Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 30-48.
10. Dedehayir, O., Mäkinen, S. J., & Ortt, J. R. (2018). Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 18-29.
11. Emre Cinar, Paul Trott &Christopher Simms, 2018, A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process, in Public Management Review, Volume 21, 2019 – Issue 2, Pages 264-290, Francis Taylor.
12. Galan-Muros, V., & Davey, T. (2019). The UBC ecosystem: putting together a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(4), 1311-1346.
13. Geels, F. W. (2020). Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: Developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics and neo-institutional theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 152, 119894.
14. Gil-Gomez, H., Guerola-Navarro, V., Oltra-Badenes, R., & Lozano-Quilis, J. A. (2020). Customer relationship management: digital transformation and sustainable business model innovation. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 33(1), 2733-2750.
15. Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90, 102098.
16. Hossain, M., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2019). A systematic review of living lab literature. Journal of cleaner production, 213, 976-988.
17. Kaiser, S., & Landau, C. (2019). Understanding the Ecosystem-a Holistic Framework of Business and Innovation Ecosystem Components. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-12). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).
18. Kattel, R., & Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 787-801.
19. Komninos, I. (2002). Product life cycle management. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1-26.
20. Lafortezza, R., & Sanesi, G. (2019). Nature-based solutions: Settling the issue of sustainable urbanization. Environmental research, 172, 394-398.
21. Lara, A., Costa, E., Furlani, T., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2016). Smartness that matters: Comprehensive and human-centred characterisation of smart cities. Journal of Open Innovation, 2(8), 1–13.
22. Lewis, J. M., Ricard, L. M., & Klijn, E. H. (2018). How innovation drivers, networking and leadership shape public sector innovation capacity. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(2), 288-307.
23. Matschoss, K., Fahy, F., Rau, H., Backhaus, J., Goggins, G., Grealis, E., … & Vasseur, V. (2021). Challenging practices: experiences from community and individual living lab approaches. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 17(1), 135-151.
24. Mazzucato, M., & Robinson, D. K. (2018). Co-creating and directing Innovation Ecosystems? NASA’s changing approach to public-private partnerships in low-earth orbit. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 166-177.
25. McGann, M., Blomkamp, E., & Lewis, J. M. (2018). The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy. Policy Sciences, 51(3), 249-267.
26. Oh, D.-S., Phillips, F., Park, S. and Lee, E. (2016), “Innovation ecosystems: a critical examination”, Technovation, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.004.
27. Oksanen, Kaisa; Hautamäki, Antti (2014): Transforming regions into innovation ecosystems: A model for renewing local industrial structures. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 19(2), 2014, article 5.
28. Pucci, T., Runfola, A., Guercini, S., & Zanni, L. (2018). The role of actors in interactions between “innovation ecosystems”: drivers and implications. IMP Journal.
29. Sørensen, E., and J. Torfing. 2016. “Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector.” In Enhancing Public Innovation by Transforming Public Governance, edited by J. Torfing and P. Triantafillou, 115–116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316105337.006
30. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview.
31. Vanolo, A. (2016). Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s smart cities. Futures, 82, 26-36.
32. Voorberg, W. H., V. J. J. M. Bekkers, and L. G. Tummers. 2015. “A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the Social Innovation Journey.” Public Management Review 17 (9): 1333–1357. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.
33. Yigitcanlar, T. (2015). Smart cities: an effective urban development and management model?. Australian Planner, 52(1), 27-34.
34. Yin, R. K. (1992). The case study method as a tool for doing evaluation. Current sociology, 40(1), 121-137.
35. Zelenbabic, D. 2015. “Fostering Innovation through Innovation Friendly Procurement Practices: A Case Study of Danish Local Government Procurement.” Innovation-The European Journal of Social Science Research 28 (3, SI): 261–281.