Cross Innovation: Academic Analyst’s Report from Policy Clinic 1 By Erik Åstedt, Kontigo AB This is a report from the first Cross Innovation Policy Clinic that happened February 6-‐7 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden. Participants from Birmingham, Pilsen and Stockholm took part in exercises and discussions related to spatial cross-‐collaboration and the supporting of cross innovation in a spatial context, through, for instance, co-‐working spaces, incubators, science parks, innovation ecosystems and local clusters.
1. Summary of the key discussions Initially there was a brief discussion about the need to define different types of innovation processes within different segments and sub-‐sectors of the creative industries. Being able to show the diversity within the creative industries in terms of innovation processes is necessary in a hybrid economy where the boundaries between service and product development are becoming more and more blurred. There was also a brief discussion about looking at incubators from a larger perspective within the innovation ecosystem: What are the requirements to be a part of an incubator? Who is applying? Are they the “right” companies and persons? What happens afterwards? Is there a fertile soil in the city for innovations and enterprises exiting the incubator? The first exercise was about finding the intersection between growth sectors and creative industries. Birmingham described a trend where gaming, mobile services, social media and visual arts are influencing sectors working with sustainability, environment and health issues. One example is the housing industry that uses creative industries to develop new services for monitoring and visualising power consumption and carbon footprint in buildings, both to increase efficiency and changing consumer/user behaviour. Also, the heritage and art sectors are looking at gaming and mobile services for content presentation and location technology. Pilsen had similar experiences where social media and mobile services are used for leisure and architecture, such as developing interactive mobile city guides. They also mentioned the use of visualisation services within the education system. Stockholm focused mainly on the intersection between design and health sectors, for instance in the development of the new university hospital area in the northern parts of the city. At the end of this exercise there was a discussion about design as a driver for innovation in relation to traditional manufacturing industries: Commissioning a design service should include the integration of methods and principles used in the design process, in the overall process – not just buying the design in itself. This would increase interoperability between different types of products and systems, among other things. 1
The second exercise was called “What can they offer us?”. The idea was to divide the participants into a “policy group” and a “creative industries group” to explore the incentives and motives of policy makers and creatives. The “policy group” stressed the importance for policy makers and clients to fully understand the potential of creative competences and working processes from an innovation perspective. This can be achieved through education of contractors and procurers, but also through intermediaries and brokers. Different time spans is also a barrier for the two sides in understanding each other, since policy makers make plans for three years ahead, while small creative enterprises think less about long-‐term policy implementation and more about surviving the next three months. The “creative industries group” focused on the importance of cities to have an ecosystem for the support of creative industries that emphasizes shared challenges, a common language and a common vision for the city. Otherwise people from different sectors will not find a reason to meet – and thus not see the point in working collaboratively across sectors. If this works out, the need for brokers/intermediaries would lessen significantly. The group also talked about becoming better at recognising skills, since even different sub-‐sectors within the creative industries seem to be sealed off from each other. Methods such as open space models may be useful to create common visions. However, a strong and well-‐defined leadership would be necessary to implement the vision. In the end, it was obvious that the policy group had chosen a more linear approach to cross innovation, while the creative industry group saw it as more of an organic process. The last exercise was about mapping and analysing existing spaces for creative industries and cross innovation, in order to create a cross innovation city canvas in the style of a business model. The word “spaces” was used for all situations where cross innovation may take place – from temporary meetings and informal networks to permanent platforms, incubators and clusters. However, finding answers for each part of the canvas proved to be quite difficult. In terms of value propositions and key resources to make cross innovation happen (i.e. strengths and existing ecosystems), the cities suggested that they should build on traditions and local brands/identities, building social capital and trust from the citizens, using the academic institutions, and showing the variety of different informal and formal spaces available. Suggested activities for improving cross innovation potential included mapping of stakeholders, competences and resources; moving from sector-‐based to flexible and challenge-‐driven hubs and clusters; securing current positions and promoting previous achievements; smart specialisation and the city’s relative level of competence/competiveness (perception vs. reality); introducing creative and cross-‐sector criteria in the city’s public procurements; and finally: the need of a common vision as a reason for cross-‐sector meetings to happen.
2
2. Reflections on the theme “space” This Policy Clinic, the first in the project, was supposed to focus on the topic “space”. However, it is clear that the discussions and output from the exercises covered a much wider range of topics. This should not be seen as a problem, since “we had to go backward in order to go forward”, as one participant said. It seems that in order to understand the importance of spaces in cross innovation, we first need to examine how certain processes and activities relate to certain spatial or virtual contexts. One conclusion from the Policy Clinic is that all three participating cities already have well-‐ developed spaces for specific sectors and industries, but these spaces are closed or hard to access for an outsider. We therefore need more “brokerage spaces” and spaces based around shared challenges in order for cross innovation to happen. We also need to support a range of spaces (temporary/permanent, informal/formal, virtual/physical) to serve different purposes and avoid focusing too much on one type of spatial structure – this could be described as the ecosystem approach. In the discussion about the intersection of creative industries and growth sectors, it was quite interesting to see how a majority of the participants focused on the digital creative industries (i.e. gaming and mobile services) in relation to “grand challenges” and societal matters such as sustainability, housing, the health sector, education and cultural heritage – rather than, for instance, art and design in relation to the private sector and traditional industry.
3