Challenges of the Service Design Practices
“When memories exceed dreams, the end is near. The hallmark of a truly successful organization is the willingness to abandon what made it successful and start fresh.”
These words of business writer, Professor Michael Hammer, seem relevant in the context of the discussion on creativity, creative industries and innovation. Debate on creativity, creative economy, “creative class” and innovation has been by no means scarce, but are economies, businesses, research groups and technology developers heading in the right direction?
Maybe, maybe not. The main goal of the science and technology policy of the EU is to develop the innovativeness and related processes in a more sensitive, efficient and result-driven direction. This standpoint is listed as a goal in various instances with regard to economic, science and technology policies, and it concerns the public sector, higher education and business life alike.
How to meet this challenge in practice? Amongst other openings, some directions where given in a conference paper entitled “Homo Creativus” at the 24th IASP World Conference on Science & Technology Parks in Barcelona, Spain, in 2007. Contacts, connections and sometimes surprising meetings and bumps (the principle of serendipity) in the in-betweens of various scientific and business fields and between different organizations are of paramount importance to the contemporary innovation environment. The contact points between the different societal actors have to be seen as one of the most important starting points in terms of innovations and innovation potential in Europe.
Creativity, innovation, creative economy and creative industries are examples of key concepts that spark a great deal of general interest as well as ambitious research and development projects. These concepts have, however, met a sort of “innoflation,” where creative this or inno-that have often lost their true meaning or purpose.
The same kind of exaggeration and unrealistic hype was directed earlier to all things beginning with cyber-, digi-, and mobile-. Thus, a thoroughly analytic view with regard to the concepts that are part of the debate on creativity and innovation and a Hegelian Anstrengung des Begriffs (testing of the concept) would be very welcome. The usage of the words “innovation,” “creativity,” “service design,” etc. should be examined analytically and critically. In addition, the classical distinction between “ideas,” “inventions” and “innovations” is useful with this discussion.
On the other hand, there is an extensive use of the term creativity, and, among other contributions, the ideas concerning the creative class by Professor Richard Florida have become key issues of dynamic regional development all over the globe. The values and principles of the creative class also seem to be directly linked with the processes and problematic aspects of the “creative economy.”
According to the traditional definition, an innovation is a new product, a new process or a new organizational structure that enables an actor to be successful in the market. Amongst others, the Nordic Innovations Center (NICe) has stressed the holistic viewpoint in terms of innovation and has stated that research results and inventions can be translated into innovations only if they are closely interlinked with commercial interests and economic goals.
The traditional, closed innovation model is built upon the idea that one’s own organization possesses all the needed knowledge and know-how. Protecting these knowledge assets is considered a way of securing a competitive edge in the market.
In the recent years, however, debate over open innovation has gained a lot of ground. This change in the discussion is almost drastic enough to be called a paradigm shift. The concept of innovation environments includes much wider and deeper viewpoints than the traditional research on innovation systems. Innovation environments are affected, amongst other things, by the history and culture of the geographical region, the organizational traditions and behavioral patterns and traditions acquired over time.
In the Nordic countries, the main feature of the development of the innovation process is the so-called triple helix model, i.e. co-operation between the universities, the public sector and the private sector. The new concept of national open innovation system offers an alternative to the “traditional” triple helix model and brings forth that national innovation systems are no longer tightly closed national systems but function as a part in a complex, dynamic, global context. Service design practices and processes can boost and improve developments in a fruitful way.
The main question is how to create something new and valuable; how to enable creativity to take place, to “happen” in the context of individual personalities, of organizational strategies and operational principles, and in the context of human interaction. Albert Einstein (1879–1955) once stated that “imagination is more important than knowledge.” Albert Szent-Györgyi, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, has presented a similar idea in a slightly different way:
“Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.”
Further reading:
Kakko, Ilkka & Inkinen, Sam (2005). The “Oasis Way”. How to Improve the Productivity of a Knowledge Worker? In: XXII IASP World Conference on Science and Technology Parks. Conference Proceedings (Beijing, September 2005). IASP International Association of Science Parks, 215–240.
Kakko, Ilkka & Inkinen, Sam (2007). Homo Creativus. Aspects of Creativity and Serendipity Management. Paper presented at XXIV IASP World Conference on Science and Technology Parks. (Barcelona, July 2007). IASP International Association of Science Parks.
Kakko, Ilkka & Inkinen, Sam (2009). Homo creativus: creativity and serendipity management in third generation science and technology parks. Science and Public Policy 36 (7), August 2009, pp. 537–548.