Access to Document
Engaging user Communities with eParticipation Technology: Findings from a European Project. / Galbraith, Brendan; Cleland, Brian; Martin, Suzanne; Wallace, Jonathan; Mulvenna, Maurice; McAdam, Rodney.In: Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, 03.2013, p. 281-294.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Engaging user Communities with eParticipation Technology: Findings from a European Project
AU - Galbraith, Brendan
AU - Cleland, Brian
AU - Martin, Suzanne
AU - Wallace, Jonathan
AU - Mulvenna, Maurice
AU - McAdam, Rodney
N1 - Reference text: 1. Al Shafi, S. and Weerakkody, V. 2007. Implementing and managing e-government in the state of Qatar: A citizens’ perspective. Electronic Government: An International Journal, 4: 436–50. (doi:10.1504/EG.2007.015037) [CrossRef] 2. Andersen, P. H. and Christensen, P. R. 2005. From localized to corporate excellence: How do MNCs extract, combine and disseminate sticky knowledge from regional innovation systems?. Druid Working Paper No. 05-16. Available at http://www.druid.dk 3. Armstrong, A. and Hagel, J. 1996. The real value of on-line communities. Harvard Business Review, 74(3): 134–41. [Web of Science ®] 4. Baker, N. R., Green, S. G. and Alden, S. 1986. Why R&D project succeed or fail. Research Management, 29(6): 29–34. 5. Bechky, B. 2006. Gaffers, gofers and grips: Role based coordination in temporary organizations. Organization Science, 17: 3–21. (doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0149) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 6. Bekkers, V. 2004. Virtual policy communities and responsive governance: Redesigning on-line debates. Information Polity, 9(3–4): 193–203. 7. Best, S. J. and Krueger, B. S. 2005. Analyzing the representativeness of Internet political participation. Political Behavior, 27(2): 183–216. (doi:10.1007/s11109-005-3242-y) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 8. Biemans, W. G. 1991. User and third-party involvement in developing medical equipment innovations. Technovation, 11: 163–82. (doi:10.1016/0166-4972(91)90032-Y) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 9. Brandtzæg, P. B., Heim, J. and Karahasanovic, A. 2011. Understanding the new digital divide – a typology of internet users in Europe. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 29: 123–38. (doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.11.004) [CrossRef] 10. Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J. and Kelshaw, T. 2002. A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory, 12: 398–422. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 11. Chang, W.-Y. 2005. Online civic participation, and political empowerment: Online media and public opinion formation in Korea. Media, Culture and Society, 27(6): 925–35. (doi:10.1177/0163443705057680) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 12. Charalabidis, Y., Koussouris, S., Gionis, G. and Askounis, D. 2009. Promoting electronic participation systems in the Balkans: The case of national press agencies. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 2: 272–76. (doi:10.1504/IJEG.2009.029134) [CrossRef] 13. Curwell, S., Deakin, M., Cooper, I., Paskaleva-Shapira, K., Ravetz, J. and Babicki, D. 2005. Citizens’ expectations of information cities: Implications for urban planning and design. Building Research and Information, 33(1): 55–66. (doi:10.1080/0961321042000329422) [Taylor & Francis Online] 14. Demo-net. Mapping eParticipation. White Papers in conjunction with MCIS 2006. The 7th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems. Venice 15. Van Dijk, J. 2000. “Models of democracy and concepts of communication”. In Digital democracy, issues of theory and practice, Edited by: Hacker, K. L. and Van Dijk, J. London: Sage. 16. Dryzek, J. S. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 17. Dutton, W., Steckenrider, J., Rosschristensen, D., Lynch, L., Goldfarb, B., Hirschberg, L., Barcroft, T. and Williams, R. 1984. Electronic participation by citizens in US local government. Information Age, 6: 78–97. 18. Fagan, G. H., Newman, D. R., McCusker, P. and Murray, M. 2006. E-consultation: Evaluating appropriate technologies and processes for citizens’ participation in public policy. Final report from the eConsultation research project. Available at http://www.e-consultation.org/files/ecrp_report.pdf 19. Fang, Z. 2002. eGovernment in digital era: Concept, practice and development. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Information, 20: 193–213. 20. Fishkin, J. S. The ‘filter’, the ‘mirror’ and the ‘mob’: Reflections on deliverative democracy. Paper presented at the conference ‘Deliberating about Deliberative Democracy’. February4–62000. Austin: University of Texas. Available at http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/delpol/conf2000/papers/FilterMirrorMob.pdf 21. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. and Stolterman, E. 2002. Information systems development – methods in action, Maidenhead, , UK: McGraw-Hill. 22. Franke, N. and Shah, S. 2003. How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy, 32: 157–78. (doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00006-9) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 23. Gant, J. and Chen, Y. 2001. Transforming local e-government services: The use of application service providers. Government Information Quarterly, 18: 343–55. (doi:10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00090-9) [CrossRef], [CSA] 24. Galbraith, B. and McAdam, R. 2011. The promise and problem with open innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23: 1–6. (doi:10.1080/09537325.2011.537084) [Taylor & Francis Online] 25. Galbraith, B., Mulvenna, M., McAdam, R. and Martin, S. Open innovation in connected health: An empirical study and research agenda. Conference on Open Innovation: Creating Products and Services through Collaboration (ISPIM-2008), Tours, France, Manchester, , UK: ISPIM. 26. Habermas, J. 1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 27. Heiskanen, E., Hyysalo, S., Kotro, T. and Repo, P. 2010. Constructing innovative users and user-inclusive innovation communities. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22: 495–511. (doi:10.1080/09537321003714568) [Taylor & Francis Online] 28. Hiernerth, C. 2006. The development of the rodeo kayaking industry. R&D Management, 36: 273–94. [CrossRef] 29. von Hippel, E. 1976. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy, 5: 212–39. (doi:10.1016/0048-7333(76)90028-7) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 30. von Hippel, E. 1986. Lead user: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32: 791–805. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 31. von Hippel, E. 1988. The sources of innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 32. von Hippel, E. 1993. ‘Sticky information’ and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40: 429–39. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.40.4.429) [CrossRef] 33. von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing innovation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 34. Irani, Z., Elliman, T. and Jackson, P. 2007. Electronic transformation of government in the UK: A research agenda. European Journal of Information Systems, 16: 327–35. (doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000698) [CrossRef] 35. Irani, Z., Weerakkody, V., Kamal, M., Hindi, N. M., Osman, I. H., Anouze, A. L., El-Haddadeh, R., Lee, H., Osmani, M. and Al-Ayoubi, B. 2012. An analysis of methodologies utilised in e-government research: A user satisfaction perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 7: 186–95. 36. Jansen, G., Dowe, C. and Heimann, U. 2006. Facilitating active citizenship, E-participation in UK and Germany. British Council Germany, Berlin. Available at http://www.britishcouncil.de/e/society/e_participation.htm 37. Kaulio, M. A. 1998. Customer, consumer and user involvement in product development: A framework and a review of selected methods. Total Quality Management, 9: 141–49. (doi:10.1080/0954412989333) [Taylor & Francis Online] 38. Koussouris, S., Charalabidis, Y. and Askounis, D. 2011. A review of the European Union eParticipation action pilot projects. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(1): 8–19. (doi:10.1108/17506161111114617) [CrossRef] 39. Kristensen, P. S. 1992. Product development strategy in the Danish agricultural complex: Global interaction with clusters of marketing excellence. Journal of International Food and Agro Business Marketing, 4: 107–18. (doi:10.1300/J047v04n03_08) [Taylor & Francis Online] 40. von Krogh, G. and von Hippel, E. 2003. Open source software and the ‘private-collective’ innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14: 209–23. (doi:10.1287/orsc.220.127.116.1192) [CrossRef] 41. Lakhani, K. R. and von Hippel, E. 2003. How open source software works: ‘Free’ user-to-user assistance. Research Policy, 32: 923–43. (doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00095-1) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 42. Layne, K. and Lee, J. 2001. Developing fully functional e-government: A four-stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18: 122–36. (doi:10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA] 43. Lerner, J. and Tirole, J. 2002. Some simple economics of open source. Journal of Industrial Economics, 50: 197–234. (doi:10.1111/1467-6451.00174) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 44. Lüthje, C. 2004. Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods field: An empirical study of sport-related product consumers. Technovation, 24: 683–95. (doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00150-5) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 45. Lüthje, C. and Herstatt, C. 2004. The lead user method: An outline of empirical findings and issues for future research. R&D Management, 34: 553–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2004.00362.x [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 46. MacIntosh, A. and Smith, E. 2002. “Citizen participation in public affairs”. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Edited by: Traunmuller, R. and Lenk, K. vol. 2456, 256–63. Berlin: Springer. 47. MacIntosh, A. and Whyte, A. 2008. Towards and evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2: 16–30. (doi:10.1108/17506160810862928) [CrossRef] 48. Mansfield, E. 1988. Industrial R&D in Japan and the United States: A comparative study. American Economic Review, 78: 223–28. [Web of Science ®] 49. Moon, J. Y. and Sproull, L. 2001. Turning love into money: How some firms may profit from voluntary electronic customer communities. Working paper, Stern School of Business, New York. 50. Muniz, A. M. and O'Guinn, T. 2001. Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27: 412–32. (doi:10.1086/319618) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 51. Namioka, D. and Schuler, A. 1993. Participatory design: Principles and practices, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. 52. Newman, W. and Lamming, M. 1995. Interactive System Design, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 53. O'Mahony, S. 2003. Guarding the commons: How community managed software projects protect their work. Research Policy, 32: 1179–98. (doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00048-9) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 54. Olson, E. L. and Bakke, G. 2001. Implementing the lead user method in a high technology firm: A longitudinal study of intentions versus actions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18: 388–95. (doi:10.1016/S0737-6782(01)00111-4) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA] 55. Parkinson, J. 2003. Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 51: 180–96. (doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00419) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA] 56. Preece, J., Rogers, Y. and Sharp, H. 2002. Interactive design: Beyond human–computer interaction, New York: Wiley. 57. Rohrbeck, R., Steinhoff, F. and Perder, F. 2010. Sourcing from your customer: How multinational enterprises use Web platforms for virtual customer integration. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22: 117–31. (doi:10.1080/09537320903498462) [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] 58. Rosenberg, N. 1976. Perspectives on technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] 59. Rothwell, C., Freeman, C., Horlsey, A., Jervis, V. T.P., Robertson, A. B. and Townsend, J. 1974. Sappho updated – Project Sappho Phase II. Research Policy, 3: 258–91. (doi:10.1016/0048-7333(74)90010-9) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 60. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J. and Flak, L. 2008. The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25: 400–28. (doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.007) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 61. Sanford, C. and Rose, J. 2007. Characterizing eParticipation. International Journal of Information Management, 27: 406–21. (doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.08.002) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 62. Sanders, L. M. 1997. Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25: 347–76. (doi:10.1177/0090591797025003002) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA] 63. Shah, S. K. 2000. “Sources and patterns of innovation in a consumer product field: Innovation in sporting equipment”. Working Paper 4105, Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA. 64. Shaw, B. 1985. The role of the interaction between the user the manufacturer in medical equipment innovation. R&D Management, 15: 283–92. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 65. Tietz, R., Morrison, P. D., Lüthje, C. and Herstat, C. 2005. The process of user-innovation: A case study in a consumer goods setting. International Journal of Product Development, 2: 321–38. (doi:10.1504/IJPD.2005.008005) [CrossRef] 66. Urban, G. L. and von Hippel, E. 1988. Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Management Science, 34: 569–82. (doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.5.569) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 67. Utterback, J. M., Hollomon, T. J., Sirbu, J. H. and Marvin, A. 1976. The process of innovation in five industries in Europe and Japan. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 23(1): 3–9. 68. VanderWerf, P. 1990. Product typing and innovation in U.S. wire preparation equipment. Research Policy, 19: 83–96. (doi:10.1016/0048-7333(90)90035-5) [CrossRef] 69. Voss, C. A. 1985. The role of users in the development of applications software. 2: 113–21. 70. Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C. and Moon, M. J. 2004. Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15: 371–91. (doi:10.1093/jopart/mui021) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 71. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 72. West, D. M. 2004. e-Government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64: 15–27. (doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00343.x) [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 73. Wikström, S. 1995. The customer as co-producer. European Journal of Marketing, 30(4): 6–19. (doi:10.1108/03090569610118803) [CrossRef] 74. Williams, R. L. and Cothrel, J. 2000. Four smart ways to run online communities. Sloan Management Review, 41(4): 81–91.
PY - 2013/3
Y1 - 2013/3
N2 - eParticipation tools aim to facilitate intrinsic engagement from communities of stakeholders and citizens to develop more effective, bottom-up and inclusive policies, raising the potential to become an efficient engagement tool. It is argued that eParticipation tools such as the Electronic Town Meeting (eTM) have the potential to efficiently engage communities of sought-after ‘lead users’ to leverage economically valuable ‘sticky knowledge’. While the lead user method has been demonstrated to be very effective, challenges remain around the sustainability of such an approach, particularly on a large-scale. A possible mediating tool that might be able to efficiently leverage communities of lead users is the eTM eParticipation tool. Findings from eight case studies show that the eTM has had a positive effect on appropriation and engagement of lead users as well as providing users benefits such as enhanced peer learning, and there is potential to extrapolate to innovation activities.
AB - eParticipation tools aim to facilitate intrinsic engagement from communities of stakeholders and citizens to develop more effective, bottom-up and inclusive policies, raising the potential to become an efficient engagement tool. It is argued that eParticipation tools such as the Electronic Town Meeting (eTM) have the potential to efficiently engage communities of sought-after ‘lead users’ to leverage economically valuable ‘sticky knowledge’. While the lead user method has been demonstrated to be very effective, challenges remain around the sustainability of such an approach, particularly on a large-scale. A possible mediating tool that might be able to efficiently leverage communities of lead users is the eTM eParticipation tool. Findings from eight case studies show that the eTM has had a positive effect on appropriation and engagement of lead users as well as providing users benefits such as enhanced peer learning, and there is potential to extrapolate to innovation activities.
U2 - 10.1080/09537325.2013.764986
DO - 10.1080/09537325.2013.764986
M3 - Article
VL - 25
SP - 281
EP - 294
JO - Technology Analysis and Strategic Management
JF - Technology Analysis and Strategic Management
SN - 0953-7325
IS - 3