Method to identify stakeholders in an innovation environment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55905/oelv21n9-167Keywords:
innovation habitat, living lab, mechanism, identification, stakeholdersAbstract
Cities have numerous problems associated with the development, they are often difficult to be solved given that they involve various actors of the local ecosystem, such as mobility, infrastructure, and pollution, among others. In the literature, there is the notion of classifying stakeholders, although they do not observe its application in Living Lab (LL) projects. This typology of innovation habitat helps companies test their innovative products and services before launching them into the market. Managing stakeholders is crucial in this process in order for there to be effectiveness, legitimacy, and business ethics. Thus, this article sought to develop a practical tool to map the processes, methods, and criteria used to identify LL stakeholders through a literature review. Our findings revealed a knowledge gap with LL, enabling us to create a process that assists in identifying LL stakeholders.
References
Achterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. (2007). Critically identifying stakeholders: evaluating boundary critique as a vehicle for stakeholder identification. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 24(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.760.
Åström, J., Ruoppila, S., Ertiö, T., Karlsson, M., & Thiel, S. K. (2015). Potentials and challenges of a living lab approach in research on mobile participation. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 795-800). https://doi.org/10.1145/2800835.2804399
Ballejos, L. C., & Montagna, J. M. (2008). Method for stakeholder identification in interorganizational environments. Requirements engineering, 13(4), 281-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-008-0069-1
Bittner, K., & Spence, I. (2003). Use case modeling. Addison-Wesley Professional. https://pdfcoffee.com/qdownload/use-case-modelling-by-kurt-bittner-and-ian-spence-pdf-free.html
Choi, C., Kim, E. Y., Lee, E. J., Kim, S. M., & Lee, N. G. (2017). Pohang living lab: Utilizing modeling and simulation as a collaboration method. In 2017 IEEE SmartWorld, Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing, Advanced & Trusted Computed, Scalable Computing & Communications, Cloud & Big Data Computing, Internet of People and Smart City Innovation (SmartWorld/SCALCOM/UIC/ATC/CBDCom/IOP/SCI) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/UIC-ATC.2017.8397399
Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of management review, 20(1), 92-117. https://doi.org/10.2307/258888
Crane, A., & Ruebottom, T. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social identity: Rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of business ethics, 102(1), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1662437
Duggan, D. E., Farnsworth, K. D., & Kraak, S. B. (2013). Identifying functional stakeholder clusters to maximise communication for the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Marine Policy, 42, 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.01.023
Fritz, M. M., Rauter, R., Baumgartner, R. J., & Dentchev, N. (2018). A supply chain perspective of stakeholder identification as a tool for responsible policy and decision-making. Environmental science & policy, 81, 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.011
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of management review, 24(2), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.2307/259074
Galvão, C. M., Sawada, N. O., & Trevizan, M. A. (2004). Revisão sistemática: recurso que proporciona a incorporação das evidências na prática da enfermagem. Revista Latino-americana de enfermagem, 12, 549-556. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-11692004000300014
Garcia, E. (2016). Pesquisa bibliográfica versus revisão bibliográfica-uma discussão necessária. Línguas & Letras, 17(35). https://e-revista.unioeste.br/index.php/linguaseletras/article/view/13193
Giang, T. T. H., Camargo, M., Dupont, L., & Mayer, F. (2017, June). A review of methods for modelling shared decision-making process in a smart city living lab. In 2017 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC) (pp. 189-194). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2017.8279888
Giannouli, I., Tourkolias, C., Zuidema, C., Tasopoulou, A., Blathra, S., Salemink, K., ... & Koutsomarkos, N. (2018). A methodological approach for holistic energy planning using the living lab concept: the case of the prefecture of Karditsa. European Journal of Environmental Sciences, 8(1), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.14712/23361964.2018.3
Gil, A. C. (2002). Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa (Vol. 4, p. 175). São Paulo: Atlas. https://docente.ifrn.edu.br/mauriciofacanha/ensino-superior/redacao-cientifica/livros/gil-a.-c.-como-elaborar-projetos-de-pesquisa.-sao-paulo-atlas-2002./view
Gil, A. C. (2008). Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 6. ed. Ediitora Atlas SA. https://ayanrafael.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/gil-a-c-mc3a9todos-e-tc3a9cnicas-de-pesquisa-social.pdf
Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business ethics quarterly, 53-73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857592
Gregory, A. J., Atkins, J. P., Midgley, G., & Hodgson, A. M. (2020). Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions. European Journal of Operational Research, 283(1), 321-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.10.044
Jackson, G., Gallacher, S., Wilson, D., & McCann, J. A. (2017). Tales from the wild: Lessons learned from creating a living lab. In Proceedings of the First ACM International Workshop on the Engineering of Reliable, Robust, and Secure Embedded Wireless Sensing Systems (pp. 62-68). https://doi.org/10.1145/3143337.3143342
Lai, H. J., Kuan, Y. S., & Hu, K. K. (2009). The service science exploitation and experimental design on a city level innovation: A practice of living lab on Taipei City intelligent life scheme. In 2009 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 1263-1267). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2009.5373006
Leminen, S., Nyström, A. G., & Westerlund, M. (2020). Change processes in open innovation networks–Exploring living labs. Industrial Marketing Management, 91, 701-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.01.013
Mazzuco, E. (2020). Processo de identificação de stakeholders em um living lab. (Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso). Curso de Graduação em Engenharia de Materiais, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina - UFSC. Florianópolis, SC, Brasil. https://via.ufsc.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/TCC-Eduardo-Mazzuco-Processo-de-identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o-de-stakeholders-em-um-Living-Lab.pdf
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of management review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247
Müller, C., Hornung, D., Hamm, T., & Wulf, V. (2015, April). Practice-based design of a neighborhood portal: Focusing on elderly tenants in a city quarter living lab. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2295-2304). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702449
Nesterova, N., & Quak, H. (2016). A city logistics living lab: a methodological approach. Transportation Research Procedia, 16, 403-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.11.038
Niitamo, V. P., Kulkki, S., Eriksson, M., & Hribernik, K. A. (2006). State-of-the-art and good practice in the field of living labs. In 2006 IEEE international technology management conference (ICE) (pp. 1-8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2006.7477081
Niitamo, V. P., Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. (2012). A small-firm perspective on the benefits of living labs. https://timreview.ca/sites/default/files/article_PDF/Niitamo_TIMReview_September2012.pdf
Pacheco, C., & Garcia, I. (2012). A systematic literature review of stakeholder identification methods in requirements elicitation. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(9), 2171-2181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.04.075
Parent, M. M., & Deephouse, D. L. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of business ethics, 75(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9533-y
Perrault, E. (2017). A ‘names-and-faces approach’to stakeholder identification and salience: A matter of status. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2929-1
Quak, H., Lindholm, M., Tavasszy, L., & Browne, M. (2016). From freight partnerships to city logistics living labs–Giving meaning to the elusive concept of living labs. Transportation Research Procedia, 12, 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.02.080
Salado, A., & Nilchiani, R. (2013). Contextual-and behavioral-centric stakeholder identification. Procedia Computer Science, 16, 908-917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.095
Sharp, H., Finkelstein, A., & Galal, G. (1999, September). Stakeholder identification in the requirements engineering process. In Proceedings. Tenth International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications. DEXA 99 (pp. 387-391). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/DEXA.1999.795198
Ståhlbröst, A., Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Ihlström-Eriksson, C. (2015). Stakeholders in smart city living lab processes. In Americas Conference on Information Systems: 13/08/2015-15/08/2015. Americas Conference on Information Systems. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1006027/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. https://isfcolombia.uniandes.edu.co/images/2019-intersemestral/14_de_junio/Ulrich_W._1987.pdf
Vérilhac, I., Pallot, M., & Aragall, F. (2012, June). IDeALL: Exploring the way to integrate design for all within living labs. In 2012 18th International ICE Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (pp. 1-8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2012.6297699
Wang, W., Liu, W., & Mingers, J. (2015). A systemic method for organisational stakeholder identification and analysis using Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). European Journal of Operational Research, 246(2), 562-574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.05.014
Wolfe, R. A., & Putler, D. S. (2002). How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups?. Organization science, 13(1), 64-80. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.1.64.544
Xie, X., & Wang, H. (2021). How to bridge the gap between innovation niches and exploratory and exploitative innovations in open innovation ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 124, 299-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.058
Zheng, L. J., Fan, Y., Wang, H., & Liu, W. (2021). Born innovator? How founder birth order influences product innovation generation and adoption in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Research, 136, 414-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.047
Zheng, L., Ulrich, K., & Sendra-García, J. (2021). Qualitative comparative analysis: Configurational paths to innovation performance. Journal of Business Research, 128, 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.044
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 OBSERVATÓRIO DE LA ECONOMÍA LATINOAMERICANA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
