Innovation Labs

El escenario actual de transformaciones sociales, económicas y tecnológicas inéditas y vertiginosas pone en evidencia que las Administraciones Públicas ya no monopolizan de manera exclusiva la resolución de problemas y requieren nuevas capacidades y aptitudes para hacer frente a sus desafíos.
La última década ha alumbrado una opción relevante para el desarrollo de capacidades: la innovación abier- ta (Chesbrough, 2003). Este modelo de innovación tensiona a la forma tradicional (y lineal), donde la innova- ción estaba integrada verticalmente en el interior de las organizaciones. Innovación abierta, por el contrario, es la estrategia de innovación centrada en la cooperación, donde los límites organizacionales se desdibujan, y el acento se pone en la construcción de coaliciones de actores para resolver desafíos compartidos a través de una dinámica basada en la intensidad de la colaboración (Grandinetti 2018).
Bajo esta premisa, los laboratorios de innovación comienzan a consolidarse como nuevos agentes de trans- ferencias tecnológicas hacia el Estado, pero desde su centro, adquiriendo un contenido más enfocado a relegitimar la acción estatal que a los principios históricos asociados a la modernización de dicha estructura. Esta situación desprende una serie de interrogantes: ¿cómo se abordan desde el Estado los problemas ac- tuales de la sociedad?; ¿qué posturas asumen las estructuras burocráticas tradicionales ante el fenómeno más general de la experimentación?; ¿qué características produce esta interacción Estado-Sociedad-Esta- do?; ¿cómo de capilares son, en última instancia, las Administraciones Públicas tradicionales a la co-crea- ción de valor público?
Para intentar dilucidar estas preguntas el presente trabajo se propone avanzar, desde una perspectiva com- parada primero, y a partir de entrevistas realizadas a trabajadoras y trabajadores púbicos después, en la comprensión de las transformaciones que se dan en el Sector Público a partir de la implementación de espa- cios destinados a la innovación: los laboratorios de gobierno para la innovación pública. Entre los objetivos está el describir y analizar las diferentes interacciones que se dan entre estos novedosos espacios de expe- rimentación y las burocracias públicas, las percepciones actuales y perspectivas de futuro, la identificación de las redes y alianzas que se establecen, así como destacar sus principales resultados operativos.

Primera publicación de la Red Innolabs, red iberoamericana de laboratorios de innovación pública co-financiada por el Programa Iberoamericano de Ciencia y Tecnología para el Desarrollo (CYTED). El trabajo parte de un relevamiento inicial de más de 100 experiencias de laboratorios de innovación a lo largo del planeta, a partir del cual se desarrolla un estudio comparado de 20 casos americanos y europeos. La investigación concluye con la identificación de buenas prácticas, plasmadas en un Decálogo construido colaborativamente.

Este artículo expone los resultados de un estudio comparado de casos de laboratorios de innovación pública americanos y europeos. Partiendo de la selección de diez casos de cada continente, se definen sus características, propiedades y atribuciones específicas, y, luego, se exploran similitudes, diferencias, variaciones empíricas y regularidades entre ellos. Se concluye la investigación con el desarrollo de lineamientos generales respecto a buenas prácticas en laboratorios de innovación pública.

This report tells the stories of 20 teams, units and funds established by governments and charged with making innovation happen. They work across the spectrum of innovation – from focusing on incremental improvements to aiming for radical transformations.

Key findings

All governments need institutions to catalyse innovation.  The best mayors and ministers recognise this and put in place i-teams, dedicated teams, units and funds, to structure and embed innovation methods and practice in government.
Based on our analysis, i-teams fall into one of four categories: creating solutions to solve specific challenges, engaging citizens, non-profits and businesses to find new ideas, transforming the processes, skills and culture of government, or achieving wider policy and systems change.  They are overcoming a range of issues, from reducing murder rates, making it easier to register a business, improving school performance, to booting economic growth.
Drawing on desk research, site visits, over 80 interviews, and a survey to analyse twenty i-teams from across six continents, the report reveals that innovation requires dedicated capacity, specific skills, methods, partnerships, and consistent political support. The study shows the ways in which these elements have been combined successfully to achieve impressive results.
We have created a set of 10 recommendations for other government leaders to learn from and to emulate these efforts.
Governments have pioneered some of the greatest innovations in modern history. Driven by entrepreneurial and visionary leadership, city and national governments are capable of amazing things.

But while governments can be pioneering and innovative, they can also struggle to find the space and time to invest in the future when they are responsible for delivering the services that people rely on today. Smart political leadership recognises this tendency and creates the structures, capabilities and space needed to allow innovation to happen.

These are the i-teams: the innovation teams, units and funds that are helping transform governments around the world.

- See more at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/i-teams-teams-and-funds-making-innovation-happen-governments-around-world#sthash.dw0eNm7q.dpuf

La publicación propone las 10 claves para la puesta en marcha de un laboratorio de gobierno para la innovación pública. Se trata de un trabajo colaborativo, en el que un grupo de profesionales de los laboratorios que conforman la Red Innolabs han aportado la experiencia y el conocimiento acumulados en su trayectoria vital.

In recent years, educational technology and innovative programs have been introduced
to many education systems. Although these technologies have a great potential to improve teaching,
learning and management processes especially at higher education, many obstacles and resistance
hinder their implementation. In order to shift towards an entrepreneurial higher education institu-
tion, organisational culture needs to be adapted to the present conditions. Given the importance of
the subject, there is a need for a deeper look into the nature of organisational culture in the context
of its relationships with innovative and technology-based development for educational institutions.
This paper attempts to show and critically analyse the role of organisational culture on the develop-
ment of innovation and technology-based projects (ITBP) at the higher education; particularly by
considering the perceptions of the researchers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34
researchers from different fields. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was used in this
study. Academic people (89%) from well-developed organisation in terms of physical components
had better results in developing innovation and technology when compared to the academic people
from non well-developed cultural organisation. Furthermore, values of the organisation are signifi-
cantly important in order to increase the depthless of the innovation and technology-based projects
development.

The study reported in this paper compared the effects of two approaches of blended learning on students’ learning outcomes in courses on intellectual property rights and patents. One group of students followed three weeks of online graduate courses and underwent peer assessment. In a second group of students, the online work and peer assessment were combined with active face-to-face experience-based learning. Pre and post-tests were used to measure the students’ knowledge about intellectual property rights and patents. In addition, a questionnaire was used to gather data on the students’ opinions regarding course arrangement and implementation, digital learning, the learning environment, and their knowledge, understanding, and implementation of intellectual property rights and patents. The data were quantitatively analyzed to determine whether the two blended learning approaches differed in terms of the effects measured. The findings show that the students approved of the online courses and also the face-to-face learning. These findings may reflect approval of the decrease in costs and time. The implication is that active face-to-face experience-based learning should supplement online courses with peer assessment, as this combination led to more successful learning outcomes among students taking courses on intellectual property rights and patents.

In a global world, it is impossible for a technology- based economy to think independently of other variables, underlying relational environment. In the higher education systems, different environments significantly affect the success of the new start-ups in the universities. In this study we try to look at what effects different interactive ecosystems might possibly have on improving creativity, innovation, patenting and licensing by showing different real-life examples from life sciences. Additionally, the paper tries to look at how exactly ethnographic studies affect participants in the process of creating innovative products. All this is given in a close connection with the interactive ecosystem in which the target participants become more active by developing empathy. Thus, by developing a new in
teractive ecosystem, specifically in the hospitals, participants’
behaviours and attitudes have changed and they have become much more actively engaged in the problems and needs of the health shareholders.
Keywords: Higher education, higher education management,
interactive ecosystems, new trends in higher education,
creativity, innovation patenting and licensing, organizational structure and strategy in higher education, translational research, start-ups for universities.

Labs emerge as an effort to deal with the uncertainties and complexities of public problems. These are units dedicated to experimentation, capable of quickly understanding problems and coming up with solutions based on trial and error. Their objective is to contribute to the creation of policies and services that are sensitive to the needs of the people. In this publication, we look into the childhood, the teenage years, adulthood and maturity of government innovation labs. We based our research on the practice and reflections of managers and public innovation teams. We hope this is an opportunity to direct our energy towards the development of organizations with a heightened consciousness of their own life cycles.

It is important to ensure and extend that education has modern, rational, scientific and democratic attributes at every level. An education programme has been developed in order to support personal, social and academic development of teachers and students in high schools. The programme had been carried out in Ümraniye and Gaziosmanpaşa districts of Istanbul by the Ministry of Education during 2011-2012 education term. The programme consists of series of education, seminar, workshop, culture and art activities for supporting personal, social and academic development of teachers. This study reveals if the programme caused any change on teachers. The aim of the study is to measure the effectiveness of the programme that has been carried on the teachers of two different districts and to assess the social, emotional and intellectual changes in teachers caused by the programme. According to the results of the study, emotional intelligence of teachers increased from 47% to 56% in Ümraniye and from 50% to 54% in Gaziosmanpaşa and leadership skills increased from 53% to 57% in Ümraniye and from 53% to 54% in Gaziosmanpaşa.

בר-זוהר, ב' ויוספסברג בן-יהושע, ל' (2022). מרכזי חדשנות בחינוך. הוצאת מכון מופ"ת.
https://ebook.macam.ac.il/read/6/11052022#1

נושאי סקירת מידע זו הם תחום החדשנות בחינוך והתפתחותם של מרכזי חדשנות בחינוך. במסגרת זו נידונים הקשיים והאתגרים של תחום החדשנות בחינוך, שיטות ההערכה של מרכזי החדשנות והשפעת הטכנולוגיה על החדשנות בחינוך. אפשר לסווג את מרכזי החדשנות בחינוך לארבעה סוגים: ממשלתיים, בית ספריים, פרטיים- מסחריים ועירוניים. בכולם בולטים מושגים מעולם החדשנות בחינוך, לדוגמה: יצירתיות, יזמות, סתגלנות, קיימות, עתידנות ואקו-סיסטם. בסקירה מתוארים 19 מרכזי חדשנות בחינוך הפועלים בישראל ומרכז למצוינות בחדשנות בחינוך באוניברסיטת טאלין שבאסטוניה. בהקשר זה מפורטים מדדי ההצלחה, שיטות ההערכה, השקפת העולם, החזון, המטרות, חברי הצוות, בעלי התפקידים, הכשרת חברי הסגל, התקציב, שיטות העבודה, התשתיות הטכנולוגיות, סביבות העבודה וקהלי היעד של מרכז החדשנות באסטוניה. בסוף סקירת המידע מוצעים דיון ומסקנות על מרכזי חדשנות בפרט ועל חדשנות בחינוך בכלל.

The current analytic literature review focus upon the emergence of innovation centers within the field of education. This review analyzes the concept of innovation in education, presents four model of innovation centers in education (governmental, school-based, private and municipal) and defines additional relevant terms, such as: adaptability, creativity, entrepreneurship, sustainability, futurism and ecosystem. In addition, the present review addresses the main challenges of innovation in education, the prominent evaluation methods of innovation centers and both the virtues and the challenges of technology on innovation in education. This literature review presents and outlines 19 active innovation centers operating in Israel and investigates a well-known Estonian innovation center: Tallinn University Center of Excellence on Educational Innovation. This line of investigation points out the Estonian center's practice, vision, agenda, goals, members, budget, training process, success measures, evaluation system, technological infrastructure, work environment and target audience. Lastly, this analysis discusses the insights, implications and consequences of the field of educational innovation centers in particular and innovation in education in general.

La publicación propone las 10 claves para la puesta en marcha de un laboratorio de gobierno para la innovación pública. Se trata de un trabajo colaborativo, en el que un grupo de profesionales de los laboratorios que conforman la Red Innolabs han aportado la experiencia y el conocimiento acumulados en su trayectoria vital.

This paper presents an initial evaluation of the GNova lab, with the aim of contributing to the policy lab literature and debate on the value generated by public sector innovation labs. GNova is a Brazilian federal government innovation lab dedicated to developing creative solutions to public policy problems through design-led experiments that involve the active participation of members of partner teams. In the context of a political transition, GNova carried out an evaluation process to assess the results of its projects. By using working principles as evaluation criteria, the process was design-led and consisted of two phases. The first was a workshop with project partners, followed by a series of in-depth interviews with participants in six selected projects. The findings were grouped into three types of effects (effects of the process, effects of products and effects of the participation). The evaluation, even though with a limited scope, confirmed the assumption that, in addition to effects from specific products delivered, the lab contributes to the development of competencies in the civil servants who participate in the process, in resonance with a public administration paradigm based on public value.

This paper presents an initial evaluation of the GNova lab, with the aim of contributing to the policy lab literature and debate on the value generated by public sector innovation labs. GNova is a Brazilian federal government innovation lab dedicated to developing creative solutions to public policy problems through design-led experiments that involve the active participation of members of partner teams. In the context of a political transition, GNova carried out an evaluation process to assess the results of its projects. By using working principles as evaluation criteria, the process was design-led and consisted of two phases. The first was a workshop with project partners, followed by a series of in-depth interviews with participants in six selected projects. The findings were grouped into three types of effects (effects of the process, effects of products and effects of the participation). The evaluation, even though with a limited scope, confirmed the assumption that, in addition to effects from specific products delivered, the lab contributes to the development of competencies in the civil servants who participate in the process, in resonance with a public administration paradigm based on public value.

#fronterar es el Método de PoliLabUNR. Significa cercanía en las distancias, multiplicidad,  diversidad,  encuentro  y  novedad.  Moviliza  nuevos  escenarios,  pone  en  acción,  activa  redes  y  sinergias,  y  despierta  la  inteligencia  colectiva.
Nos invita a ir más allá de la zona de confort, hacia la construcción de espacios de inteligencia, para la re-solución de problemas públicos, y que nuestras actividades se conviertan en un proceso de producción, innovación y multiplicación colectiva.

The demand of innovation has been developing and transforming the higher education in which new understanding in research should be accepted in order to deal with this highly challenging
demand. In other words, research does not guarantee innovation. Innovation demands that researchers at the universities use technology and innovation, including that of social innovation
while re-engineering most of the higher education systems.
In this study, how innovation based research is taken into account by the researchers is studied in order to analyze the re-engineering process of higher education systems in Turkey in which higher education reform has encouraged, but not well internalized. Hence, the main reasons of the drawback in the internalization by the researchers have studied in order to improve the innovation-based research at the universities. Furthermore, the strategy of delivering innovation-based research is another perspective of this study to understand critically the
implementation of innovation-based research in the successful cases. By using qualitative study, the executives (n=14) and the researchers’ (n=36) perceptions and experiences from two public and two private universities in Istanbul were analyzed strategically. The following qualitative techniques were used to determine the perceptions and experiences: document analysis, online survey, and interviews. The ethnographic study was conducted by observing the perceptions and the experiences of the executives and researchers in order to understand deeply what was the meaning of innovation-based research. After studying for eight weeks in four different universities, 12 different semi-structured research questions were asked in interviews during the sessions. Then, the collected data were analyzed in Atlas.ti 7 in order to make detailed analyses by coding the data for deductive reasoning. The results indicate that the innovation–based research is very new for the researcher, especially
for those in the state universities. In the private universities, both the executives and the researchers are much more prepared for this kind of innovation-based research. However, those
who have not studies abroad and do not have enough chance to experience the innovation-based research are not accepting or even they do not know how to conduct. More importantly, in the
universities where the internalization is much more internalized, the executives choose right people who have better knowledge and experiences. Nevertheless, in the less internalized ones,
the executives do not know and do not have enough experiences about innovation and innovation-based research. Hence, they choose people who are not aware about such a
complicated subject. They have left the responsibilities to the other executives and researchers who are not qualified and experienced. Moreover, this issue has become personal rather than institutional long-term strategy. However, in those universities in which innovation-based research has become strategically critical, the executives as well as the researcher cooperate intensively for multidimensional aspects of innovation-based research. In that way, the ability of the universities in the innovation-based research has increased and seen in the ranking lists of the universities. They strategically and mutually adapt the needs and the requirements of the executives and the researchers in order to conduct highly competitive innovative-based research
ecosystem.