Engaging communities of lead users with technology: findings from a European eParticipation project.
Brendan Galbraith*, Brian Cleland, Department of Management and Leadership, University of Ulster
Suzanne Martin, School of Health Sciences, University of Ulster
Jonathan Wallace and Maurice Mulvenna School of Computing and Mathematics, University of Ulster
*Corresponding and Lead Author: Brendan Galbraith, Department of Management and Leadership, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland BT370QB
Abstract
eParticipation tools aim to facilitate intrinsic engagement from communities of stakeholders and citizens to develop more effective, bottom-up and inclusive public policies, raising the potential to become an efficient engagement tool. It is argued that eParticipation tools such Electronic Town Meeting (eTM) are technological intermediaries that have the potential to efficiently engage communities of sought-after ‘lead users’ to leverage economically valuable ‘sticky knowledge’ in a public policy arena.
While the lead user method has been demonstrated to be very effective (Lüthje and Herstatt, 2004), challenges remain around the sustainability of such an approach, particularly on a large-scale. Olson and Bakke (2001) point out that one of the challenges of embedding lead user processes is overcoming the perception that the method is itself “overly burdensome”, and that “it is very likely that the time and effort required to sustain the lead user method is a major obstacle to its adoption and/or regular use”. A possible mediating tool that might be able to efficiently leverage communities of lead users is the eTM eParticipation tool. This paper links the theoretical work in the field of user innovation and eParticipation. Empirical research comprised eight eTM (Electronic Town Meeting) case studies that were part of a large EC eParticipation project called PARTERRE. Findings show that the eTM has had a very positive effect on engaging lead users to reveal sticky knowledge as well as providing users benefits such as enhanced peer learning.
Introduction
As the body of academic research in e-government widens, the concept of e-government itself, has been established as an effective mechanism for increasing government productivity and efficiency and a key enabler of citizen-centric services (Irani et al, 2012).
eParticipation falls under the rubric of eGovernment and has been defined as a technology-mediated interaction between the civil society, the administration and the formal politics sphere’s usually over some decision making, legislation or simple deliberation process (Sanford and Rose, 2007). Generally, eParticipation has been promoted as means to re-engage and re-activate citizens in the decision-making process (Koussouris et al, 2011) and address diminishing participation in public debate and declining voter turnout (Demo-net, 2006). Although technology is the medium for offering cutting edge eParticipation services to the public, the main barrier resides on the non-technical aspect as the problems and issues that have to be dealt by eParticipation are far more important than drawing a technical plan that will lead to sophisticated eParticipation offerings (Charalabidis et al., 2009). A range of digital tools and online methodologies have been developed in recent years in support of the European Commission’s eParticipation agenda. These solutions have been designed to support citizen engagement in political processes in order to improve policy-making and support the evolving needs of civic society.
As eParticipation tools aim to facilitate intrinsic engagement from communities of stakeholders and citizens to develop more effective, bottom-up and inclusive public policies, it has the potential to become an efficient engagement tool. It is argued that eParticipation case studies are seedbeds to investigate the potential of efficiently engaging communities of sought-after ‘lead users’ to leverage economically valuable ‘sticky knowledge’ in a public policy arena.While the lead user method has been demonstrated to be very effective (Lüthje and Herstatt, 2004), challenges remain around the sustainability of such an approach. Olson and Bakke (2001) point out that one of the challenges of embedding lead user processes is overcoming the perception that the method is itself “overly burdensome”, and that “it is very likely that the time and effort required to sustain the lead user method is a major obstacle to its adoption and/or regular use”. One possible mediating tool that might be able to efficiently leverage communities of lead users is the Electronic Town Meeting (eTM) eParticipation tool.
The Electronic Town Meeting (eTM) is an example of an eParticipation methodology and toolset that has been tested in a variety of cultural contexts and policy areas. In particular, it was piloted in the PARTERRE project, which was funded by European Framework 7’s Competiveness in Innovation Programme. A key part of the innovation strategy of the PARTERRE project was to pilot a series of pan-European eTM workshops that were aimed at addressing a range of public policy issues and the learning outputs from these pilots were to help ascertain the level of user engagement and commercial viability of the eTM. The aim of this paper is to investigate how effective the eTM is as a tool to engage with communities of ‘lead users’ in the context of developing public policy. The findings in this paper are conceived from eight eTM case studies that took place in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, the structure of this paper will review relevant literature in eParticipation, user innovation and innovation communities. Then, an overview of the research methodology and case studies will be discussed, followed by findings and conclusions.
2. Literature Review
eGovernment and eParticipation
While early studies in eGovernment focused on researching the issues surrounding implementation (e.g. Layne and Lee, 2001; Gant and Chen, 2001; Irani et al., 2007), more recent efforts have looked at adoption and diffusion, including e-participation and digital divide (e.g. Brandtzæg et al., 2011). However, in the context of adoption, “citizen satisfaction” in e-government has been an area that has had little research (Irani et al, 2012). Welch et al. (2004) concluded in their research that e-government strategies, such as transaction, transparency, and interactivity are vital factors that directly impact e-government satisfaction and indirectly influence trust.
Research on user satisfaction in e-government context has highlighted that e-government cannot be successful if there is a weak affiliation between the citizens (users), ICT and government authority (employees). Hence, if the systems are used by citizens as a service provision then it is must satisfy their needs (West, 2004; Irani et al, 2012).
Although understanding the emerging field of eParticipation is not straightforward – given the lack of an agreed definition and unclear research boundaries – recent emerging technologies, government reports and academic programmes demonstrate an increasing level of interest in the subject (Sæbø et al., 2008).
However, as the literature in eParticipation expands, researchers have articulated key challenges. Charalabidis et al (2009) argue that the main barrier resides on the non-technical aspect as the problems and issues that have to be dealt by eParticipation are far more important than drawing a technical plan that will lead to sophisticated eParticipation technical functions that are offered by computer systems.
MacIntosh et al (2008) have called for further research on the applicability of eParticipation tools to particular contexts, and to integrate fieldwork methods to assess social acceptance of eParticipation and represent the diversity of views obtained from citizens, community groups and other stakeholders.
The linkages with eParticipation and user innovation
There has been considerable interest in innovation resulting from user activities (Rothwell et al. 1974; 1988). Many explored innovations are at least directly initiated by requests and concrete needs of users (Biemans 1991; Utterback et al. 1976; Mansfield, 1988) and the idea or the concept for innovations often stems from the user (Voss 1985; Baker et al. 1986). There are many different approaches and denominations for user involvement such as; design for, with or by users (Kaulio, 1998), customer as co-producer (Wikström, 1995), participatory-design (Namioka and Schuler, 1993), user-centered approaches (Newman and Lamming, 1995) and living labs (Galbraith et al. 2008; Galbraith and McAdam 2012).
It has been shown that users are frequently the first to develop and use prototype versions of what later became commercially significant new products and processes (von Hippel, 1988; Vanderwerf, 1990; Shaw, 1985). Moreover, it was found that innovation by users tended to be concentrated among ‘lead users’ of those products and processes (von Hippel, 1986). The lead users experienced needs for a given innovation earlier than the majority of the target market – early adopters (von Hippel, 1986). Urban and von Hippel (1988) found that users in their lead user cluster adopted technologies on average seven years before users in their no-lead user cluster.
An important conceptual component of user innovation and lead users is ‘sticky knowledge’ (von Hippel, 1993). Von Hippel (1993) argues information that is often used in technical problem solving is costly to acquire, transfer, and use in a new locus – making it ‘sticky information’. Von Hippel (1993) states that there are several dimensions of ‘sticky knowledge’. For example, to solve a problem, needed information and problem-solving capabilities must be brought together - physically or "virtually" - at a single locus. Moreover, intensity and iteration are crucial dimensions of knowledge combination (internal and external knowledge) processes - especially, in cases of sticky knowledge (Andersen and Christensen, 2005). This iteration of sticky knowledge means that problem-solving activity often shuttles back and forth between internal and external task groups, as information cannot be passed across simply trough directions or specifications, using for instance prototypes as the information carrier (Kristensen, 1992).
The literature also emphasises the role of various mediating artifacts in combining and transferring ‘sticky’ knowledge (Wenger 1998; Bechky 2003). A key linkage that this paper attempts to explore is better understanding of the transfer of ‘sticky knowledge’ in public policy domains, namely in the context of eParticipation. In summary, there are several dimensions that are important for leveraging valuable sticky knowledge such as: intensity and iteration, problem-solving capabilities, and the role of mediating artifacts (including technology). These dimensions would appear to align well with antecedents of eParticipation. For example, researchers argue that placing a premium on comments that are well thought out raises the bar of participation (Fishkin, 2000; Burkhalter, Gastil,&Kelshaw, 2002). To underline the importance of engagement and iteration it has been argued that not everyone agrees that deliberation alone can deliver sound policy (Parkinson, 2003).Another similarity with the user innovation field is that eParticipation also engages with communities of citizens (users) and possibly large number of ‘lead users’ in areas related to public policy.
In the innovation literature, several studies show that users with similar interests and needs often form user-innovation communities, where members freely reveal their innovations and assist each other with innovation development (Franke and Shah, 2003; Hienerth, 2006; Tietz et al., 2005). Empirical research suggests that his type of ‘user-driven’ innovation is a more fruitful major source of innovation (von Hippel, 1988, 2005). Von Hippel (2005) argues that one of important functions of innovation communities is:
“The practical value of the ‘freely revealed innovation commons’ these users collectively offer will be increased if their information is somehow made conveniently accessible”.
Moreover, because online communication drastically lowers the costs of firm-to-user and user-to-user interaction compared to that of an “off-line,” physically based community, online communities have been adopted by firms to build brands (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001), support product use (Moon and Sproull 2001), collect feedback and ideas (Williams and Cothrel 2000), and to charge community-based customer access fees (Armstrong and Hagel 1996). Recent studies of community-based innovation models in which users join “peer-to-peer communities of common interest” both online (Lerner and Tirole 2002, Lakhani and von Hippel 2003, O’Mahony 2003, von Krogh and von Hippel 2003) and “off-line” (Shah 2000, Lüthje 2004, Franke and Shah 2003) suggest that innovative user communities may yield important value, for example, new product concepts or product features.
During the course of the PARTERRE project, it became clear that eParticipation tools, which are designed primarily to engage stakeholder communities in order support policy decision-making, might also function as a more general tool for engaging with communities lead users in order to support innovation. In this sense, the Electronic Town Meeting system can be viewed as a toolset and methodology for lead user and user community engagement, with the potential for improving access to sticky knowledge and reducing the cost of knowledge transfer. In attempting to understand the effectiveness and impact of the Electronic Town Meeting as a tool for engaging communities of lead users, the following questions were formulated:
1. How effective was the eTM as an engagement mechanism from the perspective of the user communities?
2. How satisfied were organisers and participants of the eTM?
3. What factors would attract user communities to participate in another eTM?
4. Specifically, what did the eTM help with?
5. What were the most important aspects with regards to stimulating creativity?
Methodology
The objective of the CIP-funded PARTERRE project is to deploy ICT to enhance the direct participation of citizens, stakeholders and civil society in democratic decision-making processes using specific electronic tools. One tool which being piloted as part of the PARTERRE project is the Electronic Town Meeting (eTM), a deliberative democracy methodology and toolset combining small-groups discussion with the advantages of electronic communication.
Figure 1 – eTM process in Northern Ireland
The process of the Electronic Town Meeting (eTM) that was adopted in Northern Ireland is as follows (see Figure 1): after information on a given topic has been provided, participants can express themselves individually within small groups (typically round tables). Instant minutes of the table discussions are kept by facilitators - using electronic means – with the aim of enabling opinions and views to emerge from the debate, without any attempt to formulate a unitary (or compromise) vision. A central team (known as the “Theme Team”), composed of domain experts, collects and reviews the minutes, clustering the issues that emerge – with a special eye on conflicting perspectives – and then provides rankings of statements which are finally submitted to a collective vote by all participants. The voting mechanism is typically supported by the provision of numeric keypads to each participant in the eTM. At the end of the day an “Instant Report” is drawn up and distributed to all participants, summarizing the general aims of the debate, the process undertaken and the main results of the work done, particularly issues prioritised through the collective vote.