User:Open Research/DIUS consultation

Response to the DIUS Consultation on Innovation We are pleased to see that the DIUS has taken an interest in User-Led (Democratic, Civic, Open or User-Centric) Innovation.

However, we wish to make four main points:

1.	DIUS – or Dialogue By Design – need to examine the definition of Open or User-Led innovation used in the consultation document. Open Innovation is not, as the document says, simply about ‘out-sourcing some of the ideas generation process to others’ (DIUS 2008). What differentiates User-Led or Open Innovation from more conventional approaches is not only the source of ideas but also who and what is involved in acting upon and taking these ideas to fruition. CENTRIM and SPRU Research funded by the ESRC and SEEDA has synthesised research on this topic and has created a typology of user-led activities which the Government may use to help it develop innovation policy in this area.

2.	If users can be more than an inspiration, but can also innovate themselves, it is helpful to abandon the notion of citizens-as-consumers, or, at the very least, temper it with the additional idea of citizens-as-innovators. Innovation policy needs to recognise that user-led innovation activities span the whole spectrum from users contributing ideas to users creating or changing products, services and systems.

3.	The Government asks if there are areas of existing government policy that constrain the ability of consumers to demand or obtain innovative products and services (DIUS 2008). It is possible that provisions to ban the development, ownership and distribution of so-called ‘hacker tools’ among amendments to the Computer Misuse Act included in the Police and Justice Act 2006, may constrain innovation in this, and other sectors, for example, it may hinder innovation in secure computing systems. We highlight the fact that Neuros Technology International recently created a video recorder called Neuros OSD, which is designed to be hacked by users. The company offers prizes to those users who innovate in this way: recently one customer-innovator modified the technology so YouTube clips can be played on television. Founder and Chief Executive Joe Born says that encouraging hacking is a way of maintaining dynamic capabilities. ‘Digital video is a fast-moving space,’ he says. ‘consumers don’t want to buy a new piece of hardware every time a media company comes out with a new way to watch its shows. The best way to address this problem was to make the product open source, allowing our smartest developers and users to modify it.’ (New York Times 2008)

4.	The Government asks how it can build innovative capacity and on creating the right conditions for companies to innovate. We say, firstly, by recognising that it is not only firms and scientists that innovate; citizens do too. Secondly, the Government can encourage innovation by providing more opportunities for citizens to receive help from specialists in academia, to assist with real-life challenges identified by the citizens themselves (through voucher schemes and publicly-funded collaborative calls with charities/NGOs, perhaps). A pilot ‘Citizen Innovators’ scheme, perhaps supported by a raised Working Tax Credit/Working Families Tax Credit for those working in Social Enterprises might be considered. Previous research has established than some potential innovators are lost in the ‘leaky pipeline’ of early research careers. We also suggest that multiple criteria for eligibility (graduates must be of a particular nationality, live within easy transport reach of a particular organisation and have qualifications in a particular field) are not helpful to encourage knowledge transfer. It might be more advantageous to simply fund more knowledge transfer relationship-building events, and knowledge transfer secondments to recent graduates of any nationality and subject, provided they can demonstrate user need through a letter from a firm, charity/NGO, policy or media organisation.