Governing system innovation: assisted living experiments in the UK and Norway

[EN] Debates on how to address societal challenges have moved to the forefront of academic and policy concerns. Of particular importance is the growing awareness that to deal with issues such as ageing, it will be necessary to implement concerted efforts on technological, social, institutional or political fronts. Drawing on a number of theoretical perspectives ¿ including socio-technical transitions and embedded state theory ¿ the aim of this paper is to identify and understand different approaches to the governance of such system innovations by comparing state responses to assisted living in two contrasting national systems of care, namely that of the UK and Norway. Its findings highlight that state-supported and funded experimentation projects have been instrumental in designing and implementing system innovation: through their emphasis on co-design and co-creation, these projects demonstrated the value of early implementation pilots to explore the `fit¿ between novel technologies and prevailing practices and institutional structures in national systems of care. Still, competition, biases or conflicting interests should not be ignored between well-established agents and institutions and experimental solutions whose efficacy remains relatively untested and which involve a combination of new technical, social, organizational and institutional solutions.This project has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 320131 (SmartSpec).Bugge, M.; Coenen, L.; Marques, P.; Morgan, K. (2017). Governing system innovation: assisted living experiments in the UK and Norway. European Planning Studies. 25(12):2138-2156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1349078S213821562512Benner, M. (2014). From smart specialisation to smart experimentation. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 58(1). doi:10.1515/zfw.2014.0003Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.xBulkeley, H., Broto, V. C., & Edwards, G. (2012). Bringing climate change to the city: towards low carbon urbanism? Local Environment, 17(5), 545-551. doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.681464Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., & Truffer, B. (2012). Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 41(6), 968-979. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.014Coenen, L., Raven, R., & Verbong, G. (2010). Local niche experimentation in energy transitions: A theoretical and empirical exploration of proximity advantages and disadvantages. Technology in Society, 32(4), 295-302. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2010.10.006Devlin, A. M., McGee-Lennon, M., O’Donnell, C. A., Bouamrane, M.-M., Agbakoba, R., … O’Connor, S. (2015). Delivering digital health and well-being at scale: lessons learned during the implementation of the dallas program in the United Kingdom. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(1), 48-59. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocv097Evans, P. B. (1995). Embedded Autonomy. doi:10.1515/9781400821723Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8Geels, F. W., Hekkert, M. P., & Jacobsson, S. (2008). The dynamics of sustainable innovation journeys. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 521-536. doi:10.1080/09537320802292982Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72(2), 603-633. doi:10.1016/s0304-3878(03)00124-xJacobsson, B., Pierre, J., & Sundström, G. (2015). Governing the Embedded State. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684168.001.0001Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5), 680-693. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175-198. doi:10.1080/09537329808524310Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2008). Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting. Research Policy, 37(5), 823-835. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.03.006Meadowcroft, J. (2011). Engaging with the politics of sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 70-75. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.003Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist Governance. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0012Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537-554. doi:10.1080/09537320802292651Sengers, F., & Raven, R. (2014). Metering motorbike mobility: informal transport in transition? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(4), 453-468. doi:10.1080/09537325.2013.870991Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584-603. doi:10.1080/09644010701419121Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). Caution! Transitions Ahead: Politics, Practice, and Sustainable Transition Management. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 39(4), 763-770. doi:10.1068/a39310Smith, A., & Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025-1036. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012Smith, A., Voß, J.-P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39(4), 435-448. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023Steward, F. (2012). Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and end-use as new transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(4), 331-343. doi:10.1080/09537325.2012.663959Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037-1047. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015Klein Woolthuis, R., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25(6), 609-619. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2003.11.00