engaging user communities with eparticipation technology: findings from a european project

This article was downloaded by: [University Library Utrecht]On: 30 September 2013, At: 12:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Technology Analysis & StrategicManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctas20

Engaging user communities witheParticipation technology: findingsfrom a European projectBrendan Galbraith a , Brian Cleland a , Suzanne Martin b ,Jonathan Wallace c , Maurice Mulvenna c & Rodney McAdam aa Department of Management and Leadership, University of Ulster,Newtownabbey, Northern Irelandb School of Health Sciences, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey,Northern Irelandc School of Computing and Mathematics, University of Ulster,Newtownabbey, Northern IrelandPublished online: 21 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Brendan Galbraith , Brian Cleland , Suzanne Martin , Jonathan Wallace ,Maurice Mulvenna & Rodney McAdam (2013) Engaging user communities with eParticipationtechnology: findings from a European project, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25:3,281-294, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2013.764986

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.764986

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctas20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09537325.2013.764986

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.764986

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2013Vol. 25, No. 3, 281–294, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.764986

Engaging user communities witheParticipation technology: findingsfrom a European project

Brendan Galbraitha∗, Brian Clelanda, Suzanne Martinb, Jonathan Wallacec,Maurice Mulvennac and Rodney McAdama

aDepartment of Management and Leadership, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland; bSchool of HealthSciences, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland; cSchool of Computing and Mathematics, University ofUlster, Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland

eParticipation tools aim to facilitate intrinsic engagement from communities of stakeholdersand citizens to develop more effective, bottom-up and inclusive policies, raising the potential tobecome an efficient engagement tool. It is argued that eParticipation tools such as the ElectronicTown Meeting (eTM) have the potential to efficiently engage communities of sought-after ‘leadusers’ to leverage economically valuable ‘sticky knowledge’. While the lead user method hasbeen demonstrated to be very effective, challenges remain around the sustainability of suchan approach, particularly on a large-scale. A possible mediating tool that might be able toefficiently leverage communities of lead users is the eTM eParticipation tool. Findings fromeight case studies show that the eTM has had a positive effect on appropriation and engagementof lead users as well as providing users benefits such as enhanced peer learning, and there ispotential to extrapolate to innovation activities.

Keywords: user communities; eParticipation; lead users; innovation

Introduction

eParticipation has been defined as a technology-mediated interaction between the civil society, theadministration and the formal politics sphere’s usually over some decision making, legislation orsimple deliberation process (Sanford and Rose 2007). Generally, eParticipation has been promotedas means a to re-engage and re-activate citizens in the decision-making process (Koussouris,Charalabidis and Askounis 2011) and address diminishing participation in public debate anddeclining voter turnout (Demo-net 2006). Although technology is the medium for offering cuttingedge eParticipation services to the public, the main barrier resides on the non-technical aspectas the problems and issues that have to be dealt by eParticipation are far more important thandrawing a technical plan that will lead to sophisticated eParticipation offerings (Charalabidis etal. 2009). A range of digital tools and online methodologies have been developed throughout the

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

282 B. Galbraith et al.

lifetime of the European Commission’s eParticipation agenda that has spanned from 2000–2012 .These solutions have been designed to support citizen engagement in political processes in orderto improve policy-making and support the evolving needs of civic society.

It is recognised that even though issues such as usability, usefulness and user friendliness areconsidered in information technology (IT) systems design processes many IT systems fail to meetusers’needs and requirements (Fitzgerald, Russo and Stolterman 2002). Preece, Rogers and Sharp(2002) argue that new methods and theories covering expectations and needs of new products andservices are required in the field of IT-evaluation.

As eParticipation tools aim to facilitate intrinsic engagement from communities of stakeholdersand citizens to develop more effective, bottom-up and inclusive public policies, it has the potentialto become an efficient engagement tool. It is argued that eParticipation case studies are seedbedsto investigate the potential of efficiently engaging communities of sought-after ‘lead users’ (vonHippel 1986) to leverage economically valuable ‘sticky knowledge’ (von Hippel 1993) in a publicpolicy arena. In the policy context, it is argued that ‘lead users’ may also exist in public policy‘communities of practice’ to help articulate new products (in this case, premium quality publicpolicies) and this process can be expedited in a more effective manner with the deployment ofeParticipation technology toolkits.

This is a timely contribution as, while the lead user method has been demonstrated to bevery effective (Lüthje and Herstatt 2004), challenges remain around the sustainability of such anapproach. Olson and Bakke (2001) point out that one of the challenges of embedding lead userprocesses is overcoming the perception that the method is itself ‘overly burdensome’, and that ‘itis very likely that the time and effort required to sustain the lead user method is a major obstacleto its adoption and/or regular use’. One possible mediating tool that might be able to efficientlyleverage communities of lead users and communities of practice is the Electronic Town Meeting(eTM) eParticipation tool.

The eTM is an example of an eParticipation methodology and toolset that was piloted in thePARTERRE project, which was funded by European Framework 7’s Competiveness in InnovationProgramme. A key part of the innovation strategy of the PARTERRE project was to pilot a seriesof pan-European eTM workshops that were aimed at addressing a range of public policy issuesand the learning outputs from these pilots were to help ascertain the level of user engagementand commercial viability of the eTM. The aim of this paper is to investigate how effective theeTM is as a tool to engage with communities of ‘lead users’ in the context of developing publicpolicy. The findings in this paper are conceived from eight eTM case studies that took place inNorthern Ireland.

Therefore, the structure of this paper will review relevant literature in eParticipation, userinnovation and innovation communities. Then, an overview of the research methodology andcase studies will be discussed, followed by findings and conclusions.

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; Fang 2002; Irani, Elliman and Jackson 2007),more recent efforts have looked at adoption and diffusion, including e-participation and digitaldivide (e.g. Brandtzæg, Heim and Karahasanovic 2011; Sæbo, Rose and Flak 2008; Al Shafi andWeerakkody 2007). However, in the context of adoption, ‘citizen satisfaction’ in e-government

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Engaging user communities with eParticipation technology 283

has been an area that has had little research (Irani et al. 2012). Welch, Hinnant and Moon(2004) concluded in their research that e-government strategies, such as transaction, transparencyand interactivity are vital factors that directly impact e-government satisfaction and indirectlyinfluence trust.

Research on user satisfaction in e-government context has highlighted that e-government cannotbe successful if there is a weak affiliation between the citizens (users), ICT and governmentauthority (employees). Hence, if the systems are used by citizens as a service provision then it ismust satisfy their needs (West 2004; Irani et al. 2012).

According to Sanford and Rose (2007), eParticipation ‘involves the extension and transforma-tion of participation in societal democratic and consultative processes, mediated by informationand communication technologies (ICTs)’. Generally, it is intended to promote and support anengaged citizenship using modern technologies, especially internet-based technologies. Althoughunderstanding the emerging field of eParticipation is not straightforward – given the lack of anagreed definition and unclear research boundaries – emerging technologies, government reportsand academic programmes demonstrate an increasing level of interest in the subject (Sæbø, Roseand Flak 2008).

It has been observed by Habermas (1996), Van Dijk (2000) and others that democracy andrelated political processes depend on effective communication and informed decision-makingby citizens, politicians, officers and other stakeholders. Motivations for governments to promoteparticipation include improving efficiency and strengthening the legitimacy of political processes.From the other side, citizens, non-governmental organizations, lobbyists and pressure groups arelikely to push for increased participation in order to forward their own interests. As technologieshave evolved, multiple platforms with the potential to support participation have become available,including social media, chat technologies, discussion forums, electronic voting systems, groupdecision support systems, and blogs. This combination of motivated actors and improvementsin technological infrastructure has resulted in a proliferation of eParticipation projects (Bekkers2004; Best and Krueger 2005; Curwell et al. 2005).

While eParticipation as a term is not yet mature and is still evolving in the literature (Chang2005; Dutton et al. 1984; MacIntosh and Smith 2002), it is likely to continue to emerge as adistinctive research area. As Sæbø, Rose and Flak (2008) point out, many factors point to itsgrowing importance. These factors include government programmes, government reports (Faganet al. 2006; Jansen, Dowe and Heimann 2006), the emergence of companies specializing ineParticipation and targeted research programmes.

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 theproblems and issues that have to be dealt by eParticipation are far more important than drawinga technical plan that will lead to sophisticated eParticipation technical functions that are offeredby computer systems.

MacIntosh ans Whyte (2008) have called for further research on the applicability of ePartici-pation tools to particular contexts, and to integrate fieldwork methods to assess social acceptanceof eParticipation and represent the diversity of views obtained from citizens, community groupsand other stakeholders.

The linkages with eParticipation and user innovation

There has been considerable interest in innovation resulting from user activities (Rothwellet al. 1974; Rosenberg 1976; von Hippel 1976, 1988). Many explored innovations are at least

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13


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 (Voss1985; Baker, Green and Alden 1986). There are many different approaches and denominationsfor 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-centred approaches(Newman and Lamming 1995; Preece, Rogers and Sharp 2002) and living laboratories (Galbraithet al. 2008; Galbraith and McAdam 2011).

It has been shown that users are frequently the first to develop and use prototype versionsof 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 beconcentrated among ‘lead users’ of those products and processes (von Hippel 1986). The leadusers 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 usercluster 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 problemsolving 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, tosolve 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 dimensionsof knowledge combination (internal and external knowledge) processes – especially, in cases ofsticky knowledge (Andersen and Christensen 2005). This iteration of sticky knowledge meansthat problem-solving activity often shuttles back and forth between internal and external taskgroups, as information cannot be passed across simply trough directions or specifications, usingfor instance prototypes as the information carrier (Kristensen 1992).

The literature also emphasises the role of various mediating artifacts in combining and trans-ferring ‘sticky’ knowledge (Wenger 1998; Bechky 2006). A key linkage that this paper attemptsto 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 impor-tant for leveraging valuable sticky knowledge such as: intensity and iteration, problem-solvingcapabilities and the role of mediating artifacts (including technology). These dimensions wouldappear to align well with antecedents of eParticipation. For example, researchers argue that plac-ing a premium on comments that are well thought out raises the bar of participation (Fishkin2000; Burkhalter, Gastil and Kelshaw 2002). To underline the importance of engagement anditeration it has been argued that not everyone agrees that deliberation alone can deliver soundpolicy (Sanders 1997; Dryzek 2000; Parkinson 2003).

Another similarity with the user innovation field is that eParticipation also engages withcommunities of citizens (users) and possibly large number of ‘lead users’ in areas related topublic policy.

In the innovation literature, several studies show that users with similar interests and needs oftenform user–innovation communities (Heiskanen et al. 2010), where members freely reveal theirinnovations and assist each other with innovation development (Franke and Shah 2003; Hiernerth2006; Tietz et al. 2005). Empirical research suggests that his type of ‘user-driven’ innovation is amore fruitful major source of innovation (von Hippel 1988, 2005). Von Hippel (2005) argues thatone of important functions of innovation communities is the following:

The practical value of the ‘freely revealed innovation commons’ these users collectively offer will beincreased if their information is somehow made conveniently accessible.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Moreover, because online communication drastically lowers the costs of firm-to-user anduser-to-user interaction compared to that of an ‘off-line’, physically based community, onlinecommunities have been adopted by firms to build brands (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001), supportproduct 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).

Studies of community-based innovation models in which users join ‘peer-to-peer commu-nities of common interest’ both online (Lerner and Tirole 2002; Lakhani and von Hippel 2003;O’Mahony 2003; von Krogh and von Hippel 2003; Rohrbeck, Steinhoff and Perder 2010) and ‘off-line’ (Shah 2000; Lüthje 2004; Franke and Shah 2003) suggest that innovative user communitiesmay 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 aredesigned 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 tosupport innovation.

In this sense, the ETM system can be viewed as a toolset and methodology for lead user anduser community engagement, with the potential for improving access to sticky knowledge andreducing the cost of knowledge transfer.

In attempting to understand the effectiveness and impact of the ETM as a tool for engagingcommunities of lead users, the following questions were formulated:

1. How effective was the eTM as an engagement mechanism from the perspective of the usercommunities?

2. How satisfied were the user communities 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 directparticipation of citizens, stakeholders and civil society in democratic decision-making processesusing specific electronic tools. One tool which being piloted as part of the PARTERRE project isthe eTM, a deliberative democracy methodology and toolset combining small-groups discussionwith the advantages of electronic communication.

The process of eTM that was adopted in Northern Ireland is as follows (see Figure 1): afterinformation on a given topic has been provided, participants can express themselves individu-ally within small groups (typically round tables). Instant minutes of the table discussions arekept by facilitators – using electronic means – with the aim of enabling opinions and views toemerge from the debate, without any attempt to formulate a unitary (or compromise) vision. Acentral team (known as the ‘Theme Team’), composed of domain experts, collects and reviewsthe 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 voteby all participants. The voting mechanism is typically supported by the provision of numerickeypads to each participant in the eTM. At the end of the day an ‘Instant Report’ is drawnup and distributed to all participants, summarising the general aims of the debate, the processundertaken and the main results of the work done, particularly issues prioritised through thecollective vote.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Figure 1. eTM process in Northern Ireland.

For each of the eTM pilots outlined below, the topic was identified by a representative of thelead user community, who approached the project team with a request for an event. User-centredresearch methodologies were also employed during the organisation and implementation of eacheTM. In practice, this was an organic process were professional contacts and other networkswere utilised to inform potential Lead Community Coordinators (LCC) of the eTM process andbenefits. It was surprising to the research team how easy it was to attract high levels of interestand motivation from LCC’s, who were keen to professionalise the engagement process, makeit more efficient and improve the outcome of the civic engagement. LCC can be defined ashighly motivated experts in the policy arena, who take a leadership role to connect expert usercommunities. The number of participants of each eTM pilot ranged from 40 to 50 per eTM,with a total of 380 participants across the eight case studies. The eight case-study eTMs werecarried out over a period of 12 months and the researchers were able to benefit from a triangulatedmethodology that included direct observation, post-eTM surveys and post-eTM interviews withthe LCC’s on the same research questions.

Findings

The findings of each of the research questions are presented below. Table 1 highlights the descrip-tion and profile of the eTM pilots in Northern Ireland and in the subsequent findings section wepresent the most salient findings for each research question. In the conclusion we further extendthis discussion by considering the most pertinent findings from the LCC’s.

Research Question 1: How effective was the eTM as an engagement mechanism from theperspective of the user communities?

Almost all users (94%) felt that the goals of the eTM were either ‘clear’or ‘complex but graspable’.Most thought that the eTM-enabled discussion had a positive impact. Forty per cent believedthat the topic became ‘more graspable’; while 36% felt that it had become ‘an exciting new

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Engaging

usercom

munities

with

eParticipationtechnology

287

Table 1. Parterre Electronic Town Meeting pilots in Northern Ireland.

Lead user community Profile of usereTM Title coordinators Objectives community

1 Strategy for Allied HealthProfessionals (AHP) inNorthern Ireland

University – School ofHealth Sciences

Develop a comprehensive response to theDHSSPSNI consultation on AHP strategyfor Northern Ireland

Representatives from the AHPworkforce and experts from relatedacademic fields

2 Open government – making opendata real

UK Cabinet Office,Northern IrelandCivil Service

To co-design a response to the publicconsultation on open data, and to influencepublic policy at regional and national level

Industry representatives, local andregional government, policy-makers,academics

3 Partnerships for businessinnovation – engaging forgrowth

University –ManagementSchool

To explore how businesses can be supportedin innovation activities using partnershipsmodels with academic and governmentstakeholders

Representatives from industry, tradeassociations, regional and localgovernment, and academia

4 Worklessness within NorthBelfast

Regional socialdepartment

To engage stakeholders in North Belfast in civicdebate on issues related to worklessness intheir local communities

Community representatives, local andregional government, academics

5 Maximising social value throughpublic sector procurement

Social innovationorganisation

To improve understanding among stakeholdersof how social value can be integrated withinthe commissioning process

Academics, charitable and voluntarysector, procurement practitioners,policy-makers

6 Innovation in sustainableconstruction and energymanagement

College of FurtherEducation

To consider implications of sustainableconstruction and energy management forindustry and educators

SMEs, large corporates, academics,local and regional government

7 Brain–computer neural interfaces University – School ofHealth Sciences

To improve understanding of the potential forBCNI to support people with neurologicalconditions who are living at home

Academic staff and students,occupational therapists

8 Embedding telehealth in care &service provision

Regional Health Trust To understand the future role of connectedhealth technologies within the RegionalHealth Trust

Clinicians, senior management

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13


development’. A minority of participants came to the event with a fixed opinion (17%), while amajority (65%) viewed the eTM as an opportunity to ‘understand the missing parts’. With regardto suggested outcomes, 50% of respondents indicated that there were several good solutions, butthat they voted for what benefited them individually the most. Twelve and a half per cent statedthat they found a new solution during the meeting, while 10% simply joined the majority view.Other responses to this question included comments such as ‘good base for further research andaction’, ‘more food for thought’ and ‘I gained information and insight’.

Research Question 2: How satisfied were the user communities of the eTM?

Satisfaction levels of participants appeared to be very high, with 94% either agreeing or stronglyagreeing that they would participate in another eTM. When questioned whether meetings of thiskind had the potential to increase democratic engagement, most agreed (or strongly agreed) thatit could. Opinions on the relevance of the system at various levels of governance indicated thatthere was greater confidence in its usefulness at a smaller, organisational scale, rather than in anational or EU government context. It is worth pointing out that a significant number of users(25–36%) gave a neutral response (neither agreed nor disagreed) when queried about the potentialfor increased democracy, perhaps reflecting the speculative nature of the problem.

Research Question 3: What factors would attract user communities to participate inanother eTM?

The most popular response to the question of what would attract users to participate again inan eTM event was ‘communicating with others on an important topic and reaching a consensus’(50% ranked this as the most important motivation). Many users saw the eTM as an opportunityto gain understanding into complex issues (27%). Civic duty seemed to be a relatively minormotivating factor. These results suggest that the ability of the system to promote interaction andenable shared understanding is key aspects from the point of view of user communities.

Research Question 4: Specifically, what outputs were achieved by the user communities as aresult of using the eTM?

The most valued results of the eTM according to the above question were clarification of thetopic, the testing of views and opinions and the definition of the problem or problems to besolved. Interestingly, technical aspects such as polling and reporting did not score as highly inthe evaluation results. The opportunity to reach a consensus was also only chosen by 12% as themost important result. As with Research Question 3, the emphasis of the respondents seemed tofocus on the benefits to the individual that derived from interaction with other members of theuser community.

Research Question 5: What were the most important benefits of using the eTM to engage withthe user communities?

The leading benefit of the eTM according to the user communities was ‘as a source of ideas to becaptured and collected in an idea bank for future reference’, with 41% of respondents choosing thisas the most important aspect of the meeting. The ability to define future agendas and to influencepolicies at a higher level was also seen as key benefits – although perhaps not as important as the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13


generation and recording of ideas. In this poll, as with previous questions, the benefits to the usercommunity in terms of improved knowledge or expertise were perceived as more important thanpotential impacts on policy-makers.

Summary of findings

Feedback on the role of stakeholders (i.e. other participants/members of the user community)was very positive, reflecting the impression that peer learning and engagement was a key benefitfor participants. Comments such as ‘guidance without control’, ‘good participation’, ‘opinionsform top/middle/bottom was fantastic. Shared + indifferent opinions valued’, ‘Excellent range ofstakeholders prompted good discussion’ and ‘excellent – intimate and open conversations held’reflected the general tone of responses.

The technology itself was also well-received, with users observing that it was ‘very user-friendly, slick’, ‘gave great results on various issues’, ‘worked well and helped the process’,‘worked without being intrusive’and was ‘simple to use’. This was particularly encouraging, giventhat many IT systems fail to meet users’needs and requirements (Fitzgerald, Russo and Stolterman2002). It seems likely that with the increased deployment of engagement tools such as eTM,user-familiarity will increase and the technology will become more embedded and less visible.

The primary challenge for organisers, according to the user feedback, was in determininguseful and relevant polling questions and responses. Comments included: ‘Always a difficultywith regards to what questions to ask’, ‘too vague’ and ‘The poll questions didn’t strike meas well formulated or diverse enough’. Since multiple-choice polling questions by their naturerestrict the users’ responses, it is important to try and pre-empt as closely as possible the range oflikely responses and to avoid any ambiguity or confusion in how questions or response optionsare phrased.

Overall, the responses to the primary research questions indicated that the user community val-ued the opportunity for communicating with their peers; clarifying, testing and defining opinions;and generating and capturing ideas.

Conclusion

Overall, the response of the user communities involved in the eTM pilots was very positive,with a large majority of users indicating that they would be keen to use such a tool again in thefuture. According to responses garnered by the evaluation surveys, the primary value to usersseemed to focus on the ability to enhance community interaction, knowledge sharing and debate,and generally to enable individuals to improve their understanding and expertise on complextopics. Despite the primary focus of eParticipation systems such as eTM being improved citi-zen engagement in the policy-making process, the lead users that took part in the workshopsviewed external impacts as less important than the direct benefits to the community and itsmembers.

Based on feedback from LCC interviews and direct observation from the researchers, it seemsthat the role of the community coordinator is crucial for overall success of the eTM. The coor-dinator plays a role before the event by identifying and inviting other members of the usercommunity to attend; during the event by facilitating the discussion among the participants;and after the event by disseminating the results to the wider user community. At the conclu-sion of several eTM, the researcher were directly approached by some of the user communityparticipants from both the private and public sector, to request eTM service for other contexts,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Figure 2. The communitycoordinator connects lead users within the eTM.

including ‘ideation’ and creativity brainstorming activities. Overall, the success of the eTM willtherefore depend on the coordinator being a lead user themselves, i.e. well connected withinthe user community and able to communicate effectively with their peers (see Figure 2). Thedynamism of the eTM process included iterative learning, suggestions on how to further extendthe results with follow up eTMs and un-solicited offers to conduct eTMs in other contexts.These were tangible value added outcomes that exceeded the expectations of the researchers.Furthermore, the eTM process itself was an effective (and unintended) appropriation strategythat generated further avenues of inquiry, and among the user communities were other poten-tial LCCs for additional eTMs (see Figure 2). Again, this is symptomatic of the user-led natureof the eTMs and how it has the potential to efficiently connect a new wave of LCC’s and usercommunities.

Given the positive response to the pilots from both eTM participants and LCCs, it seemslikely that eTM as a lead user method tool has the potential to increase uptake of the lead usermethod among organisations. The simplicity and ease-of-use of such an approach may reduce theperceived burden of engaging with lead users – a burden that has been identified by Olson andBakke (2001) as a significant barrier to lead user method adoption. Another important finding isthat the primary motivations for lead users were the opportunities for networking and learning,rather than influencing policy (which appeared to be a secondary consideration for participants)and that ‘lead users’ can also exist and create value in a public policy context.

Further research in this area might consider whether tools such as eTM can enhance user inno-vation communities and knowledge communities by facilitating activities such as ‘free revealing’(von Hippel 2005) and peer learning. Also, while eTM and other similar toolsets have beendeveloped to support policy-making processes, more investigation is needed into their poten-tial for helping firms to engage with lead users in a commercial context in order to supportproduct and service innovation. It would be interesting if similar appropriation effects werecreated when deploying the eTM in innovation activities. Finally, the potential for eParticipa-tion technologies to link real-world discussions with asynchronous online debate merits furtherexploration.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding support from the EC’s Competitiveness in Innovation Programme (CIP)that supported the PARTERRE project and the research results presented in this paper. We also appreciate the invalu-able comments from reviewers on earlier drafts of this paper that was presented at the International Conference forOrganizational Innovation (2012) and European Conference for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2012).

Notes on contributors

Brendan Galbraith is an innovation academic in the Ulster Business School, University of Ulster. Brendan has publishedwidely in academic journals and is a regular speaker at international conferences. Brendan is experienced in businessmodel development and user methodologies in European innovation projects and is a member of the European Networkof Living Labs.

Brian Cleland is a Research Associate at the University of Ulster, where his primary research focus is on eParticipationand Open Innovation in government. Prior to academia, he worked for over 18 years as an IT professional in the privateand public sector.

Suzanne Martin, PhD, is a Reader in Health Sciences at the University of Ulster and registered Occupational Therapist.She is a Co-Director of the TRAIL living Lab, a Council member of the College of Occupational Therapists and a memberof the Office for Research Ethics Northern Ireland (ORECNI). Suzanne is involved in translation research, specificallypromoting innovation in healthcare.

Jonathan Wallace is Professor of Innovation at the School of Computing and Mathematics at the University of Ulster andDirector of Knowledge and Technology Transfer for the Faculty of Computing and Engineering. He is chair of Open-NI and is a member of the IET Policy Group for Northern Ireland and Chair of the Regional Steering Committee forEngineering UK.

Maurice Mulvenna, PhD, is Professor of Computer Science in the School of Computing and Mathematics at the Universityof Ulster, a chartered fellow of the British Computer Society, and a senior member of both the Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers and the Association for Computing Machinery. He is also a board member in the University ofUlster technology venturing and investment company Innovation Ulster Ltd, as well as a non-executive director in severalcompanies.

Rodney McAdam is Professor in Innovation Management at the Ulster Business School, University of Ulster. His researchfocus is on knowledge management and innovation implementation within SME’s and he has published a large number ofpapers in international peer reviewed journals in this area. He is a regular conference speaker at international conferenceson SME issues and supervises a number of PhD students in this area. Before joining the university he worked in theaerospace industry.

References

Al Shafi, S., and V. Weerakkody. 2007. Implementing and managing e-government in the state of Qatar: A citizens’perspective. Electronic Government: An International Journal 4: 436–50.

Andersen, P.H., and P.R. Christensen. 2005. From localized to corporate excellence: How do MNCs extract, combineand disseminate sticky knowledge from regional innovation systems? Druid Working Paper No. 05-16. Available atwww.druid.dk

Armstrong, A., and J. Hagel. 1996. The real value of on-line communities. Harvard Business Review 74, no. 3: 134–41.Baker, N.R., S.G. Green, and S. Alden. 1986. Why R&D project succeed or fail. Research Management 29, no. 6: 29–34.Bechky, B. 2006. Gaffers, gofers and grips: Role based coordination in temporary organizations. Organization Science

17: 3–21.Bekkers, V. 2004. Virtual policy communities and responsive governance: Redesigning on-line debates. Information Polity

9, nos. 3–4: 193–203.Best, S.J., and B.S. Krueger. 2005. Analyzing the representativeness of Internet political participation. Political Behavior

27, no. 2: 183–216.Biemans, W.G. 1991. User and third-party involvement in developing medical equipment innovations. Technovation 11:

163–82.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

http://www.druid.dk


Brandtzæg, P.B., J. Heim, and A. Karahasanovic. 2011. Understanding the new digital divide – a typology of internetusers in Europe. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 29: 123–38.

Burkhalter, S., J. Gastil, and T. Kelshaw. 2002. A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation insmall face-to-face groups. Communication Theory 12: 398–422.

Chang, W.-Y. 2005. Online civic participation, and political empowerment: Online media and public opinion formationin Korea. Media, Culture and Society 27, no. 6: 925–35.

Charalabidis, Y., S. Koussouris, G. Gionis, and D. Askounis. 2009. Promoting electronic participation systems in theBalkans: The case of national press agencies. International Journal of Electronic Governance 2: 272–76.

Curwell, S., M. Deakin, I. Cooper, K. Paskaleva-Shapira, J. Ravetz, and D. Babicki. 2005. Citizens’ expectations ofinformation cities: Implications for urban planning and design. Building Research and Information 33, no. 1: 55–66.

Demo-net. 2006. Mapping eParticipation. White Papers in conjunction with MCIS 2006, The 7th MediterraneanConference on Information Systems, Venice.

Van Dijk, J. 2000. Models of democracy and concepts of communication. In Digital democracy, issues of theory andpractice, ed. K.L. Hacker and J. Van Dijk. London: Sage.

Dryzek, J.S. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Dutton, W., J. Steckenrider, D. Rosschristensen, L. Lynch, B. Goldfarb, L. Hirschberg, T. Barcroft, and R. Williams. 1984.

Electronic participation by citizens in US local government. Information Age 6: 78–97.Fagan, G.H., D.R. Newman, P. McCusker, and M. Murray. 2006. E-consultation: Evaluating appropriate technologies and

processes for citizens’ participation in public policy. Final report from the eConsultation research project. Availableat http://www.e-consultation.org/files/ecrp_report.pdf

Fang, Z. 2002. eGovernment in digital era: Concept, practice and development. International Journal of the Computer,the Internet and Information 20: 193–213.

Fishkin, J.S. 2000. The ‘filter’, the ‘mirror’ and the ‘mob’: Reflections on deliverative democracy. Paper presented at theconference ‘Deliberating about Deliberative Democracy’ 4–6 February 2000, University of Texas, Austin. Availableat http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/delpol/conf2000/papers/FilterMirrorMob.pdf

Fitzgerald, B., N. Russo, and E. Stolterman. 2002. Information systems development – methods in action. Maidenhead,UK: McGraw-Hill.

Franke, N., and S. Shah. 2003. How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharingamong end-users. Research Policy 32: 157–78.

Gant, J., and Y. Chen. 2001. Transforming local e-government services: The use of application service providers.Government Information Quarterly 18: 343–55.

Galbraith, B., and R. McAdam. 2011. The promise and problem with open innovation. Technology Analysis & StrategicManagement 23: 1–6.

Galbraith, B., M. Mulvenna, R. McAdam, and S. Martin. 2008. Open innovation in connected health: An empirical studyand research agenda. In Conference on Open Innovation: Creating Products and Services through Collaboration(ISPIM-2008), Tours, France. Manchester, UK: ISPIM.

Habermas, J. 1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Heiskanen, E., S. Hyysalo, T. Kotro, and P. Repo. 2010. Constructing innovative users and user-inclusive innovationcommunities. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22: 495–511.

Hiernerth, C. 2006. The development of the rodeo kayaking industry. R&D Management 36: 273–94.von Hippel, E. 1976. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy 5: 212–39.von Hippel, E. 1986. Lead user: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32: 791–805.von Hippel, E. 1988. The sources of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.von Hippel, E. 1993. ‘Sticky information’ and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management

Science 40: 429–39.von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Irani, Z., T. Elliman, and P. Jackson. 2007. Electronic transformation of government in the UK: A research agenda.

European Journal of Information Systems 16: 327–35.Irani, Z., V. Weerakkody, M. Kamal, N.M. Hindi, I.H. Osman, A.L. Anouze, R. El-Haddadeh, H. Lee, M. Osmani, and

B. Al-Ayoubi. 2012. An analysis of methodologies utilised in e-government research: A user satisfaction perspective.Journal of Enterprise Information Management 7: 186–95.

Jansen, G., C. Dowe, and U. Heimann. 2006. Facilitating active citizenship, E-participation in UK and Germany. BritishCouncil Germany, Berlin. Available at http://www.britishcouncil.de/e/society/e_participation.htm

Kaulio, M.A. 1998. Customer, consumer and user involvement in product development: A framework and a review ofselected methods. Total Quality Management 9: 141–49.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

http://www.e-consultation.org/files/ecrp_report.pdf

http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/delpol/conf2000/papers/FilterMirrorMob.pdf

http://www.britishcouncil.de/e/society/e_participation.htm


Koussouris, S., Y. Charalabidis, and D. Askounis. 2011. A review of the European Union eParticipation action pilotprojects. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 5, no. 1: 8–19.

Kristensen, P.S. 1992. Product development strategy in the Danish agricultural complex: Global interaction with clustersof marketing excellence. Journal of International Food and Agro Business Marketing 4: 107–18.

von Krogh, G., and E. von Hippel. 2003. Open source software and the ‘private-collective’ innovation model: Issues fororganization science. Organization Science 14: 209–23.

Lakhani, K.R., and E. von Hippel. 2003. How open source software works: ‘Free’ user-to-user assistance. Research Policy32: 923–43.

Layne, K., and J. Lee. 2001. Developing fully functional e-government: A four-stage model. Government InformationQuarterly 18: 122–36.

Lerner, J., and J. Tirole. 2002. Some simple economics of open source. Journal of Industrial Economics 50: 197–234.Lüthje, C. 2004. Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods field: An empirical study of sport-related product

consumers. Technovation 24: 683–95.Lüthje, C., and C. Herstatt. 2004. The lead user method: An outline of empirical findings and issues for future research.

R&D Management 34: 553–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2004.00362.xMacIntosh, A., and E. Smith. 2002. Citizen participation in public affairs. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed.

R. Traunmuller and K. Lenk, vol. 2456, 256–63. Berlin: Springer.MacIntosh, A., and A. Whyte. 2008. Towards and evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government:

People, Process and Policy 2: 16–30.Mansfield, E. 1988. Industrial R&D in Japan and the United States: A comparative study. American Economic Review 78:

223–28.Moon, J.Y., and L. Sproull. 2001. Turning love into money: How some firms may profit from voluntary electronic customer

communities. Working paper, Stern School of Business, New York.Muniz, A.M., and T. O’Guinn. 2001. Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research 27: 412–32.Namioka, D., and A. Schuler. 1993. Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Newman, W., and M. Lamming. (1995) Interactive System Design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.O’Mahony, S. 2003. Guarding the commons: How community managed software projects protect their work. Research

Policy 32: 1179–98.Olson, E.L., and G. Bakke. 2001. Implementing the lead user method in a high technology firm: A longitudinal study of

intentions versus actions. Journal of Product Innovation Management 18: 388–95.Parkinson, J. 2003. Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Political Studies 51: 180–96.Preece, J., Y. Rogers, and H. Sharp. 2002. Interactive design: Beyond human–computer interaction. New York: Wiley.Rohrbeck, R., F. Steinhoff, and F. Perder. 2010. Sourcing from your customer: How multinational enterprises use Web

platforms for virtual customer integration. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22: 117–31.Rosenberg, N. 1976. Perspectives on technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Rothwell, C., C. Freeman, A. Horlsey, V.T.P. Jervis, A.B. Robertson, and J. Townsend. 1974. Sappho updated – Project

Sappho Phase II. Research Policy 3: 258–91.Sæbø, Ø., J. Rose, and L. Flak. 2008. The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government

Information Quarterly 25: 400–28.Sanford, C., and J. Rose. 2007. Characterizing eParticipation. International Journal of Information Management 27:

406–21.Sanders, L.M. 1997. Against deliberation. Political Theory 25: 347–76.Shah, S.K. 2000. Sources and patterns of innovation in a consumer product field: Innovation in sporting equipment.

Working Paper 4105, Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Shaw, B. 1985. The role of the interaction between the user the manufacturer in medical equipment innovation. R&D

Management 15: 283–92.Tietz, R., P.D. Morrison, C. Lüthje, and C. Herstat. 2005. The process of user-innovation: A case study in a consumer

goods setting. International Journal of Product Development 2: 321–38.Urban, G.L. and E. von Hippel. 1988. Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Management

Science 34: 569–82.Utterback, J.M., T.J. Hollomon, J.H. Sirbu, and A. Marvin. 1976. The process of innovation in five industries in Europe

and Japan. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 23, no. 1: 3–9.VanderWerf, P. 1990. Product typing and innovation in U.S. wire preparation equipment. Research Policy 19: 83–96.Voss, C.A. 1985. The role of users in the development of applications software. 2: 113–21.Welch, E.W., C.C. Hinnant, and M.J. Moon. 2004. Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15: 371–91.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.West, D.M. 2004. e-Government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration

Review 64: 15–27.Wikström, S. 1995. The customer as co-producer. European Journal of Marketing 30, no. 4: 6–19.Williams, R.L., and J. Cothrel. 2000. Four smart ways to run online communities. Sloan Management Review 41, no. 4:

81–91.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry U

trec

ht]

at 1

2:19

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

engaging user communities with eparticipation technology: findings from a european project

Documents