Innovation Culture Building to Municipal Innovation Management Leveraging Hackathon Methodology in Idea Management

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating in Times of Crisis, 7-10 June 2020. Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-466-1

Innovation culture building to municipal innovation management leveraging hackathon methodology in idea management

Anu Suominen* Tampere University, P.O. Box 300, Pohjoisranta 11, 28100 Pori, Finland. E-mail: [email protected]

Vilho Jonsson Curlabs, Kungsholmstorg 10 1 tr., 112 21 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail [email protected] Johan Bäckman Curlabs, Kungsholmstorg 10 1 tr., 112 21 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail [email protected] Jessica Fogelberg Knivsta kommun, Centralvägen 18, 741 40 Knivsta, Sweden. E-mail [email protected] * Corresponding author

Abstract: This paper addresses the innovation culture building in the municipal innovation management context by leveraging hackathon methodology. Specifically, it focuses on hackathons in municipal idea management. Although used in variety of contexts for idea management, hackathons in municipal organizations, particularly examined broader as part of innovation management, has not yet been the focus of hackathon research. Therefore, this paper presents a case study research plan of a Swedish municipality with future demands due to growth, carrying out intra- organizational hackathons in three iterations. As a result, the paper reveals a research plan for a longitudinal, three-year action research project, in terms of the methodology. The paper contributes to the literature on hackathon as idea management methodology in municipal organization’s innovation culture building.

Keywords: hackathon; organizational innovation; innovation management; innovation culture; municipality; research-in-progress; idea management; case study; longitudinal study; action research

1 This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating in Times of Crisis, 7-10 June 2020. Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-466-1

1 Introduction

Knivsta municipality, close to the Stockholm region, has been the second fastest growing municipality in Sweden during the 2010’s (Sveriges Radio, 2019). And the growth rate will persist for the foreseeable future. Due to the fast growth pace, the municipality faces multiple complex challenges. Those challenges require the municipality leadership to provide their personnel with as optimal as possible conditions for facing the unforeseen future. The municipality leadership team has decided to prepare the personnel by introducing new management methods, and more specifically innovation management methods. During the next three years, the Knivsta municipality leadership team aim for innovation culture building amongst its personnel. To reach their aim, the leadership team has chosen the innovation management approach that leverages hackathon methodology in idea management. In the innovation management literature, there is no longitudinal research descriptions of municipal innovation culture building leveraging hackathon methodology in idea management. The goal of this research in progress paper is to describe a three-year research plan to study innovation culture aspects in a municipal organization to which innovation management that leverages hackathon methodology in idea management is introduced. The paper aims to justify the chosen research strategy, approach and methods according to the formulated research question. The preliminary research question is “How innovation management that leverages hackathon methodology in idea management enables to promote innovation culture in municipal organization?” The article is formulated as follows: First in introduction we give background for our research project, second we describe briefly aspects of innovation culture, innovation management and hackathon as methodology, third we portray the methodological choices we have done for our research, fourth we illustrate our research plan and fifth we present areas for feedback and development of the research.

2 Innovation culture, Innovation management and Hackathons

Innovation culture and Innovation Management

In organization or community, culture is shared values, beliefs and behaviours of it (Schein, 2004; ISO, 2020). Already 20 years it has been known that innovation “requires an organisational culture that constantly guides organisational members to strive for innovation and a climate that is conducive to creativity” (Ahmed, 1998, p. 30). Furthermore, the ISO standard 56002 of Innovation management: Innovation management system views that organizations “should promote a culture that supports innovation activities with the aim to enable the coexistence of creative and operations- oriented mindsets and behaviours as both are needed to innovate.” (ISO, 2019a, p. 4) Such culture can be called innovation culture, which encompasses factors of motivation and managerial control. (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010) According to Crossan and Apaydin (2010), core innovation processes are enabled with five managerial levers: mission, goals, and strategy; structure and systems; resource allocation; organizational learning and knowledge management tools; and organizational culture. Enabling work environment characteristics for innovation culture are e.g. openness, feedback, learning,

2 experimentation, creativity, risk taking, collaboration, internal and external participation, diversity, shared values, beliefs and behaviours etc. (ISO, 2019a) Moreover, ISO 56002 standard present that one activity among others in an organization culture that support innovation activities, is the assessment of the culture using relevant indicators. According to ISO 56000, management is “coordinated activities to direct and control an organization”, which entails “establishing strategies, policies, and an objectives and processes to achieve those objectives”. Furthermore, innovation management is management with regard to innovation that is “new or changed entity, realizing or redistributing value” (ISO, 2020).

Hackathon as innovation management method Hackathons are innovation management methods, more specifically a “hackathon is one type of organized, goal-driven innovation contest, a short time-bounded event with a challenge to be solved creatively in coopetition and collocation of teams, whose results are presented and recognized in a ceremony at the end of the event.” (Halvari et al., 2020) Hackathons include three main processes: pre-hackathon, event and post- hackathon processes (Pe-Than and Herbsleb, 2019; Pe-Than et al., 2019) (Figure 1). The event itself include creation process and celebration process. The hackathon creation process include both ideation process of generating, sharing and evolving ideas and concepts, as well as deployment process, where entities or resources are brought into effective action. (Halvari et al., 2019; ISO, 2020) The “bringing into action” in hackathon signifies the creation process result, which can be concept design, prototype etc., that is presented in the celebration process (Halvari et al., 2019). Generally, ideation and deployment are part of innovation processes, which are processes with regard to innovation (ISO, 2020).

Figure 1 The relation of hackathon processes to general innovation processes

Besides its root domain, i.e. Information Technology, hackathons have been used in multiple domains and other uses besides prototype coding, e.g. education, Smart City development etc. (Suominen et al., 2018; Suominen, Halvari and Jussila, 2019) However, there are no descriptions how innovation culture building in municipal organization would benefit from innovation management, especially one leveraging hackathon methodology in idea management, particularly carried out with long-term implementation. This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating in Times of Crisis, 7-10 June 2020. Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-466-1

3 Methodology As systematic innovation management and particularly hackathons as methodology are novel phenomena within organization theory, the principal nature of their studies, and therefore nature of this research is exploratory and descriptive. That is, that the aim is to discover what hackathon as a method is and describe how it can be applied in organization to enhance its innovation culture and capabilities. Thus the research questions are likely to be “What” and “How” -type questions. (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2008) Innovation management is part of social science research; therefore, our chosen philosophical program of this study is pragmatism. This choice has been made because pragmatism as a philosophical program allows the researcher to use a variety of methods: qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods (Morgan, 2014). Thus, pragmatism provides multiple choices for the researcher to gather, analyse, and even mix different types of data in order to observe the research subject from various viewpoints and at divergent levels of analysis. Due to its coherent philosophy, “that goes well beyond ‘what works’” (Morgan, 2014 p. 1051) pragmatism is regarded as a new paradigm. Regarding the research approach, this study is a single case study with systematic combining, which is a non-linear, non-positivist, abductive approach to case research (Dubois and Gadde, 2014). The abductive approach is particularly suited for this case study, which is a development process with an unpredictable outcome in the beginning. Therefore, the other types of reasoning are not so appropriate for such unpredictable development cases. Our chosen research strategy is participatory action research (Eden and Huxham, 1996; Huxham and Vangen, 2003; Järvinen, 2007; Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008), which inherently incorporates the researcher as a contributing actor, albeit with a dual role as a researcher. As action research is also based on pragmatism, it is therefore suitable for chosen research philosophy of this study. The action research strategy is carried out with longitudinal time horizon. The study is carried out in the case organization (e.g. Siggelkow, 2007) with multiple data collection methods such as surveys, hackathon pre-, event and post-process planning and execution, and with participant team interviews (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008). Methodologically action research with multiple data collection methods, both quantitative and qualitative, and analysis, enables methodologies, methods and data triangulation. Furthermore, this action research is carried out by two seasoned innovation managers and one innovation researcher taking up on the municipal challenge of the innovation culture building within the municipal organization. This action research is conducted in collaboration with the leadership team of the municipality, particularly with its representative member. Thus, also researcher triangulation is applied throughout the process. (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008) Moreover, this hackathon research is in connection with larger collaborating researcher group. Therefore, research triangulation is used in each step of the research on larger scale. Data analysis is carried out according to the collected data. Quantitative material is usually evaluated in term of validity and reliability. However, as the case study entails a lot of qualitative research characteristics, the evaluation of the case study is carried out based on criteria such as 1) Originality i.e. idiosyncracy (van Maanen, Sørensen and Mitchell, 2007; Yin, 2011), 2) Transparency and specificity i.e. description of methodological procedure (van Maanen, Sørensen and Mitchell, 2007; Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki and Welch, 2010; Dubois and Gadde, 2014), 3) Theory as common thread

4 (Dubois and Gadde, 2014), 4) Generality i.e. collecting multiple instances of process data (Woodside, 2010), 5) Accuracy i.e. re-interviews of same informant or multiple informants and method triangulation (Woodside, 2010), 6) Concise, selective writing and 7) Reflexity (Dubois and Gadde, 2014).

4 Research plan

Timeline, financing and case organization

The three-year research project (1.10.2019–31.3.2022), Mosaic (MethOd for public Sector Approach for Innovation Culture,) is financed by Smart Built Environment, financed by Sweden's innovation agency Vinnova, The Swedish Energy Agency and The Swedish Research Council Formas. In Table 1, the characteristics of the case organization of Knivsta municipality in Sweden are described. The case was selected due to its idiosyncrasy as well as access for action research. The municipality of Knivsta is located close to Stockholm (capitol of Sweden), Uppsala (4th largest city) and Arlanda (one of the largest employers in the region). The location combined with good communications has made Knivsta a very attractive municipality for living. With the high growth of inhabitants, the need for building infrastructure, schools and service facilities has become the new normal in an organisation that more commonly has as its purpose to uphold what is already existing.

The Knivsta municipality’s management structure as well as the provided service areas are portrayed in the Figure 2. This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating in Times of Crisis, 7-10 June 2020. Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-466-1

Figure 2 Knivsta municipality management structure and provided services

Research plan, utilized practises target group and the goal of the research

The three-year research plan includes three hackathon events, as well as actions prior and after each event, such as surveys, training events and team interviews (Figure 3). The three hackathon events have practices that will be carried out in each of the three events all three (pre-, event and post-) hackathon phases (Table 2). Additionally, there are training events that educate the hackathon participants to the idea management work that leverages hackathon methodology. Prior to the event there is one or two Idea and team building -workshops. After the hackathon event there is follow-up of the ideas yielded in the hackathon events.

Figure 3 Timeline of hackathon events and data collection

6 Table 2 Hackathon practices in each hackathon phases

Hackathon Utilized practices processes phase Pre-hackathon Half day trainings in small (n=8-10) interorganizational groups for hackers, coaches and jury Ideation and teambuilding workshop/s Hackathon event 1-day Hackathon event with creation and celebration processes Post-hackathon Post-Hackathon interviews in teams (1h 45 min – 2 h) Supported (voluntary) Post-hackathon work on R&D-project in teams

The surveys and interviews are utilized to assess the level of innovation culture and related innovation management capabilities in the beginning and in the end of the entire action research process (Table 3). These assessments are performed in accordance with the guidance given by the Innovation Management Capabilities Assessment 2019 published by Swedish Institute for Standards (Karlsson, 2019) together with the ISO 56002:2019 Innovation management system – Guidance (ISO, 2019a) as well as ISO/TR 56004:2019 Innovation management assessment – Guidance (ISO, 2019b).

Table 3 The research interventions to the case organization

Data collection Characteristics method Survey 1 89 statements assessing organizations innovation culture Evaluation: 5-point Likert scale Time point: 1st in the beginning, 2nd in the end of the 3-year period Target group: representative sample of hackathon participants and their colleagues Carried out 1st survey target group (n= 173) chosen amongst the Hackathon surveys participants and snowballing their colleagues respondents (n=111, response rate 64 %) Survey 2 31 statements altogether regarding demographics, the impact of hackathon event and organizations innovation culture Target group: other interested parties Team Time point: Post-hackathon interviews Target group: hackathon team Regarding pre- and hackathon event, as well as creative process result Carried out 5 team interviews interviews Project Each hackathon teams get support and mentoring while carrying out follow-up post-hackathon work This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating in Times of Crisis, 7-10 June 2020. Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-466-1

Altogether the three-year project directly engages approximately 250 people in an organisation of ~1200 employees. The estimated number of people that are directly engaged in the hackathons are 50 people in the first hackathon round, appr. 80 people in the second round and appr. 120 people in the third round. The goal of the research project is to study Innovation culture (further) building of municipal organization for future growth by experimenting hackathon methodology for municipal organization innovation management use, particularly for idea management. Besides the direct engagement of people and the impact to them, the additional goal is to cause an indirect impact to the innovation culture in the entire municipal organization and assess its effect.

5 Areas for feedback and development Longitudinal research for leveraging hackathon methodology for municipal innovation management provides many areas for feedback and development. A context related area that our research group would appreciate feedback is municipality as research subject. Municipalities as organization type for innovation management provides both potential and challenge in terms of its organization and personnel. First, there are several various types of services provided for inhabitants, such as social services and education. Second, the personnel consist of a broad spectrum of people working in the organization in terms of their education range (from PhD to no education) and language skills. We recognize that a diverse organization with diverse people enables enormous potential for innovation when people collaborate. However, what is the complexity the diversity might add to collaboration for innovation, and how it would appear and be addressed in research? Another area for development is the hackathon methodology, especially regarding hackathon conceptual and construct clarity, as well as various design elements of event. Therefore, we would appreciate specific feedback concerning the methodology. Furthermore, the current COVID-19-situation might force the research group to design at least one virtual hackathon for the coming fall 2020. Therefore, feedback on virtual hackathon design would be very welcome.

References