Synopsis: Ict:

A manifesto for social innovation, available for download from<http://www. youngfoundation. org>.>2006 Tagore LLC innovations/spring 2006 145 innovations TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE GLOBALIZATION reprinted with permission from MIT Press mitpress. mit. edu/innovations Geoff Mulgan

whose shares of GDP are already much greater than are cars, telecommunications, or steel. These growing social sectors are all fields in which commercial, voluntary,

and much of the most important innovation of the next few decades is set to follow patterns of social innovation rather than innovation patterns developed in sectors such as information technology or insurance.

Wikipedia and the Open university; holistic health care, and hospices; microcredit and consumer cooperatives; the fair trade movement;

The institutions pioneered new social models such as phone-based health diagnoses, extended schooling, and patient-led health care. 2 This tradition of practical social innovation is now being revived energetically from the Young Foundation's base in east London,

or the Internet to strengthen local communities. Indeed, the Internet is now generating a host of new business models that are set to have enormous impact in the social field. 7 Other possibilities may derive from new organizational forms,

like the Community Interest Company recently launched in the U k.,or the special purpose organizations increasingly used in global development (for example in developing new drugs for HIV/AIDS.

(which combined the telephone, nurses, and diagnostic software); magazines sold by homeless people; the linkage of gay rights to marriage;

The web-based company Innocentive, for example, offers cash rewards for innovators who have workable solutions to problems they solve,

a case in point, began as two people with telephones and a tiny contract with the neighboring police station.

as with the telephone); what became Wikipedia was a failure in its first outing. In business, people talk of the chasm that innovations have to cross as they pass from being promising pilot ideas to becoming mainstream products or services.

There are likely to be quite long phases when revenues are negative and when investors have to hold their nerve.

Businesses have adopted new devices like 3-dimensional printers, which have made it easier to turn ideas quickly into prototypes;

With the help of the Internet, innovations can spread very quickly, and indeed there can be little point in doing local pilots

because the economics of web-based pilots may make it as inexpensive to launch on a national or continental scale.

In business, the experiences of companies such as Microsoft, Procter & gamble, and Amazon suggests that pioneers that create markets through radical innovation are almost never the companies that go on to scale up

This phase involves consolidation around a few core principles that can be communicated easily. Then as the idea is implemented in new contexts,

For example, the Samaritans in Australia have become a provider of welfare services rather than just a telephone counseling service;

software, cars, and retailing. Yet in most social fields, monopolistic governments sit alongside small units that are usually too small to innovate radically (schools, doctors surgeries, police stations),

some create semi-autonomous corporate venture units (like Nokia; some grow through acquisition of other innovative companies as well as their own innovation (Cisco for example;

and childcare and eldercare, each of which will be a far larger share of GDP than information technology

Email<editors@innovationsjournal. net>.The Process of Social Innovation 5. CIDA believes itself to be the world's only free, open-access, holistic,

and Andrea Vinassa writing on<http://www. workinfo. com/free/Downloads/243. htm>(accessed May 24,

Perennial Library, 1970). 9. See Global Ideas Bank,<http://www. globalideasbank. org/site/home/>./>The top 500 ideas that will change the world are at http://www. globalideasbank. org/site/store/detail. php?

articleid=178. For a list of similar organizations, see Stuart C. Dodd Institute for Social Innovation,

/MIT Community Innovation Lab<http://web. mit. edu/cilab/>;/>ETSU Innovation Lab http://www. etsu. edu/innovationlab/.

For a thorough analysis of open source methods and their great potential, see G. Mulgan and T. Steinberg, Wide Open:

The Potential of Open source Methods (London, U k.:Demos and the Young Foundation, 2005). 19. In the U k.,the In Control pilots delivered under the government's policy Valuing People

53 5. 3 Emerging digital innovation policy issues 55 5. 4 Preliminary Recommendations on innovation policies 56 6. Analysing network data:

and at a scale that was unimaginable before the rise of Internet-enabled networking platforms.

The nature of innovation has changed dramatically over the past decade due to globalisation, the widespread diffusion of ICT, the Internet and the rise of social media, the emergence of new global innovators such as China

1) the open hardware and free software communities,(2) the community of developers,(3) innovation labs, including Fab labs, Living Labs, Hackerspaces and Makerspaces (4) the open

data and open knowledge community,(5) smart citizens, and (6) the open democracy community, including civil society and new social movements.

and the DSI dynamic mapping shown on the www. digitalsocial. eu website, which engages, builds and maps the DSI community.

The project's most substantial challenge is to develop a crowdmapping facility based on open and linked data with visual identity functionalities that the that attract the DSI community

Tanks to the open data mapping facility, in combination with our hybrid iterative strategy of case study interviews, workshops,

In order to analyse the relationship data from the mapping, we are adopting social network analysis to detect patterns of relations

and argue that the causal success of DSI located in the social structure. By studying behaviours as embedded in social network structures,

we will be able to explain macro and meso-level patterns that show the dynamics in which DSI organisations and their initiatives create scalable results and

which has been used to capture data on DSI organisation via www. digitalsocial. eu. We highlighted 6 areas that capture key dimensions of the phenomenon under investigation:(

Data is aslo categorised by:(e g. Government and public sector organisations, businesses, academia and research organisations, social enterprises, charities and foundations;

the organisations and their activities fit under (open data, open networks, open knowledge, open hardware;

based on the open data set on organisations captured on www. digitalsocial. eu 5 Mapping and Engaging the DSI community As outline in more details in the engagement summary an ongoing focus has been to engage with

and understand the DSI community through events, workshops, social media blogs and articles. Highlights of activities include 640 organisations with 695 projects mapped on www. digitalsocial. eu;

590+followers of the@Digi si twitter account; 15+events and workshop on DSI including workhops at the international Fablab Conference in Barcelona

and Participation Practitioners Forum in Warsaw and more than 25 blogs and articles written on DSI including articles in The Guardian (UK) and Empodera (annual Spanish publication on ICT and social innovation).

such as (including the need for open data distributed repositories, distributed cloud, distributed search, and distributed social networking);

The Future of privacy, data protection, trust & ethics, emphasising the need for privacy-aware technologies;

by defining sensible governance modalities for big data thorugh a large collaboration between public and private actors;

continue our social network analysis to better understand the needs and opportunities to nourish and scale DSI in Europe.

and at a scale that was unimaginable before the rise of Internet-enabled networking platforms.

taking advantage of the network effect caused by the spread of the Internet and the Web throughout society.

many of these actors are difficult to identify using traditional means due to the tendency of the Internet to be used for much wider and diffuse innovation by civil society actors,

The nature of innovation has changed dramatically over the past decade due to globalisation, the widespread diffusion of ICT, the Internet and the rise of social media, the emergence of new global innovators such as China, Brazil and India,

The development of open data infrastructures knowledge co-creation platforms, wireless sensor networks, decentralised social networking,

and open hardware, can potentially serve collective action and awareness. 7 However, to date it has failed to deliver anticipated solutions to tackle large-scale problems,

and the growth of digital services has resulted in an imbalance between the dramatic scale and reach of commercial Internet models and the relative weakness of alternatives.

These alternatives mainly fill marginal niches and are unable to gather a critical mass of users that can adopt the services.

1) the open hardware and free software communities,(2) the community of developers,(3) innovation labs,(4) the open data and open knowledge community,(5) smart citizens,

A description of the latest development of the DSI open data mapping website an overview of the engagement strategies to involve the DSI community, outreach and communitcation activities.

the open source community, the developers'community, the innovation labs community, the open/big data community, the smart citizen/civic society community,

A emergent analysis of the network data, looking at the type of DSI communities, the distribution of DSI in Europe,

and policies addressed to cover such gaps. 8 2. Dynamic crowdmapping of the DSI community We have redesigned the crowdmapping website

In the DSI Network Data-Set, there are a total of 590 organisations with 645 projects as of August 2014.

Most, if not all of the case studies mapped on digitalsocial. eu take place via the Internet or are enabled highly by new technology trends such as open networks,

open hardware and open data infrastructures. The new front page has been redesigned to inspire visitors to learn about DSI and join the map..

In time, the site will be an open database of relational links between DSI organisations and projects,

We then created a new visual layout for the 36 DSI case studies that are showcased in on the website and also directly on the DSI map.

We also created statistical visualisations showing all the relevant dimensions in the data, such as EU countries with most DSI projects;

as we don't have the resources to do get the developer to do a translated version of the survey on the site,

We will then create a profile on the site for The french or Spanish organisation using the survey data.

Figure 1. A view of the European section of the map. At this scale organisations are clustered to show how many exist in the vicinity.

A pop-up box appers on the right hand side of the screen which contains a visualisation of the organisations DSI activities

One way of doing that has been through guest blogs and articles-where we have placed a DSI related blog on another network's or organisation's blog:

Crowdmapping digital social innovation activities in Europe mapping the DSI community. Empodera network. They are currently translating a editing the book with an aim to publish in July 2014.

New funding and Research to support grassroots innovation (also published on Nesta and D-CENT website.

In addition to the guest blogs we have done a large number of blogs, communicating the project on the Nesta blog and digitalsocial. eu blog.

A sample of these include 1. 000+readers to date Lists have proved the best way of getting a lot of attention around the project

published on Nesta website) 6. 000+readers to date (published in the Guardian) 8. 000+readers to date The 1st interim study report has been received well

To date the interim study report has had more than 10,000 readers on web/Isuu (combined figures from www. waag. org

and www. digitalsocial. eu sites) 16 Social media+other Media outreach Twitter@Digi si. The twitter account has proven an effective channel for both engaging new organisations

As the number of followers grow the effect of this will increase accordingly. and Waag (8. 000+followers) twitter accounts.

February 3 (see below) we partnered with the Citizens Foundation team behind the Iceland Your Priorities platform for crowdsourcing policy ideas to develop a bespoke platform for crowdsourcing DSI policy ideas-https://dsi-workshop-2014

/Direct email and newsletter mentions We have promoted the project and project content through the Nesta (44.000 readers) and Waag society newsletters.

sending out an email to offer an insight into the project's objectives and inviting them to map their organisation at Digitalsocial. eu,

Where possible we connected also by telephone or via social media. Given the focus on digital collaboration

such as the Open Data community at the Open Knowledge Conference and the Maker community at the Fab10, has helped us test our research findings

The DSI team took part in panel session and presented project ambitions with the aim to engage the ICT community in the research.

decentralization, and data protection. Harry Halpin (IRI) presented a lightning talk on Digital Social Innovation to an audience of nearly one hundred,

Presentation on‘civic hacking and the nature of digital social innovation'which to an audience of policy makers, practitioners and big telecommunications companies made the case for embracing the smart citizen

when it comes to open data and also in encouraging more women to participate in learning to code through open workshops and support networks.

The DSI mapping website and the overall research was presented during a dynamic debate about policy

We demonstrated how the website worked and how organisations could be added, and went over some of the high points of the final report regarding the potential of digital social innovation in Europe.

and the often low tech or offline activity currently used by the majority of Civic Participation Practitioners in Poland.

and findings from the DSI research and how data analysts from Lodz University of Technology could access

and analyse the open data set on US DSI organisations and projects hosted on www. digitalsocial. eu Workshop at the Fablab community 10th anniversary gathering in Barcelona. 30 participants engaged in mapping out social action applications for makerspaces and Fab-Lab

and access the data they have captured. This includes: concertation meeting. The CAPS project representatives collaboratively mapped the synergies between the CAPS projects including involving CAPS projects in mapping their projects on www. digitalsocial. eu. Chest is considered to be the CAPS project with the strongest links to DSI.

The Chest project website (www. chest-project. eu/)has a description of the DSI project along with the project logo and a link to www. digitalsocial. eu,

Research project and website which list 100 short case studies of social innovations using digital technologies.

and the redesign of the website has been successful in helping us map 500 organisations and establish the research project and the term Digital Social Innovation within the community.

Social media In addition to continuing our ongoing work on engaging DSI organisations via twitter we will more actively tap in to

and promote www. digitalsocial. eu in relevant Linkedin and Facebook groups working on digital social innovation. pcoming events Workshop on barriers to scale for digital social innovation

and how these can be overcome with representatives from the international network of living labs. Half day event in London,

where we with practitioners will explore what the big challenges organisations working on Open Data, Open Networks,

Open Hardware and Open Knowledge need to overcome to scale their work and how they can do this.

Curating a session at the Crowdsourcing week Scandinavia event, focusing on Digital Social Innovation to an audience of corporate executives, government officials and entrepreneurs.

such as investing in developing a high-speed broadband in rural areas or setting up cross-border regional projects to shorten the digital divide.

The recently launched Open Data Strategy for Europe9 established a level playing field for open data across the EU10 that should encourage disruptive innovation by unlocking the value of public data.

Mrs Neelie Kroes launched the No Disconnection Strategy 11 to support decentralised infrastructures for the Internet as a means of effectively empowering citizens and democratic participation.

and partnerships that can play a central role in the development of Future Internet platforms,

thereby shaping the evolution of the Internet and of social spaces. In recent years, new methods to foster entrepreneurship and innovation have grown rapidly across the world.

including envisioning different kinds of Internet infrastructure in the future Internet programme. Considering the level of complexity that the Internet Ecosystem has reached,

and the potential significance of the interactions between Internet and societal developments, a systemic, holistic and multi-disciplinary approach is needed. 14 Only by adopting a multidisciplinary research approach that encourages researchers from various disciplines to work together,

can issues such as trust and security, privacy, net neutrality, e-democracy, and e-governance be tackled.

Future Internet developments should, therefore, include technologically-led research, together with business models and socially and environmentally conscious approaches,

as reflected in the Internet Science Network of Excellence funded by the European commission. 15society in Future Internet development to achieve these goals is one of the main goals of this study. activities in this area can be summarised under two broad

The most relevant initiatives are the European Innovation Partnerships16, Smart Cities17, the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership Programme (FI-PPP) 18,

and the European Cloud computing Strategy19. Their main goals are to promote and standardise pan-European technology platforms,

The development of the Future Internet is addressed mainly through a number of mainly technical objectives and projects,

Furthermore, a EU Big data strategy is becoming a priority for the competitiveness of European industries,

and it presents a strong focus on fostering a European Data-driven Economy26. In this framework the EC is promising to launch a launch a multi-million euro Public Private Partnership on big data with industry towards the end of this year.

The focus is driven business, with little attention to societal challenges or to the inclusion of civil society actors and bottom-up approaches.

However, the call for the creation of an open data incubator within Horizon 2020 aims to help SMES set up supply chains,

and to get access to cloud computing and legal advice. Further support, investment advice and funding for SMES and young companies is also available through the Commission's Startup Europe programme for web and tech entrepreneurs.

Other activities are happening in the Internet of things (Iot) arena, where the IERC-23 Internet of things European Research Cluster27 coordinating the different Iot projects funded by the European research framework programmes.

Bottom up and grassroots approaches A counterpoint to the top-down strategy is the bottom-up, human-centred,

grassroots approach that is characterised by emergent forms of community intelligence demonstrated by newly connected bottom-up innovation ecosystems.

At a time when the Internet has become so central in our societies, it is important that bottom-up approaches (based on the involvement of users) more often complement traditional top-down approaches that can help build resilience through user empowerment;

One of the risks of Future Internet is that big industrial players (mainly US-based) will reinforce their dominant position by implementing platform lock in strategies,

Furthermore, by re-centralising computing, data storage and service provision according to the cloud paradigm there is a risk of closing the innovation ecosystem in favour of incumbents or dominant players,

Web entrepreneurs, young entrepreneurs in the field of active and healthy ageing, digital champions, innovation camps and so on.

and exploring the potential of open data, open Access, and the digital commons. In particular it is the forthcoming research area in DG CONNECT that addresses the need to facilitate SI processes and collective decision making through 30.

The potential for crowdsourcing, community-based innovation, or collaborative innovation in the Internet domain should be explored thoroughly.

These platforms can gather and integrate information in order to allow participation and citizens'feedback, as well as integrating peer information to improve social cohesion

we will do it Creation of the best idea internally Best from anywhere Choosing the best ideas among internal and external ideas Role of customers Passive recipients Active co-innovators Core competency Vertically integrated product

and service design Core competitive differentiation and collaborative partner management Innovation success metrics Increased margins/revenues,

Today information technology is opening up new opportunities to transform governance and redefine government-citizen interactions, particularly within cities (Chan, 2013;

and data-driven Network structure Centralized and hierarchical Decentralized and digitally connected Table 4: Closed versus open public policy innovation processes Several policies may benefit from open public policy innovation.

facilities, and competences shared among the various actors form the core of ecosystems and define their innovation potential.

Almirall (2013) 4. 3 Communities in the innovation ecosystem In this section, we will refer to six specific communities that have a core role in the European innovation ecosystem.

This typology of communities matches the main technology trends emerging in the grassroots innovation space (e g. open data, open knowledge, open hardware, open networks),

The open hardware and free software communities The open source community is a broad-reaching community of individuals who share an open source philosophy/culture,

described by Wikipedia as the creative practice of appropriation and free sharing of found and created content.

The open source culture is therefore one in which fixations (works entitled to copyright protection are made openly available.

Although in the beginning of the movement, a difference between hardware and software did not exist, nowadays,

we distinguish between the open source software community and the open source hardware community. The individuals who participate in the former support the use of open source licenses that make software available for anybody to use

or modify as its source code is made available. The open source software community is formed by programmers who support the open source philosophy

and that contribute to the community by voluntary writing and exchanging programming code for software development.

There are several examples of software that have been developed under an open source philosophy. Some of them are Mozilla, Apache, Openoffice. org, or PHP.

The open source hardware community is formed by individuals that design hardware (that is, tangible artefacts: machines, devices,

or other physical things) and make it publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make,

and sell the design or hardware based on that design. Often, individuals gather around specific organisations or projects.

This is the case for Arduino, an open source electronics prototyping platform based on flexible, easy-to-use hardware and software,

which is intended for artists, designers, hobbyists and anyone interested in creating interacting objects or environments.

The community of developers Developers are individuals who develop a new IT product or service.

The open data and open knowledge community Torkington (2010) suggests five types of people that are interested in open data:

1) governments who want to see a win from opening their data, 2) transparency advocates who want a more efficient and honest government,

therefore, government data should be available for free to the people, and 5) people who are hoping that releasing datasets will deliver economic benefits to the 27 country.

In this report, the open/big data community refers to the set of governments, usually at the local level,

that decide to open their data. Their goal is usually twofold: on one hand, they aim at being more transparent;

The commonly accepted premise underlying these objectives is that the publishing of government data in a reusable format can strengthen citizen engagement and participation and yield new innovative businesses.

There are many examples of cities that have opened their data. One of the most interesting is Helsinki,

which has become the most successful open data city in the world. Through and entity called Helsinki Region Infoshare37 Helsinki and three of its neighbouring cities publish all of their data in formats that make it easy for software developers

researchers, journalists and others to analyse, combine or turn into web-based or mobile applications that citizens may find useful.

There are other local governments around the world that are successfully developing open data portals. In the United states, the cities of Chicago, San francisco, Philadelphia,

and New york are only a few examples worth mentioning. British columbia in Canada, the region of Piedmont in Italy,

and Metropolitan Rennes in France have also set up open data websites at the regional level that can be considered good practices.

Smart citizens Crowdsourcing is distributed an online problem-solving and production model that has grown in use in the past decade.

While many of the successful cases of crowdsourcing have been related to companies, cities are also beginning to benefit from crowdsourcing methods to gather input from residents

and apply the information they receive to make tangible improvements to communities and neighbourhoods. Some cities participate cooperatively in initiatives led by the private sector through web-based platforms.

Others are taking the initiative to license tools and apps that bring local residents into the ideation

Smart citizens are those individuals who take part in crowdsourcing initiatives to improve policies or to codevelop public services.

The open democracy community Beyond crowdsourcing (and co-producing/co-creating/co-managing g/for that matter) public services,

What has, in the past, traditionally be known as e-participation is referred now to as open democracy or crowdsourcing democracy.

Crowdsourcing was used in Iceland in 2010 and 2011 in the constitution reform process. Participatory budgeting is a process of democratic deliberation and decision-making, in

and that have become stronger by means of intensely using social media and civic digital platforms. 28 4. 4 Macro analysis of communities In this section,

Communities Focal actors Enablers Governance Failures Open source hardware and software Open source activists Firms supporting open source activists Communities Open source platforms Peer governance

firms Tech blogs and magazines Decentralized Cluster governance High entry barriers (technological skills) Lack of interconnection between developers Lack of visibility Innovation labs Innovation

labs themselves Networks Networked Formal enabling/servicing structures Lack of interconnection between different types of labs Cost of being a network member Difficulty to involve the community Open/big data (Local governments Competition organizers

Networks of developers Open data evangelists Top-down (governments decide what, when and how to open) Lack of standardization Lack of reuse Little sharing of

good practices Lack of visibility of datasets Apps'discovery problem Internal conflicts in governments Smart citizens Citizens Intermediary organizations providing structure Project-based Use of social media

and between initiatives Lack of awareness Lack of skills Open democracy Political activists Organizations Evangelists Distributed Use of social media platforms Lack of interconnection among groups Table 6 Macro level

analysis of the innovation ecosystem The open source hardware and software communities Within this wider community,

the open source software community and the open source hardware community. In both cases, the focal actors are the activists:

either they support the use of open source licenses that make software available for anybody to use

or modify as its source code is made available (open source software activists) or they support the open source philosophy

and contribute to the community by voluntary writing and exchanging programming code for software development (the open source hardware activists).

Firms, organisations, and not-for-profit communities supporting open source activists are considered enablers within the open source community.

For example, Canonical40 was created alongside Ubuntu to help it reach a wider market. They ensure that Ubuntu runs reliably on every platform from the PC and the smartphone to the server and the cloud.

Along the same lines, the development of Arduino41 has taken place around a community of Arduino enthusiasts that includes region-specific groups and special interest groups.

The P2p Foundation42 is a third example of an organisation that supports the open source community and is

Among some of its guiding ideas, the P2p Foundation supports the principles developed by the free software movement, in particular the General Public License,

and the general principles behind the open source and open access movements. It believes that these principles provide for models that can be used in other areas of 29 social and productive life.

One last example is that of the Open source Initiative43, a Californian public benefit corporation, founded in 1998,

and advocating for the benefits of open source and at building bridges among different constituencies in the open source community.

Open source platforms are also enablers within the open source community. The best example of them is Github44 a web-based hosting service for software development projects that use Git, an open source version control.

It is home to over 13.1 million repositories, making it the largest code host in the world.

Regarding governance, the open source community works under the principles of peer governance a bottomup mode of participatory decision-making.

In open source projects, equipotential participants self select themselves to the section to which they want to contribute.

Bruns (2008) also characterizes open source communities as heterarchies meaning that they operate in a much looser environment,

According to Fogel (2006), the possibility to fork45 is central to the governance of any open source community,

although the author particularly refers to open source software communities. The shared ownership of open source projects allows anyone to fork a project at any time.

Therefore, no one person or group has a magical hold over the Project. Since a fork involving a split of the community can hurt overall productivity

Finally, Stadler (2008) submits that leadership in open source projects is not egalitarian, but meritocratic. In this respect, Coffin (2006) highlights the necessity for a benevolent dictator, who is the leader of the project

Often, this authority is a natural consequence of the leader being the founder of the project, such as Linus Torvalds for Linux or Jimmy wales for Wikipedia.

Despite its many benefits, open source communities also experience some drawbacks. The following are some of the most significant:

anyone can be part of an open source hardware or an open source software community but in order to be engaged actively,

good technological skills are needed. That is why many texts and documents refer to individual open source activists as programmers committed to the open source philosophy.

The level of contributions or the type/strength of technological skills seem not to matter that much

because as previously stated, there is equipotentiality in an open source community. Lack of conflict-resolution mechanisms:

The case of Wikipedia, and its internal struggle between deletionists and inclusionists, has been studied widely and analysed as an example of an open-sourced peer project characterised by having unclear governance rules and an uncoordinated structure,

like Linux, invest one developer (or a subgroup of developers) with the authority to accept

Entrepreneurs and developers also use social networks to get in touch with one another. Some of the most popular social platforms include Entrepreneur Connect48 and Startup Nation49.

They read blogs and tech magazines as well. Some of them belong to entrepreneurs themselves like Steve Blank's50,

Wikipedia defines it as financial capital provided to early-stage high-potential, growth start-up companies.

or join social networks to interact with other individuals or they might gather around other enablers.

tech (software/Internet), biotech, clean tech, natural foods, and lifestyles of health and sustainability. Feld (2012) states that these clusters can be considered as networks for their members do not lend themselves to a command and control system.

Despite gathering around certain events and activities or participating in social networks, they usually are disconnected and, at any rate,

Another type of living lab is the fab lab. According to Wikipedia a fab lab (short for fabrication laboratory) is a small-scale workshop offering (personal) digital fabrication.

It is equipped generally with an array of flexible computer-controlled tools that cover several different length scales

The open/big data community It has already been stated that the open/big data community includes a set of governments, usually at the local level,

that decide to open their data. Governments are, therefore, the focal actors of this community.

businesses and individual developers to use their data, engaging with the local community is key.

Innovation is the result of using the data governments open and offer for free. The open/big data community's enablers connect (local governments with those who are potential users

and who will boost innovation. One example is that of competitions. Particularly competitions'organisers make sure developments

and innovation takes place by means of using government open data. This is the case of the Open Data Challenge74, one of Europe's biggest open data competitions.

It was organized by the Open Knowledge Foundation, the Openforum Academy and Share-PSI. eu. It offered 20,000 Euros in prizes

Prize Idea, Prize App, Price Visualization, Better Data Award, Open Data Award, and Talis Award for Linked data.

In total, 13 awards were given. There are many other competitions, some of them organized by governments themselves.

Apps4finland75, for example, is an open data contest that has been running since 2009. It encourages the public sector

and other actors to make their data accessible to citizens and 33 developers. The competition has welcomed new data sources, applications, visualisations and ideas as entries.

Apps4ottawa76 is another open data contest organised by the City of Ottawa in Canada. Apps for Amsterdam has also been analysed widely.

It was an initiative promoted by the City of Amsterdam, the Waag Society, and the Amsterdam Economic Board, to make accessible as much data of the City of Amsterdam as possible.

Developers were invited to send in their applications that used at least one available source of information from the (local government.

Interaction between developers promotes the use of open data among the members of the network.

It also backs up open data individual requests to governments. Usually, networks of developers are virtual.

In this respect, social media networks play a significant role. They are a great place for developers to learn from colleagues

Of particular interest are also those sites devoted to developers'interaction that are embedded in open data portals.

Data. gov. uk77 the open data portal of the United kingdom, has an Interact section, with blogs and forums.

At the local level, the open data portal of Chicago is worth mentioning; it has aimed a section at developers78.

Open data evangelists are also enablers within the open/big data community. There are organisations that encourage the use of open data.

In the private world, Socrata79 is one interesting example. Building on the experience of open data portals developed throughout the United states,

it offers an open data field guide that is particularly aimed at government and elected officials. The Open Knowledge Foundation80 is another example, from the nonprofit field, that advocates and campaigns for the open release of key information.

It has published an open data handbook that anyone can use but that is especially designed for those who are seeking to open up data.

It has developed also an open data index which assess the state of open government data around the world.

Individuals can also be considered open data evangelists: Andrea Di Maio (VP Distinguished Analyst at Gartner), David Eaves (open data innovator and thought leader), Tariq Khokhar (open data evangelist at the World bank),

or Jay Nath (San francisco's Mayor Chief Innovation Officer) are only a few examples. of the open/big data community is top down, that is,

governments decide what, when and how to open. Some Governments do not interact with other stakeholders

and there are many differences between them, both in terms of speed and pace and commitment. As a result, the success of open data portals regarding innovation is very diverse.

This does not mean the open/big data community does not have references. There are outstanding good practices

such as the case of Helsinki, to which we have referred already in section 3, other local governments turn to

and followbut there is not a formal network of local governments, connected to each other on a regular basis around open data issues.

In terms of governance, therefore, we can only refer to the governance of relationships with stakeholders (users, first data providers, the information environment),

such as Helbig et al (2012) do, but still in this case, it is each government which decides what governance structure it wants

and how it manages stakeholders and relationships between them. Lastly a lot has been written on open/big data failures.

Huijboom & Van den Broek (2012) identified several barriers for open/big data initiatives to progress. After reviewing open data strategies in several European countries,

they describe a closed government culture, privacy legislation, limited quality of data, lack of standardisation (due to individual decisions), security threats,

existing charging models (some government charge for the data), and uncertain economic impact (it is still not clear

what the use/reuse of open data gives rise to). Other authors have referred also to some of these pitfalls,

such as data quality and lack of reuse, two topics that are related very. According to the United kingdom Public Accounts Committee (2012), businesses and developers are being hindered in making open data products

and services due to the poor quality of information being opened up. In this respect, the release of incomplete datasets such as patchy price and performance information for adult social care, plus factors such as inconsistent reporting across local authorities, mean that the data quality does not help developers.

Dawes (2012) adds that data quality is used generally to mean accuracy but that research studies identify multiple aspects of information quality that go well beyond simple accuracy of the data:

intrinsic quality (it includes accuracy and objectivity, but also involves believability and the reputation of the data source),

contextual quality (it refers to the context of the task for which the data will be used

and includes considerations of timeliness, relevancy, completeness, sufficiency, and value-added to the user), representational quality (it relates to meaning and format),

and accessibility (it comprises ease and means of access as well as access security). Actually, according to Kitchin (2013), it is not clear that open data is leading to innovative products that create new markets.

This may well be the case with high value datasets such as mapping and transport data,

but much less likely with most other datasets. He mentions De vries et al (2011), who reported that the average 34 apps developer made only 3, 000 USD per year from apps sales,

with 80%of paid Android apps being downloaded fewer than 100 times. In addition, they noted that even successful apps, such as Mycityway81

which had been downloaded 40 million times, were not yet generating profits. Competitions and hackatons have aimed at making datasets visible as well as at promoting apps development

but these created solutions often remain at version 1. 0, with little after event follow-up, maintenance or development.

Smart citizens Smart citizens were defined previously as active and engaged citizens who want to play a role in building their own city,

what has been known as crowdsourcing. Coined by Jeff Howe in the June 2006 of Wired magazine

it describes a web-based business model that harnesses the creative solutions of a distributed network of individuals through what amounts to an open call for proposals.

and has argued that crowdsourcing is a problem solving model that can have profound influence in the way we solve our world's most pressing social and environmental problems.

the business model of crowdsourcing is already being applied in nonprofit and government projects. The crowd in those projects are the smart citizens.

the United states Geological Survey's Earthquake Program, a US multi-agency programmme, has a crowdsourcing site,

One of them is Goteo85), a social network for crowdfunding and distributed collaboration (services, infrastructure, microtasks,

For crowdsourcing to work, one needs the right crowd. For example if technical or scientific knowledge is required,

Steven Clift is one of them89 He keeps a website where he posts articles and news Chris Quegley is another one.

which has been signed up by the coalition currently governing the UK to produce online crowdsourcing projects and platforms.

No matter the type of initiative, social media platforms play an outstanding role as a way of organizing

The digital divide 36 and its implications for political equality are potential danger areas for open democracy.

One final example is the use of social media platforms. The nature of government decision and policy making problems (that increasingly become wicked problems) necessitate stakeholders'participation and consultation,

and the web 2. 0 social media can play an important role in this direction, and enable the application of crowdsourcing ideas in the public sector. However,

the collection of a large amount of citizen-generated content from various social media on a particular decision

or policy making problem is not easy to deal with and necessitates the development of appropriate decision support systems. 4. 5 Micro analysis of communities In this section,

Communities Instruments Motivations Incentives Open source hardware and software Government contracts and procurement Creating fast growing platforms (companies) Reducing costs (companies) Capturing value (companies) Reputation

and reputation Open/big data Organization of competitions Support for networking Knowledge sharing and dissemination New services Generation of economic value Transparency Political incentives (reputation) Technical support Monetary incentives

Micro level analysis of the innovation ecosystem The open source hardware and software communities In terms of instruments, usually, open source products are free.

For example, open source software and its supporting code are generally free of cost to download, use and modify.

However, individuals and for-profit businesses can charge for specialised training or for developing new extensions of the core code.

For instance, R is an open source environment and programming language for statistical computing that is also free of cost. While R offers no cost access to its software and source code

Revolution R Enterprise92, a proprietary spin-off, markets a faster version of R. The company can process very large data sets and offers, for a fee, training, consulting,

and technical support services. Though the services cost money, the cost may still be smaller than what legacy commercial products charge and,

In this respect, governments might be interested in signing contracts with open source developers for 37 governments are, more and more,

turning to open source. This has clearly been the case regarding open source software. In January 2011

the Australian Government released an open source software policy and guidance documentation for Australian government agencies to inform their use, modification and development of open source software.

In April 2012, the United kingdom released the second version of the document Open source software options for government.

In December 2013, the Italian government issued final rules implementing a change to procurement law that now requires all public administrations in the country to first consider reused

or free software before committing to proprietary licenses. Open source hardware is not that popular among governments although there a few interesting examples.

We have referred already to the Flok Society in Ecuador93. Working with an academic partner the Government of Ecuador has launched a major strategic research project to fundamentally re-imagine Ecuador, based on the principles of open source:

networks, peer production, and commoning. Ecuador has been the first country in the world which has committed itself to the creation of an open commons knowledge based society.

During 2013, they distributed 3, 000 open hardware kits (the Civic Information Starter Kits), open hardware and software packages for citizen-led environmental data collection supported by a small data platform for analysis and advocacy.

This tool enables civic-minded groups to empirically verify government data and inaugurating a new generation of civic information tools to hold government accountable.

In summary because of governments'interest in open source, contracts and government procurement are important tools within this community.

A lot has been written on the motivations of members of the open source communities. Most literature on motivations is based on empirical surveys (Vainio & Vadén, 2006.

One popular distinction is to divide the motivations in intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Intrinsic motivations include open source politics (working on open source to limit the power of large companies, particularly software companies,

and because individuals think software and hardware should not be proprietary goods), community identification (for open source development communities are not communities only in a technical sense of the word but also in terms of identity:

being part of the community is sometimes part of the developer's identity), and peer-recognition and respect.

Extrinsic motivations include user needs (developments take place as a result of a personal need for a tool and, then,

it is shared because somebody else with a similar need will probably enhance it and fix its problems)

and contributing to open source and do not subscribe to many social motivations that are, by contrast, typical of individual programmers.

According to the authors, promoting innovation by and small companies seems to be the most important motivation

Vici (2008) also analyses firms'motivations to participate in the open source community and states that, at the beginning,

and in general, supporting open source was justified merely by the need of answering to the increasing requests of improved quality products.

Moreover, contributions and feedbacks from the open source community allow a reduction in R&d costs and an enlargement of the network size, amplifying the positive effect due to network externalities.

Adopting open source principles also increases the likelihood of attracting skilled developers and thereby achieving a higher pace of technological development and quality level.

Avenali et al (2010), in their study on open software and hardware innovation platforms, point to economic incentives (that may result in a increase of profit),

In this respect, government attitude towards the open source community is fundamental and may have an effect in terms of scalability for governments are in a unique position in almost any industry.

In the field of software, public services, organisations and territorial administrations collectively represent a major software user with great impact on the software market:

when an agency adopts open software, it also forces its contractors to adopt the government's platform of choice

test core assumptions and iterate before building out an entire project). In India in March 2014, Vodafone launched its developer platform to empower the community of developers.

It allows developers to use the Vodafone platform to offer content and customised services to users.

It serves as a new monetisation channel for app developers. In the past, Gaana. com, Cleartrip, Vserv, Reverie Language Technology, App Virality, PCLOUDY and Betaglide have launched also their API and support developers in the app development cycle.

Seed funding is also key for app developers. According to Wikipedia, seed funding is a form of securities offering in which an investor purchases part of a business.

The term seed suggests this is a very early investment meant to support the business until it can generate cash on its own

In February 2014, at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, IBM promoted its Watson Mobile Developer Challenge,

IBM would choose three winning teams and provide seed funding for their businesses. Building and growing a company

and states that the explosive growth in smartphone adoption has created opportunities for 39 developers of every shape or form.

most developers or organisations that invest in mobile are in fact looking for a return on their investment.

which calls for direct monetisation, via paid downloads, in-app purchases, or contract development and 2) apps as a channel,

The open data and open knowledge community As was the case with the community of developers,

the open/big data community's instruments are very similar to the so-called enablers in section X. In particular,

Competitions aim to bring together the data sets made available by (local governments, with the app developers or the community of open data users.

Competitions are aimed at developers, researchers, journalists and anyone who has a keen interest in the reuse of open data,

as their main goal is to promote the use/reuse of data sets. 41 Many open data competitions have been organised throughout the years by (local governments themselves or by other organisations.

In November 2013, for example, the Energy department of the United states launched a competition to encourage the creation of innovative energy apps built with open data109.

between February and March 2014, the Science for Solutions open data competition took place in order to encourage data visualisations,

application development or other unique treatments of the science datasets provided by the Department of Science, Information technology, Innovation and the Arts of the Queensland Government.

In Europe, the City of Stockholm organized in April 2014 what is said to be one of the biggest competitions of open data in the region:

the Open Stockholm Award110. Competitions award participants with monetary prizes but they are also an important tool for developers'to gain visibility and reputation,

In this respect, many open data portals include a section for developers. These same sites can also be an interesting tool

in order to share examples of using/reusing open data. Some of them list the apps that have been developed by companies

or the public administration itself by means of suing the open data sets. It is the case of Open Data Euskadi in Spain111

Open Data Vienna112, or Open Data Toronto113. Regarding motivations, there is a need to differentiate between (local governments'motivations and open data users'motivations.

We have approached already the latter when analysing the community of developers. Thus, we will now focus on the former.

Local governments have three important motivations when launching open data portals. First of all, most of them aim at being more transparent.

For them, open data enhances transparency because it shows what the government is doing. Increased transparency also relates to other benefits that open data could contribute to, namely increased participation in political life, stronger democracy or e-governance.

Much literature and many policy reports are actually based on the assumption that open data is a tool to enhance transparency.

In addition, it is argued often that transparency could lead to better accountability of the government. However

several researchers have challenged also the idea that opening data will result in transparency and the idea that transparency automatically leads to more trust in the government.

Research has shown that the assumption that open data automatically results in transparency is too simple.

There are at least four factors which we believe influence open data transparency: 1) the type of data opened, 2) what one can do opened with the data

and how they are displayed, 3) the undesired effects of opened data and 4) the costs of open data transparency apart from the systems, resources,

capabilities and other means to make sense out of data. Offering better and new services is another motivation to engage in open data initiatives.

According to Berners-Lee (2012), opening up data is fundamentally about more efficient use of resources and improving service delivery for citizens.

More and more, citizens expect city services to be available online. Reusing public sector data can lead to the development of improved

more efficient online public services. Also, merging data and information digitally leads to improved collaboration between city departments and more efficient internal information sharing.

This can also lead to improved e-government services being developed by public administrations. What's more, local authorities are actively pursuing open data strategies to collaborate with citizens and the private sector in developing services from this data.

Co-created or co-produced public services better meet the citizens'demands. Also, local governments can use their data to provide (real time) information to address issues from traffic congestion to peak load electricity management.

Other services such as reporting tools can allow citizens to report local problems to the council just by locating them on maps.

Finally local governments are driven also by the possibility that companies produce economic value from their public data,

creating services and applications from those free data. This means a new market niche, based on digital contain,

what helps to create richness and the possibility to offer added value services. Additionally, it promotes the competitiveness among companies,

affording the possibility of tendering this public and free information and obtaining a benefit. Indeed, according to the Eurocities Statement on Open Data, opening

and reusing public sector information can potentially create economic gains of up to 40 Billion euros annually in the European union.

Incentives for the open/big data community should take into account the instruments'flaws and the needs of the community in terms of motivations In this respect,

political incentives aimed at increasing the government's reputation are key. Thus, if it is true that opening data does not necessarily lead to more 42 transparency,

efforts are needed to enhance the links between opening data, increasing transparency and increasing trust and legitimacy.

Because reputation from a marketing/image point of view also matters, political incentives in terms of communication, diffusion and knowledge sharing are important as well.

Technical support in order to address the make the most of opened data is another incentive. There are some programmes that offer this type of support.

Open Data Support for example, is a 36-month project of the DG CONNECT of the European commission to improve the visibility

and facilitate the access to datasets published on local and national open data portals in order to increase their reuse within and across borders.

To achieve its objective, the programme provides to (potential) publishers of open datasets, three types of services:

1) data and metadata preparation, transformation and publication services that will enable them to share the metadata of their datasets on the pan-European linked metadata infrastructure delivered by the project,

2) training services in the area of (linked) open data, aiming to build both theoretical and technical capacity to European union public administrations,

in particular to favour the uptake of linked open data technologies, and 3) information technology advisory and consultancy services in the areas of linked open data technologies, data and metadata licensing,

and business aspects and externalities of (linked) open data. Certainly, monetary incentives also matter. Funding open data projects may encourage the release of public data.

The Cabinet Office and the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, in the United kingdom, are, for example,

supporting organisations who want to improve their data publication. In this respect, they are helping to unlock data from public bodies by awarding 1. 5 Million pounds to projects as part of the Release of Data Fund and the Breakthrough Fund.

Smart citizens Two are the instruments mainly used by those citizens who want to take part in crowdsourcing initiatives:

projects and platforms. Both of them are related, assome crowdsourcing platforms revolve around specific projects and others (mainly crowdfunding platforms) display a list of projects that need citizens'input.

In section 5. 4, we have referred already to online platforms for both crowdsourcing and crowdfunding initiatives.

There are several classifications of types of platforms, although there is some overlap between them. One of them is related to the organisation that sets up the platform:

a business firm, a public sector organisation, and a nonprofit sector organisation. Howe (2009) also classifies platforms depending on the crowdsourcing approach.

He refers to 1) crowd-creation (leveraging the ability and insights of a crowd of people to create new products and services),

which is the global leader in crowdsourcing innovation problems where people compete to provide ideas and solutions to important business, social policy, scientific,

Finding what motivates the so-called crowd is essential for success in crowdsourcing activities because it allows for the best incentives to be applied.

The other reasons for crowds to support crowdsourcing systems are much more self-motivated. It is interesting to mention money.

and provides benefit to the crowd member who contributes to the actual crowdsourcing task. An example of intrinsic motivation is enjoyment.

Finally, Pilz & Gewald (2003) state that motivations are paid different in and nonprofit crowdsourcing communities.

The authors suggest that financial incentives may be used to control trade-off between accuracy speed and total effort.

Crowdsourcing sites fall into one of two categories in terms of their compensation: pay-on-task or contest/prize.

The pay-on-task sites offer a nominal level of compensation for a completed task.

Contest/prize sites pay significantly more money or offer job contracts, product prototypes and royalties.

In addition to this, Oram (2010) proposes a payment scheme in crowdsourcing projects: 1) pay for professionals skills

Leaving aside portals that display public open data, previously analysed, governments use transparency portals as well,

The indicators aim at evaluating the data and the information public organisations publish on their transparency portals.

some may be more informal (such as movements that revolve around different social media platforms. Also, Wikipedia refers to specific initiatives/activities such as town hall meetings, opinion polls,

participatory budgeting, referenda, protests or voting. More individual engagement may take the shape of e-mails to government officials, signing an online petition or making a political contribution.

Participation in such projects is facilitated usually by specific participation platforms, wikis, social media, and blogs. Legislation is another significant tool that is used by governments.

which stakeholders and policy makers should form a bottom-up social network to co-design policies. The new approach to policy making being experimented with by digital futures supported by the Futurium online platform126 is characterised by:

using the internet to gather instantaneous real world data from which knowledge is extracted and used to dynamically (re) shape policy actions.

The speakers, all leading DSI practitioners highlighted how digital social innovation is enabled often by open data, free software,

and open hardware platforms. In many cases, new services cannot be envisaged at the time that these open tools are developed,

The afternoon of the workshop began to crowdsource policy ideas from participants. This focused not just on particular sectors

and data as knowledge commons. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 Opportunities 7 and chalenges Generating Ideas Developing

common standards) Increasing the potential value of digital SI (eg making available open data, ubiquitous broadband) Enabling some of the radical, disruptive innovations emerging from digital SI new approaches to money, consumption, education,

Your Priorities is a web app that allows people to submit new ideas, debate and discuss ideas and vote up or down based on their priorities.

identity and payment data Many US companies have patents on identity, social and payment data.

There is a need to require the European Public sector and EC funded projects to not fall into this trap

and provide open data sets on social, identity and payment. Many US companies have patents on identity, social and payment data.

There is a need to require the European Public sector and EC funded projects to not fall into this trap

and provide open data sets on social, identity and payment. Public data sets available to encourage innovation By ensuring there are open data sets available from the European public sector

and EC funded projects will remove barriers from social innovators who often rely too much on Facebook,

Twitter ect. for data. It will create more space for innovators to build easier and better tools.

Impact and Measurement Implement social value model into all policy measurements Put in place new guidelines that create a new social value model for evaluation

crowdsourcing with time We are studing the way to allow pople to use their time as asset

and standardised public digital ID for all citizens Powers of companies such as Google and Facebook have a lot of control over an individual's online identity.

rights and fundamental freedoms There is increasingly more personal and social data available online which threatens individual privacy and freedom.

and rules on this data and helping individuals maintain control over their own data will prevent infringements on privacy.

Citizens engagement and feedback Democratic and distributed social network Social network based on open source code to promote the most interesting news decided by the people,

Based on the open source code of Meneame. net, but with a new user interface more similar to actual social networks like Facebook or Twitter.

I would call it Yups. com: Yups for the positive votes and Oops for the negative ones.

create an open decentralised digital ecosystem including open data distributed repositories, distr buted cloud, distributed search, decentralised social networking, public identity management,

and encrypted email service. The internet ecosystem today is highly centralised The current Internet is dominated by a handful of mainly US companies that control all the layers of the tecosystem (app store, cloud, machine learning, devices),

and are imposing their rules of the game. Europe needs to invest in future infrastructures that reflect the European values,

support SMES and civic innovators and deliver public good. Distributed, privacy-aware enabling infrastructures can also reestablish trust.

and banning software patents Banning software patents and continue to campaign for the internet to remain a neutral space.

Keep bottom-up innovation feasible and affordable. Software packages that are patented can be expensive making them less accessible and not affordable to potential individual innovators.

Also the internet needs to continue to be a neutral space where creativity can continue to flourish.

Gender Equality in DSI Promote gender equality in DSI by tackling things such as criteria for funding

DARPA led to the creation of the internet, the R&d funding at CERN led to the invention of the Web) Encourage people to think about:

Who could implement it (European commission, national governments, municipal etc.?Who will benefit? What are the barriers?

and told them we'll email their pledge back to them after six months (this keeps people on their toes

and practitioners of DSI, there are a number of perceived future Internet threats (such as concentration of power and surveillance),

A main Internet trend-threat in the current and future Internet ecosystem is recognised today: an increasing concentration of power in the hands of a few data aggregators (e g. over the top players), none of which is located in Europe (Google controlling nearly 82%of the global search market and 98%of the mobile search market,

Facebook dominating the Social networking and Identity Ecosystem, whilst Apple, Amazon and Microsoft controlling the mobile market and cloud-based services platforms).

Furthermore, the Digital economy is now mainly based on business models that aggregate, analyse and sell personal data, turning personal data in what has been defined as the oil of the Internet economy.

Most users have accepted exploitative business models based on privacy infringement and often hidden surveillance mechanisms in exchange for free services.

This bargain not only undermines privacy and weakens data protection but also commodifies knowledge, identity, and personal data. European SMES, developers and social innovators are innovating with cheap open hardware, open source software, open knowledge, open data and analytics faster,

and are producing valuable data about people, the environment, biometric and sensor data (as shown in the DSI map129

but these data are used not yet to enhance the public good at a systemic level. What needs to happen is to channel more resources

and coordinated policy actions to support grassroots and social innovation. There is a common sentiment that a strong public intervention at EU level is needed to properly support these areas of developments which,

far from being within the short-term interests of big EU industries, has insofar been isolated left to developers, activists and hackers.

Recognising its strong social value besides its strategic contribution to repositioning Europe worldwide, and promoting a coordinated approach to its development,

would allow a whole new generation of industrial and social innovation to start in Europe.

We outlined here some of the main policy issues and potential areas for intervention: 1. One big issue is how to provide infrastructural investments such as broadband deployments

This includes the need for open data distributed repositories, distributed cloud, distributed search, and distributed social networking.

It can also include the development of new mobile platforms alternative to Apple or Android) as a kind of regulated monopoly able to ensure some basic services at European level,

on top of which a whole new open ecosystem of services and applications could flourish, in a participatory innovation model,

based on open source and open hardware developments. 2. The need for privacy-aware technologies based on trust and ethics is recognised.

Recent Snowden revelations and the developments in the security and intelligence services have shown a fundamental weakness in notions of end-to-end security that overimpact the requirements of our systems.

Users should be able to set the terms for controlling their personal data, including data portability.

In the Iot there will thus be a social contract between people and objects with ethical implications.

An alternative framework is needed also to provide an open architecture for managing online identity, security,

and personal data in an integrated fashion and based on democratic and participatory processes. The EU data protection reform package currently being discussed by Member States is moving in this direction

trying to build a single and comprehensive data protection framework to develop tools and initiatives to enhance citizens awareness,

and ensure that businesses receive guidance on data anonymisation and pseudonymisation. 3. The main questions in a data-driven society emerge around new governance modalities for Big data, collective ownership of data, data portability,

and how to valorize data as knowledge commons). Citizens should trust the institutions that control

and negotiate their data and take decision on their behalf. Users'social graphs (personal attributes, friends and relationships) and interest graphs

(what people like and do) are harnessed and sold to advertisers to extract and‘mine'targeted market information.

The question is how to assure user control over personal information in an ocean of commercially valuable Big data.

Technical Solutions do not work by themselves, therefore legal and commercial solutions have to be based in technology and integrated with the appropriate policy framework.

Defining sensible governance modalities for big data will requires a large collaboration between public and private actors. 56 4. Identity Management is becoming a very important issue in the digital economy

The aggregated data extracted from the analysis of our identities (what companies define as social graphs)

A broader investigation and the understanding of the implication of such mechanisms are crucial for the understanding of future bottom-up digital economies.

or plastic with a chip) into an open source mesh-networked device (a chip with a screen).

The device allows talks to only EU platforms (Iot-A, Fi-ware) and the platform will offer interoperability to preferred non-EU partners.

Regulation matters, particularly regarding certain issues as open access, open data, open standards, and public sector information reuse,

topics already tackled by the European commission (see, for example, the Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020 or the PSI Directive,

that digital social innovation is a lot about open knowledge and open data policies. Therefore, regulating open data standardization across Europe or setting up a European open data agency would be interesting ideas.

Funding is critical as well. The analyses of communities have shown that the lack of money hinders innovation within the communities.

But action is needed at all levels. 58 6. Analysing network data: Exploring DSI Network effect (WP2)

In order to analyse the relationship data from the mapping, we are adopting social network analysis to detect patterns of relations

and argue that the causal success of DSI located in the social structure. By studying behaviours as embedded in social network structures,

we will be able to explain macro and mesolevel patterns that show the dynamics in which DSI organisations and their initiatives create scalable results and

One of the primary problems facing the mapping of an open-ended field such as DSI is how to direct the multiple diverse streams of data from interviews to social media into a central repository capable of giving a big picture of European

Social networks are defined formally as set of nodes (or network members) that are tied by one or more types of relations (Wasserman and Faust, 1994).

The data collected at http://data. digitalsocial. eu network represents DSI organisations and their social relationships mapped in the form of graph that is a collection of nodes

In the case of the DSI social network collected in this study, the nodes in a graph are communities,

This social network analysis examines the structure and composition of DSI organisations ties in a given network and provide insights into its structural characteristics,

Furthermore, this visualization of the DSI network, embedded in our website, is interactive and aims at engaging the larger DSI community itself.

This means we can use this ever-expanding visualization and network database as a tool for crowdsourcing even more information about DSI in Europe,

therby achieving the critical mass necessary to large-scale European social problems. 6. 1 Network analysis Methods One of the tasks of this second interim report is to both determine how the current data can help to answer a set

Only with such a framework can data and hypotheses be interpreted in a sensible manner without projecting preconceived,

and often wrong, assumptiosn onto the data-Set in particular in the longer term, this requires both an unbalanced sample, in

which we assume the data adequately reflects the empirical phenomena at hand, and, as network-based data often assumes a non-Gaussian distribution such as a powerlaw.

Phrasing both the null hypothesis and alternative hypotheses in terms of network theory must be done with care. There must then be enough data to adequately test the hypotheses

using mathematical techniques that can statistically quantify the level of confidence in the proof of the data for any given hypothesis. For non-Gaussian distributions such as power-laws,

traditional t-tests against Gaussian distributions and even traditional statistics around averages and means are scientifically invalid134.

due to the small and mostly disconnected data-set we currently have gathered, where it seems there is a large bias towards the United kingdom

therefore ourselves to a more broad-stroked analysis of the data. From this analysis will come a number of hypotheses that we will more rigorously quantify

We still have concerns that the data-set is biased heavily towards English speakers due the lack of translation of the website into languages outside English We still believe that many more actors in countries such as Italy, France,

Howver, the website was designed not using standard internationalisation techniques and adding them is outside of the budget allocated for this project.

We would argue that future work after the end of the DSI project should allow the website

so that the data-set will be a more representative sample of digital social innovation in Europe. We earlier estimated that we need approximately 1

Currently we still have only half the data we need for a full analysis. However,

we can eyeball the results of the data-set and determine general trends, as well as commence with a basic quantitative analysis. 6. 2

the data is disconnected mostly. There are only 136 organizations with connections to other organisations (23%.%It appears that the vast majority of DSI organisations in Europe are disconnected from each other.

Indeed, if we graph the data-set of only connected organisations, we can see a clear power-law style distribution arise,

and a vast long tail of not very well connected organisations (89%of entire data has three

In the final version of the report, we will do significance testing on this hypothesis with a larger data-set.

Community detection algorithms can be used to find dense substructures (often called communities) within a larger and often sparse network.

or that all smaller communities were composed simply on a single lone organisation being linked to another very heavily linked super-connector organisation (as would be the case in a graph of links to and from Wikipedia, for example.

In detail, there is a clustering coefficient of. 887, signalling a fairly high density of interconnections in existing communities (Latapy, 2008).

The way to interpret a clustering coefficient is that it is the measurement of how likely it is that the organisations linked to each other are linked also.

If we take our data at face value for the most part that does not seem to be happening organically.

For example, Open Knowledge Foundation and Forum Virium are both not part of the core DSI study team

when data has been added, given that otherwise the experiments will be very hypothetical and possibly erroneous for example,

we muct (1) still collect more data and to take into account the fact that (2) our hypotheses,

While we have doubled approximately the data we gathered in the first phase, we will need to almost double that amount again to get the kinds of robust results we want, namely to around 1000 organisations.

and draw upon existing data and research from other sources. Level 2 You are gathering data that shows some change amongst those using your product/service At this stage,

data can begin to show effect but it will not evidence direct causality. You could consider such methods as:

pre and post survey evaluation; cohort/panel study, regular interval surveying Level 3 You can demonstrate that your product/service is causing the impact,

by showing less impact amongst those who don't receive the product/service. Z We will consider robust methods using a control group

and you will need data on costs of production and acceptable price point for your customers.

We have a number of events planned for the Autumn 2014 including the Living Labs summer school and Crowdsourcing week.

including its social media presence (500+twitter followers). In addition to the research we will work with the European commission on developing a sustainability plan for the DSI website

and community before the final event on December 16th 2014.66 Endnotes 1. http://www. nesta. org. uk/develop-your-skills/challenge-prizes 2. http://ec. europa. eu/information society/digital

/ph overview/documents/stakeholders en. pdf 8. http://eacea. ec. europa. eu/citizenship/programme/action1 measure1 en. php 9. Competitiveness is defined as the capability of an economy to maintain increasing standards

. org. uk/areas of work/assets/features/the startup factories report feature 15. http://paradiso-fp7. eu/16. http://www. internet-science. eu/17.18. http://setis

. http://5g-ppp. eu/23. http://www. energyawareness. eu/24. http://www. parterre-project. eu/25. http://

28. http://www. internet-of-things-research. eu/29. Bria, F. 2012. http://files. openinnovation platform. eu/policydocs/open innovation 2012. pdf 30.31. http://ec. europa. eu/information society/activities/collectiveawareness/index en

when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software (Wikipedia) 47. http://www. barcelonastartupfestival. com/48. http://startupfestival. com/home/)67 49. http

://inspiration. entrepreneur. com/50. http://www. startupnation. com/51. http://steveblank. com/52. http://joel. is/),53. http://ryancarson. com/)54

/58. http://eit. europa. eu/fileadmin/Content/Downloads/PDF/Stories/Innoenergy creation highway web HD. pdf) 59. http://ycombinator. com/60. http://www

://www. apps4ottawa. ca/en 78. http://data. gov. uk/79. https://data. cityofchicago. org/80. http://www. socrata. com/81

-computing. com/revolution-r-enterprise 94. http://floksociety. org/95. http://publiclab. org/96. http://www. whitehouse. gov/economy/business

http://opendata. euskadi. net/w79-ejemplos/es/contenidos/informacion/ideas ejemplos opendata/es apps/ideas ejemplos app. html 113. https://open. wien. at/site/anwendungen/)114.115

. https://www. crowdrise. com/116. http://www. innocentive. com/117. http://en. wikipedia. org/118. https://www. mturk. com/mturk

eu 131. http://ec. europa. eu/justice/data protection/index en. htm 132. http://bit. ly/1kivc4h 133.

see the Communia website: http://bit. ly/V2knnk 134. To take an intuitive example, in a world with one 3000 foot tall giant being compared against a normal population of a hundred people evenly distributed between 5 and 6 feet tall,

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011