I would like to know what scholars of innovation systems and related topics think about a bottom-up approach to an innovation study. Mainstream innovation studies take top-down approaches in the sense of deciding a-priori what the problem is, what the innovation is, how the bottom should tackle these issues, etc. The bottom-up approach first gives voice to the ground, to the elements/actors that emerge to be involved in a system, what their problems and constraints are, what they see as opportunities and how they tackle all this, i.e. how they innovate.
I might be wrong of course and I would like to know your opinions, your approach, what you think, etc.
National Innovation foundation an organisation in India has been in forefront in bottom up approach to innovation. It is experience as said by Dr K Anil is enclosed as attachment.
We work a lot of this - rather from the foresight aspect (longer term view) but also in innovation development. It is very important, because often, there is no problem and at first you have to identify what the solution can be good for. A mix of actors in these approaches is important...
We observed emergence of a brand new Rural Develompment Plan Measure did not considered a-priori by the Regional Authority. The measures emerged from a bottom up process with local stakeholders and after a negotiation with EU it was included in the Plan.
Taken into account the experiences with lean management and process optimisation, there CIP works bottom-up and is considered as quite successful. Usually CIP supports incremental improvement of processes, but sometimes even radical innovations. So, why should this not work with innovation?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude