Technological innovation and public value creation: A multidisciplinary evaluation

Omoregie Charles Osifo

doi:10.59400/fps.v1i1.368

Omoregie Charles Osifo Sustainability Group, University of Vaasa, 65200 Vaasa, Finland

Ariticle ID: 368

21 Views, 29 PDF Downloads

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/fps.v1i1.368

Keywords: technology, innovation, public value, Industry 4.0, sustainability, multidisciplinary

Abstract

Innovation (e.g., technological, sustainable, social, etc.) should be able to create value. The key objective of this paper is to evaluate public value creation and improvement via technological innovations and present a general position. This paper adopts a simple evaluation strategy by exploring viewpoints/positions, dimensions, realities, and pieces of evidence in some selected relevant literature, documents, and reports. The multidisciplinary evaluation of how technological innovations help to create or improve public value shows a relatively similar outlook from the dimensions of objectives, strategies, limitations, and outcomes/successes. One of the key discoveries from this paper relating to the objective dimension in the disciplines of social sciences is that tech innovation mainly focuses on enhancing well-being, dignity, human rights, and prosperity for all (individuals, societies, the environment, and the world). Concerning the objective dimension in the disciplines of the humanities, tech innovation focuses on promoting cultural diversity, inclusion, and responsible communication. Regarding the objective dimension in disciplines of physical and natural sciences, tech innovation focuses on reducing/eradicating dehumanization, social, economic, psychological, and environmental challenges (e.g., climate change and biodiversity depletion). The originality of this paper is premised on the fact that presently very little attention is given to this kind of topic, especially from a multidisciplinary perspective. Therefore, this paper attempts to contribute to the multidisciplinary evaluation gap that exists between technological innovation and public value creation. The general position of this multidisciplinary evaluation is that public value creation is the key goal of tech innovation across many disciplines.

References

OECD. Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation. OECD 2016. doi: 10.1787/9789264265097-en

Podemski RS. Educational technology and the development-adoption dilemma. Educational Technology 1980; 20(5): 26–28.

Almada-Lobo F. The Industry 4.0 revolution and the future of Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES). Journal of Innovation Management 2016; 3(4): 16–21. doi: 10.24840/2183-0606_003.004_0003

Criado JI, Gil-Garcia JR. Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies. International Journal of Public Sector Management 2019; 32(5): 438–450. doi: 10.1108/ijpsm-07-2019-0178

Fu X, Pietrobelli C, Soete L. The role of foreign technology and indigenous innovation in the emerging economies: Technological change and catching-up. World Development 2011; 39(7): 1204–1212. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.05.009

Moore M. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Harvard University Press; 1995.

Neumann O, Matt C, Hitz-Gamper BS, et al. Joining forces for public value creation? Exploring collaborative innovation in smart city initiatives. Government Information Quarterly 2019; 36(4): 101411. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.101411

Bozeman B. Public value science. Issues in Science and Technology 2020; 36(4): 34–41.

Word Economic Forum. The AI Governance Journey: Development and Opportunities. Available online: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The%20AI_Governance_Journey_Development_and_Opportunities_2021.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2022).

Tauli T. AI (Artificial Intelligence) governance: How to get it right. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomtaulli/2020/10/10/ai-artificial-intelligence-governance-how-to-get-it-right/?sh=16b08d59745f (accessed on 4 March 2021).

Gohari S, Ahlers DF, Nielsen B, Junker E. The governance approach of smart city initiatives. Evidence from Trondheim, Bergen, and Bodø. Infrastructures 2020; 5(4): 31. doi: 10.3390/infrastructures5040031

Solum LB. Models of Internet governance. Internet Governance 2009; 48–91. doi: 10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199561131.003.0003

Gensler HJ. Ethics. Routledge; 2006. doi: 10.4324/9780203195918

Menzel DC. Ethics Management for Public Administrators: Building Organisations of Integrity. M. E. Sharpe; 2007.

Meynhardt T. Public value inside: What is public value creation? International Journal of Public Administration 2009; 32(3–4): 192–219. doi: 10.1080/01900690902732632

Mokyr J, Strotz RH. The Second Industrial Revolution, 1870–1914. Available online: https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/jmokyr/castronovo.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2023).

Mohajan HK. The First Industrial Revolution: Creation of a new global human era. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 2019; 5(4): 377–387.

Rifkin J. The Third Industrial Revolution; How Lateral Power is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World. Palgrave MacMillan; 2011.

Murata. What is the “Fifth Industrial Revolution,” which will deepen the integration between people and technology? Available online: https://article.murata.com/en-sg/article/what-is-the-fifth-industrial-revolution (accessed on 13 January 2023).

Schwab K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/about/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-by-klaus-schwab/ (accessed on 7 February 2024).

Schlechtendahl J, Keinert M, Kretschmer F, et al. Making existing production systems Industry 4.0-ready. Production Engineering 2014; 9(1): 143–148. doi: 10.1007/s11740-014-0586-3

Farshid M, Paschen J, Eriksson T, et al. Go boldly! Business Horizons 2018; 61(5): 657–663. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2018.05.009

Al-Zoubi K, Wainer GA. A grid-shaped cellular modeling approach for wireless sensor networks. Simulation 2022; 98(10): 875–895. doi: 10.1177/00375497221093379

Jadhav A, Jadhav VS. A review on 3D printing: An additive manufacturing technology. Materials Today: Proceedings 2022; 62: 2094–2099. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.558

Panagiotopoulos P, Klievink B, Cordella A. Public value creation in digital government. Government Information Quarterly 2019; 36(4): 101421. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.101421

Weerakkody V, Sivarajah U, Irani Z, Osmani M. Evaluating the public value of social innovation. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/29140298.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2023).

Osifo OC. A study of coordination challenges in digital policy implementation and evaluation in Finland. In: Proceedings of the 2020 43rd International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO); 28 September–2 October 2020; Opatija, Croatia. pp. 1402–1409.

Tartaruga IGP, Cazarotto RT, Martins CHB, Fukui A. Innovation and public understanding of science: possibility of new indicators for the analysis of public attitudes to science, technology and innovation. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/76262.html (accessed on 7 February 2024).

University of Twente. Value creation model. Available online: https://www.utwente.nl/en/organisation/about/shaping2030/documents/wcm-en.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2023).

Fernández-Baldor Á, Hueso A, Boni A. From Individuality to collectivity: The challenges for technology-oriented development projects. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology 2012; 135–152. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-3879-9_8

Brier S. Cybersemiotics: Suggestion for a transdisciplinary framework encompassing natural, life, and social sciences as well as phenomenology and humanities. International Journal of Body, Mind and Culture 2014; 1(1): 3–53. doi: 10.22122/ijbmc.v1i1.6

Benyoussef Zghidi A, Zaiem I. Service orientation as a strategic marketing tool: The moderating effect of business sector. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal 2017; 27(1): 40–61. doi: 10.1108/cr-02-2015-0012

Vasilenko N, Linkov A, Tokareva O. The interaction between innovative technologies in the course of the institutionalization of the digital economy. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, Proceedings of the III International Scientific and Practical Conference “Digital Economy and Finances” (ISPC-DEF 2020). pp. 44–48.

Bakhshi H, Schneider P, Walker C. Arts and humanities research in the innovation system: The UK example. Cultural Science Journal 2009; 2(1). doi: 10.5334/csci.19

Zaltman G. How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market. Harvard Business School Press; 2003.

Fikes RE, Hart PE, Nilsson NJ. Learning and executing generalized robot plans. Artificial Intelligence 1972; 3: 251–288. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(72)90051-3

Brier S. Can biosemiotics be a “science” if its purpose is to be a bridge between the natural, social and human sciences? Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 2015; 119(3): 576–587. doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.08.001

OECD. OECD Comparative Study: Digital Government Strategies for Transforming Public Services in the Welfare Areas. OECD Publishing; 2016.

Zhong RY, Xu C, Chen C, et al. Big Data Analytics for Physical Internet-based intelligent manufacturing shop floors. International Journal of Production Research 2015; 55(9): 2610–2621. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2015.1086037

Ali O, Shrestha A, Soar J, et al. Cloud computing-enabled healthcare opportunities, issues, and applications: A systematic review. International Journal of Information Management 2018; 43: 146–158. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.009

UNCTAD. The Digital Economy Report 2019. Value Creation and Capture: Implications for Developing Countries. United Nations; 2019.

Wang Z, Zhu H, Sun L. Social engineering in cybersecurity: Effect mechanisms, human vulnerabilities and attack methods. IEEE Access 2021; 9: 11895–11910. doi: 10.1109/access.2021.3051633

Luiss. Data Science and Management. Available online: https://www.luiss.edu/admissions/programs-offered/masters-degree/data-science-and-management (accessed on 13 January 2023).