Innovation care pathways and the healthcare built environment: An explanatory framework and research agenda

The built environment in which health and social care is delivered can have an impact on the efficiency and outcomes of care processes. The health-care estate is large and growing and is expensive to build, adapt and maintain. The design of these buildings is a complex, difficult and political process. Better use of care pathways as an input to the design and use of the built environment has the potential to deliver significant benefits. A number of variations on the idea of care pathways are already used in designing health-care buildings but this is under-researched. This paper provides a framework for thinking about care pathways and the health-care built environment. The framework distinguishes between five different pathway ‘types’ defined for the purpose of understanding the relationship between pathways and infrastructure. The five types are: ‘care pathways’, ‘integrated care pathways’, ‘patient pathways’, ‘patient journeys’ and ‘patient flows’. The built environment implications of each type are discussed and recommendations made for those involved in either building development or care pathway projects.

Motivations for innovation in the built environment: new directions for research

Innovation in the built environment involves multiple actors with diverse motivations. Policy-makers find it difficult to promote changes that require cooperation from these numerous and dispersed actors and to align their sometimes divergent interests. Established research traditions on the economics and management of innovation pay only limited attention to stakeholder choices, engagement and motivation. This paper reviews the insights that emerge as research in these traditions comes into contact with work on innovation from sociological and political perspectives. It contributes by highlighting growing areas of research on user involvement in complex innovation, collective action, distributed innovation and transition management. To differing extents, these provide approaches to incorporate the motivations of different actors into theoretical understanding. These indicate new directions for research that promise to enrich understanding of innovation.

Innovation dynamics and capability in open collaborative cyber communities: implications for cybersecurity

Cybersecurity is a complex challenge that has emerged alongside the evolving global socio-technical environment of social networks that feature connectivity across time and space in ways unimaginable even a decade ago. This paper reports on the preliminary findings of a NATO funded project that investigates the nature of innovation in open collaborative communities and its implications for cyber security. In this paper, the authors describe the framing of relevant issues, the articulation of the research questions, and the derivation of a conceptual framework based on open collaborative innovation that has emerged from preliminary field research in Russia and the UK.

Century-of-Information Research (CIR): a strategy for research and innovation in the century of information

More data will be produced in the next five years than in the entire history of human kind, a digital deluge that marks the beginning of the Century of Information. Through a year-long consultation with UK researchers, a coherent strategy has been developed, which will nurture Century-of-Information Research (CIR); it crystallises the ideas developed by the e-Science Directors' Forum Strategy Working Group. This paper is an abridged version of their latest report which can be found at: http://wikis.nesc.ac.uk/escienvoy/Century_of_Information_Research_Strategy which also records the consultation process and the affiliations of the authors. This document is derived from a paper presented at the Oxford e-Research Conference 2008 and takes into account suggestions made in the ensuing panel discussion. The goals of the CIR Strategy are to facilitate the growth of UK research and innovation that is data and computationally intensive and to develop a new culture of 'digital-systems judgement' that will equip research communities, businesses, government and society as a whole, with the skills essential to compete and prosper in the Century of Information. The CIR Strategy identifies a national requirement for a balanced programme of coordination, research, infrastructure, translational investment and education to empower UK researchers, industry, government and society. The Strategy is designed to deliver an environment which meets the needs of UK researchers so that they can respond agilely to challenges, can create knowledge and skills, and can lead new kinds of research. It is a call to action for those engaged in research, those providing data and computational facilities, those governing research and those shaping education policies. The ultimate aim is to help researchers strengthen the international competitiveness of the UK research base and increase its contribution to the economy. The objectives of the Strategy are to better enable UK researchers across all disciplines to contribute world-leading fundamental research; to accelerate the translation of research into practice; and to develop improved capabilities, facilities and context for research and innovation. It envisages a culture that is better able to grasp the opportunities provided by the growing wealth of digital information. Computing has, of course, already become a fundamental tool in all research disciplines. The UK e-Science programme (2001-06)—since emulated internationally—pioneered the invention and use of new research methods, and a new wave of innovations in digital-information technologies which have enabled them. The Strategy argues that the UK must now harness and leverage its own, plus the now global, investment in digital-information technology in order to spread the benefits as widely as possible in research, education, industry and government. Implementing the Strategy would deliver the computational infrastructure and its benefits as envisaged in the Science & Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014 (July 2004), and in the reports developing those proposals. To achieve this, the Strategy proposes the following actions: support the continuous innovation of digital-information research methods; provide easily used, pervasive and sustained e-Infrastructure for all research; enlarge the productive research community which exploits the new methods efficiently; generate capacity, propagate knowledge and develop skills via new curricula; and develop coordination mechanisms to improve the opportunities for interdisciplinary research and to make digital-infrastructure provision more cost effective. To gain the best value for money strategic coordination is required across a broad spectrum of stakeholders. A coherent strategy is essential in order to establish and sustain the UK as an international leader of well-curated national data assets and computational infrastructure, which is expertly used to shape policy, support decisions, empower researchers and to roll out the results to the wider benefit of society. The value of data as a foundation for wellbeing and a sustainable society must be appreciated; national resources must be more wisely directed to the collection, curation, discovery, widening access, analysis and exploitation of these data. Every researcher must be able to draw on skills, tools and computational resources to develop insights, test hypotheses and translate inventions into productive use, or to extract knowledge in support of governmental decision making. This foundation plus the skills developed will launch significant advances in research, in business, in professional practice and in government with many consequent benefits for UK citizens. The Strategy presented here addresses these complex and interlocking requirements.

Technological innovation in the context of PPPs: incentives, opportunities and actions

From a construction perspective, Public-Private Partnership projects (PPPs) are often credited as providing real incentives for the actors involved as well as a business environment that is conducive to innovation and improved practices. The validity of four common rhetorical arguments used to promote the PPP procurement route is explored: collaborative working, design freedom, long-term commitment and risk transfer. Particular interest is given to the extent to which espoused intentions correlate with experienced realities in allowing actors involved in the design and construction phases to be presented with, and able to exploit, opportunities for technological innovation. It is argued that there is reason to be cautious in fully accepting the purported benefits of the PPP framework and that the arguments often presented need to be revised. Alternative interpretations are provided.

Learning across business sectors: facets of innovation in aerospace and construction

Innovation is notoriously difficult to define and is invariably intertwined with issues of knowledge creation, continuous improvement and organisational change. An extensive literature classifies numerous types of innovation and militates against any simplistic attempt at definition. It is widely accepted that innovation is at least partly dependent upon the surrounding environment. Industry recipes and institutionally embedded practices shape the environment within which innovation occurs. Recent research directions have addressed the diffusion of innovation and its dependence upon social and institutional structures. In this respect, it is highly pertinent to compare the way that innovation is interpreted and enacted in different industrial sectors. The comparison between UK aerospace and construction is especially revealing because the two sectors are so different and therefore constitute radically different climates for innovation. Empirical research is reported based on semi-structured interviews with practitioners from both sectors. Interpretations of innovation are found to differ dramatically between aerospace and construction. Within the context of an ongoing struggle to define innovation, both industries are striving to become more innovative. The aerospace sector is found to emphasise technical innovation whereas the construction sector emphasises process innovation. An overriding cultural bias in Western economies towards technological innovation results in the common perception that aerospace is much more innovative than construction. The experienced realities of practitioners in the two sectors are much more complex.