This paper suggests that when exploring new solutions or innovations in the knowledge society we should also look at the silver generations for inspiration for new ideas to promote innovations. Creativity and innovativeness do not alter the fact that many of our vital capabilities are lost during the ageing process, and more help, especially expensive medical care, is needed. But this paper reminds us of the potential for creativity also in old age, and about the fact that many radical ideas and innovations are based on unprejudiced ways of breaking down the old existing categories and reconnecting things in a new way. This means that in striving for innovations in various fields and domains, intersections and sources of new ideas can be available in a form of the tacit knowledge of elderly people, if only we are prepared to look for it.
The most difficult, but also most desired innovations of all, radical break- throughs, are the sum total of many different factors. In the fuzzy front end of open and collaborative innovations, new ideas are born from the collision of is- sues to form a new synthesis. In networks, active seniors can be a source of valuable professional or non-professional immaterial capital i.e., “An innovative product is about the co-development of practices and meaningful products”. Meanings are valuable pointers for the companies when anticipating the possi- ble collective needs and motives of the clients. Stories and all-around education are often accessible to those meanings. (Tuomi 2002) This paper suggests that active seniors can be the missing link in finding the wisdom to interpret the meaning of the stories.5
Table I sums up the interaction of the concepts used and ideas developed with reference to the silver generation. The type of innovation ecosystem refers to the level and form of potential innovation ecosystem. Other suggested factors are the key drivers for innovation and creativity, the key players and their roles in the innovation ecosystem, and the potential results and impact of the level and form of innovation ecosystem.
By environment for everyday creativity, this paper means the network of home, elderly care unit, living lab, hospital, recreation locations, higher education insti- tution, etc., where the daily activities of senior citizens take place and the pro- fessionals provide services for them. This environment can be considered as the micro level. The key driver of innovation and creativity in this form of ecosys- tem is the senior citizen’s or the professional’s need to fulfil their own creativity
5
potential. As subjects of their own life, the senior citizens and the professionals themselves are the key players, but it is up to the managers and the opinion leaders to encourage individuals to participate in creative everyday activities. The potential outcome of this ecosystem is the sensation of flow, joy of life and better overall quality of life.
The second type of innovation ecosystem is represented by the meso level and has been named the “Intersection for in-house knowledge and product develop- ment”. The need for creativity and innovations in the company and organisation are the key drivers for this ecosystem. At this intersection, retired professionals and professionals in active working life are working side by side to create new innovations. The delivery of tacit knowledge and other benefits of intersection, such as different backgrounds, improve the productivity of the innovation proc- ess and can increase the likelihood of radical ideas and innovations.
Open and collaborative innovation is the third type of innovation ecosystem and its driver is the company’s or organisation’s need for creativity and innovations. Open and collaborative innovation is often a meso level ecosystem, but, by us- ing the internet, it can integrate the macro level networks too, including the inter- national networks (supra level). In this ecosystem, the senior citizens are in the role of users developing the products. This type of nonlinear innovation de- creases the time needed to produce the type of innovation which fits in with the needs of the markets. This type of innovation can be an effective way to develop incremental enhancement.
The silver society oriented national or regional innovation ecosystem (NIS/RIS) is the fourth type of ecosystem and it represents the macro level. Regions and nations have a need to profile themselves in global competition, and that is the driver for this ecosystem. Politicians and professional managers are the key players with the resources of an entire community or nation placed at their dis- posal in order to create the needed knowledge network. If a change of attitudes and respect for the silver generation takes place as a consequence, the final im- pact can be an overall improvement in the development and social cohesion of society. This can in turn lead to a better image for the society in question, a pre- requisite for global competitiveness.
Table 1. A summary of the interaction of concepts used and ideas developed with refer- ence to the silver generation
Type of innovation ecosystem
Key driver of in- novation and creativity
Key players and their roles
Result and impact
Everyday creativity en- vironment
(home/work/elderly care unit)
Need to fulfil one’s own poten- tial
Leaders and public opinion: encour- agement of silver generation and/or professionals to take part in creative everyday activities
Quality of life plus & Sensation of flow Job satisfaction and motivation for work
Intersection – In-house knowledge and prod- uct development in organisations
Need for creativ- ity and innova- tions
Retired profession- als and profession- als involved again in active working life
Delivery of tacit knowledge and the benefits of intersec- tion
Open innovation eco- system e.g. silver so- ciety oriented Living Lab
Need for creativ- ity and innova- tions Silver generation as users developing the products Benefit of nonlinear innovations: right type of products for the market
Silver society oriented NIS/RIS
Need for profiling in a situation of global competi- tion. Need to restrict the increase of public expenses. Politicians and managers respon- sible for the strat- egy of the NIS/RIS
Societal develop- ment and social cohesion; creative tension and ethical development of the community as the source of the com- petitive advantage of the region
The idea of the potential for creativity in old age was certainly encouraged and used when elderly people lived alongside the younger generations. Now we have to find a new way to reinvent ways to boost that potential for future innova- tions.
There are many prerequisites for radical innovations, and radical thinking is one of the most crucial in order to break the “locks”, the fixed ideas and categories
that imprison us and our way of thinking. As has been reiterated throughout this article, lots of ideas are needed for the innovations funnel before the ideas are selected and carefully tested and verified (Davila, Epstein and Shelton (2006). In the final analysis, the benefits of open and collaborative innovation with senior professionals can be verified only by digging deeper into the literature and by in- terdisciplinary empirical research.
References
Andreasen, N.C. 2005. The Creating Brain. Dana Press, New York.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, New York.
Bean, R. 1992. How to Develop your Children’s Creativity. Price Stern Sloan Adult. Los Angeles CA.
Bergqvist, J.T. 2005. Teollinen tulevaisuutemme – systeemien hahmotus. In Hämäläinen, R. P. and Saarinen, E. (Eds). Systeemiäly. Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory.
Briggs, M. I. and Myers, P. G. 1980. Gifts Differing. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press; Boston, MA.
Christensen, C. M. 1997. The Innovator's Dilemma. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Crutchfield, R.S. 1962. Conformity and Creative Thinking. In H.E Gruber, G. Ter- rell and M. Wertheimer (Eds). Contemporary approaches to creative thinking: A symposium held at the University of Colorado. Atherton, New York.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1997. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. HarperPrennial, New York.
Davila, T. Epstein, M. J. and Shelton, R. 2006. Making Innovation Work. Whar- ton School Publishing Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Edquist, C. 2005. Systems of Innovation, Perspectives and Challenges. In Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., and Nelson, R. R. (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 182-208.
Fagerberg, J. 2003. Innovation: A Guide to the Literature. In Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C. and Nelson, R.R. (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Ox- ford University Press, Oxford. 1-26.
Flaherty, A.W. 2005. Frototemporal and Dopaminergic Control of Idea Genera- tion and Creative Drive. Journal of Comparative Neurology 493, 147-153.
Florida, R. 2004. The Flight of the Creative Class. HarperCollins Publishers, New York.
Griffin, M. and McDermott, M.R. 1998. Exploring a tripartite relationship between rebelliousness, openness to experience and creativity. Social Behaviour and Personality 26, 347-356.
Handolin, V-V. 2005. Työyhteisöjen systeemiäly ja supertuottavuus. In Hämäläinen, R.P. and Saarinen, E. (Eds). Systeemiäly. Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports B25.
Hargadon, A. 2003. How Breakthroughs Happen - The Surprising Truth About How Companies Innovate. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Massachu- setts.
Janis, I.L. 1971. Groupthink. Psychology Today. 5, November, 43-46 and 74-76.
Johansson, F. 2004. The Media Effect: Breakthrough Insight at the Intersection of Ideas, Concepts and Cultures. Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA.
Katz, R. 2004. The Human Side of Managing Technological Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
Linturi, H. 2008. Radikaalit innovaatiot. TKK Dipoli. http://www.dipoli.tkk.fi/dipoli_info/index.html.
Mackinnon, D. 1965. Personality and the Realization of Creative Potential. Ame- rican psychologists 20, 273-281.
Maula, M. 2004. Elävä organisaatio ja liiketoimintaekosysteemi: kompleksisten systeemien kaksi tulkintaa In Sotarauta, M. and Kosonen. K-J. (Eds). Yksilö, kulttuuri, innovaatioympäristö. Tampere University Press, Tampere.
Miettinen, R. 2002. National Innovation System. Scientific Concept or Political Rhetoric. Edita; Helsinki.
Mintzberg, H. 1989. Mintzberg on Management: Inside our Strange World of Or- ganizations. The Free Press.
Mäkelä, T. 2006. New Generation. Parliament Magazine, 20th of February 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etap/pdfs/newgeneration.pdf.
Nahapiet, J. and Goshal, S. 1998. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242- 246.
Nivaro, H. 2007. Tehokkuus tappaa luovuuden. Fakta, October, 32-34.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge Creating Company. Oxford University Press, New York.
Pavitt, K. 2005. Innovation Processes. In Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C. and Nel- son, R. (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Ox- ford. 86-114.
Rhodes, M. 1962. An Analysis of Creativity. Phi Delta Kappan 42, 305-310.
Richards, R. 1999. The Subtle Attraction: Beauty as a Force in Awareness, Creativity, and Survival. In S.W. Russ (Ed). Affect, Creative Experience, and Psychological Adjustments. Brunner/Mazel, Philadelphia. 195-219
Roe, A. 1983. Family Background of Eminent Scientists. In R.S. Albert (Ed). Genius and Eminence: The social psychology of creativity and exceptional achievement. Pergamon, Oxford. 170-181.
Runco, M.A. 2004. Personnel Creativity and Culture. In S. Lau, A.N.N. Hui, and G.Y.C Ng (Eds). Creativity when East meets west. World Scientific, New Jersey. 9-22.
Runco. M. A. 2007. Creativity, Theories and Themes: Research, Development and Practice. Elsevier Academic Press, USA.
Saarikoski, V. 2006. The Odyssey of the Mobile Internet. The Emergence of a Networking Attribute in a Multidisciplinary Study. TIEKE Tietoyhteiskunnan kehit-
tämiskeskus ry. http://www.tieke.fi/mp/db/file_library/x/IMG/20156/file/Saarikoskivaitoskirja.pdf.
Simonton, D.K. 1990. In M.A Runco and R.S Alberts (Eds). Theories of Creativ- ity. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Sotarauta, M. and Kosonen, K-J. 2004. Yksilö, kulttuuri, innovaatioympäristö. Tampere University Press, Tampere.
Stefik, M. and Stefik, B. 2004. Breakthrough. Stories and Strategies of Radical Innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Ståhle, P. 2004. Itseuudistumisen dynamiikka: systeemiajattelu kehitysprosessi- en ymmärtämisen perustana. In Sotarauta, M. and Kosonen. K-J. (Eds). Yksilö, kulttuuri, innovaatioympäristö. Tampere University Press, Tampere.
Teece, D.J. 1998. Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy Markets for Know-how, and Intangible Assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55-59.
Teruyasu, M. and Takashi, N. 1991. Strategy for Creation. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, England.
Tuomi, I. 2002. Networks of Innovation. Change of Meaning in the Age of the Internet. Oxford University Press, Oxford.