Open Knowledge Fuelling Open Innovations in Public-Private

Collaboration

Nina Helander

, Krishna Venkitachalam

2,3 b

and Hannele Väyrynen

Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

College of Business Administration, Ajman University, Ajman, U.A.E.

Estonian Business School, Tallinn, Estonia

Keywords: Open Knowledge, Open Innovation, Knowledge Ecosystem, Hybridity, Public-Private Collaboration.

Abstract: Despite recognizing the importance of knowledge in innovation, the link between publicly available

knowledge and innovation remains unclear. A unified view of open innovation (OI) and the public sector's

knowledge ecosystem, along with public-private collaboration, is essential. Successful knowledge-based

innovation requires functional systems to overcome barriers in open knowledge and innovation. This paper

emphasizes the need for consideration of open innovations converted by private sector from public sector

knowledge sources. Empirical study consisted of two exemplary cases is carried out to understand how the

private sector can benefit from public knowledge.

1 INTRODUCTION

Public and private sectors face significant potential

but also challenges in open innovation (OI) fueled by

open knowledge. For example, there are often

insufficient resources for processing the different

kinds of publicly available knowledge sources (Luna-

Reyes et al. 2019; Begany and Martin 2020).

Additionally, access to knowledge can be limited

(Hellberg and Hedström 2015; Smith, Ofe, and

Sandberg 2016).

Although various forms of processes have been

designed to describe the possibilities of OI (e.g.,

Mergel 2015; Smith and Sandberg 2018; Mu and

Wang 2020), it remains unclear whether exchange of

open knowledge truly benefits OI. Key questions

include whether open knowledge offers societal or

economic value and to whom this value accrues: the

public sector, citizens, or other stakeholders,

including the private sector.

Open knowledge sources are a potential base for

innovations at the public-private interface. However,

the benefits of opening public knowledge sources are

two-fold. Firstly, opening up knowledge sources for

companies and knowledge developers offers public

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2201-6444

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3522-4376

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-280X

knowledge branding. Companies do not expect to

obtain rapid innovations via open knowledge.

Secondly, there are challenges in knowledge

utilization, such as knowledge consistency and

integration, trustworthiness of the knowledge, or

access rights. Nevertheless, high technology and

artificial intelligence are expected to produce

innovations in the coming years.

OI can occur between public-public actors,

public-citizens, public-private actors (Mu and Wang

2020), and private-private actors. There is a noted risk

in OI with private actors in the public sector due to

fears that the innovation process results may benefit

the private market more than offering public value

(Hartley et al. 2013). Therefore, new thinking about

OI is needed in the public sector to create frameworks

for public-private open knowledge cooperation that

benefits all parties of the value triangle: the public

sector, private sector, and the customer. It is essential

to identify suitable cooperation partners, actualize the

identified drivers, and obtain transaction flows in OI

processes in the private sector (e.g., Torﬁng,

Sørensen, and Røiseland 2019).

The infrastructure and content use possibilities of

public knowledge frameworks have been examined

Helander, N., Venkitachalam, K. and Väyrynen, H.

Open Knowledge Fuelling Open Innovations in Public-Private Collaboration.

DOI: 10.5220/0013823800004000

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2025) - Volume 2: KEOD and KMIS, pages

529-533

ISBN: 978-989-758-769-6; ISSN: 2184-3228

529

both practically and academically (Conradie and

Choenni 2014; Charalabidis, Alexopoulos, and

Loukis 2016; Ham, Koo, and Lee 2019; Smith and

Sandberg 2018; Jamieson, Wilson, and Martin 2019;

Luna-Reyes et al. 2019; Pereira et al. 2017).

Researchers have considered the barriers and

challenges of open knowledge utilization, focusing on

knowledge platforms, the knowledge itself, and

human-technology interaction in the innovation

process. However, the drivers of open knowledge

have received less attention.

Although technical in nature, the knowledge

ecosystem also contains social aspects. A knowledge

ecosystem is built on actors, roles, relationships, and

resources that aim to exchange, produce, or consume

knowledge together (Oliveira, Lima, and Lóscio

2019). When opening platforms, knowledge, or

implementing new OI and co-creation practices in an

organization, leadership and teams face new

challenges. These include internal effects (e.g.,

culture, norms) and external effects (e.g., customers,

other stakeholders) (Altman and Tushman 2017).

Actors in the ecosystem have different interests, such

as focusing on customer and market needs or

accumulating knowledge in the ecosystem, which

need to be considered in platform or knowledge

ecosystem management (Wareham, Fox, and Giner

2014). Additionally, actors have varying levels of

competence, knowledge, and maturity to operate in

the platform or utilize the knowledge, and they need

to identify their roles in the ecosystem.

This paper emphasizes the public sector’s role as

a context, suggesting the need to explore

opportunities for private market participation in

service development. The literature has identified

several challenges to using open knowledge and

developing open knowledge-driven innovations.

These challenges can be categorized as technical

design and knowledge quality or integration,

knowledge management policy and legal issues,

financial backing for open knowledge programs, or

organizational and cultural contexts. Smith and

Sandberg (2018) argue that challenges in open

knowledge operation processes can affect the way

knowledge is used and the various stages of its

implementation. When platforms lack identification

requirements, anonymity in knowledge use poses a

challenge (Begany and Martin 2020). Therefore, this

study seeks to explore the potential of public

knowledge to spur open innovation via public-private

partnerships.

2 EMPIRICAL CASE

EXEMPLARS

To highlight the value of open knowledge in fostering

open innovation via public-private collaboration, two

prime case studies based in Finland were examined.

Lakivahti, the first case exemplar, uses secondary

data from Sitra (www.sitra.fi). The second exemplar

case, Lupapiste.fi, is built upon an empirical study

from Jussila et al. (2017), supplemented by updated

secondary data from Kuntaliitto (www.kuntaliitto.fi).

2.1 Case 1: Lakivahti Service for

Citizen Participation in Legislative

Processes

Despite Finland’s reputation for high institutional

trust, a democratic deficit persists, leaving its citizens

feeling alienated from the legislative process.

Addressing this challenge, Sitra (Finland’s

innovation fund) launched the “Renewing Decision-

Making” initiative, using the Lakivahti project to

showcase how digital innovation and cross-sector

collaboration strengthen democratic participation.

Lakivahti strives for transparent, accessible, and

participatory legislative processes. Citizens can use

this digital service to monitor legislative progress,

receive alerts on relevant topics, and participate in the

lawmaking process. It simplifies and clarifies the

legislative process, much like a “parcel tracking

system,” especially engaging young people who find

politics opaque.

Lakivahti resulted from collaboration among the

public, private, and plural sectors. Legislative content

came from government institutions, technological

expertise from Gofore, and youth perspectives from

Allianssi. This user-centered solution resulted from a

collaborative approach that fostered mutual learning.

Open knowledge played a crucial role in three

ways during the collaborative development of the

innovative solution and they are: 1) Transparency and

Accessibility: Legislative initiatives were presented

clearly and structured, empowering citizens to engage

confidently; 2) Data-Driven Personalization: AI

filtered and personalized knowledge, ensuring users

received relevant updates, increasing engagement and

reducing explicit knowledge overload; and 3) User

Insight and Design: User research, especially among

young people, shaped the service’s features,

highlighting the importance of iterative design and

continuous user testing.

The Lakivahti case illustrates that digital

technologies can strengthen established democratic

KMIS 2025 - 17th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

530

bodies by fostering more open and inclusive

legislative processes. In line with worldwide open

government and civic tech movements, this

contributes to the expanding “GovTech” field,

leveraging technology for better public services and

citizen engagement. Lakivahti shows how digital

innovation, inclusive design, and strategic

partnerships can renew democratic participation. A

model for digital-age democracies is offered through

the simplification of their legislative processes. With

complex challenges facing societies, inclusive,

transparent, and responsive governance is now more

critical than ever, and Lakivahti offers a powerful

example of how thoughtful design and collaboration

can address this need.

2.2 Case 2: Lupapiste Service for

Construction Permissions

Historically, building permit processes have been

slow, complex, and overly reliant on paper-based

systems. The impact of these inefficiencies extends

beyond administration to investment timelines,

construction efficiency, and citizen satisfaction.

Finland tackled this challenge by creating

Lupapiste.fi, a digital platform managing all building

permit processes. Lupapiste demonstrates the

significant societal value generated through strategic

use of open knowledge and collaborative efforts

between public and private sectors.

To streamline and digitize building permits in

Finnish municipalities, the Lupapiste initiative was

created. A unified digital workspace for real-time

interaction, application submission, progress

tracking, and communication between builders,

designers, and authorities was the target. The service

sought to lessen administrative tasks, enhance

transparency, and expedite decision-making.

The development of Lupapiste involved a wide

range of actors. The technical implementation and

service design were led by the Finnish company

Cloudpermit Oy, while over 200 municipalities

contributed their expertise and practical needs.

Notably, the City of Helsinki coordinated a joint

development project involving 26 municipalities.

This collaboration was hands-on and iterative. Local

building control authorities participated in

workshops, pilots, and continuous feedback loops.

This grassroots-level engagement ensured that the

service was not only technically functional but also

aligned with real-world workflows and user

expectations.

The central role of knowledge in Lupapiste’s

development and operation was threefold: 1)

Knowledge as the Foundation of Design: The service

was built on extensive user research. Municipal

officials, builders, and designers provided insights

that shaped the platform’s interface, logic, and

features. The user-driven approach guaranteed the

service met real needs and addressed actual problems.

2) Knowledge as the Core of the Service: Lupapiste

functions as a centralized knowledge hub. It brings

together all documents, statements, and decisions

linked to a permit application. With real-time access

to shared codified knowledge, errors are reduced,

processing is faster, and transparency is improved for

all, and 3) Knowledge for Decision-Making and

Development: The platform continuously generates

content on process durations, bottlenecks, and user

behavior. Municipalities can use this content to

streamline internal processes, optimize resource

allocation, and contribute to national policy.

Over 200 Finnish municipalities now use

Lupapiste digital service, resulting in much faster

permit processing. In 2022, the service earned the title

of “Digital Service of the Year,” and its global

extension, Cloudpermit, has grown into North

America, supporting over 200 regions. The influence

of Lupapiste surpasses the scope of individual

permits. Streamlined permitting accelerates

investments, increases construction, and creates jobs.

Digital transformation has boosted transparency, cut

manual labor, and improved customer happiness.

The Lupapiste example shows how co-creation,

digital innovation, and knowledge utilization can

reshape public services. User-centric development,

driven by strong municipality-private developer

partnerships, is the key to its success. More than just

information, explicit knowledge forms the essential

structure of design, operation, and continuous

improvement. Lupapiste exemplifies how effective

public-private partnerships, utilizing shared

knowledge, can achieve scalable, impactful, and

internationally relevant results in public sector digital

transformation.

3 RESULTS

The field of open knowledge presents complex,

multi-dimensional challenges and opportunities.

Infrastructure and content use possibilities of public

knowledge frameworks have been examined

practically and academically (Conradie and Choenni

2014; Charalabidis, Alexopoulos, and Loukis 2016;

Ham, Koo, and Lee 2019), management practices and

policies (Smith and Sandberg 2018; Jamieson,

Wilson, and Martin 2019; Luna-Reyes et al. 2019)

Open Knowledge Fuelling Open Innovations in Public-Private Collaboration

531

and among value-creation networks (Pereira et al.

2017).

Studies of OI and public sector open knowledge

ecosystems typically ignore their interconnection.

This study emphasises that OI is fundamentally

rooted in knowledge ecosystems and open knowledge

utilization, and that the relationships between the

various participants within these ecosystems are not a

primary concern and only two partners are required to

create commercial innovation. Various open

knowledge ecosystem models have been created to

demonstrate network development (Dawes,

Vidiasova, and Parkhimovich 2016; Bonina and

Eaton 2020). Ecosystems are not directly monetizable

by private firms, but the actors involved can create

innovation and new business models via partnerships

within the ecosystem.

The other question is whether the public sector is

willing to divide the control of the knowledge to

enable the knowledge’s further use for commercial

value. This dilemma appeared in the selected

literature business models as well, which considered

the economic benefits of value obtained from the

public sector rather than the private sector business

side (Feller, Finnegan and Nilsson 2011; Zeleti and

Ojo 2019). Business models in the public sector may

be based more on value creation for citizens (e.g.

promoting governmental program implementation or

offering services) that are non-economic, whereas

private sector models are often based on technical

solutions enabling public sector supply of services via

applications (Janssen and Zuiderwijk 2014). The

public-public actor or public-citizens partnership can

be challenging for creating business value for private

sector companies. Therefore, public sector support

for private sector companies is important in

knowledge and knowledge exchange to boost

innovations (Love, Roper and Bryson 2011).

The identified barriers in public-private OI

require models for creating successful open

knowledge initiatives. Complexity in the different

open knowledge adoption phases is manifested

through various barriers to innovations (Attard et al.

2015; Smith and Sandberg 2018). Even though public

sector agencies emphasize increased

democratization, citizen empowerment and the

transparency of public processes by digitalization in

open knowledge-based innovation processes, the

open knowledge exchange practices are old-

fashioned (Zhenbin et al. 2020). However, to enhance

open knowledge-based innovations, some crucial

enablers for public-private OI that have been

identified are policy drivers (McLoughlin et al. 2019),

access to knowledge sources as well as private sector

competence to utilize open knowledge and identify

the benefits of open knowledge (Toots et al. 2017;

Wang and Lo 2020).

4 CONCLUSIONS

This research explored the potential of public

knowledge to spur open innovation via public-private

partnerships. Previous studies highlighted

knowledge’s crucial role in fostering innovation.

While open knowledge is vital for innovation and

public participation, the private sector’s significant

contribution is often overlooked. Limited attention

has also been given to the interplay between OI and

open knowledge, potentially leading to a lack of

shared understanding regarding OI’s importance in

public-private cooperation. Ecosystem models

pinpoint crucial connections between agencies, but

they don’t yield benefits or income until these links

translate into practical collaborations. Open

knowledge exchange should not include identifiable

information, as it’s neither feasible nor sensible.

Despite public organizations releasing anonymized or

statistical knowledge, access and use by the private

sector are frequently limited, especially in fields like

healthcare. A more unified view of open innovation

(OI) and the open knowledge ecosystem, alongside

public-private collaboration, is crucial. The private

sector’s creation of open knowledge-based

innovations, such as products or services, for private

markets appears to have minimal influence. To better

comprehend how the private sector can benefit from

public open knowledge, additional empirical studies

are crucial.

Challenges in innovation are widely explored in

existing research. The next step should focus on

developing models for successful open knowledge

initiatives, including strategic planning (value

realization and resource-based strategic analysis),

technical enablers (new technologies as AI), sharing

platforms (design of public knowledge sources with

appropriate APIs), enabling functional public

knowledge ecosystems, and legal frameworks to

support open public knowledge exchange and

utilization (e.g., knowledge privacy). We need to

consider social aspects alongside technological and

business ones. This includes management models for

public knowledge and innovation, knowledge

processes and its management to support OI, and

organizational cultures that reflect experiences of

control or safety, risk management, attitudes and

engagement in OI processes. It would also be

interesting research avenue to study the uncertainty,

KMIS 2025 - 17th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

532

complexity, ambiguity, and equivocality challenges

related to knowledge (see e.g. Väyrynen et al. 2015)

in public-private OI, as these may cause tensions in

the collaboration.

REFERENCES

Altman, E. J., and Tushman, M. L. 2017. “Platforms,

open/user innovation, and ecosystems: a strategic

leadership perspective.” In J. Furman, A. Gawer, B. S.

Silverman, and S. Stern. Entrepreneurship, Innovation,

and Platforms Advances in Strategic Management, 37,

177-207.

Attard, J., Orlandi, F., Scerri, S., and Auer, S. 2015. “A

systematic review of open government data initiatives.”

Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 399-418.

Begany, G., and Martin, E. 2020. “Moving towards open

government data 2.0 in U.S. health agencies: Engaging

data users and promoting use.” Information Polity,

25(3), 301-322.

Charalabidis, Y., Alexopoulos, C., and Loukis, E. 2016. “A

taxonomy of open government data research areas and

topics.” Journal of Organizational Computing and

Electronic Commerce, 26(1-2), 41-63.

Conradie, P., and Choenni, S. 2014. “On the barriers for

local government releasing open data.” Government

Information Quarterly, 31(1), S10-S17.

Dawes, S., Vidiasova, L., and Parkhimovich, O. 2016.

“Planning and designing open government data

programs: An ecosystem approach.” Government

Information Quarterly, 33(1), 15-27.

Feller, J., Finnegan, P., and Nilsson, O. 2017. ”Open

innovation and public administration: transformational

typologies and business model impacts.” European

Journal of Information Systems, 20(3), 358-374.

Ham, J., Koo, Y., and Lee, J.-N. 2019. “Provision and usage

of open government data: strategic transformation

paths.” Industrial Management & Data Systems,

119(8), 1841-1858.

Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., and Torﬁng, J. 2013.

“Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to

market competition and organizational

entrepreneurship.” Public Administration Review

73(6), 821–830. doi: 10.1111/puar.12136.

Hellberg, A.-S., and Hedström, K. 2015. “The story of the

sixth myth of open data and open government.”

Transforming Government People, Process and Policy,

9(1), 33-51.

Jamieson, D., Wilson, R., and Martin, M. 2019. “The

(Im)possibilities of Open Data?” Public Money &

Management, 39(5), 364-368.

Janssen, M., and Zuiderwijk, A. 2014. “Infomediary

Business Models for Connecting Open Data Providers

and Users.” Social Science Computer Review, 32(5),

694-711.

Jussila, J., Sillanpää, V., Lehtonen, T., & Helander, N.

(2017). Value assessment of e-government service from

municipality perspective.

Love, J., Roper, S., and Bryson, J. 2011. “Openness,

knowledge, innovation and growth in UK business

services.” Research Policy, 40(10), 1438-1452.

Luna-Reyes, L., Najafabadi, A., Zuiderwijk, A., and

Hinnant, C. 2019. “The US open data initiative: The

road ahead.” Information Polity, 24(2), 163-182.

McLoughlin, I., McNicoll, Y., Cornford, J., and Davenport,

S. 2019. “Data-driven innovation in the social sector in

Australasia - data ecosystems and interpretive

communities.” Public Money & Management, 39(5),

327-335.

Mergel, I. 2015. “Opening Government: Designing Open

Innovation Processes to Collaborate With External

Problem Solvers.” Social Science Computer Review,

33(5), 599-612.

Mu, R., and Wang, H. 2020. “A systematic literature review

of open innovation in the public sector: comparing

barriers and governance strategies of digital and

nondigital open innovation.” Public Management

Review, 24.

Oliveira, M., Lima, G., and Lóscio, B. 2019.

“Investigations into Data Ecosystems: a systematic

mapping study.” Knowledge and Information Systems,

61, 589–630.

Pereira, G., Macadar, M., Luciano, E., and Testa, M. 2017.

“Delivering public value through open government data

initiatives in a Smart City context.” Info Syst Front, 19,

213-229.

Smith, G., Ofe, H., and Sandberg, J. 2016. “Digital Service

Innovation from Open Data: Exploring the Value

Proposition of an Open Data Marketplace.” 49th

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,

1277-1268.

Smith, G., and Sandberg, J. 2018. “Barriers to Innovating

with Open Government Data: Exploring Experiences

Across Service Phases and User Types.” Information

Polity, 23(3), 249-265.

Toots, M., McBride, K., Kalvet, T., and Krimmer, R. 2017.

“Open Data as Enabler of Public Service Co-creation:

Exploring the Drivers and Barriers.” In Parycek, P. and

Edelmann, N. (Eds.) 7th International Conference For

E-Democracy and Open Government (Cedem), 102-

112.

Torﬁng, J., Sørensen, E., and Røiseland, A. 2019.

“Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-

creation: Barriers, drivers, beneﬁts, and ways forward.”

Administration & Society 51(5), 795–825.

Väyrynen, H., Helander, N., & Jalonen, H. (2015).

”Tietämyksenhallinta osana organisaation toimintaa–

hallintaa vai hämmennystä?” Hallinnon

tutkimus, 34(4). (In Finnish).

Wareham, J., Fox, P., and Giner, J. 2014. “Technology

Ecosystem Governance.” Organization Science, 25(4),

1195–1215.

Zhenbin, Y., Kankanhalli, A., Ha, S., and Tayi, G. 2020.

”What drives public agencies to participate in open

government data initiatives? An innovation resource

perspective.” Information & Management, 57(3), 15.

Open Knowledge Fuelling Open Innovations in Public-Private Collaboration

533