Opening Our Innovation Ecosystems to All: The INTEGER Project Case Study

Abstract

Quadruple Helix open innovation ecosystems are gaining relevance as they incorporate different actors with different perspectives, contributing significantly to the development of social innovation communities that are more responsive to today’s social and environmental challenges. The Horizon Europe INTEGER project aims to better understand how social and economic innovation actors can be effectively integrated into European innovation ecosystems to address critical sustainability challenges. An exploratory and qualitative study was conducted, using three different focus groups (partners, stakeholders, and driving group) and analysing the intra- and inter-regional health and wellbeing ecosystems of three European regions (Krakow, Hamburg, and Catalonia). The results propose a systemic model based on a new generation of Living Labs, called Collaboratories, that involves the actors of social and economic innovation and facilitates a holistic understanding of the interconnected dimensions of the ecosystem, where all the dimensions interact to drive sustainable impact. In addition, this study highlights the key role of the facilitator who guides the group process from the beginning to the achievement of the objective, as well as the adaptation when it comes to scaling and replication, as each ecosystem has a particular level of maturity.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic [1] unexpectedly affected the entire planet at the beginning of 2019, questioning current healthcare systems and models. The resulting health situation, together with continuous prevention messages (personal confinement, safety distance, and the use of masks), led to a change in perspective and mentality focused on preventive healthcare [2,3,4].

The city of Igualada, in the region of Catalonia, Spain, was the first city to be confined in the region. The impact of the pandemic both on the health of many citizens and on the city was the trigger for the creation of a Living Lab on Health and Wellbeing in 2020 by different powerful institutions working locally in the health sector together with different actors of the Quadruple Helix [5]. Based on the concept of the Living Lab [6], the aim was the involvement and promotion of networking of territorial actors to solve challenges related to health challenges and wellbeing in a collaborative way with ICTs as a key tool and innovating together in a decentralised network [7].

The foundation of this territorial networking involves, from the very beginning, working on achieving effective communication to build trust between the actors involved. Regular face-to-face activities and the definition of shared responsibilities and objectives are essential for building trust, as well as for aligning expectations and developing a common language. Moreover, these face-to-face activities (meetings, workshops, and co-creation spaces) bring transparency to the process. In this way, the involvement of all the actors is ensured, their needs are highlighted, and communication difficulties can be addressed, among other aspects [8].

Subsequently, and through different participatory co-creation sessions, work was carried out to scale up the project and even replicate it at the regional level. This was the beginning of a thematic Living Lab, the Health and Wellbeing Collaboratory, that currently covers the whole of Catalonia and focuses on issues related to people’s health and wellbeing. Finally, in February 2023 and taking as a starting point the community created in Catalonia, the INTEGER project started with the aim to explore how to integrate social and economic innovation actors in European innovation ecosystems, bringing social and business-driven innovators to work together. The INTEGER project currently involves three regions, namely, Krakow (Poland), Hamburg (Germany), and Catalonia (Spain), and is still going on.

The universal access to the Internet, beyond social networks and information search, suggests that the Internet can be used to research and innovate [9,10], and taking into account the variety of actors involved in the ecosystems as well as their geographical distribution, it is intended to explore qualitatively the dynamics and dimensions of an ecosystem formed by actors from academia, government, industry, and civil society in order to propose a conceptual model of a universal innovation ecosystem (based on the Internet). The result of this research work proposes a model of the dimensions that emanate from such an ecosystem and in which effective communication between the various actors and the role of the facilitator are key factors.

This paper is composed of an introduction to the topic, followed by a literature review of the concepts and theoretical frameworks related to open innovation ecosystems. Next, the methodology used to collect data to answer the research question is presented. These data are then analysed, leading to a discussion and the presentation of the conclusion.

2. Literature Review

Communication is a key element that enables interaction and collaboration between the different actors in the Triple and Quadruple Helix innovation models, driving social innovation and facilitating the successful implementation of Living Lab projects, as well as ensuring that the needs and perspectives of civil society are addressed and considered. This section gathers the most relevant studies in relation to effective communication, Triple and Quadruple Helix, social innovation, and Living Labs, to finally present the research question.

2.1. Effective Communication

Homophily is the tendency by which individuals tend to establish links due to common characteristics (status or values), creating social networks [11,12]. Similarity breeds connection [11]. When individuals share some similarities, interaction is easier [12] and more effective [13]. These similarities encourage communication between individuals, although sometimes homophilic relationships can be stimulating or discourage social contagion [14]. Therefore, if homophily is present, it facilitates the transmission of ideas, mutual understanding, and collaboration, and is a catalyst for effective communication by reducing initial barriers to understanding and building trust.

Trust is important for a successful collaboration, and building trust is a key element in social networks or groups. Building structures such as social networks or groups is a complex process as it requires the interplay of several aspects, such as co-creating a shared vision and a common goal to innovate, and trust between individuals to create an open space in which to cooperate and legitimise [15,16]. Information is transmitted between individuals across the social network [17]. Therefore, communication between people in a social (or organisational) group is a key element for an innovation to be disseminated [18]. Exchanging information does not guarantee effective communication. According to the American Psychological Association (APA), effective communication requires different skills. These are language proficiency, the ability to listen and read with understanding, to present information clearly both orally and in writing, to accept that others’ perspectives may differ from one’s own, and to anticipate the effect of what one says or writes on listeners or readers.

All individuals in the group need to understand the objectives, outcomes, and benefits of the project for communication to be effective (and successful) [19]. Effectiveness includes understanding the emotions and intentions behind the information. It is therefore necessary to have the skills both to convey a message clearly and to listen and get the full meaning of what is being said so that the other individual feels listened to and understood. Through effective communication, interpersonal bonds can be strengthened, trust and respect can be increased, and teamwork can be improved, among other things.

Effective communication facilitates interactions between users, researchers, businesses, and governments, and is a key factor in the collaboration, development, and validation of innovative solutions. For example, it is important in the relationship between patients and healthcare systems when delivering healthcare [20]. However, one needs to keep in mind that, for example, user–developer communication will not always ensure that the resulting system will be designed to meet users’ needs and will be accepted by them [21]. To solve this situation, the user perspective, i.e., their specificities and capacities, should be included when (social) innovations are designed [22].

2.2. Triple and Quadruple Helix

There are interactive models of innovation in which interrelationships are fundamental. This is the case of the Triple and Quadruple Helix (3-H and 4-H) models. Different studies analyse the interactions between the different actors in 3-H [23] and 4-H [5] to promote economic and social development and make the knowledge society competitive.

The 3-H model consists of industry, government, and academia, giving rise to science parks and technology transfer offices, while the 4-H model also includes civil society in the previous triad. In both cases, each institution has a function per se but when they interact, relationships are established that promote each institution to evolve by adapting to the ecosystem and adopting new characteristics. In particular, the 4-H model aims to close the gaps between innovation and society, as challenges and needs sometimes do not match emerging technologies.

Moreover, according to [24], the innovative development of organisations and countries will not only depend on the presence of the usual actors, but also on the capacity to articulate with society and the environment to achieve sustainable goals. In fact, the EU proposes to adopt this approach to develop a competitive knowledge-based society, for example, through the Missions [25].

2.3. Social Innovation

Ref. [26] states that innovation is the practical implementation of ideas that results in the introduction of new goods and/or services or improvements in the way they are offered. Therefore, innovation can be either something new or an improvement.

Social innovation (SI) provides a solution or improvement to a social challenge in a more effective, efficient, sustainable, or fair manner than existing solutions and its creation of value is mainly for society (and not with individuals) [27]. SI is thus about responding to human and social needs [28]. Even the European Commission states that SI is about creating innovative ideas, practices, and models to address social problems [29]. According to [30], SI provides three types of solutions for urgent social needs, social and environmental challenges, and systemic change.

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are transversal tools that facilitate collaboration and connection between citizens and different institutions. Digital social innovation (DSI) is a solution or improvement that uses ICTs to solve (or attempt to solve) social and/or environmental challenges [31,32]. In addition, DSI (and SI) may experience some communication problems during its dissemination [33] (Larsson et al., 2003). Indeed, concerns are generated when communicating the characteristics of such innovations [34,35].

2.4. Living Labs

A Living Lab (LL) is a physical or virtual space in which to solve societal challenges, especially for urban areas, by bringing together various stakeholders for collaboration and collective ideation [36]. According to [6], “Living Labs are open innovation ecosystems in real-life environments based on a systematic user co-creation approach that integrates research and innovation activities in communities and/or multi-stakeholder environments, placing citizens and/or end-users at the centre of the innovation process”.

These spaces or environments in which to experiment and test in real life together with 4-H actors encourage co-creation and open innovation. However, it must be borne in mind that it is sometimes difficult to involve and engage civil society in the process [37]. The authors of [38] observed that LLs (related to cycling) started as open processes but, along the way, even they became more closed projects. For that reason, it is suggested to find a balance between integrating LLs into existing structures and being open to new ideas [38].

Different perspectives on the key characteristics of LLs can be found in the literature (see

Table 1. Key characteristics of Living Labs.

Følstad (2008) [39]	Context, Users, Activity, Challenges, Innovative Outcomes
Mulder et al. (2008) [40]	User Involvement, Service Creation, Infrastructure, Governance, Innovative Outcomes, Methods and Tools
Bergvall- Kåreborn et al. (2009) [41]	ICT and Infrastructure, Management, Partners and Users, Research, Approaches
Leminen and Westerlund (2016) [42]	Systems, Milieu and Approach, User and Public Involvement, Activity, Project, or Management Tool
Voytenko et al. (2016) [43]	Geographical Embeddedness, Experimentation, Learning, Participation, User Involvement, Leadership, Ownership, Evaluation, Refinement
Borda et al. (2024) [44]	Diverse and Connected Ecosystems, Collaborative Methods, Social System Design
Fauth et al. (2024) [45]	Stakeholder Collaboration, Systemic Innovation, Societal Impact, Integration Strategies
John (2024) [46]	Power Relation, Social Contracts, Knowledge Infrastructures, Co-design
Vervoort et al. (2024) [47]	KPIs, Impact, Assessment, Values

).

2.5. Facilitation

In an innovation ecosystem such as 4-H, facilitation at some stages is important and key. The facilitator(s) must be impartial when facilitating the sessions, ensuring equal participation and fluidity in the process [48]. Thus, dynamics and procedures must be designed for this, and this requires quality work before, during, and after the whole process. The transparency of the process must also be guaranteed to ensure continuity and stakeholder participation. Once this phase is reached, we can start to build trust, which is one of the most important aspects for the replicability and longevity of the ecosystem.

Facilitation requires the facilitator to assess and respond to the features of the innovation, the target audience, and the environment. Likewise, the facilitator must have certain capacities and skills [49]. Therefore, the right individuals need to be identified and trained to become new facilitators [50]. Thus, further research is suggested on the characteristics of the facilitator and how the facilitator could be a teaching tool for new facilitators and other actors.

The role of a facilitator is not the same as that of a project manager, although they should work closely together. The project manager is responsible for the whole project and the results, while the process facilitator can be seen as the manager of the specific activities of the co-design process.

2.6. Research Question

Ref. [39] introduces the idea that the Living Lab approach can be used for the development and innovation of online community services. The physical environment of the Living Lab should be less important. In the beginning, either physical environments were simulated or the technology to be investigated was placed in a real environment. Given that the Internet is universally accessible, the importance of the offline environment decreases, as the user only needs to have a computer and a stable Internet connection. This is consistent with the work of [41], who suggest that new and existing ICTs can facilitate new ways of cooperating and co-creating new innovations among stakeholders. In addition, it is important to mention that local and EU policies have facilitated the introduction and innovation of ICTs in various Living Lab activities by promoting co-design [45].

Refs. [9,10] proposed the concept of ‘universal innovation ecosystems’, inspired by the universalisation of healthcare and education in Europe after World War II. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the limitations of traditional doctor–patient health systems. To combat the virus, public health policies prioritised prevention over specialised medicine, focusing on keeping most of the population healthy. This shift highlighted the importance of a salutogenic approach [51], promoting universal preventive models and healthy lifestyles to address current and future health challenges.

On the one hand, our society presents several social and environmental challenges that affect both individuals and communities. Public administrations and industry have worked on solutions that have partially solved them; academia has contributed research that has sometimes been difficult to translate into practical action; and citizens have had the perception of feeling misunderstood or unheard. On the other hand, the Internet already connects more than 5 billion people worldwide, making it a digital research and innovation network potentially open to every citizen on the planet. Universal access to the Internet is already an accepted goal of United Nations (UN) organisations such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and major national governments.

The authors of [52] worked on a research and innovation project (Col·laboratori Catalunya) to advance the design and construction of a universal ecosystem of research and innovation in Catalonia through the Internet and citizen engagement. This means that ICTs are a key tool to promote the networking of territorial actors to solve social and environmental challenges, as [39,41,45] state. Therefore, the access and participation of every citizen in the research and innovation ecosystem of their region, their country, and on a global scale are hypothesised. In the context of a new technological wave causing significant disruptions in our societies, and considering Living Labs that use digital tools, can innovation ecosystem be universally accessible to all people, everywhere? What types of relationships and communication models are essential for creating these new universal innovation ecosystems?

3. Methodology

The INTEGER project explores how to use these important lessons from the COVID-19 for the development of stronger, sustainable, and inclusive EU innovation ecosystems from four aspects: a 4-H collaboration model focused on health and wellbeing, that considers the role of the facilitator/s and uses a digital innovation infrastructure (or platform).

As a guideline and introduction, the main phases of the project are outlined to provide an overview. These stages are as follows:

-

In-depth study of the regions (their innovation systems and mapping of the 4-H actors);

-

Identification of good practices and projects in each region;

-

Creation of the INTEGER platform;

-

Collaborathons (collaborative hackathons);

-

Creation of the Col·laber (facilitator) role;

-

Mentoring of emerged projects;

-

Design of a 4-H model.

Co-design has been used as a prospective approach with co-creative characteristics. The purpose is to co-design new social relations and practices that could solve the challenges ahead, following the model of “science of design” [53,54]. Data were collected through workshops, meetings, and collaborathons, and a content cross-analysis of the data collected in three different focus groups was carried out after analysing each focus group separately.

3.1. Methodological Approach

The INTEGER project adopts a qualitative research approach to propose a model that helps to understand the 4-H collaborative framework. Qualitative research inductively studies real-world settings to generate narrative descriptions and construct case studies [55]. It is necessary to explore the ideas and experiences of the different actors involved to understand in detail the processes taking place in the ecosystem.

3.2. Design of the Cases and Data Collection

During the first year of the project (see

Table 2. Data collection activities.

Activities in Each Region	Date
Study visits	February–March 2023
Collaborathons	September–November 2023

), three study visits were made to the different participating regions (Catalonia, Krakow, and Hamburg) to map the ecosystem through different workshops and meetings. Subsequently, through different co-creation activities and three collaborathons, a first approach to the model was co-designed and co-created through the Social Innovation Canvas and Design Thinking.

Afterwards, this qualitative exploratory study used a co-creation framework consisting of three focus groups (FGs) with partners, stakeholders, and members of the project driving group to develop the final version of the model. In this research study, co-creation activities aim to define the research problem and co-design a model proposal that helps to model the interrelationships, governance, objectives, etc., of the 4-H ecosystem of the INTEGER project, so that these FGs allow participants to discuss and reflect on each other’s experiences and thoughts, stimulating group interactions and dynamics. The role of the two researchers involved (as facilitators) and confidentiality within the group were clarified before the beginning of the focus groups.

FGs are a qualitative data collection technique in which participants are engaged to participate in group discussions (source of the data) on a topic determined and promoted by the researcher [56]. In this research work, the three workshops took place online using the Zoom platform and lasted around ninety minutes each. In

Table 3. General characteristics of the focus groups.

Name	Participants	Number of Participants	Date
Focus Group 1 (FG1)	Partners	12	17 April 2024
Focus Group 2 (FG2)	Stakeholders	16	27 May 2024
Focus Group 3 (FG3)	Driving group	4	6 June 2024

, the main characteristics of the focus groups are shown.

The FGs began by describing the purpose of and facilitating access to the collaborative online tool (Mural) to discuss and agree on each of the questions to be addressed online. Mural is an application for collaborative work in real time or asynchronously with a digital whiteboard, which, among other functions, allows the use of virtual sticky notes.

As mentioned above, the starting point were the elements that made up the first draft, and therefore work was carried out element by element to describe each one of them and to outline the final model. Each FG evolved the initial model. Thus, the first FG worked directly with the draft model, the second with the version generated by the first FG, and, finally, the third FG worked on the version generated by the second FG. In each FG, a final model proposal was discussed and agreed upon. One researcher acted as the moderator of the workshop, while the other researcher took field notes on general observations, content, and elements for further elaboration if necessary. The FGs were neither video- nor audio-recorded.

3.3. Data Analysis

The analysis of the collected data was performed by three researchers and had four phases: transcription, interpretation, coding, and thematization [57]. Each virtual sticky note was reviewed to ensure the accuracy of the text and its interpretation. The data were categorised following the content analysis method [58] to present consistent, faithful, and meaningful findings (see

Table A1. Categories, subcategories, and codes.

Category	Subcategory	Codes
Transferability	Replicability	Knowledge Transfer, Context
	Scalability	Infrastructure, Adaptability, Resources
Communication	Types, Dynamics, Tools, Facilitation	Meetings, Sharing, Discussions, Agreements, Trainings
Funding	Private, Public	Needs, Interests, Outputs, Outcomes
Evaluation	Qualitative, Quantitative, Hybrid	Indicators, Outcomes, Data Collection, Data Analysis
Framework	Governance, Infrastructure, Structure	Decision-making, Resources, Communication, System
Belonging	Community, Inclusion, Diversity	Meeting Point, Engagement, Participation, Building Bridges, Building Trust
Sustainability	Social, Economic, Environmental	SDGs, Collaboration, Partnerships, Transparency, Resilience

in Appendix A).

4. Results

Data were collected in each FG separately. The starting point for each FG was the previous version of the model, with FG1 starting with the draft that was designed collaboratively by partners and stakeholders during the first 10 months of the INTEGER project. It was a first developed approach and submitted as deliverable to the European Commission in early 2024. Therefore, each FG worked on the version generated by the previous FG.

The following subsections present some of the most salient themes that emerged in each FG and show some quotes from participants in an anonymised form. The nomenclature of quotations includes the participant’s number (I#) and the focus group to which they belong (FG#), i.e., I#FG#.

4.1. First Development: From the Initial Draft

The first version of the model was evaluated positively:

“Good for the starting point”.

(I1FG1)

It was stressed that initial explanations were necessary to contextualise the proposed model.

“How, why, purpose, users… initial explanation”.

(I2FG1)

In relation to achieving a common language, I3FG1 emphasised “talk about negotiations and building bridges”, and I4FG1 considered that using ‘human-centric’ terminology can be seen negatively if it is intended to prioritise human needs over those of other living beings.

“In discussions about environmentalism or technology, “human centric” might be viewed negatively if it suggests prioritising human needs or desires over those of other living beings or the planet → human focused or sustainable innovation”.

(I4FG1)

When talking about co-creation and the facilitation process, it became clear that there was a need to clarify which tools are useful to identify common challenges, as suggested by the following participants:

“If exchange of knowledge—what tools will help us?”

(I3FG1)

“Identify common interests to build connections”.

(I4FG1)

Structure and governance emerged as issues to be included in the model. Thus, I5FG1 asked:

“Advisory board?”

while I3FG1 commented that “it is necessary to define a structured government”.

Furthermore, I6FG1 stressed that the “sustainability (during and afterwards)” of the project must be worked on.

As far as funding is concerned, I3FG1 insisted that funding should not be only public.

“Explain how to fund your social innovation → not only public funding”.

It is even intended to develop a list of financing options that may be of help:

“To develop a catalogue of various funding options for social innovations along with good examples (Government Grants, Venture Capital Funds, Crowdfunding, Public-Private partnerships, etc.)—just to inspire, expand knowledge of social innovators”.

(I3FG1)

• and at the group level, it was suggested to include concepts such as Social Return On Investment (SROI).

It was made clear that impact needs to be measured and therefore it is necessary to design qualitative and quantitative indicators that help to measure social transformation.

“How do we measure impact?”

(I3FG1)

“Maybe we can prepare a knowledge pill about evaluation and useful techniques for local initiatives! How to approach assessing the effects of projects?”

(I7FG1)

The participants in the FG considered the figure of the community facilitator to be relevant and their training to be fundamental.

“We must offer recurrent training. Some of them could be from the INTEGER stakeholder sharing their know-how”.

(I3FG1)

The project must promote inclusion and diversity. Therefore, there is a need for the virtual platform that has been created to be accessible to all and to promote participation and communication.

“Is the website platform accessible for physical and cognitive disabilities?”

(I3FG1)

“Empowering participation and communication of all stakeholders/voices, includes other topics such as respect, etc.”

(I4FG1)

Finally, the project is intended to have continuity over time. To this end, it must be sustainable and have an impact, including the possibility of including new members in some helixes.

“How to ensure sustainability? I suggest linking sustainability with social impact”.

(I9FG1)

“How to get new participants, establish bridges with other 4helix groups…?”

(I13FG1)

4.2. Second Evolution: Based on the Draft Generated by FG1

The data collected during FG1 served to modify the initial proposal and with the new version already finalised, the next FG was held with the project’s key stakeholders.

In general terms, it was suggested that perhaps less theorising was needed or that theories should respond to real challenges and that they could be converted into something practical, such as a business model.

“For Academia: learning about the reality of industry challenges and implementing theoretical models into a business practice”.

(I1FG2)

Indeed, coordination is key for all members of the 4-H community to be on the same page, and for this, it is essential to establish timetables and task assignments, be aware of available resources, etc., as the following participants comment:

“The timelines of the different helix organization could be really different! Does it need a previous agreement?”

(I2FG2)

“Resource issues (different availability of budget, staff time…”

(I3FG2)

When it comes to training, people need to know the duration of the training, specific target criteria (social innovators and entrepreneurs), who delivers it, in what format, etc.

“How long does it take to do the training?”

(I5FG2)

“Who provides the training?”

(I6FG2)

“Format of the training? Online? Physical?”

(I6FG2)

• and even some regional network related to social innovation could/should be incorporated too:

“Regional networks in the area of social innovation (e.g., in Hamburg) should be involved”.

(I8FG2)

For community members to have a common language, it was proposed to design a glossary of terms while keeping in mind that each region has a different working culture.

“Having a glossary would be useful—combined by examples is a great idea as well to make it clear”.

(I9FG2)

“Attention to different working cultures!”

(I2FG2)

At this point, it was again emphasised that it is advisable to use tools that facilitate the building of personal relationships as well as knowledge sharing and a certain homogenization of processes.

“What about tools, templates, canvas, digital tools…?”

(I9FG2)

On the economic side, the idea was repeated that funding must be attracted from the private sector, and we must think about how.

“Inform companies about funds for social impact projects and results”.

(I3FG2)

“Showcase successful case studies from the past to show private companies the possible benefits”.

(I4FG2)

The group participants agreed that indicators should be both qualitative and quantitative, and that they should be linked to the project’s objectives.

“To talk about the best indicators, we need to confirm goals aiming to be obtained”.

(I6FG2)

It then became clear that it is difficult to attract civil society to this type of project and that they should also be represented on the advisory board. The participants agreed that the board should change from time to time, but there was no unanimity on the frequency, ranging from 9 to 18 months.

Finally, it was suggested that perhaps the community can explore other fields of work beyond health and welfare, such as agriculture, or delve deeper into, for example, nutrition.

4.3. Third Evolution: From the Draft Generated by FG2

In this last FG, we worked with the participants of the INTEGER project’s driving group, contributing to the definition of the model and its specificities.

In general terms, this FG emphasised the importance of communication as a transversal tool in the model and even started to talk about the fifth helix.

“The “helix” communication is transversal to all the others”.

(I2FG3)

“Distinguish the fifth helix that is the territory and its sectoral affectation (let’s think about the regional differences in the EU)”.

(I1FG2)

Here, again, time and resource planning of the project is needed.

“To have a mapping of the project and resources that are part of the innovation process to take support of them. Available assets. To segment participants that will be involved during the process and how they will be complementary between them”.

(I4FG3)

In relation to training, the question arose as to whether it is only for facilitators or also for community members, with emphasis on attendance during training and the definition of different levels and types of training.

“Training for the facilitators or for all the participants? Define different training levels. One for facilitators and one more general. It is essential to have onsite training, not just online…”

(I4FG3)

And as for the contents, it was suggested that they focus on real and useful cases and on training in business models.

“Focus the content with real cases and useful information. Training in business models”.

(I1FG3)

It then became clear that cultural differences often must be bridged and therefore to facilitate understanding between different helixes and between different regions, it was proposed that design should be universal.

“It is highly difficult to work between different culture regions (e.g., Administration procedures”.

(I4FG3)

“Use the universal design for a better understanding for the diversities”.

(I2FG3)

“The shared resources must be prepared PREVIOUSLY between them and between the helix”.

(I1FG3)

The importance of the facilitator was highlighted to inspire and motivate the community.

“To identify common proposals and goals to get all of them aligned and highly involved”.

(I4FG3)

“Many people come out better than how they started”.

(I1FG3)

And perhaps it would be interesting if there were one (or more) facilitator in each region and if they all kept in contact with each other.

“It is necessary (to have) a minimum facilitator responsible for each region but in contact between them”.

(I3FG3)

As well as meetings should usually be regional and less frequently inter-regional.

“Separated specific regional working groups and (from) time to time have some meetings together”.

(I2FG3)

Finally, given the helixes involved, the question arose as to what happens with Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).

“Clarify the IPR for each participant from the very beginning”.

(I1FG3)

5. Discussion

Following the analysis of the collected data, the following subsections discuss the two propositions that build a conceptual model that includes the 4-H actors, their interrelationships, and their agreed challenges.

5.1. Building the Environment to Create the Community

It is a challenge to engage the key actors. Creating the social network, collaborating, and partnering are key factors [59] as they involve the end-user [60]. An environment or space is needed in which individuals from different helixes interrelate and reflect, individually and together, on their interests and potential challenges in which they can engage with their resources. Therefore, it is time to share in meetings with local actors or agents and build a community (eventually becoming a Living Lab) in which to raise challenges and work on them together. To do this, a government institution must commit to structural change or to the creation of a new ecosystem, as in this case. Facilitators are also needed to plan, guide, and manage meetings between community members to ensure that goals are achieved. Figure 1 shows these bi-directional and cross-helix interactions.

Proposition 1.

The contextual setting requires the representation of individuals from the Quadruple Helix, in which there is a governmental institution that supports and promotes the projects that emerge from the collaborative processes and facilitators that accompany the community throughout the process.

5.2. Effective Communication: Key to Purposeful Outcomes

The community is born out of networking between actors from the different helixes and the presence of homophily [11] of common values or interests. This requires spaces in which thinking and the sharing of ideas and perspectives are promoted, and trust [15,16] must be built for communication to be effective [19]. As shown in Figure 2, the different community actors reflect separately and pool, discuss, and negotiate to reach agreements. The role of the facilitator is key here. Everyone has their own interests, and it is necessary to reach a middle ground, a common challenge, to address it collaboratively, each one contributing from their own perspective to reach a sustainable solution or improvement.

Proposition 2.

Communication between actors within the community needs to be effective to achieve the common purpose. The facilitator needs to be objective and focused on the group process so that tasks are accomplished, decisions are made, and problems are solved.

5.3. A Quadruple Helix Model Approach: Navigating Seven Key Dimensions

The proposed model is presented in Figure 3. The model is composed of seven dimensions, which are explained in detail in the following subsections. In particular, the model highlights that community is the cornerstone from which all dimensions emanate and permeate all other dimensions due to its cross-cutting aspect.

5.3.1. Transferability

This dimension refers to the replicability and/or scalability of the project, that is, whether the community could be expanded to cover new regions within the same country (or elsewhere) and even the possibility of starting a new independent community elsewhere. It also opens the door for the community in question to explore different topics of common interest.

5.3.2. Collaboration

According to [59], collaboration is a key factor for setting up. Bridges need to be built between the different actors, as each of them has their own needs. Each actor must make a transition to reach a common point for all. It is therefore essential to meet, share, discuss, and reach agreements.

5.3.3. Financing

Funding is a difficult dimension to discuss [61]. It is crucial to identify funding that is aligned with common needs and interests. Although the trend is towards public funding, it is important to identify funding from the private sector. To this end, the benefits of social innovation, beyond the economic ones, should be disseminated to private companies (e.g., SROI).

In addition, it is important to point out that the initial/basic model on which INTEGER is based is the Col·laboratori Catalunya. Consistent with [62], Col·laboratori Catalunya is funded by the Catalan government, i.e., the public administration, and this actor is key to be able to support the project. Capital risk demands solutions in no more than 5 years, or even less at present.

5.3.4. Evaluation

Considering and measuring the social impact/transformation that the innovation might have is relevant [63]. Having a clear idea of the objectives of the challenge to be worked on together, indicators must be designed to help carry out the evaluation. These indicators must be both quantitative and qualitative to have a diagnosis that is closer to reality. These indicators should be reviewed from time to time to make the appropriate modifications according to the evolution of the process.

5.3.5. Management

The recommended type of governance is of the ‘advisory board’ type, in which all the helixes are represented and with total renewal at a frequency of between 9 and 15 months approximately. Moreover, leadership is also crucial for the community to work together [64]. Possible theft of ideas, abuses, and even imbalances between competitiveness and collaboration should be detected in time. Furthermore, to facilitate communication between actors, it is recommended to use the digital platform and common tools.

5.3.6. Belonging

There is a growing recognition that belonging plays a vital role in people’s healthy functioning as we are in a society [65]. The community must be a meeting point in which all actors feel that they participate, regardless of their gender, academic background, origin, culture, etc. Therefore, all actors have the possibility to express themselves in a respectful manner. Furthermore, the digital platform must be accessible to people with physical and/or cognitive disabilities.

5.3.7. Sustainability

Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs (International Institute for Sustainable Development) in terms of environment, society, and economy. The community must be sustainable over time, and this requires commitment, perseverance, and participation among the different actors to ensure sustainable development. In addition, it is necessary to maintain the INTEGER digital platform both technologically and in terms of the activities and relationships that are created there. Finally, it is important to bear in mind that the community (and its potential challenges) may be influenced by the fact that they are not aligned with the political will of the moment.

Although all of the above dimensions interact with each other, there are some that are deeply related in terms of their specific actions and outcomes. The table below (

Table 4. Main interrelations among the seven dimensions.

DIMENSIONS	Transferability	Collaboration	Financing	Evaluation	Management	Belonging	Sustainability
Transferability		x	x	x		x	x
Collaboration	x				x	x	x
Financing	x			x			x
Evaluation	x		x		x		x
Management	x	x		x		x
Belonging	x	x			x		x
Sustainability	x	x	x	x		x

) indicates which dimensions have this close relationship.

One key aspect is management transferability. Dynamics and co-creation processes should be adapted to the context (environment, people involved, and type of administration (regional, local, etc.)). Therefore, the management model can be transferred only if it is adapted according to the objective and the context.

5.4. Implications

This research study helps to better understand how a regional 4-H community has scaled up in that region and, in turn, has been replicated in two other European regions, by analysing the internal intra- and inter-regional dynamics. Finally, to elaborate the model, it was necessary to consider different views from different actors and from different regions of different countries.

The academic contribution is a proposal for an approach to the collaborative dynamics that occur internally within the framework of an international community in which 4-H is represented. There is potential to create a universal innovation ecosystem. This research examines how regional 4-H models can be scaled up and replicated across diverse regions, contributing to a deeper understanding of the scalability of innovation. The study highlights the importance of effective communication, building trust, and the use of qualitative indicators to capture social transformation beyond numerical data. The implications for practitioners can be considered an initial introduction to internal relationships within an intra- and inter-regional 4-H ecosystem. With prior knowledge of what dimensions are relevant in other ecosystems, practitioners can focus on specific issues such as deepening the recruitment of private funding and attracting more civil society representation, to be able to contribute to creating 4-H ecosystems that are more balanced in terms of helix representation and more financially independent. From a policy perspective, this study suggests amplifying the voices of civil society, fostering strong intra- and inter-regional dynamics, and providing capacity-building training to support internal ecosystem relationships and promote long-term sustainability.

6. Conclusions

The Quadruple Helix (4-H) by means of social innovation seeks to provide a joint response to social and environmental challenges [5,66]. In fact, this type of joint work can contribute to the work by Missions proposed by the European Union [25]. Although there is a diverse body of literature on 4-H and even studies that include the 5-Helix model (and even some more) [67,68], including civil society in this type of community is still somewhat difficult, either because they have always been included at the end of the innovation process or because of the doubts that arise in the helix itself about their suitability to participate in these processes [69,70,71].

In this line, developing a qualitative and prospective approach, this study proposes a conceptual model grounded in the different dimensions that emanate from and, in turn, impact on the group processes of the 4-H ecosystem when a solution and/or response to a social (or environmental) challenge is co-ideated, co-designed, and co-created by all the actors of the helixes involved. Based on the data collected from focus groups and other sources, the analysis proposes a series of conditions necessary for the relationships between the actors to be dynamic for the sake of the common goal. All the suggested dimensions, in an integrative perspective, are derived from previous studies and are proposed to favour the understanding of group processes in the framework of 4-H universal open innovation ecosystems.

There are some limitations in that this model has only been explored at a qualitative level in regions selected by convenience and their contribution cannot be generalised. However, an improved perspective has been offered that may suggest new knowledge about the dynamics of group process within a universal innovation ecosystem focused on health and wellbeing. Moreover, there are additional constraints, for example, in terms of the physical location of the three ecosystems. The physical distance between them meant that data collection in the FGs was performed online, meaning that the depth of the study is diminished due to the lack of non-verbal information from the participants. The size and bias of the FG samples can also be considered limitations. The sample size was significantly smaller in one of the FGs than in the other two, and some added bias has to be taken into account due to the regional location of the participants. Hence, this work can be seen as a basis for further work to quantify the above propositions and test the proposed model. Moreover, this research promotes the key role of the facilitator in guiding and supporting the ecosystem to work towards common goals. Furthermore, going forward, researchers can explore what happens in other ecosystems located in regions other than those already studied in Europe or even in the Global South where the Living Lab methodology is already being used. Other open innovation ecosystems focusing on other topics such as education, agriculture, mobility, and sustainability can be designed to explore what new perspectives emerge from them.