Resilient Community and Economic
Development through Collaborative Innovation
Networks
Jacob Leppek (LeppekJ@michigan.gov), Jen Bruen (bruenjen@msu.edu), &John Schweitzer (schweit1@msu.edu)
Michigan State University, EDA University Center for Regional Economic Innovation, 1615
E. Michigan Ave. Lansing, MI 48912 Email: rei@msu.edu
aAbstract A single organization or individual is almost always unable to provide
completely satisfactory solutions to a community problem. Collaborative
Innovation Networks (COINs) provide a method in which entities capitalize on
existing human capital to spur cooperative innovation in community and economic
development. This report details the successful experience of the U.S. EDA
University Center for Regional Economic Innovation (REI) at Michigan State
University in utilizing a COIN to become a resilient economic and community
development organization. This method is successful as it allows for the resilienceand adaptability of decentralized networks while retaining access to a large resource
base.

1 Introduction
Following Michigan’s recovery from the 2008 recession, the U.S. Economic
Development Administration funded a University Center for Regional Economic
Innovation (REI) at Michigan State University for a five-year period from 2011 to
2016. REI’s mission was to build a new economic development ecosystem inMichigan by leveraging higher education assets to support the creation andapplication of innovative economic development strategies to yield high-growth
entrepreneurship and job creation throughout the state.
These goals were accomplished through the creation of a Collaborative
Innovation Network (COIN). Named the REI Network, this model was successful
in overcoming the usual obstacles to economic and community development by
creating a resilient self-organizing system that can operate in any environment.
COINs allow for growth to transcend organizational boundaries, encourage
inclusive social innovations, and build on local knowledge to create efficientsolutions. This report details how COINs can operate successfully in the communityand economic development industry by crowdsourcing innovation while retaining
access to a resource base to facilitate action. As the REI Network is unique and the2first-of-its-kind, this report also describes the structure of the REI Network to relate
how this facilitation process works, as well as shares the results of operation. Within
the bourgeoning field of research on social innovation, this analysis seeks to remedy
the lack of literature applying social innovation to the ecosystem of economic
development and individual empowerment, and to encourage future studies on the
topic. This report is also meant to provide further quantitative evidence on the topic
of how a mission of social innovation is applicable and successful in economic
development, and that collaborative innovation networks are an excellent method
to achieve that goal.
Furthermore, this report advances a framework to analyze the success of COINs
in the context of community and economic development. It measures two primarydimensions of the REI Network: reach and results. Reach is the number of members
at any given time. Reach is measured empirically from internal e-mail server list,
social media followers, and project authors and advisors. Results are measured by
the creation and dissemination of projects by the REI Network and by their impact
on Michigan. In addition to this, an assessment of the level of involvement by eachmember, as well as the level of collaboration between members, is interwoven inthese two aspects. Intensity is qualitatively measured along multiple aspects:
participation through collaboration on ongoing projects or the dissemination of
online, open source projects through video, print, website, webinar, and otheravenues.

2 Background
REI operates within a broad context of community and economic development on
local, regional, and state levels. It is necessary to understand the various objectives
and obstacles to fully appreciate how COINs offer a resilient solution to typicalbarriers faced by community and economic development organizations.

2.1 Community and Economic Development in Michigan
Michigan’s economy was severely damaged by the 2008 recession, and it still has
not fully recovered due to the loss of jobs, lack of qualified candidates, not enoughincentives for companies to operate in Michigan, and several other supplementaryfactors. While the overriding objective for the state’s development industry is tospur Michigan’s recovery, multiple methods exist to accomplish eachorganization’s primary aim.
Community development and economic development are overlapping
categories; the former utilizing an empowerment, resident-centric approach
whereas the latter generally attracts businesses and increases the tax base. Each ofthese approaches has strengths and weaknesses. Community development

3emphasizes internal growth, capitalizing on existing resources and strengthening
human capital. Economic development approaches usually create an enticing
environment for incoming and new businesses. Due to the complexity of theseapproaches, development organizations historically chose to focus on one or the
another. This allowed for complementary organizations to emerge, encouraging
specialization in the industry at the expense of a comprehensive growth.
Michigan is a fairly diverse state in terms of community and economic
development needs. With a population of nearly 10 million people, the state has ahigh rate of income inequality, large rural areas, and many economically distressedurban areas.
This has resulted in a massive number of development organizations which
specialize in certain aspects of development with varying scopes. Public agencies
affiliated with cities, municipalities, townships, regions, and the state are frequently
working toward parallel objectives as third-party non-profit organizations. Smaller
scopes are seemingly more manageable, especially with limited funds and actors,
whereas large scopes improve coordination across geographical areas or resources,
among other aspects. Larger cities, such as Detroit, Grand Rapids, or Lansing,typically have a higher concentration of development organizations, while rural
areas receive less attention. As an example of differing aims, some organizations
focus exclusively on singular skill-based development, and others more generally
on improving workforce competitiveness in a specific city.

2.2 Common Obstacles to Development
What is important to understand is the current patchwork of community andeconomic development organizations and public agencies in Michigan often target
different communities, geographical areas, and aspects of economic development,
simply because of limited resources. Limited funds force organizations to operatewith few full-time staff members, instead relying on volunteers. Grant funding isincredibly competitive, and private donations are an inconsistent source of funding.
This prevents many non-government funded organizations from achieving concretegoals. While objectives of these organizations and communities frequently overlap,
communication is often lacking, resulting in a knowledge, access, and sustainability
gap. The infrastructure for communication between the large number ofdevelopment organizations is lacking, creating high costs in finding community
leaders, activists, and knowledgeable experts. It is quite possible that twoorganizations could be working on the same issue in different areas without
knowing, and the chances that solutions and strategies are shared among community
members is low.
A major issue in community and economic development is empowering the
locals by providing resources necessary to achieve certain goals, and coordinatingthese goals to encourage inclusive growth. While locals better understand what is

4lacking in their communities, it is often necessary to provide them with monetaryfunds, methods to fix the problem, and connections with experts.

2.3 Understanding Innovation in Collaborative Networks
Collaborative networks have been applied in many settings to great success. It
has been demonstrated that innovation is spurred and facilitated throughinterorganizational cooperation, especially in research and development activities(Enkel et al. 2009; Faems et al. 2005). Research networks that link diverse actors
together have been shown to create innovation clusters (Liyanage 1995). Yet
successful innovation depends on the nature of the actors involved (Barzi et al.
2015; Marinucci 2012). By connecting actors with varied skill sets and sufficientmotivation, a COIN creates a space for collaborating, creating, and sharing.
These models can be applied to community, and even global, problems(Sawheny 2003). Social innovation can be broadly defined as interdisciplinary
innovations with broad impact which contribute to the diffusion of knowledge(Mulgan et al. 2007; Westley et al. 2010). Despite some doubt of whether social
innovation is a useful term for analysis or not, the term has proved sustainable, anddoes seem to play a valuable role in determining how to facilitate such innovation(Pol et al 2009).
More recently, Birkner et al. 2017 concluded that universities have a “prominentrole in the creation of new innovation ecosystems, particularly in a well-defined
geographical area.” Universities are vital to knowledge transfer, economic growth,and research support, even as barriers exist to connecting these resources withindustries (Bramwell et al. 2012). With the funding of REI by the U.S. E.D.A. andMichigan State University, the REI Network is one of the first attempts to use a
COIN to promote regional economic innovation, decrease barriers to knowledgetransfer, and create sustainable and resilient partnerships.

3 The REI Network
Utilizing a COIN is an attempt to capitalize on the best attributes of development
organizations while empowering individuals to create growth for their own
communities, which means lower costs of communication, quicker problem
identification, and increased collaboration.
REI’s Network is uniquely resilient to changing social and politicalcircumstances by crowdfunding ideas drawn from the network itself. Not only does
this allow for the economic and community development strategies to adjust to new
ideas, but for the framework of discussion to change. Topics of research are directly

5relatable to what is happening at the time, and are free to adjust according to
demand. This signaling approach is a massive improvement in researching andsolving the challenges in terms of efficiency because it allows for directcommunication and collaboration among residents and experts without
organizational or geographical concerns. The REI Network facilitates quicker
identification of problems through the wide variety of participants at the local level.
After identification, the collaborative nature of the REI network often allows foraccess to a person with knowledge of how to solve these problems. In other words,
a uniform approach through a COIN engenders diverse solutions which best fit theenvironment. It is a dynamic approach that is constantly identifying emerging
problems, which allows it to remain resilient in response to changing economic
conditions.
Whereas regional hubs of economic development provide a more centralized,
goal-alignment service, REI is oriented toward individual and local-specific efforts.
The Michigan Economic Development Corporation, for example, brings together
public agencies, non-profit organizations, and private entities to streamline andcoordinate ongoing economic development efforts. REI, however, focuses onsolving the communication and funding gap for individual research projects byproviding access to networks on par with larger regional organizations. This
adaptable approach encourages active investment on a local level while producing
findings that are accessible and applicable to a variety of situations.

3.1 Scope of the REI Network
As identified by Gloor (2006), integral characteristics of COINs are innovation,
collaboration, and communication. The REI Network both facilitates and builds onthese aspects by retaining access to a large resource base despite its decentralized
network.
The REI Network is a community of over 1,000 individuals from the public andprivate sectors who participate in a facilitation and solicitation process to identify,
create, and promote innovations in research to catalyze growth in their regional
economies. As an open innovation community, these members are motivated toparticipate through a variety of mechanisms, including monetary funding,cooperative partners, and increased access to resources such as project support andresearch. Intangible factors are also appreciated, as evidenced by internal surveys
and social science research; REI’s strategy is similar to successful consumer-centricmodels for firms (Antikainen et al. 2010).
REI also maintains a Consultative Panel, a group of experts drawn from a variety
of fields to advise on and guide program objectives. The Consultative Panel acts as
a supportive dialogue to the REI Network by providing an ethical framework,
professional advice, and acting as a knowledge resource. These parallel networks
allow for an active exchange of ideas and statewide multidisciplinary interaction,encouraging innovation and participation on a local and regional level.

6Fig. 1. How the REI Network facilitates development

REI is crowdsourcing community and economic development to encourage
innovation. Two primary avenues (Co-Learning Plans and Student-Led, FacultyGuided Technical Assistance) were utilized in its 2011-2016 grant cycle, with athird (Co-Implementation Plans) developed for its second round of funding in 20162021. Co-Learning Plans are a collaborative effort in which practitioners, decisionmakers, community leaders, entrepreneurs, scholars, or other stakeholders researchinnovative economic development tools, models, strategies, policies, and practices
and produce recommendations for other practitioners, policy-makers, and the
public. These applications are drawn from REI Network members which ensures
access to expert knowledge. Student-Led, Faculty-Guided Technical Assistanceprojects are collaborative efforts between university students and Michigan
communities to complete local or regional development initiatives, while being
supervised by experienced faculty members. Co-Implementation Plans are REI’s
attempt to further implement the products of its network. This initiative seeks to put
the tools, models, and policies identified in Co-Learning Plans into practice incommunities around Michigan.
REI supports communication between Network members by providing easily
accessible platforms, events, and information. The results of all projects are posted
online at REI’s website and other platforms. REI utilizes various social media
networks to encourage convenient collaboration and to spur casual discussion
between partners. The self-organizing nature of the REI Network allows forcommunication through local, regional, and state levels.

7

3.2 Results of the REI Network
Over 100 REI projects have generated an estimated $8,288,000 in public
investments, $50,675,806 in private investments, and $505,500 in other investments
throughout Michigan. These projects ranged from skill-based workshops totechnical assistance projects and the development of policy recommendations. In
addition, REI partners believe the most important impacts of projects and events tobe the opportunities to gain knowledge about issues pertinent to their work andinnovations in economic development, and to network with people working towards
similar goals. In some cases, Network members were also able to secure additional
funding through their work with REI. One of REI’s partners, the Northern
Initiatives, reported that they secured over $200,000 from various sources. In
addition, 154 individuals received eight or more hours of technical assistance from
REI.
Additionally, REI successfully disseminated new knowledge through thecreation and sharing of 29 webinars and over 25 project videos; these informational
videos on products of the REI Network have reached almost 9,000 views.
Presenting information this way, in multimedia and storytelling format, is accessible
to a more diverse audience and increases engagement (Brown 2010). REI has hosted
more than 65 in-person presentations at five Innovate Michigan! Summits, held
yearly. REI regularly engages with its community over social media; its Twitter
page has more than 1,600 followers; Facebook, about 700 likes; and hosts a
LinkedIn group of nearly 500 members. In the fall of 2015, REI was recognized asa finalist in the University Economic Development Association's Awards of
Excellence program. An internal REI Network survey conducted in 2016-2017
demonstrated that roughly 75% of respondents found a REI-supported partner’s
work to be useful in their own projects. Moreover, 68% of Network members have
implemented the knowledge and ideas developed by other members. It has beenreported that the knowledge disseminated from REI helped its partners connect totheir communities too. “We learned how to ask better questions and become
partners, not an outside organization looking in,” said one respondent.

4 Conclusion
Approaching community and economic development through a COIN-based
framework allows for broader application to industry issues while maintaining thebenefits of local knowledge. It encourages coordination through a unified approach,but recognizes and supports diverse actors.
This is a resilient approach to community and economic development, especiallyin regards to encouraging social innovation. The REI Network closes the gap
between professional and local knowledge. Furthermore, it identifies and empowers
residents while providing the necessary resources. A COIN then offers a natural

8

avenue to disseminate and publicize these results for other community members anddevelopment organizations to utilize in their work. REI’s strategy of developing
others’ solutions with monetary and research support allows for a successful open
innovation strategy, as it provides encouragement for active participation byqualified community members.
This model will be increasingly important in the future. Concepts such as “smart
cities” will need collaborative networks, and creating strategies which facilitate
individual and non-profit organization partnerships is key (Schaffers 2011).
Facilitating social innovation through collaborative networks can create a larger
impact on economic outcomes (Westley et al. 2010). Rather that imposing top-down
solutions on increasingly globalized, diverse, and complex communities, COINs
allow communities to create and adapt personalized solutions which best fit theirneeds.
Encouraging the growth of human capital in communities is emerging as thedominant model of economic development. REI has successfully implemented a
Collaborative Innovation Network to produce resilient economic development
strategies that serve local and regional needs. No longer should economic
development organizations operate independent of each other, as the social
innovation which occurs through collaborative networks produces excellent results.

References
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Antikainen M, Mäkipää M, Ahonen M (2010) "Motivating and supporting collaborationin open innovation", European Journal of Innovation Management 13(1):100-119
Birkner, Z., Máhr, T. & Berkes, N. (2017) Changes in Responsibilities and Tasks of
Universities in Regional Innovation Ecosystems. Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy,
63(2): 15-21.
Bramwell, A., Hepburn, N. and Wolfe, D.A. (2012) Growing innovation ecosystems:
University-industry knowledge transfer and regional economic development in Canada.
Knowledge Synthesis Paper on Leveraging Investments in HERD. Final Report to theSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Brown T., & Wyatt J. (2010) Design thinking for social innovation. Development
Outreach, 12(1):29-43
Chesbrough, H. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating andProfiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press.
Enkel E., Gassmann O. and Chesbrough H. (2009) Open R&D and open innovation:
exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39: 311–316
Faems D, Van Looy B, Debackere K. (2005) Interorganizational Collaboration andInnovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach, Journal of Product Innovation Management22(3):238-250
Gloor P. A. (2006) Swarm creativity: competitive advantage through collaborative
innovation networks. Oxford [etc.], Oxford University Press.
Koschatzk, K. (2001) Networks in innovation research and innovation policy – anintroduction. In: Koschatzky, K., Kulicke, M. and Zenker, A. (eds), Innovation
Networks: Concepts and Challenges in the European Perspective. Heidelberg: Physica
Verlag.

9
10. Liyanage S. (1995) Breeding innovation clusters through collaborative research
networks, Technovation 15(9):553-567
11. Mulgan G. (2007) Social Innovation: What it is, why it matters, and how it can be
accelerated. The Basingstoke Press.
12. Nieto MJ, Santamaría L. (2007) The importance of diverse collaborative networks forthe novelty of product innovation. Technovation, 27(6):367-377
13. Pol, E. and Ville, S., 2009. Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term?. The Journalof Socio-Economics, 38(6), pp.878-885.
14. Sawhney N. (2003) Cooperative innovation in the commons: rethinking distributed
collaboration and intellectual property for sustainable design innovation. Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
15. Schaffers H., Komninos N., Pallot M., Trousse B., Nilsson M., Oliveira A. (2011) Smart
Cities and the Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open Innovation.
In: Domingue J. et al. (eds) The Future Internet. FIA 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol 6656. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
16. Westley F, Antadze N. (2010) Making a Difference: Strategies for Scaling Social
Innovation for Greater Impact. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation
Journal 15(2): 1-19