Method for Assessment of Characteristics of European Innovation Ecosystems
Csilla Toth *
ZalaZONE Science Park Ltd., H-8900 Zalaegerszeg, Dr. Michelberger Pal u. 3., Hungary.
Beata Fehervolgyi
University of Pannonia, H-8200 Veszprem, Egyetem u. 10., Hungary.
Zoltan Kovacs
University of Pannonia, H-8200 Veszprem, Egyetem u. 10., Hungary.
Andras Hary
ZalaZONE Science Park Ltd., H-8900 Zalaegerszeg, Dr. Michelberger Pal u. 3., Hungary.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Aims: The aim of the research is to investigate if certain characteristics (the sectoral focus of innovation ecosystems, the breadth of park functions, the position of human vs. technological focus, the presence of cooperation (commercial vs. research economy), the prosperity and success of the park, and the characteristics of park management) can be applied to evaluate innovation ecosystems, through the example of European science parks surveyed.
Study Design: Innovation ecosystems are important catalysts for R&D and innovation activities. In today's significantly changing technological environment, collaborative systems that can also contribute to the strengthening of high added value activities are of particular importance. Although innovation ecosystems have a long history, some aspects of the current R&D challenges need to be revisited. Research on the subject suggests that the innovation ecosystem is not an absolute concept, as in practice it takes many different forms. These ecosystems also offer a research framework whether the industry actually follows an interdisciplinary and academic trend on the formation of knowledge and its value within the industry itself. In fact, it is knowledge that develops people, or people who build this knowledge over time, in a participatory way. Therefore, the nature, structure and functioning of a given ecosystem depends on a number of factors; it can take different forms, depending on the specific regions, industries, cooperation systems and cultures.
Methodology: The concept and functioning of innovation ecosystems can be related to research on the characteristics of complex systems, based on previous research, and the research (questionnaire survey) therefore covers several topics of different nature. Members of the International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation (IASP) participated in the survey. The analysis provides findings on the functioning of these characteristics and a comparison between innovation ecosystems. Finally, the authors make suggestions for possible future research directions and further work on the topic.
Results: The authors examined the sectoral focus of innovation ecosystems, the breadth of park functions, the position of human vs. technological focus, the presence of cooperation (commercial vs. research economy), the prosperity and success of the park, and the characteristics of park management by the survey of European science and technology parks. Based on discussing findings through these characteristics, the authors highlighted that these aspects and the methods of data processing can be used to point out features and differences of various science and technology parks.
Conclusion: The research has already focused on the classification of innovation ecosystems with different characteristics, and the present study builds on the related research findings, while focusing on the characteristics of the functioning of innovation ecosystems in Europe and the assessment of their interrelationships.
Keywords: Innovation ecosystem, science park, triple helix, sectoral focus, success factors
How to Cite
Downloads
References
Adner R. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review. 2006;84(4):98-107.
Jackson DJ. What is an innovation ecosystem. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA; 2011. Available:https://erc-assoc.org/sites/default/files/topics/policy_studies/DJackson_Innovation%20Ecosystem_03-15-11.pdf
Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ. 'Mode 3' and 'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal Technology Management. 2009;46(3-4):201-234.
Still, Kaisa, Huhtamäki, Jukka, Russell, Martha G., Rubens, Neil. Insights for orchestrating innovation ecosystems: The case of EIT ICT Labs and data-driven network visualisations. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2014;66(2/3):243–265.
Walrave, Bob, Talmar, Madis, Podoynitsyna, Ksenia S, Georges A, Romme, L, Verbong, Geert PJ. A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for pathbreaking innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018; 136:103–113.
Available:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.011.
Jucevicius, Giedrius; Grumadaite, Kristina (2014): Smart development of innovation ecosystem, 19th International Scientific Conference; Economics and Management 2014, ICEM 2014, 23-25 April 2014, Riga, Latvia, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014;156:125–129
Bonnici, Tanya-Sammut. Complex Adaptive Systems. ResearchGate; 2015. DOI: 10.1002/9781118785317.weom120209
Carmichael T, Hadzikadic M. The Fundamentals of Complex Adaptive Systems. 2019;2-16. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-20309-2_1
Moore JF. Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review. 1993;71(3):75-86.
Westhead P. Batstone S. Independent Technology-based Firms: The Perceived Benefits of a Science Park Location. Urban Studies. 1998;35(12):2197-2219.
Oh, Deog-Seong, Phillips, Fred, Park, Sehee, Lee, Eunghyun. Innovation ecosystems: a critical examination. Technovation. 2016;54:1–6.
Available:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation. 2016.02.004.
Granstrand O, Holgersson M. Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation. 2020 Feb 1;90:102098.
Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations’, Research Policy. 2000;29:109–123.
Etzkowitz H. Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university’, Research Policy. 2003;32:109–121.
Campbell DFJ, Güttel WH. ‘Knowledge production of firms: research networks and the ‘scientification’ of business R&D’, International Journal of Technology Management. 2005;31(1–2):152– 175.
Etzkowitz H, Klofsten M. The innovating region: Toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R& D Management. 2005;35(3):243-255.
Leydesdorff L, Dolfsma W, Van der Panne G. Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of triple-helix relations among ‘technology, organization, and territory. Research Policy. 2006;35(2):181-199.
Anbari FT, Umpleby SA. ‘Productive research teams and knowledge generation’, in Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F.J. (Eds.): Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters, A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia, Westport, Connecticut, Praeger. 2006;26–38.
De Fuentes C, Dutrénit G. Geographic proximity and university-industry interaction: the case of Mexico. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2016;41(2):329-348.
Galvao A, Mascarenhas C, Marques C, Ferreira J, Ratten F. Triple helix and its evolution: a systematic literature review, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management. 2019;10(3):812-833. Emerald Publishing Limited 2053-4620. DOI 10.1108/JSTPM-10-2018-0103
Jacobides MG, Cennamo C, Gawer A. Toward a theory of ecosystems, Strategic Management Journal. 2018;39:2255–2276.
Teece DJ. Business ecosystems. In M. Augier & D. J. Teece (Eds.), Entry in Palgrave Encyclopedia of Management; 2014.
Available:https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137294678.0190
Adner R, Kapoor R. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal. 2010;31(3):306–333.
Kapoor R, Lee JM. Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strategic Management Journal. 2013;34(3):274–296.
Wareham J, Fox PB, Cano Giner JL. Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science. 2014;25(4):1195–1215.
Cennamo C, Santaló J. Platform competition: Strategic trade-offs in platform markets. Strategic Management Journal. 2013;34(11):1331–1350.
Katri V. Business, Innovation, and Knowledge Ecosystems: How They Differ and How to Survive and Thrive within Tem. Technolgy Innovation Management Review. 2015;5(8):17-24.
Gomes, Augusto de Vasconcelos, Leonardo, Lucia Figueiredo Facin, Ana, Sergio Salerno, Mario, Ikenami, Rodrigo Kazuo. Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: evolution, gaps and trends. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018;136:30–48.