Session: "A place-based approach to innovation ecosystems:

why context matters“

A case-study comparative analysis:

Espoo, Barcelona, Gothenburg, Ljubljana and Boston

Jürgen Haberleithner

&

Gabriel Rissola

Case selection

• The study seeks to generate scientific evidence for the future development of EU´s policies related to innovation in the context of regional and urban (Place-based) Innovation Ecosystems (PIEs)

• The case selection is based on:

Different types of orchestrators and leading actors in each system, based on a quadruple helix perspective.

Geographical diversity within the European Union and one case in a non-European country.

Cases with strong urban, regional, inter-regional and international references.

An expected relationship between the regional RIS3 and the mapped ecosystem (not in the case of Boston).

Conceptual framework

• During the research process of all individual PIE cases and the subsequent conclusive case-study comparative analysis the methodological framework was under permanent development.

• The first case study, developed for this case series - Espoo Innovation Garden & Aalto University, Finland - has a leading character for the whole research cycle.

• Based on three theoretical approaches:� Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (Foray, 2015)

� Integrated approach for transforming regions into innovation ecosystems

(Oksanen and Hautamäki, 2014)

� Entrepreneurial innovation & Context relevance (Autio et al., 2014)

Based on the continuously developed conceptual framework, which was adapted in each case to the specific innovation ecosystem conditions, common dimensions of analysis were defined:

• Territorial dimension of PIE: Espoo, Barcelona and Gothenburg: second largest cities in the country; Ljubljana: capital and largest city of the country; Boston: largest city and capital of the state of Massachusetts.

• Specific roles of main orchestrators and actors

• Quadruple helix (4H) implementation level

• Ecosystem contextualisation of Smart Specialisation Strategies (RIS3) and the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (EDP)

• Multiple formal and non-formal key enabling factors

Common dimensions of analysis

PIEs Typology

• Case 1 Entrepreneurial University Innovation Ecosystem

• Case 2 Digital Social Innovation Ecosystem

• Case 3 Industrial Innovation Ecosystem

• Case 4 Start-up Innovation Ecosystem

• Case 5 Innovation District Ecosystem

Source: Author’s compilation based on software of Google My Maps

Typology of Place-Based Innovation Ecosystems

Case 1Case 1Case 1Case 1

Entrepreneurial University Innovation Ecosystem

Source: Author’s compilation based on data from Rissola et al, 2017

Digital Social

Innovation Ecosystem

Source: Author’s compilation based on data from Rissola and Fàbregas, 2019

Typology of Place-Based Innovation Ecosystems

Case 2Case 2Case 2Case 2

Source: Author’s compilation based on data from Rissola (ed.), Sörvik, Zingmark and Ardenfors, 2019

Industrial

Innovation Ecosystem

Typology of Place-Based Innovation Ecosystems

Case 3Case 3Case 3Case 3

Typology of Place-Based Innovation Ecosystems

Case 4Case 4Case 4Case 4

Start-up

Innovation

Ecosystem

Source: Author’s compilation based on data from Bučar and Rissola, 2018

Main actors

Source: Author’s compilation based on data from Rissola (ed.), Bevilacqua, Monardo and Trillo, 2019

Typology of Place-Based Innovation Ecosystems

Case 5Case 5Case 5Case 5

Innovation

District

Ecosystem

Conclusions

• All analysed innovation ecosystems are of high complexity, with strong individual system properties: Each system is representing a particular type of innovation ecosystem (see typology).

• There are different levels of implementation of the Quadruple Helix Model (4H): From a traditional 3H model, to a transforming or transformed 4H model.

• Smart Specialisation Strategies (RIS3) and, in particular, the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (EDP) have different levels of interrelation (local/regional/ national) with the questioned ecosystems: From a very low influence on the ecosystem up to fully related to the relevant processes and dynamics.

• The orchestrators or main key-players play an essential role in the PIEs: From a clear orchestrator, to multiple leading actors and up to PIEs with no identified orchestrator or clear leading actor.

• Local, regional, national and international innovation-related policy agendas have a relevant impact on the strategic development of PIEs: for example the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

• PIEs are significantly dependent on talent attraction and retaining, on an entrepreneurial and risk-taking culture, as well as on the presence of R&I infrastructure, and on compatible and complementary system stakeholders.

Conclusions

Critical system elements

• Development of all systems shows a concrete dependence on an integrative leadership, which is “…an emerging leadership approach that fosters collective action across many types of boundaries in order to achieve the common good.” (Crosby, 2008).

• Balance of top-down and bottom-up dynamics is a key element for a working quadruple helix model system.

• PIEs are significantly dependent on their openness towards external stakeholders, new initiatives and global developments to achieve and maintain their competitive uniqueness.

PROPOSED

CASE

ANALYSIS

MODEL

Source: Author’s

compilation based on previously

discussed findings and approaches

Jürgen Haberleithner

&

Gabriel Rissola

Source: Fotolia