The ecological system of innovation: A new architectural framework for a functional evidence-based platform for science and innovation policy

Yawson, Robert M. (2009): The ecological system of innovation: A new architectural framework for a functional evidence-based platform for science and innovation policy. Published in: The Future of Innovation: Proceedings of the XX ISPIM 2009 Conference, Vienna, Austria, June 21-24, 2009

Abstract

Models on innovation, for the most part, do not include a comprehensive and end-to-end view. Most innovation policy attention seems to be focused on the capacity to innovate and on input factors such as R&D investment, scientific institutions, human resources and capital. Such inputs frequently serve as proxies for innovativeness and are correlated with intermediate outputs such as patent counts and outcomes such as GDP per capita. While this kind of analysis is generally indicative of innovative behaviour, it is less useful in terms of discriminating causality and what drives successful strategy or public policy interventions. This situation has led to the developing of new frameworks for the innovation system led by National Science and Technology Policy Centres across the globe. These new models of innovation are variously referred to as the National Innovation Ecosystem. There is, however, a fundamental question that needs to be answered: what elements should an innovation policy include, and how should such policies be implemented? This paper attempts to answer this question.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Innovation; Delphi Method; Balanced Scorecard; Quadruple Helix Theory; Analytic Hierarchy Process; Ecological System of Innovation, Framework, Systems Dynamics
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development; D - Microeconomics > D2 - Production and Organizations; L - Industrial Organization > L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior; D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O2 - Development Planning and Policy; F - International Economics > F1 - Trade; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights; L - Industrial Organization > L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance

References

Sundbo, J., (2003). Innovation as Strategic Reflexivity. Taylor & Francis, New York

Freeman, C., (1982). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Edquist, C., (2001). Innovation Policy – a systemic approach. In: Archibugi, D., and Lundvall, B. A. (Eds.) The Globalizing Learning Economy, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Afuah, A. (1998). Innovation Management: Strategies, Implementation and Profits. Oxford University Press, NY

Edquist, C., and Hommen, L., (1999). Systems of Innovation: Theory and Policy for the Demand Side. Technology in Society, 21, 63-79

Marburger, J. (2007). General Issues in Science Policy Today. AAAS-CSPO S&T Policy Review: Highlights of the 2007 Forum on S&T Policy.

Kaye H. Fealings (2007) Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP): Grand Challenges. A presentation to the International Symposium on Innovation Policy and Evaluation. Tokyo, Japan. http://www.ips.or.jp/isjapan2007/pdf/session_1/fealing/fealing_ppt.pdf

Benoıt Godin (2007) Science, accounting and statistics: The input–output framework. Research Policy 36, 1388–1403

Liebowitz, J., and C. Y. Suen (2000). Developing Knowledge Management Metrics for Measuring Intellectual Capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital 1, no. 1: 54-67.

Balzat, M. and Hanusch, H. (2004), Recent trends in the research on national systems of innovation, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14: 197-210

Leskovar-Spacapan G. and Bastic, M. (2007) Differences in organizations' innovation capability in transition economy: Internal aspect of the organizations' strategic orientation, Technovation Vol. 27(9), Pages 533-546.

Archibugi, D. and Lundvall, B.-Å. (eds.) (2001), The globalising learning economy:Major socio-economic trends and European innovation policy, Oxford:Oxford University Press.

KISTEP-WREN Workshop/International Symposium on National Models for Public R&D Evaluation, South Korea May 30 -31, 2005 http://www.wren-network.net/resources/2005kistep.htm

The International Symposium on Innovation Policy and Evaluation, Japan, November 19 – 20, 2007 http://www.ips.or.jp/isjapan2007/eng/index.html

Jones, J. and Hunter, D., (1995) Qualitative Research: Consensus Methods for Medical and Health services Research. British Medical Journal, 311, 376-380

Linstone, H. A.,and Turoff, M., (1975) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley, London

Valdez W. (2005) Evaluation, Research and Policy Development: A paper presented at the KISTEP-WREN Workshop/ International Symposium on National Models for Public R&D Evaluation: In Search of Best Practices and Collaborative Opportunities. May 30-31, 2005. South Korea

National Science Board. (2008). Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. Two volumes. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (volume 1, NSB 08-01; volume 2, NSB 08-01A).

Verbeek, A, K Debackere, M Luwel and E Zimmermann (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology, I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 179–211. As cited from: Diodato (1994). Dictionary of Bibliometrics. New York: Haworth

Finholt T. A. (2003) Collaboratories as a New Form of Scientific Organization. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 12(1) pp 5-25.

Wulf, W.(1989). The national collaboratory In: Towards a national collaboratory. Unpublished report of a National Science Foundation invitational workshop, Rockefeller University, New York.

Bly, S. (1998). Special section on collaboratories, Interactions, 5(3), 31, New York: ACM Press.

Gabus, A., and Fontela, E. (1972) World Problems, An invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva, Switzerland.

Haines, J.D. & Sharif, N.M. (2004). Understanding the relative importance of components of technology. Journal of Doing Business Across Borders, 3(2), 5-24.

Saaty, T. (1980). The analytical hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Saaty, T. (1982). Decision-making for leaders: The analytical hierarchical process for decision making in a complex world. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning Publications.

Yawson, R. M., Amoa-Awua, W. K., Sutherland, A. J., Smith, D. R., and Noamesi, S. K. (2006). Developing a performance measurement framework to enhance the impact orientation of the Food Research Institute, Ghana. R&D Management 36(2):161 – 172.

Malhotra, Y., and D.F. Galletta (2003). "Role of Commitment and Motivation in Knowledge Management Systems Implementation: Theory, Conceptualization, and Measurement of Antecedents of Success." Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science Available from http://www.brint.org/KMSuccess.pdf