Exploring the relational dimension in a smart innovation ecosystem: a comprehensive framework to define the network structure and the network portfolio

  • Eva PanettiEmail author
  • Adele Parmentola
  • Marco Ferretti
  • Elisabeth Beck Reynolds


This study analyses the relational dimension and the knowledge transfer mechanisms in an innovation ecosystems (IEs), assuming that the bottom-up creation of synergies and cooperative mechanisms between local actors are the drivers of a regional smart growth. More specifically, the study explores the configuration of the network structure and the variety of inter-organizational relationships in a case of a smart IE by capturing the heterogeneous nature of IE demography, whether most studies limit their analyses to inter-firm relationships and at the node-level. Secondly, the paper provides insights into the network portfolio composition, which has been underexplored in IE literature, allowing for the identification of those relationships considered more fruitful to enhance innovation processes from a local perspective. To capture both aspects of IE’s relational dimension (i.e. network structure and network portfolio of relationships) our paper adopts an explorative approach, by taking evidence from the empirical study of the biopharma IE in greater Boston area, which has been exemplified as a successful case. Our empirical study combines two methods, namely social network analysis and expert interviews. Firstly, we conduct a social network analysis to gain insights about the optimal network structure and secondly, we conduct a round of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in the ecosystem to explore the characteristics of the desirable network portfolio. Our findings show that a smart IE presents an open network structure with structural holes, a high level of modularity and a portfolio of relationships that privileges informal and non-redundant ties within small communities focused on specific themes.


Innovation ecosystem R&D relationships Greater Boston area Biotech Biopharma Innovation networks Systems of innovation Network structure Network portfolio 

JEL Classification

L14 O32 R11 L24 L26 R58 



  1. Acs, Z., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  2. Aharonson, B. S., Baum, J. A., & Plunket, A. (2008). Inventive and uninventive clusters: The case of Canadian biotechnology. Research Policy, 37(6–7), 1108–1131.Google Scholar
  3. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.Google Scholar
  4. Asheim, B. T., & Isaksen, A. (2002). Regional innovation systems: The integration of local ‘sticky’ and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 77–86.Google Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313–321.Google Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: Establishing the framework conditions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 1030–1051.Google Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D. B., Cunningham, J. A., Kuratko, D. F., Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Economic, technological, and societal impacts. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 313–325.Google Scholar
  8. Audretsch, D. B., & Link, A. N. (2017). Embracing an entrepreneurial ecosystem: An analysis of the governance of research joint ventures. Small Business Economics. Scholar
  9. Autio, E., & Thomas, L. D. W. (2014). Innovation ecosystems: Implications for innovation management. In M. Dodgson, N. Phillips, & D. M. Gann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation management (pp. 204–228). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Backs, S., Günther, M., & Stummer, C. (2018). Stimulating academic patenting in a university ecosystem: An agent-based simulation approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer. Scholar
  11. Balland, P. A., De Vaan, M., & Boschma, R. (2012). The dynamics of interfirm networks along the industry life cycle: The case of the global video game industry, 1987–2007. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(5), 741–765.Google Scholar
  12. Balland, P. A., Suire, R., & Vicente, J. (2013). Structural and geographical patterns of knowledge networks in emerging technological standards: Evidence from the European GNSS industry. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 22(1), 47–72.Google Scholar
  13. Bresnahan, T., Gambardella, A., & Saxenian, A. (2001). ‘Old economy’ inputs for ‘new economy’ outcomes: Cluster formation in the new Silicon Valleys. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 835–860.Google Scholar
  14. Breznitz, S. M., & Anderson, W. P. (2005). Boston metropolitan area biotechnology cluster/La grappe biotechnologique de la region metropolitaine de Boston. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 28(2), 249–267.Google Scholar
  15. Broekel, T., & Mueller, W. (2017). Critical links in knowledge networks—What about proximities and gatekeeper organizations? Industry and Innovation, 25(10), 919–939.Google Scholar
  16. Budden, P., & Murray, F. (2015). Case study. New York: Kendall Square & MIT: Innovation Ecosystems and the University. MIT Lab for Innovation Science and Policy.Google Scholar
  17. Burt, R. S. (2002). Bridge decay. Social Networks, 24(4), 333–363.Google Scholar
  18. Capaldo, A., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2014). Partner geographic and organizational proximity and the innovative performance of knowledge-creating alliances. European Management Review, 11(1), 63–84.Google Scholar
  19. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3–4), 201–234.Google Scholar
  20. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. In 21st century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development. New York, NY: SpringerBriefs in Business, Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Carayannis, E., & Grigoroudis, E. (2016). Quadruple innovation helix and smart specialization: Knowledge production and national competitiveness. Фopcaйт, 10, 1 (eng).Google Scholar
  22. Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., & Goletsis, Y. (2016). A multilevel and multistage efficiency evaluation of innovation systems: A multiobjective DEA approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 62, 63–80.Google Scholar
  23. Carayannis, E. G., & Rakhmatullin, R. (2014). The quadruple/quintuple innovation helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 212–239.Google Scholar
  24. Casanueva, C., Castro, I., & Galán, J. L. (2013). Informational networks and innovation in mature industrial clusters. Journal of Business Research, 66(5), 603–613.Google Scholar
  25. Cassi, L., & Plunket, A. (2014). Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: In search of the proximity paradox. The Annals of Regional Science, 53(2), 395–422.Google Scholar
  26. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.Google Scholar
  27. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Cooke, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: The construction of advantage. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
  29. Corrente, S., Greco, S., Nicotra, M., Romano, M., & Schillaci, C. E. (2018). Evaluating and comparing entre-preneurial ecosystems using SMAA and SMAA-S. The Journal of Technology Transfer. Scholar
  30. Crespo, J., Suire, R., & Vicente, J. (2013). Lock-in or lock-out? How structural properties of knowledge networks affect regional resilience. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(1), 199–219.Google Scholar
  31. Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Young, C. (2017). A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 923–956.Google Scholar
  32. Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Dahl, M. S., & Pedersen, C. Ø. (2004). Knowledge flows through informal contacts in industrial clusters: Myth or reality? Research Policy, 33(10), 1673–1686.Google Scholar
  34. De Cleyn, S. H., & Braet, J. (2010). The evolution of spin-off ventures: An integrated model. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 7(01), 53–70.Google Scholar
  35. D’Este, P., Guy, F., & Iammarino, S. (2012). Shaping the formation of university–industry research collaborations: What type of proximity does really matter? Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4), 537–558.Google Scholar
  36. Eisingerich, A., Falck, O., Heblich, S., & Kretschmer, T. (2012). Firm innovativeness across cluster types. Industry and Innovation, 19(3), 233–248.Google Scholar
  37. Etzkowitz, H. (1993). Academic–industry relations: A new mode of production. In Workshop on academic–industry relations. Memoria.Google Scholar
  38. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix–University-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review, 14(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
  39. Freeman, C. (1989). Technology policy and economic performance (p. 34). Great Britain: Pinter.Google Scholar
  40. Fritsch, M., & Slavtchev, V. (2011). Determinants of the efficiency of regional innovation systems. Regional Studies, 45(7), 905–918.Google Scholar
  41. Giuliani, E. (2013). Network dynamics in regional clusters: Evidence from Chile. Research Policy, 42(8), 1406–1419.Google Scholar
  42. Gray, R. H., Owen, D. L., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 397–420.Google Scholar
  44. Hayter, C. S. (2016). A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: The role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 633–656.Google Scholar
  45. Jackson, D. J. (2011). What is an innovation ecosystem. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at:
  46. John, C. H., & Pouder, R. W. (2006). Technology clusters versus industry clusters: Resources, networks, and regional advantages. Growth and Change, 37(2), 141–171.Google Scholar
  47. Kajikawa, Y., Takeda, Y., Sakata, I., & Matsushima, K. (2010). Multiscale analysis of interfirm networks in regional clusters. Technovation, 30(3), 168–180.Google Scholar
  48. Lau, A. K., & Lo, W. (2015). Regional innovation system, absorptive capacity and innovation performance: An empirical study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 99–114.Google Scholar
  49. Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2016). University–industry collaboration and regional wealth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1284–1307.Google Scholar
  50. Li, W., Veliyath, R., & Tan, J. (2013). Network characteristics and firm performance: An examination of the relationships in the context of a cluster. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  51. Maia, C., & Claro, J. (2013). The role of a proof of concept center in a university ecosystem: An exploratory study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(5), 641–650.Google Scholar
  52. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
  53. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.Google Scholar
  54. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: Suny Press.Google Scholar
  55. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.Google Scholar
  56. Russell, M. G., Huhtamäki, J., Still, K., Rubens, N., & Basole, R. C. (2015). Relational capital for shared vision in innovation ecosystems. Triple Helix, 2(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
  57. Salavisa, I., Sousa, C., & Fontes, M. (2012). Topologies of innovation networks in knowledge-intensive sectors: Sectoral differences in the access to knowledge and complementary assets through formal and informal ties. Technovation, 32(6), 380–399. (Sampson, 2004).Google Scholar
  58. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in silicon valley and route 128. Cambrigde, MA: Harvard Univ.Google Scholar
  59. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.Google Scholar
  60. Still, K., Huhtamäki, J., Russell, M. G., & Rubens, N. (2014). Insights for orchestrating innovation ecosystems: The case of EIT ICT Labs and data-driven network visuaIEations. International Journal of Technology Management, 23(66(2–3)), 243–265.Google Scholar
  61. Streb, C. K. (2010). Exploratory case studies. In G. Durepos, A. J. Mills, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 372–373). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Ter Wal, A. L. (2013). The dynamics of the inventor network in German biotechnology: geographic proximity versus triadic closure. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(3), 589–620.Google Scholar
  63. Ter Wal, A. L., & Boschma, R. A. (2009). Applying social network analysis in economic geography: Framing some key analytic issues. The Annals of Regional Science, 43(3), 739–756.Google Scholar
  64. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440.Google Scholar
  65. Xie, X. M., Zuo, L. L., Zeng, S. X., & Tam, V. W. (2014). The impacts of network structures and network form on corporate innovative performance: Evidence from high-tech sectors. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 22(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
  66. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management and Quantitative StudiesParthenope University of NaplesNaplesItaly
  2. 2.Industrial Performance CenterMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations