Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Targeted innovation policy and practice intelligence (TIP2E): concepts and implications for theory, policy and practice

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper touches upon the different sides of cutting-edge science, technology and innovation (STI) policy concepts such as clusters and smart specialization and STI management such as open innovation and foresight which are of great interest to researches, scientists and managers in course of building successful business and creating dynamic regions, identifying the priorities of future, coping with uncertainty and rising risks, heated by the global challenges. In particular, we explore the dynamics and interactions of intelligent clusters, research and innovation smart specialization strategies, targeted open innovation and foresight networks within the context of entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystems. Having investigated the benefits and potential threats of open innovation and foresight from different standpoints within innovation ecosystems and smart specialisation, the recent trend of shifting priority setting into technological and social dimensions with the aim of developing specialized clusters and regions is underlined. The identified tight linkage between the fruits from cluster smart specialization, open innovation and foresight enables implementing simultaneously all of them at various stages of innovation process. Thereafter the analysis of innovative collaboration forms reveals that the holistic views of open innovators and rational application of foresight are becoming the central message of the strategy development and implementation process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Carayannis and Campbell (2009).

  2. EUROPEAN COMMISSION May 2012: Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS 3).

  3. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm.

  4. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy.

  5. European Commission (2012). Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisations (RIS3). European Union. May 2012.

References

  • Abe, H., Ashiki, T., Suzuki, A., Jinno, F., & Sakuma, H. (2009). Integrating business modeling and roadmapping methods—The Innovation Support Technology (IST) approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 80–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afuah, A. (2002). Innovation management: Strategies, implementation, and profits (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnkil, R., et al. (2010). “Exploring the quadruple helix.” Report of quadruple helix research for the CLIQ project. Tampere: Work Research Centre, University of Tampere.

  • Bilgram, V., Brem, A., & Voigt, K.-I. (2008). User-centric innovations in new product development—Systematic identification of lead users harnessing interactive and collaborative online-tools. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(03), 419–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, D. N., & Hogan, T. (2014). ‘A jack of all trades’: The role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 134–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullinger, A. C., et al. (2010). Community-based innovation contests: Where competition meets cooperation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(3), 290–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cachia, R., Compañó, R., & Da Costa, O. (2007). Grasping the potential of online social networks for foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(8), 1179–1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G. (2001). The strategic management of technological learning: Learning to learn and learning to learn-how-to-learn as drivers of strategic choice and firm performance in global, technology-driven markets. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G. (2013a) Innovation diplomacy as driver of democracy, innovation and development: the case of Greece. The Innovation Union in Europe: A Socio-Economic Perspective on EU Integration, 123.

  • Carayannis, E. G. (2013b). Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G. (2013c). Unpacking open innovation: Highlights from a co-evolutionary inquiry, Palgrave studies in democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for growth. London, UK.

  • Carayannis, E., & Alexander, J. (1999). Winning by co-opeting in strategic government-university-industry R&D partnerships: The power of complex, dynamic knowledge networks. Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2–3), 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix, and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a transdisciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Chanaron, J.-C. (2007). Leading and managing creators, inventors, and innovators: The art, science, and craft of fostering creativity, triggering invention, and catalyzing innovation. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E., & Coleman, J. (2005). Creative system design methodologies: The case of complex technical systems. Technovation, 25(8), 831–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Formica, P. (2006). Intellectual venture capitalists: An emerging breed of knowledge entrepreneurs. Industry and Higher Education, 20(3), 151–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Gonzalez, E. (2003). Creativity and innovation = Competitiveness? When, how and why? In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 587–605). Boston: Elsevier Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Gonzalez, E., & Wetter, J. (2003). The nature and dynamics of discontinuous and disruptive innovations from a learning and knowledge management perspective. The international handbook on innovation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2014). Business model innovation as antecedent of sustainable enterprise excellence and resilience. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(3), 440–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Popescu, D. (2005). Profiling a methodology for economic growth and convergence: Learning from the EU e-procurement experience for central and eastern European countries. Technovation, 25(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Popescu, D., Sipp, C., & Stewart, M. D. (2005). Technological learning for entrepreneurial development (TL4ED) in the knowledge economy (KE): Case studies and lessons learned. Technovation, 26(4), 419–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Provance, M. (2008). Measuring firm innovativeness: Towards a composite innovation index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(1), 90–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Sipp, C. M. (2010). Why, when and how are real options used in strategic technology venturing? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1(2), 70–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Von Zedtwitz, M. (2005). Architecting gloCal (global–local), real-virtual incubator networks (G-RVINs) as catalysts and accelerators of entrepreneurship in transitioning and developing economies: Lessons learned and best practices from current development and business incubation practices. Technovation, 25(2), 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). Why hard-nosed executives should care about management theory. Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 66–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, J., Durance, P., & Godet, M. (2010). Strategic foresight issue: Introduction, technological forecasting and social change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(9), 1423–1425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission, European. (2010). The fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion: The future of cohesion. Brussels: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, L., & Magnusson, M. (2008). How do firms make use of open source communities? Long Range Planning, 41(6), 629–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2012). RIS3 guide. Brussels: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2014). Smart specialization and Europe’s growth agenda. Brussels: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D., David, P., & Hall, B. (2009). Smart specialisation—The concept. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief, 9, 100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D., Goddard, J., Beldarrain, X. G., Landabaso, M., McCann, P., Morgan, K., et al. (2012). Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisations (RIS 3). Brussels: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, N., Von Hippel, E., & Schreier, M. (2006). Finding commercially attractive user innovations: A test of lead-user theory*. Journal of product Innovation Management, 23(4), 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friesike, S., Widenmayer, B., Gassmann, O., & Schildhauer, T. (2015). Opening science: Towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(4), 581–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: Three core process archetypes. In R&D management conference (Vol. 6).

  • Georghiou, L. (2001). Third generation foresight—Integrating the socio-economic dimension. In Conference contribution, NISTEP, Japan.

  • Gokhberg, L. (2013). Indicators for science, technology and innovation on the crossroad to foresight. In D. Meissner, L. Gokhberg, & A. Sokolov (Eds.), Science, technology and innovation policy for the future: Potentials and limits of foresight studies (pp. 257–288). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg, L., & Meissner, D. (2013). Innovation: Superpowered invention. Nature, 501, 313–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg, L., & Sokolov, A. (2013). Targeting STI policy interventions—Future challenges for foresight. In D. Meissner, L. Gokhberg, & A. Sokolov (Eds.), Science, technology and innovation policy for the future: Potentials and limits of foresight studies (pp. 289–292). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Interorganizational modes of cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31(4), 477–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G. (2002). Leading the revolution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herstatt, C., & Kalogerakis, K. (2005). How to use analogies for breakthrough innovations. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 2(03), 331–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, P. (2011). Open and closed innovation: Different cultures for different strategies. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2008). New directions in R&D: Current and prospective challenges. R&D Management, 38(3), 241–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. (2002). The state and contribution of foresight: New challenges. In Proceedings of the workshop on the role of foresight in the selection of research policy priorities, Seville.

  • Johnston, R. (2007). Priority setting for future critical and key industrial technologies as driving forces for economic development and competitiveness. In UNIDO technology foresight summit, Budapest, Hungary, September 27–29 2007.

  • Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D Project Groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khramova, E., Meissner, D., & Sagieva, G. (2013). Statistical patent analysis indicators as a means of determining country technological specialisation. HSE working papers, 09/STI/2013.

  • Kim, C. W., & Mauborgne, R. (2004). Value innovation: The strategic logic of high growth. Harvard Business Review, 82(7–8), 172–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotsemir, M., Abroskin, A., & Meissner, D. (2013). Innovation concepts and typology—An evolutionary discussion. HSE working papers, 05/STI/2013.

  • Kotsemir, M., & Meissner, D. (2013). Conceptualizing the innovation process—Trends and outlook. HSE working papers, 10/STI/2013.

  • Laperche, B., Lefebvre, G., & Langlet, D. (2011). Innovation strategies of industrial groups in the global crisis: Rationalization and new paths. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(2011), 1319–1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luoma-aho, V., & Halonen, S. (2010). Intangibles and innovation intangibles and innovation: The role of communication in the innovation ecosystem, Department of Communication, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland. Innovation Journalism, 7(2), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüthje, C. (2004). Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods field: An empirical study of sport-related product consumers. Technovation, 24, 683–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meissner, D. (2012). Results and impact of national foresight studies. Futures, 44(10), 905–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meissner, D. (2013). Instruments to measure foresight. In D. Meissner, L. Gokhberg, & A. Sokolov (Eds.), Science, technology and innovation policy for the future: Potentials and limits of foresight studies (pp. 43–62). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meissner, D. (2014, June). Approaches for developing national STI Strategies. STI Policy Review, 5(1). http://www.stipolicyreview.net.

  • Meissner, D., Gokhberg, L., & Sokolov, A. (2013). The meaning of foresight for science, technology and innovation policy. In D. Meissner, L. Gokhberg, & A. Sokolov (Eds.), Science, technology and innovation policy for the future: Potentials and limits of foresight studies (pp. 1–7). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meissner, D., & Zaichenko, S. A. (2012). Regional balance of technology transfer and innovation in transitional economy: Empirical evidence from Russia. International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems, 2(1), 38–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midtkandal, I., & Sörvik, J. (2012). What is smart specialisation. Saatavissa, 2, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. A. (2005). Dealing with Darwin: How great companies innovate at every phase of their evolution. New York: Penguin Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2010). Different roles, different strokes: Organizing virtual customer environments to promote two types of customer contributions. Organization Science, 21(2), 554–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nayyar, D. (2006). Globalisation, history and development: A tale of two centuries. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(1), 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piller, F. T., & Walcher, D. (2006). Toolkits for idea competitions: A novel method to integrate users in new product development. r&D Management, 36(3), 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. (2006). Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. Research Policy, 35(8), 1122–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitzig, M., Henkel, J., & Heath, C. (2007). On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey—Unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of “being infringed”. Research Policy, 36(1), 134–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudzinski, C., & Uerz, G. (2012). Foresight & open innovation for supporting strategy at Volkswagen Group. In The proceedings of the XXIII ISPIM conference, Barcelona, Spain.

  • Sagi, J., Carayannis, E., Dasgupta, S., & Thomas, G. (2006). Globalization and e-commerce: A cross-cultural. Advanced Topics in Global Information Management, 5, 128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schildhauer, T. (2011) Open Innovation Und Digitale Kommunikation – Vier Thesen zum Aufbruch in neue und unbekannte Welten, In: T. Schildhauer, N. Tropisch, & C. Busch (Hrsg.), Magie und Realitaet des Heldenprinzips heute – Arbeitsbuch fur Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft und Weiterbildung, Verlagshaus Monsenstein und Vannerdat, Münster (pp. 152–157).

  • Schwarz, J. O. (2008). Assessing the future of futures studies in management. Futures, 40(3), 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekhar, J., & Dismukes, J. P. (2009). Generic innovation dynamics across the industrial technology life cycle: Platform equation modeling of invention and innovation activity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 192–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieg, J. H., Wallin, M. W., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Managerial challenges in open innovation: A study of innovation intermediation in the chemical industry. R&d Management, 40(3), 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfounds of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management, 28(2007), 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban, G. L., & Von Hippel, E. (1988). Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Management Science, 34(5), 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Valk, T., Chappin, M. H., & Gijsbers, G. W. (2011). Evaluating innovation networks in emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(1), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vishnevskiy, K., Karasev, O., & Meissner, D. (2014). Integrated roadmaps and corporate Foresight as tools of innovation management: The case of Russian companies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2014, 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vishnevskiy, K., Meissner, D., Karasev, O., & Khripunova, A. (2013). Intelligent data systems to aid decision-making at tenders for oil and gas fields development. HSE working papers, 07/STI/2013.

  • Viskari, S., Salmi, P., & Torkkeli, M. (2007). Implementation of open innovation paradigm. Cases: Cisco Systems, DuPont, IBM, Intel, Lucent, P&G, Philips and Sun Microsystems, Research Report, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland, 2007.

  • Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. A. (2005). Democratizing innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. http://ssrn.com/abstract=712763.

  • Von Hippel, E. A., & Von Krogh, G. (2006). Free revealing and the private-collective model for innovation incentives. R&D Management, 36(3), 295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2008). Getting clear about communities in open innovation. Industry and Innovation, 15(2), 223–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Competitiveness Yearbook. (2004). IMD. Lausanne, Switzerland.

  • Ziegler, A., Claudia, S., Elisabeth, D., & Joachim, S. (2014). Citizens’ perceptions of justice in international climate policy—Empirical insights from China, Germany and the US. Working paper Sustainability and Innovation No. S2/201, Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe 2014. http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-wAssets/docs/e-x/working-paperssustainability-andinnovation/WP02-2014_citizensperceptions-of-justice.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The article was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and partly supported within the framework of the subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science, Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (STIE), European Union Research Center, GWU School of Business (GWU SB), Washington, DC, USA

    Elias G. Carayannis

  2. Research Laboratory for Science and Technology Studies, National Research University – Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

    Dirk Meissner

  3. Foresight Center, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University – Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

    Anastasia Edelkina

Authors
  1. Elias G. Carayannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dirk Meissner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anastasia Edelkina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elias G. Carayannis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carayannis, E.G., Meissner, D. & Edelkina, A. Targeted innovation policy and practice intelligence (TIP2E): concepts and implications for theory, policy and practice. J Technol Transf 42, 460–484 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9433-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9433-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation