| 1. |
- McKelvey, Maureen, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Collaborative Strategies: How and Why Academic Spin-offs Interact with Engineering University Centers
- 2013
-
Ingår i: How Entrepreneurs Do What they Do: Case Study of Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurship / McKelvey, M. and A.H. Lassen (eds.). - Cheltenham, U.K. : Edward Elgar Publishers. - 9781781005491 ; , s. 34-47
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This chapter follows the management and development of two KIE ventures that are academic spin-offs, in relation to collaborative strategies. The perspective is on how and why academic spin-offs continue to engage in collaborative strategies with engineering centers located at the university. The KIE ventures use the centers to access scientific and technological knowledge, as expected, but they also are interested in accessing other resources and networks to help further develop their research, product and market development. The key message is that networks with research centers at the university help shape the venture. Even after the founding phase, these KIE ventures can use collaborative strategies for research to access resources and ideas – involving scientific and technological knowledge but also market and business knowledge. The results of the chapter help us understand in particular how the venture needs to continue to access resources and ideas, even during the management and development phase of the KIE conceptual model. The KIE ventures are academic spin-offs, heavily involved in the development of technologies, and yet they greatly benefit from these university networks to access market knowledge from other, established firms, and to access business knowledge through the recruitment of experienced managers.
|
|
| 2. |
- Szücs, Stefan, 1964, et al.
(författare)
-
Local Political Capital for Innovation in the Global Knowledge Economy
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Book of Abstracts, XVII World Congress of Sociology, 11-17 July 2010, Gothenburg. ; XVII, s. 472-473
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Over the last decade, policy initiatives to promote innovativeness and growth, inspired by normative models of capacity building through industrial clusters, triple helix and innovation systems, have proliferated. Theories of economic development offer several explanations of the emergence of clusters in particular environments. Most theorists would argue that specific, natural, economic, or institutional factors determine capacity building in terms of cluster development. Other theorists emphasize the role of local social networks and phases of regional knowledge-based spaces in explaining the emergence of such capacity building. Neither of these theoretical streams offers systematic explanations of differences in the emergence and success of capacity building, beyond finding that crucial resources are unevenly distributed. The theoretical linkage between triple helix and capacity building through innovation governance is unclear. We still do not have a relevant theory explaining the influence of innovation governance involving local/regional government–industry–university relationships on capacity building leading to successful innovations. Therefore, we are making a proposal to further develop theory by focusing on capacity building through different sequences of innovation governance in relation to components of local political capital - values/norms of identity, networks and local-global relations - in the era of the global knowledge economy.
|
|
| 3. |
- Szücs, Stefan, 1964, et al.
(författare)
-
Regional innovation governance : a model for complex systems of innovation and economic emergence
- 2012
-
Ingår i: 14th International Schumpeter Society Conference.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Over the last decade, political science has moved far from the traditional economist’s view of the government and public policy as responses to ‘market failures’. One focus of understanding public policy has been on governance, which is a concept including complex public-private interactions through networks of relationships. There is often an assumption of complex socio-economic systems underlying this concept of governance. This type of thinking has been very prevalent in discussions of innovation and economic emergence. Many public policy initiatives to promote innovativeness and growth have been inspired by normative models of capacity building through industrial clusters, triple helix and regional innovation systems. While providing important insights about network and knowledge relationships, existing models poorly explain the influence of governance on innovation and economic emergence. In order to understand the issue of risk and uncertainty in innovative entrepreneurship, we propose a conceptual model that includes the impact of governing in complex systems through innovation policy. Due to the interdependency of several actors, the centers of decision-making in innovation are nested into complex systems of governing. This means that the obviously visible indicators of innovation and growth, which are often used, do not match the theoretical linkage between entrepreneurial economic emergence and capacity building. Instead of looking at firm start-ups and patents or the immediate effects of public policy through a cost-benefit analysis, our model of innovation governance requires that we delve deeper into social and knowledge relationships at the regional level. Innovation systems represent a typical example of many organizations and/or decision-centers that are formally autonomous, but are in fact linked together by an overarching set of rules, networks and relationships in systems, defined as polycentric, based on rules/norms in use to regulate access to information and common pool resources in such systems. We therefore start from this underlying theoretical insight that innovation governance depends upon capacity building among the heterogeneous organizations (university-government-industry), each based on different attributes of norms and incentives, networks and global relationships, but nevertheless tied together by overarching rules and aims of innovation and entrepreneurship. As will be further developed in the paper, we suggest that this process of capacity building during emergence and entrepreneurial uncertainty, relay on a sequence of events explaining the success and directionality of innovation through specific institutions and an associated , subsequent, organizational structure for University-Industry-Government co-operation at the local and regional level.
|
|
