| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Edquist, Charles, et al.
(författare)
-
Introduction
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Public Procurement for Innovation. - 978 1 78347 188 1 - 978 1 78347 189 8 ; , s. 1-34
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
- Gomez-Uranga, Mikel, et al.
(författare)
-
Epigenetic Economic Dynamics: The evolution of big internet business ecosystems, evidence for patents
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Technovation; The International Journal of Technological Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Technology Management. - : Elsevier BV. - 0166-4972. ; 34:3, s. 177-189
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this article is to contribute to literature with new findings from biogenetics that are becoming increasingly important. In particular, we will discuss the new analytic frameworks that may open as a result of the incorporation of epigenetics in evolutionary economic thinking. This new approach is illustrated by studying the evolution of big Internet industry groups such as Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Samsung. With it we shed light on the dynamics of business groups, which we approach as 'business ecosystems'. We introduce the concept of Epigenetic Economic Dynamics, which is defined as the study of the epigenetic dynamics generated as a result of the adaptation of organisations to major changes in their respective environments. First of all, this concept enables us to understand how the dynamics of the business groups mentioned address changes in their environments. Secondly, it is also useful when analysing the results of these dynamics. Abnormalities, malfunctions or obstacles to innovation, and/or blockage to developing competition at certain levels (i.e. intellectual property rights, abuse of monopoly power, etc.) may arise as a result of the influence of epigenetic dynamics. Acquisition of patent portfolios and patent lawsuits for infringements and violations are quite common, for example in the field of mobile telephony, which clearly shows the fierce competition between business groups. Essential patents licensing is particularly at the core of legal disputes between the business groups. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 4. |
- Magro, Edurne, et al.
(författare)
-
Coordination-Mix: The Hidden Face of STI Policy
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Review of Policy Research. - : Wiley. - 1541-132X. ; 31:5, s. 367-389
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper sheds light on the policy coordination concept and explores its implications for science, technology, and innovation (STI) policies at the regional level. In particular it analyzes whether systemic and complex STI policies entail a larger and more complex need for coordination. We contribute to the literature by developing a conceptual framework that brings together insights from institutional and public policy theories with concepts from STI policy and regional innovation systems. This model is evidenced in the Basque Country (Spain). The paper introduces the concept of "coordination-mix," which is defined as the combination of mechanisms that respond to the coordination failures that are derived from a complex policy setting where multiple instruments from different domains, levels, and actors coexist. It also complements the literature with a third policy dimension, the multi-layer, which adds to the multi-level and policy-mix dimensions already established in the STI policy realm.
|
|
| 5. |
- Aparicio, Juan, et al.
(författare)
-
The systemic approach as an instrument to evaluate higher education systems : Opportunities and challenges
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Research Evaluation. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0958-2029 .- 1471-5449. ; 30:3, s. 336-348
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article aims to provide a systemic instrument to evaluate the functioning of higher education systems. Despite systemic instruments have had a strong impact on the management of public policy systems in fields such as health and innovation, higher education has not been widely discussed in applying this type of instrument. Herein lies the main gap that we want to close. The ultimate purpose of the evaluation instrument introduced here is thus to provide information for decision-makers, so these can identify the strengths/weaknesses in the functioning of their respective higher education systems from a systemic perspective. To achieve the previous goal, we apply the methodological guidelines of the integrative review of the literature. An integrative review of the literature was chosen because it guides the extraction of quantitative evidence from the literature and its classification, with the purpose of integrating the results into an analytical framework. This resulting analytical framework is what we have labelled as the systemic evaluation instrument. The article makes three contributions to the literature. First, the different types of higher education institutions considered in the literature and the higher education systems analysis scales are evidenced. Second, we identify the capacities and functions examined by the literature so that higher education institutions and higher education systems can fulfil their missions. Third, a systemic evaluation framework for higher education institutions and higher education systems is presented. The article concludes with a discussion of the opportunities and challenges associated to the implementation of such a systemic framework for policymaking.
|
|
| 6. |
- Barbero, Javier, et al.
(författare)
-
Is more always better? On the relevance of decreasing returns to scale on innovation
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Technovation. - : Elsevier BV. - 0166-4972. ; 107
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We contribute to the literature on the assessment of innovation systems by relating the amount of inputs available to the system and its performance through the concept of returns to scale (increasing, constant or decreasing). We study to what extent the size or scale of innovation systems relates to their performance, which is estimated through frontier Data Envelopment Analysis-TOPSIS methods, which overcome several limitations of the standard DEA approach. Using the same data provided by the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) for years 2010, 2013 and 2016, our results indicate that countries with a high innovation scale tend to overinvest in innovation inputs. This results into scale inefficiencies stemming from decreasing returns, leading to lower productivity levels. Thanks to DEA-TOPSIS we identify the best and worst performing innovation systems. This provides helpful information by setting suitable reference benchmarks for policy analysis and decision-making. Our results question the current allocation of resources and call for a reconsideration of how innovation policies are designed in many European countries. We conclude that for the EIS to become a useful instrument for the definition of innovation policies, it should consider the nature of returns to scale. This would allow policymakers to identify problems and limitations related to the size of their respective innovation systems, and hence, design holistic innovation policies to act upon them.
|
|
| 7. |
- Brixner, Cristian, et al.
(författare)
-
Analysing the differences in the scientific diffusion and policy impact of analogous theoretical approaches : Evidence for territorial innovation models
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Scientometric Research. - 2321-6654. ; 10:1, s. 46-58
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this paper is to reflect on the conceptualization of three, a priori, similar territorial innovation models: the triple helix, the regional innovation systems and Sábato’s triangle. To compare their underlying theoretical foundations, we conduct a bibliometric analysis of the contributions based on the previous territorial innovation models. Following Reinert’s procedure we identify the most relevant lexical worlds in each stream of work. Our results reveal that the language of publication affects the scope and dissemination of academic works, as well as their impact in terms of policy making. The analysis also evidences the conceptual and theoretical differences among the three models. In particular, the differences in the schools of thought from which the three models emerge explain, to a great extent, the differences in the way the concepts introduced in each model are approached and applied in practice. The paper discusses how the practice of policy making tends to follow mainstream theories, approaches and methods that are not designed to transform those realities in which they are to be applied. The paper contributes to the literature with new evidence that shows how the use of non-dominant languages in scientific research does not necessarily imply that the contributions are not of interest to the world scientific and policy communities.
|
|
| 8. |
- Charles, Edquist, et al.
(författare)
-
Functional procurement for innovation, welfare and the environment: A mission-oriented approach
- 2020
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Public procurement represents a very large share of most economies worldwide. Besides its direct purchasing power, public procurement has an enormous potential to become one of the most important mission-oriented policy instruments in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals. The paper argues that the key to achieve more innovations when pursuing public procurement is to describe problems to be solved or functions to be fulfilled (functional procurement) instead of describing the products to be bought (product procurement). We contend that if products can be described in the procurement documents, it is because they exist, and hence, they cannot be regarded as innovations. Innovations cannot be described ex ante, simply because they do not exist. It is thus not accurate to talk about ‘innovation procurement’. Accordingly, the only way to achieve an innovation by means of procurement is by describing the functions it shall fulfil or the problems it shall solve. For public procurement to become an effective policy instrument supporting innovation, product procurement should thus be transformed into functional procurement. Hence, contracting authorities need to identify the problems to be addressed by policy. The new products (innovations) solving the problems are to be designed by the potential innovators/suppliers, not by public procurers. Hence, the societal needs and problems must be translated and transformed into functional requirements. Functional procurement is allowed in EU regulations, and hence, there are no legal obstacles to use it for innovation policy purposes. Above and beyond, the European Union directives recommend using functional requirements “as widely as possible”. Besides, it leads to increased competition, not only among potential suppliers of similar products, but also among different products that solve the same problem. Functional procurement thus not only supports innovation but also serves as a powerful instrument of competition policy.
|
|
| 9. |
- Charles, Edquist, et al.
(författare)
-
Mutual Learning Exercise : MLE on Innovation-related Procurement
- 2018
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This Mutual Learning Exercise (MLE) on Innovation-related Procurement was conducted under the Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility run by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. The 15 countries that participated were: Austria, Belgium - Brussels Region, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. Two globally acting organisations, the Inter-American Development Bank (BID) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), were partly involved.The MLE was supported by a panel of experts: Charles Edquist (Chair), Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia (Rapporteur), Eva Buchinger and Gaynor Whyles, as well as Jari Romanainen (quality reviewer) and Viola Peter (coordinator). The MLE was overseen by Xavier Vanden Bosch and Marta Truco Calbet, from Unit A4 ‘Analysis and monitoring of national research and innovation policies’, DG Research and Innovation, European Commission.The work of the panel of experts was based on written and oral contributions from representatives of the participating states including country visits to some of them, as well as from a wider literature review and experiences from contributors relating to the design, implementation and evaluation of innovation-related procurement policies. As indicated above, this report has been prepared for the European Commission by an independent group of experts. The content represents only the authors’ individual and collective views and not those of the European Commission.This report summarises the lessons the team drew from the exercise and makes a number of recommendations to those considering improving their innovation-related procurement policies. Four topic-oriented reports1 are published in parallel with this one, presenting the evidence and analysis underlying this report. They include detailed data, evidence, experiences and insights provided by the participating countries on the status of their respective innovation procurement-related approaches.The most relevant policy recommendations that can enable countries to define specific action plans as regards innovation-related procurement are as follows:Policymakers should:• Identify societal needs and problems: these can more easily be recognised as a legitimate target for innovation-related public procurement.• Provide funding programmes in order to broaden the uptake of innovation procurement. Design these programmes to be multi-annual, possibly complementary and flexible to fit in with the real procurement needs of procuring organisations.• Develop and maintain competence (service) centres, innovation agencies and other support organisations: supportive framework conditions start with a well-working innovation procurement infrastructure providing the required capabilities and capacities.Procuring entities should:• Envisage broad and early market consultations: these are fundamental to familiarise potential suppliers with the problem/need to be addressed, further contribute to its comprehensive definition, and to be prepared for the calls.• Provide room for innovation considering the use of functional specifications.• Be strategic with respect to clients and other stakeholders (internal or external) who can stimulate the rolling out of innovation-related procurement.All stakeholders should:• Align finance and capacity-building needs with respective complementing policies.• Take advantage of good practice examples and envisage evaluation of your activities as a learning tool.
|
|
| 10. |
- Charles, Edquist, et al.
(författare)
-
On the meaning of innovation performance : Is the synthetic indicator of the Innovation Union Scoreboard flawed?
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Research Evaluation. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0958-2029 .- 1471-5449. ; , s. 196-211
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European Union (EU) annually publishes an Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) as a tool to measure the innovation performance of EU Member States by means of a composite index, called the Summary Innovation Index (SII). The SII is constituted by an average of 25 indicators. The SII is claimed to rank Member States according to their innovation performance. This means that the higher the average value of the 25 indicators, the better the innovation performance is said to be. The first purpose of this article is to assess whether the SII constitutes a meaningful measure of innovation performance. Our conclusion is that it does not. Our second purpose is to develop alternative, productivity or efficiency-based, measures of innovation system performance based on a simple index number, and complement it with advanced and robust nonparametric Data Envelopment Analysis techniques. By doing so, the article offers a critical review of the SII, and proposes to put more emphasis on the identification of and relation between input and output innovation indicators. The data provided by the 2014 and 2015 editions of the IUS are here used to analyze the innovation performance of all 28 EU national innovation systems. A theoretical background and reasons for selecting the indicators used are presented, and our new ranking of the innovation performance using bias-corrected efficiency scores of all EU countries is calculated. We find that the results differ substantially between the SII and the ranking based on our method, with significant consequences for the design of innovation policies.
|
|
