DIH summer school · DIH summer school Innovation Ecosystem Assessment Contact information: Dr. Thomas Reiss (Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe) +49 721 6809 160

DIH summer school

Innovation Ecosystem Assessment

Contact information:Dr. Thomas Reiss (Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe)+49 721 6809 160 [email protected]

Overview

• Introduction, point of departure• Objectives• Approach: from the established innovation system

f k d lframework to a new model• Mapping innovation ecosystems, practical guide

22‐9‐2016 DIH summer school 2

Point of departure (1)p ( )• Innovation does not evolve in a vacuum. • Innovation does not proceed in a linear mode from basic• Innovation does not proceed in a linear mode from basic

research to applied research, to development, to design, to production until marketing. Rather innovation processes are characterised by a broad variety of Rather, innovation processes are characterised by a broad variety of

linkages, interactions and feedbacks between a diverse set of actors and activities.

• From an industry perspective a company needs to be seen not y p p p yas a member of a single industry, but as part of an innovation system that is composed of diverse actors which

together create and capture new value through both collaboration and i icompetition.

22‐9‐2016 3DIH summer school

Point of departure (2)p ( )

It is crucial for digital innovation HUBs (DIH) to build up and i h i i i i d iimprove their innovation ecosystem in order to operate in a most efficient way.

Ecosystem analysis as important first step (see experience Ecosystem analysis as important first step (see experience from pilot HUBs)


Overview




Objectives: What? Why? How?j y

• Provide DIH with background information and i ifi / li i l j ifi i f d lscientific/political justification of ecosystem development

• Provide approach and tools for analysing the innovation ecosystem added value for DIH:ecosystem, added value for DIH:– Identify weak points and gaps within the regional system that

hamper operation of DIH in order to create and support innovationp p f pp– Support developing strategies and implementing measures for

enhancing the regional innovation ecosystem in a systematic way based on a gap analysisbased on a gap analysis


Overview




Approach: the innovation system framework (1)framework (1)

• Innovation systems are defined by “all important economic, i l li i l i i l i i i l d hsocial, political, organisational, institutional, and other

factors that influence the development, diffusion, and use of innovation” (Edquist 2005: 182)of innovation (Edquist 2005: 182).


Approach: the innovation system framework (2)framework (2)

...

Consumers (final demand)

Demand

Financial environment; taxation and incentives; propensity to innovation and

Framework Conditions

Education and Research System

Industrial System

( )Producers (intermediate demand)

PoliticalSystem

incentives; propensity to innovation and entrepreneurship; mobility

Professionaleducationand training

Higher education and

Large companies

Intermediaries Government

GovernanceMature SMEs

ResearchinstitutesBrokers

research

Public sector research

New, technology‐based firms

Governance

RTD policies

29‐6‐2016 9

Banking, venture capital

IPR and information

Innovation and business support

Standards and norms

Infrastructure

DIH summer schoolKuhlmann and Arnold 2001

Approach: a broadened innovation system framework (3)system framework (3)

• Recent trends in innovation thinkingUser innovation– User innovation

– Social innovation (social benefit, other ways of doing)– Collaborative innovation (commons based peer production, open

)source...)– New innovation intermediaries (clusters, clubs, trade unions, crowds...)– Venture philanthropy– Social and relational capital (prerequisites and capabilities for

interaction)

Revision of the innovation system framework (Warnke et al. 2016)


Approach: a broadened innovation system framework (4)system framework (4)

• Three types of contributions to innovation processes:– Innovation supply and demand– Innovation input– Innovation framework– Innovation framework

• No fixed assignment of actors and functions


InstitutionsInstitutions

CultureSocial and relational capitalValues, lifestyles, attitudes


InstitutionsIPR, standards, norms

InstitutionsIPR, standards, norms Innovation Frameworks

Ed tiEd tiMediatorsMediators

SocietyConsumers, User Innovators

Social Entrepreneurs, Collaborative


Social Entrepreneurs, Collaborative Education

Public and private educators on all levels

EducationPublic and private educators

on all levelsInnovation Supply and

Applied research, Clubs, associations, trade unions, cluster

managers, NGOs


managers, NGOs

p ,innovators, citizens


Public SectorPublic SectorBusinessBusiness

FinancersFinancers

Supply and Demand

Public SectorPS actors generating and demanding innovation

Cities, hospitals, administrations …



BusinessFirms of all sizes and sectors generating and demanding

innovation


innovation

PoliciesPs influencing innovation framework conditions (RTI)

and demand patterns (energy



FinancersBanks, venture capital, philanthropists, crowds


Innovation Input

ResearchUniversities, RTOs, citizen


InfrastructureICT, Internet, databases, Co‐

Creation Platforms …



and demand patterns (energy, environment, mobility, health,

defense, home …)


defense, home …)

, ,scientists ...

, ,scientists ...

Overview




Mapping the innovation ecosystempp g y

Five steps:1. Delineation of the geographic scope2. Identification of functions and actors3. Identification of networks4. Gap analysis5. SWOT analysis and conclusions


Mapping: geographic scopepp g g g p p

• Identify boundaries of DIH– The core area of activities of the HUB

• Identify external partnersC ti– Cooperation

– Competition

• Optional sources of information which could be provided• Optional sources of information which could be provided by us:– Patent data: trends and actors– Publication data: trends and cooperation


Mapping: geographic scope (2)pp g g g p p ( )World

EU

Patent information as additional source, e.g. robotics

EU

Germany

Very dynamic field

Large United Kingdom

France

2010‐14

2005‐09

2000‐04

gcountries as key actors

Italy

Spain


0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

p

Number of patent aplicationsSource: Fraunhofer ISI 2016

Mapping: geographic scope (3)pp g g g p p ( )Patent information as additional source, e.g. robotics

Finland

Denmark

Smaller countries catching up, in

Ireland

Poland

Czech Rep

particular during last 5 years

I d t i li ti

Romania

Croatia

Ukraine

2010‐14

2005‐09

2000‐04

Industrialisation proceeding Estonia

Serbia

Li h i


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Lithuania

Number of patent applicationsSource: Fraunhofer ISI 2016

Mapping: functions and actorspp g

• Based on innovation system framework identify and h icharacterise – Key functions and – Key actors of the innovation ecosystem– Key actors of the innovation ecosystem


InstitutionsInstitutions



InstitutionsIPR, standards, norms

InstitutionsIPR, standards, norms Innovation Frameworks

Ed tiEd tiMediatorsMediators


Social Entrepreneurs, Collaborative


Social Entrepreneurs, Collaborative Education

Public and private educators on all levels

EducationPublic and private educators

on all levelsInnovation Supply and


managers, NGOs


managers, NGOs



Public SectorPublic SectorBusinessBusiness

FinancersFinancers

Supply and Demand






innovation


innovation







Innovation Input








defense, home …)


defense, home …)

, ,scientists ...

, ,scientists ...

Mapping: functions and actors (1)pp g ( )Function Actor

categoryActor type Name Location Size (number of

staff or persons, finance/year)

Core competencies (technologies, services, proceses,

Role

/y ) , p ,advice, consulting, regulation etc.)

Innovation supply and demand

Societal actors Consumers n.a. n.a. e.g. 3 Million (number of potential

n.a. e.g.Market formationdemand potential

consumers ecosystem)

formation

User innovators

none

Social entrepreneurs

none

Collaborative innovators

NN1 City‐1 100 persons Software development

supply

OtherOther

Summary assessment of actor category (1: very weak, 2: weak, 3: average, 4: strong, 5: very strong) 1


Mapping: functions and actors (2)pp g ( )Function Actor category Actor type Name Location Size (number of

staff or persons, finance/year)

Core competencies (technologies, services, processes,

Role

/y ) , p ,advice, consulting, regulation etc.)


Business actors

Large firms NN1 City‐1 10,000 employees

OEM, automotive Demand for new processesdemand processes and technologies

NN2 City‐2 5,000 employees Materials Supply

SME NN3 City‐1 20 employees Software for IoT Supply

Other

Summary assessment of actor category (1: very weak, 2: weak, 3: average, 4: strong, 5: very strong) 2Summary assessment of actor category (1: very weak, 2: weak, 3: average, 4: strong, 5: very strong) 2



categoryActor type Name Location Size (number of

staff or persons,


Role

p ,finance/year)

, p ,advice, consulting, regulation etc.)


Public sector actors

Cities

demand

Hospitals

Administrators

Other

Summary assessment of actor category (1: very weak, 2: weak, 3: average, 4: strong, 5: very strong)



categoryActor type Name Location Size (number

of staff or persons,


Role

p ,finance/year)


Innovationinput

Educators Universities

VocationalVocational education Continuing trainingOther



Mapping: functions and actors (5)pp g ( )Function Actor category Actor type Name Location Size (number



Role

p ,finance/year)


Innovationinput

Mediators Associations

Clubs

Trade unions

Clusters

NGOs

OtherOther






Role

p ,finance/year)


Innovationinput

Capital providers

Banks

VC

Crowds

PhilanthropistsOther

Summary assessment of actor category (1: very weak, 2: weak, 3: average, 4: strong, 5: very strong)Summary assessment of actor category (1: very weak, 2: weak, 3: average, 4: strong, 5: very strong)





Role

p ,finance/year)


Innovationinput

Researchers Universities

RTO

Citizen ScientistsBusiness actorsPublic sector actorsOtherOther




of staff or persons, finance/year)

Core competencies (technologies, services, processes, advice consulting

Role

finance/year) advice, consulting, regulation etc.)

Innovationframework

Institutions IPR Regional, nationalEU, world?

n.a. n.a.

S d d R i l i lStandards Regional, national, EU, world?

n.a. n.a.

Norms Regional, nationalEU, world?

n.a. n.a.

Business actors

Regional, nationalEU, world?

n.a. n.a.

Other n a n aOther n.a. n.a.






Role


Innovationframework

Socio‐cultural context

Values n.a. n.a. n.a.

Social and relational capital

n.a. n.a. n.a.

Lifestyle n.a. n.a. n.a.

Attitudes n.a. n.a. n.a.

Other n.a. n.a. n.a.




of staff or persons, finance/year)

Core competencies (technologies, services, processes, advice consulting

Role


Innovationframework

Policies Influencing innovation framework

Regional, nationalEU, world?

n.a. n.a.

I fl i R i l i lInfluencing demand patterns (e.g. energy, health, mobility)

Regional, national, EU, world?

n.a. n.a.

Other n.a. n.a.



Mapping: cooperation (1)pp g p ( )

• Identify interactions between key actors• Use cooperation template for analysis and/or survey:

– “Which are the cooperation partners and which type of interaction takes place?”takes place?


Mapping: cooperation (2)pp g p ( )Type and name of actor

Since when (year)

Location (city, coun‐try)

Type of interaction(tick 1 or more options)

Innovation demand

Innovation input Innovation framework

Know

ledge

Techno

logy

Equipm

ent

Manpo

wer

Finance

Infrastructure

IPR

Standard, norm

Regulatio

n

Policy supp

ort

Societal actors Business actors Large firms SMESME Public sector actorsCities Hospitals


Administrators Other


Since when (year)



Innovation demand

Innovation input Innovation framework

e rm

t

Know

ledge

Techno

logy

Equipm

ent

Manpo

wer

Finance

Infrastructure

IPR

Standard, nor

Regulatio

n

Policy supp

ort

Educators Universities Vocational education Continuing training Other Mediators Capital providersBanks VC


Crowds Philanthropists Other


Since when (year)



Innovation Innovation input Innovation frameworkdemand

nowledge

echn

ology

quipmen

t

anpo

wer

nance

frastructure

R andard, norm

egulation

olicy supp

ort

Kn Te Eq Ma

Fin

Inf

IPR

Sta

Re Po

Researchers Universities RTO Other Policy makers


Example: visualized cooperation mapSA: societal actorLF: large firmH: hospitalU: university

SME‐3SME‐2SME‐1

TU: trade unionPM: policy maker

Innovation demandInnovation input

SA‐1

SA‐2

SME‐4LF‐2

LF‐1

H 1

Innovation inputInnovation framework

DIH‐x

SA 2H‐1

U‐1 PM‐1

U‐2

TU 1 VC 1VC‐2

RTO‐1

RTO‐2


TU‐1 VC‐1

Example: Overview frequency of cooperation partners

Other Partners

SME Partners30%

Other Partners3%

Research Partners51%

Large Enterprise


g pPartners

16%

Mapping: gap analysispp g g p y

• Summary assessment of gaps of the innovation ecosystem– Which functions are weak or missing? – Which key actors are weak or missing?– Which interactions are weak or missing?– Which interactions are weak or missing?

• Carry out this assessment during a DIH workshop


Mapping: SWOT and conclusionspp gInternal factorscontrollable by DIH

• technological aspects (enabling factor)• non-technological aspects• production, process, implementationk l d b d i• knowledge base and maturity

Advantages (over others)Disadvantages

(relative to others)Strengths Weaknesses

External supportive aspects External hindrancesOpportunities Threats

External factors • markets/trends• requirements of applications• strengths/weaknesses of state of the art/competing technology• (EU) value chains


• (EU) value chains• (EU) innovation ecosystem• frame conditions

Mapping: SWOT and conclusionspp g

• Format: DIH workshop• Start with external dimension

Opening up minds

d h l d• Proceed with internal dimension• Identify action points from SWOT


Next stepsp

• Templates and guidelnes for assessment– Functions and actors– Interaction– SWOT– SWOT

• If interested, provide patent and publication analyses• Advice during assessment• Advice during assessment


References• Edquist, C. (2005): Systems of Innovation. Perspectives and Challenges. In:

Fagerberg, J.; Mowery, D.C.; Nelson, R.R. (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of I ti N Y k O f d U i it P 181 208Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 181‐208.

• Moore, James F. (1993): Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1993/05/predators‐and‐prey‐a‐new‐ecology‐of‐competition/ar/1 (last access September 2016).

• Kuhlmann, S.; Arnold, E. (2001): RCN in the Norwegian Research and Innovation System. Background Report No. 12 in the evaluation of the Research Council of Norway. Karlsruhe, Brighton: Fraunhofer ISI, Technopolis.

• Warnke, Philine; Koschatzky, Knut; Dönitz, Ewa; Zenker, Andrea; Stahlecker, , ; y, ; , ; , ; ,Thomas; Som, Oliver; Cuhls, Kerstin; Güth, Sandra (2016): Opening up the innovation system framework towards new actors and institutions. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis No. 49, ISSN 1612‐1430.


Documents

DIH summer school · DIH summer school Innovation Ecosystem Assessment Contact information: Dr. Thomas Reiss (Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe) +49 721 6809 160