Search results

This Special Issue of the European Journal of Innovation Management sheds new light on the burning issue of Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3), both in terms of their policy formulation and their practical implementation in the field. This new policy approach refers to the process of priority setting in national and regional research and innovation strategies in order to build “place-based” competitive advantages and help regions and countries develop an innovation-driven economic transformation agenda. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This is an important topic both in the current debate about a new industrial policy for Europe and as a policy option for a successful crisis exit strategy led by public investments in the real economy. Moreover, smart specialisation is promoted by the European Commission as an ex ante conditionality for all regions in Europe to receive European Structural and Investment Funds in the field of innovation. Thus, it has become a pre-requisite for accessing fresh funds for investing in badly needed innovation-driven productivity growth throughout the European Union (EU).

The six papers in this Special Issue are the fruit of ground-breaking research and policy testing by nearly 20 leading academics and policy makers throughout the EU. They explore the early smart specialisation concept and its further developments, examine the methodological tools at its disposal and advance specific policy proposals and governance considerations based on actual experimentation in the field.

All these make the present Special Issue of the European Journal of Innovation Management an important research milestone. This Special Issue is the fruit of a call towards the European academic and research community to help shaping and advancing the smart specialisation concept and thus contribute to better position regions and countries in the global economy through innovation-driven policies.

The purpose of this paper is to assess how national and regional authorities in south-east Europe in a period of crisis perceive and set in motion research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3) and the options that these strategies offer to overcome the current fiscal and development crisis.

The paper starts with a literature review on the guiding principles of smart specialisation strategies and the differences from previous rounds of regional innovation strategies. Evidence on smart specialisation efforts is provided by cases studies in Greece, Slovenia, and Cyprus, focusing on the elaboration of such strategies in three countries with precarious innovation systems under severe conditions of crisis. The case studies are organised around key aspects of the smart specialisation logic, such as the selection of specialisation priorities, bottom-up governance, private sector leadership, and engines of innovation and competitiveness.

The paper explores the obstacles encountered in running effective RIS strategies under crisis conditions. The paper highlights the main challenges to address, such as the readiness and credibility of public authorities to design and implement sound RIS3 strategies, the willingness of companies to be involved in strategic planning, the availability of private investment funds, innovation and diversification during a crisis, and the drivers of specialisation that could lead to competitiveness and growth. In the conclusions the paper identifies three routes towards smarter productive diversification and five critical stages in the entrepreneurial discovery process.

The paper has both practical and theoretical significance. It focuses on the main challenges of smart specialisation and offers guidance in the elaboration of RIS3 in peripheral EU economies. On the other hand, it proposes a model for the entrepreneurial discovery process, based on the assessment of areas and futures of productivity and added-value increase, as productive diversification and crisis exit route.

This paper aims to understand how the different stakeholders assess the adequacy of smart specialization policies defined for their regions.

This paper has followed a quantitative methodology through the application of questionnaire surveys to stakeholders of the various territorial regions in Portugal.

As a result, from the “resource-based view” approach applied to the various regions, the attained results highlight that the suitability of smart specialization policies defined for the Portuguese regions is not unanimous among its stakeholders.

The research can be used as a tool to assist regional policymakers in strategic reflection when defining and adjusting smart specialization strategies in their territories.

The purpose of this paper is to present a new methodology to assess the outward connectivity among regional economies in the European Union (EU) and derives policy lessons for the design of regional innovation and competitiveness-enhancing strategic frameworks, with particular reference to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3).

The authors study the network of inter-regional trade flows in the EU25 in the year 2007. Trade data are taken from the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency database and mapped onto weighted directed networks in which the nodes represent regions and the links are flows of goods. The authors measure several structural characteristics of the networks, both global properties and centrality indicators describing the position of individual regions within the system.

European regions appear to be mostly integrated in the European single market. Strengths and weaknesses of individual regions are discussed based on rankings obtained from network centrality indicators. Specific policy implications in the context of RIS3 are derived in the case of the Spanish region of Andalusia.

The authors show the potential of the methodology for providing a new family of indicators of the external connectivity of regional economies that can be used by regions wishing to develop their own RIS3 for 2014-2020, as required by the EU in the context of the new cohesion policy framework.

The characteristics of a EU-wide inter-regional network of trade flows are obtained and thoroughly discussed for the first time. A unique and original instrument suitable for inter-regional comparison is developed and tested.

Higher education institutions (HEIs) have multiple roles including teaching, research and more recently projects for the benefit of local communities. From a management and leadership perspective, the formation and implementation of strategic plans and the collaboration with stakeholders have traditionally been based on formal agreements based on existing operational organizations and structures. Their strategic plans and collaborations with stakeholders are now evolving to become more organic and collaborative. They have become essential participants of the innovation and learning ecosystems and knowledge intensive communities as shown here in the case of Finland and Australia. New businesses and regions, especially in Europe and non-European Union countries such as Australia, are encouraged to identify and develop their own competitive advantages by analyzing their strengths and strategic potential growth areas.

This so-called Smart Specialization (RIS3) strategy brings HEIs together with the local authorities, business companies and civil society to co-operate in order to prioritize research and development (R&D) investment in the region. The need for Smart Specialization also challenges HEIs to rethink their visions and renew the present siloed and closed-ended practices.

This chapter examines and compares the management and leadership of the HEIs as actions are undertaken to effectively lead the Finnish and Australian HEIs toward their visions. These case studies demonstrate approaches which influence good institutional governance and management. It describes how LAB-ammattikorkeakoulu (LAB University of Applied Sciences) in Finland, and Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia have implemented a RIS3 strategy, notably in health and well-being and agricultural (R&D) projects. These enhance the scope of accountability and participation of stakeholders. The chapter provides practice-based evidence to policy makers in higher education regarding HEIs’ responsible contribution to society.

The purpose of this paper is to apply the path dependence theoretical framework to STI policies that support research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3).

Review of the recent literature on the phases, sources of reinforcement and change mechanisms (layering, conversion, recombination, etc.) present in path-dependent processes, as well as the role played by mental frameworks, political agents and power relations; and its illustration and testing over 30 years of STI policy development in the Basque Country.

How to operationalise the analysis of continuity and change of STI policies supporting RIS3 policies characterised by path dependence processes. Likewise, learnings from the analysis of Basque case regarding the types of challenges that European regions will face as they design their RIS3, according to their degree of maturity in STI policies.

It is the first time that the recently developed tools for analysis of path-dependent processes are applied to the development of STI policies supporting RIS3 policies.

Within the theoretical framework of Regional Innovation Systems, the purpose of the paper is to introduce an innovative methodological scheme for strategic planning decisions in public administrations, based on foresight, roadmapping and large participation processes.

Starting from the main literature contribution on Regional Innovation Systems, foresight and decision-making processes, an innovative methodology has been elaborated for strategic planning, based on innovation and large participation processes. A practical application is also described with regards to strategic planning in Tuscany (IT) for Smart Specialisation Strategy (S3).

On a practitioner perspective, the methodology elaborated addresses strategic planning uncertainties, both when problem setting and in solution finding; a detailed application is provided, easily to be adapted to other regions, and main findings are related to regional innovation governance enforcement.

Being the Tuscany S3 in the implementation phase, it is not possible to verify the adequacy of alternatives selected. Only mid-term evaluations will allow a deeper insight on the effectiveness of the methodology adopted.

The methodology represents a useful tool for public administrations in charge of strategic planning and in particular for S3, as an ex ante requirement for European Structural and Investment Funds. The description of the case of Tuscany provides practical hints for the methodology application.

The methodology presents interesting social implications related to the large involvement of stakeholders and quadruple helix within regional strategic planning.

Within the framework of Regional Innovation Systems, strategic planning decisions are addressed with a scheme based on foresight and large participation processes. European Commission requirements are fully taken into consideration by the methodology. The methodology is easy to be adopted and customised to specific needs of other regions.

The purpose of this paper is to set out the process by which a smart specialisation strategy was developed for a small, peripheral economy in the European Union, the Republic of Malta. It assesses the applicability of the approach in the context of a micro-economy with an industrial structure based on a small number of foreign direct investments and a predominance of micro-enterprises.

The paper follows an action research approach by presenting as a case study the process by which the strategy for Malta was assessed and developed through successive rounds of engagement with business and other actors with the application of scenarios and other prioritisation approaches to facilitate its development. An initial consultation with 20 public sector and representative organisations was followed by a general business workshop and 21 sectoral focus groups.

Lack of critical mass can be mitigated by maximising the generic use of available skills and competences. Given the higher vulnerability to external shock in micro-economies, strategies need to have a high degree of flexibility and adaptability. Greater internationalisation provides the main response to peripherality.

The approach can be applied more generally for micro-economies and in some aspects to other countries or regions lacking critical mass in research and innovation assets or facing peripherality.

The smart specialisation approach had not been applied in these circumstances and hence the findings allowed the concept to be extended and adapted to deal with the issues raised.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the role of leadership in the design and implementation of territorial strategies for competitiveness. It attempts to address two research questions: first, how leadership is influenced by theory and the other way around, how theory is transformed through leadership; and second, what characteristics of leadership are most important to successfully implement territorial strategies.

The paper is based on a case study of the life experience of an individual who has worked in positions of high responsibility in the government, the private sector and at the university. It is based on first-person action research combined with the contrast of two other co-authors.

Three findings may be highlighted from this case study. First, the importance of having leaders learning from their own process of leadership and co-evolving with the need for transformation which requires territorial strategies at every moment. Second, the necessity of having leaders whose objectives are aligned with those of the territory. Third, that individual leadership must have three characteristics to implement successfully territorial strategies: a balance between the individual and the collective objectives, a systemic vision and a consciousness of one’s own role in the system and a multi-level dimension.

Although territorial strategies are becoming increasingly popular both in the academia and in the policy arena, one of their critical elements, the role of individuals and that of leadership in general have not been addressed neither by scholars nor by practitioners. This paper attempts to explore the role of leadership through a case study based on the life experience of an outstanding individual in one of the regions with the longest tradition on territorial strategies for competitiveness.

Regional innovation performance is an important indicator for decision-making regarding the implementation of policies intended for regional development. However, regional development policies have led economies to very different competitive positions in matters of innovation. To address these issues, this paper aims to identify the variables that most contribute to the positioning of economies in terms of performance innovation in Europe.

The data for this study were collected at the regional innovation scoreboard. This paper uses a quantitative methodology through a multivariate statistical technique (discriminant analysis).

The results suggest that specific innovation strategies explain the competitive positioning of economies within each group of countries. It was possible to demonstrate that economies with leader classification show greater comparative robustness in the variables “Small and medium enterprise (SMEs) with product or process innovations,” “SMEs with product or process innovations,” “research and development (R&D) expenditure public sector” and “population with tertiary education,” constituting an effective instrument of innovation policy. Furthermore, it was possible to show that the economies belonging to the modest group do not have a competitive advantage in any of the variables under study, thus providing a reflection opportunity for policymakers at this level.

The present research identifies which variables are most relevant to the classification considering the regional innovation performance in leader, strong, moderate and modest. Several suggestions were given to companies, policymakers and higher education institutions in the sense that the regions where they operate can improve their innovative performance, which may help to a change in their current classification.