Search results

Health care ecosystems instantiate different innovation trajectories, driven either by science-/techno-push or user-centric rationales. This article focuses on organization intermediaries (OIs), respectively, active in health care ecosystems driven by science- and techno-push versus user-centric innovation processes; it aims at characterizing their operation and intervention modes. The analysis elaborates on network and content brokerage. Innovation also needs to consider various challenges associated with physical vicinity. The authors check whether territorial anchoring plays a role in brokerage, depending on the innovation model.

The article offers an investigation of eight French organizations matching the definition of OIs and active in different areas of health care-related innovation. It follows a qualitative and abductive research protocol adhering to the precepts of grounded theory.

First, the authors show that content and network brokerage specialize in specific activities in each innovation model. On network brokerage, the authors show that OIs foster the development of communities of practice in the science-/techno-push model, while they nurture communities of innovation in the user-centric model. Services materializing content brokerage are typical consequences of activities performed in each model. The second contribution deals with physical vicinity. In the science-/techno-push model, OIs install a physical space (the “internal” dimension) to support the development of communities of practice, while the “external” dimension copes with agglomeration effects. In the user-centric model, OIs deliver services thanks to the “internal” space; communities of innovation create a leverage effect on the physical space to operate their activities that are supported by “external” network effects.

The originality of the article lies in the description of the alternative roles plaid by organization intermediaries in the science-/techno-push versus user-centric approaches of innovation. In these two approaches, (contents and network) brokerage and physical vicinity play different roles.

Innovation management in the healthcare sector has undergone significant evolutions over the last decades. These evolutions have been investigated from a variety of perspectives: clusters, ecosystems of innovation, digital ecosystems and regional ecosystems, but the dynamics of networks have seldom been analyzed under the lenses of entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs). As identified by Cao and Shi (2020), the literature is silent about the organization of resource allocation systems for network orchestration in EEs. This article investigates these elements in the healthcare sector. It discusses the strategic role played by entrepreneurial support organizations (ESOs) in resource allocation and elaborates on the distinction between sponsored and nonsponsored ESOs in EEs. ESOs are active in network orchestration. The literature explains that ESOs lift organizational, institutional and cultural barriers, and support entrepreneurs' access to cognitive and technological resources. However, allocation models are not yet discussed. Therefore, our research questions are as follows: What is the resource allocation model in healthcare-related EEs? What is the role played by sponsored and nonsponsored ESOs as regards resource allocation to support the emergence and development of EEs in the healthcare sector?

The article offers an explanatory, exploratory, and theory-building investigation. The research design offers an abductive research protocol and multi-level analysis of seven (sponsored and nonsponsored) ESOs active in French healthcare ecosystems. Field research elaborates on semi-structured interviews collected between 2016 and 2022.

This article shows explicit complementarities between top-down and bottom-up resource allocation approaches supported by ESOs in the healthcare sector. Despite explicit originalities in each approach, no network orchestration model prevails. Multi-polar coordination is the rule. Entrepreneurs' access to critical technological and cognitive resources is based on resource allocation modalities that differ for sponsored versus nonsponsored ESOs. Emerging from field research, this research also shows that sponsored and nonsponsored ESOs manage their roles in different ways because they confront original issues about organizational legitimacy.

Beyond the results listed above, the main originalities of the paper relate to the instantiation of multi-level analysis operated during field research and to the confrontation between sponsored versus nonsponsored ESOs in the domain of healthcare-related innovation management. This research shows that ESOs have practical relevance because they build original routes for resource allocation and network orchestration in EEs. Each ESO category (sponsored versus nonsponsored) provides original support for resource allocation. The ESO's legitimacy is inferred either from the sponsor or the services delivered to end-users. This research leads to propositions for future research and recommendations for practitioners: ESO managers, entrepreneurs, and policymakers.

This paper reports on a pilot study of three major owners of and/or tenants in retail and office space in South Africa. The study sought to establish: whether or not long‐range strategic planning occurs; whether future space requirements are included in strategic planning; and whether the effects of technological development and e‐commerce on space are evaluated in long‐range strategic planning. The main conclusions are that short‐term strategic planning is well established, but that systematic long‐range planning around the effects of technology and e‐commerce on space is limited, in extent and scope.

The purpose of this paper is to review and compare the changing science and technology policy orientation during the 1990s for both China and India in the process of globalization. In this concern, it seeks to understand the changed orientations of the scientists from the purely academic mode to academic‐entrepreneurial hybrid mode to build up strong national innovations systems in both the countries and present the detailed findings of a sample survey of bio‐scientists in China and India.

The paper makes an analytical review of changing science and technology policies in India and China in the global context by taking into consideration the government documents, reports and research papers, and presents the findings of the sample survey carried by the author, through interviews and questionnaire study of bio‐scientists in India and China.

The developments clearly indicate the changing structural and institutional context of scientific research in an entrepreneurial mode to build up strong national innovation systems (NIS) in both the countries. This is supported by the findings of the survey on the orientations of bio‐scientists in China and India with reference to the changed situation since 1990. It shows that majority of the scientists are of the opinion that equal importance should be given to exploration of knowledge as well as commercialization. In this new environment, scientist academician is slowly being metamorphosed into scientist entrepreneur but with a dual task to strengthen the NIS. The concept of scientist entrepreneur, in the present environment, is well placed in both the countries, although still under experimentation.

In the present context of globalization and growing international competition, the introduction of market cultures in the Chinese and the Indian economies is fast changing the orientation of the scientific communities in both the countries to perform the dual task of knowledge generation as well as commercialization in order to meet national socio‐economic objectives. This has not been studied before. The present paper tries to understand the ongoing metamorphosis of the academician to entrepreneur for long‐term sustainability of the NIS in India and China.

After the prophetic messages about the contributions of information technologies (IT) on firms, we face warning signals on the unavoidable need for change management, and the perverse side effects of IT improvements when they are not integrated within a strategic and managerial framework. The analysis of practices concerning the introduction of IT in organisations shows that often, the context and the process are neglected; as for the content, it is centred on tools rather than on the needs to be satisfied. A managerial typology of barriers to change that differentiates risks of strategic or structural nature, and cultural or behavioural nature, explains the lack of quality in operations. In order better to manage the implications of IT evolution, i.e. their downstream incidences, it is necessary to have steered upstream in defining the objectives, analysing the needs, taking into account the socio‐ organisational context, and the implication of actors.

The purpose of this paper is to identify how different modes of resource configuration, entry strategy and product/market characteristics affect new ventures' start‐up processes as well as outcomes in terms of firm growth and revenues.

Case studies of three academic spin‐offs and three non‐academic new ventures are employed as a base for analytical generalisation.

Non‐academic ventures and academic spin‐offs have different bases for their venture creation and follow different strategies to enter their specific markets. Academic spin‐offs are to a larger extent innovative, product‐oriented and enter their target markets employing a technology/science‐push strategy, which requires considerable resources and partner cooperation to manage. The non‐academic ventures, on the contrary, exploit emerging opportunities on the market through a market‐pull strategy relying mainly on offerings already known to the market and building on their own, in‐house resources.

Future research should benefit from investigating factors and conditions affecting different ventures' start‐up process by utilizing qualitative, in‐depth approaches as well as quantitative approaches and a more robust database.

Venture creation processes are not uniform but dependent on situational and contextual factors. Overall, academic spin‐offs come forward as examples of Schumpeterian entrepreneurship characterised by exploration and innovation, while the more “Kirznerian” and non‐academic start‐ups primarily recognise and exploit upcoming market opportunities based on resources they control. The results highlight challenges for nascent entrepreneurs as well as for policy makers supporting new venture creation.

A comparison highlighting critical events, resource configurations and environmental conditions of different start‐up processes depending on the new ventures' origin.

The purpose of the paper is to portrait how members of cluster organizations (COs) perceive the role of COs in enabling them to accumulate technological capability (TC) significant for their innovation.

The authors report the findings from their qualitative study based on an analysis of four COs. The organizational inertia and absorptive capacity theories are the theoretical underpinning of the research.

The study shows that the dynamics of TC of the cluster companies included in the study sample relates to their initial level of TC and cluster cooperation. The companies with relatively low initial TC increase it through COs if the clusters offer comparatively high benefits. On the other hand, those COs' members that present relatively high initial TC advance it, provided that the external knowledge and other benefits they can absorb in their clusters are suited to their technological trajectories.

The research is preliminary in nature and portrays how firms with different levels of TC cooperate within COs and how this cooperation translates into TC improvements. The findings add to the state-of-the-art knowledge on the link between TC and absorptive capacity of companies involved in COs by depicting the role of COs in providing knowledge and other cluster benefits that help cluster companies to accumulate TC and improve their absorptive capacity. Nevertheless, the applied methodology does not allow the authors to generalize the findings.

The coordinators of COs should skillfully shape the levels of cluster cooperation, matching them to the desired level of the cluster companies. They should create smaller subgroups composed of companies with similar TC, which may translate into its higher dynamic.

The knowledge about the role of COs in providing cluster benefits that help cluster companies to accumulate TC and improve their absorptive capacity is still insufficient. The study shed new light on the key role of the levels of cluster cooperation and the types of commitment related to them (i.e. technological effort), which may be a matter of importance in the dynamics of TC accumulation.