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.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on how entrepreneurs anticipate and change their company’s business process management after developing a radical innovation. The paper is based on a critical approach to business process modelling (BPM) that posits that – in spite of all the claims, guides and tools that companies employ to help them modelise their processes – business processes are developed and improved (or at least changed) by individuals who negotiate, anticipate and compromise to make these changes occur. Thus, BPM is more a matter of “bricolage” (Levi-Strauss) than an established and defined plan. Based on this position, the paper analyses how a business process model emerges in the early phases of a high-tech new venture when the entrepreneur lacks a valid template to form a conceptual representation of the firm’s business processes.

The authors adopt a perspective based on the concept of bricolage. By analysing and comparing the discourse of 40 entrepreneurs – involved in an activity based on a radical innovation and 20 involved in an activity based on a more incremental concept – the authors are able to answer the two research questions.

Entrepreneurs who develop a new activity based on any radical or incremental innovation generally base the BPM of their company and the evolution of this process on existing models. However, BPM generally differs based on the nature of the innovation. Thus, entrepreneurs who develop a new activity based on a radical innovation do not design a single BPM for their company but a portfolio of BPMs. The process by which such entrepreneurs develop such a portfolio is mainly conducted in a step-by-step and iterative approach that utilises “whatever is at hand” (Levi-Strauss, 1966).

First, this study extends existing methods for and approaches to considering BPM. Second, this research partly answers the call for integration among different theoretical backgrounds and approaches that consider BPM.

One of the aims of expert knowledge management via information and communication technology is to improve the efficiency of knowledge transfer to non‐specialists, and to facilitate the implementation of service‐products that are adapted so as to be truly used. The aim of this paper is to describe an example in the domain of instrumental e‐learning.

Drawing on activity theory, this article describes a methodology that aims to guide the design process along the lines of the usage process.

The co‐design platform (CDP) allows the service designers and users to determine service‐product definitions together, to facilitate the emergence of their uses.

Some of the experiments are still in progress as the development is iterative.

To illustrate this method, the authors have designed and implemented an instrumental learning e‐service for guitar music (e‐guitare).

The CDP gives a greater understanding of the transformation of the tool (proposals) into an instrument (proven demand), which is essential to the process of supplying the demand.

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 aims to argue that the World Bank‐sanctioned strategy of investing in knowledge economy infrastructure will not make a developing country competitive in the highest value activities such as research, design and innovation.

The paper examines Malaysia's efforts to increase its national income and change its position from a “middle‐income” country to one with a standard of living equivalent to a developed country by 2020. Specifically, it analyses Malaysia's strategy of constructing a multimedia super corridor, a multibillion‐dollar state‐led project to attract knowledge‐intensive operations to Malaysia.

Despite the creation of a world‐class infrastructure, the Malaysian government has not been successful in realising its original aim of creating a cutting‐edge multimedia research and development hub. Instead a thriving business support services sector has developed. Therefore, it is by no means a guaranteed way to close the gap between rich and poor nations.

Official data relating to the activities of firms not only are limited but also have been made problematic by changes in categorisation over the relevant years. Analysis that is more conclusive requires the publication of official data with greater detail about firm activities and a standardised reporting format over time.

This is one of the first academic studies discussing the rise of the business services industry in Malaysia and its relationship with the MSC infrastructure development project.