Search results

The time is right for a theory on strategic entrepreneurial ecosystems and business model innovation. Both topics have increased substantially during the past couple of years due to their strategic nature. This means they are uniquely placed to provide practical advice but also theoretical development. This chapter discusses the theory in terms of how it bridges strategic planning, innovation management, and entrepreneurship literature. Thereby propelling the field of entrepreneurial ecosystems further by suggesting it has both a strategic and business model perspective. This chapter argues the reasons for a new theory to be developed in order to maintain the relevance and practicality of the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature.

This study responds to calls by researchers to examine the relation between innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems more closely, and also to further broaden our understanding of regional intellectual capital formation.

A cross-sectional analysis was conducted on NUTS 2 regions of the selected EU countries. In the empirical part of the research, multiple linear regression approaches were carried out using secondary data.

In sampled regions, the entrepreneurial ecosystem positively affects levels of high growth firms and levels of regional innovation capital.

Results lend further support to policymakers to develop and implement a regional-specific policy for fostering entrepreneurial ecosystems. However, given the multiple output nature of entrepreneurial ecosystems, this issue becomes more complicated than ever before.

This study builds upon previous research and complements it by widening the range of effects that the entrepreneurial ecosystem has. In doing so, this study is the first to examine the concurrent effects of these ecosystems on levels of high growth firms and innovation capital while using a regional innovation capital outlook.

By taking a micro-level perspective, this paper aims to examine the influence of the ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on principal investigators (PIs) and thereby links the two emerging research fields of entrepreneurial ecosystems and social innovation. The purpose of this paper is to build the basis for future empirical analyses.

The paper is a conceptual paper and therefore focuses on theoretical considerations. Taking a quadruple helix approach, PIs are outlined as central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and transformative agents of the innovation process.

PIs can proactively shape the innovation process and thus the shift from technological to social innovation, through various channels. They can affect all other actors of the quadruple helix, e.g. by exerting influence on the process of scientific change, on the public opinion and/or on the industry partners. Further, the paradigm shift might change the universities' role in the quadruple helix, substantiating their importance in the process of social change.

As PIs are influencing all other actors of the quadruple helix, they are central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and thus crucial players in the innovation process. Hence, they need to be supported in fulfilling their role of transformative agents, accelerating and shaping the paradigm shift from technological to social innovation. Universities should therefore reconsider their missions and vision as well as their role within the society.

This paper considers the influence of an ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on entrepreneurial ecosystems. This work focuses especially on the PIs' role as transformative agents. Therefore, it builds a bridge from entrepreneurial ecosystems to social innovation and thus contributes to both research fields. Moreover, the paper shows the great potential of PIs to influence and shape social innovation.

This research aims to shed new lights on the most shared constructs developed on Innovation Ecosystems, Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Technology Transfer Ecosystem proposing an additional stand-alone ecosystem.

This research is built upon a qual-quantitative analysis of an empirical case. The latter analysis is performed through a single case study methodology on the San Giovanni Hub of the Federico II University of Naples.

Evidences show how a technological hub orchestrates three main ecosystems for the knowledge exploitation: the technology transfer ecosystem, devoted to gather knowledge form universities' labs towards industries; the innovation ecosystem, able to manage the exploration and exploitation of new knowledge and techniques; the entrepreneurial ecosystem, that supports startup/spinoff creation process.

Limitations mainly concern the fact that it is centred on just one case study.

Practical implications imply new opportunities of collaboration involving different stakeholders as university administrators, researchers, businesses and policymakers, creating a supportive environment for innovation.

The research offers a new vision about the role of Universities as creators and enablers of ecosystems pursuing diverse value propositions. The Academic Innovation Ecosystem is a new conceptualization of this role played by a university, and it can convey innovation and entrepreneurial attitude within its ecosystem leveraging on the transfer of university knowledge and technology.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate experimentation over time in Ontario, Canada with place-based innovation policies to support the development and coordination of entrepreneurial ecosystems on a regional basis across the province.

Tracing the policy learning process and successive adaptations in program design over time, the authors provide a detailed case study of the evolution of the Ontario Network of Entrepreneurs (ONE) from 2003 to the present.

The authors find that the program has evolved in response to regular program reviews that include broad input from ecosystem actors operating at multiple levels within the network, and that intermediaries are key facilitators of inter- and intra-ecosystem linkages. However, program complexity and coordination challenges suggest that place-based innovation policies, such as the ONE, should focus specifically on innovation-intensive entrepreneurship.

These findings make three contributions to the theory and practice of place-based innovation policy. First, these policies are by nature experimental because they must be able to flexibly adapt according to policy learning and practitioner input from a wide variety of local contexts. Second, multilevel interactions between provincial policymakers and regional ecosystem actors indicate that place-based innovation policy is neither entirely driven by “top down” policy, nor “bottom up” networks but is rather a complex and variable “hybrid” blend of the two. Finally, publicly funded intermediaries perform essential inter- and intra-ecosystem connective functions but system fragmentation and “mission creep” remain enduring policy challenges.

The paper makes an original contribution to the literature by analyzing the development of entrepreneurial policy support framework and situating the case study in the context of the policy learning process involved in place-based innovation policymaking in North America.

This paper provides insights about how graduates' career patterns (i.e. academic entrepreneur, self-employed or paid employed) are influenced by entrepreneurial university ecosystems (i.e. incubators and entrepreneurship education programs).

By adopting Douglas and Shepherd's utility-maximising function, the influence of one entrepreneurial university ecosystem on graduates' career choices was tested using a sample of 11,512 graduates from the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education (ITESM) in Mexico.

Our results show the critical role of entrepreneurial universities ecosystems in facilitating employability options as academic entrepreneurship for ITESM's graduates. The study shows some insights about how graduates' risk aversion and work effort are positively influenced by the university business incubator and entrepreneurship education programs, respectively.

Diverse implications for stakeholders have emerged from our results. These implications are associated with potential benefits of implementing programmes oriented to engage academic entrepreneurship within Latin American universities.

Entrepreneurial universities provide a range of employability alternatives for their students, such as to be self-employed, academic entrepreneurs or paid employees. In this scenario, entrepreneurial universities have configured entrepreneurial ecosystems (educational programmes, business incubators and other infrastructures) to support potential entrepreneurs (students, academics, staff and alumni). Despite the relevance of the environmental conditions on individuals' occupational choices, few studies have explored the role of the entrepreneurial university ecosystems on graduates' employability. In this vein, our study contributes to some academic discussions: (1) the role of context on career choice models (Ilouga et al., 2014; Sieger and Monsen, 2015), (2) the role of incubators and entrepreneurship education on fostering academic entrepreneurship on the graduates' community (Nabi et al., 2017; Good et al., 2019; Guerrero and Urbano, 2019a) and (3) the effectiveness of the entrepreneurial university ecosystems on graduates' employability (Herrera et al., 2018; Wright et al., 2017).

In this chapter, the author explore the role of entrepreneurial ecosystems in terms of focusing on the importance of accelerators. Entrepreneurship is crucial for the ongoing success of accelerators but seldom has research focused on the ecosystem perspective. Organizations habitually use their contacts and networks to facilitate business growth through being included in accelerator programs. This means that comprehending how different entities are embedded in an entrepreneurial ecosystem can provide learning benefits. In the ecosystem literature, the role of accelerators has mainly been studied from the individual and firm-level demonstrating the relationship between entrepreneurial behavior and firm performance but there is more need to emphasis the role accelerators play in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Suggestions for managers involved in entrepreneurial ecosystems are suggested in this chapter as a way of encouraging more involvement in accelerator programs.

As the main factor for sustainable development of countries, entrepreneurship is a difficult path only chosen by those who have a high level of risk-taking. On this path, entrepreneurship requires an ecosystem that welcomes this type of thinking and eliminates the barriers on the path as much as possible. This ecosystem comprises various components that attempt to pave the way in a private and public manner. The entrepreneurial ecosystem still has many latent aspects after several years. This study aims to provide a big picture of all studies published in the Web of Science database to help future researchers.

In this research, 765 scientific papers published in the database were analyzed using 3 main approaches of network analysis, co-occurrence analysis of keywords and co-citation clustering.

In the end, four major clusters were identified for articles in this field in the clustering section, including the entrepreneurial ecosystem, academic entrepreneurship, innovation ecosystem and institutional entrepreneurship.

This paper used a new approach for reviewing the entrepreneurial ecosystem and made a big picture of all previous research studies. In the end, an unsupervised machine learning approach was used to clustering the research studies and four major clusters were identified.

Frugal innovation has gained prominence based on its potential contribution to sustainable development and the new opportunities that it offers to low-income customers. This paper aims to analyse the strategic knowledge transfer practices implemented by an entrepreneurial university for fostering frugal innovations within an emerging economy.

This study adopted a case study methodological approach. The selected case was the University of Campinas (Unicamp), one of the leading universities in Brazil in terms of research quality and technology transfer. The study built upon 14 interviews with key informants and secondary sources of data (official and public documents).

The findings highlight the multidimensional dynamics of frugal innovations arising from university–industry relationships. Key dimensions considered include the internal capabilities of universities to foster frugal innovations and connect them to markets, the surrounding innovation ecosystems in which the university is embedded and the overarching institutional framework.

The analysis of strategic management practices for frugal innovation requires an evolutionary perspective, but the findings lacked sufficient longitudinal information for a formal evaluation. Also, as our empirical analysis is based on an in-depth case study of one university, further validation in other contexts would be necessary.

This study offers new insights regarding the effectiveness of university-business collaboration partnerships for developing frugal innovations in emerging economies. Policymakers should promote societal programs enhancing the active participation of all agents involved in the entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystem. University managers should understand the challenges and the opportunities behind the adoption of an inclusive and societal orientation.

By adopting frugal innovation practices, universities can enhance their contribution of meeting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

The literature on frugal innovation has emphasized the importance of networking between different types of firms, NGOs and governments, but the role of universities in frugal innovation remains mostly unexplored. This study addresses this gap by exploring how entrepreneurial universities participate in frugal innovations to meet societal challenges.

This chapter describes the basic elements of an ecosystem of innovation entrepreneurship ecosystem. Likewise, it discusses the building of ecosystems, technological parks, and their relationship with the industrial clusters. Finally, it analyzes the impact of the ecosystems on the regional environment. Additionally, the chapter will include mini cases and business examples.