Innovation and
Entrepreneurship
Håkan Ylinenpää
Entrepreneurship & Innovation/CiiR
Luleå University of Technology
Nairn, Scotland, Feb 27th, 2013
Five megatrends affecting both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas:
1)
Service and knowledge-based society
2) Globalisation of our economy
3) An aging population
4) New migration patterns
5) Global warming
Non-metropolitan areas – some
characteristics
?
!
• Sparsely populated –
higher transaction costs
and lack of critical mass
• Insufficient infra structure
• ‘Brain drain’ – need for
external impulses
• Cyclic industries
• …
• Few but obvious/distinct
entrepreneurs
• Well developed local
networks
• Living conditions
attracting people
• Natural resources
• …..
Some challenges for non-metropolitan
areas
1. Develop entrepreneurship and innovation based on
ICT and digital innovation
2. Exploit the dynamics inherent in ”locomotives and
wagons”.
3. Develop regional leadership and collaboration
4. Glocalisation strategies combining local buzz and
global pipelines
5. Develop regional strategies – innovation and/or
arbitrage?
Develop entrepreneurship and innovation based
on ICT and digital innovation
Exploit the dynamics inherent in ”locomotives
and wagons”.
Selecting partners…
Effectiveness (”to do
the right things”)
Many structural holes
+ “weak ties”
Few/no structural holes
No ”weak ties”
Loose structure,
low contact
frequency
Tight structure,
high contact
frequency
Efficiency (“to do things right”)
Develop regional leadership and
collaboration
Academia
(Universities,
research institutes)
Industry & business
(Large & small
companies)
(Local, regional,
national, & supranational)
Government
Recognition of differences across sectors
Sector
Contribution
(Expected) reward
Commercial competence
- focusing profitability market
- focusing utility
- focusing (short) pay-off
Competitive advantage on the
Government
Public economy competence focusing
- long-term goals
- overview and systems
perspective
- ‘lubricants’/resources
Competitive advantage for
the region (nation)
New jobs, higher tax revenues, etc.
University
Research competence
- focus on development
of academic knowledge
- analytical skills
Academic competitive
advantage
Image and reputation
Funding
Industry
Source: Ylinenpää 2004
New business contacts and
agreements
Commitment
Commercial firms
Research
Public sector
Time
CP1
Initiation
CP2
Scientific
development
Commercialization
Right
actors?
-Heterogenity/
homogeneity
-Bridges
-Weak ties
Radical or incremental
innovation/copy-cat
strategy?
Have we established
structures for
commercialization?
Have we
plans for
market
launch?
Förpliktelser
Companies
involved?
Kommersiella företag
Clarified
contributions &
rewards?
Forskning
Offentlig sektor
Trust or
contract?
Counteracting
tunnel vision?
-Benchmarking
- Lead user innovation
- Open innovation
- Brainstorming
Have we
secured ”life
after death/
project end?
Tid
CP1
Initering
CP3
CP2
Vetenskaplig
utveckling
Do we offer
“low hanging
fruits”?
Kommersialisering
IPR, licenses,
exploitation
contracts etc?
Have we
prepared shifts
in leadership?
Glocalisation strategies combining local buzz
and global pipelines
CLOSED INNOVATION PRINCIPLES
OPEN INNOVATION PRINCIPLES
The smart people in our field work for
us.
Not all the smart people work for us. We
need to work with smart people inside
and outside our company.
To profit from R&D, we must discover
it, develop it, and ship it ourselves.
External R&D can create significant
value; internal R&D is needed to claim
some portion of that value.
If we discover it ourselves, we will get it
to market first.
We don’t have to originate the research
to profit from it.
The company that gets an innovation to
market first will win.
Building a better business model is better
than getting to market first.
If we create the most and the best
ideas in the industry, we will win.
If we make the best use of internal and
external ideas, we will win.
We should control our IP, so that our
competitors don’t profit from our ideas.
We should profit from others’ use of our
IP, and we should buy others’ IP
whenever it advances our own business
model.
Develop regional strategies – innovation and/or arbitrage?
System
level
Actor
level
Type of system
Entrepreneurial regional
innovation system (ERIS)
Institutional regional
innovation system (IRIS)
Image of the market
Ambiguous, potential
collaborative space
Uncertain, risky
competitive space
Type of innovation
process
Action-oriented: based
on experimental learning
Planning-oriented: based
on the need for overview,
control and risk minimizing
Strategies
Emergent
Planned
Time perspective
Emergence; fuzzy
vision combined with
step-by-step action
Present and future; more
clear vision combined with
long-term planning
Organizational
structure
Organic (loosely
coupled); to a large
extent based on trust
Mechanistic; to a large
extent based on contractual ties
Critical resources
Entrepreneurial skills
Venture capital
Management skills
Institutional capital
Decision logic
Effectuation: Taking action based on available/
accessible resources
Causation: Planning for and
controlling the future
Cooperation
Ad hoc-based, intermittent and often
short-termed
Planned and longtermed
Critical performers
Actors: Individuals who
form teams of complementary competences
Agents: Representatives
of different sectors of
society
Ylinenpää 2012. In Johannisson, B. & Lindholm Dahlstrand Å. (Eds.), Enacting Regional Dynamics and Entrepreneurship. Rutledge.
Centre for Interorganisational
Innovation Research
(CiiR)
Research areas
• Exploring and exploiting digital innovation and ICT (WP1)
• Utilizing the dynamic interaction between ”locomotives and
wagons” (WP2)
• Using knowledge/technology as a base for regional
development and cooperation (WP3)
• Capitalizing on opportunities for innovation and business
through international links and ICT (WP4)
• Measuring and tailoring regional dynamics in innovation
systems (WP5)
WP1: Exploring and exploiting digital
innovation and ICT
WP2: Utilizing the dynamic interaction
between “locomotives and wagons”
•
•
•
•
•
RQ1: What are the impacts of digital
innovation on regional and national interorganizational innovation networks, and
what are the implications to policymaking?
RQ2: How can IT-related interorganizational innovation networks be
designed and managed in order to open
up to organizations with different
geographic scopes, organizational sizes
and value chain positions?
RQ3: How can policy making in a more
effective and conscious way understand
and take care of the implications of digital
innovation?
RQ4: How can innovation and arbitrage
opportunities be pursued in the context of
digital innovations?
•
•
•
RQ1: How could systematic linkages
between 'locomotives' and 'wagons' be
understood in regional networks and
innovation systems?
RQ2: How can the interaction between
'locomotives' and 'wagons' be
understood?
RQ3: If and how can important outcomes
be linked to 'locomotives' and 'wagons'?
RQ4: To what extent is it possible to
characterize larger firms (or
organizations) as the natural 'locomotives'
and smaller firms represent the 'wagons'?
WP3: Using knowledge/technology as a base
for regional development and
cooperation
WP4: Capitalizing on opportunities for
innovation and business through
international links and ICT
•
•
•
•
RQ1: What kinds of conditions can be
found in different types of innovation
systems?
RQ2: What conditions must be in place for
knowledge sharing in innovation systems
to contribute to regional development,
e.g. as product-service innovations?
RQ3: What are the conditions of different
cross-sector university centres as nodes
for collaboration in innovation systems?
•
•
•
RQ1: What practise can we learn from
successful international innovation
systems?
RQ2: What can be the strategic roles of
business networks and knowledge hubs in
innovation processes?
RQ3: What is characterizing innovation
processes
RQ4: What are relevant criteria for the
assessment of successful international
innovation processes?
•
WP5: Measuring innovation system
potential and outcomes
•
RQ1: If and how can actual and potential
opportunities for innovation and arbitrage
be measured and analyzed at the
organizational, regional and national
level?
RQ2: What are the similarities and
differences between different Swedish
regions and Swedish innovation systems
for innovation and renewal?
RQ3: How can policy in a more effective
and conscious way use regional variance
referring to innovation and arbitrage
opportunities to facilitate regional
development?
RQ4: How can policy use sectoral and
regional variance to initiate more
effective policy interventions?
•
•
•
Partners
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation (LTU),
• Product Innovation (LTU)
• Informatics (UmU)
• Umeå Business School (UmU)
• CERUM (UmU)
• EISLAB/ESIS (LTU)
• ProcessIT Innovations (LTU, UmU)
• CDT (LTU)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ADVISORY BOARD
• Per-Erik Sandlund, GD Foreign
Ministry Sweden (chair)
• Sara Öhrvall, R&D Dir. Bonniers
• Johan Sterte, Vice-chancellor LTU
• Lars Hassel, Vice-chancellor USBE
• Henry Tham, Ledningskonsulterna
• Magnus Lagerholm, VINNOVA/Sweden’s Innovation Agency (assoc.)
• Professor Erkko Autio, Imperial
College, London, UK
• Prof. Nicola Bellini, Director
IRPET, Italy
• Professor Kalle Lyytinen, Case
Western Reserve University, US
• Professor Pontus Braunerhielm,
CEO Entrepreneurship Forum,
Stockholm, Sweden
• Professor Anders Lundström, The
Swedish Agency for Growth
Policy Analysis/PEER, Stockholm
• Professor Ewa Gunnarsson, Luleå
University of Technology, Luleå
More information:
Centre for Inter-organisational Innovation Research (CiiR)
Håkan Ylinenpää; professor
Joakim Wincent, professor
ETS, Luleå University of Technology
SE 971 87 LULEÅ, Sweden
www.ciir.se