[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa16p846.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Collective ideation within the context of science and technology park and regional triple helix network

Author

Listed:
  • Ger Post
  • Lotte Geertsen
Abstract
Organizations want to have access to each other's resources and so they establish different forms of collaboration strategies (Podolny & Page, 1998). Knowledge sharing and also collaboration are dependent on an organizations' social network and the proximity within this network. A central element in the theory of clustering is the idea that physical clustering of businesses within specialized sectors is a source for regional economic growth (Porter, 1998). The spatial proximity of companies and institutions within related industries create a specific setting in which learning, knowledge sharing and mutual competition are encouraged (Raaijmakers, 2012). Additionally, active participation within the innovation eco system of a Science & Technology park provides actors access to knowledge, facilities and complementary contacts and network structures (Post, 2009). Collective ideation helps an organization to improve the positioning within the technological field and economic market (Alexy et al., 2013), especially within an innovation ecosystem because actors are dependent on each other's behavior (Pisano & Teece, 2007) to be successful in innovation. This research focuses on the question how to design the collective ideation process in particular to foster interactions within the context of a science & technology parks. This research is based 16 semi-structured interviews, conducted at all development stages (idea, startup, grow and mature) of Dutch science & technology parks with stakeholders from different perspectives, based on the triple-helix structure (government, industry, research). The study describes how multiple stakeholders benefit from collective ideation, what mechanisms and tools used in practice and also descibes prerequisites and limitations of collective ideation, This research contributes to consisting literature in three different ways. First, this research builds on theory on how to produce ideas as it offers an structural overview of the process and of the underexplored process-based facilitators (benefits, boundaries, strategies, mechanisms, deliverables) in the process of collective ideation (Harvey, 2014). This research can add a new collaboration method which can be a standard tool in the competitive toolbox of the organization (Alexy et al., 2013). Second, this research provides a new template of collective ideation and a new design of the creative process at the group (Harvey, 2014) and how this can be embedded in strategy (Alexy et al., 2013). Next to that, as relationships strongly depend on knowledge brokering within a network, this research extends understanding in the stickiness of knowledge (Zahra & Nambisan, 2011). It adds new insights on how these networks can be governed successfully (Alexy et al., 2013). Third, the concept of collective ideation is empirically tested at Science and Technology parks which provides a new framework that will help platforms to become more successful (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014). In other words, this research contributes on how to organize innovative activity and open innovation (Alexy et al., 2013; Chesbrough, 2003; Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Laursen & Salter, 2006).

Suggested Citation

  • Ger Post & Lotte Geertsen, 2016. "Collective ideation within the context of science and technology park and regional triple helix network," ERSA conference papers ersa16p846, European Regional Science Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa16p846
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa16/Paper846_GerPost.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    2. Stam, Wouter, 2009. "When does community participation enhance the performance of open source software companies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1288-1299, October.
    3. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    4. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Shaker A. Zahra & Satish Nambisan, 2011. "Entrepreneurship in global innovation ecosystems," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 1(1), pages 4-17, March.
    6. West, Joel, 2003. "How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1259-1285, July.
    7. Gautam Ahuja, 2000. "The duality of collaboration: inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 317-343, March.
    8. Corey C. Phelps & Hongyan Yang & Kevin Steensma, 2010. "Learning from what others have learned from you: The effects of knowledge spillovers on originating firms," Post-Print hal-00528393, HAL.
    9. Ron Adner & Rahul Kapoor, 2010. "Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 306-333, March.
    10. Robert M. Grant, 1996. "Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 375-387, August.
    11. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2002. "R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1169-1184, September.
    12. Bledow, Ronald & Frese, Michael & Anderson, Neil & Erez, Miriam & Farr, James, 2009. "A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(3), pages 305-337, September.
    13. Bjorn Asheim & Helen Lawton Smith & Christine Oughton, 2011. "Regional Innovation Systems: Theory, Empirics and Policy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(7), pages 875-891.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. J. Nils Foege & Erk P. Piening & Torsten-Oliver Salge, 2017. "Don’T Get Caught On The Wrong Foot: A Resource-Based Perspective On Imitation Threats In Innovation Partnerships," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(03), pages 1-42, April.
    2. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    3. Shi, Xing & Wu, Yanrui & Fu, Dahai, 2020. "Does University-Industry collaboration improve innovation efficiency? Evidence from Chinese Firms⋄," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 39-53.
    4. Su Jung Jee & So Young Sohn, 2023. "A firm’s creation of proprietary knowledge linked to the knowledge spilled over from its research publications: the case of artificial intelligence," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(4), pages 876-900.
    5. Nathan R. Furr & Daniel C. Snow, 2015. "Intergenerational Hybrids: Spillbacks, Spillforwards, and Adapting to Technology Discontinuities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 475-493, April.
    6. Haeussler, Carolin & Patzelt, Holger & Zahra, Shaker A., 2012. "Strategic alliances and product development in high technology new firms: The moderating effect of technological capabilities," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 217-233.
    7. Shi, Xianwei & Liang, Xingkun & Luo, Yining, 2023. "Unpacking the intellectual structure of ecosystem research in innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    8. Martie-Louise Verreynne & Rui Torres de Oliveira & John Steen & Marta Indulska & Jerad A. Ford, 2020. "What motivates ‘free’ revealing? Measuring outbound non-pecuniary openness, innovation types and expectations of future profit growth," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 271-301, July.
    9. Satish Nambisan & Shaker A. Zahra & Yadong Luo, 2019. "Global platforms and ecosystems: Implications for international business theories," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(9), pages 1464-1486, December.
    10. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    11. Anupama Phene & Stephen Tallman, 2014. "Knowledge Spillovers and Alliance Formation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(7), pages 1058-1090, November.
    12. Henkel, Joachim & Schöberl, Simone & Alexy, Oliver, 2014. "The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 879-890.
    13. Gianluigi Giustiziero & Aseem Kaul & Brian Wu, 2019. "The Dynamics of Learning and Competition in Schumpeterian Environments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 668-693, July.
    14. Isaksson, Olov H.D. & Simeth, Markus & Seifert, Ralf W., 2016. "Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain: Evidence from the high tech sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 699-706.
    15. Tom Broekel & Matthias Brachert, 2015. "The structure and evolution of inter-sectoral technological complementarity in R&D in Germany from 1990 to 2011," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 755-785, September.
    16. Gauguier, Jean-Jacques, 2009. "L’industrialisation de l’Open Source," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/4388 edited by Toledano, Joëlle.
    17. Pettus, Michael L. & Kor, Yasemin Y. & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2007. "A Theory of Change in Turbulent Environments: The Sequencing of Dynamic Capabilities Following Industry Deregulation," Working Papers 07-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    18. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    19. Hyeon Chang Kim & Woojin Yoon, 2019. "Study On Types Of Technology Cooperation Partner And Innovation Performance: Focusing On Incremental And Radical Innovation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(01), pages 1-25, January.
    20. Lingyan Meng & Md Qamruzzaman & Anass Hamad Elneel Adow, 2021. "Technological Adaption and Open Innovation in SMEs: An Strategic Assessment for Women-Owned SMEs Sustainability in Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ideation; proximity; collaboration; cluster; science and technologiy park;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa16p846. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.