2. A governance approach for anticipatory innovation ecosystems
The implementation of anticipatory approaches by innovation ecosystems promises to facilitate creative collaboration, stimulate the development of future-ready innovations, and inform government policy. This chapter explores how an anticipatory innovation governance (AIG) approach can enable innovation ecosystems to leverage anticipation and unlock their potential.
As the previous chapter outlines, the key goal of an anticipatory innovation ecosystem is to create the conditions in which diverse stakeholders are stimulated to explore the future together, uncover opportunities to shape and derive value from it, and coordinate their activities to generate innovations through the convergence of knowledge, technologies and values. However, achieving convergence is not a smooth process. The different values and ways of understanding the world that enable partners in innovation ecosystems to collaboratively uncover and grasp previously hidden opportunities carry with them inherent incompatibilities that create dissonance and friction.
Anticipatory approaches present a set of tools which enable stakeholders working with innovation ecosystems to manage convergence and dissonance. On one hand, they create new spaces for convergence by opening up future territories for innovation in which differences and competition are less obstructive to collaboration. On the other, they generate dissonance by forcing innovation ecosystem partners to confront and collectively make sense of possible future situations in which the drivers and demands of innovation are disrupted or transformed. By working together to explore these future territories and situations, innovation ecosystem partners can begin to anticipate the types of innovations that will be valuable and develop futures-oriented strategies that help them to remain on viable innovation pathways in the face of uncertainty.
The effective application of anticipatory approaches is dependent on a supportive authorising environment, and the agency of individuals to select and use of appropriate methods for generating actionable knowledge about possible futures. The mechanisms of the authorising environment and agency are detailed in depth through the anticipatory innovation governance (AIG) model (Figure 1.2) (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[1]).
This chapter proposes an approach for the governance of anticipatory innovation ecosystems that incorporates mechanisms identified in the AIG framework and provides guidance on how they and others can be leveraged to foster productive relationships between ecosystem partners. The approach has been developed through literature review and empirical research (comprising interviews with representatives of ten ecosystems across Europe, testing of insights with public servants, and practical workshops with ecosystem partners in Latvia).
Two nested levels of governance warrant focus for the development anticipatory innovation ecosystems. The first concerns the engagement of relevant stakeholders and the ongoing facilitation of collaboration within the ecosystem. Following Wegner and Verschoore, we term this micro-governance (Wegner and Verschoore, 2021[2]). As outlined in the Chapter 1, the nature of innovation ecosystems as networks of voluntary participation and the necessity of creating a space where contested values can be deliberated means that micro-governance must be collaborative and heterarchical (Russell and Smorodinskaya, 2018[3]).
The second ‘higher’ level concerns the functions, practices and structures that facilitate the relationship between government policy and the innovation ecosystem. This is termed ‘meso-governance’ for the purposes of this report. In order to realise the potential benefits of anticipatory innovation ecosystems, this relationship should be bilateral. Government policy and horizontal inter-ministerial coordination shape the environment for the anticipatory innovation ecosystem, while insights generated through the interaction of ecosystem partners can have a beneficial influence on government policy, improving coordination and providing information that can enable government to be more proactive. In this way, innovation ecosystems initiate a “continuous process of policy learning and adaptation”, improving the quality of vertical and horizontal governance in the public sector and establishing more efficient coordination to support innovation (Guzzo and Gianelle, 2021[4]).
The ‘macro’ level concerns the trends and changes that cannot be governed, but which ecosystems and governments aim to anticipate, respond to and shape. The precise functioning of the micro- and meso- levels of governance is contingent on a range of contextual factors, including historical relationships between stakeholders, the focal technology of an ecosystem, and power structures. Reflecting on innovation ecosystems developed as part of Smart Specialisation initiatives, Guzzo and Gianelle find that “territories should discover what governance arrangements work best in their context, preferring the experimentation of new governance structures and processes…instead of adopting ideal models and best practices, which are often formally introduced without promoting real changes” (Guzzo and Gianelle, 2021[4]).
This bias towards experimentation is particularly applicable for determining governance processes and structures for anticipatory innovation ecosystems. These aim to uncover opportunities for innovation by convening disparate stakeholders into new configurations for co-innovation and demand novel arrangements for cross-sector collaboration. The complex, developing and contextual nature of each anticipatory innovation ecosystem requires that governance arrangements are dynamic and continually revised through experimentation and interaction between ecosystem partners. Any attempt to describe an ‘ideal type’ of governance is therefore not worthwhile. To overcome this challenge, the OECD has developed a governance approach based on the AIG model that centres on processes for micro-governance, and the functions to be played by government for meso-governance.
Government teams and public sector agencies can play a key role to foster the development of appropriate governance arrangements at the micro- and meso-levels, operating as an ‘ecosystem support team’ (Guzzo and Gianelle, 2021[4]) (Dedehayir, Mäkinen and Ortt, 2018[5]). In addition to facilitating coordination and experimentation in governance, the responsibilities of this team are likely to include supporting the two-way flow of information between government and the innovation ecosystem and leading the application of anticipatory approaches at both micro- and meso-levels. When initiating anticipatory innovation ecosystems, it is likely that the team will be required to lead the development of the key micro-governance processes detailed later in this chapter. However, management of these processes can be outsourced or taken up by other interested parties, enabling the team to focus resources elsewhere. Box 2.1 shows how a dedicated ecosystem support team was set up in Helsinki.
The Smart & Clean Helsinki Foundation was a 5 year (2016-2021) “step-change” social innovation initiative with the purpose of catalysing investment and innovation around Finland’s capital region and surrounding cities to fight climate change, become a hub for sustainable economy and drive investment and economic growth in the region at the same.
The Foundation’s mission statement was “accelerate change in the Helsinki Region so that in 2021, the Helsinki Metropolitan Area and Lahti will be the world’s best testbed for smart and clean solutions.”, with secondary visions of having “The world’s most resource-wise citizens”, “The world’s smartest urban energy”.
The Foundation’s financiers and members included 29 institutions, amongst them municipalities, universities, companies, Public Research and technology transfer institutes (VTT) and the Finnish innovation agency Sitra. Its governance was set up to represent its diverse membership and funding (a third of the funds came from municipalities, a third from Sitra, a third from businesses and universities)
The Foundation employed five full-time personnel to support the development of ecosystem projects. To better illustrate how they envisioned their role as an ecosystem support team, the Foundation used the analogy of an orchestra conductor: “…a conductor is leading a group of experts in different instruments to play a musical piece together. The conductor doesn’t play the instruments better than any of the participants, but they have a unique role in finding a way to make all the players contribute to the outcome in the best way. And in an orchestra the different players are mutually dependent on each other’s contribution to the outcome.” (Smart & Clean Foundation, 2021[6])
To support ecosystems as an ‘orchestrator’, the Foundation team identified nine key functions:
“- Collects data and calculates the impacts.
- Creates a holistic picture of the actions needed to make the change wanted.
- Identifies all the actors needed to make the change.
- Identifies and connects the actors.
- Identifies the right actions with the most impact (utilising data).
- Creates leadership models that enable the individual actors to see that their actions are dependent on each other and that sometimes individual organisations need to compromise for the good of the common goal.
- Communicates and markets the ecosystem and the solution(s).
- Fosters trust as a neutral actor.
- Builds capacity and knowledge” (Smart & Clean Foundation, 2021[6]).
Source: Smart & Clean Foundation (2021[6]), Smart & Clean - Key Learnings; Smart & Clean Foundation (2017[7]), Smart & Clean Helsinki Metropolitan Annual Report 2016/17.
The approach detailed in this chapter aims to provide practical guidance to stakeholders who aim to foster and maintain anticipatory innovation ecosystems through effective governance at either the micro- or meso- level. Each micro-governance process is accompanied by a list of activities that ecosystem stakeholders can undertake to develop it. These are categorised as either ‘backstage’, or ‘frontstage’:
Backstage: Activities and methods which are conducted ‘out of sight’ of ecosystem partners, or though one-to-one engagement. For example, commissioning or undertaking research, briefing policy makers, interviewing ecosystem partners.
Frontstage: Activities and methods which engage multiple stakeholders in a public or semi-public setting. For example, workshops and webinars.
To support meso-governance, the report presents a tool for government stakeholders to review how they can support and influence the development of anticipatory innovation ecosystems through seven government functions. Chapter 4 outlines how micro-governance processes can be practically combined with meso-governance functions based on the case of Latvia.
The OECD identifies four key processes for the micro-governance of anticipatory innovation ecosystems: the engagement of diverse stakeholders, an orientation around shared goals, collaboration, and anticipation, learning and adaptation. In a dynamic environment shaped by both the evolving relationships of ecosystem partners and the changing external context, these processes are never summarily ‘perfected’, but must be regularly reviewed in order to sustain the productive relationships that drive anticipatory innovation ecosystems.
Engagement of diverse stakeholders
The engagement of diverse stakeholders is the foundation for delivering the benefits of anticipatory innovation ecosystems. Diverse stakeholders are necessary to provide the range of knowledge, expertise and resources that are the raw materials for innovation through convergence. The heterogeneity of their viewpoints, values and ways of understanding the world create the dissonance that allows the ecosystem to identify new opportunities for anticipatory innovation (illustrated in the example of the Dutch Top Sector Life Science and Health in Box 2.2).
The mechanisms of the AIG framework articulate key reasons that diverse stakeholders should be engaged to facilitate anticipatory innovation.
Detecting and making sense of change to identify opportunities: Diversity within the innovation ecosystem enables participants to detect a wide range of weak signals of change and make sense of them collaboratively. By creating an environment in which they can explore the present situation and potential changes from a wide range of viewpoints, the anticipatory innovation ecosystem allows actors to identify opportunities and challenges that would be undetectable to each individually. For example, entrepreneurs might identify applications for new technologies developed in academia through their understanding of the market; civil society actors may provide an insight into social trends and norms that create new niches for innovation.
Exploration of alternatives and overcoming vested interests: A breadth of viewpoints and expertise enables participants in the ecosystem to imagine and explore a wider range of alternative futures and potential solutions. Ecosystem members can leverage their dissonant values to assess and deliberate trade-offs between these alternatives, enabling the ecosystem to move towards innovations that deliver better collective outcomes now and in the future. Conflict allows vested interests and biases to be revealed and questioned, providing a path for innovation ecosystem members to collectively conceive of innovations that are not constrained by current power structures or ways of working.
Public participation to explore consequences and benefits of innovation: The inclusion of stakeholders who typically have little involvement of the innovation process, such as civil society groups, can help to overcome the myopia of incumbent players when it comes to assessing the consequences of technology development. This provides government and other parties with the opportunity to steer the innovation process towards better social and environmental outcomes and become more conscious of potential risks (including social backlash). Furthermore, engaging potential beneficiaries of innovation “can help orient innovation efforts in directions that are most pertinent and fit-for-purpose. This in turn would support future take-up from users” (Kreiling and Paunov, 2021[8]) .
Knowledge exchange and learning loops: Bringing together a range of actors provides ecosystem members with the opportunity to learn from others working in the same or connected fields (Könnölä et al., 2021[9]). They can identify shared issues and challenges relating to innovation and explore ways to resolve them together. The capacity of the group to detect a wider range of signals can allow ecosystem members to quickly identify and make sense of consequences of their actions and make regular adjustments to their ways of working in order to improve outcomes.
Designated by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, the Dutch Top Sector Life Science and Health is a mission-driven initiative that supports economic opportunities through public-private partnerships (PPPs) surrounding the societal theme of health and care in the Netherlands.
This Dutch Top Sector seeks to ensure the good health of Dutch citizens and decrease health inequalities among socioeconomic groups. Additionally, the sector aims to contribute to the Dutch living environment and lifestyle and offer precise care for people with chronic diseases, lifelong disabilities and dementia.
In an interview with the OECD, the Executive Director of Dutch Top Sector Life Science and Health pointed that ecosystem approach to mission-driven R&I supported the resolution of the long-standing confrontation between public and private investments and interests, demonstrating that new types of solutions can be found if partners are forced to address the perceived controversies. One promising avenue is the use of modern technologies and FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), that, for example, allow access to conclusions from data without giving direct access to or transfer of data. As it was summed up:
“If we want to stick to the old landscape we will stick to these old regimes, laws and regulations. Yet we must find out what are new future-savvy technologies, methodologies, and rules and regulations. This can also be seen in the context of Covid-19 – the urgency made formerly close to impossible collaborations possible.”
Source: OECD interview; Health-Holland (n.d.[10]), Homepage, https://www.health-holland.com/ (accessed 15 November 2022).
Key considerations
Identification of relevant stakeholders
The Quadruple Helix has been observed and promoted as a way of structuring diversity in order to stimulate innovation through novel interactions between different types of actors. The ‘helices’ refer to types of actors: industry, academia, government and civil society. Civil society in the context of Quadruple Helix can mean anything from NGOs and lobby groups, mass-media to the over-arching societal and cultural milieu in which the other actors are embedded (Hasche, Höglund and Linton, 2019[11]).
Within each helix, the participation of different types of organisation and individuals is valuable. For example, large companies can provide access to global business networks and value chains, medium-sized companies are identified as “small enough to be able to innovate quickly, yet large enough to contribute to manufacturing” (Philp and Winickoff, 2019[12]) , while start-ups are nimble at identifying and address new niches for innovation. In civil society, the engagement of potential users of innovation can provide valuable information to enable ecosystem partners to respond to and shape demand, while the involvement of minorities and marginalised groups is important to explore and understand the potential risks of innovations.
The identification and engagement of relevant stakeholders for anticipatory innovation ecosystems is an ongoing process that is dependent on the goals and needs identified by ecosystem participants. This can seem like a ‘chicken-and-egg’ problem, in which it is unclear which stakeholders to engage until some have been engaged. In practice, no ecosystem is constructed entirely from scratch. For a government to identify an area in which the development of an anticipatory innovation ecosystem would be beneficial, it must have first established that there is a critical mass of potential ecosystem partners (see Box 2.3 for an overview of methods to establish ecosystem potential).
Public servants may be concerned about showing a preference for particular organisations by engaging them first. This can be avoided by communicating that ecosystem development is an iterative process and by being clear and open about the methods for stakeholder selection.
Assuming that broad priority areas for ecosystem development have already been identified by government or existing ecosystem partners, there are a range of methods that can be applied to map relevant stakeholders. Systems mapping approaches provide a broad overview of the actors who may be affected by or have a role to play in the anticipatory innovation ecosystem. These methods document connections between actors around a particular problem or objective and the role they play in the system (Matti et al., 2020[13]). Participatory approaches to systems mapping can enable stakeholders engaged in the ecosystem to identify which organisations might be missing and recognise how they are already interdependent. This is a benefit to building capacity for collaboration.
Quantitative approaches to stakeholder mapping can also help and ecosystem partners and support teams to identify who should be engaged in the ecosystem. Nesta, the UK innovation foundation, has developed approaches to identify innovative organisations and explore networks of innovation by using novel and open data sources such as business websites and social media platforms. These methods help to identify existing innovation networks whose collaborations can act as a foundation for anticipatory innovation ecosystems, and also identify gaps between communities that the ecosystem can help to address (Nesta, n.d.[14]).
Relevant stakeholders can also be identified by employing anticipatory approaches. By exploring possible futures in which innovation plays a role, it may become clear that an unexpected group of actors will be affected by the development of a new technology or become key links in the value chain.
As part of this project, the OECD conducted a literature review to document methods observed in national governments for selecting local, regional, and national innovation ecosystems. It revealed common five types of approach: foresight-based, quantitative, mixed-methods, industry-led and grand challenge based ‘missions’.
In practice, these methods can overlap, and it is often beneficial if they are used to complement each other. Instruments used in one method can be used in another, or the output of one method can be used to inform decisions in another one. These methods demonstrate the importance of engaging diverse stakeholders and setting shared goals in the early stages of ecosystem development.
Foresight-based selection methods engage diverse stakeholders come to envision different potential futures. The stakeholders can decide on collective actions to direct towards more desirable futures. Foresight can collect diverging viewpoints from the relevant stakeholders in the ecosystem and help build consensus. This is useful in selecting ecosystems because policy makers do not typically have access to the “tacit knowledge” that exists in the ecosystem. The disadvantages of a foresight-based selection approach are that it may over-represent the views and biases of particular stakeholders, and that participatory foresight processes can take a long time (more than one year) to undertake. Foresight approaches have been used to identify priorities for innovation ecosystems in Lithuania (Box 1.7) and Romania.
Quantitative methods rely on statistical analysis of the current state of the economic and innovation performance of a geographical region of any size in order to select innovation ecosystems. Quantitative methods have the deficit that they may not provide a complete picture of a given region’s potential, as they are based on a limited range of past data. A purely quantitative method of selecting smart specialisations and thus innovation ecosystems for Finland's regions was suggested in 2017 in order to provide a clear data-driven picture of the most dominating sectors in each region.
Mixed-methods use both qualitative approaches like foresight and quantitative methods to select an innovation ecosystem. Mixing these methods can provide a more comprehensive picture of an ecosystem’s potential, but diverse sources of data can tell competing stories. This misalignment requires strong analytical skills to incorporate and synthesise the collected information. Mixed-methods have been used in several regions to develop R&I strategies and select innovation ecosystems. The Balearic Islands adopted a mixed-methods approach to develop their smart specialisation strategy for 2013-2017. It combined methods such as statistical analysis, interviews and SWOT analysis.
Innovation ecosystems can be selected by calling on industry-led consortia to organise and apply for government support to innovate in certain pre-defined areas. This method allows bottom-up self-selection and self-organisation and galvanises the creation of new linkages between ecosystem partners. This method risks favouring already entrenched sectors and ecosystems. The selection of Canada’s Superclusters invited consortia to demonstrate how they could deliver the greatest value to Canada.
Innovation ecosystems can be selected with the specific goal of solving grand challenges. Grand challenges are complex societal problems with multiple linked causes and multiple solutions. For each grand challenge, one or more time-bound missions can be set out and ecosystems convened to solve these missions. These ecosystems typically involve actors from diverse sectors. The emphasis is put not only on stimulating research and development, but also on creating demand for “necessary” innovations through demand-side policies. The disadvantage is that mission ecosystems pose governance and performance evaluation challenges due to their cross-sectoral and systemic nature. The UK Government published the final version of the Industrial Strategy in November 2017, which included four grand challenges, chosen through feedback from a public consultation process and input from scientific leaders. Sweden’s innovation agency Vinnova has also experimented with various ways of establishing and governing mission-driven ecosystems, resulting in projects such as Vision Zero Cancer.
Source: OECD research based on Paliokaitė, A., Ž. Martinaitis and R. Reimeris (2015[15]), “Foresight methods for smart specialisation strategy development in Lithuania”, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.04.008; Paliokaitė, A., Ž. Martinaitis and D. Sarpong (2016[16]), “Implementing smart specialisation roadmaps in Lithuania: Lost in translation?”, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.005; Kaivo-oja, J. et al. (2017[17]), “Smart specialization strategy and its operationalization in the regional policy: Case Finland”, https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2017.362; Government of Canada (2019[18]), Building a Nation of Innovators - Innovation for a Better Canada, https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/eng/h_00105.html; Beaudry, C. and L. Solar-Pelletier (2020[19]), “The Superclusters Initiative: An opportunity to reinforce innovation ecosystems”; Government of Canada (2016[20]), Technology Demonstration Program - Program Guide, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/weekly_acquisitions_list-ef/2016/16-31/publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/isde-ised/Iu37-3-2015-eng.pdf; Fagerberg, J. and G. Hutschenreiter (2020[21]), “Coping with societal challenges: Lessons for innovation policy governance”, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-019-00332-1; UK Government (2017[22]), “Industrial strategy: Building a Britain fit for the future”, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-strategy-building-a-britain-fit-for-the-future; Hill, D. (2020[23]), “Realizing mission-oriented innovations in a fast-moving world”, https://council.science/current/blog/realizing-mission-oriented-innovations-in-a-fast-moving-world/; Mazzucato, M. (2017[24]), “Mission-oriented innovation policy: Challenges and opportunities”, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/publications/2017/sep/mission-oriented-innovation-policy-challenges-and-opportunities; Govern de les Illes Balears (2013[25]), Illes Balear - Towards a RIS3 Strategy, https://kipdf.com/illes-balears-towards-a-ris3-strategy_5ab8529b1723dd339c818b56.html.
Level and type of engagement
The level and type of engagement of different stakeholders does not need to remain consistent across groups or over time. The ecosystem can derive the benefits of engaging diverse stakeholders by facilitating the participation of select groups in specific activities at points in its development. For example, participatory agenda-setting involving a wide range of stakeholders from civil society can help to define the objectives and normative boundaries for innovation early on in ecosystem development (OECD, 2018[26]). Subsequently, closer collaboration between academia and industry can enable the development of innovations within this frame for development.
It is perhaps for this reason that the number of innovation ecosystem partners is so varied across ecosystems. In a survey of 247 innovation ecosystems in Europe, Komorowski found that “innovation ecosystems can include a very small number of actors (six ecosystems identified and analysed via the survey report to include less than ten actors) or a very large number (five are reported to involve more than 10.000 actors).” (Komorowski, 2019[27]).
Valkokari et al. (Valkokari, Hyytinen and Kutinlahti, 2021[28]) note that most successful ecosystems have multiple degrees of engagement. A ‘core group’ of highly engaged ecosystem actors is beneficial to determine an overall vision and strategic direction for ecosystem activities. Individuals within this group should participate consistently over time, and have the knowledge and authority to align the strategic objectives of their organisations to that of the developing ecosystem. At lower levels of engagement, ‘theme-specific development groups’ of organisations may participate in projects which contribute to the ecosystem goals without playing a role in the overall governance of the ecosystem, while ‘ecosystem interest groups’ of organisations which provide services to ecosystem actors may simply use the ecosystem as a networking opportunity (Valkokari, Hyytinen and Kutinlahti, 2021[28])). This type of structure is illustrated in the example of Finland’s 6G Flagship in Box 2.4.
Coordinated by the University of Oulu (Finland), 6G Flagship is funded by the Academy of Finland, a government agency within the administrative branch of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
With over 500 academic partners and more than 400 industrial partners, e.g., ICT enterprises, the ecosystem facilitates collaboration with a variety of stakeholders to continue the deployment of 5G technologies and services and also develop research for the future of a 6G world. This visionary approach of the ecosystem enables partners to connect and identify opportunities with upcoming technologies in a 6G Network and to prepare partners for new business models that align digitalisation with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
Mix of formal and informal governance approaches across core partners and wider network
6G Flagship ecosystem is an example of applying adjusted ecosystem governance models for the core members of the ecosystem and a wider network. The core network of partners is engaged in strategic day-to-day collaboration and face-to-face meetings. The ecosystem is also very active internationally. Collaboration with the international partners is organised through specific collaboration projects using different types of funding models and funding sources compared to the mechanisms used with the strategic core partners. To summarise, for the core partners the ecosystem has formal structures – 6G advisory steering board and annual meetings. With other partners it is less formal and guided by the individual research projects and their requirements.
Source: OECD interview; 6G Flagship (n.d.[29]), Innovation & Co-creation in 6G Flagship Ecosystem, https://www.6gflagship.com/get-involved/ecosystem/ (accessed on 15 November 2022).
Monitoring and renewing the engagement of diverse stakeholders
According to Valkokari et al. this three-degree model of engagement is centralised but open and is suited to the identification of business opportunities and the generation of new initiatives. Figure 2.3 presents three alternative structures and outlines their benefits and drawbacks. Ecosystem partners and support teams can benefit from understanding and experimenting with different structures to find and revise the one that is appropriate to the goals they are working towards.
Anticipatory innovation ecosystems will always be a coalition of the willing: “their materialisation depends on the voluntary actions of hierarchically independent others – who need to anticipate some benefit for themselves before committing to making their contributions” (Autio, 2021[30]) . A key challenge in the early stages of ecosystem development is the creation of a sense of momentum. If this is not achieved, potential ecosystem partners may lose interest and the early efforts of ecosystem support teams will be wasted (Autio, 2021[30]).
To attract participants, actors involved in the development of ecosystems, such as the ecosystem support team, can benefit from the creation of a clear engagement plan that describes the benefits and outcomes of participation that are tailored to the organisations they wish to engage. Valkokari et al. (Valkokari, Hyytinen and Kutinlahti, 2021[28]) have synthesised different benefits which actors participating in an innovation ecosystem can expect to see and what other participants in the ecosystem or the ecosystem as a whole can expect as benefits (Table 2.2). This can ecosystem initiators and partners to understand what types of actors to engage, and incentives and benefits of participation that should be communicated.
Source: Valkokari, K., K. Hyytinen and P. Kutinlahti (2021[28]), Collaborating for a Sustainable Future - Ecosystem Guide, https://doi.org/10.32040/2020.Ecosystemguide.
In addition to tailored benefits and incentives, a clear vision and goals are important to galvanise and sustain participation. In early stages of development when overarching goals for the ecosystem are still unclear, shorter-term milestones such as the creation of an ecosystem strategy can create a sense of urgency and provide impetus for stakeholders to engage (Kreiling and Paunov, 2021[8]).
As described above, the roles and needs of stakeholders within an ecosystem change over time. “An ecosystem is not a closed network as it must constantly renew itself. In order to keep on the jointly chosen path, the ecosystem’s actors need orchestration to support the self-organisation process” (Valkokari, Hyytinen and Kutinlahti, 2021[28]). Stakeholders working with ecosystems must be attentive to gaps in the ecosystem and missing voices, as well as the presence of actors whose contributions to the ecosystem risk diverting it from its goals. After each engagement of ecosystem participants, the following questions can help the ecosystem support team to consider what other stakeholders may need to be engaged in order to enable progress:
Orientation around shared goals
For innovation ecosystems to successfully leverage diverse knowledge and capabilities required to generate anticipatory innovation, they must facilitate the coordination of different stakeholders around shared goals. These goals should be informed by a compelling core vision for the impact that the ecosystem aims to bring about through its activities.
Vision creation and goal setting within anticipatory innovation ecosystems is an iterative, participatory process that enables ecosystem participants to explore and understand areas of friction and synergy in order to identify opportunities for innovation. To create a vision that compels a wide range of stakeholders to collaborate, ecosystem partners must work to understand each other’s values and goals. For a vision to be credible, it must be based on a shared understanding of the needs it addresses and the capabilities of ecosystem partners to achieve it. For it to be robust and remain relevant in the face of ongoing change, it must be developed through an active engagement with the future that reveals areas of uncertainty.
The process of developing a vision and goals is inherently anticipatory as it involves imagining a desired future state of the world that ecosystem partners aim contribute to through collaboration. The mechanisms of the AIG framework present some key criteria to consider as part of the development of a vision and goals.
Legitimacy: For a vision to function as a post around which ecosystem activities can be coordinated, ecosystem participants must see it as legitimate. There are three important elements of legitimacy. The first concerns the desirability of the impact envisioned. Ecosystem partners must share the view that the vision represents a future that they wish to contribute to. The second concerns the political legitimacy, and the alignment of the vision to policy goals. The third element concerns the credibility of the vision. If a vision is perceived as unachievable, it will not work to galvanise participation.
Public interest and participation: Participatory approaches to developing a vision can help to ensure broad public and political support for the activities of the anticipatory innovation ecosystem. In addition to orienting the innovation ecosystem towards better social and environmental outcomes (and away from problematic areas), engaging a wide range of participants to set the vision for an ecosystem can help to identify potential users and beneficiaries of innovation.
Alternatives exploration: Anticipatory approaches enable the creation of multiple possible visions, providing ecosystem participants with the opportunity to explore what may result if they move in a number of different directions. This allows the ecosystem to avoid the pitfalls of vested-interests and biases and identify opportunities for innovation that are otherwise out of reach.
Sense-making: Participatory sense-making allows ecosystem participants to develop a more comprehensive understanding of current and future needs that can be used to set the foundation for a shared vision.
Key considerations
Types of goal
Visons and goals come in many shapes and sizes. They may be richly imagined, impressionistic, or narrowly defined. They may be immediately attainable, or they may require a grand restructuring of a present system. Each type has its place and function, and it is important for ecosystem support teams and partners to recognise which is valuable for what purpose.
GIZ outlines three types of change that ecosystems can consider when determining visions and goals. These are categorised as incremental (more of the same), reform (adaptation of the system), or transformative change, which leads to the creation of a new system, or to a change so substantial that it is largely unrecognisable from the initial system (GIZ, 2020[31]). This framework can help ecosystem partners to think beyond present constraints and envision future goals that are appropriate to the ecosystem.
It is helpful to define visions and goals with reference to an ecosystem’s sphere of influence (Figure 2.4). A vision presents a plausible and preferable vision of the future which the activities of the innovation ecosystem have played a key role to bring about. Goals comprise key components of the vision that the ecosystem aims to achieve. While the realisation of the goals and vision can be influenced by the activities of the ecosystem, they are not under the direct control of ecosystem partners.
Once ecosystem partners have determined a vision, it is possible to work backwards to explore and identify intermediary outcomes that must be achieved. This approach draws on the anticipatory method of ‘backcasting’, and can be applied to develop and innovation roadmap or ‘theory of change’ that ecosystem partners can use as a tool to coordinate their activities, revise their assumptions, and adapt their strategy (Boni et al., 2021[32]).
Outcomes should describe goals that can be achieved through the activities of the ecosystem. A collective approach to determining outcomes can allow ecosystem partners to identify areas in which collaboration between specific actors may be beneficial, prioritise outcomes and identify contingencies, and explore multiple pathways to achieving the same impact. Smaller working groups can be formed around specific outcomes. The development of micro-governance processes should also be considered as an outcome to ensure that the ecosystem continues to function effectively.
The identification of outcomes makes it possible to specify indicators and milestones that allow ecosystem partners and support teams to track the progress of the ecosystem.
Legitimacy and credibility for goals
A compelling and legitimate vision for anticipatory innovation ecosystems must take into account the interests and capabilities of ecosystem partners, the policy priorities and ambitions of government, and the broader global context that influences the need for innovation. Grand challenges, such as those articulated by the United Nations’ SDGs, and government priorities provide useful framing devices for the development of a shared vision at the level of micro-governance, encouraging ecosystem participants to see how their work might contribute to broader societal goals.
Developing a legitimate and credible vision requires strong analytical capabilities to identify and collate relevant information and bring together appropriate stakeholders, skilled facilitation and the ability to create a “credible ‘big picture’” (Valkokari, Hyytinen and Kutinlahti, 2021[28]). While a vision needs to be credible, interviews with ecosystem support organisations conducted by the OECD revealed that setting objectives that are too rigid in the early stages of ecosystem development can risk committing it to failure (Box 2.5).
Created in 2004, Spearhead cluster flanders.healthTech is a Flanders (Belgium) based not-for-profit cluster dedicated to life sciences and biotechnology.
This industry driven cluster has more than 340 members across the life sciences network and works closely with companies, universities and professional service providers.
In a research interview, a representative from flanders.healthTech explained that developing a shared goals for an ecosystem requires a carefully facilitated transition from a loose vision to more concrete outcomes:
“You need ‘artistic fuzziness’ in the beginning of the ecosystem building to focus on the vision and emerging processes. By the end of the process, you need to make a project proposal. Then it needs to be quite crisp and robust. It is important at the beginning to not to put too many people around the table, but also not to focus on smart goals in the beginning because then you are killing it.”
Source: OECD interview.
Anticipatory approaches to setting and orienting around shared goals
Anticipatory approaches provide a toolkit to build consensus around shared visions and identify intermediary outcomes and goals. They can be used to develop theories of change, roadmaps for innovation, and stress-test these against possible futures scenarios. The cases of the Ro-Ro shipping ecosystem (Box 1.6) and the identification of smart specialisation priorities in Lithuania (Box 1.7) demonstrate how legitimate and credible visions and goals can be arrived at engaging a wide range of stakeholders in a multi-stage programme which combines anticipatory approaches.
Participatory foresight, which involves citizens in the exploration of future pathways for innovation, can enhance the relevance and democratic legitimacy of goals. Integrating citizens’ visions and embedding their narratives into the identification of shared goals allows for a broader understanding of the impact of innovation pathways and how the demand-side innovation policies (see OECD (2011[33])) need to be adapted in order to realise a viable and desirable vision (Rosa et al., 2021[34]). Concerns about how future generations might be impacted by the programme can also be explored.
Foresight methodologies are very broad (for an overview see Tōnurist and Hanson (2020[1]), Popper (2008[35])) and their applicability is dependent on the scope of the project, the resources of the facilitators and the amount of time available. Three possible methods are presented below:
Citizen visioning: In this method, citizens are asked to envision day-to-day activities in the future in a scenario which they would consider optimal as a community.
Futures Dialogue: A flexible method through which different stakeholder groups (citizens and experts) discuss and eventually reach an agreement on what various desirable futures could look like.
Narrative Generation: This method implies citizens participating in story-telling workshops in which they create (either collaboratively or individually) coherent short stories which describe aspects of future scenarios through the eyes of a representative persona (Rosa et al., 2021[34]).
Alongside the normative approach to setting a vision through participatory foresight outlined above, explorative approaches can allow stakeholders to assess whether the goals they are working towards remain relevant across multiple possible futures. Horizon scanning, which engages stakeholders to identify changes that might affect the ecosystem in the future, enables the development of futures scenarios against which ecosystem strategies can be stress-tested.
Monitoring and renewing the vision and shared goals
By exploring and documenting shared visions and outcomes, participants in an anticipatory innovation ecosystem become conscious of how their interactions can begin to bring about preferred futures. This process builds the ecosystem’s capacity for collaboration, and lays the foundations for it to anticipate, learn and adapt. In the complex, changing environment which ecosystem partners are trying to influence, the desired impact and outcomes should be regularly reviewed.
Explorative approaches to foresight can allow ecosystem partners to check the relevance of the outcomes and impacts they aim to achieve. Regular discussion of progress towards the outcomes can allow ecosystem partners to identify challenges that need to be addressed as a group and inform government policy and regulation. Where an outcome is identified as unachievable or no longer relevant, it can be a prompt for the ecosystem partners to work together to find a new approach to move towards the ecosystem impact, or re-evaluate the desired impact entirely.
Collaboration
The Oslo Manual defines collaboration in the context of innovation as follows: “Collaboration requires co-ordinated activity across different parties to address a jointly defined problem, with all partners contributing. Collaboration requires the explicit definition of common objectives and it may include agreement over the distribution of inputs, risks and potential benefits” (OECD/Eurostat, 2018[36]). Effective collaboration between stakeholders is what distinguishes an ecosystem from a loosely grouped network of actors. According to Russell and Smorodinskaya, “innovation ecosystems are essentially the result and derivative of collaboration-type interactions, i.e., they emerge at the moment when cooperating actors have achieved a certain level of integration concerned with a joint identity, joint strategy and joint goals” (Russell and Smorodinskaya, 2018[3]). This cooperation can improve stakeholders’ access to resources, shorten time of products to market, and enable joint learning which improves innovation capability (Pellikka et al., 2021[37]).
As actors have distinct and parallel values and objectives, and may be in competition, building collaborative capacity is dependent on finding ways for stakeholders to manage their differences and de-risk sharing of information and resources. The goal is to develop a heterarchy in which ecosystem partners feel that their contributions are secure and equally valued, and are prepared to listen to others. “This trusted relationship…” according to Tõnurist and Hanson (2020[1])“can open up situations for exploring uncertainty” and shaping an authorizing environment for the development of anticipatory innovations. The ecosystem support team, as an independent party in the ecosystem, plays a vital role in establishing this.
Key considerations
The elements of collaborative capacity can be categorised under four areas for governance: relationships, rules, responsibilities and resources.
Development of relationships
Successful innovation ecosystems enable trusted, collaborative relationships to develop between diverse actors who in other contexts may see their interests as contradictory or incompatible. This thickening of networks and development of social capital through informal mechanisms is a catalyst for anticipatory innovation, allowing knowledge to be developed and uncertainty to be explored (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[1]). “Trust among members has the potential to reduce transaction costs, increase the likelihood of inner network stability, promote knowledge sharing, and stimulate innovation (Klijn et al., 2010). It is especially relevant in collaborative networks because the uncertainties of collaboration cannot all be managed through hierarchical power, surveillance, and contracts (Edelenbos & Klijn, 2007)” (Wegner and Verschoore, 2021[2]).
To explore uncertainty together, participants must feel comfortable to speak openly and agree to disagree constructively. To solve problems together, they are likely to have to share knowledge and resources (Valkokari, Hyytinen and Kutinlahti, 2021[28]). Creating the conditions in which these types of exchanges can occur is an important challenge for ecosystem partners and support teams.
Regular interaction itself, through activities such as field-visits, meetings and workshops, facilitates the development of trust and strengthens relationships (Wegner and Verschoore, 2021[2]). However, to create a heterarchical environment in all partners are able to contribute, differences in power between ecosystem partners must be explored and understood. An assessment of power by the ecosystem support team can help to reveal vested interests and act as a guard against capture of the ecosystem by a narrow range of actors to ensure that relationships are maintained with less powerful actors whose knowledge and experience are important to direct the ecosystem.
Setting rules
Rules describe the formal and informal governance mechanisms that facilitate engagement between ecosystem members. They create a space in which ecosystem members feel comfortable to share knowledge, expertise and resources, and understand how value generated through interactions within the ecosystem will be captured and owned. “Action in an ecosystem is strongly based on a situation where individual actors understand the rules of the ecosystem, their chances of benefiting from the value created by others and their own ability to create value for others” (Valkokari, Hyytinen and Kutinlahti, 2021[28]).
Ecosystem support teams can play a key role in setting out initial rules for participation, and can catalyse collaboration by preparing prototype agreements that specify the expectations for and rights of participants (Autio, 2021[30]). These should be reviewed by ecosystem partners to ensure that they are suitable for the objectives of the innovation ecosystem. Rules are likely to be necessary in the following areas:
Openness and membership: The ecosystem must determine conditions for participation in the ecosystem; whether partners must be invited or can join themselves. “The rules around openness should be defined such that they support the objectives of the ecosystem; sometimes a more restrictive operating model gives better and quicker results.” (Valkokari, Hyytinen and Kutinlahti, 2021[28]).
Intellectual Property: Ecosystem partners should create written agreements about the rights of ownership in order to ensure that barriers to the sharing of data and intellectual property which may inhibit collaborative innovation are assessed and addressed. The initial design and provision of ‘model contracts’ by IP offices can simplify and accelerate this process (Winickoff et al., 2021[38]) (Kreiling and Paunov, 2021[8]).
Data ownership and use: “The rules around the ownership of data used or resulting from the activities of the initiative and the resulting innovations need to be clear to all actors before engaging in a co-creation initiative. Good practice is the use of framework agreements that secure the interests of all partners involved.” (Kreiling and Paunov, 2021[8]).
Standards: Setting standards enables stakeholders to exert power over the future and steer the process of innovation. “A technical standard is an established norm or a legal requirement that provides a technical specification for a repeatable technical task, process or product… Standards also deliver competitive advantage and are at the core of network effects (Katz and Shapiro, 1985[27]) – as they create compatible technical system that are widely used by others, provide minimum quality and safety (Akerlof, 1970[28]) and enhance consume and investor confidence.” (Winickoff et al., 2021[38]).
Behavioural norms: Behavioural norms are an important factor in the creation of an environment for collaboration and “operate as an important informal coordination mechanism in the absence of formal 1-to-1 contracts.” (Autio, 2021[30]).
Decision-making: Different approaches to decision-making, such as consensus (in which all parties must agree), consent (in which no party objects), majority rule, or delegation (in which select parties are chosen to make a decision on behalf of the group) are appropriate for different types of decision (Berditchevskaia and Bertoncin, 2021[39]).
Ethical principles: Ethical principles can be developed to establish both shared values and mutually agreed boundaries for the anticipatory innovation ecosystem. An exploration of future changes and pathways for innovation can help ecosystem partners to consider how ethical principles may be breached in possible futures.
These rules, which should be determined based on the objectives of the ecosystem, go on to determine the structure of the ecosystem.
Determining roles
As outlined in the earlier section on the engagement of diverse stakeholders, the roles of actors can change over time, and are “determined by the ecosystem vision and the joint roadmap” (Valkokari, Hyytinen and Kutinlahti, 2021[28]). Setting and achieving ecosystem objectives is likely to require the presence of a ‘core’ group of consistently engaged stakeholders. A team or organization with responsibility for coordinating ecosystem activities is also necessary, and this role is likely to be undertaken by government or university actors in the early stages of ecosystem development (Dedehayir, Mäkinen and Ortt, 2018[5]). As objectives become clearer and initiatives emerge, additional stakeholders may be engaged to participate in working groups to achieve specific goals (Valkokari, Hyytinen and Kutinlahti, 2021[28]). Given the voluntary nature of participation in anticipatory innovation ecosystems, defining the roles and responsibilities of participating stakeholders important to build in a sense of accountability that maintains the trust and momentum it requires.
Identifying and managing resources
A key benefit of innovation ecosystems is that they improve access to resources and knowledge that are distributed among ecosystem partners (see Table 2.2 for the types of resources that organisations commonly bring into ecosystems).Through discussion and a developing understanding of the strengths, resources and capabilities of participating actors, stakeholders can identify how they can contribute to achieving the desired ecosystem outcomes, and what resources they can access through interaction with other ecosystem partners. They can additionally identify gaps in resources that cannot be provided by ecosystem partners. In this case, the ability of ecosystem partners and support teams to fill these gaps by identifying and convening new stakeholders is important (Pellikka et al., 2021[37]). The identification and management of resources therefore requires developed capacities for knowledge management and stakeholder coordination to identify and document those held by ecosystem partners, and those external to the ecosystem.
In the case of shared resources being accrued by and ecosystem through contributions by ecosystem members or external funding, clear decision-making rules should be defined.
Monitoring and renewing capacity for collaboration
An anticipatory innovation ecosystem is a complex system that changes in response to internal and external forces and relationships. Considering the future through anticipatory approaches can enable ecosystem partners to establish rules and practices for collaboration that are more robust. Nonetheless, frictions and impasses can emerge, stakeholder roles may change, and established rules may become an impediment to progress. Ecosystem partners and support teams must therefore regularly review the elements of this micro-governance process so that challenges can be addressed. The following questions can help the ecosystem partners and support teams to evaluate the capacity for collaboration:
Anticipation, learning and adaptation
Knowledge development and exchange are key drivers for innovation (OECD/Eurostat, 2018[36]; Philp and Winickoff, 2019[12]), such that innovation can be described as the result of “the practical application of existing or newly developed information and knowledge” (OECD/Eurostat, 2018[36]). The innovation ecosystem approach aims to leverage the fact that “knowledge is generated, distributed and used by multiple actors of an innovation system, such as firms, universities, public research institutions (PRIs), customers as users of product innovations, and individuals” (OECD/Eurostat, 2018[36]) by fostering an environment in which heterogenous stakeholders can share and co-create knowledge.
The way in which an anticipatory innovation ecosystem facilitates the generation and use of knowledge about the future sets it apart from other approaches. The process of anticipatory innovation is driven by ongoing collective learning about the future and how it might be shaped through the collaboration of ecosystem partners. It is sustained by the capacity of ecosystem partners as a group to adjust their assumptions and coordinate their activities in response to new knowledge generated through ecosystem activities and external sources of information. As a result, the success of an anticipatory innovation ecosystem is dependent on its capacity for anticipation, learning and adaptation.
The AIG framework outlines key mechanisms to build the ecosystem’s capacity for anticipation, learning and adaptation. Ecosystem partners and support teams can use this to better understand what activities are necessary to support the ecosystem.
Alternatives exploration and experimentation: In conditions of uncertainty, the consequences of innovation cannot be known prior to its creation. However, by drawing on a wide range of information and types of expertise, it is possible for ecosystem partners to explore and consider alternative futures that may plausibly shape and be shaped by different innovation pathways. A number of anticipatory techniques exist that allow innovators to generate new knowledge to guide their decisions and activities, ranging from scenario-based thought experiments to sandboxes or living labs which allow them to practically test innovations.
Sense-making: The breadth of expertise and ways of interpreting their environment among partners in anticipatory innovation ecosystems enables them to detect, understand and shape emerging patters of change. Sense-making describes this process of ongoing collaborative interpretation and action which generates unique and valuable knowledge.
Tools and methods: A wide range of tools and methods can be applied within anticipatory innovation ecosystems to surface and leverage the knowledge of ecosystem partners. Tõnurist and Hanson identify over 30 ‘traditional foresight methods’, such as horizon scanning, STEEP analysis and quantitative modeling, each of which can be applied to generate new knowledge to inform the decisions of ecosystem partners (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[1]). Given their diversity, it is important for and ecosystem partners and support teams to understand in which situation they are relevant.
Data and measurement: Effective anticipatory decision-making requires that ecosystem partners have access to relevant, timely and granular information that enables them to spot trends and monitor changes and progress within the ecosystem. While identifying what information is relevant in an uncertain future-oriented environment is a challenge, the process of collective sense-making can allow ecosystem partners to identify appropriate indicators to track and phenomena to keep under observation, for example news articles on technological development in a specific domain or polling data on social trends. Ensuring that the mix of ecosystem partners includes a range of types of expertise allows the ecosystem to detect and interpret a wider range of qualitative and quantitative signals of change.
Evidence and evaluation: Continuous experimentation and monitoring are central to identifying fruitful pathways for anticipatory innovation. However, the monitoring and evaluation of anticipatory innovation ecosystems can risk interpreting superficial achievements, such as the number of stakeholders engaged, as indicators of success, while important changes that are more difficult to measure, such as the trust between stakeholders, may be overlooked. Evidence and evaluation should therefore focus on allowing ecosystem partners and support teams to continually assess the success of the ecosystem against the four governance processes: engagement of diverse stakeholders, orientation around shared goals, collaboration and anticipation, learning and adaption (see formative evaluation below).
Learning loops: The knowledge generated through the activities of ecosystem partners must be managed in a way that enables the ecosystem to adjust its activities and types and roles of stakeholders involved in order to maintain a path towards relevant shared goals. Single loop learning describes the process by which an organisation (or an ecosystem) evaluates its effectiveness and adjusts its activities to improve it. Double loop learning describes how an organisation uses new knowledge to re-evaluate its underlying assumptions about what change is necessary, and how it is brought about. A third level, deutero learning, describes the process for re-evaluating an organisations effectiveness at identifying what change is required in a system (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[1]).
Organisational capacity: Tõnurist and Hanson (2020[1]) use the term ‘organisational capacity’ to describe the way in which an organisation balances activities aimed at exploring new opportunities against those aimed at exploiting knowledge and information that has already been uncovered. Anticipatory innovation ecosystems have the potential to enhance this ‘ambidexterity’ by bringing organisations focused on exploration into contact with those with capacity to exploit knowledge.
Key considerations
Knowledge management
Capacities and capabilities for knowledge management are vital to ensuring that an innovation ecosystem builds on the knowledge it generates to identify and seize opportunities for anticipatory innovation. Knowledge that is created through ecosystem activities can all to easily be misinterpreted or lost. Matti et al. (2022[40])identify three processes that constitute a cycle of ‘continuous learning and adaptation’ which enable diverse organisations to work together to solve problems:
Sense-making is the process by which ecosystem participants collectively interpret emerging patterns of change, developing a shared understanding of the system that they hope to impact through innovation.
Knowledge co-creation comprises the development of novel ideas and narratives through the combination of the various types of knowledge that are held by ecosystem partners.
Decision-making draws on evidence collected and legitimised through the knowledge co-creation and sense-making processes to determine ways forward for ecosystem partners.
These processes are supported by two key sets of practices. First, ‘harvesting and documentation’ practices, through which insights are collated and recorded, are necessary to stimulate knowledge generation through ecosystem activities. Factsheets, posters, webinars and reports can combine insights that arise through ecosystem activities with information gathered more broadly to provide a continually updated evidence base for decision-making by ecosystem partners. Second, ‘developing actionable knowledge’ through the analysis of insights generated by ecosystem activities (Matti et al., 2022[40]).While these practices can be undertaken by ecosystem partners, the presence of a dedicated ecosystem report unit can ensure that knowledge is recorded, analysed and communicated in a timely and neutral manner. Given that information and knowledge that can contribute to ecosystem development and be used for innovation is often sensitive, it may also be important to ensure that effective systems are in place for it to be securely shared. The Unlocking Industrial 5G ecosystem in Finland developed a digital platform to enable knowledge sharing and collaboration (Box 2.6).
Initiated in 2020, Unlocking Industrial 5G is a project led by Nokia which works towards developing innovation ecosystems surrounding 5G-based technologies and services. The project is part of a Veturi (Finnish word for locomotives) programme and is funded by Business Finland, a government organisation which is run by the Finnish Ministry of Employment and Economy.
A digital platform for knowledge sharing and collaboration
Unlocking Industrial 5G ecosystem has created and uses a digital platform to organise the partners and sub-ecosystems. It was created by NOKIA and continuously improved together with ecosystem partners. It helps to utilise ecosystem connections and enhances sub-ecosystem cooperation. It works like a social network for the ecosystem partners and provides different functionalities.
For example, partners can share soft assets like technical specifications around some certain topic, white papers, etc. The platform and its contents are open for everyone with access but there are options to create close spaces for limited number of specific collaborators. NOKIA decided to create the network because they noticed the ecosystem needs specific tools to manage the ecosystem and encourage collaboration. There was also a significant demand from the ecosystem members. Ecosystem collected the functionality requirements from ecosystem members to best meet their needs.
Source: OECD interview; Nokia (n.d.[41]), Nokia Veturi Program, https://www.nokia.com/innovation/veturi-program/; Pellikka, J. (2020[42]), “Nokia Veturi Program - Unlock Industrial 5G”.
Developing a theory of change to monitor and assess activities and progress
The creation of a shared theory of change (ToC) or strategic roadmap early on in the development of an anticipatory innovation ecosystem provides ecosystem partners and support teams with a framework against which progress towards desired outcomes can be measured, and objectives can be reassessed. The example of PhotonDelta in the Netherlands (Box 2.7) shows how the development of this type of shared resource can enhance ecosystem agility and legitimacy.
The Theory of Change is a framework for programme and policy design and evaluation which explains how activities (or interventions) in a system are supposed to contribute towards the stated goal of the programme. Both practitioners and academics have advocated using ToC for policy and programme design because of the flexible nature of the framework and its ability to explicitly link interventions to their expected outcomes (COP RBM, 2012[43]; Hivos, 2012[44]; Molas-Gallart et al., 2021[45])
A ToC is developed by first identifying the goals of an ecosystem (the ‘change’ that it is hoped will be achieved), and then working backwards to identify the activities that are expected to achieve these goals and the resources or inputs that are required to undertake the activities (Molas-Gallart et al., 2021[45]). The process of developing a theory of change can create alignment between stakeholders. It acts as a sense-making exercise, by forcing participants to identify all the hidden assumptions they are making and the rationales they are using while developing it, uncovering unexpected causal pathways and linkages between the inputs available to different groups which could lead to joint activities. Commonly applied as an evaluation tool (Barbrook-Johnson and Penn, 2022[46]), a ToC allows anticipatory innovation ecosystems to identify and select appropriate performance indicators, which may also be adopted by government.
As the programme progresses, the original ToC serves as a guide to check on progress. If the circumstances of the programme and the environment in which the ecosystem acts have modified, or if the programme is not developing according to the initial plan, the ToC can be changed, and the original assumptions are put to the test. The assumptions that do not hold can be dropped or updated. This is especially relevant for programmes interested in transformative change, where adaptive learning is one a fundamental basis of change (Rogers, 2014[47]).
In 2013, the current CEO of PhotonDelta (an organisation dedicated to ecosystem support) received a request from an investment bank to lead a project on photonic integration in the region of BrainPort (Eindhoven, Netherlands). This was a European funded project to create demonstrators for photonic integration technology. Initially few companies and universities were involved. For example, one of the main initiators of the ecosystem was Eindhoven University of Technology.
At its early stages, PhotonDelta understood that the broad impact of photonics required the involvement of more stakeholders from the private sector, such as technology partners and suppliers, and from the scientific arena with research and development partners e.g., Delft University of Technology.
The evolution of an ecosystem within this complex field of photonics urged for research excellence and PhotonDelta achieved this by attracting companies interested in innovation and startups that were concerned in the societal impact of photonics.
In 2017, PhotonDelta had their programme included in regional government policy and in a four-year annual programme of Dutch cabinets. This was a turning point for the ecosystem as it was assigned to government support and facilitate the industrial development of photonics in the Netherlands. This leadership buy-in also pushed PhotonDelta to define a strategy and roadmap for the ecosystem which further built trust and mechanisms of collaboration with universities, regional authorities and industry.
A representative of PhotonDelta explained to the OECD how the roadmapping process supported the legitimacy and agility of the ecosystem:
“People want to achieve, they want to excel, they want to be the best in what they are doing. That is still one of the most important internal driving factors of PhotonDelta. You have to have a very good strategy and you have to be very agile. […] Roadmapping is a very strong way to engage different parties in the ecosystem.”
Source: OECD interview.
Formative evaluation
While concrete goals and objectives provide direction and urgency for the collaboration of ecosystem partners, it must be remembered that the ecosystem itself is a continuously developing process, driven by the four micro-governance processes. Furthermore, the collaboration of multiple stakeholders undertaking many activities in a changing environment creates high levels of uncertainty about the end-results of the programmes.
Assessing the result or progress of an ecosystem in terms of rigid outcomes, or ‘impact evaluation’, can therefore be a challenging and misleading approach to determining its success. For this reason, assessing and establishing how each micro-governance process can be improved is an important function of evaluation.
This focus of evaluation as a tool to identify enhancements to processes is known as process or formative evaluation. In the multi-stakeholder context of an innovation ecosystem, formative evaluation benefits from drawing on the experiences and insights of a range of ecosystem partners. Molas-Gallart et al. (2021[45]) recommend that formative ‘evaluation practice needs to be adaptable and flexible, selecting different methods and techniques’ to develop a fuller understanding of the ways in which the functioning of the ecosystem can be improved. This approach was identified by the BioWin ecosystem support organisation as important to support the development of the ecosystem (Box 2.8). As part of this project, the OECD conducted a formative evaluation which combined survey and interview methods to better understand how LIAA’s engagement with ecosystems could be improved (Box 2.9) and prompted LIAA to regularly consider the micro-governance processes of each ecosystem.
With support from the Minister of Economy in Wallonia, Belgium, BioWin health cluster was created in 2006 with the role to select and monitor collaborative Research and Innovation (R&I) as well as work in initiatives to develop industrial policies in the health field, namely, biopharma, medtech and digital health sectors.
With a diverse ecosystem, BioWin has 250 members. The majority of the members and stakeholders are industrial members, followed by industrial Walloon companies and service providers. These also include the participation of universities, private research centres and hospitals that support projects that focus on the cluster’s strategic priorities to further develop the region’s biomanufacturing industry and health innovation.
Collaboration through informal and formal processes
In an interview with the OECD, a representative highlighted the co-existence of formal and informal processes for collaboration depending on the specific tasks. The strategic decisions are taken in the Advisory Board which involves in total 16 representatives covering all types of actors including large companies, small companies, universities and research centres. The Advisory Board also has two observers – one from the government and one from administration. Every three years companies organise elections to select their representatives. The selection of the president and vice-president involves a fierce competition as this post entails reputational aspects and requires international visibility. The day-to-day running of the cluster is ensured by a small and agile management team.
An important aspect for a successful governance is the trust that is developed between the management team and the Advisory Board. The Managing Director has an easy and informal access to the board members in case smaller strategic decisions need to be addressed. All Board meets annually for a formal discussion, while meetings with the president and vice-president are scheduled on a monthly basis. While it is recognised that the Advisory Board of 16 members is too complex for the cluster governance and in the ideal scenario should be restricted to 7-8 people, the BioWin team finds the developed orchestration mechanisms quite successful. As the Managing Director of BioWin explained it:
Formative evaluation
In an interview with the OECD, a representative of the BioWin ecosystem support organisation explained that defined KPIs are used by the government of Wallonia to review if defined objectives are reached. A lack of formative evaluation was identified as a limitation:
“Recently [the government] asked to fix our quantitative objectives. We have some 35 objectives which is [very extensive]. Each year we review if we have reached these objectives, but this is new. We are not properly evaluated at the moment, but this is very important for our improvement.”
Source: OECD interview; BioWin (n.d.[48]), Le Pôle Santé de Wallonie, https://biowin.org/ (accessed on 15 November 2022); BioWin (2021[49]), BioWin Annual Report 2021, https://biowin.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/2021_BioWin_annual_report_FINAL.pdf.
The OECD conducted a formative evaluation on the tools and methods developed by the OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) that were applied to support anticipatory innovation ecosystems in Latvia. The OECD OPSI approach was tested through a series of on- and offline workshops co-organised in partnership with the Investment and Development Agency of Latvia (LIAA) in the period from February to June 2022. The overarching objective of the workshops was to build collective capacity of ecosystem participants to embed anticipation and futures-orientation into their innovation efforts.
The evaluation had two objectives. First, it aimed to analyse ecosystem partners’ perceptions on the relevance and usefulness of the workshops. Second, the evaluation sought to establish a method through which LIAA and ecosystem actors can periodically reflect on the applicability of the tools and activities for further ecosystem building.
Overview of the method
The evaluation covered six workshops for the following four ecosystems:
Biomedicine ecosystem (one online workshop and one in-person workshop).
Smart materials and photonics ecosystem (two online workshops).
Eighty-two participants took part in the six workshops representing government, industry (incl. state-owned companies), research and academia, as well as other types of organisations. Most participants (54) took part in online workshops, while 28 members from the Biomedicine ecosystem met also in an offline workshop convened in Riga, Latvia.
The evaluation relied on two core methods: 1) online survey of all workshop participants; and 2) interviews with a representative sample of participants. The short online survey was designed to gather a more aggregate and quantitative feedback from a large pool of workshop participants. The survey was sent to all participants (n=82) with a response rate of 46% (38 completed replies).
Among other questions survey asked participants to consider how each workshop affected their perception of the micro-governance processes (see Table 2.7).
Outcomes of the formative evaluation
The data collection tools applied for this formative evaluation – the survey questionnaire and the interview guide – worked well to achieve the objectives of this evaluation. The survey was short and had a good response rate (41%). Survey respondents did not provide any comments or other feedback signalling problems with the survey. Therefore, it was determined that LIAA can re-use the survey framework and adjust the questions to collect feedback after future ecosystem workshops focusing on the innovation ecosystem development.
Combining interview and survey methods enabled the simple collection of input from many participants to be complemented by more nuanced insights. The evaluation revealed an overall positive assessment of the ecosystem workshops but identified micro- and meso-governance issues that could be used to inform policy design.
Source: OECD research.
Monitoring and renewing capacity for anticipation, learning and adaptation
The following questions can help the ecosystem partners and support teams to evaluate the capacity for anticipation, learning and adaptation:
What information and knowledge gaps have ecosystem partners identified? How can these be addressed?
What systems are in place for ecosystem partners to share information with each other? Are they effective?
How is information and knowledge generated by the ecosystem being harvested, documented and analysed?
What processes are there for shared decisions to be made to adjust or re-orient ecosystem activities and goals?
While micro-governance describes the practices and structures necessary to facilitate anticipatory innovation within an ecosystem, meso-governance encompasses the way in which government stakeholders coordinate their actions to create and maintain the conditions for anticipatory ecosystem development. Government has a key role to play in creating the authorising environment for anticipatory innovation ecosystems, with a particular value in de-risking and creating legitimacy for participation within ecosystems.
In addition to stimulating the development of anticipatory innovation ecosystems, effective meso-governance enables government to anticipate change and become more proactive. Anticipatory innovation ecosystems generate valuable information by leveraging the collective intelligence of their members to detect signals of change, explore and make sense of uncertainty. To benefit from this, government actors are likely to need to promote and facilitate anticipatory activities and make sense of the needs, challenges and objectives for ecosystems that result from them. Effective knowledge management is therefore vital. To support policy learning and ecosystem development, meso-governance should also facilitate coordination across ecosystems and government silos to respond to emergent signals of change and address barriers to ecosystem development. It is important that meso-governance is not hierarchical but facilitates the emergent and collaborative leadership that constitutes micro-governance, and enables the transmission of information both upstream and downstream between policymakers and ecosystems.
To support ongoing coordination, the OECD has developed a framework for that government actors can use to assess the needs of ecosystems and consider the roles that they can play to support them. This approach, which outlines seven key functions for government to perform in order to support anticipatory innovation ecosystems, draws on the identification of roles undertaken during ecosystem genesis by Dedehayir et al. (2018[5]) and the ‘styles of government action’ framework developed by the UK government’s Policy Lab (Siodmok, 2020[50]).
Following Policy Lab, the functions are not presented as an exhaustive list of the types of intervention that government can undertake, nor can they only be performed by government. Instead, they are tools for thinking through how government might leverage existing capacities and policies to catalyse the success of anticipatory innovation ecosystems, and for spotting gaps or inconsistencies in the current provision of support and related policies.
1. Orchestrating: Identifying and leveraging expertise and resources from relevant stakeholders to address ecosystem needs; fostering the conditions for effective coordination and collaboration within the ecosystem.
2. Framing: Clearly articulating policy decisions and priorities, ensuring that ecosystems incorporate anticipation into their activities, setting standards.
3. Championing: Promoting ecosystem activities and products nationally and internationally.
4. Market building: Directly procuring new innovations or creating consumer level incentive schemes to promote uptake.
5. Providing: Providing non-financial resources (such as information, data, foresight support and training) and infrastructure to support ecosystem activities.
6. Funding: Providing direct funding or guidance to access funding to support ecosystem activities.
7. Regulating: Experimenting with regulation approaches that are favourable to innovation, such as sandboxes.
Seven meso-governance functions
The following outline presents example activities and interventions drawn from the OECD STIP compass (https://stip.oecd.org/stip/) and research conducted as part of this project.
Orchestrating
Government can play a powerful role as a convenor of stakeholders and knowledge to support ecosystem development. Effective orchestration requires capabilities for stakeholder and knowledge management, and regular interactions with current and potential ecosystem partners. Activities and interventions to related to orchestration include:
Establishment of dedicated ecosystem support organisations (see Box 2.1 on Smart and Clean Helsinki).
Holding information seminars on available facilities for ecosystem partners.
Establishing links with complementary ecosystems and value chains.
Mapping stakeholder connections and value chains to assess critical mass for ecosystem participation, and identify gaps and missing actors.
Framing
Communicating policy priorities to ecosystems enables them to explore how their goals and activities can be better aligned to the needs of society. Framing can also be achieved through participatory approaches (see Box 2.3 on ecosystem prioritisation and selection). Activities and interventions relating to framing include:
Championing
Clear championing by government provides ecosystems with legitimacy that enables them to attract new members and can connect them to international ecosystems and value chains. This is demonstrated by the case of the JIC ecosystem in South Moravia (Box 2.10). Activities and interventions relating to championing include:
Initiated in 2003, JIC Regional innovation ecosystem is funded by the region of South Moravia and four universities (Masaryk University, Brno University of Technology, Mendel University in Brno and University of Veterinary Sciences Brno). It is tasked to help university startups and support industrial development in the region. By acting as a facilitator for stakeholders to formulate joint strategies, it empowers entrepreneurs to reach goals for regional innovation. Furthermore, JIC supports entrepreneurship activities and services.
In an interview with the OECD, a representative of JIC pointed out that political support is a crucial driver for the development of the regional innovation ecosystem:
“Sustained political support is an important driver. Throughout the past 20 years, there has never been a moment when the local government would doubt the topic's relevance. It has, over time, almost become part of the region's identity. It's a no brainer.”
Source: OECD interview; JIC (n.d.[51]), Our Story, https://www.jic.cz/en/our-story/.
Market building
Governments can stimulate the development of markets for new innovations directly through procurement, or indirectly through a range of instruments such as consumer-level incentive schemes for niche products. Activities and interventions relating to framing include:
Providing
Non-financial resources such as expertise, training, data and infrastructure can help to unlock barriers in ecosystem and innovation development. Activities and interventions relating to providing include:
Training provision to ecosystem partners, such as strategic foresight.
Creation of foresight intelligence reports (for example, the Emerging Technologies Radar in Box 2.11).
Provision of concrete infrastructure such as demonstration plants.
Technology extension and business advisory services supporting knowledge transfer and co-creation.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in the United Kingdom produces an annual report on emerging technologies that could contribute to the success Defra and its supporting agencies, public bodies and Public Sector Research Establishments (the ‘Defra group’) across its objectives.
A longlist of emerging technologies gathered through a horizon scan is mapped against priority objectives published in the Defra group’s Outcome Delivery Plan. The resulting map is known as the Emerging Technologies Radar, which categorises technologies against their potential impact for Defra and their technological maturity. In 2022, the radar was developed by leveraging the knowledge of stakeholders across the Defra group and its ‘supplier ecosystem’, as well as using Artificial Intelligence tools to identify and analyse emerging technologies.
The radar highlights how technological development may help Defra achieve its strategic goals. For example, to increase productivity in the agri-food and drinks industry while meeting climate targets, it identifies digital twins, internet of things and predictive analytics as potentially key technologies.
Source: Murdoch, J. (2022[52]), “Scanning the horizon for the innovations of the future - Defra digital, data and technology”, https://defradigital.blog.gov.uk/2022/02/10/scanning-the-horizon-for-the-innovations-of-the-future/; DEFRA (2022[53]), Emerging Technologies Radar, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pnbNugujjreQiNThQ82hN-fd1ebupVre/view?usp=embed_facebook.
Funding
Different approaches to attracting and disbursing funding provide governments with a range of levers to promote innovation and overcome barriers. Activities and interventions relating to funding include:
Regulating
Approaches to regulation that promote knowledge sharing and enable experimentation can support stakeholders to more safely develop and test innovations. Activities and interventions to support include:
Komet, Sweden
In 2018, the Swedish Government established the Committee for Technological Innovation and Ethics (Komet) with the mission to “help the Government to identify policy challenges, contribute to reducing uncertainty surrounding existing regulations, and accelerate policy development linked to new technologies”. The committee works closely with the Swedish government to ensure that regulations are up to date with emerging technologies and with the fast pace of technological development.
One of the processes to support the creation of coherent regulatory frameworks is the use of a future oriented model for collaboration, testing and experimentation in controlled environments. This model aims to support the Swedish government to “proactively address improvements technology could create to citizens, business and society, but also to highlight the conflicting goals that may arise”. Through this model Komet seeks to achieve a common ground and understanding of ongoing technological developments and identify possible solutions that can avoid ethical risks and encourage sustainable and responsible innovation.
UK Civil Aviation Authority
In 2018, the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) launched the Innovation Hub. The Innovation Hub aims to support innovators by facilitating access to expertise and guidance on regulation and providing safe environments for the testing of new aviation systems.
Central to the Innovation Hub is the Innovation Sandbox. The Sandbox acts as a platform for aviation innovations to be tested through a cooperative approach that encompasses workshops, live trials and simulations. The learning that is generated through these activities enables the CAA to anticipate future regulatory challenges and accelerate the development of new policies and regulations.
Source: Hernández, G. and M. Amaral (2022[54]), “Case studies on agile regulatory governance to harness innovation: Civilian drones and bio-solutions”, https://doi.org/10.1787/0fa5e0e6-en.
Activities undertaken by ecosystem partners will reveal challenges and needs that cannot be easily or obviously addressed by the present ecosystem partners. Innovation ecosystem support teams can collate these needs and work with other government actors to consider how they can collaborate to address them through a coordinated approach. Regular assessment of ecosystem needs using the function-based approach can help government to understand overarching needs and adapt types of support and policies to continue facilitating ecosystem development.
The matrix tool in Table 2.9 is intended to help groups of government actors work together identify how they might collaboratively facilitate anticipatory ecosystem development. For each need identified by an ecosystem, government actors can consider how it might be addressed through existing activities and interventions related to each function. Following this, additional actions can be identified and agreed upon. Key government actors for each action should be identified to facilitate coordination and provide accountability.
References
[29] 6G Flagship (n.d.), Innovation & Co-creation in 6G Flagship Ecosystem, https://www.6gflagship.com/get-involved/ecosystem/ (accessed on 15 November 2022).
[30] Autio, E. (2021), “Orchestrating ecosystems: A multi-layered framework”, Innovation, Vol. 24/1, pp. 1-14, https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1919120.
[46] Barbrook-Johnson, P. and A. Penn (2022), “Theory of change diagrams”, in Systems Mapping, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-031-01919-7_3.
[19] Beaudry, C. and L. Solar-Pelletier (2020), “The Superclusters Initiative: An opportunity to reinforce innovation ecosystems”.
[39] Berditchevskaia, A. and C. Bertoncin (2021), How to Make Good Group Decisions: Simple Tips to Help Organisations Become More Collectively Intelligent, Nesta, https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Collective-Intelligence-Good-Decision-Making.pdf.
[49] BioWin (2021), BioWin Annual Report 2021, https://biowin.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/2021_BioWin_annual_report_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2022).
[48] BioWin (n.d.), Le Pôle Santé de Wallonie, https://biowin.org/ (accessed on 15 November 2022).
[32] Boni, A. et al. (2021), Motion Handbook. Developing a Transformative Theory of Change, https://www.tipconsortium.net/publication/motion-handbook-developing-a-transformative-theory-of-change/.
[43] COP RBM (2012), Sourcebook on Results Based Management in the European Structural Funds, Community of Practice on Results Based Management, https://www.theoryofchange.org/wp-content/uploads/toco_library/pdf/sourcebook_tusseninres.pdf.
[5] Dedehayir, O., S. Mäkinen and J. Ortt (2018), “Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A literature review”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 136, pp. 18-29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.028.
[53] DEFRA (2022), Emerging Technologies Radar, United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pnbNugujjreQiNThQ82hN-fd1ebupVre/view?usp=embed_facebook.
[21] Fagerberg, J. and G. Hutschenreiter (2020), “Coping with societal challenges: Lessons for innovation policy governance”, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Vol. 20/2, pp. 279-305, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-019-00332-1.
[31] GIZ (2020), Transformative Project Design, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH, https://www.giz.de/expertise/downloads/GIZ-BMU_2020_Transformative%20Project%20Design_EN.pdf.
[25] Govern de les Illes Balears (2013), Illes Balear - Towards a RIS3 Strategy, https://kipdf.com/illes-balears-towards-a-ris3-strategy_5ab8529b1723dd339c818b56.html.
[18] Government of Canada (2019), Building a Nation of Innovators - Innovation for a Better Canada, https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/eng/h_00105.html.
[20] Government of Canada (2016), Technology Demonstration Program - Program Guide, Industrial Technologies Office, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/weekly_acquisitions_list-ef/2016/16-31/publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/isde-ised/Iu37-3-2015-eng.pdf.
[4] Guzzo, F. and C. Gianelle (2021), Assessing Smart Specialisation: Governance, Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/48092.
[11] Hasche, N., L. Höglund and G. Linton (2019), “Quadruple helix as a network of relationships: Creating value within a Swedish regional innovation system”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 32/6, pp. 523-544, https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2019.1643134.
[10] Health-Holland (n.d.), Homepage, https://www.health-holland.com/ (accessed on 14 November 2022).
[54] Hernández, G. and M. Amaral (2022), “Case studies on agile regulatory governance to harness innovation: Civilian drones and bio-solutions”, OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers, No. 18, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0fa5e0e6-en.
[23] Hill, D. (2020), “Realizing mission-oriented innovations in a fast-moving world”, https://council.science/current/blog/realizing-mission-oriented-innovations-in-a-fast-moving-world/.
[44] Hivos (2012), Theory of Change Thinking in Practice: A Stepwise Approach, Hivos, https://hivos.org/assets/2020/10/hivos_toc_guidelines.pdf.
[51] JIC (n.d.), Our Story, https://www.jic.cz/en/our-story/.
[17] Kaivo-oja, J. et al. (2017), “Smart specialization strategy and its operationalization in the regional policy: Case Finland”, Business, Management and Economics Engineering, Vol. 15/1, pp. 28-41, https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2017.362.
[27] Komorowski, M. (2019), Innovation Ecosystems in Europe: First Outline of an Innovation Ecosystem Index, https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/final_study_on_innovation_ecosystems_in_europe_imec_smit_komorowski.pdf.
[9] Könnölä, T. et al. (2021), “Transformative governance of innovation ecosystems”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 173, p. 121106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121106.
[8] Kreiling, L. and C. Paunov (2021), “Knowledge co-creation in the 21st century: A cross-country experience-based policy report”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 115, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c067606f-en.
[13] Matti, C. et al. (2020), Challenge-led System Mapping: A Knowledge Management Approach, https://transitionshub.climate-kic.org/publications/challenge-led-system-mapping-a-knowledge-management-approach/.
[40] Matti, C. et al. (2022), Co-creation for Policy: Participatory Methodologies to Structure Multi-stakeholder Policymaking Processes, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC128771.
[24] Mazzucato, M. (2017), “Mission-oriented innovation policy: Challenges and opportunities”, IIPP Working Paper Series, UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/publications/2017/sep/mission-oriented-innovation-policy-challenges-and-opportunities.
[45] Molas-Gallart, J. et al. (2021), “A formative approach to the evaluation of Transformative Innovation Policies”, Research Evaluation, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab016.
[52] Murdoch, J. (2022), “Scanning the horizon for the innovations of the future - Defra digital, data and technology”, https://defradigital.blog.gov.uk/2022/02/10/scanning-the-horizon-for-the-innovations-of-the-future/.
[14] Nesta (n.d.), Innovation Mapping, Nesta, https://www.nesta.org.uk/feature/innovation-methods/innovation-mapping/ (accessed on 5 August 2022).
[41] Nokia (n.d.), Nokia Veturi Program, https://www.nokia.com/innovation/veturi-program/.
[26] OECD (2018), OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2018: Adapting to Technological and Societal Disruption, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2018-en.
[33] OECD (2011), “Executive summary”, in Demand Side Innovation Policies, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/48081293.pdf.
[36] OECD/Eurostat (2018), Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en.
[15] Paliokaitė, A., Ž. Martinaitis and R. Reimeris (2015), “Foresight methods for smart specialisation strategy development in Lithuania”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 101, pp. 185-199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.04.008.
[16] Paliokaitė, A., Ž. Martinaitis and D. Sarpong (2016), “Implementing smart specialisation roadmaps in Lithuania: Lost in translation?”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 110, pp. 143-152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.005.
[42] Pellikka, J. (2020), “Nokia Veturi Program - Unlock Industrial 5G”.
[37] Pellikka, J. et al. (2021), “Fostering innovation ecosystem development – Tools and practices”, Paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future, Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
[12] Philp, J. and D. Winickoff (2019), “Innovation ecosystems in the bioeconomy”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 76, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e2e3d8a1-en.
[35] Popper, R. (2008), “How are foresight methods selected?”, Foresight, Vol. 10/6, pp. 62-89, https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680810918586.
[47] Rogers, P. (2014), “Theory of Change”, Methodological Briefs: Impact Evaluation 2, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence, https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/brief_2_theoryofchange_eng.pdf.
[34] Rosa, A. et al. (2021), “Participatory foresight and reflexive innovation: Setting policy goals and developing strategies in a bottom-up, mission-oriented, sustainable way”, European Journal of Futures Research, Vol. 9/1, p. 2, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-021-00171-6.
[3] Russell, M. and N. Smorodinskaya (2018), “Leveraging complexity for ecosystemic innovation”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 136, pp. 114-131, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.024.
[50] Siodmok, A. (2020), “Introducing a ’Government as a System’ toolkit”, Policy Lab, https://openpolicy.blog.gov.uk/2020/03/06/introducing-a-government-as-a-system-toolkit/.
[6] Smart & Clean Foundation (2021), Smart & Clean - Key Learnings, Smart & Clean Foundation.
[7] Smart & Clean Foundation (2017), Smart & Clean Helsinki Metropolitan Annual Report 2016/17.
[1] Tõnurist, P. and A. Hanson (2020), “Anticipatory innovation governance: Shaping the future through proactive policy making”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 44, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cce14d80-en.
[22] UK Government (2017), “Industrial strategy: Building a Britain fit for the future”, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-strategy-building-a-britain-fit-for-the-future.
[28] Valkokari, K., K. Hyytinen and P. Kutinlahti (2021), Collaborating for a Sustainable Future - Ecosystem Guide, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, https://doi.org/10.32040/2020.Ecosystemguide.
[2] Wegner, D. and J. Verschoore (2021), “Network governance in action: Functions and practices to foster collaborative environments”, Administration & Society, Vol. 54/2, p. 00953997211024580, https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211024580.
[38] Winickoff, D. et al. (2021), “Collaborative platforms for emerging technology: Creating convergence spaces”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 109, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ed1e030d-en.