6. Emerging principles for further investigation
This section discusses broadening the findings from Latvia. It aims to draw general principles on anticipatory innovation ecosystems from this project for use elsewhere. Anticipatory innovation ecosystems have potential as a vehicle through which governments can better understand and prepare for the future by leveraging the collective intelligence of diverse stakeholders to inform policy, and by orienting their actions towards delivering different types of value through innovation. This potential can be unlocked through effective public governance which supports ecosystem development and facilitates ongoing learning and action by government based on the insights they generate.
Through this project, the OECD worked with the Investment and Development Agency of Latvia to explore how anticipatory innovation governance (AIG) could inform and enable the development of anticipatory innovation ecosystems in Latvia. The insights that this work has generated about the governance of innovation ecosystems and their ability to produce valuable anticipatory knowledge are of value both to Latvia and other countries that wish to become more proactive in their support of innovation, and more responsive to emerging trends and potential futures.
1) Anticipatory approaches are valuable for the initiation and development of innovation ecosystems
Analysis of case studies and work conducted in Latvia (communicated in detail in Chapter 4) shows how ecosystems can apply anticipatory approaches to build their capacity for collaboration, allow ecosystem partners to identify and orient around shared goals, enable them to identify tensions and challenges in their strategies, and consider additional stakeholders it would be beneficial to engage. These core ‘micro-governance processes’ are the drivers for ecosystem development.
2) Ecosystem approaches can produce valuable anticipatory knowledge for governments
The participation of Latvian ecosystem stakeholders in anticipatory exercises generated a range of useful information. Horizon-scanning resulted in lists of possible changes and trends that could have an impact not only on innovation in Latvia, but also on areas of government activity such as healthcare and transport. For example, a financial crisis may require that access to public transport is improved, or the rapid development of biomedicine in non-EU countries may mean that connections with ecosystems in other countries should be improved. Stress-testing of strategies and objectives against these changes allowed ecosystems to consider and propose possible actions that public and private sector actors can take to better prepare for the future.
3) The Anticipatory Innovation Governance (AIG) framework identifies key mechanisms for the effective micro-governance of anticipatory innovation ecosystems
The AIG framework outlines governance mechanisms that enable knowledge about the future to be generated and acted upon. Chapter 2 of this report shows how these mechanisms are relevant to the development and maintenance of anticipatory innovation ecosystems as part of four micro-governance processes. ‘Networks and partnerships’ and ‘public interest and participation’ emerge as key to leveraging the collective intelligence of diverse stakeholders to enable ecosystems and governments to be more anticipatory and proactive. These mechanisms are particularly important in Latvia and other small states, where the capacity to leverage close networks of stakeholders to discover opportunities and develop place-based advantages is key to entering early into emerging value chains.
4) Effective governance at the policy level (meso-governance) is necessary to provide legitimacy and coordinated support for ecosystems
Analysis of case studies in Chapter 2 and the experiences of Latvian stakeholders detailed in Chapters 3 and 4 reveal that the legitimacy and support provided by government is important to generate the critical mass, momentum and commitment of ecosystem partners required to develop and sustain anticipatory innovation ecosystems. Contradictory or unclear policies and messaging from government can inhibit ecosystem development, while poor coordination and knowledge management at the meso- level reduces the capacity for policy learning and proactivity by government. A coordinating body composed of representatives from relevant ministries and agencies, such as the Innovation and Research Governance Council in Latvia, can enhance meso-governance by acting as a platform within which synergies and inconsistencies between policy and ecosystem priorities can be addressed, and knowledge generated by ecosystems can be communicated to government actors. The meso-governance functions framework detailed in this report can support greater coordination by allowing government actors to collaboratively explore the functions they can perform to support ecosystem development.
While collaboration with stakeholders in Latvia allowed the OECD to make an early exploration of the challenges and opportunities related to the application of anticipatory approaches by innovation ecosystem, the context and scope of the project meant that there have been limitations to what could be uncovered.
Further practical work to develop anticipatory innovation ecosystems and assess their impacts might include:
Applying anticipatory approaches to more mature ecosystems to stress-test their strategies.
Exploring how the links between ecosystems and other policy areas can be strengthened to promote the use of anticipatory knowledge by government.
Prototyping an explicit anticipatory function within an innovation agency or ecosystem support team.
Exploring how anticipatory approaches could be applied to mission oriented or grand-challenge led ecosystems in order to promote regular exploration of future changes.
Analysing the functions and required skills of ecosystem support organisations.