Content uploaded by Maria Rosaria Seminara
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maria Rosaria Seminara on Nov 21, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Links Between Smart Specialisation
Strategy, the Quintuple Helix Model
and Living Labs
Vincenzo Provenzano, Massimo Arnone and Maria Rosaria Seminara
Abstract This paper analyzes how the Living Labs can be designed as tools for a
more effective implementation of the Smart Specialisation Strategy (S3) within the
Quintuple Helix Model. Above all, the Quintuple Helix espouses the formation of a
constructive situation encompassing ecology, knowledge and innovation, and cre-
ating extensive synergy between economy, society, and democracy. In this paper,
we shall be focusing on the Quintuple Helix and Living Labs geared towards
creating a shared arena in which services, processes and new ways of working via
technology can be developed and tested with user representatives and researchers.
Since the Living Lab is a rather new research area, the number of supporting
theories for understanding the concept is limited. The same is true when it comes to
methodologies, methods and tools. The aim of the paper is to clarify these per-
spectives and to illustrate how they can enhance each other.
Keywords Smart specialisation strategy Living labs Quintuple helix model
1 Introduction
The Smart Specialisation Strategy (S3) has become an umbrella notion for a diverse
set of innovation strategies in the European Union. The S3 was conceived on the
basis of two fundamental ideas:
V. Provenzano (&)M. Arnone M. R. Seminara
SEAS, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze Ed. 13, 90128 Palermo, Italy
e-mail: vincenzo.provenzano@unipa.it
M. Arnone
e-mail: massimo.arnone@unipa.it
M. R. Seminara
e-mail: mariarosaria.seminara@unipa.it
©Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
A. Bisello et al. (eds.), Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions,
Green Energy and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75774-2_38
563
(a) minimizing the risk of investment dispersion in research and innovation (such
as training and R&D expenditure), by selecting those technological domains in
which investments can produce higher specialisation;
(b) domains are chosen to enhance the existing knowledge and innovation potential
in the region (smart).
From a theoretical point of view, these ideas are based on two assumptions
(Foray et al. 2009; McCann and Ortega-Argilés2015):
(a) achieving a critical mass of resources to achieve R&D in terms of productivity;
(b) regional specialisation has a high degree of path dependence, and successful
diversification can only be achieved in areas that are closely linked to existing
knowledge bases.
The S3 indicates that the innovation process is increasingly understood as an
open system where various actors collaborate and interact to promote an open and
inclusive governance system supporting the participation of traditional and new
innovators. The realization of new innovative processes and green technology
moving in the direction of sustainable development become key factors for the
achievement of long-term innovative strategies and will lead to interconnections
between central and peripheral regions.
Although S3 pursues a place-based setting, the concept has been criticized for its
uniform potential spatial impact. Many European regions exhibit a weak correlation
between regional research and development capabilities and between training
specialization and industrial structure; the original concept needs to be adapted to
specific features of the area in question.
In this sense, the evolution of innovative models from the Triple Helix (TH) and
Quadruple Helix (QH) to the Quintuple Helix (QuiH) is especially appealing to
European regions lagging behind. With particular reference to innovative models
aimed at urban and rural areas, the Quintuple Helix model tries to reinforce the
interaction between public institutions, private organizations, research institutes,
local agencies and the general public within a single environmental system.
Therefore, the Living Lab (for example, the open innovation ecosystem) may
constitute an added value to interpreting, in a positive fashion, the peculiar con-
figuration of territorial clusters and social and relational structures in a specific area.
Following an approach of shared responsibility, it becomes an instrument for
interpreting the released potential of local resources, infrastructure and organiza-
tion, thus improving the adaptability of the players, the attitude to collective
learning and making local innovation processes easier.
The last part of the discussion is related to Living Labs. Living Labs has become
an umbrella concept for a varied array of innovative milieus emerging all over
Europe. Even though they may differ in many ways, both in focus and approach,
there are also several common denominators drawing them together (Shami 2008).
A Living Lab is an open innovation environment in a real-life setting in which
user-driven innovation is the co-creation process for new services, products and
564 V. Provenzano et al.
societal infrastructures. Living Labs encompass societal and technological dimen-
sions simultaneously in a business-citizen-government-academia partnership.
In the following sections, we present the aims and weaknesses of S3 and the
development of innovative models up to Quintuple helix. Subsequently, we
introduce the Living Lab and its key components and principles; this is followed by
a brief example from a lagging area where a public and private partnership fosters
urban development, pursuing a particular concept of sustainable development. Then
we reflect on the key principles and key components, as well as the relationship
between them, before the paper ends with a few concluding remarks.
2 The Smart Specialisation Strategy: Aims
and Weaknesses
The official document of the European Union Regional Policy contributing to Smart
Growth in Europe (EC 2010) introduces the Smart Specialisation Strategy.
The S3 tries to individualize and enhance the competitive potential of various
areas through the identification of the characteristic assets of each region
[place-based strategy (Barca 2009)]. The principle adopted by the strategy takes the
shape of a concentration of resources of knowledge, linking them to a limited
number of priority and economic activities (principle of concentration); this is allied
to shared participation in innovation management, with the involvement of local
stakeholders and lifelong learning based on the ex-ante and ex-post evaluation
processes of the strategy.
In other words, Smart Specialisation entails a strategic approach to economic
development through the use of bottom-up policies that involve research and
innovation (Provenzano et al. 2016). The concepts expressed in Strategy S3 are
implemented through regional research and innovation policies. The RIS3
(Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisations) fosters entrepre-
neurial discovery and the formation of territorial partnerships between various
public and private stakeholders, as well as the creation of the prerequisites for
long-term sustainable economic development. The key actors for promoting
knowledge and innovation are local policy makers, universities and private entre-
preneurs (Capello 2014).
The implementation of the strategy has highlighted certain weaknesses in its
wording. The concept of smart specialisation emphasizes issues of economic
potential, in an a-spatial context, driven primarily by intra-sectoral, rather than
inter-sectoral spillovers. These criteria are based on two assumptions:
1. a critical mass of resources is essential to get results from R&D investment and
productivity
2. regional specialisation shows a high degree of path dependency, so that suc-
cessful diversification can be achieved only in the areas related to the existing
knowledge base (Iacobucci and Guzzini 2016).
The Links Between Smart Specialisation Strategy …565
Regions and cities, however, are different. According to the literature on regional
innovation systems (McCann and Ortega-Argilés2013;Tödtling and Trippl 2005),
the OECD classifies three types of regions, namely: knowledge regions, industrial
production zones and non-science and technology (S&T)-driven regions, which
typically consist of the lagging regions. Various countries and regions tend to
specialise in different knowledge-related sectors depending on their capabilities.
The weaker regions, in particular, do not sometimes reach the critical masses for a
specific specialisation, nor do they know the potential of their territory in advance.
The application of S3 actually favored regions that were already more com-
petitive. Therefore, the original concept of S3 should be adapted to the specific
features of a region, taking into account aspects of the region’s economic geog-
raphy. To surmount the non-space logic of S3, the concept of domain was intro-
duced, substituting the sectoral approach to innovation and also helping
entrepreneurs to find innovation opportunities within their domains (Foray et al.
2009,2011; David et al. 2009). The domain concept should foster cross-sector
access not only within the same region, but also among the various European
regions.
The concept of connectedness of domains plays a key role. Domains highly
connected with other domains will offer greater opportunities for sharing knowl-
edge, which represents an important concept for several forms of networking and
clustering capacity (McCann and Ortega-Argiles 2015). At this point, the evolution
of regional models of innovation will be described.
3 Evolution of Innovation Models and the S3
Progress from a knowledge economy to a knowledge society has been the milestone
of The European Commission, making explicit reference to the quadruple helix
(QH) model of innovation (Carayannis and Campbell 2009). More specifically, the
QH model is based on the openness of innovation processes to civil society for the
application of the Smart Specialisation Strategy, surpassing the TH model devel-
oped by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1997), which was based on the relationships
between the public system, universities and business. Pursuing the QH model, the
users’orientation is expected to develop and produce, as well as to access new
products, processes and industrial services. At the same time we need an additional
step in order to identify a new layer of regional innovation processes.
Moreover, the QuiH stresses the importance of the natural environment as an
asset for the production of knowledge and innovation. The QuiH model comprises
five helices: the education system, the economic system, the natural environment,
the media- and culture-based public and the political system.
The natural environment is considered a central element for the production of
knowledge and innovation, being a unique source for the very survival of mankind.
The creation of new green technology and innovative processes geared towards
566 V. Provenzano et al.
sustainable development become fundamental for fostering long-term innovative
strategies. Protection of the environment and biodiversity propels knowledge and
innovation in the direction of a sustainable and social economy where all the actors
are involved and responsible for the formulation of strategies for local development.
The QuiH model is a framework for transdisciplinary analysis of sustainable
development and social ecology as indicated in Fig. 1that is capable of rendering
less developed regions more competitive.
To sum up, the TH model deals with the hybridization of elements from uni-
versity, industry and government to generate new institutional and social layouts for
the production, transfer and application of knowledge. The QH model encourages
the development of innovation that is appropriate for the user (civil society), with
the general public here being the driving motor of innovation processes. The QuiH
model embraces the natural environment in addition to the university, industry,
government and civic society, outlining what sustainable development might mean
and imply for ‘eco-innovation’and ‘eco-entrepreneurship’in the current situation
and for our future”(Carayannis and Campbell 2010).
4 The Living Lab: A Useful Innovation Driver
and the Quintuple Helix
Our thinking is that the living lab is an operational driver behind territorial inno-
vation. Successful innovation development is dependent on understating both
existing and emerging user needs. The Living Lab has emerged as a new way of
creating skills and developing specific competences and competitive advantages, a
Triple Helix:
Knowledge
Economy
Quadruple Helix:
context of society
for Triple Helix
Quintuple
Helix: context
of natural
environments
of society
Fig. 1 The evolution of
Helix innovation models
The Links Between Smart Specialisation Strategy …567
network that integrates both user-centered research and open innovation. The
emergence of open innovation has led to the creation of networks, where companies
team up with diverse types of partners and users to generate new products, services
and technology.
The clusters in which resources are mobilized are relevant to understanding the
dynamics of development of a specific region. According to the European Network
of Living Labs, we are dealing with “an open innovation environment in real-life
settings in which user-driven innovation is the co-creation process for new services,
products, and societal infrastructures. Living Labs encompass societal and tech-
nological dimensions simultaneously in a business-citizens government-academia
partnership.”
In the S3 guide, the Living Labs are a part of a larger innovative ecosystem that
facilitates the use of research products. In this ecosystem, the original contribution
of the Living Labs is in the application of knowledge about the real-life context of
stakeholders external to the enterprise, in order to identify the strengths and
weaknesses of the local system (Foray et al. 2012).
A Living Lab is also an emerging Public Private Partnership (PPP) concept, a
network that integrates both user-centered research and open innovation. The
emergence of open innovation has led to the creation of networks, where companies
team up with diverse types of partners and users to generate new products, services
and technology (Chesbrough and Appleyard 2007). Open cooperation is crucial
because the Living Lab needs to bring together various organizations. The focus
here is on creating innovative applications based on existing technology, as well as
on the design of future technology. The ability to bring public interests into the
environment is important in catering for a long-term operation of systemic inno-
vation (Niitamo et al. 2006).
A Living Labs platform analyzed within the logical framework of the QuiH
model is capable of conceptualizing the territorial dimension of regional research
and innovation policy (Bevilacqua and Pizzimenti 2016).
The Living Lab is an innovation tool capable of tracking and intervening in
response to environmental challenges, acting from within the QuiH model.
The practical application of the QuiH Model should lead to defining a territorial
Living Lab capable of overcoming the problem of the a-spatial nature of S3.
Territorial Living labs may represent a way of reinforcing the links between the
various local actors (firms, policy makers, universities, civil society) and the
environment, lowering the barriers enabling collaboration within innovation pro-
cesses (Carayannis et al. 2012).
In regional Living Labs, all innovative dimensions aim to improve the living
conditions of local communities. The local system is also considered to be an active
subject of the lab and functions in cooperation with it (Rota 2014). The Living Lab
develops and generates tacit and codified knowledge within a specific
socio-economic context. Models of “smart interface”have been proposed
(Bevilacqua and Pizzimenti 2016) for lagging areas, and the following regional
example indicates how a local Living Lab brought together actors in a sustainable
urban environment.
568 V. Provenzano et al.
Over the last few years, we have observed a significant number of applications
including best practices in lagging regions, such as the Smart Cities Living Lab
project for the town of Siracusa (Sicily) for the fruition of public assets and general
urban development. Siracusa was the winner of the Smart Cities Living Lab com-
petition, created as a result of an agreement signed by the National Research Council
(CNR) and the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI). As part of this
initiative, methodologies and innovative solutions were tested in order to develop a
specific area, the urban environment of Ortigia (Siracusa), where an important and
overlooked stock of public assets was located. This initiative constituted a significant
advance in the transformation process of the image and urban environment of the
island of Ortigia in favor of better logistic accessibility to its cultural heritage. In line
with a public/private partnership (4Ps) of persons, a grant was provided by the IBM
Citizenship Initiative to address top strategic challenges and to improve policy
development and decision making in Ortigia. In this case, the 4Ps approach was
implemented in the creation and management of the local Living Lab, supported by
an international organization geared to specific interests (Boccella and Salerno 2015).
5 Conclusions
The paper highlights how the logical framework of the Quintuple Helix model and
Living Labs can enhance each other in improving the Smart Specialisation Strategy
for the reduction of economic and territorial disparity in the lagging regions. The
paper, at this stage, does not indicate specific results but indicates how a successful
environmental Living Lab can facilitate and offset top-down governance with
bottom-up initiatives in a specific region. At this stage, we are probably outlining a
way of operating rather than indicating a model of analysis; however, certain
observations might prove useful in the wider debate about the difficulty of applying
the Smart Specialisation Strategy in terms of its capacity to reduce economic and
territorial disparity between and within European regions. The territorial embed-
dedness of various stakeholders and interest groups in policy-making processes
may be a way of creating durability for the decisions made. A Living Lab, there-
fore, might represent an optimal balance between supply and demand for territorial
goods and services and provide innovative solutions for a region’s or city’s cultural
heritage and environmental sustainability. The territorial Living Lab, configured as
an open innovation model, facilitates links between the domains of various
European regions in the implementation of S3.
In addition, the implementation of the Quintuple Helix for the Local Living Lab
might facilitate tackling broader issues raised by the scientific debate, opposing the
effectiveness of a-spatial approaches versus place-based approaches to regional
development. Therefore, the productivity gap should also be taken into account, not
only between regions but also within the same region.
The availability of technology helps provide a new approach to the study of the
interaction between people and the built environment in the context of Living Labs.
The Links Between Smart Specialisation Strategy …569
The Living-Lab scenario can be viewed as a series of unfolding actions, drawing on
available material, as well as cognitive, affective and social resources. The overall
challenge facing society today is to achieve and maintain a suitable quality of life,
while reducing to a sustainable level the environmental burden to which our
activities give rise.
The Living Labs and the Quintuple Helix possess the ability to bring users,
technology and business into an open innovative development process that estab-
lishes real-life environments. (Baccarne et al. 2016) These concepts entail long-term
cooperation, co-creative research and development, by involving the user in the
innovation process for ‘sensing, prototyping, validating and refining complex
solutions in multiple and evolving real life contexts’. Long-term cooperation
between researchers, companies and end-users overturn traditional methods, and the
Quintuple Helix is able to valorize assets that are not fully guaranteed in a classic
a-spatial economic paradigm.
References
Baccarne, B., Logghe, S., Schuurman, D., & De Marez, L. (2016). Governing Quintuple Helix
Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship. Technology Innovation
Management Review, 6(3), 22–30.
Barca, F. (2009). An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A Place-Based Approach to
Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations. In Independent report prepared at the
request of the European Commissioner for Regional Policy. Danuta Hübner. European
Commission, Brussels.
Bergavall-Kareborn, B., Stahlbrost, A., Eriksson, C. I., & Svensson J. (2009). A Milieu for
Innovation—Defining Living Labs. 2nd ISPIM Innovation Symposium, New York City, USA,
6–9 December.
Boccella, N., & Salerno, I. (2015). Beni pubblici e sviluppo urbano. Il progetto “Smart Cities
Living Lab”, Labor Est. n. 10. Available at http://pkp.unirc.it/ojs/index.php/LaborEst/article/
view/187.
Capello, R. (2014). Smart specialisation strategy and the new EU Cohesion Policy reform:
Introductory remarks. Scienze Regionali, 13(1), 5–14.
Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model:
Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 2.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). Mode 3 and Quadruple Helix: Toward a 21st
century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4),
201–234.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple
Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed
framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology.
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69.
Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California
Management Review, 50(1), 57–76.
David, P., Foray, D., & Hall, B. H. (2009). Measuring Smart Specialisation: The Concept and the
Need for Indicators. Knowledge for Growth Expert Group. Available at http://cemi.epfl.ch/
files/content/sites/cemi/files/users/178044/public/Measuring%20smart%20specialisation.doc.
570 V. Provenzano et al.
EC—Commission of the European Communities. (2010). Regional Policy Contributing to Smart
Growth in Europe. Brussels: COM(2010)553.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (Eds.). (1997). Universities and the Global Knowledge
Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London: Cassell.
Foray, D., David, P. A., & Hall, B. (2009). Smart Specialisation—The Concept. Knowledge
Economists Policy Brief n° 9. European Commission.
Foray, D., David, P. A., & Hall, B. (2011). Smart specialization from academic idea to political
instrument, the surprising career of a concept and the difficulties involved in its implemen-
tation. MTEI Working Paper.
Foray, D., Goddard, J., Beldarrain, X. G., Landabaso, M., McCann, P., Morgan, K., et al. (2012).
Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS 3). Brussels:
European Commission.
Iacobucci, D., & Guzzini, E. (2016). Relatedness and connectivity in technological domains:
missing links in S3 design and implementation. European Planning Studies, 24(8), 1511–1526.
Bevilacqua C., & Pizzimenti, P. (2016). Living Lab and Cities as Smart Specialisation Strategies
Engine. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,223, 915–922.
IBM’s Smarter Cities Challenge. (2012). Siracusa Summary Report. Retrieved from https://www.
smartercitieschallenge.org/cities?page=8#cities.
McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2013) Modern Regional Innovation Policy. Cambridge:
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society.
McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart Specialization, Regional Growth and
Applications to European Union Cohesion Policy. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1291–1302.
Niitamo, V.-P., Kulkki, S., Eriksson, M., & Hribernik, K. A. (2006). State-of-the-art and good
practice in the field of living labs. In The 12th International Conference on Concurrent
Enterprising: Innovative Products and Services through Collaborative Networks, ICE 2006,
Milan, Italy, June 26–28, pp. 349–357.
Provenzano V., Arnone M., & Seminara M. R. (2016). Innovation in the rural areas and the
linkage with the Quintuple Helix Model. Proceedings—Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 223, 442–447.
Rota, F. S. (2014). Opportunitàe limiti delle strategie di social innovation. Il caso dei living labs,
in (a cura di) Mazzola F., Musolino D., Provenzano V. Reti, nuovi settori e sostenibilità.
Prospettive per l’analisi e le politiche regionali. Franco Angeli, Milano.
Santoro, R., & Conte, M. (2009). Living Labs in Open Innovation Functional Regions. White
paper. Retrieved from March 10, 2010. http://www.ami-communities.eu/wiki/AMI%40Work_
on-line_Communities.
Shami, T. A. (2008). Living Labs: Good Practices in Europe. In Schumacher J. & Niitamo V. P. (Eds.),
European Living Labs: A New Approach for Human Centric Regional Innovation (pp. 15–30).
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag: Berlin.
Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation
policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219.
The Links Between Smart Specialisation Strategy …571
