No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Smart systems of innovation for smart places: Challenges in deploying digital platforms for co-creation and data-intelligence
Abstract
The effect of digital transformation towards more efficient, place-based and bottom-up innovation policies at different spatial scales has proven significant, as digital technologies modify existing policy-design routines in cities and regions. Smart places (cities, districts, neighbourhoods, ecosystems) depend on the way digitalisation disrupts systems of innovation in cities, making it more open, global, participatory and experimental. We argue that the rise and interconnection of various types of intelligence (artificial, human, collective) could bring profound changes in the way smart places are being created and evolve. In this context, cyber-physical systems of innovation are deployed through multiple nodes acquiring digital companions, collaboration is deployed over physical, social, and digital spaces, and actors can use complex methods guided by software and get insights from data and analytics. The paper also presents the case study of OnlineS3, a two-year Horizon 2020 project, which developed and tested a digital platform composed of applications, datasets and roadmaps, which altogether create a digital environment for empowering the design of smart specialisation strategies for local and regional systems of innovation. The results indicate that digital transformation allows the operationalisation of multiple methodologies which have not been used earlier by policy makers, due to lack of capabilities. It can also increase the scalability of indicators facilitating decision making at different spatial scales and, therefore, better respond to the complexity of innovation systems providing dynamic and scale-diverse information.
... Managerial boundary conditions involve institutional frameworks, processrelated issues, openness degrees of platforms, slow decision-making processes, alignment, uncertainty management, and change management that hamper the DP implementation process (e.g. Panori et al., 2021). ...
... Cennamo (2018) Missing features (MF) The platform must meet the technical requirements of the business network Peruchi et al. (2022) Data privacy and security (DPS) DP raises critical privacy and security concerns for individuals or consumers; which leads to ripple effects crossing over to firm-level issues (e.g., firm reputation), and societal issues (e.g., lack of trust in media and democratic institutions) Nambisan et al. (2019) Data collection and analysis (DCA) SMEs need to collect and analyse data precisely; which is a leverage point in producing a novel type of information that is necessary for effective design strategies toward strengthening place-based or mission-oriented developmental paths Panori et al. (2021) Hard communication process (HCP) More work to communicate and receive feedback on interactions. It is hard to contact when there were at least five attempts to communicate with the responsible person, and there was no response Peruchi et al. (2022) Quality assurance (QA) A traditional business model requires several stages of quality testing and verification before delivering products to the customers. ...
... Owing to the widespread use of the DP version of work worldwide, particularly in emerging countries, the boundary conditions in the transition towards the DP revolution have drawn a great deal of attention from worldwide academia, business owners, and new entrant entrepreneurs (Şimşek et al., 2021). The extant literature has identified and discussed the boundary conditions above using only qualitative methods (Broekhuizen et al., 2021;Panori et al., 2021). Hence, this paper theoretically provides in-depth qualitative and quantitative insights into the levelbased interaction between DP implementation boundary conditions towards TE within the SMEs of emerging economies. ...
Transformational entrepreneurship (TE) has become a prevalent mind-set to survive societal, ecological and economic sustainability factors, particularly in emerging economies. Interestingly, different types of digital platforms (DPs) (i.e., transaction, innovation and integration) have assisted in this transformation. Although the implementation of DPs by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has been easing this transition process, several boundary conditions persist, and solutions are in demand. This research aims to investigate the main boundary conditions to DP execution by SMEs towards TE in emerging countries similar to Iran. Indisputably, this study contributes to providing in-depth qualitative and quantitative insights into level-based interactions between such barriers to TE diffusion among Iranian SMEs. In this regard, a mixed-method approach has been employed while extracting the list of DP boundary conditions via a systematic literature review. Then, in the quantitative section, a multi-layer decision-making approach consisting of Delphi, interpretive structural modelling (ISM), and matrix-based multiplication applied to a classification (MICMAC) has been applied to screen for the most important boundary conditions to TE, analyse the level-based interactions between the finalised boundary conditions and determine the importance and role of DP boundary conditions. To consider the uncertainty of the socioeconomic environment in emerging countries and to include the intuition and hesitation of the entrepreneurs in the analytical section, intuitionistic fuzzy sets were considered, and a novel IF-Delphi-ISM-MICMAC approach embedded with the multi-scenario analysis was performed. In either scenario, obstacles associated with extant laws and low governmental supportive policies, inconsistency between the technical requirements of the business network and DPs’ features, and low accessibility of digital technologies were the first-level boundary conditions.
... Functional knowledge economy (K.E.) spaces facilitate dynamic interactions among contextual knowledge creators, local enterprises, businesses, government entities, and the rural populace, which are prerequisites for prosperous rural societies (Lange et al., 2022;Zhang et al., 2022). However, the deficiency of K. E. spaces in rural areas, leading to non-existent, dysfunctional, and disconnected local ecosystem actors, has made the rural economy fragile (Westlund, 2006;Li et al., 2016Li et al., , 2019aTang and Zhu, 2020;Panori et al., 2021). The COVID-19 crisis and its aftermath have further exacerbated rural decline and hollowing out of rural areas (Gupta et al., 2021;Thanh et al., 2022). ...
... Digital platforms promote openness, shared access, collaboration, and transparency. They leverage network externalities and mimic the physical proximity of the traditional knowledge economy for increased interaction among actors (Panori et al., 2021;Stallkamp and Schotter, 2021). This results in an overarching geographical and non-geographical proximity that promotes regional innovations (Aguiléra et al., 2012;Crescenzi et al., 2016). ...
Due to urban-centric development paradigms, actors in the rural business ecosystem and related interaction spaces have become adrift, resulting in the fragility of the rural knowledge economy (K. E.) and rural decline. Diverse organizations, including not-for-profits, civil societies, private agencies, and cooperatives, have taken cognizance of this significant issue and have promoted platform-based enterprises. While the literature emphasizes the role of digital platforms in strengthening rural resilience, it does not elaborate on the underlying mechanism. Consequently, the relationship between the K. E. spaces topologically mapped on the platform, contributing to increased actor interaction and rural resilience, remains underexplored. This motivates us to pose a fundamental question: Can digital platforms operating in rural areas function as K.E. spaces and foster actor interactions to strengthen rural resilience? Theoretically grounded in network externality theory, the triple-helix model, and the Resilience Assessment Benchmarking and Impact Toolkit framework, this study adopts a multiple case study approach utilizing literature synthesis, archival sources, and primary data from key informants of selected platform organizations operational in rural areas. The findings show that K. E. spaces enrich the rural knowledge economy by onboarding missing actors and augmenting proximity. This leads to increased actor interactions and enhanced rural resilience. This study proposes an emergent framework expositing a nexus between digital platforms, K. E. spaces, and rural resilience attributes and contributes to the growing body of rural resilience literature.
... The outcome of this task will 53 become the new normal. 54 The new rules of social distancing and the restrictive policies that were adopted in 55 most places around the world had a disruptive impact on the way we live and have re- 56 shaped urban mobility. In this setting, two opposite trends emerge, which may be de- 57 pendent on the specific cultural and economic environment. ...
... 259 Technology offered plenty of opportunities paving the way for the emergence of bot-260 tom-up initiatives targeting community self-help and mutual support through social me-261 dia and online platforms. These initiatives bring communities together, encourage net-262 working, develop innovative solutions and collaborative infrastructures in support of 263 those in need and, therefore, shape social resilience by mobilising collective intelligence 264 (Vermicelli et al., 2021;Panori et al., 2020;Komninos, 2020). 265 At a more technical level, the use of data, the exploitation of analytics and smart city 266 technologies have been proven very useful to understand the magnitude of the current 267 crisis and to design effective mitigation strategies (Bragazzi et al., 2020;James et al., 2020). ...
The COVID-19 pandemic has put lifestyles in question, changed daily routines and limited citizen freedoms that seemed inalienable before. A human activity that was greatly affected since the beginning of the health crisis is mobility. Focusing on mobility, we aim to discuss the transformational impact that the pandemic brought on this specific urban domain, especially with regards to the promotion of the smart growth agenda and the acceleration towards the smart city paradigm. We collect 60 initial policy responses related to urban mobility from 86 cities around the world and analyse them based on the challenge they aim to address, the exact principles of smart growth and sustainable mobility that they encapsulate and the level of ICT penetration. Our findings suggest that emerging strategies, although mainly temporary, are transformational, in line with the principles of smart growth. As a result the pandemic becomes an opportunity for shifting towards more sustainable urban planning and mobility practices. However, most policy responses adopted during the first months of the pandemic fail to leverage advancements made in the field of smart cities, and to adopt off-the-shelf solutions such as in monitoring, alerting and operations management.
... For instance, they might argue that factors such as resource accessibility, the degree of external collaborations, and workforce digital literacy and skills are more important in determining how well educational institutions perform in terms of innovation [19]. Digital platform capability provides basic information for innovation activities in an organization [37]. Hence, current research proposes that digital innovation performs a mediating role between DPC and innovation performance. ...
Digital technologies have transformed business models quickly, making sustainable, inventive performance essential for the survival of businesses, particularly in emerging markets. However, a lot of English educational institutions struggle to make use of digital platform capability (DPC) due to a lack of funding, resources, and experience that stifles prospects for advanced innovation. After the COVID-19 pandemic, this study suggests a framework to investigate how English educational institutions might improve their innovation performance using DPC. The study examines the relationship between digital innovation (DI) and innovation performance (IP), as well as the moderating effects of digital technology (DT). This study uses a quantitative methodology and questionnaire survey with 435 respondents from institutions that support DPC. The analysis examines the hypotheses using correlations, regression analyses, and 5000 bootstraps. The results demonstrate a positive relationship between DPC and IP, with DI acting as a mediator. Additionally, the outcomes show that the development of digital technology strengthens the positive influence of DPC on innovation performance. Through filling research gaps, this study adds to the body of knowledge. It also has significant management implications for English educational institutions looking to improve their innovation performance by fostering digital platform ability and digital innovation.
... However, the importance of S3 monitoring and evaluation is contradicting its current scientific status quo (Mora et al., 2019). S3 monitoring has been analysed in several research streams and, indeed, one research trend can be recognised in the ex-ante of S3 monitoring period, i. e. during the transition phase between the funding periods (Arnold, 2004;EC, 2014;Gianelle & Kleibrink, 2015;Magro & Wilson, 2013;Masana & Fernández, 2019;Panori et al., 2020;Prause, 2014). However, at the end of first S3 implementation phase, current research is continuing to search for sufficient S3 monitoring approaches (Masana, 2022). ...
The thesis aims at examining and improving understanding of Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (EDP) set-up and its positioning within Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3) design and implementation, thus enabling regional sustainable development. S3 as well as Research and Innovation Strategies on Smart Specialisation (RIS3) receive increasing interest in regional innovation policy planning and governance, in particular, considering the current transition of this policy from period 2014–2020 towards 2021–2027. In this sense, regional decision-makers do not only have to learn from the first implementation period, but also to develop capacity to re-shape those strategies in order to meet future demands as well as to achieve objectives, as set in the European and international agendas, e.g. the European Green Deal, UN Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030, New European Bauhaus or Fit for 55 Package. In other words, European regional policy-making is under pressure to set up the path for future S3 design and implementation for 2021–2027 and beyond, keeping in mind the objective to accelerate both multi-scalar and multi-layer sustainable development.
Nevertheless, as the literature and available research initiatives demonstrates, the nexus of EDPs, S3 and sustainability stays rather below the radar. S3 design shows tangible drawbacks in finding the link between theory and practice, and EDP implementation misses sound theoretical foundation. At the present moment, S3 idea is still strongly connected to technology-driven innovation thinking and acting, which, in turn, ignores crucial aspects and wastes innovation potentials, thus jeopardising sustainable transition in a region. Unfortunately, social innovation concepts or socio-ecological tenets and their impact towards sustainable development have not been elaborated or incorporated as key building blocks into S3 design and implementation yet. The same applies to Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs), which have proven paramount innovation capacities and competences to moderate relations between involved actors in a function of creative brokers, thus guiding and facilitating development and implementation of EDPs, which are, indeed, one of the core concepts in S3 policy-making.
The thesis is based on Qualitative Content Analysis research strategy. To answer the Central Research Question (CRQ), three Research Questions (RQs) are introduced and individually addressed throughout sufficient research methodologies. Thus, the thesis delivers results, which are based on multi-method approach. This approach deploys different research methods, the selection thereof being based on the specific research question to be answered. As a result of the implemented research methodology, this thesis provides different insights to address the EDP set-up and its improvement both from regional and entrepreneurial level. First, a Transnational RIS3 Observatory Model is developed and introduced. The model is based on the introduction of a harmonised procedure dedicated to choose S3 thematic priorities in European regions. As a result, the model enables to effectively overcome well-known research problems of S3 monitoring in terms of covering aspects of comparability, multi-level approach and performance measuring. In this vein, the thesis in hand undertakes a novel research path in conceptualising S3 monitoring model and thus enhancing to available scientific literature.
References
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International journal of qualitative studies in education, 22(4), 431-447. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390902736512.
Aguiñaga, E., Henriques, I., Scheel, C., & Scheel, A. (2018). Building resilience: A self-sustainable community approach to the triple bottom line. Journal of Cleaner Production, 173, 186-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.094.
Alcadipani, R., & Hassard, J. (2010). Actor-Network Theory, organizations and critique: towards a politics of organizing. Organization, 17(4), 419-435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410364441.
Aka, K. G. (2019). Actor-network theory to understand, track and succeed in a sustainable innovation development process. Journal of cleaner production, 225, 524-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.351.
Andersons, A., & Bushati, J. (2019). Smart Specialisation Concept Application in Universities: E-Business Online Studies Model Development. In ENVIRONMENT. TECHNOLOGIES. RESOURCES. Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 190-194).
Ansell, C. & Torfing, J. (2021). Co-creation: The new kid on the block in public governance. Policy & Politics, 49, 211–30. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16115951196045.
Anshari, M., & Almunawar, M. N. (2022). Adopting open innovation for SMEs and industrial revolution 4.0. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 13(2), 405-427. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-03-2020-0061.
Aranguren, M. J., Magro, E., Navarro, M., & Wilson, J. R. (2019). Governance of the territorial entrepreneurial discovery process: Looking under the bonnet of RIS3. Regional Studies, 53(4), 451-461. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1462484.
Arbnor I. & Bjerke B. (2008). Methodology for creating business knowledge. Sage.
Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations. Research evaluation, 13(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154404781776509.
Asheim, B. T., Boschma, R., & Cooke, P. (2011). Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Regional studies, 45(7), 893-904. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2010.543126.
Asheim, B. T. (2019). Smart specialisation, innovation policy and regional innovation systems: what about new path development in less innovative regions?. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 32(1), 8-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2018.1491001.
Audretsch, D.B., Cunningham, J.A., Kuratko, D.F., Lehmann, E.E. & Menter, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Economic, technological, and societal impacts. J. Technol. Transf., 44, 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9690-4.
Audretsch, D., Eichler, G. & Schwarz, E. (2021). Emerging needs of social innovators and social innovation ecosystems. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 18. 217-254 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00789-9.
Ayala-Orozco, B., Rosell, J. A., Merçon, J., Bueno, I., Alatorre-Frenk, G., Langle-Flores, A., & Lobato, A. (2018). Challenges and strategies in place-based multi-stakeholder collaboration for sustainability: Learning from experiences in the Global South. Sustainability, 10(9), 3217. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093217.
Bacsi, Z., & Kovács, E. (2006). The role of cross-border cooperation in rural development-a new European perspective. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 7(3), 485-488.
Bakhshi, H.; Cunningham, S.; Mateos-Garcia, J. (2015). Public policy for the creative industries. In The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 465–485.
Balland, P. A., Boschma, R., & Frenken, K. (2015). Proximity and innovation: From statics to dynamics. Regional Studies, 49(6), 907-920. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.883598.
Barry, A. (2013). The translation zone: Between actor-network theory and international relations. Millennium, 41(3), 413-429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829813481007.
Barzotto, M., Corradini, C., Fai, F., Labory, S., & Tomlinson, P. R. (2020). Smart specialisation, Industry 4.0 and lagging regions: some directions for policy. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 7(1), 318-332. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2020.1803124.
Becker, M. G., Martin, F., & Walter, A. (2022). The power of ESG transparency: The effect of the new SFDR sustainability labels on mutual funds and individual investors. Finance Research Letters, 47, 102708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.102708.
Bellavista, J., Elboj-Saso, C., García Yeste, C., & Villarejo-Carballido, B. (2022). Innovative Methodological Approach to Analyze Innovation and Social Impact. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 16094069221083373. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221083373.
Bellini, N., Lazzeri, G., & Rovai, S. (2020). Patterns of policy learning in the RIS3 processes of less developed regions. Regional Studies, 55(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1762855.
Benner, M. (2020). Six additional questions about smart specialization: Implications for regional innovation policy 4.0. European Planning Studies, 28(8), 1667-1684. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1764506.
Benner, M. (2022). An institutionalist perspective on smart specialization: Towards a political economy of regional innovation policy. Science and Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac035.
Beunen, R., Van Assche, K., & Duineveld, M. (2016). Evolutionary governance theory. Springer International Pu.
Bittencourt, B. A., Galuk, M.B., Daniel, V.M. & Zen, A.C. (2019). Cluster Innovation Capability: A systematic review. International Journal of Innovation, 7, 26–44. https://doi.org/10.5585/iii.v7i1.157.
Boden, M. (2017). Ris3 implementation in lagging regions: Lessons from Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. European Structural & Investment Funds Journal, 5(1), 77-83.
Bogoslov, I. A., Lungu, A. E., Stoica, E. A., & Georgescu, M. R. (2022). European Green Deal Impact on Entrepreneurship and Competition: A Free Market Approach. Sustainability, 14(19), 12335. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912335.
Bolis, I., Morioka, S.N. & Sznelwar, L.I. (2017). Are we making decisions in a sustainable way? A comprehensive literature review about rationalities for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production 145: 310–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.025.
Borrego M., Douglas E. & Amelink C. (2007). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-research methods in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01005.x.
Boschma, R. (2014). Constructing regional advantage and smart specialisation: Comparison of two European policy concepts. Scienze Regionali: Italian Journal of regional Science, 13(1), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.3280/SCRE2014-001004.
Boschma, R. (2015). Towards an evolutionary perspective on regional resilience. Regional Studies, 49(5), 733-751. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.959481.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Brugmann, J. (1997): Is there a method in our measurement? The use of indicators in local sustainable development planning. In: Local Environment – The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 2, 59 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839708725512.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Buduru, B., & Pal, L. A. (2010). The globalized state: Measuring and monitoring governance. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(4), 511-530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549410377144.
Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The sociological review, 32(1_suppl), 196-233.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x.
Cantner, U., Cunningham, J.A., Lehmann, E.E. & Menter, M. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: A dynamic lifecycle model. Small Bus. Econ., 1–17. http:doi.org/10.1007/s11187‐020‐00316‐0.
Capello, R. & Kroll, H. (2016). From theory to practice in smart specialization strategy: emerging limits and possible future trajectories, European Planning Studies, 24 (8), 1393-1406. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1156058.
Carayannis, E. G., & Rakhmatullin, R. (2014). The quadruple/quintuple innovation helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 212-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0185-8.
Carayannis, E. G. & Campbell, D. F. (2019). ‘Mode 3'and'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International journal of technology management, 46(3-4), 201-234. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374.
Castro-Arce, K., & Vanclay, F. (2020). Transformative social innovation for sustainable rural development: An analytical framework to assist community-based initiatives. Journal of Rural Studies, 74. 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.11.010.
Černevičiūtė, J., Strazdas, R., Kregždaitė, R. & Tvaronavičienė, M. (2019)Cultural and creative industries for sustainable postindustrial regional development: The case of Lithuania. J. Int. Stud., 12, 285–298. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2019/12-2/18.
Citkowski, M. (2020). Cluster and cluster policy as tools for regional development management. Optimum. Economic Studies, 101, 91–106. https://doi.org/10.15290/oes.2020.03.101.08.
Coffano, M., & Foray, D. (2014). The centrality of entrepreneurial discovery in building and implementing a smart specialisation strategy. The centrality of entrepreneurial discovery in building and implementing a Smart Specialisation Strategy, 33-50.
Coffman, M., & Umemoto, K. (2010). The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice. Environment, development and sustainability, 12, 597-610.
Colombo, G., Dell’Era, C. & Frattini, F. (2015). Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: A typology and an empirical study. RD Manag., 45, 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12056.
Cooke, P. & De Propris, L. (2011). A policy agenda for EU smart growth: The role of creative and cultural industries. Policy Stud., 32, 365–375.
Cooke, P. (2012). From clusters to platform policies in regional development. European Planning Studies, 20, 1415–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.680741.
Corpakis, D. (2019). Powering synergies between innovation policy and regional development frameworks: The case of smart specialisation. In International Triple Helix Summit. 93-105. Springer, Cham.
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design – Choosing Among Five Approaches, SAGE Publications, 3rd edition, 15-41, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed.; Sage: London UK, 2014.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social science research: meaning and perspective in the research process. New South Wales: Allen and Uwin.
Cvijanović, V., Griniece, E., Gulyás, O.,Reid, A. & Varga, H. (2020). Stakeholder engagement through entrepreneurial discovery? Lessons from countries and regions in Central and Eastern Europe. Cogent Social Sciences, 6(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1794273.
Czermański, E. (2017). Baltic shipping development in maritime spatial planning aspect. Studia i Materiały Instytutu Transportu i Handlu Morskiego, (14), 48-64. https://doi.org/10.26881/sim.2017.4.03.
d'Orville, H. (2019). The relationship between sustainability and creativity. Cadmus, 4(1), 65-73.
Dagilienė, L., Bruneckienė, J., Jucevičius, R. and Lukauskas, M. (2020). Exploring smart economic development and competitiveness in Central and Eastern European countries, Competitiveness Review, 30(5), 485-505. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-04-2019-0041.
Dawley, S.; MacKinnon, D.; Cumbers, A.; Pike, A. (2015). Policy activism and regional path creation: The promotion of offshore wind in North East England and Scotland. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc., 8, 257–272.
De Vet, J. M., Edwards, J. H. & Bocci, M. (2016). Blue Growth and Smart Specialisation: How to catch maritime growth through 'Value Nets' (No. JRC100975). Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
Deegan, J., Broekel, T., & Fitjar, R. D. (2021). Searching through the Haystack: The relatedness and complexity of priorities in smart specialization strategies. Economic Geography, 97(5), 497-520. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2021.1967739.
Deegan, J., Solheim, M. C., Jakobsen, S. E., & Isaksen, A. (2022). One coast, two systems: Regional innovation systems and entrepreneurial discovery in Western Norway. Growth and Change, 53(2), 490-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12595.
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of social entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420670903442053.
Degelsegger, A., & Kesselring, A. (2012). Do non-humans make a difference? The actor-network-theory and the social innovation paradigm. Challenge social innovation, 57-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32879-4_4.
Del Carmen Sánchez-Carreira, M., González-López, M., & Varela-Vázquez, P. (2021). The implementation of the smart specialization approach in the peripheral region of Galicia. In Partnerships for Regional Innovation and Development (pp. 49-75). Routledge.
Del Castillo Hermosa, J., Elorduy, J. P., & Eguía, B. B. (2015). Smart specialization and entrepreneurial discovery: Theory and reality. Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais, (39), 5-22.
Di Vaio, A., Varriale, L. & Alvino, F. (2018). Key performance indicators for developing environmentally sustainable and energy efficient ports: Evidence from Italy. Energy policy, 122, 229-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.07.046.
Dionisio, M. & de Vargas, E.R. (2020). Corporate social innovation: A systematic literature review. International Business Review 29: 101641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101641.
Dubois, A., Kristensen, I., & Teräs, J. (2017). Outsmarting geography: implementing territorial innovation strategies in sparsely populated regions. European Planning Studies, 25(8), 1316-1333. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1320355.
Durepos, G., & Mills, A. J. (2012). Actor-network theory, ANTi-history and critical organizational historiography. Organization, 19(6), 703-721. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411420196.
Eftekhari, N., & Bogers, M. (2015). Open for entrepreneurship: how open innovation can foster new venture creation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(4), 574-584. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12136.
Eichler, G. M. & Schwarz, E. (2019). What sustainable development goals do social innovations address? A systematic review and content analysis of social innovation literature. Sustainability 11, 522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020522.
Eklinder-Frick, J. O., Perna, A., & Waluszewski, A. (2020). What’s smart about smart specialization–a new EU innovation strategy or more of the same?. Journal of business & industrial marketing, 35(12), 1997-2010. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-05-2019-0203.
Elkington, J. (2013). Enter the triple bottom line. In The triple bottom line: Does it all add up? (pp. 1-16). Routledge.
Estensoro, M., & Larrea, M. (2022). Facilitation of Entrepreneurial Discovery Processes by Policymakers: an Actionable Definition of Roles and Challenges. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-00906-1.
European Commission (2010a). EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Communication from the Commission, March 3. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:52010DC2020 (accessed on 05.05.2022).
European Commission (2010b) Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, Communication from the Commission, October 6, 546. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52010DC0546 (accessed on 05.05.2022).
European Commission (2010c) Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020, Communication from the Commission, October 6. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/communications/2010/regional-policy-contributing-to-smart-growth-in-europe-2020 (accessed on 05.05.2022).
European Commission (2014). List of Seaports in the Core and Comprehensive Network.
European Commission (2016). Implementing Smart Specialisation Strategies. A Handbook. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available online: https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/20182/154972/Implementing+Smart+Specialisation+Strategies+A+Handbook/2a0c4f81-3d67-4ef7-97e1-dcbad00e1cc9 (accessed on 18.05.2022).
European Commission (2017). Report on Blue Growth Strategy—Towards More Sustainable Growth and Jobs in the Blue Economy; Commission Staff Working Document. SWD (2017) 128 Final: Brussels, Belgium.
European Commission (2022). Monitoring. Available online: https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/monitoring (accessed on 18.10.2022).
European Commission (2023). Smart Specialisation Platform - Eyes@RIS3: Innovation Priorities of Europe. Available online: https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/map/-/eye3/y/2014-2020 (accessed on 08.03.2023).
European Union (2012). How Can Cultural and Creative Industries Contribute Economic Transformation through Smart Specialization. In European Agenda for Culture Work Plan for Culture 2011–2014, a Policy Handbook; European Union: Luxembourg 2012.
European Commission: Implementing Smart Specialisation Strategies (2016b). A Handbook. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available online: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC102764 (accessed on 18.05.2022).
Farías, I., & Bender, T. (2012). Urban assemblages: How actor-network theory changes urban studies. Routledge.
Farole, T., Rodriguez-Pose, A. & Storper, M. (2011). Cohesion Policy in the European Union: Growth, Geography, Institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(5), 1089 – 1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02161.x.
Fellnhofer, K. (2017). Evidence revisited: literature on smart specialisation calls for more mixed research designs. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 8(3), 229-248. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2017.086407.
Fellnhofer, K. (2018). Visualised bibliometric mapping on smart specialisation: A co-citation analysis. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 9(1), 76-99.
Feng, L. & Notteboom, T. (2013). Peripheral challenge by small and medium sized ports (SMPs) in multi-port gateway regions: the case study of northeast of China. Polish Maritime Research, 20 (Special-Issue), 55-66.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International journal of qualitative methods, 5(1), 80-92.
Ferreira, F., & Seixas, P. C. (2019). The Case for Smart Specialization Strategies (RIS3) as an Instrument for Place-Based Policies: Excavating the New Regional Development Paradigm. In Smart Specialization Strategies and the Role of Entrepreneurial Universities. 131-152. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6152-1.ch006.
Florida, R. (1995). Toward the Learning Region, Futures, 27(5), 527 – 536. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(95)00021-N.
Foray, D. (2012). Smart Specialisation: The Concept. In Proceedings of the Smart Specialisation Conference, Sofia, Bulgaria,
Foray, D. & Goenaga, X. (2013). The goals of smart specialisation. S3 Policy Brief Series 1, S3.
Foray, D. (2014). From smart specialisation to smart specialisation policy. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 492-507. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2014-0096.
Foray, D. (2016). On the policy space of smart specialization strategies. European Planning Studies, 24(8), 1428-1437. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1176126.
Fotakis, C., Rosenmöller, M., Brennan, J., Matei, L., Nikolov, R., Petiot, C. & Puukka, J. (2014). The role of Universities and Research Organisations as drivers for Smart Specialisation at regional level. EU Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.
Franco M. & Haase H. (2015). University–industry cooperation: Researchers’ motivations and interaction channels. Journal of Engineering and technology Management, 36, 41-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.05.002.
Fricke, C. (2015). Spatial governance across borders revisited: Organizational forms and spatial planning in metropolitan cross-border regions. European Planning Studies, 23(5), 849-870. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.887661.
Fuster Marti, E., Marinelli, E., Plaud, S., Quinquilla, A. and Massucci, F. (2020). Open Data, Open Science and Open Innovation for Smart Specialisation monitoring, EUR 30089 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-10726-2, JRC119687. https://doi.org/10.2760/55098.
Gañán de Molina, C., Guerrero Ginel, J. E., & Sillero Illanes, C. (2022). S3 and Recovery and Resilience Funds: A Case Study Built on the Experience of 10 Spanish Regions. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 6, 801370. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.801370.
Gassmann, O., Daiber, M. & Enkel, E. (2011). The role of intermediaries in cross-industry innovation processes. RD Manag., 41, 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00651.x.
Georgios, C., & Barraí, H. (2021). Social innovation in rural governance: A comparative case study across the marginalised rural EU. Journal of Rural Studies in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.06.004.
Geerts, E., Van West, J. P., & Belgium, P. (2022). How ready are European businesses for the EU Green Deal?. International Tax Review.
Gerlitz, L., Meyer, C., & Prause, G. (2020). Methodology approach on benchmarking regional innovation on smart Specialisation (RIS3): A joint macro-regional tool to regional performance evaluation and monitoring in Central Europe. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(2), 1359. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.8.2(80).
Gerlitz, L., Meyer, C. & Prause, G. (2021). Marketing and Branding Strategy for the South Baltic Sea Region: Reinforcing Regional Innovation in SMEs through cross-border Collaboration Models in the Age of Transformation. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(4), 432-452. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2021.8.4(26).
Gerlitz, L., & Prause, G. K. (2021). Cultural and Creative Industries as Innovation and Sustainable Transition Brokers in the Baltic Sea Region: A Strong Tribute to Sustainable Macro-Regional Development. Sustainability, 13(17), 9742. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179742.
Gianelle, C. & Kleibrink, A. (2015). Monitoring Mechanisms for Smart Specialisation Strategies. S3 Policy Brief Series No. 13/2015.
Gianelle, C., Guzzo, F., & Mieszkowski, K. (2019). Smart Specialisation: what gets lost in translation from concept to practice?. Regional Studies, 54(10), 1377-1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1607970.
Gianelle, C., Kyriakou, D., McCann, P., & Morgan, K. (2020). Smart Specialisation on the move: reflections on six years of implementation and prospects for the future. Regional Studies, 54(10), 1323-1327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1817364.
Grbić, V. (2010). Regional disparities in the European Union: Policy objectives, the poorest regions and multifunctional agriculture. Economics of Agriculture, 57(2), 147-152.
Grillitsch, M. (2016). Institutions, smart specialisation dynamics and policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614694.
Guzzo, F. & Perianez-Forte, I. (2019). Smart Specialisation at work: evidences from Peer eXchange and Learning workshops. JRC Technical Reports. European Commission. December 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1181717.
Hassink, R., & Gong, H. (2019). Six critical questions about smart specialization. European Planning Studies, 27(10), 2049-2065. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1650898.
Hassink, R., Isaksen, A., & Trippl, M. (2019). Towards a comprehensive understanding of new regional industrial path development. Regional Studies, 53(11). https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1566704.
Holmes J. (2012). Cape York Peninsula, Australia: A frontier region undergoing a multifunctional transition with indigenous engagement. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 252-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.01.004.
Irish, R., & Romkey, L. (2021). USING ACTOR NETWORK THEORY TO EXPLORE SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES IN AN ENGINEERING & SOCIETY COURSE. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA). https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi0.14960.
Jackson, S. (2015). Toward an analytical and methodological understanding of actor-network theory. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 4(2), 29-44.
Janik, A.; Ryszko, A. & Szafraniec, M. (2020). Mapping the Field of Smart Specialisation and Regional Innovation Strategy Literature–A Bibliometric Analysis. European Research Studies Journal, 23(4), 655-673. http:/doi.org/10.35808/ersj/1707.
Kakderi, C., Komninos, N., Panori, A., & Psaltoglou, A. (2020, May). Smart Specialisation 2.0: Driving public funds towards platforms and ecosystems. In International symposium: New Metropolitan Perspectives, 68-79. Springer, Cham.
Kangas, R., & Aarrevaara, T. (2020). Higher education institutions as knowledge brokers in smart specialisation. Sustainability, 12(7), 3044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12073044.
Kangas, H. R., & Ryynänen, S. P. (2022). Fostering smart specialisation: the emergence of guided self-organisation at the regional level. Urban, planning and transport research, 10(1), 110-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650020.2022.2057357.
Kakderi, C., Komninos, N., Panori, A., & Psaltoglou, A. (2020). Smart Specialisation 2.0: Driving public funds towards platforms and ecosystems. In International symposium: New Metropolitan Perspectives (pp. 68-79). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52869-0_6.
Kempton, L., Goddard, J., Edwards, J., Hegyi, F. B., & Elena-Pérez, S. (2013). Universities and smart specialisation. S3 policy brief series, 3.
Khan, I. S., Ahmad, M. O., & Majava, J. (2021). Industry 4.0 and sustainable development: A systematic mapping of triple bottom line, Circular Economy and Sustainable Business Models perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 297, 126655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126655.
King, N. & Horrocks, C. (2011). Interviews in Qualitative Research. SAGE, 6 – 24.
Kleibrink, A., Gianelle, C. & Doussineau, M. (2016). Monitoring innovation and territorial development in Europe: emergent strategic management. European Planning Studies, 48(8), 1438 – 1458. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1181717.
Kleibrink, A., & Magro, E. (2018). The making of responsive innovation policies: varieties of evidence and their contestation in the Basque Country. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0136-2.
Klein, M., & Spychalska-Wojtkiewicz, M. (2020). Cross-sector partnerships for innovation and growth: can creative industries support traditional sector innovations?. Sustainability, 12(23), 10122. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310122.
Kogut-Jaworska, M. (2019). The role of smart specializations in regional innovation policy–an analysis based on blue-economy sectors. Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Morskiej w Szczecinie.
Kogut-Jaworska, M., & Ociepa-Kicińska, E. (2020). Smart specialisation as a strategy for implementing the regional innovation development policy—Poland case study. Sustainability, 12(19), 7986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197986.
Komatsu, H., Rappleye, J. & Silova, I. (2022). Social mindfulness for global environmental sustainability?. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2118710118.
Komninos, N.; Musyck, B.; Reid, A.I. (2014). Smart Specialisation strategies in South Europe during crisis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(4), 448 – 471. http:/doi.org/ 10.1108/EJIM-11-2013-0118.
Komninos, N., Kakderi, C., Panori, A., Psaltoglou, A., & Chatziparadeisis, A. (2020). Ecosystems and functioning EDP for S3 2021–2027 in Greece. Report to the European Commission, DG Regional and Urban Policy.
Komninos, N., Kakderi, C., Panori, A., Garcia, E., Fellnhofer, K., Reid, A., ... & Mora, L. (2021). Intelligence and co-creation in Smart Specialisation Strategies: Towards the next stage of RIS3. archiDOCT, 17(1), 25361.
Korhonen, J. E.; Koskivaara, A.; Makkonen, T.; Yakusheva, N. & Malkamäki, A. (2021). Resilient cross-border regional innovation systems for sustainability? A systematic review of drivers and constraints. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 34(2), 202-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1867518.
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2017). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 2: Context, research questions and designs. European Journal of General Practice, 23(1), 274-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375090.
Knickel, K., Redman, M., Darnhofer, I., Ashkenazy, A., Chebach, T. C., Šūmane S., Tisenkopfs, T., Zemeckis, R., Atkociuniene, V., Rivera, M., Strauss ,A., Kristensen, L.S., Schiller, S., Koopmans, M.E. & Rogge, E. (2018). Between aspirations and reality: Making farming, food systems and rural areas more resilient, sustainable and equitable. Journal of Rural Studies, 59, 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.04.012.
Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F. & et al. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 31, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.
Krammer, S. (2017). Science, technology, and innovation for economic competitiveness: The role of smart specialization in less-developed countries. Technological Forecasting & Social Changes, 123, 95 – 107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.028.
Kristensen, I. F., & Pugh, R. (2022). Opportunities and challenges in implementing Smart Specialisation in Nordic ‘strong innovator’regions. Regional Studies, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2054975.
Kristensen, I. F., Pugh, R., & Grillitsch, M. (2023). Leadership and governance challenges in delivering place-based transformation through Smart Specialisation. Regional Studies, 57(1), 196-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2090536.
Kroll, H. (2015). Efforts to Implement Smart Specialization in Practice—Leading Unlike Horses to the Water, European Planning Studies, 23(10), 2079 – 2098. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.1003036.
Kuznetsov, Y., & Sabel, C. (2017). Managing self-discovery: Diagnostic monitoring of a portfolio of projects and programs. In: Advances in the Theory and Practice of Smart Specialization, 51-72. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804137-6.00003-6.
Landabaso, M. (2014). Guest editorial on research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation in Europe. European Journal of Innovation and Management. 17(4), 378-389. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-08-2014-0093.
Laranja, M. (2021). Translating Smart Specialisation and entrepreneurial discovery into a process-oriented policy. Regional Studies, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1959028.
Larosse, J. (2013). The discovery of smart specializations, REGLAB Smart Regions Seminar.
Larosse, J., Corpakis, D. & Tuffs, R. (2020). The Green Deal and Smart Specialisation, Version 4, February 20. Brussels: Friends of Smart Specialisation.
Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 369-381.
Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oup Oxford.
Lazzarotti, V., Manzini, R., & Pellegrini, L. (2015). Is your open-innovation successful? The mediating role of a firm's organizational and social context. The international journal of human resource management, 26(19), 2453-2485. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.1003080.
Lehmann, T., Benner, M., & Kapo, A. (2022). Institutional asymmetries in a low-coordination economy: the smart specialization paradox in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2022.2092075
Lew, Y.K. & Park, J.Y. (2021) The evolution of N-helix of the regional innovation system: Implications for sustainability. Sustain. Dev., 29, 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2143.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 97-128.
Lopes, J.; Ferreira, J. J. & Farinha, L. (2019). Innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3): Past, present and future research. Growth and Change, 50(1), 38-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12268.
Lopes, J.M.; Gomes, S., Oliviera, J. & Oliviera, M. (2021). The Role of Open Innovation, and the Performance of European Union Regions. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex., 7(2), 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7020120.
Lorenz U. & Oleaga M. (2020). RIS3 Challenges: An analysis of the Nouvelle-Aquintaine, Euskadi, Navarre cross-border space. Cuadernos Orkestra. Technical Report. 69/2020. ISSN 2340-7638.
Manhart A., Vogt R., Priester M., Dehoust G., Auberger A., Blepp M., Dolega P., Kämper C., Giegrich J., Schmidt G., Kosmol J. (2019). The environmental criticality of primary raw materials–A new methodology to assess global environmental hazard potentials of minerals and metals from mining. Mineral Economics, 32(1), 91-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-018-0160-0.
Magro, E. & Wilson, J.R. (2013). Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix. Research Policy, 42(9), 1647 – 1656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.005.
Magro, E., Navarro, M., & Zabala‐Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2014). Coordination‐mix: The hidden face of STI policy. Review of Policy Research, 31(5), 367-389. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12090.
Marinelli, E., Fernández Sirera, T., & Pontikakis, D. (2021). Towards a transformative smart specialisation strategy: Lessons from Catalonia, Bulgaria and Greece. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Markkula, M., & Kune, H. (2015). Orchestrating an Entrepreneurial Discovery Process. Open Innovation, 2.
Marrocu, E., Paci, R., Rigby, D., & Usai, S. (2022). Evaluating the implementation of Smart Specialisation policy. Regional Studies, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2047915.
Marques P. & Morgan K. (2018). The Heroic Assumptions of Smart Specialisation: A Sympathetic Critique of Regional Innovation Policy. In: Isaksen A., Martin R., Trippl M. (eds) New Avenues for Regional Innovation Systems - Theoretical Advances, Empirical Cases and Policy Lessons (pp. 275 – 293). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71661-9_14.
Martinidis, G., Komninos, N., & Carayannis, E. (2022). Taking into account the human factor in regional innovation systems and policies. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(2), 849-879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00722-z.
Masana, R. E., & Fernández, T. (2019). Monitoring S3: Key dimensions and implications. Evaluation and program planning, 77, 101720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101720.
Masana, R. E. (2022). Towards smart specialisation 2.0. Main challenges when updating strategies. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(1), 635-655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00766-1.
Mazzucato, M. (2014). A mission-oriented approach to building the entrepreneurial state. A ‘Think Piece’for the Innovative UK. Technology Strategy Board: London, UK
McAdam, M.; Miller, K. & McAdam, R. (2018). Understanding Quadruple Helix relationships of university technology commercialization: A micro-level approach. Stud. High. Educ., 43, 1058–1073.
McCann, P. & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2011). Smart specialisation, regional growth and applications to EU cohesion policy. IEB Working Paper 2011/14.
McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2013). Transforming European regional policy: a results-driven agenda and smart specialization. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 29(2), 405-431. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grt021.
McCann, P. & Ortega-Argilés, R (2014). Smart specialisation in European regions: issues of strategy, institutions and implementation. European Journal of Innovation and Management. 17 (4), 409-427. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2014-0052.
McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union cohesion policy. Regional studies, 49(8), 1291-1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.799769.
Mensah, J. (2019). Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Social Sciences 5, 1653531. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1653531.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. SAGE 3rd edition., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Metaxas, M. (2017). Summary Report on RIS3 implementation status in Greece. Report commissioned by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, JRC.
Mieszkowski, K., & Kardas, M. (2015). Facilitating an entrepreneurial discovery process for smart specialisation. The case of Poland. Journal of the Knowledge economy, 6(2), 357-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0242-y.
Miettinen, R. (1999). The riddle of things: Activity theory and actor‐network theory as approaches to studying innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(3), 170-195.
Mikko, M., Stein, Ø., & Jaakko, S. (2021). Machine learning and the identification of Smart Specialisation thematic networks in Arctic Scandinavia. Regional Studies, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1925237.
Mora, L., Deakin, M. & Reid, A. (2019). Exploring Current Trends in Scientific Research on Smart Specialisation. Scienze Regionali: Italian Journal of Regional Science. 18(3), 397-422. https://doi.org/10.14650/94657.
Morgan, K. (2015). Smart Specialisation: Opportunities and Challenges for Regional Innovation Policy. Regional Studies, 49(3), 480 – 482. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1007572.
Morgan, K. (2016a). Collective entrepreneurship: The Basque model of innovation. European Planning Studies, 24(8), 1544–1560. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1151483.
Morgan, K. (2017). Nurturing novelty: Regional innovation policy in the age of smart specialisation. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(4), 569-583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16645106.
Morgan, K. (2019). 7. The future of place-based innovation policy (as if ‘lagging regions’ really mattered). Regional Studies Policy Impact Books, 1(2), 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/2578711X.2019.1621103.
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 1, 189-208.
Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1. 145–62.
Muller, E., Zenker, A., Hufnagl, M., Héraud, J. A., Schnabl, E., Makkonen, T., & Kroll, H. (2017). Smart specialisation strategies and cross-border integration of regional innovation systems: Policy dynamics and challenges for the Upper Rhine. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(4), 684-702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16688472.
Muniesa, F. (2015). Actor-Network-Theory. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 80-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.85001-1.
Murphy, K. (2012). The social pillar of sustainable development: A literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustainability: Science, practice and policy 8, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2012.11908081.
Müür, J. (2022). Intermediating smart specialisation and entrepreneurial discovery: The cases of Estonia and Helsinki-Uusimaa. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(1), 541-573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00757-2.
Neto, P. (2020). EU Cohesion Policy post-2020, European Green Deal and Territorial Agenda 2030. The future of the place-based approach in the new EU policy framework in the context of COVID-19. Europa XXI, 38, 33-50.
Neumeyer, X. & Santos, S.C. (2018). Sustainable business models, venture typologies, and entrepreneurial ecosystems: A social network perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4565–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.216.
Noruzi, M. R., Westover, J. H., & Rahimi, G. R. (2010). An exploration of social entrepreneurship in the entrepreneurship era. Asian Social Science, 6(6), 3.
Notteboom, T. E. (2010) The peripheral port challenge in container port systems. International maritime transport: perspectives, 173-188.
Notteboom, T. E. (2010). Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container port system: an update. Journal of transport geography, 18(4), 567-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.03.003.
Notteboom, T.E. & Haralambides, H.E. (2020). Port management and governance in a post‐COVID‐19 era: Quo vadis? Marit. Econ. Logist., 22, 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00162-7.
Oliveira, M., Sousa, M., Silva, R., & Santos, T. (2021). Strategy and human resources management in non-profit organizations: Its interaction with open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010075.
Olsson, P., Moore, M.L., Westley, F.R. & McCarthy, D.D. (2017). The concept of the Anthropocene as a game-changer: A new context for social innovation and transformations to sustainability. Ecology and Society, 22, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.5751/ ES-09310-220231.
Ortega-Argilés, R. (2022). The evolution of regional entrepreneurship policies:“no one size fits all”. The Annals of Regional Science, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-022-01128-8.
Osorno-Hinojosa, R., Koria, M., & Ramírez-Vázquez, D. D. C. (2022). Open Innovation with Value Co-Creation from University–Industry Collaboration. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(1), 32.
PAC2 (2014). A cluster initiative: Small and Medium Sized Ports as Hubs for Smart Growth and Sustainable Connectivity, 2 Seas Magazine – Special Focus, 1,6 – 15.
Pace, L.A. & Drago, A. (2020). Designing foresight for smart specialisation in the blue economy. In: ISPIM Conference Proceedings. The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM), 1-12.
Pachucki, M. C., & Breiger, R. L. (2018). Network theories. Cambridge handbook of social theory.
Paliokaite, A., Martinaitis, Z. & Reimeris, R. (2015). Foresight methods for smart specialisation strategy development in Lithuania. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 101, 185 – 199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.04.008.
Panori, A., Kakderi, C, Komninos, N., Fellnhofer, K., Reid, A. & Mora, L. (2020). Smart systems of innovation for smart places: Challenges in deploying digital platform for co-creation and data-intelligence. Land Use Policy, 111, 2,4631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104631.
Papamichail, G., Rosiello, A., & Wield, D. (2022). Addressing Public Policy Implementation Challenges in Lagging Regions Through the Analytical Lens of Smart Specialisation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00874-y.
Parveen, S., Senin, A. A., & Arslan, U. M. A. R. (2015). Organization culture and open innovation: A quadruple helix open innovation model approach. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5(1), 335-342.
Passoth, J. H., & Rowland, N. J. (2010). Actor-network state: Integrating actor-network theory and state theory. International sociology, 25(6), 818-841. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580909351325.
Perianez Forte, I., Marinelli, E., Foray, D., Edwards, J., Pertoldi, M., Morgan, K., Mieszkowski, K., Gomez Prieto, J., Nauwelaers, C., Rakhmatullin, R., Stanionyte, L., Mariussen, Å., Gianell1e, C., Kleibrink, A. and Doussineau, M. (2016). Implementing Smart Specialisation Strategies: A Handbook, EUR 28053, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2016. https://doi.org/10.2791/610394.
Philipp, R., Prause, G., & Meyer, C. (2020). Blue growth potential in south Baltic sea region. Transport and Telecommunication, 21(1), 69-83. https://doi.org/10.2478/ttj-2020-0006.
Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’regan, N. & James, P. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management, 40. 428–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114560063.
Piirainen, K., Tanner, A.N. & Alkaersig, L. (2017). Regional foresight and dynamics of smart specialization: A typology of regional diversification patterns. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 115, 289 – 300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.027.
Pinto, H., Nogueira, C., Carrozza, C., & D’Emery, R. (2019). Smart specialisation and the entrepreneurial discovery: a new approach to design structural change. In New Paths of Entrepreneurship Development (pp. 55-75). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96032-6_4.
Pires, S.M., Polido, A., Teles, F., Silva, P. & Rodrigues, C. (2019). Territorial innovation models in less developed regions in Europe: the quest for a new research agenda? European Planning Studies, 28(8), 1639 - 1666. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1697211.
Pittaway, L. (2008) Systematic literature reviews. In The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research. R. Thorpe, and R. Holt, Eds. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Pomaquero-Yuquilema, J.C., López-Salazar, J.L. & López-Aguirre, J.F.. (2019). Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review. Revista Científica FIPCAEC. Polo de Capacitación, Investigación y Publicación 4, 329–47.
Prause. G. (2014). Smart Specialisation and EU Eastern Innovation Cooperation: A Conceptual Approach. Baltic Journal of European Studies Tallinn University of Technology, 4(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2014-0001.
Prause, G., & Boevsky, I. (2015). Smart rural development. Agricultural Economics and Management, 60(4), 63-69.
Pugh, R. E. (2014). ‘Old wine in new bottles’? Smart Specialisation in Wales. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 1(1), 152-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2014.944209.
Pugh, R. (2018). Questioning the implementation of smart specialisation: Regional innovation policy and semi-autonomous regions. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36, 530–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417717069.
Ranga, M. (2018) Smart specialization as a strategy to develop early-stage regional innovation systems. European Planning Studies, 26 (11), 2125 – 2146. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1530149.
Rantisi, N. M., & Leslie, D. (2015). Circus in action: Exploring the role of a translation zone in the Cirque du Soleil’s creative practices. Economic Geography, 91(2), 147-164.
Radosevic, S., & Ciampi Stancova, K. (2018). Internationalising smart specialisation: Assessment and issues in the case of EU new member states. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9(1), 263-293. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s13132-015-0339-3.
Reid, N., Smith, B.W. & Carroll, M.C. (2008). Cluster regions: A social network perspective. Economic Development Quarterly, 22, 345–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242408322719.
Reyers, B., Moore, M. L., Haider, L. J., & Schlüter, M. (2022). The contributions of resilience to reshaping sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 5(8), 657-664. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00889-6.
Rivas, M. & Cappellano, F. (2020). Linking Cultural Heritage to Smart Specialization Strategies. ROCK Project—Regeneration and Optimization of Cultural Heritage in Creative and Knowledge Cities. H2020-SC5-2016-2017 GA 730280. 2020. Available online: https://rockproject.eu/documents-list/download/445/linking-cultural-heritage-to-smart-specialisation-strategies (accessed on 31.05.2022).
Rodríguez-Gulías, M.J., Fernández-López, S. & Rodeiro-Pazos, D. (2020). Innovation in cultural and creative industries firms with an academic origin (CCI-USOs): The role of regional context. Technovation, 92, 102044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.06.007.
Roman, M., & Mutanen, O. P. (2018). Monitoring the innovation ecosystem and the of effectiveness smart specialisation strategies. Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, 566-574.
Roman, M., Nyberg, T., & Fellnhofer, K. (2018). Smart specialisation in Finnish regions: How to facilitate continuous entrepreneurial discovery process?. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Technology, Aston, UK, 22-26.
Ruhrmann, H., Fritsch, M., & Leydesdorff, L. (2021). Smart Specialization Strategies at National, Regional, or Local Levels? Synergy and Policy-making in German Systems of Innovation. Synergy and Policy-making in German Systems of Innovation (April 15, 2020). Ruhrmann, H., Fritsch, M., & Leydesdorff, L, 1-12.
Santoalha, A. (2019). Technological diversification and Smart Specialization: The role of cooperation. Regional Studies, 53(9), 1269-1283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1530753.
Santoro, G., Bresciani, S. & Papa, A. (2020). Collaborative modes with cultural and creative industries and innovation performance: The moderating role of heterogeneous sources of knowledge and absorptive capacity. Technovation, 92, 102040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.06.003.
Santos, A., Edwards, J., & Neto, P. (2022). Does Smart Specialisation improve any innovation subsidy effect on regional productivity? The Portuguese case. European Planning Studies, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2073787.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research Methods for Business Students. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Schartinger D., Rammer C. & Fröhlich, J. (2006). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Innovation, networks, and knowledge spillovers Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 135-166.
Shields, P. M., & Rangarajan, N. (2013). A playbook for research methods: Integrating conceptual frameworks and project management. New Forums Press.
Silverman, D. (Ed.) (2020). Qualitative Research; Sage: London UK.
Sotarauta, M. (2018). Smart Specialisation, Shared Vision and Policy Traps. Sente Working Papers, 40.
Stanojev, J. & Gustafsson, C. (2021). Smart Specialization Strategies for Elevating Integration of Cultural Heritage into Circular Economy. Sustainability, 13, 3685. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073685.
Suitner, J., Haider, W., & Philipp, S. (2022). Social innovation for regional energy transition? An agency perspective on transformative change in non-core regions. Regional Studies, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2053096.
Surya, B., Menne, F., Sabhan, H., Suriani, S., Abubakar, H., & Idris, M. (2021). Economic growth, increasing productivity of SMEs, and open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010020.
Svensson, L., Ellström, P. E., & Brulin, G. (2007). Introduction – on interactive research. International Journal of Action Research, 3(3), 233-249.
Szakálné Kanó, I.; Vas, Z. & Klasová, S. (2022). Emerging Synergies in Innovation Systems: Creative Industries in Central Europe. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00879-7.
Szerb, L, Ortega-Argilés, R, Acs, ZJ, Komlósi, É. (2020). Optimizing entrepreneurial development processes for smart specialization in the European Union. Pap Reg Sci., 99, 1413– 1457. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12536
Taliento, M., Favino, C. & Netti, A. (2019). Impact of environmental, social, and governance information on economic performance: Evidence of a corporate ‘sustainability advantage’from Europe. Sustainability, 11. 1738. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061738.
Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative inquiry, 17(6), 511-521.
Tibiletti, V., Marchini, P.L., Furlotti, K. & Medioli, A. (2021). Does corporate governance matter in corporate social responsibility disclosure? Evidence from Italy in the “era of sustainability”. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28, 896–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2097.
Tiits, M., Kalvet, T., & Mürk, I. (2015). Smart specialisation in cohesion economies. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6(2), 296-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0239-6.
Tödtling, F., Trippl, M., & Desch, V. (2021). New directions for RIS studies and policies in the face of grand societal challenges. European Planning Studies, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1951177.
Tolstykh, T., Gamidullaeva, L., Shmeleva, N., Wozniak, M. & Vasin, S. (2021). An Assessment of Regional Sustainability via the Maturity Level of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex., 7(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010005.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British journal of management 14, 207–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Triantafyllidis, S. (2022). Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Sustainability: The Development of the Corporate Environmental Sustainability Framework. Corporate Social Responsibility and Governance. London: Routledge. 262–76.
Trippl, M.; Baumgartinger-Seiringer, S.; Frangenheim, A.; Isaksen, A.; Rypestøl, J.O. (2020). Unravelling green regional industrial path development: Regional preconditions, asset modification and agency. Geoforum, 111, 189–197.
Uyarra, E., Sörvik, J. & Midtkandal, I. (2014). Inter-Regional Collaboration in Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3). Seville: Joint Research Centre.
Uyarra, E., Marzocchi, C., & Sorvik, J. (2018). How outward looking is smart specialisation? Rationales, drivers and barriers. European Planning Studies, 26(12), 2344-2363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1529146.
Valdmaa, K., Pugh, R., & Müür, J. (2021). Challenges with strategic placed-based innovation policy: Implementation of smart specialization in Estonia and Wales. European Planning Studies, 29(4), 681-698. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1767541.
Veldhuizen, C. (2020). Smart Specialisation as a transition management framework: Driving sustainability-focused regional innovation policy?. Research Policy, 49(6), 103982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103982.
Verhoeven, P. (2010) European Port Governance. Report of an Enquiry into Current Governance of European Seaports. The ESPO Fact-Finding Report; ESPO: Brussels, Belgium.
Vezzani A., Baccan M., Candu A., Castelli A., Dosso M., Gkotsis P. (2017). Smart Specialisation, seizing new industrial opportunities. JRC Technical Report, European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2760/485744
Virkkala, S., Mäenpää, A., & Mariussen, Å. (2017). A connectivity model as a potential tool for smart specialization strategies. European Planning Studies, 25(4), 661-679. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1283391.
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Razzaque, J., McElwee, P., Turnhout, E., Kelemen, E., Rusch, G.M., Fernandez-Llamazares, A., Chan, I., Lim, M., Islar, M. & et al. (2021). Transformative governance of biodiversity: Insights for sustainable development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 53, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.06.002.
Whittle, A., & Spicer, A. (2008). Is actor network theory critique?. Organization studies, 29(4), 611-629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607082223.
Wihlborg, E. (2018). Political entrepreneurs as actors in governance networks: conceptualising political entrepreneurs through the actor-network approach. Governance and Political Entrepreneurship in Europe. 25-41. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788112765.00007.
Wilson G.A. (2007). Multifunctional Agriculture: A Transition Theory Perspective. Cambridge: CABI.
Woronowicz, T., Boronowsky, M., Wewezer, D., Mitasiunas, A., Seidel, K. & Cotera, I.R. (2017). Towards a Regional Innovation Strategies Modelling, Procedia Computer Science, 104, 227 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.01.118.
Wurst, B. Globalization and Sustainability of Regions: The Role of Cultural and Creative Industries in Cultural Policies and their Implications for Regional Development–A Case Study of the Czech Republic. In SHS Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences, 2020; Volume 74, 04032.
Wurth, B., Stam, E. & Spigel, B. (2021). Toward an entrepreneurial ecosystem research program. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258721998948.
Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. Qual. Rep., 20, 134–152.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and, London: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. sage.
Yin, R.K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Young, D., Borland, R., & Coghill, K. (2010). An actor-network theory analysis of policy innovation for smoke-free places: understanding change in complex systems. American Journal of Public Health, 100(7), 1208-1217. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.184705.
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D.O. & Shulman, J.M.(2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24. 519–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007.
Lühikokkuvõte
Ettevõtliku avastusprotsessi kavandamine säästva arengu jaoks aruka spetsialiseerumise strateegiate raames
Käesoleva doktoritöö eesmärk on uurida ja parandada arusaamist ettevõtluse avastusprotsessi (EDP) ülesehitusest ja positsioneerimisest aruka spetsialiseerumise strateegiate (S3) kavandamise ja rakendamise kontekstis, et võimaldada piirkondlikku jätkusuutlikku arengut. S3 ning aruka spetsialiseerumise teadus- ja innovatsioonistrateegiad (RIS3) leiavad üha suuremat huvi piirkonna innovatsioonipoliitika kavandamisel ja juhtimisel, kuna praegu toimub üleminek ajavahemikust 2014-2020 ajavahemikule 2021-2027. Seejuures peavad piirkondlikud otsustajad mitte ainult õppima esimesest rakendusperioodist, vaid kujundama strateegiad ümber, et vastata tulevastele nõudmistele, ning andma piirkondliku panuse Euroopa ja rahvusvahelistesse tegevuskavadesse, nt Euroopa rohelise kokkuleppe, ÜRO säästva arengu eesmärkide ja Agenda 2030, Euroopa uue Bauhausi või "Fit for 55" paketi raames. Teisisõnu peab Euroopa regionaalpoliitika kujundamine rajama S3-strateegia ja rakendamise tee aastateks 2021-2027 ja pärast seda, et algatada nõutud säästev areng mitmel tasandil.
Sellest hoolimata on kirjandus ja teadusalgatused, milles käsitletakse ülemäärase eelarvepuudujäägi menetluse, S3 ja jätkusuutlikkuse seost, vähesed. Lisaks sellele on S3 kujundamisel ikka veel lüngad teooria ja EDP praktilise rakendamise ning teadusliku teoreetilise kontseptsiooni vahel. Lisaks on S3 idee endiselt tugevalt seotud tehnoloogiapõhise innovatsioonimõtlemise ja -analüüsiga, mis omakorda jätab tähelepanuta olulised aspektid ja innovatsioonipotentsiaali, et algatada piirkonnas jätkusuutlik üleminek. Sellest tulenevalt ei ole sotsiaalseid innovatsioonikontseptsioone või sotsiaal-ökoloogilisi nõudmisi ja nende mõju säästvale arengule veel välja töötatud ega kaasatud S3 kavandamise ja rakendamise põhiosana. Sama kehtib ka kultuuri- ja loomemajanduse kohta, millel on tõestatud innovatsioonivõime, pädevus reguleerida asjaosaliste vahelisi suhteid loominguliste vahendajatena ning suunata ja hõlbustada ülemäärase eelarvepuudujäägi menetluste arendamist ja rakendamist, mis on tõepoolest üks S3-poliitika kujundamise põhikontseptsioonidest.
Lõputöö põhineb kvalitatiivse sisuanalüüsi uurimisstrateegial. Kesksele uurimisküsimusele vastamiseks esitatakse kolm alaküsimust, mida käsitletakse eraldi piisavate uurimismeetodite abil. Seega põhinevad väitekirja tulemused mitmemeetodilisel lähenemisviisil, kasutades erinevaid uurimismeetodeid, mis on seotud konkreetsete välja töötatud uurimisküsimustega.
Rakendatud uurimismeetodite tulemusel annab käesolev töö erinevaid tulemusi, et käsitleda elektroonilise kontrollisüsteemi täiustamist nii piirkondlikul kui ka ettevõtlustasandil. Kõigepealt töötati välja ja tutvustati riikidevahelise RIS3 vaatluskeskuse mudel. Mudel põhineb Euroopa piirkondade temaatiliste prioriteetide valikul nende S3-s, mis võimaldab ületada S3-seire üldtuntud uurimisprobleemid: võrreldavus, mitmetasandiline lähenemisviis ja tulemuslikkuse mõõtmine. Sellega pakub doktoritöö teaduskirjandusele uudsust sellise seiremudeli kontseptualiseerimisel.
Lisaks sellele ühendab väitekiri sotsiaalse innovatsiooni ja kultuuri- ja loomemajanduse S3-arutelu, sealhulgas ka selle, kuidas kasutada neid valdkondi innovatsioonipoliitika jätkusuutliku ülemineku suunas. Mõlemal juhul kutsutakse doktoritöös üles kaasama sotsiaalne kapital ja loov vahendaja kui võtmetähtsusega osalejad ja piirkondlikud ressursid S3i kavandamisse ja rakendamisse, mis põhineb neljakordse spiraali perspektiivil.
Lisaks sellele on piirkondlike varade kasutamine innovatsiooni rakendamisel ja ülemäärase eelarvepuudujäägi menetlustes oluline aspekt üldiselt kasutatavas kohapõhises teoorias S3 nähtuste seletamiseks ja tõlgendamiseks. Siiski pakub sinise majanduse jaoks tehtud analüüs - millel on kontseptuaalsed kattuvused S3-ga innovatsiooni ja säästva arengu osas sinise kasvu idees - nende potentsiaalide vähest kasutamist S3-s. Täpsemalt öeldes näitab analüüs sadamate kui piirkondlike varade ja uuendajate vähest kasutamist S3 prioriteetide valikul ning vastupidi positiivset mõju sadamate tulemuslikkusele, kui need on integreeritud piirkondlikku S3-süsteemi.
Lisaks sellele pakub käesolev väitekiri esimese lähenemisviisi piiriülese koostöö edendamiseks, mis on S3 kujundamise ja rakendamise oluline osa. Kuigi see lähenemisviis on innovatsiooni soodustajana hästi tuntud, ei ole see veel seotud selle võimalustega S3 jaoks, mis jällegi pakub uudsust praeguses kirjanduses. Need võimalused tulevad esile seoses EDP kavandamise ja rakendamisega konkreetses multifunktsionaalse põllumajanduse valdkonnas, mis hõlmab kontseptuaalselt mitmeid S3 eesmärke ka selles sektoris.
Sellega pakub käesolev töö nii teoreetilist kui ka praktilist panust praegustesse EDP ja S3 uuringutesse ning täiendab väheseid kirjandusväljaandeid säästva arengu seose kohta. Seega rajab väitekiri ka tee tulevastele aruteludele ja uute kontseptsioonide kaasamisele S3 kujundamisse ja rakendamisse.
Abstract
Entrepreneurial Discovery Process Design for Sustainable Development within Smart Specialisation Strategies
The thesis aims at examining and improving understanding of Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (EDP) set-up and its positioning within Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3) design and implementation, thus enabling regional sustainable development. S3 as well as Research and Innovation Strategies on Smart Specialisation (RIS3) receive increasing interest in regional innovation policy planning and governance, in particular, considering the current transition of this policy from period 2014–2020 towards 2021–2027. In this sense, regional decision-makers do not only have to learn from the first implementation period, but also to develop capacity to re-shape those strategies in order to meet future demands as well as to achieve objectives, as set in the European and international agendas, e.g. the European Green Deal, UN Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030, New European Bauhaus or Fit for 55 Package. In other words, European regional policy-making is under pressure to set up the path for future S3 design and implementation for 2021–2027 and beyond, keeping in mind the objective to accelerate both multi-scalar and multi-layer sustainable development.
Nevertheless, as the literature and available research initiatives demonstrates, the nexus of EDPs, S3 and sustainability stays rather below the radar. S3 design shows tangible drawbacks in finding the link between theory and practice, and EDP implementation misses sound theoretical foundation. At the present moment, S3 idea is still strongly connected to technology-driven innovation thinking and acting, which, in turn, ignores crucial aspects and wastes innovation potentials, thus jeopardising sustainable transition in a region. Unfortunately, social innovation concepts or socio-ecological tenets and their impact towards sustainable development have not been elaborated or incorporated as key building blocks into S3 design and implementation yet. The same applies to Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs), which have proven paramount innovation capacities and competences to moderate relations between involved actors in a function of creative brokers, thus guiding and facilitating development and implementation of EDPs, which are, indeed, one of the core concepts in S3 policy-making.
The thesis is based on Qualitative Content Analysis research strategy. To answer the Central Research Question (CRQ), three Research Questions (RQs) are introduced and individually addressed throughout sufficient research methodologies. Thus, the thesis delivers results, which are based on multi-method approach. This approach deploys different research methods, the selection thereof being based on the specific research question to be answered. As a result of the implemented research methodology, this thesis provides different insights to address the EDP set-up and its improvement both from regional and entrepreneurial level. First, a Transnational RIS3 Observatory Model is developed and introduced. The model is based on the introduction of a harmonised procedure dedicated to choose S3 thematic priorities in European regions. As a result, the model enables to effectively overcome well-known research problems of S3 monitoring in terms of covering aspects of comparability, multi-level approach and performance measuring. In this vein, the thesis in hand undertakes a novel research path in conceptualising S3 monitoring model and thus enhancing to available scientific literature.
Furthermore, the present work connects social innovation and CCIs to the S3 domain, including spill-overs on how to utilise those concepts for sustainability transition in innovation policies. In both cases, the thesis calls for a higher involvement of social capital and creative brokers, which qualify as key actors and regional assets within S3 design and implementation based on Quadruple helices. In addition, the deployment of regional assets for innovation application and EDPs is a crucial aspect in the place-base theory realm to be used to explain and discuss S3 phenomena. However, an analysis undertaken for the Blue Economy – which in its innovation and sustainable development meaning shows conceptual overlaps with S3 priority of Blue Growth – shows rather low utilisation of those potentials for S3 policy implementation. More precisely, the analysis yields low uptake of ports as regional assets and innovators into S3 priority set-up, although once integrated into regional S3, ports as Blue Economy actors enhance their innovation capacity and might generate higher positive effects in terms of better placed-based port performance.
The present work also offers a first attempt in promoting cross-border cooperation as a contributor to S3 design and implementation. Despite the fact that cross-border cooperation is a well-known concept facilitating innovation, it has neither has been connected yet to the S3 discourse, nor its potential unveiled for S3. These potentials are addressed and showcased for EDP design and implementation by exploring a particular sector of multi-functional agriculture, which conceptually merges under one roof several S3 objectives.
In sum, the thesis offers both theoretical and practical contributions dedicated to current EDP and S3 research and enhances the scant literature on the intertwining of EDPs and S3 with sustainable development. Indeed, sustainable development serves as a principal impetus for the researcher to continue this path in future discussion and incorporation of new concepts into S3 design and implementation.
... The widespread use of platforms in different domains and functions of the city (e.g. [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]) has given rise to the concept of 'platform urbanism', whichas one of the latest developments of the smart city-is focused on the integration of platforms into the design, management, and governance of urban spaces. More specifically, it refers to data-centered and digitally-enabled socio-technological assemblages, typically performed on a platform, rooted in the urban system, which facilitate the emergence of new social and material relationships including intermediations and transactions [41]. ...
Digital transformation has brought about significant changes in nearly all aspects of urban life, including mobility, energy, economy, and governance. In recent years, many cities have pursued smart city initiatives in order to address emerging urbanization and sustainability issues. However, the existing top-down approaches to smart city initiatives have resulted in decreased citizen participation, which, in turn, can lead to decision-making processes that lack inclusivity, diversity, trust, and accountability. As such, there is a growing interest in the potential of digital platforms for enhancing citizen participation in sustainable urban planning and development. This paper delves into the concept of platform urbanism and examines the capabilities of urban digital platforms in facilitating co-creation and innovation for sustainable and livable cities. Furthermore, it provides a number of select case studies, in order to explore how digital platforms can enhance public participation and contribute to more democratic and inclusive urban planning processes. Finally, critical questions and considerations related to the use of urban platforms are highlighted, and corresponding conclusions and insights about the future of urban platforms are discussed.KeywordsDigital PlatformsPlatform UrbanismSustainable Urban DevelopmentCitizen Engagement
... Complex organizational structures with rigid formal processes limit the flow of information on experimentation with new technologies and impact assessment, reducing openness. However, untapping the potential of AI and BDA technologies in smart city public services requires coordination between various policy fields and breaking of silos, while it also poses challenges for common evaluation frameworks Panori et al., 2020). ...
This chapter argues that smart cities offer a perfect testbed for experimentation with disruptive technologies on public services across different domains, such as utilities (water, waste, recycling), transportation, environmental protection, safety and security (police, fire protection), health, government processes (tax collection, registers) and decision making. Smart cities occur on the intersection of digital technologies, disruptive innovation, and urban environments. The main concept we introduce in this chapter envisages a data-enhanced future and efficiency gains made possible by automation of services and utilities, considering aspects that might jeopardize data security and safety, as well as increase urban inequalities. In this regard, we argue that the impact of smart city public services is still largely untapped by the monolithic architecture of existing smart cities and the fragmentation of smart city solutions and services across different city ecosystems and domains, working in silos with little interoperability and knowledge interaction between them. Therefore, our approach aims to propose a new framework for smart city services design based on combining different microservices and enhancing them with AI and BDA features for further exploring existing datasets generated within a smart city.
... The United Kingdom focuses on government applications and capabilities, application development, such as collaborative, innovative platforms that make them more open, participatory and experimental [18], data security promoting and protecting the broader public interest, and transport infrastructure projects aimed at transforming inclusive, scalable, and coordinated [19]. Meanwhile, government capabilities are directed at city administrators to regulate development services globally [19], mobile data-centric service development to produce beautiful, provocative, socially inclusive interactive public art through human-centered design techniques, and ICT-driven policymaking to providing service platforms. ...
The study aims to analyze the success of the Smart City strategy in Italy, England, the United States, and Spain. This study uses qualitative research methods with bibliometric analysis. Data for 501 articles were obtained from Scopus keywords “Smart City” and “Project,” the definition of social science in the last ten years. The four highest countries are Italy 66, United Kingdom 58, United States 54 and Spain 42. Data analysis uses VOSviewer and NVivo12 software to find trending themes. The results show that the strategy’s success is supported by three factors, system, application, and government. Italy focuses on applications and systems; application development includes building platforms, open-source technologies, and urban data platforms. System development emphasizes the design of support systems, system effectiveness, and transportation systems. The UK focuses on applications and governance, including application development, collaborative innovation platforms, data security, and transport infrastructure projects. Development is directed at city administrators, mobile data-centric service development, and ICT-driven policymaking. The United States focuses on government development, city challenges, sustainable development, and urban development. Spain focuses on application development, efficient energy, competent government, and urban participatory policymaking. The success of the smart city strategy is strongly influenced by application development. Future research is expected to discuss empirical testing of the conceptual framework developed by intelligent cities with the web of science.KeywordsComparisonInnovative strategySmart city
... Recently, the European Union (EU) has experienced a significant digital transition through which it tries to boost the resilience of various European regions towards making them more competitive, sustainable and inclusive towards external shocks. In this regard, investigating the interactions rising between the social and technical elements of regional systems is an essential point when considering the prospects of resilience at the regional level [4,5]. ...
The relationship between humans and machines has been thoroughly investigated throughout existing literature focusing on various angles of everyday life. Research on cyber-physical systems and human-machine networks has tried to shed light on the connection between social and technological aspects, offering insights and helping on a better matching and exploitation of the revealed space amongst those elements. In several cases, the exploration of human-machine networks has offered new ways to engage with vulnerable and marginalized groups more effectively, as well as to foster the well-being of individuals and communities. This can be perceived as a hidden potential of cyber-physical systems and human-machine networks towards empowering resilience, which can be approached by various developmental dimensions, like community engagement, transport safety, energy production and consumption, as well as new techno-economic orientations. The study targets on mapping the links between elements being part of cyber-physical systems, human-machine networks and resilience, that have been created through research and innovation projects funded by the European Commission under the programme Horizon 2020, between 2014 and 2021. A total set of 7,859 projects are analyzed in relation to their title and abstract for revealing bridges that have been constructed between human-machine features and resilience. Our analysis further explores the main fields of application of projects on cyber-physical systems and human-machine networks and reveals the ways in which the relate to two resilience characteristics, connectivity and collaboration. It shows the increasing focus of European research projects on cyber-physical systems and human-machine networks and their rising potential for resilience.
... The United Kingdom focuses on government applications and capabilities, application development, such as collaborative, innovative platforms that make them more open, participatory and experimental [18], data security promoting and protecting the broader public interest, and transport infrastructure projects aimed at transforming inclusive, scalable, and coordinated [19]. Meanwhile, government capabilities are directed at city administrators to regulate development services globally [19], mobile data-centric service development to produce beautiful, provocative, socially inclusive interactive public art through human-centered design techniques, and ICT-driven policymaking to providing service platforms. ...
The number of Covid-19 cases in Indonesia is still high. One of the efforts made by the government is vaccination. West Java, East Java, and Central Java have also implemented vaccination policies. The priority targets for vaccination in these three provinces are the general public. This study looks at the effect of vaccination policies in West Java, East Java, and Central Java through promotions on social media. The rapid growth of cases globally has caused panic, fear, and anxiety during this time. This study uses a qualitative descriptive approach and Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS) data taken through Twitter accounts (@dinkesJabar, @DinkesJatim, and @DinkesJateng). Furthermore, the data is encoded using NVivo 12 plus. Researchers will describe the results of the NVivo process to find out promotions related to vaccination in the three accounts. And the concepts used are Policy Influence Vaccination and Social Media. The results show that data is one of the critical factors in the current digitalization era, which can be an essential source of information. The government also uses big data to create work efficiency and effectiveness in policymaking as a form of effort. The effect of vaccination policy through social media promotion is not very effective because it can be seen from the rise of the @Dinkesjabar @Dinkesjatim and @Dinkesjateng Twitter accounts that the hashtag related to vaccination is still very minimal. Then the data obtained shows the success of immunization in West Java, East Java. Central Java is the vaccination policy through the door-to-door, mobile vaccination mobilization, mobile vaccine bus, and cooperation with the TNI-Polri, academics, and the community in general. This success fulfills what is targeted by the provincial government.
KeywordsVaccinationPolicySocial mediaPromotion
... Residential development in city districts reflects changing demands for urban spaces in different historical eras. Modern cities are undergoing a digital transformationubiquitous connectivity with high-speed Internet is becoming a basic need for residents, tourists, businesses and public institutions (Heaton & Parlikad, 2019;Panori et al., 2021). Studies on the revitalization of old urban spaces have urged the introduction of modern information and communication technologies (ICTs) in response to the new digital routines of city-dwellers (Mancebo, 2020;Oh, 2020). ...
Cities around the globe that have residential areas spanning several eras of architecture face the challenge of developing a comfortable urban environment. New urban spaces must accommodate the needs of a modern urban dweller constantly engaged with information and communication technologies and the Internet of Things. A viable urban development strategy is the smart-city model based on a digital city ecosystem using urban informatics technologies. The study case is Kaliningrad, a city with an over 760-year history of development. We present a comparative analysis of its housing development dynamics, tourist zones and mobile internet coverage in the residential areas. Our findings identify digitally advanced and peripheral inner-city areas and, using geoinformation data, showcase the development of digital urban space.
... This is due to the social and institutional inertia of cities and defensive behaviours of city actors against novelties, especially when a radical change of the existing city routines is introduced. Looking at the transformation of cities with smart systems and technologies from the perspective of routines allows one to understand the rise of city smartness from an innovation theory perspective, depending on innovation systems that are also becoming hybrid, cyber-physical-social [54]. ...
The aim of this paper is to shed light on projects transforming cities through smart systems, digital technologies, and e-services. The concepts of “smart city” or “intelligent city” appeared in the mid-1980s and since then an extensive array of articles and reports have been published. However, there is still fuzziness about what projects exactly make cities “smart”. This is primarily due to complexity, as smart technologies, IoT infrastructure, crowdsourcing platforms, user engagement, co-design, and new decision-making processes overlap, creating hybrid systems and complex environments in which humans, communities, and machines interact. To understand the projects that make cities smart, we combine a literature review of the smart city supply chain, surveys on smart city projects, and case studies of projects to whose design or development we have contributed. Using data from 20 smart city reviews, we identify how different cities have organised their smart city transformation through projects, tease out the core features of smart city projects, relationships between projects and technologies, and the typology of projects and architectures of integration. In the conclusion, we define the drivers of smart city projects and city smartness along three axes (city ecosystem, connected intelligence, innovation) and nine properties of those axes. We argue that more so than technology, the smart city transformation is determined by systems integrating physical infrastructure, platforms for user engagement, digital technologies, and e-services. System integration rather than smart technologies is the major driver for a radical transformation of city routines.
... Since the late 1990s e-government development has been considered as a potential tool for (a) increasing transparency and citizen's engagement in the provision of public sector services (Jaeger and Bertot 2010); (b) decreasing corruption and opportunistic behaviour in public sector service delivery (Saxena 2005) and (c) inducing managerial innovations (Gatto 2020;Aldieri et al. 2020a;Moon and Norris 2005;Panori et al. 2021;Homburg 2018). Carr and Jago (2014) refer to the digitalisation of public administration as an antipode of petty corruption. ...
The present inquiry addresses the nexus between the development of electronic government and corruption in the provision of public sector services in developing and transition economies. The study analyzes the potential contribution of electronic government in combating petty corruption within the framework of two superimposed principal-agent model and show that electronic government could potentially limit bureaucratic corruption. To address the research question empirically, the study applies random tobit and linear random effects panel estimators to a dataset made of 121 countries, which covers the time period between 2008 and 2018. Estimations reveal that the adoption of electronic government in the delivery of public sector services has been the central factor that contributed to the reduction of petty corruption in developing and transition economies. The level of per capita income, political rights, civil liberties and share of natural resources in gross exports also correspond with less bribery in the public sector service delivery. Furthermore, the study finds that a lower level of socioeconomic development corresponds with a greater level of petty corruption. Hence, e-government presents one of the utmost opportunities for socio economic development and offers solutions for the improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of public administration.
... Path creation reflects a complex system of dynamics arising between various local actors. Hence, understanding the wider context of energy transition needs to be complemented by exploring perceptions and attitudes of relevant stakeholders [29,31]. ...
Energy transition is characterised by processes referring to new path creation. These new paths are formed based on existing or novel resources that are often closely related to the social aspect. Hence, social acceptance and new path creation can be considered as mutually reinforcing processes that are crucial in energy transition. The study focuses on the use of agricultural biomass (or “agrobiomass”) as a renewable energy source for heating and tries to investigate the interaction between resource formation processes during path creation, referring to knowledge creation, market formation, investment mobilization and technology legitimation, and social acceptance. A web-based survey with a sample size of 3,725 convenience-based responses from 22 European countries is used to generate the primary data for analysis. Two levels of social acceptance are used, focusing on the overall perceptions and the intention to install agrobiomass heating systems locally. Results indicate that knowledge creation acts as a booster for overall perceptions through awareness and public information, whilst existing knowledge and previous experience can increase the willingness to install agrobiomass heating systems. Regarding market formation, social acceptance is empowered by sourcing agrobiomass and technology through local farmers and manufacturers. Cost savings and positive local impacts are significant investment mobilization aspects, whereas agrobiomass initiatives supported by trusted organizations and/or companies act as significant technology legitimation channels for promoting social acceptance. Small variations exist between urban and rural areas showing that the territorial context matters. The study provides policy insights relevant to energy transition through the uptake of agrobiomass heating solutions.
... Zuzul, 2019). In particular, the active involvement of diverse urban civil society groups, communities and individual citizens appears challenging (de Hoop et al., 2018;Khan et al., 2020;Mancebo, 2020;Panori et al., 2020). ...
This paper highlights the need and opportunities for constructively combining different types of (analogue and data-driven) knowledges in evidence-informed policy decision-making in future smart cities. Problematizing the assumed universality and objectivity of data-driven knowledge, we call attention to notions of “positionality” and “situatedness” in knowledge production relating to the urban present and possible futures. In order to illustrate our arguments, we draw on a case study of strategic urban (spatial) planning in the Cambridge city region in the United Kingdom. Tracing diverse knowledge production processes, including top-down data-driven knowledges derived from urban modeling, and bottom-up analogue community-based knowledges, allows us to identify locationally specific knowledge politics around evidence for policy. The findings highlight how evidence-informed urban policy can benefit from political processes of competition, contestation, negotiation, and complementarity that arise from interactions between diverse “digital” and “analogue” knowledges. We argue that studying such processes can help in assembling a more multifaceted, diverse and inclusive knowledge-base on which to base policy decisions, as well as to raise awareness and improve active participation in the ongoing “smartification” of cities.
... Comprehensively, Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) compares the circular city as a complex ecosystem capable of exploiting advanced digital technologies in circular economy practices in order to simultaneously consider social, economic and environmental aspects. In this sense, according to Paiho et al. (2020) andD'Amico et al. (2021a), the urban metabolism of circular cities is characterised by a multitude of actors such as municipalities, municipal, regional and state owned utilities, citizens, universities, start-ups, research centres, companies and non-profit organizations, that interact continuously and systematically in order to plan, monitor, develop and evaluate increasingly sustainable and digitalized urban processes and operations (Panori et al., 2020;Perng et al., 2018;Rajakallio et al., 2018). ...
Digitalisation of urban metabolism circularity provides policymakers, urban managers, planners and administrators with a useful tool for identifying, controlling and evaluating a wide range of data concerning the flows of social, environmental and economic resources. This approach is based on the crucial role of fixed and mobile digital infrastructures such as real-time monitoring stations, GPS tracking sensors, augmented reality, virtual sharing platforms, social media dashboards, smart grids, and the like in the development and strengthening of the quality and efficiency of the circularity of resources. For these reasons, the integration of digital technologies in mobility, waste, water and wastewater management, energy efficiency, safety, and so on, represents a crucial aspect for cities involved in the circularity of their urban metabolism. Through a systematic literature review and case study approaches, the analysis disclose a wide-range of initiatives adopted by several European circular cities that optimise the circularity of urban metabolic flows, and contributes to the efforts in increasing understanding and awareness of the digitalisation driven by the urban metabolism circularity.
... Pavitt (1984), Freeman (1982Freeman ( ,1987, Freeman y Pérez, (1988), Dosi, Freeman, Nelson, Silverberg y Soete (1988), Lundvall (1992), Freeman y Soete (1997), Nelson (1993), Niosi (2002) y Godinho et al. Digitalización cómo nuevo patrón tecnológico dominante: Implicaciones en… 27 utilizar al SNI como elemento de adaptación del patrón tecnológico dominante (Panori et al., 2020). ...
La presente investigación pretende ampliar los conocimientos teóricos-prácticos y metodológicos sobre el análisis del cambio tecnológico y su relación con la gestión de innovación. Los hallazgos logrados buscan contribuir en los estudios del campo de la innovación, dado que uno de sus desafíos actuales es analizar la complejidad de los cambios tecnológicos y su comprensión para el desarrollo de la capacidad innovativa de los países. En sintonía con estos desafíos, es que aquí se plantean formas distintas de abordar tal complejidad analizando la digitalización. Con base a ello, el objetivo general de la investigación es; identificar en el contexto de la complejidad de los cambios tecnológicos nuevos componentes teóricos y prácticos de la digitalización como patrón tecnológico dominante y su vinculación con la gestión de innovación universitaria en México. El análisis desarrollado se estructura de la siguiente manera: Primero, se presenta un marco conceptual y un marco referencial de contexto sobre los elementos estratégicos, organizativos y operativos de la innovación y su relación con la digitalización. Segundo, se desarrolla un análisis teórico que describe la digitalización como patrón tecnológico dominante y como expresión del cambio tecnológico actual, planteándose aquí modelos representativos del Sistema Nacional de Innovación (SNI), con los que son posible observar el carácter dominante de este patrón tecnológico en contextos geográficos diferentes. El análisis teórico permitió la caracterización y operacionalización de los “componentes integrados” que se constituyen en variables de tipo cualitativas. Estas unidas a los modelos representativos del SNI hizo factible describir la complejidad en que se desenvuelve la digitalización. Tercero, siendo la complejidad el elemento característico del fenómeno de estudio, se operacionalizan los “componentes integrados” a través del QCA (Qualitative Comparative Analysis); allí se valida el carácter complejo y dominante de la digitalización en el contexto de la gestión de innovación universitaria en México. Al final, se presentan un conjunto de conclusiones que resaltan hallazgos, evidencias teóricas y empíricas logrados en la presente investigación.
Palabras claves: Complejidad, Digitalización, Gestión de Innovación, Patrón tecnológico dominante y Sistema Nacional de Innovación.
... A literatura recente tem mostrado que a revolução de dados contínua e a inteligência de dados é cada vez mais evidente na criação de inovação e nas decisões de negócios [21]. Segundo Lopes, Guimarães, & Santos [22], as organizações têm armazenado grandes quantidades de dados na expectativa que estes contenham informações valiosas. ...
... Intergovernmental organisations and national governments, for example, recommend designing technological innovation policies by adopting an smart specialisation approach (Panori et al., 2020). But these recommendations entail the risk that more prosperous industrial sectors continue to prosper, whereas slow-emerging but promising technological niches suffer from the presence of an adverse technological regime (Geels, 2014). ...
... The quadruple helix actors' involvement (citizens, government, industry and research) is crucial for cocreation, combining intelligence by means of digital platforms. Thus, Smart Cities emerge and evolve [70]. ...
More and more digital 3D city models might evolve into spatiotemporal instruments with time as the 4th dimension. For digitizing the current situation, 3D scanning and photography are suitable tools. The spatial future could be integrated using 3D drawings by public space designers and architects. The digital spatial reconstruction of lost historical environments is more complex, expensive and rarely done. Three-dimensional co-creative digital drawing with citizens’ collaboration could be a solution. In 2016, the City of Ghent (Belgium) launched the “3D city game Ghent” project with time as one of the topics, focusing on the reconstruction of disappeared environments. Ghent inhabitants modelled in open-source 3D software and added animated 3D gamification and Transmedia Storytelling, resulting in a 4D web environment and VR/AR/XR applications. This study analyses this low-cost interdisciplinary 3D co-creative process and offers a framework to enable other cities and municipalities to realise a parallel virtual universe (an animated digital twin bringing the past to life). The result of this co-creation is the start of an “Animated Spatial Time Machine” (AniSTMa), a term that was, to the best of our knowledge, never used before. This research ultimately introduces a conceptual 4D space–time diagram with a relation between the current physical situation and a growing number of 3D animated models over time.
... Technology offered plenty of opportunities to pave the way for the emergence of bottom-up initiatives targeting community self-help and mutual support through social media and online platforms. These initiatives bring communities together, encourage networking, develop innovative solutions and collaborative infrastructure in support of those in need, and, therefore, shape social resilience by mobilizing collective intelligence [25,52,53]. ...
The COVID-19 pandemic has put lifestyles in question, changed daily routines, and limited citizen freedoms that seemed inalienable before. A human activity that has been greatly affected since the beginning of the health crisis is mobility. Focusing on mobility, we aim to discuss the transformational impact that the pandemic brought to this specific urban domain, especially with regards to the promotion of sustainability, the smart growth agenda, and the acceleration towards the smart city paradigm. We collect 60 initial policy responses related to urban mobility from cities around the world and analyze them based on the challenge they aim to address, the exact principles of smart growth and sustainable mobility that they encapsulate, as well as the level of ICT penetration. Our findings suggest that emerging strategies, although mainly temporary, are transformational, in line with the principles of smart growth and sustainable development. Most policy responses adopted during the first months of the pandemic, however, fail to leverage advancements made in the field of smart cities, and to adopt off-the-shelf solutions such as monitoring, alerting, and operations management.
... Digital government is a government digital innovation solution to societal, economic, and other pressures (Janowski, 2015;Panori et al., 2020;Pérez-Morote, Pontones-Rosa & Núñez-Chicharro, 2020). The digital innovation of government services is an essential element in a wider social innovation ecosystem. ...
Purpose
This paper aims to identify the dynamic capabilities of government organisations in Woredas of Ethiopia that digitally innovate on the existing government digital platform, the WoredaNet.
Design/methodology/approach
The study adopted a qualitative interpretive case study strategy using three government administrative regions in Ethiopia (called Woredas), which digitally innovate using the government digital platform, the WoredaNet. A structured interview protocol was implemented for data collection. In total, 5 respondents representing users, information and communication technology (ICT) staff and management were selected from each of the Woredas (districts), yielding a total of 15 respondents.
Findings
Drawing from the dynamic capabilities literature, the findings reveal that the digital platform governance model plays the strongest role in digital government innovation. Specifically, the Woredas exhibit highly developed adaptive capabilities through learning from the affordances offered by the digital platform. Also, despite the collaborative nature of their absorptive capabilities, there are no clear organisational structures to manifest these capabilities (integrating new learnings). The innovative capabilities (creating digital government products or service innovations) are constrained by the governance model, which is centralised in one ICT unit.
Research limitations/implications
The research is limited to one of the Regional States of Ethiopia. Further studies would be needed to consider other regional states and more Woredas.
Practical implications
The research provides a means through which dynamic capabilities can improve digital innovation on government digital platforms, despite the scarcity of resources, especially in low-income countries.
Originality/value
The paper contributes to digital government and dynamic capability literature in revealing how digital innovations in government agencies might be organisationally enhanced through distributed digital platform governance models.
... Büyük şirketler, sürdürülebilirliklerini desteklemek için iş süreçlerindeki ayrıntıları anlamak ve yapısal olarak ele almak için bilgi akışına ihtiyaç duymakta ve bu yüzden bu tür teknolojik uygulamalara yatırım yapmaya daha meyilli olmaktadırlar (Aydıner ve Tatoğlu, 2019). Yönetim bilişim sistemleri, sosyal uygulamalar sağlayarak çalışanlarının bir arada olmasını sağlayan ve bu oluşumla birlikte bilgi paylaşımı yapmalarını kolaylaştırmakta ve inovasyon süreçlerine de büyük katkılar sunmaktadır (Panori, Kakderi, Komninos, 2020;Lill, Wald, Munck, 2020;Achi, Salinesi, Viscusi, 2016). ...
... Social media and digital platforms provide new environments of social interactions that cultivate learning, networking, collaborative innovation, and behaviour adaptation based on a specific problem/need [96]. Through these flexible areas for participation, collaboration and creativity, innovative solutions to great societal challenges can emerge, facilitating thus and increasing the capacity of the official authorities with limited resources [97,98]. ...
Fundamental principles of modern cities and urban planning are challenged during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the advantages of large city size, high density, mass transport, free use of public space, unrestricted individual mobility in cities. These principles shaped the development of cities and metropolitan areas for more than a century, but currently, there are signs that they have turned from advantage to liability. Cities Public authorities and private organisations responded to the COVID-19 crisis with a variety of policies and business practices. These countermeasures codify a valuable experience and can offer lessons about how cities can tackle another grand challenge, this of climate change. Do the measures taken during the COVID-19 crisis represent a temporal adjustment to the current health crisis? Or do they open new ways towards a new type of urban development more effective in times of environmental and health crises? We address these questions through literature review and three case studies that review policies and practices for the transformation of city ecosystems mostly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) the central business district, (b) the transport ecosystem, and (c) the tourism-hospitality ecosystem. We assess whether the measures implemented in these ecosystems shape new policy and planning models for higher readiness of cities towards grand challenges, and how, based on this experience, cities should be organized to tackle the grand challenge of environmental sustainability and climate change.
... Smart places (cities, districts, neighborhoods, ecosystems) depend on the way digitalization evolves and systems of innovation are enhanced, becoming more open, global, participatory, and agile. In smart cities, cyber-physical systems of innovation are created, the innovation nodes acquire digital companions, collaboration is deployed over digital spaces, actors can use complex methods guided by software, and get insights from data and analytics (Panori et al., 2020). The convergence of innovation and digital systems in cities and regions brought also new actors, users, and citizens and new forms of innovation, such as user-driven innovation, innovation crowdsourcing, open innovation, innovation driven by demand, free innovation (Von Hippel, 2006, 2016. ...
Smart cities constitute a new urban paradigm and a hegemonic phenomenon in contemporary city development. The concept envisages a data-enhanced future and efficiency gains made possible by automation and innovation in city activities and utilities. However, the way smart cities are created brings about two weaknesses. First, there is strong compartmentation of solutions and systems, which are developing in vertical markets for energy, transport, governance, safety, etc., silos with little interoperability and sharing of resources. Second, there is a low impact, some increase in efficiency, some reduction in costs, time gained, some decrease in CO2 emissions. There is an important knowledge gap about developing cross-sector, high-impact smart city systems. This paper deals with these challenges and investigates a different direction in smart city design and efficiency. We focus on ‘Connected Intelligence Spaces’ created in smart city ecosystems, which (a) have physical, social, and digital dimensions; (b) work as systems of innovation enabling synergies between human, machine, and collective intelligence; and (c) improve efficiency and performance by innovating rather than optimizing city routines. The research hypothesis we assess is about a universal architecture of high impact smart city projects, due to underlying connected intelligence spaces and cyber-physical-social systems of innovation. We assess this hypothesis with empirical evidence from case studies related to smart city projects dealing with safety (Vision-Zero), transportation (MaaS), and energy (positive energy districts). We highlight the main elements of operation and how high efficiency is achieved across these verticals. We identify commonalities, common innovation functions, and associations between functions, allowing us to define a common architecture enabling innovation and high performance across smart city ecosystems.
... Social media and digital platforms provide new environments of social interactions that cultivate learning, networking, collaborative innovation, and behaviour adaptation based on a specific problem/need [96]. Through these flexible areas for participation, collaboration and creativity, innovative solutions to great societal challenges can emerge, facilitating thus and increasing the capacity of the official authorities with limited resources [97,98]. ...
Fundamental principles of modern cities and urban planning are challenged during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the advantages of large city size, high density, mass transport, free use of public space, unrestricted individual mobility in cities. These principles shaped the development of cities and metropolitan areas for more than a century, but currently, there are signs that they have turned from advantage to liability. Cities Public authorities and private organisations responded to the COVID-19 crisis with a variety of policies and business practices. These countermeasures codify a valuable experience and can offer lessons about how cities can tackle another grand challenge, this of climate change. Do the measures taken during the COVID-19 crisis represent a temporal adjustment to the current health crisis? Or do they open new ways towards a new type of urban development more effective in times of environmental and health crises? We address these questions through literature review and three case studies that review policies and practices for the transformation of city ecosystems mostly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) the central business district, (b) the transport ecosystem, and (c) the tourism-hospitality ecosystem. We assess whether the measures implemented in these ecosystems shape new policy and planning models for higher readiness of cities towards grand challenges. And how, based on this experience, cities should be organized to tackle the grand challenge of environmental sustainability and climate change.
... In regard to the challenges of complex self-organising cities, several suggestions have been advanced in recent years on how to promote planning and design measures capable of proactively relating to urban self-organisation. For example, attempts have been made to generate new kinds of planning rules (Alfasi and Portugali, 2007;Cozzolino et al., 2017), alternative systems of taxation (Minola et al., 2020;Hughes et al., 2020), open-ended design strategies for public spaces and infrastructure (Salingaros, 2005;Holcombe, 2012), piecemeal social experiments (Evans et al., 2016), city gaming to include a wider range of actors in the decision-making process (Tan, 2016), and smart platforms that facilitate interactions among individuals and help in the monitoring of city evolution and risk emergence (Kiesling, 2018;Panori et al., 2020). These measures have one purpose in common. ...
The spatial dimension of property is underexamined in the planning literature. Above all, and surprisingly, this dimension is underestimated in the debate on complex self-organising cities. However, if we consider the importance of action in and for urban self-organisation, property cannot but be an aspect indispensable for understanding the propensity of cities to grow (more or less) spontaneously over time. This article first explores property patterns and their importance for self-organising cities. It then develops some ideas on how to increase the capacity of cities to rely on self-organisation. It shows that there is an urgent need to include the importance of property in the discourse, both from a descriptive/exploratory perspective and from a strategic/normative one.
... In cities organized as platforms, it is possible to take advantage of the creativity, intelligence, and knowledge of a large and indefinite group of people, increasing the likelihood of generating original ideas for urban development [57]. For the authors, the main contribution of digital technologies is the rise and interconnection of various types of intelligence-(a) artificial, (b) human, and (c) collective-supported by good public governance, to build smarter, more human, and more sustainable cities. ...
Since the advent of the second digital revolution, the exponential advancement of technology is shaping a world with new social, economic, political, technological, and legal circumstances. The consequential disruptions force governments and societies to seek ways for their cities to become more humane, ethical, inclusive, intelligent, and sustainable. In recent years, the concept of City-as-a-Platform was coined with the hope of providing an innovative approach for addressing the aforementioned disruptions. Today, this concept is rapidly gaining popularity, as more and more platform thinking applications become available to the city context—so-called platform urbanism. These platforms used for identifying and addressing various urbanization problems with the assistance of open data, participatory innovation opportunity, and collective knowledge. With these developments in mind, this study aims to tackle the question of “How can platform urbanism support local governance efforts in the development of smarter cities?” Through an integrative review of journal articles published during the last decade, the evolution of City-as-a-Platform was analyzed. The findings revealed the prospects and constraints for the realization of transformative and disruptive impacts on the government and society through the platform urbanism, along with disclosing the opportunities and challenges for smarter urban development governance with collective knowledge through platform urbanism.
... Despite the recognised value of monitoring and evaluation within Smart Specialisation policy, in which monitoring and evaluation mechanisms build up the so-called 6 th step of the RIS3 methodological framework, the related literature remains still scattered. Only few research and policy paper tracks support unfolding literature on RIS3 evaluation and monitoring (Arnold, 2004;EC, 2014;Gianelle & Kleibrink, 2015;Magro & Wilson, 2013;Masana et al., 2019;Panori et al., 2020;Prause, 2014). Literature on design and modelling (Boschma, 2014;Woronowicz et a., 2016) as well as implementation of Smart Specialisation, i.e. process-based approach, is mounting, whereas monitoring and evaluation related issues are scarce (Gianelle & Kleinbrink, 2015). ...
The current funding period of the European Union 2014 – 2020 advocates the application of the Smart Specialisation approach that has to be implemented on regional level. European NUTS-2 regions shall evaluate and reconsider their regional strategies for the upcoming funding period. Due to the high differences among the regions in terms of existing monitoring systems and policies, the performance measurement lacks a solid basis for a sufficient comparison, exemplification and transfer. In order to reduce this research gap, within this paper, the authors developed a comprehensible methodological tool using a given number of NUTS-2 regions with their distinctive monitoring systems and indicators in Central Europe. The benchmarking process is focusing on deploying existing performance indicators from each regional strategy, analysing them and aiming at developing one common set of indicators. As a result, the developed methodology approach enables sufficient performance comparison in terms of RIS3 implementation in the current funding period on the one hand, and provides a crucial input for the future monitoring system design. As a result, the novel methodological tool yields contribution to both scholarly literature and practitioners. Furthermore, the benchmarking method provides various selection and combination options that allow direct insights in different fields’ performance, such as regional spending to facilitate RIS3 implementation and Entrepreneurial Discovery process implementation as well. With this tool concerned, policy recommendations for the upcoming funding period and updates on the regional strategies can be drawn up.
... This exercise revealed some important findings for Greece but also indicates some policy recommendations for other territories. Industry platforms address common challenges of companies belonging to an industry group and create favourable conditions for setting up business and innovation ecosystems (Panori et al. 2020). In every top-10 industry group we have identified production, trade, technology and environmental challenges. ...
The paper negotiates two main questions of the methodology of EDP in Smart Specialisation. First is the granularity level of detail in the analysis and the assessment of dynamism of economic activities. We argue that NACE three-digit codes offer the best combination of homogeneity of statistics and sectoral studies. Still, all NACE three-digit codes are not cadets for discovering business opportunities and new innovation activities and therefore, further research for the selection of priority fields is necessary. Second question is about the collective nature of interventions and investments developed through EDP. We argue that business ecosystems that unite large number of enterprises may exceed the risk of priority investments for specific businesses and groups. The demarcation of investments in relation to platform-based ecosystems as well as of ecosystems which are developed on top of value chains is of particular importance. Both methodological principles which are proposed in the paper (selection of three-digit NACE code ecosystems and platforms based on functions/needs of such ecosystems) can complement the theoretical weaknesses that reasonably exist in terms of discovery and innovation.
... Embedding crowdsourcing and -funding capabilities into instruments and initiatives is an example of how to empower the civil society in the development of RIS3, thereby potentially allowing faster, broader, cheaper, and more resilient learning-to-learn and learning-to-learn-how-to-learn dynamics (Carayannis and Grigoroudis 2016). Recent research has shown that the use of digital platforms may boost the impact of stakeholders' engagement (Panori et al. 2020). ...
Prior research has emphasized the importance of bringing together quadruple helix (QH) actors (academia, industry, government and civil society) to strengthen regional innovation. The QH model forms an integral part of European innovation policy, which aims to create sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe. As part of this policy, European Union (EU) regions are to design and implement research and innovation strategies for smart specialization (RIS3) through the participatory entrepreneurial discovery process (EDP). Despite the strong emphasis on the QH model, the model is still far from a well-established concept in innovation research and policy, and civil society participation in RIS3 has remained low. Our paper aims to support regional governments to engage with and facilitate the participation of civil society in a territorial EDP based on two case studies from Finland and Sweden. It contributes to the literature on regional innovation systems through identifying mechanisms to foster the QH model and suggests lessons learnt for the operationalization of the QH model as part of RIS3.
As global demand for the smart integrated systems is growing exponentially, development of smart ecosystems for seamless integration and interaction has become significantly important. A smart ecosystem is a collection of interconnected devices, technologies, and services that work together to create a seamless and efficient experience for the user. Smart eco-systems have the ability to use space more effectively, boost output, improve user experience, lower energy costs, and support more adaptable working conditions. Advanced technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), the internet of things (IoT), edge computing, data analytics, high speed connectivity and autonomous decision-making algorithms power these ecosystems. These ecosystems can range from small, localized systems to large, global networks Examples of smart ecosystems include smart healthcare, smart cities, smart grids, and smart manufacturing. These ecosystems use a combination of sensors, actuators, and other devices to gather and analyze data, and then use that data to control and automate various processes and systems. They also often use cloud-based services to store and process data, and provide remote access and control. In this chapter we present typical architecture, applications and challenges faced in the design and development of Smart Ecosystems. The chapter starts with exploring why and the how Smart Ecosystems are essential to transform our society and day-to-day life. The most known and commonly used Smart systems are presented. The chapter continues with characteristics of a typical smart ecosystems, highlighting the main attractive features of the smart ecosystem, followed by its major components and applications smart ecosystems in various areas. Finally, the chapter concludes with summary of various challenges in the design/applicability of Smart Ecosystems in different industrial sectors from home automation to smart manufacturing to smart healthcare.
Junto al desarrollo de las ciudades inteligentes, están emergiendo mecanismos colaborativos de innovación que facilitan la cocreación de valor público. Siendo los ecosistemas de innovación un elemento dinamizador de tales mecanismos, se hace necesario sistematizar las esencias conceptuales de su influencia en el desarrollo actual de las ciudades inteligentes. Este artículo se centra en dicho propósito, para lo cual se realiza una revisión basada en una estrategia de búsqueda en la base de datos de Google Académico para el periodo 2015-2021. La sistematización conceptual sigue una metodología que consta de tres etapas: i) conceptualización, que permite distinguir las definiciones de ciudad inteligente con énfasis en los ecosistemas de innovación; ii) desarrollo, que profundiza en los modelos teóricos que destacan cómo tiene lugar la cocreación de valor público en los entornos urbanos actuales, y iii) aprendizaje, donde se hace hincapié en los hallazgos del estudio para proponer guías para la acción. Como resultado, se presentan regularidades conceptuales que ponen al descubierto la importancia de analizar las ciudades inteligentes desde una perspectiva innovadora, colaborativa y centrada en las personas. El principal aporte de este artículo radica en la obtención de un modelo conceptual general para la cocreación de valor público en ciudades inteligentes, con base en los hallazgos conceptuales obtenidos, de los cuales también se derivan recomendaciones, con el fin de fomentar su exitosa implementación.
Smart Cities represent the next big frontier for computational science. However, the real-world impacts of this transformation have been considerably slower than other domains of digital innovation. In this work, we study the interplay between the core properties of digital platforms and the urban innovation contexts that aim to promote digital transition as a means to generate value for cities and its citizens. The research methodology is based on a literature review, which aimed to characterise the key limitations preventing smart city initiatives from attaining the same level of fast paced innovation as other areas of computational science, and seek for alternative innovation practices. The results suggest that innovation practices in the context of smart city initiatives seem to be framed by a key trade-off between the idea that only global solutions may be able to capture the full benefits of digital innovation and the idea that each city is unique and must pave its own way towards digital transition. From the analysis of those results, we derive five design principles for new service-based platforms. These principles represent a new direction to address the specificities of smart cities and unleash the real-world impact of digital innovation in smart and sustainable cities.KeywordsSmart CitiesDigital PlatformsDigital Innovation
Smart cities have gained prominence in theory and practice over the past two decades. While many aspects of smart cities have been explored, there has been a disproportionate focus on physical and technological elements at the expense of social justice and democratic values. Although there have been attempts to advance the ideas of human-centric or people-centric approaches, a comprehensive perspective encompassing social rights, democratic values, and social justice is still missing. To fill this gap, this study introduces the concept of 'societal smart city', discusses its dimensions, and clarifies aspects of social justice as one of the main dimensions of a societal smart city. In addition to theoretical elaborations, we offer a case study of Tehran, the capital city of Iran, which has recently invested significantly in its technological infrastructure. For this purpose, we conducted a questionnaire survey. Results of the Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA) indicate that four key factors, namely citizen-centric governance (α: 0.92, loading 15 variables), inclusive services (α: 0.91, loading 11 variables), resilient infrastructure (α: 0.9, loading 8 variables), and information literacy (α: 0.91, loading 6 variables) are the main underlying factors of social justice in Tehran. The study highlights the importance of social justice as a major dimension of the societal smart city and provides new insights for urban planners and policymakers on how to realize a societal smart city that offers benefits beyond physical and technological advances.
The Front End of Innovation (FEI) is considered a critical point in the innovation process, as the choices made in the FEI will determine which innovation options should be considered for new product development and commercialization. Studies indicate that Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be used in the FEI and, although the literature suggests that AI may not be ready to fully take on highly creative tasks within the innovation process, it appears much promising as a support for managers and can play a key role in the innovation process. This research seeks to present these potentialities by systematically collecting and analyzing available studies in the literature with the aim to (I) gain a comprehensive understanding of the interconnections between Artificial Intelligence and Front End of Innovation, (II) provide an overview of the current state of the research in this field, and (III) identify important gaps in existing approaches as well as promising research trends. To achieve these goals, a systematic mapping was performed covering articles published in journals from three relevant databases. Initially, 494 primary studies were selected and subjected to a screening and review process, which resulted in the election of 53 articles whose models and solutions for using AI in FEI were classified and summarized. The results of the research point to the increasing use of AI in FEI. The Identification of Opportunities stands out for having the highest concentration of articles with use of AI, followed by areas of Analysis of Opportunities and Generation and Enrichment of Ideas.KeywordsFront End of InnovationArtificial IntelligenceSystematic Literature Mapping
Despite the remarkable manifestation of smart cities in the new age cities' definition, formation, and function, it has been revealed that the social values and rights of these cities for creating a societal smart city are hidden behind the physical and technological advances. Acknowledging this, there is not an inclusive and clear assessment about the notion of societal smart city and the social justice concept in smart city literature. To fill this gap, this study has strived to shed more light on the notion of societal smart city by focusing on the clarifying social justice face via identifying its major factors in Tehran, as an emerging smart city in Iran. Using a quantitative method approach, this study has applied survey method and used 775 citizen opinions by a questionnaire tool in Tehran. The results by using Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA) indicate that four key factors, namely smart governance (α: 0.92, loading 15 variables), smart services (α: 0.91, loading 11 variables), smart infrastructure(α: 0.9, loading 8 variables), and smart literacy (α: 0.91, loading 6 variables) are the main pillars of social justice to achieve a societal smart city in Tehran. The study highlights the importance of social justice as a major pillar of the societal smart cities and provides new insights for urban planners and policymakers on how to realize a societal smart city via attempting to strengthen some significant factors and dimensions beyond physical and technological advances.
Modern cities worldwide are undergoing radical changes to foster a clean, sustainable and secure environment, install smart infrastructures, deliver intelligent services to residents, and facilitate access for vulnerable groups. The adoption of new technologies is at the heart of implementing many initiatives to address critical concerns in urban mobility, healthcare, water management, clean energy production and consumption, energy saving, housing, safety, and accessibility. Given the advancements in sensing and communication technologies over the past few decades, exploring the adoption of recent and innovative technologies is critical to addressing these concerns and making cities more innovative, sustainable, and safer. This article provides a broad understanding of the current urban challenges faced by smart cities. It highlights two new technological advances, edge artificial intelligence (edge AI) and Blockchain, and analyzes their transformative potential to make our cities smarter. In addition, it explores the multiple uses of edge AI and Blockchain technologies in the fields of smart mobility and smart energy and reviews relevant research efforts in these two critical areas of modern smart cities. It highlights the various algorithms to handle vehicle detection, counting, speed identification to address the problem of traffic congestion and the different use-cases of Blockchain in terms of trustworthy communications and trading between vehicles and smart energy trading. This review paper is expected to serve as a guideline for future research on adopting edge AI and Blockchain in other smart city domains.
Este livro, ao longo de três volumes, desenvolve o conceito de um Centro de Eficiência em
Sustentabilidade Urbana, produzido em resposta à execução do projeto Brasília Living Labs
(BLL): Um Centro de Eficiência Urbana, financiado com recursos do CNPq, oriundos do
MCTI, sob os termos de concessão: 400278/2020-0 e 350341/2020-6, via a chamada C,T&I
PARA CIDADES INTELIGENTES - ESTUDO PARA IMPLANTAÇÃO DE CENTROS
DE TECNOLOGIAS APLICADAS PARA EFICIÊNCIA URBANA - CTA.URB/2020.
O projeto produziu seus resultados principais de março de 2020 a fevereiro de 2021. Em
decorrência da proposta inicial, de criar um centro para instalação do Distrito Federal,
um modelo mais geral foi criado, e aqui apresenta-se na forma de um Livro Branco, cuja
intenção é produzir leitura, crítica e experimentação, a fim de possibilitar a gênese de uma
rede de centros do tipo CESU, em todo o Brasil.
Inicialmente, um Centro de Eficiência em Sustentabilidade Urbana é definido como
uma organização que atua em rede com a finalidade específica de empregar abordagens
sociotécnicas para promover a mediação entre atores das quatro/cinco hélices da inovação
(CARAYANNIS; RAKHMATULLIN, 2014) para validar inovações tecnológicas que
impactam positivamente os habitantes de um território, e que aprimoram de forma
mensurável os atributos desse território, cidade ou comunidade, de forma sustentável
e inteligente (ITU-T, 2019; ISO, 2015), visando alcançar a sua Transformação Digital
Sustentável e o Desenvolvimento Urbano Sustentável (MDR, 2020a).
The concept of Government as a Platform (GaaP) has recently encountered setbacks in practice worldwide. While existing literature on inter‐governmental collaboration has emphasized organizational restructuring and data sharing, this study argues that a pragmatic way to improve administrative efficiency in the absence of formal institutional change is to adopt an alternative model to GaaP: platform‐enabled government. Enabled by innovations of the middle‐tier platform, this new model of platform governance integrates the functions of distributed systems of multiple departments into a sequential workflow without the requirement of institutional reform or sharing proprietary data. To demonstrate how this model facilitates information flow across institutional boundaries and improves collaborative governance, we analyze horizontal, vertical, and public‐private collaboration using a diverse case study design. We examine administrative review, law enforcement, and contact tracing during the pandemic in the context of China. Our findings suggest accommodating institutional boundaries is a practical and effective approach to advance the digital government agenda in decentralized contexts.
Forecasting future trends constitutes a key process for supporting urban and territorial policy making in general. In this work, we explore how the domains of smart cities, smart transport, and smart energy will evolve until 2030 from a scientific and technological perspective, as a means to inform future policies for urban development in Europe. We started our work with an extensive review of recent and relevant research, covering policy and market reports, scientific journal articles, and other scientific publications. Then, a two-round Delphi survey with 120 field experts was conducted to assess the plausibility of the literature review findings to materialize until 2030. According to our empirical findings, there will be several speedy and structural changes in the three domains: we were able to identify a set of 18 statements that are highly probable to become reality in the next decade, whereas 17 statements were classified as plausible but not highly probable, and three statements raised controversiality. This work provides significant added value in supporting territorial policymakers' and stakeholders' decision making under uncertainty, as well as in designing highly relevant research agendas, attuned to contemporary and emerging trends.
The use of digital gadgets and services is pervasive. Digitalization in data, information, and technologies is driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution (also known as 4IR or Industry 4.0), resulting in a global digital divide. The chapter proposes a strategy in collaboration with a variety of service sector partners that would allow governments to capitalize on the possibility of closing the technology gap between nations in a manner that benefits inclusive and sustainable growth in middle and low countries. Emerging revolution and internet access can strengthen socio-economic development and improve people's way of living, but they also have the potential to widen political divides, undermine democracy, and increase inequality. In response to COVID-19, the chapter also proposes digital technologies as tools for achieving sustainable development goals and digitalization response measures in marginalized societies.
As advances in scientific, technological, economic and policy dimensions of sustainability challenges fail to produce widespread transformative change, an awareness of their ultimate insufficiency grows. In response, sustainability scholarship and activism are increasingly focused on sustainability’s normative dimensions, identity, belief, meaning, purpose, etc. With this recognition comes a growing turn towards narrative as the expressive vehicles of our normativity. In this paper, we aim to build on (Fløttum and Gjerstand. 2017. ‘Narratives in Climate Change Discourse.’ WIREs climate change. 8.) efforts to develop more precise and structured relationships between sustainability and narratives by looking at what the field can learn from storytelling more specifically. We explore this first by exploring story structure as our society’s ubiquitous theory of change; and second, how the story constructs its protagonist to activate the transformative dynamics inherent in story structure. We then conclude by exploring the implications these observations have for sustainability research more broadly.
This paper examines empirically the contribution of public investment expenditures to regional resilience. Analysis is based on a novel dataset including public investment expenditures data decomposed by sub-categories and disaggregated at NUTS III Greek regions over the period 2000–2017. Results indicate that public investment expenditures had a positive influence on regional resilience during the period of the economic crisis. Decomposing public investment expenditures by type the analysis provides evidence that the decentralized public investment expenditures that were executed through the tiers of local government and those that were related with the secondary and tourism sectors asserted a positive and significant impact on regional resilience. These results are signifying the importance of public policy in regional resilience and could be utilized for the formulation of regional policy during recessions.
Establishing innovation districts is a highly popular urban policy due to the economic, social and spatial benefits they offer to the host city. Investing on innovation districts is a risky business as there is no one-size-fit-all innovation district type. Besides, there only exists limited understanding on the varying features, functions and spatial and contextual characteristics of this new land use type. This study aims to contribute to the efforts in classifying innovation districts holistically through a multidimensional framework. The study builds on a conceptual framework developed by the authors and expands it into an operational framework that consists of numerous attributes—i.e., four dimensions (context, form, feature, function), 16 indicators and 48 measures. The framework and its attributes are subjected to validation by a panel of 32 experts through an international Delphi survey. This paper reports the process of framework development and validation. The resulting multidimensional innovation classification framework is first of its kind. It is useful in determining the key characteristics of existing innovation districts, helps in understanding what works in certain locations and what does not, and informs decisions of policymakers in investing the type of innovation districts suitable for the local context.
Modern cities face many new challenges as a result of the ‘digital age’, in particular the uncertain promise of high urban benefits from the widespread use of communication technology in a smart city context. This essay introduces the theme of ‘Shared Spaces in Smart Places’, the connection between information technology and urban community. Just like 19th century industrial innovations, the new tools of the information age appear to be largely centripetal forces that boost the demand for urban proximity. But also like earlier industrial innovations, information technology has also disrupted shared urban spaces, such as downtown commercial districts that have lost customers to electronic vendors. Both this essay, and this special issue of Land Use Policy, emphasize the ways in which information technology can complement good land use policy and address both longstanding urban challenges at the nexus of digital tools and urban life as well as the new difficulties that have emerged during the information age.
Due to the huge energy demand and the influences from the technology, cost, production, and consumption structures, urban system has become a hot topic for the assessment of the energy security of energy systems. In this study, all the energy sources of the energy system of Tangshan, an industrial city that primarily depends on energy resources in Hebei Province, China, have been chosen as case study. Additionally, the metabolism theory from ecology is introduced to subdivide the sectors of system into producers, primary consumers, and secondary consumers and to trace the energy flows among them. The stability analysis includes the resilience and the restructuring capacity when facing disruptions and reflects the stability of the energy supply system and energy security. Flow and information-based analyses from ecological network analysis method are used to quantify the developing capacity, stability, and efficiency of the network from 2006 to 2016. The results indicate that that the heat supply, coking, gas generation, and coal products sectors were the providers of the integral energy of the system. In contrast, the industrial and household sectors were the receivers. The stability analysis indicated that, as the system’s resistance ability to disturbance grew, the system was more stable. However, the system itself still had specific problems including large energy consumption quantities from the industrial sector, and large heat consumption from the household sector. And this is related to the coastal area development and industrial restructure in Tangshan. Therefore, the analysis provides a tool for evaluating stability of an energy system from the perspective of energy supply.
Digital technologies engaged in urban metabolism for efficiency provide policymakers, urban managers, and planners with useful instruments to collect, monitor, analyze, and evaluate the circularity of environmental, social, and economic resources to improve their effectiveness and quality. At present, the digital technology-based approach is strategic for circular cities engaged in the development of smart and sustainable actions in the fields of mobility, energy, environment, waste, telecommunications, and security. Through the ‘Circular Resource Efficiency Management Framework’ developed by the European Commission, this paper generates insights into the digitalization practices of the circularity of urban metabolism by analyzing the initiatives implemented by the municipalities of Kaunas, Flanders region, Porto, Prato, The Hague, and Oslo, which constitute the Partnership on Circular Economy (PCE) of the Urban Agenda of the European Union. The results of the analysis provide a wide range of practices such as real-time monitoring stations for water and energy consumption, digital cameras for controlling vehicle flows, web platforms for sharing goods and services, and tracking sensors for public transport, which aim to optimize the efficiency of the circularity of urban metabolic flows. This study increases the understanding and awareness of digital technologies in this paradigm shift.
The converging, digitized, disruptive, and globalized world is transforming the way society exists and human beings live. These changes have helped us to collaborate and contribute in exciting and unforeseen ways by creating connected societies worldwide. Technology drives growth across industries and connects people thereby promoting further opportunities and changing the standard of living. IoT has enabled connectivity among people exponentially and advancement in the speed of internet connections have improved accessibility among users to acquire information and services worldwide around the clock. In many parts of the world, the internet has established itself as the primary medium to connect the societies. Digital transformation has made it essential for enterprises for changing their strategies to make sure that they are connected all the time virtually. This has enabled development of new and innovative approaches in education, healthcare, public service entertainment, etc. The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the concept of connected societies and its importance.
Innovation districts are a new land-use type, where public and private actors work towards fostering, attracting, and retaining investment and talent to revitalise urban areas and boost knowledge/innovation economy activities. Developing innovation districts has become a popular urban strategy across the globe. They are often co-located with universities to act as a critical anchor in their socio-spatial and operational matrices. Despite the role of universities in the knowledge/innovation economy being researched extensively, university and innovation district symbiosis, particularly in the context of placemaking, is an understudied area of research. This paper aims to investigate the socio-cultural role played by anchor universities in facilitating placemaking in innovation districts. The study adopts a qualitative approach to analyse how stakeholders perceive Australian innovation districts. The findings reveal that: (a) Universities play pivotal roles as facilitators of placemaking through societal integration in innovation districts; (b) Universities act as platforms for collaboration and exchange of knowledge by adopting extroverted and collaborative approaches; (c) Universities help in developing a sense of trust within the community and establishing innovation districts as democratic, cohesive and prosperous localities; (d) Universities contribute to socio-cultural and organisational maturity of innovation districts.
Untangling Smart Cities: From Utopian Dreams to Innovation Systems for a Technology-Enabled Urban Sustainability helps all key stakeholders understand the complex and often conflicting nature of smart city research, offering valuable insights for designing and implementing strategies to improve the smart city decision-making processes. The book drives the reader to a better theoretical and practical comprehension of smart city development, beginning with a thorough and systematic analysis of the research literature published to date. It addition, it provides an in-depth understanding of the entire smart city knowledge domain, revealing a deeply rooted division in its cognitive-epistemological structure as identified by bibliometric insights. Users will find a book that fills the knowledge gap between theory and practice using case study research and empirical evidence drawn from cities considered leaders in innovative smart city practices. Key features: Provides clarity on smart city concepts and strategies; Presents a systematic literature analysis on the state-of-the-art of smart cities' research using bibliometrics combined with practical applications; Offers a comprehensive and systematic analysis of smart cities research produced during its first three decades; Generates a strong connection between theory and practice by providing the scientific knowledge necessary to approach the complex nature of smart cities; Documents five main development pathways for smart cities development, serving the needs of city managers and policymakers with concrete advice and guidance.
In the European Union (EU) multiple levels of governance interact in the design of public policies. Multi-level policies require a variety of evidence to define problems appropriately, set the right objectives and create suitable instruments to achieve them. How such a variety of evidence is used in practice, however, remains largely elusive. In 2013, the reformed EU Cohesion Policy brought about a sea change in the way governments must justify their investment priorities to support innovation and economic development. One of many new 'ex-ante conditionalities' sought to improve the design of regional innovation policies by putting strong emphasis on the underlying evidence base of policy strategies. A multitude of data sources had to be combined to meet this novel requirement in 120 regional and national strategy documents. Combining various data sources meaningfully was a necessary first step to engage with stakeholders from relevant business and research communities to jointly develop and decide on priorities for public investments. Stakeholder organisations had the opportunity to contest insights coming from official statistics. But how do governments reconcile insights from socio-economic analyses with differing views from stakeholders? We illustrate how such contestation of evidence has unfolded in the Basque Country. In this region, socio-economic analysis and broader stakeholder consultation rapidly confirmed three investment priorities that had been already quite established. Stakeholders from local governments, universities and other government departments contested this choice as not fully representative of the local potential and societal needs. Through their participation in a multi-stakeholder body advising the government they succeeded in adding four priorities that address local societal issues: sustainable food, urban living, culture and environmental protection. Our findings underline that rational planning using statistics gets governments only so far in meeting pressing societal challenges. Stakeholders contesting and complementing statistical insights make policies more responsive to local needs.
This paper reports on the findings of the Online-S3 project, funded under the Horizon 2020 Programme (ISSI-4-2015), which tries to address the challenge of strengthening regional smart growth policies by developing an online platform for policy advice. The Online-S3 Platform offers a web-based environment for supporting the design, implementation and assessment of Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) aiming to enrich the methodological framework that is being used towards enhancing smart growth policy design processes in EU regions. The paper first provides an overview of the Online-S3 platform, and then, focuses on the applications that could be used to help regional and national authorities during the priority setting phase of a RIS3 strategic planning process. Given that this phase relates to the identification and selection of specific sectors that can be used as flagships to support regional growth, the Online-S3 Platform offers a great tool towards enhancing the effectiveness of the smart growth paradigm.
This article suggests the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (EPD) that underlies Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) is not so much caught in the transition from the Triple to the Quadruple Helix, as rooted in a division within civil society. In particular, rooted in a division within civil society, over public trust in the EDP and around the democratic deficit of RIS3. Over public trust in the EDP and around the democratic deficit of RIS3 as a transgression, which centers attention on the participatory governance of science and technology, which is regressive in nature and whose knowledge economy seeks to overcome such limitations as part of the search for sustainable regional growth that serves civil society.
Purpose
This paper investigates the potential contribution of smart city approaches and tools to sustainable urban development in the environment domain. Recent research has highlighted the need to explore the relation of smart and sustainable cities more systematically, focusing on practical applications that could enable a deeper understanding of the included domains, typologies and design concepts, and this paper aims to address this research gap. At the same time, it tries to identify whether these applications could contribute to the “zero vision” strategy, an extremely ambitious challenge within the field of smart cities.
Design/methodology/approach
This objective is pursued through an in-depth investigation of available open source and proprietary smart city applications related to environmental sustainability in urban environments. A total of 32 applications were detected through the Intelligent/Smart Cities Open Source (ICOS) community, a meta-repository for smart cities solutions. The applications are analyzed comparatively regarding (i) the environmental issue addressed, (ii) the associated mitigation strategies, (iii) the included innovation mechanism, (iv) the role of information and communication technologies and (v) the overall outcome.
Findings
The findings suggest that the smart and sustainable city landscape is extremely fragmented both on the policy and the technical levels. There is a host of unexplored opportunities toward smart sustainable development, many of which are still unknown. Similar findings are reached for all categories of environmental challenges in cities. Research limitations pertain to the analysis of a relatively small number of applications. The results can be used to inform policy making toward becoming more proactive and impactful both locally and globally. Given that smart city application market niches are also identified, they are also of special interest to developers, user communities and digital entrepreneurs.
Originality/value
The value added by this paper is two-fold. At the theoretical level, it offers a neat conceptual bridge between smart and sustainable cities debate. At the practical level, it identifies under-researched and under-exploited fields of smart city applications that could be opportunities to attain the “zero vision” objective.
Smart specialisation can be considered an entrepreneurial discovery process which makes it possible to identify where regions can benefit from specialising in specific areas of science and technology. The European Commission suggests the development of research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3) should concentrate resources on the most promising areas of comparative advantage, e.g. on clusters, existing sectors and cross-sectoral activities, eco-innovation, high value-added markets or specific research areas. This calls for regions to assess their assets, single out competitive advantages and highlight the cohesive qualities of territories. The RIS3 Key and Self-Assessment Guides both advise regions on how to prepare for smart specialisation, by identifying existing strengths and the potential for future development efforts, spotting remaining gaps and bottlenecks in the innovation system and mobilizing the relevant institutions involved in the entrepreneurial discovery process. The paper sets out the results of the Online S3 project's open consultation on these guides and the 29 RIS3 methods developed to guide this process of entrepreneurial discovery under the post-linear era of research and innovation.
This paper analyses the ‘big picture’ of the smart city research field by means of a bibliometric analysis of the literature on smart cities produced between 1992 and 2012. The findings show that this new field of scientific inquiry has started to grow significantly only in recent years, mainly thanks to European universities and US companies. Its intellectual structure is complex and lacks cohesion due to the infinite possible combinations among the building blocks and components characterizing the smart city concept. However, despite this complexity, the bibliometric analysis made it possible to identify three structural axes that traverse the literature, capture the main research perspectives, and reveal some key aspects of this new city planning and development paradigm
This paper reports on the first two decades of research on smart cities by conducting a bibliometric analysis of the literature published between 1992 and 2012. The analysis shows that smart-city research is fragmented and lacks cohesion, and its growth follows two main development paths. The first one is based on the peer-reviewed publications produced by European universities, which support a holistic perspective on smart cities. The second path, instead, stands on the gray literature produced by the American business community and relates to a techno-centric understanding of the subject. Divided along such paths, the future development of this new and promising field of research risks being undermined. For while the bibliometric analysis indicates that smart cities are emerging as a fast-growing topic of scientific enquiry, much of the knowledge that is generated about them is singularly technological in nature. In that sense, lacking the social intelligence, cultural artifacts, and environmental attributes, which are needed for the ICT-related urban innovation that such research champions.
This report provides an overview of the use of various analytical methods in the design of regional smart specialisation strategies (RIS3). It then sets out and explain the rationale and justification for the selection of 30 methods currently applied in or applicable to RIS3 development. Using this background information tailored online tools will be designed to enable policy-makers to make full use of these methods in all phases of RIS3 process – designing suitable governance mechanisms, analysing the regional context, building a shared vision, setting priorities, undertaking implementation, and ensuring monitoring and evaluation. This note elaborates on the key findings from the mapping of methodologies used in a sample of RIS3 strategies and a literature review to support the selection of methodologies. Each of the selected methods is described in more detail in Annex 1.
The selection of the RIS3 methods is based on: 1) analysis of the methodologies applied in RIS3 design in 30 European regions; 2) literature review on the (good) practices for the application of various analytical methods in smart specialisation process; and 3) review of wider sources exploring the state-of-art practices in data-driven applications and online tools for knowledge-based policy making.
This article discusses the idea of city as a platform. The analysis focuses on the forms and implications of citizen involvement in publicly-supported participatory innovation platforms that facilitate urban economic development in the welfare society context. The discussion opens with a review of the smart city discourse, which in the context of economic development policy translates into cities' need to support innovativeness by creating smart environments. Participatory innovation platform is a prime example of such an environment. The empirical section discusses three cases, those of the Finnish cities of Helsinki, Tampere, and Oulu. The analysis shows that platformization in the first half of the 2010s became a strategic focal area supported by national and EU programs. Platforms are used to support both urban revitalization and economic development, of which the former is based on representative and the latter on instrumental modes of participation. Platforms are well integrated with city governments, even though they vary greatly in terms of organizational forms and scopes. Democratic culture, welfarism, and redistributive policy provide contextual support for platformization by strengthening social inclusion, taming the growth machine, and easing the tensions between pro-growth and anti-growth coalitions.
Rapid and pervasive digitization of innovation processes and outcomes has upended extant theories on innovation management by calling into question fundamental assumptions about the definitional boundaries for innovation, agency for innovation, and the relationship between innovation processes and outcomes. There is a critical need for novel theorizing on digital innovation management that does not rely on such assumptions and draws on the rich and rapidly emerging research on digital technologies. We offer suggestions for such theorizing in the form of four new theorizing logics, or elements, that are likely to be valuable in constructing more accurate explanations of innovation processes and outcomes in an increasingly digital world. These logics can open new avenues for researchers to contribute to this important area. Our suggestions in this paper, coupled with the six research notes included in the special issue on digital innovation management, seek to offer a broader foundation for reinventing innovation management research in a digital world.
This exploratory study has been carried out to better understand the development process of strategies that allow large European cities to become smart. This aim is achieved through the analysis of the Amsterdam’s smart city strategy. By using case study research with a descriptive approach, the activities undertaken during the implementation of this successful initiative have been mapped and organized in a step-by-step roadmap. This made it possible to obtain a detailed description of the entire development process, useful knowledge to consider for other similar initiatives, and a conceptual framework for future comparative research. All these results will support the construction of a holistic and empirically valid theory able to explain how to build effective smart city strategies in this type of urban area.
This book concludes a trilogy that began with Intelligent Cities: Innovation, Knowledge Systems and digital spaces (Routledge 2002) and Intelligent Cities and Globalisation of Innovation Networks (Routledge 2008). Together these books examine intelligent cities as environments of innovation and collaborative problem-solving. In this final book, the focus is on planning, strategy and governance of intelligent cities. Divided into three parts, each section elaborates upon complementary aspects of intelligent city strategy and planning. Part I is about the drivers and architectures of the spatial intelligence of cities, while Part II turns to planning processes and discusses top-down and bottom-up planning for intelligent cities. Cities such as Amsterdam, Manchester, Stockholm and Helsinki are examples of cities that have used bottom-up planning through the gradual implementation of successive initiatives for regeneration. On the other hand, Living PlanIT, Neapolis in Cyprus, and Saudi Arabia intelligent cities have started with the top-down approach, setting up urban operating systems and common central platforms. Part III focuses on intelligent city strategies; how cities should manage the drivers of spatial intelligence, create smart environments, mobilise communities, and offer new solutions to address city problems. Main findings of the book are related to a series of models which capture fundamental aspects of intelligent cities making and operation. These models consider structure, function, planning, strategies toward intelligent environments and a model of governance based on mobilisation of communities, knowledge architectures, and innovation cycles.
During the last decade, there has been an increased interest on cloud computing and especially on the adop-tion of public cloud services. The process of developing cloud-based public services or migrating existing ones to the Cloud is considered to be of particular interest—as it may require the selection of the most suitable applications as well as their transformation to fit in the new cloud environment. This paper aims at presenting the main findings of a migra-tion process regarding Smart City applications to a cloud infrastructure. First, it summarises the methodology along with the main steps followed by the cities of Agueda (Portugal), Thessaloniki (Greece) and Valladolid (Spain) in order to implement this migration process within the framework of the STORM CLOUDS project. Furthermore, it illustrates some crucial results regarding monitoring and validation aspects during the empirical application that was conducted via these pilots. These findings should be received as a helpful experience for future efforts designed by cities or other organisations that are willing to move their applications to the Cloud.
Over the last decade, there has been an increasing focus on service across socioeconomic sectors coupled with transformational developments in information and communication technologies (ICTs). Together these developments are engendering dramatic new opportunities for service innovation, the study of which is both timely and important. Fully understanding these opportunities challenges us to question conventional approaches that construe service as a distinctive form of socioeconomic exchange (i.e., as services) and to reconsider what service means and thus how service innovation may develop. The aim of this special issue, therefore, is to bring together some of the latest scholarship from the Marketing and Information Systems disciplines to advance theoretical developments on service innovation in a digital age.
Purpose
– This Special Issue of the European Journal of Innovation Management sheds new light on the burning issue of Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3), both in terms of their policy formulation and their practical implementation in the field. This new policy approach refers to the process of priority setting in national and regional research and innovation strategies in order to build “place-based” competitive advantages and help regions and countries develop an innovation-driven economic transformation agenda. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach
– This is an important topic both in the current debate about a new industrial policy for Europe and as a policy option for a successful crisis exit strategy led by public investments in the real economy. Moreover, smart specialisation is promoted by the European Commission as an ex ante conditionality for all regions in Europe to receive European Structural and Investment Funds in the field of innovation. Thus, it has become a pre-requisite for accessing fresh funds for investing in badly needed innovation-driven productivity growth throughout the European Union (EU).
Findings
– The six papers in this Special Issue are the fruit of ground-breaking research and policy testing by nearly 20 leading academics and policy makers throughout the EU. They explore the early smart specialisation concept and its further developments, examine the methodological tools at its disposal and advance specific policy proposals and governance considerations based on actual experimentation in the field.
Originality/value
– All these make the present Special Issue of the European Journal of Innovation Management an important research milestone. This Special Issue is the fruit of a call towards the European academic and research community to help shaping and advancing the smart specialisation concept and thus contribute to better position regions and countries in the global economy through innovation-driven policies.
Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the factors playing a role in the engagement of end-users to participate in Living Lab field trials.
Design/methodology/approach
– Multiple case study analysis of three Living Lab cases in which field trials were organized.
Findings
– Based on academic literature on field trials, user engagement and the technology acceptance model, the authors argue that several factors play a role in the participation of users in field trials. An influential factor that emerged is the functional maturity of the innovation, the extent to which a prototype resembles the functionalities and the processes of the final, go-to-market product at the moment of the field trial. Within this exploratory paper, we propose the “user engagement model for field trials” to explain the factors that play a role in the engagement of end-users in field trials.
Research limitations/implications
– The methodological limitations of a case study design make it difficult to extrapolate the findings toward a larger sample. Therefore, this paper focuses on making an in-depth analysis rather than making general claims. However, the insights regarding user engagement for participation pave the way for future validation on a larger scale and suggest future research directions.
Practical implications
– The findings of this paper suggest that Living Lab field trials should carefully take into account the (perceived) functional maturity of the innovation and the specific characteristics of the innovation when engaging end-users for field trials. Interaction and trust between the test-users and the other stakeholders is of great importance for the active engagement of test-users during field trials.
Originality/value
– This exploratory paper adds to a general understanding of end-user involvement in innovation development processes and suggests guidelines to engage end-users to participate in field trials. In addition, it introduces the concept of functional maturity of innovations and the user-engagement model for field trials.
Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to assess how national and regional authorities in south-east Europe in a period of crisis perceive and set in motion research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3) and the options that these strategies offer to overcome the current fiscal and development crisis.
Design/methodology/approach
– The paper starts with a literature review on the guiding principles of smart specialisation strategies and the differences from previous rounds of regional innovation strategies. Evidence on smart specialisation efforts is provided by cases studies in Greece, Slovenia, and Cyprus, focusing on the elaboration of such strategies in three countries with precarious innovation systems under severe conditions of crisis. The case studies are organised around key aspects of the smart specialisation logic, such as the selection of specialisation priorities, bottom-up governance, private sector leadership, and engines of innovation and competitiveness.
Findings
– The paper explores the obstacles encountered in running effective RIS strategies under crisis conditions. The paper highlights the main challenges to address, such as the readiness and credibility of public authorities to design and implement sound RIS3 strategies, the willingness of companies to be involved in strategic planning, the availability of private investment funds, innovation and diversification during a crisis, and the drivers of specialisation that could lead to competitiveness and growth. In the conclusions the paper identifies three routes towards smarter productive diversification and five critical stages in the entrepreneurial discovery process.
Originality/value
– The paper has both practical and theoretical significance. It focuses on the main challenges of smart specialisation and offers guidance in the elaboration of RIS3 in peripheral EU economies. On the other hand, it proposes a model for the entrepreneurial discovery process, based on the assessment of areas and futures of productivity and added-value increase, as productive diversification and crisis exit route.
Emphasizing the dynamics in economies and industries, Schumpeter points to entrepreneurs carrying out 'new combinations'. His work, and in particular the Theory of Economic Development, is often interpreted as praising individual entrepreneurs setting up new firms to contribute to an industry's innovativeness. This has come to be referred to as the Schumpeter Mark I perspective. Later, however, in his Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Schumpeter has rather suggested that large incumbents are best positioned to contribute to an industry's innovativeness (Schumpeter Mark II). In this discussion, however, the possibly different effects of structural as opposed to dynamic industry competitiveness is often not taken into account. In addition, the contribution of new and small firms to industry innovativeness are often conflated. Using New Product Announcements as a measure of innovation, we find that industries dominated by small firms prove consistently and significantly more innovative than industries where large firms dominate. Taking account of industries' structural and dynamic levels of competition, we find that high existing and increasing levels of new firms entering an industry, exercising what Schumpeter called the 'entrepreneurial function', actually decrease industry innovativeness. We conclude that the contribution of small firms in terms of industry innovativeness is different from that of large as well as new firms, suggesting a Schumpeter Mark III perspective.
The European Commission, through Carlos Moedas, Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, invited Professor Mazzucato to draw up strategic recommendations to maximise the impact of the future EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation through mission-oriented policy. This report is the result of Professor Mazzucato’s reflections based on her research, with inputs through a consultation process with internal and external stakeholders of the European Commission.