To José Coelho de Andrade Albino, for putting me on the path to academia and believing in my ... economic, political and social systems analysis. ...... making, knowledge and technology transfer, capital allocation or innovation ...... Effective associates pay an annual fee of R$ 2.300 BRL, while corporate effective associates.
FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS / UFMG FACULTY OF ECONOMIC SCIENCES / FACE GRADUATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RESEARCH CENTER / CEPEAD
INNOVATION SYSTEMS’ INTERMEDIARIES: Expanding the knowledge on National Innovation Systems through science parks’ associations
DIEGO FIGUEIREDO
Belo Horizonte 2018
Diego Figueiredo
INNOVATION SYSTEMS’ INTERMEDIARIES: Expanding the knowledge on National Innovation Systems through science parks’ associations
Thesis presented to the Post-Graduate and Management Research Center (CEPEAD) of the Faculty of Economic Sciences (FACE) of the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), as a partial requirement for obtaining the title of Doctor in Business Administration. Research track: Strategy, Marketing and Innovation Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Reynaldo Maia Muniz (UFMG) Co-Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Carlos Alberto Gonçalves (UFMG) International Supervisor: Prof. Dr. David Doloreux (HEC Montreal)
Belo Horizonte 2018
Cataloging sheet Figueiredo, Diego. F475i 2018
Innovation systems’ intermediaries [manuscrito]: expanding the knowledge on national innovation systems through science parks’ associations / Diego Figueiredo. – 2018. 247 f., il.: grafs., tabs.
Orientador: Reynaldo Maia Muniz. Coorientador: Carlos Alberto Gonçalves Coorientador: David Doloreux Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Centro de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração. Inclui bibliografia (f. 220-238), apêndices.
1. Inovações tecnológicas – Administração - Teses. 2. Pesquisa e desenvolvimento – Teses. 3. Parques tecnológicos – Teses. I. Muniz, Reynaldo Maia. II. Gonçalves, Carlos Alberto Gonçalves . III. Doloreux, David. IV. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Centro de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração. V. Título. CDD: 658.4062
Elaborated by FACE/UFMG’s library – FPS10/2018
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To José Coelho de Andrade Albino, for putting me on the path to academia and believing in my potential. To my parents, Luís Henrique dos Santos Figueiredo and Lélia Figueiredo, for always teaching me the value of education with words and examples. I owe you everything. To my wife, Gabriella Matoso Lima Diamantino, for always seeing the best in me and for all the love that made me keep going. To my brother, Gabriel Figueiredo, for being a great example of determination and strength. To my supervisor Reynaldo Maia Muniz, for the inspiring classes and ideas. To my co-supervisor, Carlos Alberto Gonçalves, for your time, patience and support. To my international supervisor, David Doloreux and Virginie Robert de Massy, for sharing their home, ideas and friendship. To all of my family, who provided me love and friendship throughout my life. To all of my friends, for putting a smile on my face and teaching me how to enjoy time. To my colleagues and friends at UFMG, HEC Montréal and University of Ottawa, for making university life so interesting and valuable. To AURP Canada’s team: Larry Shaw, Carol Stewart and Laura O’Blennis. To Anprotec’s team: Sheila Pires, Vanusa Leitoguinho, Sylvio Goulart, Maurício Guedes, Luís Afonso Bermúdez, José Eduardo Fiates, Guilherme Ary Plonski, Francilene Procópio Garcia and Jorge Nicolas Audy. To IASP’s team: Ebba Lund, Luis Sanz and Josep Piqué.
“Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.” Carl Sagan
ABSTRACT
Innovation has become widely scrutinized and currently mobilizes many scientific fields in its investigation. However, there is a need for greater diligence when conducting these studies due to innovation’s broad sense and complex dynamics, ranging from individual up to entire economic, political and social systems analysis. This variety makes the organization of what has been studied about innovation an arduous task and may overshadow the collective efforts that culminated in the emergence of the innovation studies field, which has gathered many scholars and research centers around it. Within this emergent field the systems of innovation approach became central given its systemic and interconnected assessment of innovation and its dynamics. Stemming originally from evolutionary economics, this approach is crossdisciplinary, involves varied contributions in social sciences and has been vital in terms of knowledge used in policy making, industrial, educational, financial and organizational spheres. The national innovation systems is the most notorious of the systems of innovation approaches and portrays innovation as a process of constant interaction, learning and knowledge flows between its components and activities. These national systems’ most relevant components are government, universities, industries and financial institutions. There are however, other institutions and organizations that interact among these main components that have only recently been investigated as innovation intermediaries, a theoretical framework that focuses on the actors that indirectly enable innovation. Science parks are an example of intermediary components in innovation systems and have been studied over decades, however, their results and positive impacts are still contested by scholars. Despite the fact that these science parks have been largely studied in isolation, it was noticed that they are also collectively represented by many associations in regional, national and international contexts. After identifying that these associations remained uninvestigated, the present thesis combines national innovation systems and innovation intermediaries to analyze associations of science parks in order to better understand their relevance in innovation processes as well as their relations with innovation systems. In a research of qualitative nature, we conducted a bibliographic research, a multiplecase study of AURP Canada, Anprotec and IASP, triangulating this data with others from a documental research. The results indicate that the analyzed cases are indeed innovation intermediaries since they present ties with other systemic components and provide various services for their members that enables their innovation efforts. The most relevant services to members are those of information, networking, staff training and development, social activities & status, representation & lobbying and articulation & mobilization, while management, technology & knowledge brokering, regulation & legitimization, financing, and policing public policy services are slightly different in each cases. Additionally, a high level of ties with other intermediary organizations was identified in all cases, revealing a complex dynamic of selforganizing components that often interact in a collaborative and interdependent way. These findings point to a more in-depth understanding of how innovation intermediaries act within systems to connect components, building multilateral projects that benefit the system as a whole. Also, the detailed information about how these associations contribute to science parks point to a better assessment of the science parks themselves and of how they may impact innovation through the services provided by the intermediaries they are associated with.
Keywords: Innovation Systems, Innovation Intermediaries, Associations, Science Parks.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Science Parks Associations throughout the world …………………………
94
Table 2 – Names, dates, location and length of the semi-structured interviews ……...
106
Table 3 – AURP Canada’s secondary data …………………………………………...
108
Table 4 – Anprotec’s secondary data ………………………………………………..
109
Table 5 – IASP’s secondary data ……………………………………………………..
110
Table 6 – Detailed description of transcribed data ……………………………………
112
Table 7 – Members of AURP Canada ………………………………………………..
116
Table 8 – AURP Canada’s management services ……………………………………
127
Table 9 – AURP Canada’s articulation & mobilization services …………………….
127
Table 10 – AURP Canada’s networking services …………………………………….
128
Table 11 – AURP Canada’s technical services ……………………………………….
129
Table 12 – AURP Canada’s technology and knowledge brokering services …………
129
Table 13 – AURP Canada’s information services ……………………………………
130
Table 14 – AURP Canada’s social activities services ………………………………..
130
Table 15 – AURP Canada’s regulation and legitimization services ………………….
131
Table 16 – AURP Canada’s staff training and development services ………………..
132
Table 17 – AURP Canada’s financing services ………………………………………
133
Table 18 – AURP Canada’s representation & lobbying services …………………….
133
Table 19 – AURP Canada’s policing public policy services …………………………
134
Table 20 – Anprotec’s list of presidents ………………………………………………
137
Table 21 – Anprotec’s management services …………………………………………
157
Table 22 – Anprotec’s articulation & mobilization services ………………………….
159
Table 23 – Anprotec’s networking services …………………………………………..
159
Table 24 – Anprotec’s technical services ……………………………………………..
159
Table 25 – Anprotec’s technology and knowledge brokering services ………………
160
Table 26 – Anprotec’s information services ………………………………………….
160
Table 27 – Anprotec’s social activities services ……………………………………...
162
Table 28 – Anprotec’s past annual conferences ………………………………………
163
Table 29 – Anprotec’s regulation and legitimization services ………………………..
164
Table 30 – Anprotec’s staff training and development services ……………………...
165
Table 31 – Anprotec’s financing services …………………………………………….
167
Table 32 – Anprotec’s representation & lobbying services ………………………….
167
Table 33 – Anprotec’s policing public policy services ………………………………
168
Table 34 – IASP’s list of presidents ………………………………………………….
169
Table 35 – IASP’s management services …………………………………………….
182
Table 36 – IASP’s articulation & mobilization services ……………………………..
183
Table 37 – IASP’s networking services ………………………………………………
184
Table 38 – IASP’s technical services …………………………………………………
184
Table 39 – IASP’s technology and knowledge brokering services …………………..
185
Table 40 – IASP’s information services ……………………………………………… 189 Table 41 – IASP’s past world conferences …………………………………………...
189
Table 42 – IASP’s social activities services ………………………………………….
191
Table 43 – IASP’s regulation and legitimization services ……………………………
192
Table 44 – IASP’s staff training and development services ………………………….
192
Table 45 – IASP’s financing services ………………………………………………...
193
Table 46 – IASP’s representation & lobbying services ………………………………
194
Table 47 – IASP’s policing public policy services …………………………………...
196
Table 48 – Provided management services …………………………………………...
207
Table 49 – Provided articulation &mobilization services …………………………….
208
Table 50 – Provided networking services …………………………………………….
208
Table 51 – Provided technical services ……………………………………………….
209
Table 52 – Provided technology & knowledge brokering services …………………... 209 Table 53 – Provided information services ……………………………………………. 210 Table 54 – Provided social activities & status services ………………………………. 210 Table 55 – Provided regulation & legitimization services ……………………………
211
Table 56 – Provided staff training and development services ………………………..
211
Table 57 – Provided financing services ………………………………………………
211
Table 58 – Provided representation & lobbying services …………………………….
212
Table 59 – Provided policing public policies services ……………………………….
212
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A taxonomy of innovations …………………………………………………...
25
Figure 2: Elements of generic framework for analyzing innovation systems …………..
46
Figure 3: actors and linkages in innovation system ……………………………………..
50
Figure 4: Triple Helix Model of University–Industry–Government Relations …………
56
Figure 5: Innovation system framework ………………………………………………...
69
Figure 6: Growth of the United States Business Incubation Mechanisms ……………...
85
Figure 7: Distribution of Authors of Business Incubation Research by Discipline …….
88
Figure 8: AURP Canada’s structural hierarchy …………………………………………
117
Figure 9: AURP’s parks soft-landing program ………………………………………….
132
Figure 10: Canadian clusters in science parks regions ………………………………….
134
Figure 11: Poster of the international seminar in 1987 ………………………………….
135
Figure 12: Evolution of BIs and SPs initiative between 1988 and 2006 ………………..
140
Figure 13: Anprotec’s members base evolution 1987-2007 …………………………….
143
Figure 14: Anprotec’s hierarchical structure ……………………………………………
145
Figure 15: Anprotec’s technical missions ……………………………………………….
158
Figure 16: General Assembly held at Anprotec’s annual conference in 2017 ………….
158
Figure 17: Anprotec’s special publication and research reports ………………………..
161
Figure 18: Anprotec’s forums promotion images ……………………………………….
162
Figure 19: National Award for Innovative Entrepreneurship …………………………..
164
Figure 20: UniAnprotec’s promotion of its manager courses …………………………..
165
Figure 21: Anprotec’s soft landing platform ……………………………………………
166
Figure 22: IASP’s membership growth …………………………………………………
171
Figure 23: IASP’s Organigram ………………………………………………………….
173
Figure 24: IASP’s Strategigram® ……………………………………………………….
182
Figure 25: IASP’s POINT service website ……………………………………………...
185
Figure 26: IASP’s Knowledge Room …………………………………………………...
186
Figure 27: IASP’s Webinars …………………………………………………………….
187
Figure 28: IASP’s Inspiring Solutions Programme ……………………………………..
187
Figure 29: IASP’s Special reports and publications …………………………………….
188
Figure 30: Women in IASP Subnetwork ………………………………………………..
190
Figure 31: IASP’s Blog ………………………………………………………………….
191
Figure 32: IASP European Division’s President André Domin and other speakers ……
194
Figure 33: IASP’s Position Paper ……………………………………………………….
195
ABBREVIATIONS
ABC - Brazilian Academy of Science ABDI – Brazilian Association of Industrial Development ABIPTI - Brazilian Association of Technological Research and Innovation Institutes ABRAII - Brazilian Association of companies accelerating innovation and investments ABVCAP - Brazilian Association of Private Equity & Venture Capital ACOA – Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency ADT - German Association of Innovation, Technology and Business Incubation Centres ANDIFES - National Association of Leaders of Federal Institutes of Higher Education AIPyPT - Argentinean Association of Business Incubators, Science Parks and Technopoles ANPEI - National Association for Research and Development of Innovative Companies ANPROTEC - Brazilian Association of Technology Parks and Business Incubators APEX - Brazilian Trade and Investment Promotion Agency APQRT - Association des parcs de recherche et technopoles du Québec ASPA - Asian Science Park Association AURP – Association of University Research Parks APTE - Association of Science and Technology Parks of Spain BASTIC - Baltic Association of Science Technology Parks and Innovation Centers BDC - Business Development Bank of Canada BI – Business Incubator BID - Inter-American Development Bank CABI – Canadian Acceleration and Business Incubation CACB - Brazilian Confederation of Business and Commercial Associations CAD – Canadian dollars CNI - National Industry Confederation CONFAP – National Council of State Foundations Supporting Research CONSECTI - National Council of State Secretaries for Science, Technology and InnovationRelated Issues CRUB - Council of Brazilian Universities’ Deans CTA - Canadian Technology Accelerators DAIR – Canarie’s Digital Accelerator for Innovation Research EBN - European Business & Innovation Centre Network EC – European Commission EDC – Export Development Canada EMBRAPII - Brazilian Agency for Industrial Research and Innovation EU – European Union
FAP – State Foundation Supporting Research FDI – Foreign Direct Investment FedDev Ontario - Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario FOPROP - Forum of Research and Post-Graduate Deans FORTEC - National Forum of Innovation and Technology Transfer Managers GDP – Gross Domestic Product IASP – International Association of Science Parks ICTs - Information and Communication Technologies IDB – Interamerican Development Bank IKE - Innovation, Knowledge and Economic Dynamics group INBIA - International Business Innovation Association MCTI - Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation MIT – Massachusetts Institute of Technology NIS – National Systems of Innovation NGO – Non-Governmental Organization NRC-IRAP - National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program NTBFs – New Technology-Based Firms OCE - Ontario Centres for Excellence OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development R&D – Research and Development REGINP - Gaucha Network of Business Incubators and Tecnhology parks ReINC - Network of Incubators, Tecnhology parks and Poles of Rio de Janeiro RELAPI - Network of Science Parks and Business Incubators’ Associations RETIS - French Network of Innovation Centres, Incubators and Technopoles RIS – Regional Systems of Innovation RNAI - National Network of Innovation Associations RPTE - Basque Country Network of Technology Parks SEBRAE - Brazilian Service of Support for Micro and Small Enterprises - a private non-profit organization SI – Systems of Innovation SIS – Sectoral Systems of Innovation SPRU – Science Policy Research Unit SP – Science Park SPs – Science Parks TECPARQUES - Portuguese Association of Science and Technology Parks TEKEL - Finnish Science Park Association UKSPA – United Kingdom Science Parks Associations
UN – United Nations UNIDO - United Nations Industrial Development Organization UNCTAD - United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization WAINOVA – World Alliance for Innovation WB – World Bank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I 1 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………. 1.1 Objectives ……………………………………………………………….….
16 18
Section II 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK …………………………………………. 2.1 Innovation ………………………………………………………………….. 2.1.1 What is it? ………………………………………………………………….. 2.1.2 How does it occur? ………………………………………………………… 2.1.3 Why is it relevant? …………………………………………………………. 2.2 Innovation Studies ………………………………………………………..... 2.2.1 Up to 1969 …………………………………………………………………. 2.2.2 From 1970 to 1989 ………………………………………………………… 2.2.3 From 1990 to 2009 …………………………………………………………. 2.2.4 Concluding remarks ……………………………………………………….. 2.3 Systems Of Innovation …………………………………………………….. 2.3.1 Systems of innovation’s approaches and boundaries ……………………… 2.3.2 Origins of the National Innovation Systems approach …………………….. 2.3.3 Definitions of National Innovation Systems ……………………………...... 2.3.3.1 Key components............................................................................................. 2.3.3.2 Main functions and activities.......................................................................... 2.3.3.3 Key components’ and functions’ dynamics ………………….…………….. 2.3.3.4 Key components – contributions so far ……………………………………. 2.4 Innovation intermediaries …………………………………….……………. 2.5 Why choose the national level of analysis …………………………………. 2.6 Theoretical assessment of National Innovation Systems …………………... 2.7 Science Parks ……......................................................................................... 2.7.1 Concepts and definitions................................................................................. 2.7.2 Origin and evolution....................................................................................... 2.7.3 Science Parks’ key players............................................................................. 2.8 The state-of-the-art of Science Parks’ research ……………………………. 2.9 Associations of Science Parks........................................................................ 2.10 Final Remarks …….......................................................................................
21 22 22 25 27 27 29 29 30 30 31 33 37 41 42 45 49 51 61 71 72 76 77 82 85 87 91 95
Section III 3 RESEARCH METHOD................................................................................. 3.1 Research type and characteristics ………………………………………….. 3.2 Research strategy …………………………………………………………... 3.3 Unity of analysis ………………………………………………………….... 3.4 Case selection and sampling strategy ……………………………………… 3.5 Data sources and data triangulation ……………………………………….. 3.5.1 Bibliographic research ……………………………………………………... 3.5.2 Multiple-case study ………………………………………………………… 3.5.3 Documental research ……………………………………………………….. 3.6 Data-collecting instruments ………………………………………………... 3.7 Strategies for data analysis …………………………………………………
98 98 99 101 102 104 104 105 106 111 112
Section IV 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION …………………………………. 4.1 AURP Canada ……………………………………………………………… 4.1.1 History and trajectory ……………………………………………………… 4.1.2 Structure and business model ……………………………………………… 4.1.3 Objectives and specific goals ………………………………………………. 4.1.4 Main components relations ………………………………………………… 4.1.4.1 Government ………………………………………………………………………… 4.1.4.2 Universities …………………………………………………………………………. 4.1.4.3 Industry ……………………………………………………………………………... 4.1.4.4 Financial institutions ……………………………………………………………… 4.1.4.5 Other intermediaries ……………………………………………………………… 4.1.5 Functions and services ……………………………………………………... 4.2 Anprotec …………………………………………………………………… 4.2.1 History and trajectory ……………………………………………………… 4.2.2 Structure and business model ……………………………………………… 4.2.3 Objectives and specific goals ………………………………………………. 4.2.4 Main components relations ………………………………………………… 4.2.4.1 Government ………………………………………………………………………… 4.2.4.2 Universities …………………………………………………………………………. 4.2.4.3 Industry ……………………………………………………………………………... 4.2.4.4 Financial institutions ……………………………………………………………… 4.2.4.5 Other intermediaries ……………………………………………………………… 4.2.5 Functions and services ……………………………………………………... 4.3 IASP ……………………………………………………………………….. 4.3.1 History and trajectory ……………………………………………………… 4.3.2 Structure and business model ……………………………………………… 4.3.3 Objectives and specific goals ………………………………………………. 4.3.4 Main components relations ………………………………………………… 4.3.4.1 Government ………………………………………………………………………… 4.3.4.2 Universities …………………………………………………………………………. 4.3.4.3 Industry ……………………………………………………………………………... 4.3.4.4 Financial institutions ……………………………………………………………… 4.3.4.5 Other intermediaries ……………………………………………………………… 4.3.5 Functions and services ……………………………………………………... 4.4 Qualitative comparative practices ………………………………………….. 4.4.1 History and trajectory ……………………………………………………… 4.4.2 Structure and business model ……………………………………………… 4.4.3 Objectives and specific goals ………………………………………………. 4.4.4 Main components relations ………………………………………………… 4.4.4.1 Government ………………………………………………………………………… 4.4.4.2 Universities …………………………………………………………………………. 4.4.4.3 Industry ……………………………………………………………………………... 4.4.4.4 Financial institutions ……………………………………………………………… 4.4.4.5 Other intermediaries ……………………………………………………………… 4.4.5 Functions and services ……………………………………………………... 5 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS ……………………………………………… REFERENCES …………………………………………………………….. APPENDIX 1 ……………………………………………………………… APPENDIX 2 ………………………………………………………………
115 115 115 115 119 120 120 122 123 124 124 126 135 135 145 147 149 149 151 153 153 154 156 168 168 172 175 177 177 178 178 179 179 181 196 196 197 199 201 201 203 204 205 205 207 215 220 239 240
APPENDIX 3 ……………………………………………………………… APPENDIX 4 ……………………………………………………………… APPENDIX 5 ……………………………………………………………… APPENDIX 6 ………………………………………………………………
241 242 243 246
16
1 INTRODUCTION
While it is not a new subject in academia, innovation’s studies have only recently gained the attention of various social sciences. However, a greater integration of disciplines is necessary since innovation is a complex phenomenon whose investigation requires a cross-disciplinary approach (FAGERBERG, 2006). In management research, innovation usually takes place in a meso dimension, meaning that it is analyzed in a firm level as a set of processes and/or technological changes that lead to a superior performance. Innovation can also be discussed in a micro level, focusing on individual entrepreneurial abilities – an approach historically originated from Schumpeter’s take on the innovation process – that perceives the individual’s drive for improvement as the determinant factor in the creative destruction of already established ways of competing in the market. Finally, a macro approach involves a set of institutions and firms (public or private) associated in a regional/national/global arrangement. Although it has received limited attention in management when compared to the other two (FIGUEIREDO; FIGUEIREDO, 2017), this macro dimension points to a level of research more widely explored in disciplines such as economics, especially in its evolutionary approach. In their analysis of the knowledge base of innovation, Fagerberg, Fosaas and Sapprasert (2011) Rakas and Hain (2016) argue that these studies can be called ‘systems of innovation’. The cluster of publications represented by it is relatively small since its seminal publications are dated back to the 1990’s – Freeman (1987); Lundvall (1992); Nelson (1993) – and represent a shift of interest to innovation’s role in the economy as a whole. Fagerberg, Fosaas and Sapprasert (2011) argue that this approach is relevant not only for its systemic perspective of innovation and its diffusion, but also because it represents a connection – yet a narrow one – between management and economics research on innovation. Therefore, it is considered as an opportunity to promote greater cross-disciplinary research between these fields while also contributing to shed light in the complexity of innovation’s dynamics. Edquist (2006) argues that the early notions of innovation as a relatively isolated process were gradually replaced as the research on innovation was expanded. Currently, the general perception is that innovation is a process that usually revolves around the interdependence and collaboration among organizations, institutions, components and/or individuals. The notion of
17
systems of innovation (SI) became relevant precisely because it focuses on the study of the various determinants of this complex process, including “all important economic, social, political, organizational, institutional and other factors that influence the development, diffusion and use of innovations” (EDQUIST, 1997, p.14). The SI approach allows the study of the components in an innovation system through various perspectives – technological, sectoral, regional (local/sub-national) and national – that are complementary to one another and their use is determined by the questions or aspects being addressed about innovation. The SI approach and its National Innovation Systems (NIS) concept are adopted in this research due to the fact that they focus on the relations between the components of a SI, not only on the components themselves (EDQUIST, 2006; LUNDVALL, 2007). This important characteristic highlights innovation as an interdependent and non-linear process which is imperative for the study of its complexity and dynamism. This approach also has an evolutionary perspective that revolves around the notion of innovation as an ever-expanding process throughout time that cannot be described in terms of maturity. As Edquist (2006) argues, the SI approach is therefore not concerned with determining an optimal innovation system, given the fact that it is admittedly impossible to fully describe and control it. However, if considered that any system of innovation has a function – “pursue innovation processes, i.e. to develop, diffuse and use innovation” (EDQUIST, 2006, p. 182) – it is arguably possible that its components and activities can be coordinated and integrated to some extent. This assumption on innovation is not a usual one in a macro dimension, but it has already been addressed by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) in its publication Managing National Innovation Systems in 1999. In it, innovation is seen as a key driver of competitiveness and long-term economic growth (OECD, 1999) and governments are placed in a central role of integration and coordination of innovation systems by means of policy making. While the role government has on innovations systems is unquestionable due to its regulatory power, the discussions regarding its role in the management of innovation systems tend to become limited to policy making in national and regional perspectives. The underlying assumption in this thesis is that there are relations between components in innovation systems requiring further investigation and description, and that possibly surpass governmental tutelage to take place in spite of national or regional borders, remaining relevant throughout different systems simultaneously. Such relations could be less dependent
18
in governments and rely more on private and non-profit institutions, constituting networks that are as equally relevant for SI’s dynamics as are other components. Among the main components of innovation systems, government, university and industry receive greater attention. Edquist (2006), Lundvall (2007) and Carlsson et al. (2002) argue that there is significant room for improvement in future research regarding the activities in SIs related to innovation development and diffusion. Their argument is that further inquiry on the relations between the components of these systems is promising since the understanding of the extent of a system of innovation and its dynamics is still incomplete and that only multicausal explanations may contribute to its progress. Science Parks (SPs) are seen as important organizations in innovation dynamics for their potential of increasing technology transfer and the knowledge flows between SI’s main components. They have been investigated for over three decades but their results so far have been inconclusive and divergent in terms of their actual contributions (PHAN; SIEGEL; WRIGHT, 2005; MIAN; LAMINE; FAYOLLE, 2016). However, an unexplored avenue of research presents itself through the various associations of SPs established worldwide. They provide strategic services and resources as well as vital networks of associates, knowledge and information that SPs could not access in isolation, potentially contributing to more effective innovation processes. Their study can provide further insights on systems of innovation and also on how the interactions among their components may affect them. In order to fully understand the relevance of other components that aren’t usually investigated in innovation systems as much as governments, universities and industry, the innovation intermediaries’ literature can be combined with the systemic approach. This body of recent research is dedicated to understanding how other institutions, associations, companies or individuals play a part in the promotion of innovation and contribute to innovation dynamics. Therefore, SPs associations may be investigated through this intermediary lens as a way of understanding if they can be considered components in innovation systems, and by which means can they promote innovation. 1.1 Objectives By adopting a systems of innovation approach, the goal of this research is to investigate if associations of science parks are intermediary components of innovation systems and if their provided services contribute to innovation promotion. To achieve such a goal, the focus lies in
19
the non-profit associations that provide support to science parks throughout the world. Associations such as the International Association of Science Parks (IASP), the Brazilian Association of Business Incubators and Technology Parks (Anprotec), and the Association of University Research Parks of Canada (AURP Canada) commonly concentrate a wide members’ community of SPs, with a similar purpose to offer them managerial support, while also promoting the exchange of know-how and expertise among its members. While IASP has an international scope of action, Anprotec and AURP Canada have a national one, all of them representing spatially located efforts to develop and diffuse innovation among its base countries or regions. In parallel, they are also increasingly engaged in a global network with similar associations. Investigating such associations is of great relevance for various reasons. The research on SPs have been widely published due to their proximity and links to more relevant SI’s components such as universities, governments and industries; however, (a) their analysis are usually restricted to performance outputs such as employment growth and patent creation; (b) they are usually based on single case studies; (c) their significance is usually analyzed through a policy making or real estate prism; and (d) they are investigated in isolation and without any linkages to other SPs whether in a regional, national or global perspective. Therefore, it can be argued that these issues are problematic considering that a systemic perspective of innovation advocates for an interdependent and collaborative view of a SI’s components and its activities, as of innovation processes. Additionally, the development and diffusion of innovations becomes limited when such studies fail to present an integrated picture of these SPs and their collective contribution to these processes. This research argues that investigating associations such as IASP, Anprotec and AURP Canada may help to fill these gaps by providing a network assessment of SPs in a more systemic way, representing an opportunity to question and further refine the boundaries used to investigate innovation systems. Therefore, the question addressed in this research is what functions do Associations of Science Parks fulfill and how are they relevant to Systems of Innovation? Providing the necessary data and analysis to properly answer such question is this research’s general objective. As for specific objectives, we seek to understand:
20
a)
if these Associations can be considered intermediary components in innovation systems;
b)
if these Associations and their SPs members configure a network of innovation development and diffusion;
c)
how the strategic support they provide may impact the performance of SPs, regions or nations;
d)
how does this support to science parks affect their interaction with other components such as universities, firms and governments; and
e)
if these associations have any influence in other components’ functions such as policy making, knowledge and technology transfer, capital allocation or innovation development and diffusion.
Given the fact that no previous research on associations of SPs were identified and that these institutions remain underexplored, a qualitative approach is considered to be appropriate and was therefore adopted. As a research strategy, we chose a multiple case study in order to widen as much as possible the understanding of these associations’ role and relevance, using this as a base for theory-building. To do so, we investigate IASP as an example of international association, and Anprotec and AURP Canada as national ones, noting that AURP Canada is a smaller and younger association compared to Anprotec. This thesis is structured in four sections including this introduction. Section I is the initial introduction to the research’s purpose, objectives and problem. Section II presents the theoretical framework of the thesis, explaining what innovation means and how it can be classified within its broad sense, followed by the development of the innovation systems, national innovation systems and innovation intermediaries topics, and a later discussion on how science parks work and which gaps still need to be addressed by academia. Section III outlines the details of the methodology in which this research is built upon, while Section IV presents the data analysis and discussion.
21
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter outlines the framework that theoretically supports the research designed to answer the problem in the previous chapter. It provides a detailed presentation of pertinent previous work and research that serve as reference for the data collected and analyzed further in this thesis. The first topic in this chapter details innovation as a phenomenon and the distinct approaches in which it may be described or investigated. The second topic presents a historical overview of innovation studies and the different levels in which its most traditional publications analyze it. Next, after a thorough literature review to situate science parks associations in an adequate theoretical framework, two similar and somewhat connected approaches considered to be appropriate to discuss them were chosen to assemble the most substantial part of this research’s framework: innovation systems and innovation intermediaries. This previous literature review is considered relevant by Sampieri, Collado and Lucio (2006) since it may reveal already existing (fully or partially) developed theories or theoretical approaches with concepts, variables or explanations that may be applicable to the research problem. The innovation systems approach and its unfolding concepts were selected as the main theoretical approach since their emergent yet already significant knowledge base offers a fitting foundation in which SPs can be investigated in innovation. In this approach, innovation is described as a result of the complex dynamics between several systemic components. Many scholars and their seminal work in this approach give relevant and detailed insights about what these systems are, which components they usually congregate and about how they may individually stimulate, promote or diffuse innovation. This systemic approach, however, still demands further contributions to identify and articulate how other components aside from the most relevant ones – government, industry and universities – play a part in these systems and the innovation it works towards. In order to surpass this limitation, the innovation intermediaries’ emergent body of knowledge is described after the innovation systems approach. Despite not being directly originated from this systemic approach, the innovation intermediaries and their diverse inquiries about organizations that contribute to innovation offer a proper framework to evaluate how SPs
22
associations may be categorized as intermediaries and how their services may promote innovation. This body of knowledge identifies and describes the roles and services of many organizations such as industry or business associations, science parks, research institutes, governmental agencies, among others, and their influence on innovation. By purposely integrating both approaches, other systemic components in need of investigation – such as SPs associations – may be situated inside theses systems while the analysis of their individual roles and provided services may reveal if they have any systemic relevance. We believe that the combination of these two approaches suits the investigation of science parks associations and, as a result, it provides additional insights that close theoretical and empirical gaps in both the innovation systems and innovation intermediaries’ literature. The final sections of this chapter present an overview of science parks literature and its stateof-the-art. Although the subject under investigation in this thesis is the associations of these parks and not the parks themselves, it is important to present the most relevant contributions about science parks since they have been extensively analyzed in academia, unlike their associations. We believe that this overview also indicates limitations and gaps in the literature of SPs which will be later confronted with the data collected from their associations for possible insights on how they may be addressed. 2.1 Innovation 2.1.1 What is it? Defining and understanding what innovation is involves many perspectives from different authors that are often based in separate disciplines, therefore, a cross-disciplinary approach with different insights is necessary for any comprehensive overview of it (FAGERBERG, 2006). The traditional first-step in explaining innovation is Schumpeter’s definition and perspective (LUNDVALL, 2007). Schumpeter was based in economics but there is a consensus that it remains a central reference regarding innovation in many disciplines (FAGERBERG; FOSSAS; SAPPRASERT, 2012;LANDSTRÖM; HARIRCHI; ÅSTRÖM, 2012;SUN; GRIMES, 2016) and is even considered to be the father of innovation’s research on economics (HALL; ROSENBERG, 2010). Among many publications, The Theory of Economic Development published in 1911 is Schumpeter’s most referenced work. In it, the Austrian economist presents an original approach where the basis for growth and
23
development of a country would be innovation and its diffusion (a process of imitation and incorporation of innovations by competitors), with technological competition being its driving force. For Schumpeter, the balance of power in the market would be constantly interrupted by the action of innovation, which could not be represented or properly characterized by mathematical models of the classical theorists in economics. Schumpeter (1982) describes a stationary economic model that is based on a circular flow, where demand and supply remain in balance in the markets and, therefore, it is not possible for a firm to modify its position due to the actions of the other firms. In a market like this, growth would result from expansion of production factors in the offer, which increases in time. From the second chapter on it becomes clear that this model would not be as static as it appeared. According to Schumpeter (1982), a number of amendments and changes occurred gradually from the inside out, resulting from spontaneous and discontinuous action of what he called entrepreneurs, who take advantage of opportunities arising from the market to profit. Growth, therefore, would be a result of the creative efforts of these entrepreneurs that, by promoting innovation and achieving profitability, reinvested their profits in the market causing the increase and expansion of wealth. This innovative entrepreneur would be the central economic agent in economic growth, through new and more efficient combinations of factors of production and/or existing and available knowledge; or the application of new technologies or technological innovations, promoting creative destruction in the market endogenously. Specifically, Schumpeter’s development description as a process of continuous structural change was caused by 5 types of innovation: (I) launch of a new or improved product; (II) new method of production or product sales; (III) new markets, unexplored by industries; (IV) new sources of supply; and (V) new structure of industries. For Schumpeter (1982), these changes driven by technological innovation and the entrepreneur explained the endogenous development of the markets, a very different view from the analysis so far promoted by neo-classical authors. Another contribution still relevant today is Schumpeter’s classification of the innovation process’ dimensions – inventions; innovation; diffusion; imitation – being the two last the most influential in economic development. The relevance placed in the entrepreneurial figure by Schumpeter served as base for several studies and approaches that discussed innovation in an individual-centered view. Disciplines
24
like psychology, sociology, management and even some economics studies revolved around the role of the entrepreneur’s traits and characteristics in promoting innovation in firms, institutions or economies (LANDSTRÖM; HARIRCHI; ÅSTRÖM, 2012). According to Hall and Rosenberg (2010) and Fagerberg, Fosaas and Sapprasert (2011) some of the topics and definitions that still generate controversy or debates regarding innovation nowadays were already present in the work of Schumpeter, like the distinction between invention and innovation. While the first refers to new ideas, the second is associated with its practical implementation or as Lundvall (2007) argues its introduction in the market, diffusion and use. It may prove to be difficult differentiating one from another due to their strong link (FAGERBERG, 2006), but authors like Rogers (1995) and Kline and Rosenberg (1986) argue that there can be significant time space between them and that the role of the inventor is possibly very distinct from the role of the innovator. These authors place innovation in a product or process perspective, very relevant to economics. Another important perspective on innovation also mentioned by Schumpeter is focused on (new) ways of organizing businesses (FAGERBERG, 2006). Organizational innovations refer to the processes that are necessary for achieving the firm’s objectives and how these processes are arranged. They are related to both the technological and organizational processes that can affect the firm’s performance (EDQUIST; HOMMEN; MCKELVEY, 2001) and also in a broader sense, firms and industries arrangements (FAGERBERG, 2006). Edquist (2001) argues that it is imperative to clarify what type of innovations is being discussed and that this is not an easy task. For the author, part of the innovation research was initially only interested in technological innovations and their processes. He presents a taxonomy of innovation in an attempt to distinguish different types of innovation, claiming such taxonomy to be indispensable for identifying what are their specific determinants. Different types of innovation have different types of determinants, thus, disaggregating them is important. Edquist (2001) talks about this disaggregation in his taxonomy (Figure 1), explaining that while a robot or machine innovation is produced, it falls in the category of ‘goods’. On the other hand, if such innovation is incorporated in a production process, it becomes a ‘technological’ innovation. He clarifies that while product innovations relate to what is being produced, process innovations concern how they are produced. While goods and technological innovations are tangible, services and organizational ones are intangible.
25
FIGURE 1 – A taxonomy of innovations Source: Edquist (2001).
While of simplistic appearance, Edquist’s (2001) taxonomy allows for more complex analysis of innovations dynamics and determinants. As the author acknowledges, mainstream economics regularly ignores product innovation even though it is a relevant mechanism for productions structures, therefore affecting technological and organizational innovations. All innovations types are equally relevant in society, they only differ in importance for research specific focuses and goals. 2.1.2 How does it occur? As previously mentioned, innovation is a complex phenomenon that makes it difficult not only to accurately define it, but also to observe it. One can argue that the variety of types of innovation proportionally calls for pluralistic ways of analyzing and classifying them. Initially, innovation calls for a necessary rupture of what Schumpeter (1982) called social inertia. According to him, every initiative to disrupt established or older ways of doing things in search for a new or improved one is bound to face resistance. Such resistance is generated due to the embedded uncertainty that the innovation process promotes. Therefore, every change or introduction of new product/process/arrangement/configuration requires the interruption of old habits and the establishment of new ones. Fagerberg (2006) argues that in the early approaches to innovation, as it is seen in Schumpeter’s initial arguments, innovation was predominantly described as a result of entrepreneurial individuals’ efforts to break social inertia. However, Schumpeter’s later work shifted away from the entrepreneurial function towards a broader approach, where firms played a more significant role in the innovation process. Therefore, the disruptive aspect of the innovation process remained relevant while greater emphasis was placed in its collective aspects.
26
From this point on, innovation was seen by many as a process resulting from the actions of multiple actors and their interactions. Disrupting the social inertia then became a more collective effort and the search for appropriate ways of managing the uncertainty of the process and better ways of adapting organizations (VAN DE VEN et al., 1999) proved to be a fruitful line of research, especially in management studies. Another crucial aspect regarding innovation is the inherent influence of external factors in organizations. From the 1980s on, the globalization process increased the uncertainty within firms due to the ever-expanding competition, access to different markets and the instability and unpredictability generated by them. Change processes became closely linked to firms’ ability to absorb knowledge (COHEN; LEVINTHAL, 1990), using it to assemble solutions to new challenges (NONAKA; TAKEUCHI, 1995), and progressively incorporating them in their inner routines into what Nelson and Winter (1982) called “organizational memory”. The collective aspects of innovation and the influence of external factors are also linked to its relevant systemic nature. This has been traditionally explored in economics where collective components and their interactions in a social system influence its development (FAGERBERG, 2006). Described as Systems of Innovation (SI), this approach investigates the dynamics of innovation in a wider perspective, involving, firms and the entire institutional framework related to innovation activities (EDQUIST, 2006). Finally, innovations can be analyzed in terms of novelty degree. Mothe (2006) stresses that innovation emerges in a plurality of ways and that we must not limit our perceptions by a Popperian illusion of it only happening in sporadic breakthroughs. Much like in Khun’s (1962) assessment of scientific revolutions, innovation is much more likely to emerge in periodical incremental contributions than radical revolutions. In this sense, from simpler distinctions like Nelson and Winter’s (1982) “Radical/Incremental” to more detailed analytical
frameworks
such
as
Henderson
and
Clark’s
(1990)
matrix
‘Radical/Architectural/Incremental/Modular’, these categorizations provide a way to classify the degree of change related to distinct innovations, highlighting the fact they are seldom homogeneous. Also, they allow us to perceive the different impacts of technology in products/services/processes innovations as a whole or only parts of it. While some authors may present different arguments regarding which degree of novelty makes an innovation more decisive to economic and organizational development, Lundvall et al. (1992) and Kline and Rosenberg (1986) claim both radical and incremental innovations are relevant.
27
2.1.3 Why is it relevant? The popularity of innovation both as a term and as a topic of research may mislead one to perceive it as a saturated point of inquiry, however, it is necessary to look at it as a manifestation of innovation’s relevance in today’s society. As Fagerberg (2006) points out, it was innovation’s complex nature that in fact mobilized a number of resources in social, economic and political communities throughout the world in the last century to understand it as a phenomenon. Its impact and relevance to economic development, organizational processes and social transformations becomes clear when we look at the mobilization of actors in the private, public, and non-profit sectors trying to foster it and to expand its benefits. Further investigations of innovation are still a necessity since its complex nature caused a plurality of scientific approaches in several disciplines and fields that still remain fragmented and without significant communication. While Fagerberg and Verspagen (2009) advocate for more attention to the innovation phenomenon, they argue that a positive convergence of scholars from different disciplines is taking place in the emergent scientific field referred to as ‘innovation studies’ (MARTIN, 2012; RAFOLS et al., 2012) that can possibly contribute to bridge the gaps between the existing work revolving around innovation. The next section details this emergent field’s evolution, its characteristics and different approaches, later indicating the one that is central to the theoretical base of the present study– systems of innovation. 2.2 Innovation Studies The origin of studies about innovation is cause for divergences among the researchers on the topic (FAGERBERG; VERSPAGEN, 2009), and among the reasons for this is the fact that innovation as a term is vaguely applied in several and often disconnected contexts and, as studies, it is still disregarded as a scientific field and seen as a simple topic of interest in various disciplines. Fagerberg, Fosaas and Sapprasert (2011) argue that the topic of innovation was not always of large interest as it is nowadays and that by analyzing the evolution of its research it is possible to comprehend that they in fact became an emergent field in social sciences. Innovation studies investigate the improvements of products, processes, organizational activities and their social, economic and political foundations and consequences
28
(FAGERBERG; FOSAAS; SAPPRASERT, 2011) and they started to configure an emergent field of knowledge as institutions, research centers and scientific communities began to be established over time (MARTIN, 2012). Up until the first half of the twentieth century these studies were scarce and very disconnected, and innovation was not thoroughly analyzed. The exception mentioned by Fagerberg, Fosaas and Sapprasert (2011) is Joseph Alois Schumpeter’s Thetheory of economic development in 1911 (revised in 1934), considered by many as the starting point of innovation studies and it remains among the top references of the field. In it, Schumpeter describes innovation with an unprecedented economic relevance, being capable of destroying old businesses while promoting new and more attractive ones to a superior position in the market and throughout society. In this process described as “creative destruction”, the innovative entrepreneur’s role was highlighted and from then on innovation and entrepreneurship received progressively more attention in various scientific fields such as economics; management; sociology; organizational science; business studies and economic geography (FAGERBERG, 2006). Technological innovations specifically became the focus of north-American government and military forces around the World War II, however, it was not until the 1960’s that innovation became a focal point for systematical studies with resource allocation within academia (FAGERBERG; FOSAAS; SAPPRASERT, 2011). According to Fagerberg and Verspagen (2009) approximately one hundred study centers and departments specifically devoted to innovation research were structured from the 1960’s on, 80% of which were concentrated in universities. Among these, the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) is considered to be the most relevant one. Founded in 1966 in the United Kingdom at the University of Sussex, the SPRU is responsible for the most notorious innovation journal in the world, the Research Policy. This notoriety is due to the fact that both of them were founded by Professor Christopher Freeman, one of the pioneers and most respected researchers of the innovation studies field. Besides his authorship of seminal publications, Freeman and the SPRU became references from the 1970’s on to the grouping, instruction and collaboration of key authors in innovation, economic and management studies such as Richard Nelson, Giovanni Dosi, Keith Pavitt, Luc Soete and Carlota Perez (considered to be evolutionary or neo-Schumpeterian). In a bibliometric analysis exploring the knowledge base of innovation studies, Fagerberg, Fosaas and Sapprasert (2011;2012) organize their evolution in three distinct periods by
29
identifying the most relevant publications and highlighting which aspects of innovation were the most relevant in these periods, respectively. 2.2.1 Up to 1969 This period holds less than 15% of all the core literature of innovation studies and shows great thematic disparity among its main publications, something the authors believe to characterize the innovations studies’ initial stage (FAGERBERG; FOSAAS; SAPPRASERT, 2011). Also, the number of research centers specifically engaged in innovation research is significantly smaller when compared to the other periods, and most of this work revolved around the universities of Stanford and Harvard and the greatest volume of publications was centered in the Strategic Management Journal, all of these in the United States of America. The most cited authors and publications in this period are Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation (1962); Schumpeter’s The theory of economic development (1934) and Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942); Arrow’s Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention (1962); and Burns and Stalker’s The management of innovation (1961). According to Fagerberg, Fosaas and Sapprasert (2011), up until this point innovation was approached randomly, but it is possible to identify the predominance of economics and sociology fields. These investigations had little convergence among its topics and the majority of them was linked to private institutions or governmental interest in research and development (R&D). 2.2.2 From 1970 to 1989 These two decades mark the ascendancy of SPRU to the position of main center for studies on innovation and Europe as the reference point in this research field, something associated with prominent figures of Freeman and Keith Pavitt and their systematical collaboration with different research centers in the region. The most relevant publications in this period are Freeman’s The Economics of Industrial Innovation (1974) and Technology Policy and Economic Performance (1987); Nelson and Winter’s An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (1982); Pavitt’s Sectoral patterns of technical change (1984); and Von Hippel’s The Sources of Innovation (1988). Unlike the previous period, the approach to innovation research is progressively more integrated in these publications, considered to be a result of the formation and expansion of a community of research on innovation mainly constituted by the neo-Schumpeterian scholars
30
of the SPRU and the evolutionary ones from the USA, closely related at the time (FAGERBERG; FOSAAS; SAPPRASERT, 2011). The management field concentrated the greater amount of citations in this period even though the main references were predominantly from economics (FAGERBERG; FOSAAS; SAPPRASERT, 2011; FREEMAN, 1995). 2.2.3 From 1990 to 2009 The last period marks a significant change in the focus of innovation research. From being discussed until then in a firm level or in various industrial contexts, it began to be approached in a broader sense and thought to be of great systemic relevance in countries’ economies (EDQUIST, 2001; PATEL; PAVITT, 1994). According to Nelson (1993, p.30) in the globalized and over competitive market scenario up until the1990s, Japan’s rise as an economic and technological power turned the country into a benchmarking model emulated by the USA and Europe. Its firms and industries’ superior performances promoted a belief that national policies regarding technology were imperative for a nation not to “fall progressively behind”. As stated by Fagerberg, Fosaas and Sapprasert (2011) the research focus began to concentrate in institutions and policies changes in order to boost the benefits of innovation or its diffusion throughout society. The SPRU is overtaken by Harvard and MIT’s research volume and innovation begins to be more intensively investigated in economics. The core publications in this period clearly possess a macro perspective and a national/regional/sectoral approach to innovation: Nelson’s National Innovation Systems: a comparative study (1993); Porter’s The competitive advantage of nations (1990); Lundvall’s National Systems of Innovation (1992); Cohen and Levinthal’s Absorptive capacity: a new perspective to learning and innovation (1990); and Saxenian’s Regional Advantage (1994). 2.2.4 Concluding remarks This historical overview highlights the emerging character of innovation studies and emphasizes the fact that innovation is a phenomenon of significantly complex nature that requires a cross-disciplinary effort for its better comprehension. Either by Schumpeter’s seminal classifications that innovation is a new arrangement of existing knowledge; by the neo-Schumpeterian contributions to a systemic approach of innovation; or by more recent or revisited concepts like Clay Christensen’s disruptive innovation and Henry Chesbrough’s open innovation, it is imperative to point the existence of specific dimensions in which
31
innovation occurs as a phenomenon and in which it is investigated as a science field. These dimensions must be understood and clearly differentiated in order that innovation studies’ complexity and scope do not become an obstacle to their understanding. The terms micro, meso and macro are used to describe the level of analysis of a given phenomenon, however, they differ substantially when used in economics and management. Next, we distinguish them in order to avoid any confusion regarding what levels of innovation are addressed in this research. In management, the micro dimension is a more restricted innovation where the individual, its traits, characteristics or actions are analyzed, as well as products/services, its uses and functions (FAGERBERG, 2006; LANDSTRÖM; HARIRCHI; ÅSTRÖM, 2012). In an intermediary level (Meso), innovation is perceived and investigated as activities, processes (and the resources associated to them), and productive combinations in a firm level (DOSI, 1997; MINTZBERG, 1979; NONAKA; TAKEUCHI, 1995; PAVITT, 1991; VAN DE VEN et al., 1999). In a broader dimension (Macro), its study involves a set of institutions (public or private), regions, markets and industries and the economy as a whole (FAGERBERG; MOWERY; NELSON, 2006; MEUER; RUPIETTA; BACKES-GELLNER, 2015). In economics, when adopting a systems of innovation approach (which is the case in this research), the micro level is centered on a firm’s internal capabilities and the knowledge links with firms and non-market institutions surrounding it (OECD, 1999; FISCHER, 2001). The meso level of a system consists of examining and mapping the knowledge links and interactions among firms (OECD, 1999) or subsystems (FISCHER, 2001). Finally, the macro level consists of a network of institutions view of the economy and can be assed the mapping of interaction and knowledge flows among them (OECD, 1999; FISCHER, 2001, CASTELLACI et al., 2005). From the economical perspective, the discussions regarding innovation in this research are of a meso-macro level of analysis. In terms of management, the focus lies specifically on macro dimensions of innovation. This choice will be explained later on and also its relevance to the management discipline and its study of innovation. 2.3 Systems of Innovation The Systems of Innovation approach began during the third period of evolution of the innovation studies (1990-2009) previously described, when its main publications clearly
32
shifted towards a macro dimension of innovation and its effects on whole economies. Up until this point several studies comparing different countries’ development had already been published, but much like Posner’s (1961) influential work on technological gaps between them, only separate aspects (firms, industries) of economic growth were explored. Edquist (2001, p.4) states that the Systems of Innovation (SI) approach became “central for the modern way of understanding innovations” due to the general perception by the end of the 1980s that (I) firms rarely innovate in isolation; (II) their innovative activities are often connected to external sources; and that (III) the relations between them often vary and are responsible for distinct outcomes. The systemic in SI represents, therefore, the variety of components1 involved in the innovation phenomenon and the complex nature of their interactions. Freeman (1995, p. 7) also emphasizes the decisive role of inter-firm relationships and external links to innovation and that the “systemic aspects of innovation assumed greater importance”. Although Niosi (2002) claims that there isn’t a single definition of an innovation system despite the vast number of publications about it, Lundvall (1992, p. 2) describes an SI as a “system constituted by elements and relationships which interact in the production, diffusion and use of new and economically useful knowledge”. Edquist (1997, p. 14) presents a broader definition, also adopted by Fagerberg, Mowery and Nelson (2006): “all important economic, social, political, organizational, and other factors that influence the development, diffusion, and use of innovations”. Lundvall (1992) believes that knowledge is the most important asset in the so called ‘knowledge economy’, but knowledge alone is not enough, also highlighting interactive learning as essential to innovation processes. For this author, as new knowledge is introduced by several factors, the dynamic nature of SIs makes the learning processes of individuals and organizations something mandatory for adapting to emerging challenges. For Edquist (2001), it is important to understand that the SI approach focuses on the determinants of innovation2, and not on its consequences. Fagerberg (2006) points in the same direction by arguing that this approach is engaged in the linkages between actors, that form a structure with certain patterns of interaction. The components in such systems are usually complementary to one another, so the absence or failure of any one of them is bound to affect the rest of the system (FAGERBERG, 2006). Following up on Edquist’s innovation
1 2
Also called actorsor factors. Check topic 2.3.3.2.
33
taxonomy presented at the end of the topic 2.1.1, it is also important to emphasize that the SI approach is appropriate to analyze all categories of innovation he presents (although it is traditionally concerned with technological innovations), and should be further explored (EDQUIST, 2001). According to Edquist (2006), every SI has a function – promote innovation processes – that is influenced by the aforementioned factors. Determining if this function is being adequately performed is why such great emphasis is placed on innovation processes’ determinants. 2.3.1 Systems of Innovation’s approaches and boundaries Soete, Verspagen and Weel (2010) and Fagerberg and Sapprasert (2011) distinguish the SI approach from the previous ones in the study of innovation for its holistic characteristics. Its central focus on interactive learning is not limited to products or firms, but it also applies on economies as a whole. Within the SI approach there are several concepts/approaches dedicated to specific variants of systems of innovation, but are considered complementary to each other in some extent (EDQUIST, 1997). They are not equally mentioned by all scholars in the field, some of them present similarities, while others are referred to by different names. The following list presents them in a simplistic order of scope and framework focus: a) National Innovation Systems – NIS b) Regional Innovation Systems – RIS c) Sectoral Innovation Systems – SIS d) Technological Systems e) Development Blocs f) Input/Output analysis Carlsson et al. (2002) believe that the Input/Output framework is among the earliest ones to adopt a system approach in the innovation literature. Based on Leontief’s work of industrylevel components and relations, this framework is configured by inputs and outputs of goods and services’ flows of a few economic sectors in a given period of time. However, these authors believe that its system is rather static, with the relations and links of its components being generally one-way. The Development Blocs approach is believed to be “one of the first attempts to apply a Schumpeterian analysis” and differs from the previous one for its dynamic character (CARLSSON et al., 2002, p. 236). Analyzing 24 Swedish industries during the 1919-1939
34
period, this framework describes innovation as a source of new opportunities that caused structural tensions in the market, requiring new adequate inputs to be properly explored and transformed into economic activities. Here, the outputs systematically grows and transforms as well, and the entrepreneur becomes a relevant component, being closely linked to the disequilibrium caused (CARLSSON et al., 2002). The Technological Systems approach is similar to the Development Blocs in terms of disaggregation and dynamism and was developed by Carlsson and Stankiewicz (1995) in the 1990s (LUNDVALL, 2007). In it, several technological systems are part of a country, being constituted by various components and market and non-market relations, evolving through time. There is also a focus on generic technologies relevant to several industries, and the boundaries of these systems are not defined by national or regional borders (CARLSSON et al., 2002). Lundvall (2007) and Carlsson et al. (2002) describe the Sectoral Innovation Systems as an approach whose boundaries are limited by ‘industries’ or ‘sectors’, based on the assumption that in every one of them there are very distinct technological regimes. These regimes change with time much like in the two previous approaches and it can be described by relevant knowledge base, technological knowledge accumulation, appropriability conditions and firms’ competitive behavior (CARLSSON et al., 2002). Lundvall (2007) and Edquist (2006) point to Breschi and Malerba (1997) as its main references. Lundvall (2007) and Edquist (2006) argue that the Regional Innovation Systems (RIS) approach was also developed in the 1990s, mainly through the work of scholars like Cooke (1996), Braczyk et al. (1998), Maskell and Malmberg (1997), Asheinm and Isaksen (2002), among others. The boundaries in RIS may be determined (geographically) by formal borders or administrative jurisdiction due to their practical advantages in terms of policy making, public incentives scope and accessibility of data as well. Also, they can be determined by localized spill-overs and skilled workers, or by networks of organizations in a specific region (EDQUIST, 2006). Carlsson et al. (2002) and Ferretti and Parmentola (2015) also call this approach as local innovation systems, adding that one of its main publication is Saxeninan’s (1994) book about Silicon Valley and Route 128 regions with a study on their electronics industry. They believe this approach to be intrinsically dynamic, but without much formal sense. Others such as Niosi (2002) refer to it as subnational systems, while Freeman (1997)
35
and Fischer (2001) call it sub-national by since they believe the word ‘region’ is too broad and can cause confusion in terms of scope of analysis. The National Innovation Systems approach is widely known and is based on the seminal work of Freeman (1987), Lundvall (1992) and Nelson (1993), among several others. Its framework is broader than the input/output system, includes industry and sectors but also, other several components such as organizations and institutions (CARLSSON et al., 2002). In it, all of these components are viewed as parts of the system and are analyzed dynamically on an aggregate national level. Feinson (2003, p. 19) ratifies this and states that NIS’ approach of “dynamic networks of policies, institutions and people that mediate knowledge flows across national borders and within domestic industries” portrays development processes more realistically since it links innovation efforts to macroeconomic and educational policies. Along with these frameworks, a couple of other relevant contributions are worth mentioning. Carlsson et al. (2002) add that Porter’s (1990) diamond model of industrial competitiveness would be closer to the SIS approach, although its industry focus is more concerned with the competition of actors within these industries having no room for non-market interactions with external components, being more of a comparative analysis. McKelvey (1991) puts Porter alongside Freeman, Lundvall and Nelson, but Verdova (2014) refutes this choice since Porter never mentioned the NIS concept. Lundvall (2007) also mentions Porter’s (1990) industrial clusters perspective and Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff’s (2000) ‘triple helix’ model and believes both are systemic in many ways. Brännback et al. (2008, p. 262) ratify the triple helix’s systemic character, but qualify it as a “well-publicized model of regional and national innovation systems”. These authors argue that part of the appeal of the model is the emphasis on the interactions of the relevant components (universities, government and industry) in SIs. As it will become clear in the following section detailing NIS, we argue that this feature was initially established and diffused by Lundvall (1988; 1992). Cooke’s (2005) view of the model’s local-regional focus in addition of the apparent ongoing expansion of it by its authors (Quadruple Helix; Quintuple Helix; N-tuple Helices) supports the decision of not using this model as the analytical base in this research. However, some of its concepts and contributions will be later explored in topic 2.3.3.4. Among all of them, the most influential approach is unquestionably the National Innovation Systems (EDQUIST, 2006; FAGERBERG; SAPPRASERT, 2011; HALL; ROSENBERG, 2010). Lundvall (2007) believes that although the regional, sectoral and technological
36
concepts bring relevant contributions to the study of innovation, they are often used in comparisons to understand national-level dynamics and therefore must not be considered alternatives to the NIS 3 concept. Edquist (2006) also believes that these ‘variants’ complement each other and that regional and sectoral systems may be considered as parts of national ones, however, they are usually employed for different purposes. Watkins et al (2014) complement this by stating that the emergence of the Technological Systems, SIS and RIS approaches, in this order, were a response to the initial limitations and gaps of the NIS approach, yet their focus on the interactions within the innovation systems had limitations in terms of how such interactions influenced innovation systems. It is relevant to understand what is and is not considered within a given system, therefore Edquist (2001) classifies these SI concepts by three different types of boundaries: geographical; sectoral; and in terms of activities. Spatial/geographical boundaries are usually related to administrative scope, official borders or even country’s size or federalization. Sectoral boundaries may vary according to theoretical or social perspectives adopted, but are defined by specific technologies or product areas and may be geographically delimited as well (EDQUIST, 2006). Finally, boundaries related to activities are necessary since it is not practical to include everything inside a system defined by a geographical location, like in border-based boundaries such as the RIS and NIS concepts. Edquist declares that operationally speaking: the early work in the SI approach did not address the activities in SIs in a systematic way, and therefore failed to provide clear guidance as to what should be included in a system of innovation […] nor have the boundaries of the systems in terms of activities been defined (EDQUIST, 2006, p. 200).
Carlsson et al. (2002) present some additional insights to how can we define SI’s boundaries. They claim that an SI can be delimited in terms of geographical dimensions (like Edquist’s previous considerations) but also, in time dimensions. Given that a system’s dynamics varies due to the evolving configuration in the system’s components and their relations, “a snapshot of the system” probably will be significantly distinct from others when taken in different time frames (CARLSSON et al., 2002, p. 234).These authors consider the setting of boundaries in SIs as a critical yet problematic methodological issue, and the difficulty in doing so differs according to the approach one chooses to analyze SIs in the first place. Not often are the 3
There is some disagree regarding the use of National Innovation Systems (NIS) or National Systems of Innovation (NSI) terms. This is merely an issue of order and usually they both refer to the same thing. We chose to adopt NIS.
37
prerogatives to define these boundaries clear, and the authors explain that SI’s delineation is usually based on arbitrary positions of researchers (CARLSSON, et al., 2002). More details will be presented in topic 2.3.3.2, regarding activities and functions of SIs and their contribution to defining systems’ boundaries. Next, the NIS concept is further elaborated since this research is based on it. 2.3.2 Origins of the National Innovation Systems approach There seems to be a consensus regarding who are the founding fathers of the NIS concept: Christopher Freeman, Richard Nelson and Bengt-Åke Lundvall (EDQUIST, 2001; SOETE; VERSPAGEN; WEEL, 2010; FAGERBERG; SAPPRASERT, 2011). As previously mentioned, Lundvall (1992) and Nelson’s (1993) publications are two of the most referenced innovation books approaching innovation systemically from the 1990s on, however, the origin of the NIS concept dates back to the late 1980s. Freeman is considered the first scholar to use the NIS concept in printed version, in his 1987 Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan (EDQUIST, 2006; FAGERBERG; VERSPAGEN, 2009). In this book, he used the concept as a reference towards different countries’ ability to exploit the process of innovation and technology diffusion, in an attempt to explain such differences and to identify specific factors withina nation that caused them. Parallel to this publication, Freeman and Nelson co-edited a book with Giovanni Dosi – Technical Change and Economic Theory (1988) – in which both of them published separate chapters, as well as Lundvall. All three of these chapters have systemic approaches to innovation but, as Fagerberg and Sapprasert (2011) indicate, Lundvall’s chapter – Innovation as an interactive process: from user–producer interaction to the national system of innovation – was the one specifically describing a theoretical basis in order for such a systemic approach to make sense and the only that used the NIS term in the title, issues that Nelson pointed out to in the same book. Although Freeman was the first to officially mention it in 1987 and Lundvall’s chapter was only published in 1988, Freeman (1995, p. 1) himself claims that Lundvall was the first scholar to use the expression National Innovation System. On the other hand, Lundvall (2007) claims that the origin of the concept is strongly related to the collaborative work between Freeman and the Innovation, Knowledge and Economic Dynamics group (IKE) at
38
the Danish Aalborg University in the 1980s. Parallel to Dosi et al. (1988) and Freeman’s (1987) books, Lundvall (2007) believes that another publication that helped diffuse the NIS concept was one edited by Freeman and himself in 1988 – Small countries facing the technological revolution. Freeman (1995), Lundvall (2007), Soete, Verspagen and Weel (2010) argue that the NIS approach goes back to Friedrich List’s The National System of Political Economy in 1841, where the author describes Germany’s technological overtake of England and how national policies could serve as positive catalysts to the development of industries throughout the economy. Historical analyses such as the ones described by List, Freeman and several other authors were essential to the development of a systemic view of innovation due to their different nations comparison objectives (SOETE; VERSPAGEN; WEEL, 2010). Despite some historical antecedents, Lundvall et al. (2002) declare that the two driving forces of the NIS concept were the needs of innovation studies and policy-makers. For this author, one of the characteristics in the NIS concept that stands out the most is precisely the central role of policy making. This can be explained, according to Lundvall (2007), by the clear intent in criticizing the standard economic view at the time and its policies that ignored dynamic processes related to innovation and learning and their respective impacts on economic development. In a similar narrative, Freeman (1995, p. 9) indicates that the “linear model of science and technology ‘push’ was often dominant in the new science councils that advise governments”, which after the World War II supported a view of heavy investments in basic science aiming at radical technological and social innovations. Feinson (2003, p.14) believes that despite several industrialized and semi-industrialized countries’ similar strategy of largely investing in R&D, this linear model was unable to explain the “differential rates of technological innovation and economic development experienced by industrialized countries”. In fact, he claims that the notion of “successful economic and industrial development are intimately linked to a nation’s capacity to acquire, absorb and disseminate modern technologies” became widely accepted by scholars. In the 1980s, Lundvall (2007) points out the fact that the economists and policy makers saw the devaluation of national currency and reduction of national wages as the most logical and effective way to increase domestic firms’ international competitiveness. A case was being made for the development of an alternative analytical framework for economy policies that could appropriately include innovation and learning, changing the marginal relevance they
39
were attributed to by then. In the same decade, Freeman (1995) indicates that greater data supported efficient diffusion rather than radical innovation as the mains factor for economic development, pinpointing the contrasting experiences of Japan’s and South Korea’s technological catch-up success opposing the failure of socialist eastern Europe economies. Lundvall et al. (2002) follow Freeman’s arguments and declares that the economic theory and policy making dominant by then were unable to provide a framework that made sense of the international competitiveness and economic development, opening a gap the NIS concept opportunely grew upon, something the OECD (1999) ratifies. Lundvall (2007) believes that this resulted in positive outcomes (like the ‘systemic dimension’ drawing the focus from ‘science policy’ and ‘technology policy’ towards ‘innovation policy’), though interactive learning and its impact on innovation systems still require greater attention. Another relevant contribution to the expansion of the NIS approach and further refinement of innovation diffusion in economic growth was the international and national agencies’ role in the collection of statistical data (FEINSON, 2003; SOETE; VERSPAGEN; WEEL, 2010). Freeman (1995) and Godin (2009) mention the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as an example, given its published reports dating back to the 1960s and its efforts in standardizing measurement of R&D activities (the ‘Frascati Manual’) and technology indicators (the ‘Oslo Manual’) establishing a common base of practice and later on by introducing ‘country reports’. Godin (2009) believes that Lundvall’s (1992) ‘national systems’ concept was to some extent derived from OECD’s contributions, although some scholars dispute this notion. However, Fagerberg and Sapprasert (2011) claim that Lundvall was unquestionably influential on OECD’s reports, but only during the 1990s, due to his work as a deputy director in the organization between 1992 and 1995. Several NIS studies on individual countries were published along with other relevant OECD reports such as National Innovation Systems (1997); Managing Innovation Systems (1999); Dynamising National Innovation Systems (2002), among others. Lundvall (2007) adds the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the World Bank and the European Union (EU) Commission as other relevant organizations to adopt the concept as well as several policy-makers in developed and underdeveloped countries. In 1998, for example, the World Bank (1998/99) claimed that economic development was no longer limited to capital accumulation and physical resources, intangible assets such as information and learning were also equally relevant.
40
Lundvall (2007) believes that the NIS concept generates controversy and part of it is due to the terms that name the concept itself. The ‘national’ in NIS is, as he argues, an adjective naturally contested since modern social sciences had little interest in the topic, while some liberal philosophers see it as a market barrier, while marxist philosophers see it as a divergence from class struggle. The fact that other systemic concepts like the regional, sectoral and technological ones were created in parallel also contributes to this controversy. The author adds that to some extent, the ex-ante national level of analysis may be inadequate to cope with innovation processes’ complexity in the globalized world. To such questioning, he argues that the historical role of national systems in comparing nations’ wealth and development cannot be overlooked and “given that our original intention was to confront national economic policy strategies and standard economics – focused on the national level – it was not an option to delete ‘national’ from NSI” (LUNDVALL, 2007, p. 100). The national level is therefore legitimate and relevant, in his view. On the other hand, the most debatable term in the NIS concept in Lundvall’s (2007) opinion is ‘systems’. Its use is mentioned in other relevant discourses in academia such as the biologist Ludwig Von Bertalanffy’s systemic notion, widely incorporated in scientific fields like management, and although some insights can be traced in parallel, he calls for caution in doing so. Lundvall (2007, p. 100) states that the system notion has been negatively interpreted in the context of public policies. He exemplifies this by the often shallow and mechanistic perceptions that some politicians or regional development strategies have that the system can be “easily constructed, governed and manipulated”, assuming that policy initiatives alone can be enough to build successful “clusters” or “regional systems”. His criticism is similar to Edquist’s (2006) position, which claims that the systemic approach adopts a historical and evolutionary perspective of innovation where the notion of system optimality and the ability to control it are inappropriate. For Lundvall (2007), the “systems” concept relies in simple ideas, and he even presents two of Bertalanffy’s (1960) systemic premises to exemplify them: (I) the whole of the system is more than the simple sum of its elements (components); and (II) the relations and linkages between these elements are just as relevant to the system’s outputs (results) as the elements themselves. Lundvall (2007, p. 101) adds to these premises that the innovation process is systemic since macro and micro structures and processes have an intertwined dynamic and
41
equally affect each other, and that “in a dynamic context this means that we need to understand systems as being complex and characterized by co-evolution and self-organizing”. He believes that greater research remains to be done regarding the modeling, measuring and comparing of innovation systems across national borders. Lundvall (2007) believes that the systems of innovation concept is too broad (including his own), considering everything to the point of getting in the way of understanding it objectively. In his opinion, there is no proper way of choosing between the various definitions available. Edquist (2006, p. 183) claims this is the reason why there is no “generally accepted definition” of a SI. Also, the author finds it problematical trying to exclude any possible factors from the concept since the knowledge regarding their determinants is still incipient. 2.3.3 Definitions of National Innovation Systems While it is clear that Freeman, Nelson and Lundvall are the base for the NIS perspective, it is important to understand that their definitions about it diverge in certain aspects and give emphasis to different determinants of innovation. Freeman (1987, p.1) describes NIS as “the network of institutions in the public and private sectors whose activities and interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new technologies” (our emphasis). Edquist (2006) believes that even though Nelson (1993) and Lundvall (1992) use the same term – NIS – their definitions about it differ due the approaches in each publication. Nelson’s (1993, p. 4) book is widely based on case studies of different NIS configurations, with some of them being devoted specifically to R&D systems, defining NIS as “a set of institutions whose interactions determine the innovative performance of national firms” (our emphasis). For Soete, Verspagen and Weel (2010), Nelson’s approach to NIS is a fine example of the economics of R&D studies that were well-established at the time. With a more theoretical approach, Lundvall (1992, p. 12) describes the sources of innovation as a larger system, being R&D only a part of it. In his view, NIS are “all parts and aspects of the economic structure and the institutional set-up affecting learning as well as searching and exploring” (our emphasis). For him, not only corporate and academic R&D systems are relevant (searching and exploring), but also routine activities promoting experiences and insights that lead to innovation, such as production, marketing and financing systems (learning) as well (LUNDVALL, 1992). These learning activities could be captured and transmitted through a set of rules which Soete, Verspagen and Weel (2010) believe to be
42
similar to Arrow’s (1962) concept of learning by doing. Lundvall’s (1992, p. 2) other description of a NIS is “the elements and relationships which interact in the production, diffusion, and use of new, and economically useful knowledge” (our emphasis). While both Freeman (1987) and Nelson (1993) emphasize the role of institutions, only Freeman distinguishes them between public and private, whereas Nelson’s attention is clearly towards national firms. Lundvall’s (1992) institutional ‘set-up’ can arguably be equivalent to what Nelson and Freeman mention as institutional ‘network’, and his description of searching, exploring and learning is somewhat similar to Freeman’s mention of initiation, import, modification and diffusion of new technology. The OECD (1999) and Soete, Verspagen and Wheel (2010) add Metcalfe’s NIS definition as a: […] set of distinct institutions which jointly and individually contribute to the development and diffusion of new technologies and which provide the framework within which governments form and implement policies to influence the innovation process. As such it is a system of interconnected institutions to create, store and transfer the knowledge, skills and artifacts which define new technologies (METCALFE, 1995, p. 38).
From these authors perspectives it becomes clear that there is no consensual general definition of national innovation systems. However, some of its key components are identified consensually and are usually the best starting point to characterizing and comparing different countries’ NIS. 2.3.3.1 Key components Any NIS is composed of organizations and institutions. In order to understand their role in a SI, however, it is crucial to define them clearly. This is often a difficult task given the fact that in everyday language and also in some institutional theorists’ terminology they are often used as synonyms (EDQUIST; JOHNSON, 1997). Among the attempts of clarifying the role of institutions and to establish a clear definition, Soete, Verspagen and Weel (2010) and Edquist (2006) mention North’s (1990) contributions as an adequate start. The “Northian” concept distinguishes them as rules (institutions) and players (organizations). In his analogy, institutions lay the rules for the game that is played by organizations, both equally affecting each other in some extent (NORTH, 1990). Edquist and Johnson (1997) build on North’s concept to develop a taxonomy for classifying institutions and organizations
43
in direct and adequate relation to systems of innovations, based on their different characteristics. According to Edquist and Johnson (1997), organizations are formal structures with specific purposes such as: universities; firms; public agencies; R&D laboratories; government agencies; and venture capital organizations. These authors emphasize the inclusion of firms as a distinction from North’s (1990) characterization, and that they are, like universities, considered to be organizations due to their relevant participation in the promotion of technical change. Edquist and Johnson (1997) separate organizations as private and public. Private organizations generally include scientific and professional societies; industry associations, but mostly firms. Public associations are usually “those that formulate and implement technology policy; regulatory agencies; higher education and research; technology support entities; standard-setting organizations, and patent offices” (EDQUIST; JOHNSON, 1997, p. 59). The authors also classify different types of organization as knowledge producers (such as universities); knowledge regulators (like patent offices); or knowledge distributors (for example, science parks). Institutions are defined by Edquist and Johnson (1997, p.46), as “set of common habits, routines, established practices, rules or laws that regulate the relations and interactions between individuals and groups” (inside and outside them also). They are intangible parts of a system and therefore, must not be confused with organizations – often tangible and easily identifiable (EDQUIST, 2001). Following Lundvall’s (1992) view of innovation as a result of interactive processes, Edquist and Johnson (1997) indicate institutions as key components in such interaction, something that hadn’t been done so far in institutional theory or innovation theory. In their taxonomy, institutions is a much more elaborate and complex concept than organizations and must be, therefore, thoroughly described. Institutions can be formal such as: laws, patent laws, government regulations of bank conduct, formal instructions for officials of a technological service system, regulations and instructions for installation of electrical equipment” or informal like “common law, customs, traditions, work norms, norms of cooperation, conventions, practices (EDQUIST; JOHNSON, 1997, p. 50).
These authors argue that such a distinction is necessary since institutions present great variations when countries are compared. While formal institutions are more easily identified
44
through code and norms, informal ones usually require closer observation of the behavior of organizations and the people inside them. Another relevant distinction is basic institutions such as constitutional or ground rules that “define basic rules in economic processes” such as “property rights and rules for cooperation and conflict solving in the labor market and in firms”; from support institutions that “define and specify certain aspects of the basic rules” such as “restrictions on the use of private property in specific situations and rules for regulating overtime work in specific industries” (EDQUIST; JOHNSON, 1997, p. 50). Finally, they distinguish hard institutions from soft ones, being the former mandatory and/or policed while the latter one is more suggestive (EDQUIST; JOHNSON, 1997). They seem to be very similar to the formal/informal distinction and the authors do not elaborate them as much as the other ones, although they indicate that the best way to identify them is through the cultural context in question. These institutional distinctions often overlap and are, according to Edquist and Johnson (1997), a useful start to better identify and describe possible institutional variations. Institutions are relevant to innovation through three critical functions (EDQUIST; JOHNSON, 1997): reducing uncertainty; managing conflicts; and providing incentives. Since every innovation process involves the “unavoidable component” of uncertainty, institutions become essential to cope with it by providing necessary information (EDQUIST; JOHNSON, 1997, p. 52). As an example, these authors illustrate how patent laws and property rights serve to reduce uncertainty and provide some form of stability for individuals or organizations concerned with appropriation possibilities. They believe that without institutional support the allocation of resources would be problematic and would therefore make innovation initiatives very rare due to their high-risk-no-warranty character. Managing conflict is considered by the authors as a basic function. With every interaction there is the possibility of opinion, methods and perspective divergences, therefore, the regulatory character of institutions becomes imperative for the maintenance of cooperation in a society, its organizations and individuals within them (EDQUIST; JOHNSON, 1997). The function of providing incentives is somewhat a balance to the uncertainty aspect of innovation: great risks demand great rewards. Edquist and Johnson (1997) claim that
45
engaging people in innovation activities and processes are an essential function, often being of pecuniary kind such as property rights and salary schemes. Edquist and Johnsson (1997) conclude their remarks on institutions by stating that, traditionally, they are seen as obstacles to innovation by the fact that they are slow to adapt and therefore, to facilitate technical change. They mention Freeman and Perez’s (1988) techno-economic paradigms as an example of how institutions can become an impediment to economic growth and also, OECD’s institutional sclerosis term to characterize it. However, they argue for the necessity to overcome such perception and to recognize institutions for both its “supporting and retarding effects on innovation”, and how this may vary substantially across countries (EDQUIST; JOHNSON, 1997, p. 55). For Edquist (2006), these organizations and institutions are the components of a system and together with the relations between them, they set-up the determinants/constituents of an innovation system. The determinants of SI obviously are very differently arranged across nation states in the world and are naturally conditioned by cultural and institutional factors, and this is precisely what Lundvall (1992) believes to make the ‘national’ perspective so relevant in NIS. As Edquist and Johnson (1997, p. 60) argue, “there is thus a complicated two-way relationship of mutual embeddedness between institutions and firms, and one reason for focusing on this relationship is that it influences both the performance and change of systems of innovation”. Therefore, understanding the differences between organizations and institutions helps identifying the structure of their relations and to better cross-analyze the specificities in the performance of national innovation systems and their causes. 2.3.3.2 Main functions and activities The early references regarding NIS were largely concerned with the definitions of these systems and the description of their components, neglecting to some extent what happens inside them, i.e. their activities and functions (EDQUIST, 2001). If the function/goal of a system of innovation is to “produce, diffuse and use innovations” (JOHNSON, 1998), after defining the components and relations of SI it becomes necessary to address how they influence innovation processes, or what is called as determinants of innovation systems (EDQUIST, 2001, p. 9).
46
Work on the determinants of innovation have been published after Edquist (2001) made a case for such developments to be pursued, like Liu and White (2001, p. 1092), which reveal five main activities of NIS in an attempt to address the “lack of system-level factors” in what Lundvall (1992) called as a fundamental weakness of national innovation system research. These are: (I) research; (II) implementation; (III) end-use; (IV) linkage; and (V) education.
FIGURE 2 – Elements of generic framework for analyzing innovation systems Source: Liu and White (2001).
Liu and White (2001, p. 1094) incorporate these main activities into a framework (Figure 2) based on the assumption that any system-level analysis must first address how “fundamental activities of the innovation process are organized, distributed and coordinated”. Interestingly, these authors adopt a generic set of terms (primary, secondary actors and institutions) to discuss the relevance of actors in nations’ innovative performance first, and then to categorize them. For Liu and White (2001, p. 1095), doing so avoids “system-specific issues of public versus private ownership and assumptions about specific activities undertaken by a given organization”, what they believe to be a source of confusion and an obstacle for cross-system comparisons. This is the opposite of a vast majority of publications on innovation that categorize the actors (universities; research centers/institutes; private firms, government; etc.) without any clear indication of their role in the system or its dynamics, and is considered as an important step towards theory building. Like the authors themselves argue, these approaches were usually guided by “actor-centric questions” with no support for analyzing these actors’ relations with each other (LIU; WHITE, 2001, p. 1095). Waheed (2012) argues that Liu and White’s framework and their remarks are indeed valid given that performance analysis of only
47
isolated actors or singular entities is not systemic like their analyses as components of a system would be. Liu and White (2001) call primary actors all the organizations that perform the five main activities previously mentioned, being in any way involved with: research; new technology implementation; using product or process outputs; educating or training any of those involved in such functions; or serving as bridges to connect/link any of these actors. The secondary actors are all the organizations that affect the behavior and interaction of primary actors either directly, “mandating particular behavior by primary actors as they undertake fundamental activities by dictating operational plans, setting organizational targets, or deciding other operational or strategic means or objectives related to any of the fundamental activities”; or indirectly, through incentive policies that create or shape institutions or “remove secondary actors such as government agencies” (LIU; WHITE, 2001, p. 1095). Finally, institutions are much like North’s (1990) and Edquist’s (2001) previously described concept, regulating the actors’ behavior by means of habits, established practices, rules and laws, often in an intangible way. Another framework presented to delineate SI’s determinants addresses the functional pattern within a SI (JOHNSON, 1998; JOHNSON; JACOBSSON, 2001). These patterns originate from the interaction between a system of innovation’s components, and can be exclusive to a nation system or common among others. Although they present such patterns as a way to analyze the SI's performance, they also present five main functions of a system of innovation. These are: (I) creation of new knowledge; (II) search process guidance (resource allocation); (III) supplying resources (capital, various competences); (IV) creation of positive external economies (formation of networks or milieu for knowledge exchange); and (V) facilitating market formation (JOHNSON; JACOBSSON, 2001). These functions can be performed in an irregular or circular pattern and are naturally influenced by each other. Johnson and Jacobsson (2001, p. 5) argue that such a framework may be used as an analytical tool for SI’s dynamics and evolution through the observation of the functional pattern of an innovation system, as well as “evolutionary processes in terms of entry and exits, network formation, institutional adaptation” among others. Edquist (2006) considers Liu and White’s (2001) activities list and Johnson and Jacobsson’s (2001) main functions to be divergent in some extent, but he claims this is probably the result of the lack of established knowledge on this topic, still at an early stage. He also states that
48
there is “surprisingly little systematic and detailed research” regarding the determinants of innovation, calling it an unresolved issue that requires further investigations, something he believes to be crucial for a more prominent theoretical status of the SI approach (EDQUIST, 2001, p. 10). Based on Liu and White’s framework, Johnson and Jacobsson’s functional patterns and on other contributions, Edquist presents a list of activities he believes are important in systems of innovation: (1) Provision of Research and Development (R&D), creating new knowledge […]; (2) Competence building (provision of education and training, creation of human capital, […] individual learning; (3) Formation of new product markets; (4) Articulation of quality requirements emanating from the demand side with regard to new products; (5) Creating and changing organizations needed for the development of new fields of innovation […]; (6) Networking through markets and other mechanisms; […] interactive learning between different organizations (potentially) involved in the innovation process, […] integrating new knowledge elements developed in different spheres of the SI […]; (7) Creating and changing institutions […] that influence innovating organizations and innovation processes by providing incentives or obstacles […]; (8) Incubating activities […] providing access to facilities, administrative support, etc. for new innovative efforts; (9) Financing of innovation processes and other activities that can facilitate commercialization of knowledge and its adoption; (10) Provision of consultancy services of relevance for innovation processes, e.g. technology transfer, commercial information, and legal advice (EDQUIST, 2006, p. 190-191).
Edquist (2006, p. 190) adds that this list is by no means permanent and is subject to future adaptations, that the order of activities listed do not follow any importance criteria and simply “start with knowledge inputs to the innovation process, continues with the demand side factors, the provision of constituents of SI, and ends with support services for innovating firms”. Johnson (1998) also highlights the relevance of the concept of ‘function’ when studying SI and states that doing so may provide several benefits, not always apparent. The first benefit is to help set the boundaries of the SI, being open enough to consider different levels of analysis; second, the concept is also a tool for describing a SI’s structure or present state; third, it helps to understand the difficult topic of SI’s dynamics through the analysis of ‘functional patterns’; while also allowing for the performance of the SI to be addressed as well (fourth); and finally,
49
addressing function allows for the separation of actors in SI distinguishing those comparative studies that only focus on system’s structure from those interested in its functionality. Another contribution worth mentioning is the identification of main functions necessary for a positive performance of SIs presented by Hekkert et al. (2007). Even though these authors present a list of seven functions vital to the innovative activities within technological systems, Watkins et al. (2014) stand by their value for other systemic approaches. For Hekket et al. (2007), they are: (1) entrepreneurial activities; (2) knowledge development; (3) knowledge diffusion through networks; (4) guidance of the search; (5) market formation; (6) resources mobilization; and (7) creation of legitimacy/counteracting resistance to change. These functions are a vital addition to SI studies, which structured-focused analysis by then were considered by Hekkert et al. (2007) insufficient to understand the dynamics of innovation systems. 2.3.3.3 Key components’ and functions’ dynamics Considering the previously mentioned relevance of interaction (sometimes called feedback) in innovation processes, Edquist (2006) and Carlsson et al. (2002) emphasize the importance of analyzing the dynamic between NIS’s key components. A system without feedback would be static, and given that components capabilities shift and grow over time due to these interactions, its configuration naturally changes, which consequentially affect the system’s dynamics. They claim that the interactions between components can be both of market and non-market nature. Markets are very relevant in NIS for their co-ordination of transactions but they are usually not fit to handle the usual knowledge exchange and collaboration between interactive firms in learning processes (EDQUIST, 2006). The OECD’s report Dynamising National Innovation Systems (2002, p. 15) characterizes these interactions as competition (rival components); transactions (goods, services, or technology and tacit knowledge are traded between actors); and networking (knowledge transfer through collaborations, cooperation or long term arrangements). In another report – Managing National Innovation Systems, the OECD (1999) makes an analytical distinction between a narrow and broad use of the NIS concept. The narrow NIS concept is an integrated view of all institutional and economical agents involved in innovation’s generation and use, and allows the characterization of its key actors. The institutions in this narrow view can be classified by: (I) governments; (II) bridging
50
institutions; (III) private enterprises; (IV) universities; and (V) other public and private organizations. Governments’ role is setting policy directions; bridging institutions such as research councils or associations intermediate governments and research performers (private enterprises); while universities provide knowledge and skills and the other organizations play complementary roles, such the ones of public labs, patent offices, and training organizations (OECD, 1999).
FIGURE 3 – actors and linkages in innovation system Source: OECD (1999).
On the other hand, the broad NIS concept considers as well all the social, cultural and political institutions that affect the learning, search and exploring activities described by Lundvall’s (2007), such as “a nation’s financial system; its monetary policies; the internal organization of private firms; the pre-university educational system; labor markets; and regulatory policies and institutions” (OECD, 1999). The narrow system is embedded within the broad system, and the interactions between the institutions of both are called NIS linkages and reflect the absorptive capacity of the knowledge flows. These interactions can take place in an informal or formal way. The narrow system is called the NIS while the broad one is
51
called Nation Innovation Environment, both of them being included in a broader Global Innovation Environment. For Edquist (2006), institutions and organizations relations can take place in various ways. While some institutions can develop inside firms, there are also organizations that create institutions. Each of them may serve as basis for the creation of new institutions and organizations and they can also interact among themselves. Institutions can interact with other institutions in a collaborative or conflicting way, as the same can be said of organizations. Edquist (2001, p. 5) argues that “this emphasis on the complex relations between components constitutes a major advantage of the SI approach. However, it also constitutes a challenge since our knowledge about these relations is very limited”. The functions and activities of a SI are also of great relevance and must therefore be additionally investigated with components in order that innovation processes are fully understood (EDQUIST, 2001). As the author declares, functions/activities in a SI are usually the same in different countries, but the components that perform them usually vary. Edquist (2001) exemplifies this with the function of “research or creation of new knowledge”. That can be performed simultaneously or separately by universities, public research centers or by research-oriented firms. Also, components may perform more than a single function, like universities that create new knowledge while also training and developing human capital (BRUNDENIUS; LUNDVALL; SUTZ, 2009). Niosi (2002) describes similar relations while stressing the importance of the dynamics of a NIS. According to him, these systems are dynamic since […] financial flows between governmental and private organizations, […] human flows between universities, firms, and government laboratories, regulating flows emanating from government agencies towards innovation organizations and knowledge flows (spillovers) among these institutions (NIOSI, 2002, p. 292).
These flows are always present in nations, albeit some variations occur and it is why the relations between components and functions/activities also require attention. Niosi (2002) considers them to be the ‘building blocks’ of NIS, therefore, analyzing SI’s dynamics without them becomes an impossible task. 2.3.3.4 Key components – contributions so far Much like the evolving state-of-the-art of innovation studies, a lot of beliefs and conclusions regarding what are the most relevant actors/components in innovation change as the research in the field progresses. Mowery and Sampat (2006) agree to such perception and argue, for
52
example, that in the 1970s, very little attention was directed at universities and their role on innovation process, being this component only associated with basic research until then. The same can be said of governmental policy making, traditionally associated with industrial and technological processes up until the twentieth century, only becoming thoroughly associated with innovation processes after the 1980s. In a similar way, financial systems were only later included in the NIS concept (VERTOVA, 2014). As new questions and challenges arise, greater is the need to broaden the search for answers. As argued before, innovation studies are an ever expanding field of research, however, it is important to highlight the development of the knowledge assembled so far, regarding these components’ relevance, and as Fagerberg (2006) and Edquist (2006) argue, much of what we know until this point is condensed in the components of government, industry and university. Governments are naturally attached to the NIS concept given its ex-ante national boundaries and
the
cross-national comparisons based
on nations’
historical transformations
(LUNDVALL, 2007). Throughout the past decades it can be said that in the majority of NISrelated publications there has been a significant effort to describe and further refine government’s central role in innovation. While in some cases, it is openly placed as a protagonist having the incumbency of coordinating and integrating innovation systems (OECD, 1999), in others, governments are seen as crucial for allocating investments in academia, promoting knowledge production and diffusion, and in industry, boosting development by means of policy making and incentive programs (MOWERY; SAMPAT, 2006). There is a vast literature on government’s role and policy making implications in economies. They are broadly described as relevant in economic development in Ring et al. (2005), Ferreti and Parmentola (2015), while some authors like Aldrich and Fiol (2007), Block and Keller (2010), Spencer, Murtha and Lenway (2005) stress their importance in the creation of industries and authors like Von Tunzelmann (1995) claim they tend to concentrate only in high-tech sectors. Others such as Carrol, Goodstein and Gyenes (1988), Ruan, Hang e Wang (2014), Tao et al. (2009) detail this in specific industries cases, while some authors do so in specific countries like Hall (1986) and Murtha and Lenway (1994). There are also studies particularly based on the NIS concept like Bartels et al. (2012), Hashimoto et al. (2012) and Xiwei and Xiangdong (2007).
53
One of the current and most notorious scholars to argue for a governmental central role in innovation processes, Mazzucato (2011) claims that such perceptions regarding governments’ attributions in industrial development are usual to developing countries engaged in technological catch-up, however, it requires greater refinement. In her opinion, the state should be seen as much more proactive (entrepreneurial) in the promotion of industrial policy for innovations than simply funding basic science and providing infrastructure to activities in the private sector, claiming that there are strong evidences to support this. Mazzucato (2011) contests the general perception that innovation is only derived from the market and private sector, arguing that the state provides an indispensable support that the businesses are usually unable to sustain, like investing in early-stage R&D in specific areas (such as nanotechnology and green energies); supporting and modifying rules and norms to make them viable; by investing in networks that integrate efforts for innovation; and even by creating markets for diffusion purposes. Mazzucato’s (2011) claim of governmental proactivity could already be seen in OECD (1999) stance on how to promote long-term economic growth in today’s society. In the report Managing Innovation Systems there is an evident placement of government and its policy making tools in a crucial role of innovation processes, where it is argued that “governments face the task of strengthening innovation systems in order to take greater advantage of globalisation and the move to a knowledge-based economy” (OECD, 1999, p. 9). At this point, however, a distinction must be made between Mazzucato’s and the OECD’s positions. Mariana Mazzucato, a prominent scholar in the University of Sussex and in innovation studies, has received a lot of attention due to her detailed book about the Entrepreneurial State in 2013 and the lectures later given on the matter. Her position regarding the state’s role in the promotion of innovation is, however, more limited and polarized in terms of a systemic approach. As Mingardi’s (2015) critiques, Mazzucato portrays an unbalanced picture of government’s contributions by attempting to paint industrial policy as a hero with ‘missionoriented directionality” deserving of more credit for several technological inventions and innovations in the twentieth century. She fails to provide clear and unpretentious evidence of such intentionality, minimizing markets and the private sector’s actions and efforts, and completely disregarding consumer demands in the process (MINGARDI, 2015). This author heavily criticizes her position that the private sector is short-term focused, and states that her expansion of Freeman’s (1995) national comparison between Soviet Union’s and Japan’s
54
development is short-sighted, given that it portrays consumers as passive, state universities as ‘military-like’ controllable tools and the government as a safe port. Vertova (2014) agrees with Mazzucato’s (2011) stance for more governmental relevance, however, her position is sustained by a criticism of the NIS approach’s previous characterization of government. She claims that firms have the central role historically portrayed in NIS and that government has a secondary relevance, but she justifies this pointing the indirect placement it has received in the literature. Freeman’s (1987) analysis of Japan is a fine example, given that he does not mention the Japanese government directly, only its Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). Also, Vertova (2014) argues that the state’s contributions are usually indicated by limited policy making in specific interactions with other components, like industry policy and technology policy. She reclaims a more explicit role for the state, without being relegated to regulative or supporting tasks for private firms to be free and able to engage in innovation processes. Arguably, OECD’s (1999) description of government’s role is much more suited for analyzing the complex dynamics of innovation since it does not marginalize market demands, social needs, nor the private sector’s contributions. This is important given the already emphasized relevance of the interactive process of innovation. It is evident in the OECD’s (1999) report that innovation is credited to a much more balanced and complex network of various components in which government is relevant, without being excessively central or secondary: “enterprises are the main source of innovation; their performance depends on incentives provided by the economic and regulatory environment, their access to critical inputs […] and their internal capacity to seize market and technological opportunities” (OECD, 1999, p. 9). The report follows up by equally crediting – for economic development – clusters of innovative firms and public or private organizations, a position that we sustain as more balanced then Mazzucato’s (2011). Universities have also been one of the focal points of investigation and theory-building in relation with innovation studies, economics and management. They are often the locus of analysis or case studies in numerous papers, books and reports (SAXENIAN, 1994; LEYDESDORFF; ETZKOWITZ, 1996; SLAUGHTER; LESLIE, 1997; GODIN; GINGRAS, 2000; BALCONI; LABORANTI, 2006; YUSUF; NABESHIMA, 2007; GÖRANSSON; BRUNDENIUS, 2011) published on innovation not only for university’s perennial place in modern society, but also, for their changing contributions. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000)
55
say that university’s traditional mission since its institution has been teaching, whereas its second one – research – was widespread in the late nineteenth century. They argue that there are some universities still making this transition and that, given the relevance of research and education in the knowledge society, a third mission of economic development is increasingly being attached to universities, calling for a greater interaction with industry (ROSENBERG; NELSON, 1994), or as Brundenius, Lundvall and Sutz (2009) describe, interacting with society or the business. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) believe this to be a controversial issue in many continents, causing the questioning of universities’ role and contribution in society. In agreement, Mowery and Sampat (2006) indicate that addressing this third mission has been the concern of many governments since the 1970s, as evidenced by a series of investments in universities and other bridging institutions (science parks; incubators; seed capital funds) with the purpose of boosting local development and linking academic research to industrial innovation. Up until the 1970s, it was a general belief that investments in basic research at universities were sufficient to promote innovation. Mowery and Sampat (2006) argue that this was largely due to Vannevar Bush’s assessment of US national R&D systems after the Second World War in what became known as the Linear Model of innovation, in which R&D system are seen as innovation’s main sources (MAZZUCATO, 2011). This was later criticized by Kline and Rosenberg (1986) and many other policy-makers in the US, taking Japan’s example to this model’s limitations. Another conceptual framework used to describe universities’ relevance is the Mode 2, where research is viewed as a much more “interdisciplinary, pluralistic, ‘networked’ innovation system”, better suited for the diversity and scale of knowledge inputs in post-modern research (MOWERY; SAMPAT, 2006, p. 213). In this view, there is a perception that innovation is affected by a greater diversity of knowledge sources that requires intense collaboration of institutions, but Mowery and Sampat (2006) state that this does not diminishes universities relevance in the process. Another framework that centers universities in innovation systems (and is more renowned) is Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff’s (2000) Triple Helix. These authors claim that unlike other models where firms and governments had the leading role in innovation, in knowledge economy the university is the one that assumes this role in an enhanced way. The helix is assembled by academia, state and industry in a dynamic “overlay of communications, networks and organizations” that is neither static or synchronized (ETZKOWITZ; LEYDESDORFF, 2000, p. 112).
56
FIGURE 4 – Triple Helix Model of University–Industry–Government Relations Source: Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000).
This model has been widely used and diffused in academia and was even expanded to a Quadruple Helix (the fourth being society) and a Quintuple Helix (with natural environment as the fifth), however, Mowery and Sampat (2006) argue that it fails to provide relevance to the transformations in governmental and industrial spheres that are complementary to universities and also, that it inflates to some extent the industrial role of a few fields of research to universities as a whole. Although the Triple Helix contributes in highlighting the relevance of interactions among these institutions, they have limited “empirical or research advances” and are still of narrow value to future research (MOWERY; SAMPAT, 2006, p. 214). Cooke (2005) adds that even though this model is based on interaction, most of its research is limited to local-regional impacts. Since universities have a central role in the Triple Helix and its dynamics, the studies based on this model address out of the curve universities such as MIT (the main reference), Stanford, Cambridge, among others, and therefore become limited when analyzing the rule rather than distinguished exceptions. Studies made by Gunasekara (2005), Jensen and Tragardh (2004) show that applying a model that seems designed around the MIT has very limited results in average universities like in Australia and Sweden. Also, Brundenius, Lundvall and Sutz (2009) warn that simply applying the Triple Helix model in policy making as a complete alternative to the NIS approach and not as an analytical tool for specific subsystems consequentially narrows any systemic understanding of innovation
57
processes, capturing only specific science and technology related interactions while disregarding others. Universities are unquestionably vital to innovation to a point where asserting it is of trivial nature (BRUNDENIUS, LUNDVALL; SUTZ, 2009). In terms of economically relevant outputs, Mowery and Sampat (2006, p. 212) point to several contributions such as scientific and “technological information; equipment and instrumentations; skills or human capital; networks of scientific and technological capabilities; and prototypes for new products and processes”. Ferretti and Parmentola (2015) add that universities and research centers are usually linked to patent and licensing contributions to industry or firms, but on the contrary, they argue for many others, such as attracting knowledge from other locations; adapting foreign knowledge to local contexts; integrating separate areas of technological activity; and turning all of it into productive outcomes in the region they are part of. However, analyzing this requires taking into account that the institutional set-up of universities varies greatly across nations (ALBUQUERQUE et al., 2015), therefore, the functions performed by them usually are very specific to the historical path-dependency of a given country (various OECD reports and case studies show this).Cross-national analysis have indicated that countries with predominantly public universities and great dependency of public resources and funding for research are very different (for example, in co-authorship of knowledge production) from those where universities are usually private and rely more on private funding from industry, firms and investors (MOWERY; SAMPAT, 2006). Despite its relevance, Mowery and Sampat (2006) claim that there are serious limitations of data across time regarding universities’ role and impact on economic development and its interactions with other components or its comparison with other countries, which by consequence, limits the conceptual and theoretical development on the subject. Brundenius, Lundvall and Sutz (2009) differ from this perception by stating that the perception of universitiescontributions to national performances grows stronger. They suggest that universities should not be analyzed in isolation, rather, it would be fruitful to consider the totality of the university system as a component of a national innovation system (BRUNDENIUS, LUNDVALL; SUTZ, 2009). The other relevant component of innovation that has been widely explored is industry. It is important to point to the fact that it is usually addresses differently throughout disciplines. In economics, for example, it has been historically labeled as industry and its structure is vastly explored within technology or sector levels regarding technical advances (NELSON, 1982;
58
FREEMAN, 1982; PAVITT, 1991; ROSENBERG; NELSON, 1994; DOSI, 1995) and its diffusion (METCALFE, 1988; ROSENBERG, 1972). In the twentieth century, Pavitt (2006) argues that the industrial R&D laboratories became a major source of innovation, such processes are widely explored and documented (CHANDLER, 1977; BELL; PAVITT, 1993; NELSON, 1993; KIM, 1997). In this matter, Rothwell (1992) relevantly reminds the fact that from the 1950s to the 1980s there was a clear shift from university-based research towards technology-based firms and large corporations (such as pharmaceutical companies) while it also became increasingly influenced by commercial and market demands. Following Rothwell’s (1992) remarks, much of the contributions regarding the industry component refers to firms, organizations or corporations, even being referred to as manufacturing sector (FISCHER, 2001), which is something that admittedly does not simplify the efforts for understanding such component. A look at relevant contributions to innovation systems reveals a more varied description than Eztkowitz and Leydesdorf’s (2000) simplistic industry component classification. As Vertova (2014) shows, even in the pioneer work of Lundvall, Freeman and Nelson there are wide descriptions of what could be included under the industry. Lundvall (1992, p. 13) mentions “international organization of firms, interfirm relationship, […] R&D intensity and R&D organization”, while Nelson (1993) lists both firm and industrial R&D as does Freeman (1987, p. 4), recognizing “the conglomerate structure of industry” and the importance of “company research and development strategy”. Pavitt (2006, p. 87) believes this to be an outcome of “the fact that there is no widely accepted theory of firm-level processes of innovation that satisfactorily integrates the cognitive, organizational, and economic dimensions of innovation processes in firms”. For this author, this leads the economists to focus on economic incentives and outcomes of innovations (inputs/outputs); organizational specialists to focus on structural and procedural activities; and sociologists to focus on innovation’s social determinants and consequences. In economics, firms are to some extent disregarded as unit of analysis due historical theoretical issues such as exogenous views of technological progress, which Rosenberg’s (1982) Inside the Black Box calls to question, pointing some contributions of endogenous theories. In management, studies of firms/organizations/corporations obviously thrive given the discipline’s large interest in it, although in many ways, a macro perspective is not common like in economics. The perception that innovation is not exclusive to technological aspects but also organizational, managerial, production and commercial ones made way for
59
detailed investigations in this matter (ROTHWELL, 1992). In addition, Rothwell (1992) describes the evolution of corporate strategy towards innovative performance. From the 1950s to the 1960s, the focus was on R&D and manufacturing assembly; from the 1960s to the 1970s, on marketing; between the 1970s and the 1980s, accountancy and financial issues took over; from the 1980s to the 1990s, strategy-related moves were the core; and from the 1990s on, the emphasis was on flexibility, product diversity and quality and the technological issues around them. Arguably, technological development is not management’s main focus, although it is attached to firms’ strategies and capabilities (TEECE; PISANO; SHUEN, 1997; TIDD; BESSANT; PAVITT, 1999; LEVINTHAL, 1998) and is even regarded in some industry-related contributions in management (PORTER, 1990). However, the vast and diverse literature on this matter stemming from management (and sometimes micro-economics) is poorly integrated, theoretically speaking (LAM, 2006). In the attempt to classify the existing studies in ‘organizational innovation’, Lam (2006) proposes three different streams of contributions: organizational design; organizational cognition and learning; and organizational change and adaptation. The Organizational design stream gathers theories where an organization’s ability to innovate is closely related to its structure. Two contributions that she lists are references in management’s contingency theory – Burns and Stalker (1961) and Lawrence and Lorsh (1967). Mintzberg (1979) and its thorough assessment of structural configurations is also an example. Organizational cognition puts together theories and models concerned with a more micro understanding of organizations ability to learn and to create new knowledge or ideas (ARGYRIS; SCHON, 1978; NONAKA, 1994). Finally, the organizational change and adaptation stream emphasizes organizations overcoming of inertia and their actions of adaptability of external and technological shifts (BROWN; EISENHARDT, 1997; HANNAN; FREEMAN, 1977; ROMANELLI; TUSHMAN, 1994). It is evident that these streams are overlapping and interdependent, but all of them must be seen as alternative ways of looking at new ideas or behaviors that are created or adopted in organizations (LAM, 2006). Among the main components described and investigated in National Innovation Systems, Vertova (2014) argues that the financial one is usually overlooked and did not initially received much attention as the other ones. It was initially described in detail by some scholars (DOSI, 1990; CHRISTENSEN, 1992; TYLECOTE, 1994) but with the expansion of the
60
approach little attention was paid to it. O’Sullivan (2006) and Vertova (2014) point to the irony in this matter, given that most of its scholars’ main influence – Schumpeter – was the one to initially emphasize the importance of credit in entrepreneurial enterprises. The financial system is crucial to innovation finance and this is something simple to understand taking into account the fact that all activities surrounding innovation are costly (O’SULLIVAN, 2006). This becomes clear when analyzing the dynamics of NIS components. Christensen (1992), details the link between government and financial systems when distinguishing different systems dynamics: in market-oriented systems there is little state’s interference due to perfect competition; while in some credit-based systems the government heavily regulates financial institutions transfers and savings; and in some other credit-based systems, financial institutions are dominant and have little state’s interference. Another example is Malerba’s (2006) insights in his sectoral analysis of industries and the financial systems effect on resource allocation. Vertova (2014) argues that contributions like Christensen’s taxonomy, where the regulating aspects of government in terms of financial instruments were highlighted, made way for a stronger case for this to be included as an important component in NIS and to be further explored as a policy making tool in supra-national organizations such as the OECD. Ever since, the particularities of several instruments and their impact have been further explored in the literature such as “bank loans […]; grants and subsidies […]; business angels […]; venture capital […]; corporate venturing […]; crowd funding […]; and tax incentives” (VERTOVA, 2014, p. 12). O’Sullivan (2006) believes that future contributions will be able to expand this component’s relevance in innovation processes; however, for such a thing to happen she points to some obstacles that should be overcome like the lack of cross-fertilization between financial economists and evolutionary ones. Arguably, a similar problem is faced on research in management where organizational innovation studies have little interaction with others in the finance discipline. The brief overview of what has been published regarding the most notorious of innovation’s components shows a cross-disciplinarily character embedded in innovation, and mainly, the confluence of knowledge of what is known so far about them. All of the components are necessarily linked to each other as many authors indicate so, even when detailing only one of them (ALBUQUERQUE et al., 2015; COOKE, 2005; MOWERY; SAMPAT, 2006; OECD,
61
1999; REDDY, 2011; ROTHWELL, 1992). This will persist given that in a knowledge economy, new technologies make universities strengthen its links with industry; at the same time, policy-makers aiming for development make sure governments links with universities are also strengthened; and the industry in search of incentives and human capital also works towards
a
closer
interaction
with universities
and
governments
(ETZKOWITZ;
LEYDESDORFF, 2000; REDDY, 2011). Vertova (2014) adds that the financial system is equally linked to the other components such as governmental relations with banks to assure funding and industry and firm’s links to finance institutions in requesting grants and loans. There is no question regarding the dynamic nature of these relations and the benefits of analyzing it through a systemic approach, however, it is important to point out that innovation systems are also composed of other organizations and institutions that perform activities and functions between these key components. They are commonly known as innovation intermediaries and the collective efforts in academic research towards understanding and evaluating their contributions has been much more limited than the ones focused on universities, industry, governments and financial systems. The following topic will detail these intermediaries and present the published work regarding to this date. 2.4 Innovation intermediaries The seminal work of innovation systems authors such as Freeman (1987), Lundvall (1992) and Nelson (1993) and the contributions that followed them were for some time the central focus that much of the work involving SI’s key components revolved around. As this systematic framework and its national, regional and sectoral concepts were refined in time, an increasing concern for identifying and investigating other relevant components brought up important complementary insights. Like the previously mentioned claims of Edquist (2006), the work surrounding new components was, and still is, imperative for the systems of innovation framework to strengthen its theoretical foundations while also providing a more complete portrait of innovation dynamics complexity. The attempts to understand more precisely other components of SI are positive for shedding light in the gaps of organizations, institutions and relations between SI’s key components. This has led to the understanding that in every innovation system there are organizations whose purpose is not to directly innovate, but to connect other components that are themselves directly engaged in the promotion of innovation, also mediating interests and/or building relationships among them. These organizations are called intermediaries, whose
62
role in innovation dynamics has been investigated in a “limited yet growing body of work” (WATKINS et al., 2014, p. 2). Howells (2006, p. 270) defines an innovation intermediary as “an organization or body that acts as an agent or broker in any aspect of the innovation process between two or more parties”, while Koschatzky et al. (2014) define them as organizations that are placed between user and producers of knowledge, and whose provided services serve as a bridge between other actors in SI. Dalziel (2010, pp. 3-4) uses a broader definition in order to avoid being limited in the focus of technological innovation in the SI’s literature, while also remaining compatible with Schumpeter’s (1982) innovation definition by arguing that these intermediaries are “organizations or groups within organizations that work to enable innovation, either directly by enabling the innovativeness of one or more firms, or indirectly by enhancing the innovative capacity of regions, nations or sectors” (our emphasis). This author claims this definition to be purpose-based and slightly more abstract than others, allowing for more inclusive analysis of intermediaries, seeing all of them as a class, but at the same time, usefully determining which organizations are and are not considered intermediaries through their purposes. Dalziel (2010, p. 2) claims Howells (2006) was one of the first to perceive intermediaries as a class of organizations and adds that doing so is a way of drawing attention to them which are often “overlooked in studies of national, regional or sectoral systems of innovation” and whose role is also diminished in the triple helix model. The innovation intermediaries stem from different spheres, possibly being public, private or non-profit organizations, and Dalziel (2010, p. 4) lists as examples “industry or trade associations, economic development agencies, chambers of commerce, science […] parks, business incubators, research consortia and networks, research institutes, and standard organizations”, all of which are classified as such for having the purpose of enabling innovation. However, Dalziel (2010) distinguishes the aforementioned intermediaries from those with the purpose of enabling the development of individuals, such as professional societies and unions. There have been several descriptions and exploratory work of intermediary components in innovation-related publications that precede the SI approach’s rise and expansion. Howells (2006, p. 715) argues these contributions to be historically associated to technological and innovation issues, dating back from the sixteenth to eighteenth century in studies of
63
“middlemen” in agricultural and textile industries in Britain. Since the 1980s, this author claims that the interest in intermediaries’ role can be identified in the work of scholars concerned with technology transfer and diffusion; the management of such intermediaries; service organizations and the SI approach. For Warnke et al. (2016), since then, more contemporary research streams have expanded the interest in the study of these intermediaries while also showing the need for further research on their influence in innovation systems. Like much initial contributions in different research fields, there was no consensus regarding how innovation intermediaries should be named. They have been investigated under terminologies such as bridging organizations (CZARNITZKI; SPIELKAMP, 2000; SAPSED; GRANTHAM; DEFILLIPPI, 2007); bridgers (BESSANT; RUSH, 1995; MCEVILY; ZAHEER, 1999); brokers (HARGADON; SUTTON, 1997; PROVAN; HUMAN, 1999; KLERKX; LEEUWIS, 2009); boundary organizations (CASH, 2001); intermediary firms (STANKIEWICZ, 1995); intermediary agencies (BRAUN, 1993); third parties (MANTEL; ROSEGGER, 1987) and superstructure organizations (LYNN; REDDY; ARAM, 1996). Similarly, Koschatzky et al. (2014) use the term associations as a way to represent the confluence of efforts towards a common goal. Specifically in the systems of innovation literature, there seems to be a consensus in using the term intermediaries (VAN DER MEULEN; RIP, 1998; KUHLMANN; ARNOLD, 2001; VAN LENTE, et al., 2003; HOWELLS, 2006; DALZIEL, 2010; DALZIEL; PARJANEN, 2012; MEYER; KEARNES, 2013; WATKINS et al., 2014), especially in studies using the regional innovation systems concept (SMEDLUND, 2006; NILSSON; SIA-LJUNGSTRÖM, 2013; PONS; MARTÍNS; PARRILLI, 2014; KOSCHATZKY et al., 2014; PARKER; HINE, 2014; PONS, 2015). These recent scholar efforts towards intermediaries are seen by Dalziel (2010) as an important step for theory building of their role and relevance in SI, which is something that received little attention in the early work on the systemic approach of innovation (HOWELLS, 2006; KOSCHATZKY et al., 2014), and will likely play an important part in its evolution (PHAN; SIEGEL; WRIGHT, 2005). However, as Howells (2006) points out, there needs to be a greater convergence and connection between the future contributions on intermediaries given that most of what has been published is of eclectic nature and has overlapping topics, generally with weak theoretical bases and a very limited assessment of their role in SI.
64
Bennet (1998) uses Olson’s (1971) taxonomy of collective action to identify two different logics behind business associations. The logic of services indicates that associations aim towards the demands of individual members, mobilizing its staff and resources to attend to these members’ needs and inquiries to promote their competitiveness. Associations under this logic have a cost structure that revolves less on collective fees and more on individual ones. On the other hand, the associations under a logic of influence focus on the collective representation of all of its members (or their majority) and their interests. Their cost structure relies more on the general subscriptions of members than in the fees individually collected among them. In terms of these intermediaries functions, Howells (2006) claims that much of the early work about them was limited to the scanning and exchange of information, being only sparsely developed beyond this in other studies that also highlighted technology transfer. Koschatzky et al. (2014, p. 4) present a similar view while calling for enlarged and further detailed views of associations’ functions, which they mention as: collective bargaining; self-regulation, representation and lobbying; and forum or club activities. Bessant and Rush (1995) presented a list of functions specifically related to consultants as intermediaries, considered by Howells (2006) as the broadest one at the time. These functions cover: (I) articulation of specific needs; (II) identification of needs; (III) investment appraisal;
(IV)
identification
and
development;
(V)
education
information
and
communication; and (VI) project management. Howells (2006) believes to be likely that other functions and relevant support are provided by intermediaries, along with more complex mediation and establishment of relationships. He highlights the fact that the interactions these intermediaries are engaged in are becoming more diverse, elaborate and lasting, and as a result, the networks being developed in this context are of increasing importance. The author considers most of the existing work on intermediaries to be focused on the functions they perform rather than the relationship networks they provide, to which he believes “much more research needs to be undertaken into the nature of the relationships that intermediaries exist in, over and above this more detailed outline of their functions and activities” (HOWELLS, 2006, p. 725). For him, focusing on such relationships may bring vital insights in SI’s research regarding intermediaries’ relevance in policy making. Related to the aforementioned lobbying activities, Watkins et al. (2014) claim that in the early work of NIS, politics were completely omitted from the outline of systems, which is
65
something they believe explains why there has been so little attention devoted to industry associations in this literature. They argue that these associations are viewed negatively by many economists and political scientists and even exemplify Adam Smith’s accusations of lobbying by industry associations in its book The Wealth of Nations (WATKINS et al., 2014). The negative connotations that these associations were related to in terms of politics do not invalidate, however, the fact that their activities of information collection and diffusion; the provision of collective goods among its members; and their network configuration puts them in the exact position that intermediaries organizations in SI are thought to be relevant. They complement this by pointing to case studies in technological systems that, unintendedly, found evidence that intermediary institutions such as industry associations are important actors in both positive and negative politics and negotiations, which they see as “inevitable and central […] processes through which institutions are informed, policy adjustments are made and incentives gained, industry standards are set and favorable market conditions created” (WATKINS et al., 2014, p. 9). Some innovation intermediaries may be positioned within business communities, governments; industries or academia, while some of them purposely act (DALZIEL, 2010) in what is called the innovation gap (DASGUPTA; DAVID, 1994; KAUFMANN; TÖDTLING, 2001;
MURPHY;
EDWARDS,
2003;
WESSNER,
2005),
the
space
between
academic/research and business/industry communities with divergent goals and distinctively measured performance. The purpose of such intermediaries is not primarily to succeed themselves, but to strive for the success of their members or clients (DALZIEL, 2010). Regarding the role of intermediaries between governments, universities and private research centers, Braun (1993) presents interesting arguments. Although his theoretical basis is not specifically pertained to innovation systems, the author analyses how semi-public intermediary funding agencies are influenced by the scientific community in their relationship with government policy-makers. Braun (1993) calls these intermediaries as “missionagencies” and claims that their emergence is largely related to the fact that science became an interest of policy-makers due to its potential contributions to national-related issues. Interestingly, however, it is through the author’s arguments that these intermediaries emerged due to the inadequacy of universities and private research centers to carry out the adequate research to address such societal needs. Braun (1993) mentions the OECD’s (1972) perceptions that
these
universities and
research centers
lacked
the
appropriate
multidisciplinary and flexible environment needed to carry out the knowledge transfer and
66
specific research strategie to national issues, which justifies to some extent the establishment of these mission-agencies. Braun (1993) concludes from mission-agencies established in the US, the UK, France and Germany that they have the positive effects of decentralizing and unburdening governments, while also contributing to policy-making formulation, but this may come to an expense of possible misuse of the power and resources granted to third-parties. Dalziel (2010) shares Braun (1993) and Howells’ (2006) interest in the potential developments of intermediaries in policy making and complements by stressing that it is necessary to devote efforts in understanding the role they play. Not doing so is what Dalziel (2010) believes to be the reason why governments have a shallow understanding of intermediaries’ relevance in promoting innovation, therefore allocating little to inexistent resources towards them. The difficulties in tangibly assessing the contributions of such intermediaries are a great impediment for justifying public investments in them, so further research dedicated towards the measurement of their impact is also important (DALZIEL, 2010). In order to fully understand which services innovation intermediaries provide or what functions they have in innovation systems, a bibliographic research was carried out to map all publications detailing these services4. From the 71 publications found, 26 of them presented descriptions of these services. None of these descriptions are of associations of science parks, yet the different types of intermediaries which they detail offer relevant insight on possible services provided by the associations investigated in this thesis. Bessant and Rush (1995) list six main services (as previously mentioned) provided by consultants. Carlsson (1995) uses firms to mention: (I) global monitoring,; (II) testing; (III) building of demonstration plants; and the (IV) dissemination of results. Bennet (1998, 2000) uses business associations to indicate their provision of: (I) information; (II) advice; (III) benchmarking; (IV) lobbying; (V) conferences; (VI) social events; (VII) newsletters; (VIII) accreditation and status; (IX) regulation; and (X) social responsibility. Hargadon (1998) mentions knowledge brokers and details its: (I) access; (II) learning; (III) linking; and (IV) implementation activities. Cash (2001) presents boundary organizations to highlight their: (I) negotiation between boundary levels; (II) mediation of information flows; and (III) advantage building. Damsgaard and Lyytinen (2001) detail: (I) establishing and distributing knowledge;
4
See topic 3.5.1 for its methodological aspects.
67
(II) mobilizing; (III) regulating; (IV) reconciling; and (V) lobbying activities of trade associations. Van Lente et al. (2003) provide a detailed description of intermediaries, categorizing them as hard, soft or systemic. Hard intermediaries provide: (I) knowledge or technology transfer; (II) technical services; and (III) mobility of researchers, while soft intermediaries concentrate on management support providing: (I) innovation and business strategy support; (II) technology transfer; (III) skills and human resources; and (IV) technology-related knowledge. The systemic intermediaries they describe combine the services of hard and soft intermediaries with additional: (I) demand articulation; (II) mobilization of relevant actors; and (III) organizing and aligning discourse. Howells (2006) offers a broad range of services in its review paper about intermediary organizations: (I) foresight and diagnostics; (II) information scanning and processing; (III) knowledge processing; (IV) gatekeeping and brokering; (V) testing and validation; (VI) accreditation;
(VII)
validation
and
regulation;
(VIII)
protecting
results;
(IX)
commercialization; and (X) outcome evaluation. Dalziel (2006) describes industry associations as enablers, mentioning: (I) hosting knowledge-sharing meetings; (II) lobbying; (III) training; and (IV) joint promotional activities as their provided services. Bennet and Ramsden (2007) added: (I) status; and (II) networking services to previous descriptions of business associations. Also, Johnson’s (2008) profiling of intermediary organizations describes their role as: (I) mediator/arbitrator; (II) sponsor; (III) legitimator; (IV) technology broker; and (V) management provider. These functions are further detailed by Dalziel (2010) under what she considers to be intermediaries’ activities: interorganizational networking; technology development; and other activities. Interorganizational networking is one of the most common support provided by them through the influence of knowledge flows or resource allocation of its members in the absence of quality information or know-how. They become useful by enabling bilateral or multilateral exchanges while also combining the expertise and information of its members for their own benefit, both in a separate or collective way. Lobbying is also a possible activity of these networks and it has been identified in studies of intermediaries like industry associations, trade associations, regional institutions and enterprise networks. Technology development activities are performed by fewer intermediaries consisting of direct/indirect resource
68
allocation in the development of potentially useful technologies, or the access to expertise and equipment necessary to do so. The other activities Dalziel (2010) mentions are complementary to the other two, as she exemplifies by science parks and business incubators’ providence of physical space, specialized training and financing partnerships. All of these provided services are described in similar ways by other authors such as Inkinen and Suorsa (2010), Xiaoyuang and Yanning (2011), Dalziel and Parjanen (2012), Nakwa and Zawdie (2012), Meyer and Kearnes (2013), Agogué, Yström, and Le Masson (2013), Conklin et al. (2013), Koschatzky et al. (2014), Kivimaa (2014), Kesting and Wurth (2015), and Pinto et al. (2015). More recently, Warnke et al. (2016) have followed up on Dalziel (2010) and Howells’ (2006) comments on the need to expand research on intermediaries, specifically in the SI approach. For them, most of the policy making towards innovation is based on what they call “classic understanding” of the SI’s structures, components and dynamics, but new developments in today’s society and the emergence of new actors and forms of innovation are yet to be considered in this approach. These authors mention: user innovation; social innovation; collaborative innovation; venture philanthropy; social and relational capital; and non R&Dintensive industries as research streams that have brought up important aspects of innovation’s dynamics that are not able to be incorporated in the classic SI approach and its traditional actors, like the “cluster and network management organizations which support the specific interests of their members” (WARNKE et al., 2016, p.4). Among the graphic attempts to represent SI and its components Warnke et al. (2016) use what they believe is the most representative one in the field, the framework of Kulhmann and Arnold (2001), portrayed in Figure 5. This framework is composed by the traditional actors in the SI, with a particular focus in the academic (education and research system), industry and government (political system) components. The actors and activities related to financial systems are divided among infrastructure and framework conditions. In the framework, Kulhmann and Arnold (2001) position the intermediaries of innovation between academic and industrial components, identifying them under the names of research institutes and brokers. This framework has been widely used to describe and elaborate specific nations and regions’ SI since it was first published, yet Warnke et al. (2016) argue that in the light of recent transformations in the dynamics of innovation and the emergence of new actors and activities, this representation of intermediaries is somewhat limited.
69
FIGURE 5 – Innovation system framework Source: Kuhlmann and Arnold (2001).
In Figure 5, although it is possible to perceive how these intermediaries influence and are influenced by academic and industrial components, we argue that it fails to represent governments and financial institutions’ influence as well. Evidently, depending on which intermediaries one is investigating, such influences may be indirect, but we believe that science parks are a fine example of intermediaries that have a direct relationship, influence and dependency with governmental and financial components from their very establishment. Warnke et al. (2016) claim that this initial framework limits the role of intermediaries to transfer knowledge from the academic components to private businesses, or to the role of knowledge exploitation from the companies towards the academic component. They consider this a simplistic assumption for today’s wider set of actors (“public or private research institutes service providers, networks, clusters, public agencies”) and their complex relationships (WARNKE et al., 2016, p. 18). Also, they claim that it became more difficult to ascertain the functions performed by each of these intermediaries, parallel to Nauwelaers’ (2011) arguments that their influence and relationships extend to other components and subsystems in the framework. Beyond the intermediaries already considered in Dalziel’s (2010) definition and other case studies, Warnke et al. (2016, p. 20) call for the examination of “new intermediary actors” like individuals and associations that have yet to be investigated in innovation studies like trade unions, clusters, networks, action groups, citizens and various clubs. Doing so would not only
70
contribute to the knowledge on innovation systems itself, but also for the ability to recognize the specificities of SI throughout different countries and regions, given that these intermediaries are themselves uniquely influential and influenced by SI’s structures and dynamics (KOSCHATZKY et al., 2014; WARNKE et al., 2016). Regarding the motivation behind associations’ emergence and the purpose they fulfill in SI, Koschatzky et al. (2014) provide valuable insights. They claim that from an economic perspective these associations are perceived as a service provided by the joint forces of actors with similar goals. These actors behave rationally to form an association due to the influence it may achieve as an interest group, therefore acting in their favor in negotiations with other public or private actors and spheres. In addition to this economic perspective, the authors mention some contributions from social sciences, especially through Bennett’s (1998) and Ostrom’s (2000) inputs on networks and intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. All actors that have similar goals within SI possess a link between each other (even if unexplored), which Koschatzky et al. (2014) refer to as latent relationships and Bennett claims is “both the precondition for and the result of association” (BENNETT, 1998 apud KOSCHATZKY et al., 2014, p. 9): […] actors in innovation systems sometimes face situations in which they may want to attain similar goals, feel similar needs or wish to develop a joint strategy. It can happen that these actors do not have enough power or resources to accomplish these goals on their own, or that they have the impression of being more powerful when acting together with others. (KOSCHATZKY et al., 2014, p. 10).
When such actors are aware of each other’s goals and act upon it to share and collectively pursue them, associations are forged, what can be considered as an engagement of individual, therefore, intrinsic motivation. As for extrinsic factors that may motivate the establishment of associations, Koschatzky et al. (2014) mention structural and technological changes or even crisis in a given SI, as well as these systems’ institutional characteristics (rules and habits). Another relevant issue when analyzing associations is understanding that their specific functions will always be linked to the needs of its members. These associations’ members may be collectively homogeneous or heterogeneous, while individually belonging to different spheres in the public, private or non- profit spheres, therefore, the structure and composition of any association must be thoroughly examined to determine its activities and purposes (KOSCHATZKY et al., 2014).
71
Watkins et al. (2014) have a similar position to the one presented by Koschatzky et al. (2014) regarding the relevance of associations in the SI literature. These authors highlight particularly the study of industry associations, arguing it to be a vital opportunity to expand the general emphasis on macro level interpretations in the NIS literature towards processes and interactions between actors and new intermediaries that take place in a micro level. They claim that studying such associations may provide helpful observations on knowledge exchange between institutions while also enlarging these institutions relevance in the SI approach, something they believe has been diminished over the years. 2.5 Why choose the national level of analysis As previously mentioned, innovation can be analyzed through a variety of systemic concepts and frameworks, each of them with different focuses and characteristics. In this research, the adopted concept is the National Innovation Systems, in order to investigate innovation and to pursue answers to the questions and objectives listed in the introduction. This choice can be understood by some arguments presented by innovation studies scholars. Lundvall (2007) argues that the very basic goal behind the initial efforts of SI’s scholars was to link innovation processes and the elements that influence them to economic performance. This explains why there is a great focus on innovation policy in these studies and that their majority adopts a NIS approach. In his view, even though other concepts are relevant to understand innovation dynamics, the institutions and organizations involved in it are directly affected by policies, incentives and obstacles that are of a national level. Lundvall (2007) claims that the definition of innovation consequentially affects the way an SI is analyzed, and since economic performance is usually affected by a complex diversity of components and relations within national boundaries, the NIS concept seems to be more adequate for a broader analysis of innovation. Also, the adoption the NIS approach relates to the central role of knowledge and learning, which Lundvall (2007) sees as a crucial feature to understand innovation’s relevance in the knowledge economy. The elements in a SI that produce knowledge are usually located in a certain place and are difficult to be moved given that they are embedded in agents, firms’ routines, people and organizations’ relationships, to understand this is perhaps the key to promoting relevant changes in economies (ETZKOWITZ; LEYDESDORFF, 2000).
72
Niosi (2002) follows Lundvall’s reasoning by stating that the mobility of knowledge flows is far more limited when compared to other production factors such as capital. Therefore, knowledge does not cross national borders easily, mostly for being stored in a tacit way in human capital. Similarly, Vertova (2014, p. 4) emphasizes that the tacit aspect of knowledge and innovation shape them in a “context-specific and localized” way, making geographical aspects necessary sometimes. Also, Niosi (2002, p. 292) emphasizes that other crucial factors like “governmental regulations, public and semi-public institutions, and natural resources” are equally constrained by national boundaries and locations. In this author’s opinion, the NIS concept is vital to understand and describe the behavior and performance of the institutional set-up vital to economic performance – which is the case of the associations of SPs investigated in this research. Metcalfe (1995) believes that cultural and social factors are other examples of why national borders are relevant in the SI approach. He argues that shared language, cultural habits, behavior and norms are boundaries for knowledge flows. They naturally constrain knowledge flows, but in a positive way, binding the system together. 2.6 Theoretical assessment of National Innovation Systems After detailing the innovation studies field, the systems of innovation approach, the national innovation systems concept and the innovation intermediaries, a final assessment on the theoretical and analytical status of NIS is required. Due to the relatively fast diffusion of the SI’s concepts and their broad acceptance and use from various scholars, organizations and governments, their validity and theoretical status are naturally questioned (LUNDVALL, 2007). Edquist (1997, 2006) unreservedly addresses this theoretical status stating that the SI approach is not a formal theory, rather, it should be considered as an approach or a conceptual framework. He argues that there are still no specific premises for the SI’s variables’ causal relations although this approach “can be used to formulate conjectures for empirical testing”, but to a limited extent (EDQUIST, 2006, p. 186). Two of the reasons sustaining Edquist’s position are the conceptual diffuseness (I) of the term institutions5 and (II) of the boundaries used to classify and limit systems6. Without clearly
5 6
Detailed in topic 2.3.3.1. Detailed in topic 2.3.1.
73
defined concepts, he claims, there will be obstacles in the identification of the empirical correspondents of the theoretical constructs trying to be investigated in NIS, consequentially making it harder to collect the necessary data (EDQUIST, 2006). He describes these as weaknesses and emphasizes the importance of addressing them so that the SI approach and its concepts evolve and our comprehension of innovation processes is better systematized. He believes it would be impossible to assume that we can eventually specify and make sense of all components and their relations in systems of innovation. Edquist (2006, p. 187) stance is that the SI approach must not be turned into a “general theory of innovation” and exemplifies Von Bertalanffy’s (1960) ”general system theory”, which he also believes is more an approach than a theory itself. Even though the conceptual diffuseness of the term institutions can be addressed without much problem, he mentions that the definition of system’s boundaries should not be pursued in a deterministic way, for this would lead to a “closed system” and, much like Von Bertalanffy’s perception, the system notion must be used to make sense of complex phenomenon, but not to control them. Others such as the OECD (2002) and Fischer (2001) believe the NIS approach to be under theorized in operational aspects. Vertova (2014) on the other hand, calls to question this normative view – especially in the OECD – for it tries to control or easily induce innovation by means of policy making. Lundvall’s (2007, p. 99) response to Edquist’s opinion of NIS not being a theory is that it is more of a ‘focusing device’ and that it arguably “serves as an equivalent to what is normally defined as theory”. Much like in other social sciences, the NIS concept can be used to organize and focus analysis while aiding in the explanation and rationalization of a certain phenomenon’s dynamics – as would a theory (LUNDVALL, 2007). Lundvall et al. (2002) believe this debate around the NIS concept to be a natural response to its recent rise and diffusion, while also arguing for its deepening and clarification. Fischer (2001) also prefers to classify NIS as a framework, but he equally agrees with Lundvall et al. (2002) that this is the case of the concept’s early stage of development. However, this author, alongside Edquist (2001), is consensual in terms of the future opportunities and promising advances to be made within national innovation systems. Edquist (2001, 2006) argues that the most fruitful way to strengthen the NIS theoretical status is to pursue further theoretical-based empirical work (both qualitative and quantitative) regarding the activities and components (determinants) relevant to innovation’s development,
74
diffusion and use, specifically because they are expected to vary between countries and also over time and space. Lundvall also points this as an important matter and claims that addressing it is vital to strengthen the system in NIS: The innovation process may be seen as an intricate interplay between micro and macro phenomena where macro-structures condition micro-dynamics and vice versa new macro-structures are shaped by micro-processes. In a dynamic context this means that we need to understand systems as being complex and characterized by co-evolution and self-organizing (LUNDVALL, 2007, p. 101).
Edquist (2006, p. 200) claims there is still “limited systematic knowledge about the determinants of innovation” and calls for more case studies, especially comparative ones, in order to help increase the ability to better understand innovation-related activities and also to sharpen the specifications of systems boundaries. For this author, focusing on the study of determinants and their relations is vital since innovation is most likely a multi-causal process and that there is still no consensus regarding which functions and activities should or should not be included in SI. Weaknesses aside, Edquist (2006) and Lundvall (2007) are convinced that the innovation systems approach and the NIS concept have distinct features that make it a promising framework to be used in innovation studies. The first – and most crucial - advantage is the central role of learning processes on innovation processes. This originated from Lundvall’s (1992) emphasis that in the knowledge economy the most important resource is knowledge and therefore, the most relevant process is learning. This perception gained a lot of support and was diffused by many other scholars (EDQUIST, 1997, 2001, 2006) and is regarded as an important distinction “from other approaches that regard technological change and other innovations as exogenous” (EDQUIST, 2006, p. 185). Lundvall (2007) later expanded on this and placed interaction and communication as vital to learning processes in the knowledge infrastructure and among firms and institutions. Lundvall (2007) argues that there are several assumptions that support the link between knowledge and learning to innovation systems, such as: (I) the elements of knowledge relevant to economic performance are locally embedded; (II) these elements are also embodied in people and firms’ routines and in their relations; (III) innovation systems’ strongest characteristic is interaction; (IV) economic analysis of interactive learning are insufficient given its social aspects; (V) learning and innovation are different processes but
75
are strongly linked; and (VI) that national innovation systems can also be distinguished in terms of their knowledge base. Lundvall (2007) recognizes that some progress has been made in this regard, but stresses this is a future avenue to be pursued in NIS since there is a certain bias in this literature to activities related to science, while experience-based learning related activities are neglected in some extent. One of the main challenges in NIS today is to pursue the development of organizations and relationships of competence building (LUNDVALL, 2007). Another advantage Edquist (2006) highlights is the historical and evolutionary perspective of innovation systems along with its optimality notion. For this author, it is irrelevant trying to define optimal SI due to the fact that innovation is perceived as an evolutionary process that develops over time and is influenced by several factors and parallel processes. Lundvall agrees with this perception and further elaborates on it when arguing that the NIS is actually a part of models stemming from evolutionary economics: Innovation systems may be defined in evolutionary terms with reference to how different national systems create diversity, reproduce routines and select firms, products and routines. It is also obvious that a focus on co-evolution of production structure, technology and institutions is useful when it comes to understanding the historical transformation of national innovation systems (LUNDVALL, 2007, p. 106).
Lundvall (2007) concludes by claiming that the main reason for seeing NIS as evolutionary is the previously described central (and strategic, in his opinion) role of knowledge and learning. He believes that any innovation system’s analysis is in fact an investigation of how knowledge has evolved in a given nation by means of innovation and learning processes. Edquist (2006) also emphasizes the strength of innovations systems’ interdependence and non-linearity characteristics. This is evidence of the understanding of the multi-causal and collaborative aspects of innovation, which is not only affected by its various components, but also their complex and dynamic relations. Lundvall (2007) follows Edquist by stating that innovation in seen as the outcome of ongoing activities and efforts, and ads that: […] the focus is upon how enduring relationships and patterns of dependence and interaction are established and dissolved as time goes by. New competences are built while old ones are destroyed. At each point in time there are patterns of collaboration and communication that shape the innovation system but, of course, the system is also evolving in a process of creative destruction of both knowledge and relationships (LUNDVALL, 2007, p. 109-110).
Soete, Verspagen and Wel (2010) agree with Lundval and Edquist’s emphasis on exploring SI’s determinants and its interactions arguing that:
76
the innovation systems view provides a natural conceptual framework for studying the systemic interactions and complementarities between the various sources of innovation, both R&D and non-R&D in explaining firms’ successes and failures in innovation. (SOETE et al., 2010,p. 1167)
This is simultaneously a challenge and a virtue of the NIS concept. While it shows that crossnational comparisons must be broader than just input/output analysis and need to be addressed in a more complex and dynamic way, it demands that the limited knowledge we have regarding these relations is confronted (LUNDVALL , 2007). Finally, Edquist (2006) lists as an advantage the SI’s comprehensive concept of innovation that grants the ability to investigate all forms or innovation, rather than just specific ones. Although Lundvall (2007) and Edquist (2006) agree that the majority of contributions using the NIS concept focus on technological innovations, there is a clear path to investigate various innovation types that can and should be pursued. Soete, Verspagen and Weel (2010) conclude that the SI literature has brought up important questions that mainstream economics has not yet been able to properly answer (and likely won’t be), which calls for contributions from other disciplines. Questions such as which other innovation inputs and outputs should be considered; how to address the dynamic nature of agents in the innovation process and the central interactive learning in it; or what are the contributions of social capital, leave an open door to contributions outside of the innovation literature and show, much like Fagerberg, Fosaas and Sapprasert (2012) point out, that innovation studies are inherently multidisciplinary (SOETE; VERSPAGEN; WEEL, 2010). Similarly, Lundvall (2007) considers the NIS concept open and flexible and adds that it might be used as a framework to converge different contributions to the study of innovation. Parallel to these arguments, Niosi (2002) believes that management possesses the methodological and theoretical tools that can contribute greatly to the NIS concept. Like Fagerberg, Fosaas and Sapprasert (2011) show, innovation is indeed a complex phenomenon and its studies require cross-disciplinary contributions to properly evolve. 2.7 Science Parks The crucial role that knowledge and information have been playing in today’s society along with the perception that intangible inputs such as learning are vital in knowledge-based economies
placed
national
and
regional development
in
a
prominent
position
(CASSIOLATO; LASTRES; MACIEL, 2003; ZOUAIN; PLONSKI, 2012). In this context, innovation and technology changes became the base of an economic competition that
77
substituted the former cost-advantage-based one, turning innovation into a trend topic and also a converging point of economics, management, policy making and entrepreneurship research interested in the competitiveness of countries, regions, sectors and organizations (GYURKOVICS; LUKOVICS, 2014). At this point, instruments and mechanisms became vital to identify, facilitate and strengthen the links between universities and industry, as well as other relevant components in order to promote economic development in a variety of ways (VEDOVELLO, 2000). The perception that innovation involves a variety of determinants in a complex dynamic has supported a wide array of research of the components of innovation processes and their specific influences. In the midst of investigations of links between governments, universities and industries, a great deal of research has been made regarding how to strengthen such interactions in the last thirty years. However, there are still limitations and gaps to be addressed, especially a systemic assessment of science parks and their collective relevance in innovation processes. This section focuses on one of the most notorious of these mechanisms – science parks – also detailing other technology business incubation mechanisms. Their origin, evolution, definitions, specificities and academic relevance are scrutinized as well as the gaps and limitations regarding their study. Then, the focus of this research is introduced – associations of Science Parks – and the validity and potential contributions of it are discussed and confronted with the systems of innovation and innovation intermediaries approaches. 2.7.1 Concepts and definitions Several definitions of what constitutes a science park can be found and no uniform concept in academic literature can be found (GYURKOVICS; LUKOVICS, 2014). They present some variations due to the time extent the SPs first appeared, the transformations they have been through, and their current state. In order to cope with this issue, Albahari, Peréz-Canto and Landoni (2010) use the definitions coined by national and international associations of SPs. Given that these associations are directly involved in the development of SPs and gather a great deal of expertise in it, these authors, and also Gyurkovics and Lukovics (2014), argue to be adequate using their definitions for a better understanding of what SPs are and work towards. Next, these definitions are lined up for a thorough comparison, with the addition of one from a similar Brazilian association.
78
For the International Association of Science Parks: A science park is an organisation managed by specialised professionals, whose main aim is to increase the wealth of its community by promoting the culture of innovation and the competitiveness of its associated businesses and knowledgebased institutions. To enable these goals to be met, a Science Park stimulates and manages the flow of knowledge and technology amongst universities, R&D institutions, companies and markets; it facilitates the creation and growth of innovation-based companies through incubation and spin-off processes; and provides other value-added services together with high quality space and facilities (IASP, 2016).
For the Association of University Research Parks: [A] university research park as [is]a property-based venture, which master plans property designed for research and commercialization; creates partnerships with universities and research institutions; encourages the growth of new companies; translates technology; [and] drives technology-led economic development (AURP, 2016).
For the United Kingdom Science Parks Association: A Science Park is a business support and technology transfer initiative that encourages and supports the start-up and incubation of innovation-led, high-growth, knowledge-based businesses; provides an environment where larger and international businesses can develop specific and close interactions with a particular centre of knowledge creation for their mutual benefit; has formal and operational links with centres of knowledge creation such as universities, higher education institutes and research organisations (UKSPA, 2016).
For the National Association of Entities Promoting Innovative Enterprise: A technology park is a planned, concentrated and cooperative productive complex of industrial and scientific-technological base servicesof formal character, which aggregates companies whose production is based on technological research developed in the parks’ R&D centers. It is an enterprise that promotes innovation culture, competitiveness and business skills development, based on the transfer of knowledge and technology, with the aim of increasing a region’sproduction of wealth (ANPROTEC, 2016).7
These definitions present several common points and a few divergent ones. All of them have a focus on technology-based results, and with the exception of AURP, they mention knowledge as a vital component. All four definitions point to the interactive character of SPs, albeit by different terminology: IASP (flows); AURP (partnerships); UKSPA (interactions); Anprotec (cooperative). The definition provided by the IASP is the only one to clearly highlight a specialized management, while UKSPA’s is the sole one to mention large companies as targets. Phan, Siegel and Wright (2005, p. 167) have a more direct definition similar to these, arguing that these mechanisms are “property-based organizations with identifiable administrative centers focused on the mission of business acceleration through knowledge 7
Our translation.
79
agglomeration and resource sharing”. Vedovello, Judice and Macula (2006) claim that the definition of Science Parks has changed not only due to the different experiences and formats around the world, but also due to the need of its changing character and of accommodating its several stakeholders and their various contributions. Albahari, Peréz-Canto and Landoni (2010) believe the IASP’s definition to be the broadest one, encompassing all possible initiatives related to SPs, and based on these information, point at three common features of SPs: formal links to universities or research centers; knowledge-based tenant companies; and an active management engaged in technology transfer. Massey, Quintas and Wield (1992) claim that SPs pursue three basic goals: economic development; local benefits; and technology transfer. In addition to this, Gyurkovics and Lukovics (2014) claim that SPs perform up to four main functions in a region’s economic system: (I)
Technology transfer;
(II)
Knowledge creation;
(III)
Seedbed (creating an appropriate environment for firms to grow and develop);
(IV)
Incubation.
According to Gyurkovics and Lukovics (2014), the intensity and quality of each function may well vary from one SP to another due to the specific goals, management and structure they have, and that the technology transfer function, specifically, is the one depending most on the SPs’ provided managerial services. Definitions aside, the main divergence regarding SPs seems to be a terminology one. As further detailed in the next section, the spurt and expansion of SPs throughout the world since the 1980s caused a variety of terms and categorizations to be used, which has long been mentioned by many authors (MACDONALD, 1987; VAN DIERDONCK; DEBACKERE, 1991; PHILLIMORE, 1999) to the point of being characterized as a nebulous issue (SHEARMUR; DOLOREUX, 2000). The array of different national and regional experiences led to a number of specific terms being used to describe SPs in the literature, like technopole in Francophone countries (SHEARMUR; DOLOREUX, 2000), science park and research park in Anglophone countries (ZOUAIN and PLONSKI, 2012), university research park in the US (LINK; SCOTT, 2007), technopolis in Japan (SUZUKI, 2004), innovation house in Nordic countries and ‘innovation center’ in Germany (ZOUAIN; PLONSKI, 2012).
80
In a literature review of over a thousand papers related to SPs, Albahari, Peréz-Canto and Landoni (2010) found a total of 12 terms used: Science Park; Science and Technology Park; S&T Park; Research Park; Innovation Centre; Innovation Center; University Research Park; URP; Technology Park; Technopole; Technopark; and High-Tech Park. This obviously does not help an agreement to be achieved nor searches to gather all that has been written about SPs, so in this research Science Park and its abbreviation SP were chosen as representative terms since these authors indicate them to be the most used ones across the literature. Also, the IASP used the term STP – Science and Technology Park – until the past years but recently chose to adopt the SP abbreviation and to refer to it only as science parks. There have been some attempts to unify these terms in the past although without much success. As Scandizzo (2005) points out, the European Union has made an attempt to officially clarify the nuances between terms. The difference between a SP and a Technology Park is that the first is generally associated with a university and its R&D activities are central, while the second is not necessarily university related and has greater emphasis on production activities beyond R&D. A Research Park is also university related but focuses solely on research, without any dedication to production or marketing. Other important definitions, of incubators and accelerators, are relevant since they are generally attached/linked to SPs. Like Vedovello (2000) argues, there is no single definition for all SPs and incubators given the variety of structures and functions they have, but a clear distinction between them is that while SPs where originally assembled to promote regional and economic growth in a broader sense and involved a lot of resources, incubators origin is more specifically related to public policies directed towards small and medium enterprises (SMEs), having a more limited investment and physical area. Similarly, Macdonald and Joseph (2001) state that while SPs focus on technology transfer by concentrated firms or industries, incubators are essentially engaged in enterprise development. Client organizations characteristics and tenancy time are also important distinction points, considering that while incubators are mostly dedicated to early-stage companies with limited tenancy time, SPs house from small to large companies and have no tenancy time limitation (ALBAHARI; PERÉZ-CANTO; LANDONI, 2010). Finally, there are several SPs with included incubators, but no incubators obviously contain science parks. For the International Business Innovation Association (INBIA, 2016), incubators “nurture the development of entrepreneurial companies, helping them survive and grow during the start-up
81
period, when they are most vulnerable. These programs provide their client companies with business support services and resources tailored to young firms”. According to this association, they pursue job generation and entrepreneurial activities in communities, and the expansion of local industries and economies. They usually are property-based like SPs and provide entrepreneurs and start-ups structural, managerial and sometimes even financial resources (ALBAHARI; PERÉZ-CANTO; LANDONI, 2010). Accelerators are a recent mechanism compared to incubators and SPs, usually being confused with incubators. According to Miller and Bound (2011), they were introduced in Europe in the last five years as a response to limitations of previous incubation models, often considered as a life support, but their origin is the Y Combinator in California, in 2005. The novelty presented by accelerators is mainly the presence of venture capital and angel investors that provide financial support in exchange to some equity of the start-up selected for the acceleration program, a high-quality mentorship and access to strategic resources (MILLER; BOUND, 2011). For Pauwels et al. (2016, p. 13) accelerators “are organizations that aim to accelerate successful venture creation by providing specific incubation services, focused on education and mentoring, during an intensive program of limited duration”. They can be related to universities, but also to business or research centers, sometimes being independent. For the ventures being accelerated, the main advantage is to have the financial support during their initial liability period (PAUWELS et al., 2016). Finally, it is worth mentioning an attempt to gather these mechanisms under one broad concept. Smilor and Guill’s (1986) first introduced a concept of incubation mechanisms by linking talent, technology, capital and know-how, so Mian, Lamine and Fayolle (2016) build on this to classify all science parks, incubators and accelerators as Technology Business Incubation (TBI) mechanisms. Vedovello (2000) considers them development-inducing mechanisms (except for the yet unprecedented accelerators at the time). Finally, we add Zouain and Plonski’s (2012) classification of these TBIs as innovative habitats – strategic and effective environments promoting the cross-fertilization of the key components of innovation. This may be helpful when the need to address all three mechanisms exists, regardless, all of their individual concepts are equally useful in this research.
82
2.7.2 Origin and evolution The genesis of science parks is described by Mian, Lamine and Fayolle (2016) with the establishment of the Stanford Research Park in California (1951) and the Industrial Center of Batavia’s incubator in New York (1959). However, Macdonald and Joseph (2001) believe that both SPs and incubators derive from the original concept of industrial park and that the first planned park ever launched was in Manchester (UK) in 1896. Their evolution can be represented by three different waves (MIAN; LAMINE; FAYOLLE, 2016), or by a similar classification of generations, offered by Annerstedt (2006) and the Brazilian Association of Industrial Development (ABDI; ANPROTEC, 2008). The first wave or 1 st generation (until 1980) of the TBI movement was mainly concerned with job creation and economic restructuring, offering infrastructure and shared services. This initial period marked a greater relevance and interest in SPs rather than in incubators (MIAN; LAMINE; FAYOLLE, 2016), its pioneer parks are considered to have spontaneously emerged as the support platform for technology-based firms and one of its main features is the strong link with universities and research centers (ABDI; ANPROTEC, 2008). Saxenian (1994) and Vedovello (2000) both mention the regions of Silicon Valley in California and Route 128 in Massachusetts as the two successful references for the later established parks. These American models were expanded amidst the World War II period and sought to stimulate local economies – like California’s lack of industrial strength or Massachusetts’ declining results – and were pivotal benchmarking models for the British parks that followed (MASSEY; QUINTAS; WIELD, 1992). Chiesa and Chiaroni (2005) mention the Cambridge Science Park in 1970s the most notorious of British parks. The American success also boosted SPs projects due to the interest they generated among policymakers, public authorities, universities and development agencies (VEDOVELLO, 2000). Other pioneer parks were the Sophia Antipolis in France (1960) and the Tsukuba Science City in the 1970s, established in Japan (UNESCO, 2016). For Gyurkovics and Lukovics (2014) the first generation parks are typically located in designated areas in the close proximities of universities, being exclusively managed by foundations or enterprises owned by these universities. These authors state that the innovation model of these parks was the science push or linear approach where research and
83
development were thought to be the only sources for innovation activities, therefore, these parks’ objective was solely to pursue economic opportunities for the universities. The second wave or 2 nd generation (from 1980s to 2000s) was marked by the formally planned creation and expansion of parks in order to reproduce the success and significant results of those in the first wave. Investments and support of national, state or municipal governments played a central role, focusing on the enhancement of University-Park technological links. The success of the American parks served as an inspiration for several European initiatives, making the second wave parks very popular in the 1980s and 1990s, constituting the largest share of such existing enterprises today (VEDOVELLO, 2000; ANPROTEC, 2008). As Massey, Quintas and Wield (1992) point out, the British SPs also had a strong focus on regional development, probably due to the decrease in government financing in the 1970s and its industries’ low technology dynamism. The intention of converging companies and universities in the same location was probably a response to such issues. In Asia, other countries were quick to follow Japanese parks, in the 1980s (PHAN; SIEGEL; WRIGHT, 2005); Australian and Canadian examples were also relevant in the 1980s; and in the 1990s, several continental European countries intensified efforts in building SPs (PHILLIMORE; JOSEPH, 2003). Mian, Lamine and Fayolle (2016) claim that the SPs in the second wave became more mixeduse, offering a wider scope of services like counseling, training and networking. As a consequence, there was a clear increase in the number of incubators associated with SPs, which was also driven by some national policies that failed to attract investments and influential publications that showed how small firms were essential to job growth and national development, like David Birch’s The Job Generation Process in 1979 (MIAN; LAMINE; FAYOLLE, 2016). Other relevant reports are a group of publications stemming from the MIT (WAINER, 1965; ROBERTS, 1968; ROBERTS; WAINER, 1968; COHEN, 1971) and from Bollinger, Hope and Utterback (1983). Birch’s report had a strong impact in both the entrepreneurship research community and policy-makers by providing data and explanations emphasizing small firms’ relevance in the creation of the majority of jobs in the US, counteracting the general understanding that large firms were the most relevant in this respect. Recent numbers shows Birch’s position is still valid (HATHAWAY, 2013). Also, in the 1980s a number of new journals devoted to this
84
issue were founded and quickly gained relevance, like the Journal of Business Venturing; Entrepreneurship
and
Regional
Development;
and
Small
Business
Economics
(LANDSTRÖM; HARIRCHI; ÅSTRÖM, 2012). Along with the radical changes in information and communication technologies (ICTs) and in manufacturing processes that took place in the 1980s (LASTRES, 2003; PHAN; SIEGEL; WRIGHT, 2005), this resulted in a great increase in public spending by national governments investing in university-based SPs, which spread to other continents and at this point became an international phenomenon (PHAN; SIEGEL; WRIGHT, 2005). For Gyurkovics and Lukovics (2014), these generation SPs’ marked the shift from the economic use of universities R&D towards the purpose of creating and developing innovation-oriented companies, clearly investing in potentially profitable technologies and in university students’ entrepreneurship. These parks’ innovation approach was of a market pull model (ANNERSTEDT, 2006), being managed by a stronger private business influence and some regulatory interference of academic and governmental sectors (GYURKOVICS; LUKOVICS, 2014). Despite being numerous, these SPs results often do not reach a level of national strategic importance, being limited to regional impacts and results (ANPROTEC, 2008). Macdonald and Joseph (2001) admit that European initiatives were able to achieve success like the Cambridge Science Park (UK) and the Sophia-Antipolis Research Park (France) but that several other SPs had questionable results and their effectiveness and role challenged. The third wave or 3rd generation (from 2000s until today) marks the emergence of several web-based ventures and start-ups usually classified as high-tech. Those specialized in ICT, biotechnology and aerospace also had significant insertion in SPs (MIAN; LAMINE; FAYOLLE, 2016). This wave also marks the development of a new TBI mechanism – the accelerator – first established in Mountain View, California (Y Combinator) in 2005 and then quickly diffused throughout the world (NESTA, 2015).
85
FIGURE 6 – Growth of the United States Business Incubation Mechanisms Source: Mian, Lamine and Fayolle (2016).
These SPs have a greater focus on local communities’ development and its entrepreneurial culture’s strengthening, usually by a more balanced relation between academic, governmental and economic components. The innovation approach in this wave is feedback-based and interactive, therefore, innovation activities are perceived as results from the interplay of several actors in terms of knowledge and information flows (GYURKOVICS; LUKOVICS, 2014). Universities continue to play an important role in these SPs but they are usually managed by professionals and or jointly owned organizations. Also, Gyurkovics and Lukovics (2014) stress that there is a greater need for interaction between key components to guarantee their success, depending more in a wider set of relations and in external influence from the environment. However, the ABDI and Anprotec (2008) claim that SPs in this generation are better exemplified as results of the efforts of developing countries such as South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. These parks have the explicit goal of promoting national competitiveness due to the globalization process and are predominantly state-dependent. 2.7.3 Science Parks key players The complex nature of SPs reveals their consequential dependency on key components and establishing strong links with them (MELO; SICSÚ, 1993). These components are usually the same ones discussed in the NIS approach – government; university; industry; financial system – and much like in a system of innovation the relations among them are controversial and their exact roles are still pondered by many authors. There have been many contributions investigating them separately (DÍEZ-VIAL; FERNÁNDEZ-OLMOS, 2015; VÁSQUEZURRIAGO et al., 2014; STOICA, 2012) or coupled with other components (MALAIRAJA;
86
ZAWDIE, 2008; LÖFSTEN; LINDELÖF, 2002; QUINTAS; WIELD; MASSEY, 1992; SEITZER, 1999; VEDOVELLO, 1997), but greater integration between these efforts is necessary (PHAN; SIEGEL; WRIGHT, 2005). Every SP is different not only for the cultural aspects of the region or nation they are part of, but especially due to the unique dynamic between the components affecting them (QUINTAS; WIELD; MASSEY, 1992; PHILLIMORE; JOSEPH, 2003). This is seen by Vedovello (2000) as one of the reasons why there are so many different strategies throughout Europe for establishing these parks. She further details this by stating this diversity to be an outcome of the plurality of agents such as universities; research institutes, business men, financial agents, venture capitalists, government-related agencies and their engagement to pursue different expectations. Melo and Sicsú (1993) advocate that without any clear state strategy combining and integrating these components, as well as a clear definition of these components’ roles in the process, SPs have a slim chance of positive outcome. They place the state in a central and strategic role of integration, especially in developing countries where spontaneously emerged SPs are not common. Governmental agency in what they called induced SPs is imperative not only through legislation or credit and fiscal incentives, but also by planning the infrastructure of a region and enabling the system and their organizations to properly produce knowledge and to generate spill-overs (MELO; SICSÚ, 1993). They also stress the importance of understanding that these SPs require a long-term mentality and efforts, and list the other main components: universities, research institutes, supporting technology centers and the industry. The assessment of these components was earlier addressed by the OECD (1987), although it used the term participants rather than components, separating it into promoters and operators. However, considering that SPs may be planned or spontaneous it may become problematic to identify them clearly. Operators are organizations directly involved in the production of products, services or patents, while promoters are the organizations (or institutions) that contribute to or facilitate these operators activities (OECD, 1987). Parallel to the OECD (1987) and Melo and Sicsú (1993), Vedovello (2000, p. 284) identifies similar components relevant to SPs establishment and planning in what she calls four specific “interest groups”, described below.
87
Universities and research institutes – interested in possible financial gains through SPs due to the budgetary constraints and insufficiency, therefore reaching out to industry for greater support alternatives. They usually seek: knowledge transfer between university-firms; academic research commercialization; and new technology-based firms (NTBFs) spin-offs; academic access to private top-quality facilities; consulting opportunities for academics; alternative financial revenue for research; and status-quo building towards government (MASSEY; QUINTAS; WEILD, 1992). Private sector and academic business men – the industry-university link may mutually benefit business men from the private sector or established firms, by: investing in the contributions of academic expertise in the possible economical gains of NTBFs; recruiting promising academics; establishing joint-research; also benefiting academic entrepreneurs searching for: market applications of their intellectual work; alternative financial resources; increasing academic relevance or projects (MASSEY; QUINTAS; WEILD, 1992). Financial agents and venture capitalists – attracted to the possible high-risk/high-gains of NTBF’s potential, rarely found in other market opportunities and especially inviting after the rise of several web-based ventures. Government and state’s development agencies – interested in a number of ways: promoting the development of regions and industrial sectors; instigating knowledge flows and spillovers; boosting job creation and local economy’s competitiveness; attracting investments and R&D activities; and even promoting cultural and social changes (MASSEY; QUINTAS; WEILD, 1992). The IASP (2016) data reports that 50,4% of all SPs parks are state owned, while 35,3% are of mixed ownership (public + private) and only 14,3% are private. Their accurate amount, however, is difficult to ascertain. For example, UNESCO (2016) claims there are “over 400” SPs around the world, but the European Comission (2013) states that there are 365 of them in Europe alone, employing over 750.000 people and moving an approximate amount of 12 billion Euros annually. The AURP (2016) estimates a total of 700 SPs throughout the world while Dahlstrand and Smith (2009) claim that in 1990 this number was already over 1000. 2.8 The state-of-the-art of Science Parks research There is a vast number of publications on SPs with multiple insights and approaches to their relevance, impact, benefits and challenges. Assessing this body of knowledge is no easy task
88
and the contributions and conclusions one can draw from it may not be all intertwined in a consistent way. Phillimore and Joseph (2003) follow a similar perception and add as a factor the different rationale and politics behind each SP. So far, the best formal attempts to make sense of these publications were Phan, Siegel and Wright’s (2005) synthesis of SPs and Incubators; Albahari, Peréz-Canto and Landoni’s (2010) literature review on SPs publications; and Mian, Lamine and Fayolle’s (2016) knowledge overview of TBIs. Mian, Lamine and Fayolle’s (2016) assembled a systematic review of 149 articles published in high-ranked journals regarding TBI mechanisms. Their findings, even though not exclusively dedicated to SPs, are the most current picture of academic contributions in the matter and they show this subject to be of great multi-disciplinary nature (see Figure 7).
FIGURE 7 – Distribution of Authors of Business Incubation Research by Discipline Source: Mian, Lamine and Fayolle (2016).
Based on the high-ranked journals in which the analyzed papers were published, the innovation and entrepreneurship disciplines account for 74% of the total number, while economics to 11%, business strategy 2% and management sciences, only 1%. In terms of geographical contributions, 87% of publications originates from Europe (44%), the US (24%) and Asia (19%), with only 1% of contributions coming from Latin America. Qualitative research accounts for 54% of the total while the quantitative, 37%. Another interesting result is that the biggest part of these publications are in technologically-oriented journals: Technovation (26.2%); Journal of Technology Transfer (16.1%); Research Policy (9.4%); and R&D Management (6.7%). Albahari, Peréz-Canto and Landoni’s (2010) separated the qualitative and quantitative studies organizing them by categories of which issues were addressed so far. It is noteworthy that possible overlapping of categories occurred in some papers, nevertheless, this is a very useful way of evaluating future and promising research paths.
89
There were eight categories identified by them in the qualitative papers: a. Justification for SPs existence; b. Critical success factors for SPs; c. Best practices; d. Outcomes of a SP or a group of SPs; e. Evolution path of a SP or a group of SPs; f. Comparative case study between two or more SPs; g. Project hypothesis for the setting up of a new SP or a group of SPs; h. SPs performance assessment framework. In these categories the papers’ concerns were to: (a) analyze SPs as instruments of technology innovation policy (13), as strategic technology commercialization (2), SPs’ agglomerative economic effects (2); (b) describe different regions and nations’ case studies indicating factors positively affecting SPs performance (12); (c) study or apply best SPs successful practices (4); (d) describe the results achieved by SPs (7); (e) analyze SPs’ institutional development over the years (7); (f) comparing structure, results and links between different SPs (6); (g) prospection of future SPs (4); (h) developing a conceptual framework for evaluating SPs (2). The quantitative papers were divided into four categories a. On-off comparison; b. Mean values comparison; c. Based on Surveys; d. Econometric analysis. Papers in the category (a) are notably the most numerous ones (22), focused on analyzing SPs contributions to firm performance by comparing those located on SPs with others that are outside of them. They mostly used the match pair sample method to compare groups of firms on/off SPs based on specific criteria like industry type; and the longitudinal analysis, comparing a group of firms’ performance before and after leaving the SP location, or before and during tenancy (ALBAHARI; PERÉZ-CANTO; LANDONI, 2010). The category (b) papers compare SPs firms’ performance with the mean values of the territory around it (4); the ones in (c) use surveys to analyze how SPs affect firms’ performance as well as other positive influences like external financing attraction (10); and the papers in (d) gather a number of econometric approaches analyzing SPs contributions to tenant firms (17). These authors came to a conclusion that at the time, there was still a need for better data collection and analysis, and in those categories with already a good number of it the
90
conclusions were not at all uniform or objective. They claim it is clear to some extent that SPs promote informal links between their firms and universities or other institutes of highereducation, but on the other hand, their impact on formal links is still inconclusive (ALBAHARI; PERÉZ-CANTO; LANDONI, 2010). Phan, Siegel and Wright (2005) try to synthesize the work done so far regarding SPs and Incubators and bring interesting positions regarding the challenges and possibilities of forthcoming research. For them, there is still no systematic framework for analyzing SPs and the dynamic in which they are a part of. They offer some insight of gaps that need to be addressed: (I) the market failure innovation approach still needs further research since there is no evident conclusion regarding SPs and Incubators role in addressing such failure or the specific capabilities they provide for tenant firms; (II) the role of SPs on resource substitution and complementarity needs to be investigated, given that there is still no assurance that they provide capabilities to tenants but may well be strategic in other ways; (III) the development of a contingency theory of SPs may be useful considering that the institutional and environmental contexts they are part of vary significantly; (IV) the multiple components involved in SPs and their management can be further explored through agency theory scrutinizing their governance; also (V) they call for other assessments of SPs’ performance and the variables analyzed in their measurement. These authors stress that the main obstacle to theory-building about SPs is the lack of systematically-collected data on them, and that the progress made until then was less a theory and more of a collection of different typologies, causation or outcomes. We highlight one of these authors’ suggestions for expanding future research contributions, for it is extremely pertinent to the efforts of this research: Researchers can even contemplate the possibility of a cooperative, rather than a competitive solution, to this problem, which moves the level of analysis up a level to the network of science parks or incubators in a geographic region. Such approaches would augment the property-based studies that have been the mainstream of such research, but on a more appealing theoretical foundation (PHAN; SIEGEL; WRIGHT, 2005, p. 176).
Since 2005 – when the authors published these remarks – no research has investigated SPs through a network or cooperative lens. There have been a minor number of papers investigating networks within SPs (MINGUILLO; THELWALL, 2012), or between its firms (CHAN; PRETORIUS, 2007; KOÇAK; CAN, 2013), so they are still being generally investigated through isolated case studies or in comparative ones, without any assessment of
91
their collaborative effect or of their interactions impact or relevance. Regarding incubators, Almeida et al. (2011) were the only ones to provide a network approach (social network of social capital), however, they limited their research to a regional level and had no theoretical basis of systems of innovation. Possibly, one can address this gap in the literature by focusing on the associations of science parks that emerged parallel to science parks evolution and worldwide expansion. These associations relevance in research on SPs has been limited to simple mentions of existence or as references for addressing the plurality and confusion around concepts and definitions (ZOUAIN, 2003; SPOLIDORO; AUDY, 2008; ZOUAIN; PLONSKI, 2012; UNESCO, 2016). Mian, Lamine and Fayolle (2016), and Mello and Sicsú (1993) also call for a network approach of SPs and incubators where they are treated as complementary rather than competitive. They mention Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff’s (2000) Triple Helix model as an example of how components of a NIS can and should be seen as complementary, what we believe is another indication of how the study of these associations could potentially contribute to innovation studies, especially through a NIS approach. The next topic will present further information about these associations of SPs for a better understanding of their functioning and potential contributions as a study object. 2.9 Associations of Science Parks In this section the associations of SPs, their origins, evolutions and relevance are described, with further details on those to be investigated in this research: IASP; Anprotec and AURP Canada. As it was previously mentioned, not all SPs initiatives were successful at first and a number of them failed to fulfill their expected role. The variety of formats, structures, goals as well as cultural, social and economic contexts in which they were inserted into made managing SPs a very difficult task. This led to a number of trial-and-error isolated initiatives throughout the world but also some attempts to strive by collaboration. One example of such collaboration was the arrangement between four SPs in different continents – Australian Technology Park (Sydney, AUS); Kyoto Research Park (Japan); Oxford Science Park (UK); and the University Science Center (Philadelphia, USA) – in the so called International Science Park Alliance, whose main goal was to promote technology and knowledge transfer between the companies
92
installed in these SPs, as well as their expansion towards international regions related to the alliance’s members (ZOUAIN, 2003). Arrangements such as these were also set among other SPs, however, the most significant and lasting efforts in this sense were the associations established within more formal boundaries. Parallel to the success of SPs around the world, the challenges and benefits involved in their management and development were a catalyst to the appearance of associations in regional, national and international levels (ZOUAIN; PLONSKI, 2012). These associations gather professionals involved in separate SPs, incubators and research centers initiatives, serving as a specialized network and reference to all those involved with it in a given region. Also, the majority of them are of a non-for-profit legal status, i.e. they are not government-controlled. Out of all these associations, perhaps the most influential is the International Association of Science Parks (IASP), based in Spain. Established in 1984, the IASP is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that self-proclaims itself as a knowledge-based network of SPs and areas of innovation, as well as the organizations and professionals related to them. The IASP is an independent membership-based association that provides specialized services regarding the development of SPs and areas of innovation, its businesses and members (IASP, 2016). It has a total of 375 members from 77 countries that house over 142.000 companies with a majority of knowledge-based jobs, usually R&D related. Since its founding, it has organized 34 world conferences, serving as a network and meeting reference, and among its main specialized services, they offer: (I) feasibility studies, site location, definition of the infrastructures and facilities, strategic modeling, governmental strategies, marketing and communications, organization and provision of high-added value services – for SPs and innovation centers; (II) inception; design; and management of units and processes – for Business Incubators; (III) organizational networking modeling, networking performance assessments, management of networks structure and channels; (IV) International brokerage; (V) human resource specialized training – for SPs and Incubators management staff; (VI) financing start-ups and seed capital strategies; and (VII) integration with national/regional policies (IASP,2016). The IASP is the most relevant international SPs association. There are others such as the World Technopolis Association, a south-Korean based institution founded in 1998, with 95 members from 47 countries. However, although there are SPs associated with it, WTA is mostly directed to regional development of entire cities and urban planning projects larger than SPs. Other international associations focus on continental memberships like the
93
European Business & Innovation Centre Network (EBN), the Asian Science Park Association (ASPA) and the Asian Association of Business Incubators (AABI). Although IASP has a variety of SPs members, it is relevant to say that it also gathers 23 major national associations of SPs throughout the world and that it holds a Special Consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (IASP, 2016). The first group of national associations emerged in the 1980s, the decade of most intense establishment of SPs. UKSPA and the EBN, in Spain, were the pioneer associations of SPs (along with the IASP) and were founded in 1984. Later, the Association of University Research Parks (AURP) was founded in the USA in 1986; the Brazilian Association of Technology Parks and Business Incubators (Anprotec) and the French Network of Innovation Centres, Incubators and Technopoles (RETIS) were founded both in 1987; followed by the German Association of Innovation, Technology and Business Incubation Centres (ADT) and the Finnish Science Park Association (TEKEL) in 1988; and the Association of Science and Technology Parks of Spain (APTE) in 1989. There were also associations established in the late 1990s, but in smaller numbers: the Science and Technology Parks Association of Czech Republic (STPA CR) in 1990; the Polish Business and Innovation Centres Association (PBICA) in 1992; the Baltic Association of Science Technology Parks and Innovation Centers (BASTIC) in 1996; the Asian Science Park Association (ASPA) and the Basque Country Network of Technology Parks (RPTE) both in 1997; the Ukrainian Association of Business Incubators and Innovation Centers (UBICA) in 1998; followed by the Argentinean Association of Business Incubators, Science Parks and Technopoles (AIPyPT), the Portuguese Association of Science and Technology Parks (TECPARQUES) and the Zones Québec Innovation (formerly known as APRTQ) all in 1999. The 2000s marked a greater number of new associations (see Table 1) and the establishment of the World Alliance for Innovation (WAINOVA) in 2005. Founded through the initiative of the IASP, this alliance coordinates 25 SPs associations, promoting innovation and technology transfer; creating innovative companies and new SPs; mediating projects with worldwide organizations; facilitating networking, best managerial practices and the efficiency in its members organization (WAINOVA, 2016). In 2009, the WAINOVA published the World Atlas of Innovation, the most complete and in-depth description of the SPs associations in the world by then.
94
Like other associations of SPs, the Anprotec is a national reference for the science parks, business incubators, higher-education institutions, research centers and various governmental agencies in Brazil. Based in the capital Brasília, its main focus has been to boost the country’s industrial competitiveness ever since its establishment. It does so by articulating public policies along with the municipal, regional and federal governments; connecting its members through a network of core knowledge; training and developing its member’s management; and by promoting entrepreneurial and innovative culture in Brazil (ANPROTEC, 2016). Currently, it has around 343 members, and allied with the country’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), universities and affiliated members. Anprotec has provided a number of reports and specialized studies throughout the years that can be considered the most complete and representative of Brazil’s innovation system in terms of the 94 existing SPs initiatives and 400 business incubators. TABLE 1 – Science Parks Associations throughout the world ASSOCIATION AABI – Asian Association of Business Incubation ADT – German Association of Innovation, Technology and Business Incubation Centres AIPyPT – Argentinean Association of Business Incubators, Science Parks and Technopoles ANPROTEC – Brazilian Association of Technology Parks and Business Incubators APSTI – Italian Association of Science and Technology Parks APTE – Association of Science and Technology Parks of Spain ASPA – Asian Science Park Association AURP – Association of University Research Parks AURP - Canada BASTIC – Baltic Association of Science Technology Parks and Innovation Centers BBIA – Beijing Business Incubation Association DDP – Danish Development Parks EBN – European Business & Innovation Centre Network IASP – International Association of Science Parks ISBA – Indian Science and Technology Entrepreneurs Parks and Business Incubators Association MADRID NETWORK PBICA – Polish Business and Innovation Centres Association PERUINCUBA – Peruvian Association of Business Incubators RETA – Andalusian Technology Network RETIS - French Network of Innovation Centres, Incubators and Technopoles RPTE – Basque Country Network of Technology Parks RUITC – Russian Union of Innovation and Technology
COUNTRY China/South Korea
MEMBERS
EST.
SCOPE
24
2002
International
Germany
150
1988
National
Argentina
50
1999
National
Brazil
343
1987
National
Italy
31
2000
National
Spain
69
1989
National
South Korea USA Canada
65 349 30
1997 1986 2007
International National National
Lithuania
32
1996
Regional
China Denmark
90 27
2001
National National
Belgium
150
1984
International
Spain
375
1984
International
India
63
2004
National
Madrid
17
2007
National
Poland
180
1992
National
Peru
18
2006
National
Spain
50
2005
Regional
France
108
1987
National
4
1997
National
30
2000
National
Basque Country Russia
95
Centres SISP – Swedish Incubators & Science Parks Sweden SPoW – Science Parks of Wallonia Belgium STPA CR– Science and Technology Parks Association Czech Rep. of Czech Republic TECPARQUES – Portuguese Association of Science Portugal and Technology Parks TEKEL – Finnish Science Park Association Finland TGBD – Association of Turkish Technology Parks Turkey TPANZ – Technology Parks Australia and New Australia Zealand Thai-BISPA – Thai Business Incubators and Science Thailand Parks Association UBICA – Ukrainian Association of Business Ukraine Incubators and Innovation Centers UKSPA – United Kingdom Science Park Association UK URUNOVA – Uruguayan Association of Business Uruguay Incub., Clusters and Technology and Industrial Parks XPCAT - Xarxa de Parcs Científics i Tecnològics de Spain Catalunya Zones Québec Innovation (former APRTQ) Canada Source: IASP (2016); INBIA (2016); WAINOVA (2016)
65 7
2005 2002
National Regional
57
1990
National
16
1999
National
29 41
1988 2010
National National
12
-
Regional
38
2009
National
17
1998
National
112
1984
National
6
2004
National
17
2003
Regional
11
1999
Regional
2.10 Final Remarks A synthesis of the previous theoretical sections shows the cross-disciplinary and complex nature involved in innovation studies. Since the first and uncoordinated contributions of different authors, innovation has grown exponentially to a point where several scholars, researchers, institutions, governments and specialized centers are increasingly dedicated to its investigation and promotion. Innovation is a term of wide use and refers to processes and transformations going from individuals and companies up to whole economies. It has mobilized a number of studies from several disciplines and scientific fields; however, organizing these contributions in a cohesive manner remains an arduous task. The systems of innovation approach has gathered many scholars and institutions facing this task since the early 1990s and it has originated a number of publications scrutinizing innovation processes and its dynamics. Stemming from the theme of institutional changes in evolutionary economics, this approach sees innovation as a collaborative phenomenon in which various components and activities are intertwined in a complex dynamic. This has spurt a number of studies about universities, governments, industries, firms, financial systems in order to put together a clearer picture of such dynamics.
96
The work done so far has been vital to policy making, economics and management knowledge and has had implications in industrial, educational, financial and organizational spheres. Nonetheless, there are still important gaps to be addressed regarding how these innovation systems function and how their components interact. Science Parks have been investigated for as long as the SI approach exists, yet there is still no agreement regarding their role in innovation systems nor have there been gathered conclusive results to fully assess their relevance. In this context, there are no published scientific studies about the regional, national or international associations of SPs or their importance on these SPs management and development. Also, no studies based on a SI approach have addressed these associations’ nor tried to evaluate their implications in innovation dynamics or in the relations between its main components. Innovation intermediaries is a body of knowledge that provides many examples of how organizations similar to those investigated in this thesis provide intermediary services that contribute to innovation or those directly engaged in it; however, there are no studies of associations of science parks within this approach. The understanding reached in this research is: (I) if the SI approach still needs further research in order to determine which components and activities are relevant in its dynamics (EDQUIST, 1997; 2001; 2006); (II) if innovation is a result of collaborative efforts of many components; (III) if knowledge is a vital resource, learning processes are central in innovation systems, and the interactions and communications among SI’s components are imperative (LUNDVALL, 1992; 2007; EDQUIST, 2006); then if we consider that (IV) Science Parks are mechanisms to strengthen the links between SI’s components; and (V) if these SPs are gathered around the world in association that represent them collectively; then it is possible to hypothesize that the associations of science parks may be relevant components in innovation systems if they are able to provide intermediary services that support these SPs or if they constitute networks essential to knowledge flows and the interactions of SI’s components. Considering the number of countries where these associations have been established, the vast amount of science parks worldwide and their consequential members and employees, the potential impact of this collective network in innovation systems must be considered and thoroughly investigated.
97
In terms of contributions for management, the study of these associations may provide insights regarding how the challenges faced by SPs so far may be solved; how the network arrangement within and between theses associations may improve knowledge flows; and how the services they offer impact learning processes or may be relevant to fostering innovation. Almeida et al. (2011) in their study of a regional incubator network made a relevant, yet brief, remark regarding associations’ relevance. The rise and development of incubators in Brazil sought Anprotec for guidance due to the absence of governmental support and strategic planning. We believe this type of support indicates the relevance and potential contributions that science parks associations have in regional, national and possibly international levels, requiring further investigation. For the systems of innovation literature, it may contribute to fill in the blanks of innovation dynamics and provide insights of complementary components and activities in SI as well as their relations. Seminal authors in this field of research have stressed the need for a stronger theoretical approach and we believe that by refining the knowledge on SI’s dynamics and opening up new paths for research we may contribute in addressing such demand. Although it has been primarily addressed by economics studies, Fagerberg, Fosaas and Sapprasert (2011), Lundvall (2007) and Edquist (2006) claim that innovation studies are cross-disciplinary by nature, demanding multi-causal contributions in order to evolve. The innovation intermediaries approach may benefit from the inquiry of these associations if additional information regarding their services and functions are provided and if they are arranged in a more inclusive and wide framework of analysis. Also, being unexplored potential intermediaries, these associations could be a relevant addition to this knowledge base if their relevance in innovation systems is evidenced. This research may also enrich the existing literature on science parks by addressing the limitations indicated by Mello and Sicsú (1993), Phan, Siegel and Wright (2005) and Mian, Lamine and Fayolle (2016), while also analyzing SPs in a complementary and integrated approach. Management studies have been mostly concerned with innovation processes in a meso or micro dimensions; therefore, we see this research as a possible contribution towards macro perspectives of innovation’s dynamics and an opportunity to make use of what Fagerberg, Fosaas and Sapprasert (2011) describe as a promising bridge between economics and management studies.
98
3 RESEARCH METHOD
While the previous chapter outlines existing literature gaps and contemplates options to connect them, this chapter details all of the methodological procedures applied in this research enabling such solutions to the initially proposed problem, as well as the reasons why they were considered suitable for this study. We also address the challenges that arise from these choices and the limitations they impose. 3.1 Research type and characteristics Planning a research type demands arranging the proper conditions that will affect the data collection and its analysis in a way that it must also pertain to the research’s question and objectives (SELLTIZ et al., 2006). The research’s problem fits the types of inquiries that Eisenhardt (1989) calls what, why and how. The details provided in the theoretical chapters reveal that this problem’s nature calls for exploring data from an uncharted phenomenon in need of further descriptions for being rationalized and tested in the future. Therefore, this research is of qualitative nature. The necessary data for analyzing the phenomenon at hand is not easily obtained given the underexplored state of science parks associations, thus, accessing and collecting such data requires the view of their participants. Creswell (2009) sees this as a traditional characteristic of qualitative studies, which is beneficial for acquiring rich and detailed data due to its proximity to the phenomenon it investigates. In terms of objectives, this research is descriptive. Both Gil (2002) and Appolinário (2007) make similar comments to those of Creswell (2009) and argue that qualitative data not only provides a better assessment of a yet unknown phenomenon but also the necessary comprehensive information to outline it more properly. We believe that the potential relevance of the SPs associations and the lack of studies describing or scrutinizing them justifies this descriptive approach. As Richardson (1999) mentions, such descriptive objectives are adequate when one is basing a research on scarce knowledge while also trying to address gaps and unanswered questions from previous investigations.
99
The reason why this research is descriptive and not exploratory comes from the literature review detailed on the previous chapter. Even though SPs associations are still underexplored, both the innovation systems and innovation intermediaries literatures gather enough publications about these associations institutional contexts or about institutions somewhat related to them that it would not be appropriate to classify this research as exploratory. Instead, we classify it as descriptive since it involves specifying properties, characteristics or profiles of relevant subjects, groups or phenomenon (SAMPIERI; COLLADO; LUCIO, 2006). Also, this research is descriptive since it provides detailed insight about subjects or relations that are still in need of elaboration. We chose to conduct a multiple-case study of three associations of science parks with similar missions but of different scopes. The International Association of Science Parks is based in Spain but is openly engaged in a worldwide network, having an international range. Anprotec works within the national boundaries of Brazil, having a more restrict presence than IASP (geographically) but still a relevant one, considering that Brazil has continental dimensions, and that Anprotec’s membership community is almost as numerous as IASP’s, but it is also more diverse (being open for incubators from the start). Finally, we also chose to analyze AURP Canada, an association affiliated with AURP International but with a smaller range of actions and a much smaller members base. While Canada and Brazil have the 2nd and 5th larger territories in the world, Brazil has a population almost six times bigger. Considering that Anprotec has close to 400 members, a diverse member base while AURP Canada has only 30 members, all of them being SPs, it is arguable that the Canadian association has a scope of action that is more regional than national. We believe that the choice of investigating an international association, a large national association and a smaller national one will bring diverse information on the possible effects that national and regional boundaries may have on such associations and the role they play on innovation systems. As it will be further detailed on the following topics, investigating the cases of different associations is of particular relevance since it presents a greater analytical range and at the same time, a particular insight in variations that may be of great value for the distinct approaches of systems of innovation. 3.2 Research strategy Determining the adequate strategy is considered by Gil (2008) as one of the most critical aspects of a research, with direct consequences on the quality of the data collection process.
100
The chosen research strategy for this thesis is to combine three data sources: a bibliographic research, a multiple-case study, and a documental research. We’ve considered their triangulation as an adequate strategy for addressing the question and objectives described in the introduction. As previously mentioned, the investigated associations are relatively recent and their relevance is basically unexplored on both the innovation systems and innovation intermediaries’ literature. Therefore, given the inexistence of data and previous research on these associations it would be unpractical to evaluate them properly without a solid theoretical base built from a bibliographic research8 for assembling the necessary data from its possible sources. From this data source it was possible to both situate these associations within the innovation systems and innovation intermediary literature and to build a questionnaire structure for collecting relevant information in the selected cases. Yin (2013) claims that case studies are rich empirical descriptions of the particularities of a given phenomenon, specifically for being able to do so from various data sources. They seem suited for this research considering that, while these associations of SPs are mostly from the 1990s on, contemporary events are usually the most common ones addressed by case studies (YIN, 2013). Also, given these associations unexplored relations with SPs and with each other, it is important to identify and describe the patterns of relationships among them by using multiple-case studies to inductively build emergent theories (EISENHARDT, 1989). In light of the unavailable data regarding these associations, building a multiple-case study9 is beneficial for future deductive research for likely being the best bridge to provide them “rich qualitative data” (EISENHARDT; GRAEBNER, 2007, p. 25). Multiple-case studies are indeed a potential link to deductive research since they emphasize the development of theory constructs from new data that may become testable in deductive theories, something Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) see as a cycle. Yin (2013) also mentions that study cases generally carry more numerous and diverse data sources when compared to other methods, which may help the researcher to triangulate multiple data sources for ratifying or contesting those collected solely based on interviews. Finally, a documental research will be used to complement the information collected on the bibliographic research and the multiple-case studies. The documental research is similar to the 8 9
Detailed on topic 3.5.1. See topic 3.5.2.
101
bibliographic one, differing only from the nature of its sources (GIL, 2008). Both have the document as an investigation object; however, documental research uses untreated data or materials that have not yet been critically analyzed, while bibliographic research is a direct study of scientific sources (OLIVEIRA, 2007). More importantly, Sá-Silva, Almeida and Guindani (2009) clarify that documental research is not limited to written or printed material and it includes movies, videos, images, slides or posters as additional information sources, unlike the bibliographic research. Therefore, it is evident that a documental research strategy may be used together with multiple-case study for reinterpreting, contesting or ratifying the observations and information collected with primary data sources. 3.3 Unity of analysis It is important to identify the unit of analysis in a research in order to clarify how the phenomenon investigated is situated in reality and in what context it needs to be interpreted. This unit marks what is being investigated and, therefore, the subject from which the researcher will generalize its results from. The entities analyzed in this thesis are the associations of science parks. These associations are primarily analyzed from the services and functions they provide to its associated members. This will initially determine if they are indeed engaged in promoting or intermediating innovation to the point of being considered components in a system of innovation. After, we investigate how they perform such services in order to determine the way in which they interact with other system-level components. This will provide evidence of the relevance of such associations on the dynamics of innovation in which they may be systemic components. It is also relevant to identify what is not a unit of analysis in a research. Despite the attempt to identify the ties that associations of SPs build with its members and other systemic components, this research will not analyze these ties themselves. This would require data sources such as interviews and documents from members and other components such as governmental agents or agencies, universities, private and non-governmental companies, among others. Therefore, the lack of such data evidences that it is not this research’s purpose to quantify or qualify these ties.
102
3.4 Case selection and sampling strategy Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) see case selection as a critical challenge in theory-building cases and this demands a clear assessment from scholars on their cases’ choices. The issue of representativeness challenges the case selection if the research’s purpose is not clear enough. Be it a theory-generalizing case, it will naturally demand a case where generalization is key. Differently, in cases where the purpose is to develop theory rather than test it, they can be chosen by appropriate theoretical sampling, i.e. being adequate due to its ability to clarify constructs properties and relationships (EISENHARDT; GRAEBNER, 2007). On this matter, Yin (2013) believes that there are exemplar cases that justify the choice of single case studies to explain phenomenon under unusual or rare circumstances; however, theory-building is addressed in a more robust manner by multiple-case studies. This is why we chose to analyze multiple associations of science parks. By investigating IASP, Anprotec and AURP Canada not only does Yin’s (2013) remarks can be addressed, but it will also allow a verification of the possible specificities in these associations’ models. Eisenhardt (1991) adds that multiple-case studies may help to identify consistency of emergent findings; therefore, we believe that the cases of an international and two national associations may allow us to ascertain whether or not the boundaries of systems of innovation influence these associations or the way they perform. Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007, p. 27) also see this as a deeper set of evidence, adding that “constructs and relationships are more precisely delineated because it is easier to determine accurate definitions and appropriate levels of construct abstraction from multiple cases”. In these authors’ rationale, a multiplecase study of three associations has three times more analytic power than a single-case study. Nonetheless, Yin (2013) warns that these multiple cases must not be chosen randomly, demanding theoretical reasons for such. We believe that a multiple-case study of these three associations meets not only a replication reason, but theory extension and alternative explanations reasons as well. It is still unclear how regional, national and international associations interact with each other or if they are by any way restricted by spatial boundaries of systems of innovation. Investigating associations with different scopes of action and influence may help to elucidate this while also meeting Yin’s (2013) demands. When interpreting data in social sciences the researcher must be careful with the sampling he chooses since it will directly affect the quality, relevance and usefulness of his claims
103
(RAPLEY, 2014). The sample of whom or what to investigate must be selected for analytic reasons instead of random ones, and this is more complex when using multiple-case sampling (MILES; HUBERMAN; SALDAÑA, 2014). The choice of what to study – the associations of SPs – was easily determined since it is a direct result of the motivation behind this research. However, the choice of which associations to elect as the cases for this study was not as simple. Before the start of the literature review and the theoretical base of the research, the amount of associations in the science park’s industry was very limited. The awareness about how many and how diverse these associations were was limited to the older and more well-known associations such as the IASP, UKSPA, AURP, Anprotec and EBN. After gathering more information for a deeper insight of the SPs’ industry it became clear that this was indeed underexplored and with many other representatives worldwide10. After considering all of the possible cases to investigate, the sampling choice was defined by a maximum variation sampling strategy, which consists on electing very distinct cases to verify if patterns arise from them (MILES; HUBERMAN; SALDAÑA, 2014). Combined with a multiple-case sampling, this adds confidence to the results obtained in a research. Given that the associations found worldwide are of international, national and regional scope, a decision was made for electing a case in each of these scopes in order to obtain contrasting cases. Out of the four identified international associations, the IASP was by far the oldest among them, with a much larger member base and with a declared international scope beyond continental regions (like ASPA to Asia and EBN to Europe). These characteristics were determinant for electing this association as the international case study. A total of 25 national associations were identified and among them, Anprotec and the AURP stood out in terms of member base size, while both of them and UKSPA were the oldest ones among them. Anprotec differs from the AURP for not limiting itself to associating with university-related research parks, so the option of interviewing an association with a more diverse member base was considered for potentially evidencing unforeseen circumstances in the investigated framework, an adequate condition for variation sampling. Also, Anprotec offered a practical choice since it originates from the same country of this thesis’ researcher, making a stronger case for its accessibility. 10
See Table 1.
104
Originally, the regional association chosen as a case was Zones Québec Innovation, an association of science parks from the Canadian province of Québec. In addition to its regional scope, the accessibility of data was a decisive factor since this researcher spent his doctoral external research on Montreal (QC) throughout 2016. However, the attempts to contact this association were unsuccessful, demanding an alternative choice. Already located in Canada, the AURP Canada was elected as an alternative case since it was three times younger than IASP and Anprotec and for having a much smaller member base. Being a younger association, we considered that its investigation could contrast the challenges faced by AURP Canada with those of older and more established associations, possibly providing converging patterns between them. 3.5 Data sources and data triangulation This section details the sources of data that were collected in the research, the procedures adopted to select or assemble the appropriate collection instruments, as well as the process of data collection itself. 3.5.1 Bibliographic research This research was done with scientific papers and academic books on systems of innovations and the role of intermediaries. Despite the absence of SPs associations in these bibliographic materials, they provided the theoretical base to: (I) understand the systemic framework in which these associations operate; and (II) to comprehend what role other intermediary organizations play on innovation systems. The available literature on innovation systems is vast and very accessible; however, the published content on innovation intermediaries was much more limited. A review of the international literature on these intermediaries was performed on the Journal of Citations Reports (JCR) without temporal restrictions. The descriptor used in the title and keywords search was intermedi to contemplate the results of variations of the word intermediary, such as intermediation, intermediate, among others. Then, the analysis of the papers resulted in the initial search revealed the need for a second search, this time for terms that are structurally different from the initial descriptor, but that in academia began representing intermediaries in an equivalent way, such as: (I) broker; (II) bridger/bridging; (III) boundary organization; (IV) science shop; (V) superstructure; (VI) mediators; and (VII) enablers. After a second round of searches for these additional terms, in which results not
105
pertinent to the topic of innovation were excluded, a total of 71 publications were reached: 53 papers, nine working papers, three book chapters, three conference papers, two reports and one book11. The analysis of these publications evidenced the plurality of terms used to represent innovation intermediaries. The most common of them is indeed intermediary (52 publications) and its slight variations (intermediating, intermediate, etc.), all of which are used by the referenced scholars in this topic – Howells (2006), Smedlund (2006), Dalziel (2010), Koschatzky et al. (2014) and Watkins et al. (2015). Next, the term broker is adopted on seven publications (HARGADON, 1998; VOGEL; KAGHAN, 2001; MEYER, 2010), followed by bridging organizations (BESSANT; RUSH, 1995; CARLSSON, 1995) and boundary organizations (GUSTON, 1999; CASH, 2001). The remaining terms were science shops (GNAIGER; MARTIN, 2001), superstructure (LYNN et al., 1996), mediator (MULDER; DE BOK, 2005), and enabler (DALZIEL, 2006). As for types of intermediaries, the research revealed 16 different types of organizations identified in the literature: business associations, industry associations, science shops, brokers, technology transfer offices, incubators, science parks, and trade associations, among others. From the terms and types of innovation intermediaries found, it was important to understand what functions and services they provided. Therefore, 13 innovation intermediaries’ publications with described functions were mapped on a separate Microsoft Excel ® sheet using colors to match possible redundant descriptions12.After isolating these functions, a separate sheet was organized to map the topics used by authors to classify these functions13 . Using colors to match the similar topics used by different authors, these were then paired with corresponding functions14, resulting in a final classification of functions and their types, after similar or redundant functions were eliminated15. A total of 64 services were categorized into 12 different types of services, later converted into a Microsoft Word ® file so it could be used as the questionnaire16 to collect data about the SPs associations’ possible services during future interviews and documental research. 3.5.2 Multiple-case study 11
See Appendix 1. See Appendix 2. 13 See Appendix 3. 14 See Appendix 3. 15 See Appendix 4. 16 See Appendix 5. 12
106
The qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews with the associations current and past top executives, chosen by means of a snowball sampling approach (YIN, 2013). Therefore, the primary sources of data were the associations executives themselves, due to their privileged position to provide insights and expert information inputs. These executives are considered to be information-rich key informants and are arguably the most adequate sample to better understand and explore these associations. A total of 15 semistructured interviews were conducted, three with AURP Canada’s top executives, nine with Anprotec’s and other three with IASP’s. All of the key informants were interviewed separately, all of which were queried with open-ended questions tailored for the positions they occupied or the period in which they managed the association17. Choosing to prioritize the interviewing of top management employees is related to the wider vision, stronger expertise, greater decision-making attributions and integrated know-how that their positions have in detriment of lower-leveled employees. Evidently, collecting data from different levels of these associations would provide a more detailed and diverse picture of them; however, this was not feasible due to the limited staff they have and also due to the difficulties of arranging interviews with them. All interviews were audio recorded with the consent of all interviewed subjects, amounting to a total of 11 hours, three minutes and eleven seconds of collected data. The interviews with the top executives from AURP Canada were conducted in Canada at the end of 2016, during the researcher’s external research in the country. The association’s President was interviewed in Fredericton, New Brunswick, at Knowledge Park’s headquarters. One week later, past President Carol E. Stewart was interviewed in Waterloo, Ontario, at the David Johnston Research + Technology Park. Two weeks later, Executive Director Laura O’Blennis was interviewed via Skype® video call. TABLE 2 – Names, dates, location and length of the semi-structured interviews Association
Interviewed person
AURP Can.
Larry Shaw
AURP Can.
Carol E. Stewart
AURP Can.
Laura O’Blennis
Executive Director
Sylvio Goulart Rosa Jr.
Past President (1989-1993)
Anprotec
17
See Appendix 6
Position Current President, CEO of Knowledge Park Past President, Acting CEO of AURP International
Date Nov. 24, 2016
Location Fredericton, NB Canada
Dec. 1st, 2016
Waterloo, ON Canada
Dec. 12, 2016 Oct. 24, 2017
Fredericton, Canada, via Skype ® Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil
Lenght 1:43:01 1:00:15 31:35 45:16
107
Anprotec
Maurício Guedes
Anprotec
Luís Bermúdez
Anprotec
José Eduardo Fiates
Anprotec Anprotec Anprotec
Afonso
Guilherme Ary Plonski Francilene Procópio Garcia Jorge Luis Nicolas Audy
Anprotec
Sheila Oliveira Pires
Anprotec
Vanusa Leitoguinho
Past President (1995-1999) Past President (1999-2003) Past President (2003-2007) Past President (2007-2011) Past President (2012-2015) Current President (1989-1993) Executive Superintendent Coordinator members’ support
of
IASP
Josep Piqué
Current President
IASP
Luis Sanz
Director General
IASP
Maurício Guedes
Past President
IASP
Guilherme Ary Plonski
Advisory Council
IASP
Ebba Lund
Chief Operations officer
Oct. 24, 2017 Oct. 24, 2017 Oct. 25, 2017 July 24, 2017 Oct. 25, 2017 July 24, 2017 Apr. 11, 2017 Apr. 11, 2017 Oct. 23, 2017 Oct. 23, 2017 Oct. 23, 2017 July 24, 2017 Oct. 19, 2017
Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil Belo HorizonteMG Brazil Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil Belo Horizonte MG - Brazil
16:48 37:27 06:48 28:02 33:08 37:30
Brasília, DF - Brazil
29:45
Brasília, DF - Brazil
57:01
Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil Belo Horizonte MG - Brazil Málaga, Spain, via Skype ®
22:18 1:01:07 16:48 28:02 1:35:52
Source: prepared by the author.
Anprotec’s interviews were conducted in different locations of Brazil, all of which were face to face. Executive Superintendent Sheila Pires and the Coordinator of members support Vanusa Leitoguinho were interviewed in Brasília, at Anprotec’s headquarters, on April 11th of 2017. Later in the semester, Current President Jorge Audy and Guilherme Ary Plonsky were interviewed in Belo Horizonte, in parallel of their participation at SBPC’s annual conference, hosted by the Federal University of Minas Gerais. The remaining past presidents were interviewed at Anprotec’s annual conference in Rio de Janeiro. IASP’s Chief Operations Officer Ebba Lund was interviewed via Skype® video call a week before Anprotec’s annual conference in Rio de Janeiro. Current President Josep Piqué and Director General Luis Sanz were both interviewed in Rio de Janeiro, while attending the conference. It is worth mentioning that Maurício Guedes is a past President of both Anprotec and IASP’s. As Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) argue, interviews are usually the primary data source in multiple-case studies due to their efficient gathering of rich empirical data, but their bias needs to be limited as much as possible. They argue that by using various informants of critical knowledge regarding such cases may provide insights from different perspectives, and it is a way of avoiding bias. Therefore, in addition to interviewing strategic positions, we also collected data from operational executives in all three associations.
108
3.5.3 Documental research Since case studies usually allow for a wide variety of data sources (EISENHARDT; GRAEBNER, 2007), the data gathered in the interviews is complemented by secondary data such as archives, official documents, legal bylaws, special reports, conferences directories, and papers produced by these associations and/or about them. In addition to the primary data obtained with the associations executives, it is important to search for secondary sources since Gartner and Shaver (2012) argue that even key informants may lack precision on their reports, especially when talking about ancient events. In order to avoid fragmented reports and possible biased narratives of past events, a wide research for documents was made in order for the data collected on the interviews could be confronted with information from additional sources. These data were obtained through the association’s websites, general web-based searches, book purchases and some limited material through interviewed subjects themselves. The search for relevant documents was carried out before, during and after the interviewing period in an attempt to contrast the information between primary and secondary data sources. This proved to a relevant procedure given that some events mentioned by interviewed subjects were lacking in details or accuracy of dates, which the documental data collected was often vital to elucidate or refine. TABLE 3 – AURP Canada’s secondary data Data PwC 2013 National Economic Impact study AURP Canada: Budget Submission 2015 Innovation Agenda and Canada’s R&T Parks AURP Canada Parks’ Sector Map AURP’s FDI Summary for Companies Canadian Parks’ Standardization Tables Soft Landing Program Outline 2012 Federal Budget Media Release Canada NOW Magazine
Content Quantitative descriptive data or Canadian SPs and its results and their respective economic impacts Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance 2017 Budget submission to the House of Commons and a cluster strategy proposition Mapping of all sectors engaged by each Canadian park 2016 Foreign Direct Investment program’s details 2016 detailed services or member-parks 2016 AURP Canada Soft Landing program’s details AURP’s official statement acknowledging the Government’s support of innovation projects 2009 Edition with statements from president and staff, and general information of members and its tenants
Type
Size
Source
PDF
49 pages
Inside access
PDF
12 pages
Web general search
PDF
27 pages
Web general search
PDF
1 page
Website
PDF
3 pages
Inside access
PDF
6 pages
Inside access
PDF
2 pages
Website
PDF
2 pages
Web general search
PDF
70 pages
Inside access
109
2011 Edition with statements from president and staff, news & general information of members and its tenants 2011 Edition with statements from president Canada NOW and staff, news & general information of Magazine members and its tenants Old Website’s print screen of 2nd board of Board of Directors directors Old Website’s print screen of all associated Members description parks Source: prepared by the author. Canada NOW Magazine
PDF
64 pages
Inside access
PDF
56 pages
Inside access
PDF
1 page
PDF
1 page
Web general search Web general search
AURP Canada’s staff provided access to its national economic impact study with PricewaterhouseCoopers, restricted to members, a foreign direct investment program’s summary and the issues of Canada NOW magazine, edited by the association. Anprotec’s staff shared its legal bylaws and its hierarchical structure’s outline, while IASP’s staff provided access to its legal bylaws (the association’s constitution documents), a list of its presidents, an updated hierarchical organogram and detailed numbers and categories of its current members. Additional secondary data were collected and analyzed. They are described in Tables 3, 4 and 5. Combining secondary data with primary data is considered to be relevant since it contributes to the better assessment and familiarity around the topic of investigation. It was later used to triangulate the information retrieved in the interviews, something Eisenhardt (1989) sees as way of substantiating theoretical constructs and future hypothesis.
TABLE 4 – Anprotec’s secondary data Data Registered social statute Internal regiment The adventure of possible – 20 years of Anprotec Brazilian Tech-Parks: Study, Analysis and Proposition Success paths to incubators: a good practices guide Technology Parks: planning and management Portfolio Technology Parks in Brazil SAPI – Follow-up System of Tech-Parks and Incubators
Content
Type
Size
Source
2016 ratification of Anprotec’s social statute
PDF
22 pages
Inside access
2017 version ratified by the Board of Directors
PDF
34 pages
Inside access
Recapitulation of the association’s trajectory and the challenges it faced until 2007
PDF
44 pages
Web general search
Research report about Science Parks trajectory, trends and challenges worldwide
PDF
24 pages
Website
2005 book on the best practices of Brazilian incubators
Book
118 pages
Purchased on website
2006 book on the intricacies of managing parks
Book
140 pages
Purchased on website
2008 Report on all SPs projects in the country, in partnership with ABDI
PDF
12 pages
Web general search
2008 Brochure from partnerships with PNI, CNPq, FINEP, SEBRAE, among others
PDF
4 pages
Web general search
110
CERNE – a proposal for a new model of operation Tech-Parks: platforms for regional developing Technical Mission Report Study, analysis and propositions for Brazil’s incubators 30+10 – Innovative entrepreneurship Technology Parks indicators UniAnprotec
2012 Proposal of CERNE at INBIA annual conference 2012 edited book about parks’ articulation and incentives for regional development 2013 Report of Anprotec’s Technical mission to Belgium, England, Ireland and the Netherlands Technical report on the profile of incubators and the challenges they face, partnered with MCTIC 2014 panorama on Anprotec’s projects and partnerships until then 2014 study partnered with the UnB on highcomplexity projects 2015 Regulation of the Incubator Management course
12 pages
Book
143 pages
PDF
36 pages
PDF
24 pages
Website
PDF
44 pages
Web general search
PDF
100 pages
Website
PDF
3 pages
Anprotec’s Education Program
Presentations slides of the program
PDF
39 pages
Parks & Incubators for Brazil’s development
2015 report on practices, benchmarking and public policies for parks and incubators, (with MCTIC + Certi Foundation + British Embassy)
PDF
589 pages
LOCUS magazine
Volumes 3 and 63 to 82
PDF
25 Testimonials from managers, partners and associates about Anprotec and its trajectory Source: prepared by the author. Memory of Anprotec
Web general search
PDF
Video
1.114 pages 69 minutes
Purchased on website Web general search
Web general search Web general search Website Website Website
After the investigated associations provided consent of collaboration for the research, additional access was gained to specialized content produced by them (reports, guides, books and articles), as well as surveys they’ve assembled in collaboration with regional and federal agencies. These are usually limited to their associate and full members and are difficult to access. Eisenhardt (1989) sees this combination as a relevant contribution due to the expanded analysis it allows, indicating relations and influences not necessarily clear from only one type of data, helping researchers avoid misconceptions and limited conclusions.
TABLE 5 –IASP’s secondary data Data Constitution of The IASP Position Paper Survey Report Organising Quality Conferences Linking the Best
Content 2012 constitution approved by the general assembly, describing its regulations and purpose Proposition of ideas for SPs inclusion in EU’s public policy programs African division’s 2011 survey of SPs and BIs Manual for hosting IASP’s World Conferences and other events Summary of IASP’s structure, network and services
IASP Visuals
Youtube ® channel with 62 videos
Exploring the Strategigram
2016 video explaining the software tools and functions
Type
Size
Source
PDF
16 pages
Inside Access
JPEG
2 pages
Website
PDF
58 pages 138 pages
Website Web general search Web general search
PDF PDF Video Webinar
10 pages 463 minutes 60 minutes
Youtube ® Website
111
Areas of Innovation in a global world
2016 book authored by Josep Piqué and edited by Luis Sanz Compilation of all news published by the Newsfeed IASP from 2007 to 2017 Source: prepared by the author.
e-Book PDF
253 pages 755 pages
Purchased on website Website
3.6 Data-collecting instruments The primary data was collect through in-depth interviews via face-to-face interactions and, on two occasions, via Skype® video call. They differ from other closed interview formats for granting wider flexibility of questioning for the researcher and more space for the interviewed to elaborate in their responses. Flick (2004) also believes they favor greater data comparability and a more accurate data collection given their interactive use in proximity to the environment in which the researcher analyzes a certain phenomenon. These interviews were chosen instead of closed questionnaires for offering the opportunity of interaction with the people providing information, something considered vital for observing and analyzing data with greater depth and avoiding shallow or poorly constructed answers (FLICK, 2004; YIN, 2013). Poupart (2008) provides similar arguments and adds that open interviews are relevant once they allow vital perceptions of the social actor involved in the investigated phenomenon. The interview’s structure followed the topics of the questionnaire of provided services18. Given that this questionnaire listed a lengthy number of services, the interviewed subjects were asked if each of them were applicable to his/her association’s scope of action with yes or no questions. This followed the recommendation from Miles, Huberman and Saldaña (2014) to avoid tiring out the interviewed subjects by clustering data on a reasonable scheme. Also, the categorized questionnaire made the interviewing process more practical and less timedemanding for the interviewed subjects. In parallel, the subjects were asked to provide examples for the applicable services listed on the questionnaire. To make this a less time-consuming task, the researcher previously used the data from the documental research to anticipate possible examples, pairing them with the listed services. This proved to be a positive decision since it provided ratification of examples without excessively demanding the subjects, and surprisingly, in some interviews the subjects claimed that when evaluating the questionnaire in advance, some services were considered by 18
See Appendix 5.
112
them as not provided, however, when asked about the paired examples from documental data, they changed their answers, claiming either that they did not remember the example given by the researcher or that they had considered specific services in different categories. In addition to this questionnaire, a series of open-ended questions was elaborated for each interviewed subject, with slightly varied questions for adapting each interview to the subjects’ association and the position they had. These questions were placed before the questionnaire of provided services, involving: (I) personal history and entry in the association; (II) the association’s trajectory; (III) its business model and strategy; (IV) its structure and projects; (V) its ties with government; (VI) ties with universities; (VII) ties with industry; (VIII) ties with financial institutions and (IX) ties with other intermediary organizations. The interviews were recorded for reasons of practicality and better conversation flow. This rendered less time of taking notes while also allowing for a more fluid and tactful interaction with the people being interviewed. Also, it allowed for a detailed post-analysis of the information collected, something difficult to achieve while the interviews were taking place. The audios were collected with an Olympus® VN-7800PC digital voice recorder with a noise cancelling microphone. For safety reasons, every interview was also recorded with an iPhone® 5S using its recording app. No interviews audios were damaged or compromised, the only limitations were minor seconds of inaudible words or expressions used by some of the interviewed subjects. The recorded audios amounted to approximately 11 hours and were later transcribed using the online Transcribe® paid software. This data was organized in the same ABNT standards as this thesis, resulting in a total amount of written material described in Table 6. TABLE 6 – Detailed description of transcribed data Transcribed data from the semi-structured interviews Pages 99 Paragraphs 787 Lines 3.260 Words 40.764 Characters (no space) 201.847 Source: Prepared by the author.
3.7 Strategies for data analysis The individual case analysis was chosen as the initial strategy to scrutinize the data collected from its various sources. This strategy allows for each of the multiple cases to be analyzed
113
separately from the others, conserving the in-depth data collected for each case contained within the boundaries of the associations analyzed. This text-by-text separate description of the associations is considered more appropriate for presenting the reader a more complete and better contextualized portray of each case presented. If the data analysis were to begin with point-by-point descriptions alternating between all cases, we believe it would present a fragmented context of each case, thus limiting the reader’s perception about the reasons and limitations behind each of the associations’ activities. The individual case analysis was also selected as the first strategy for the reason that it fits adequately as the predecessor of the second strategy selected for data analysis – the qualitative comparative practices. Since comparative qualitative analysis seeks to “achieve abstraction by doing justice to the context in which the different cases are embedded” (PALMBERGER; GINGIRICH, 2014), it seemed fit that the cases of each association were presented first, by individual analysis. The qualitative comparative practices was elected as a strategy for its inherent foundation that allows researchers to identify similarities and differences, the main elements of scientific reasoning’s traditional component: the comparison (BOEIJE, 2010). For Palmberger and Gingrich (2014), comparison is a research tool that offers many benefits to qualitative comparative analysis. Lewis (apud Palmberger and Gingrich, 2014) indicates that its contribution are to: (I) identify the presence or absence of a given phenomenon in different groups; (II) examine how this phenomenon manifests itself differently among cases; (III) to explore varied reasons, explanations or consequences of a phenomenon between different groups; (IV) evaluate the interaction of a phenomenon in contrasting cases; and (V) to openly explore the differences on the contexts within the phenomenon occurs. For these reasons, this strategy is considered adequate to understand the similarities of AURP Canada, Anprotec and IASP despite their different contexts and scopes of actions, and the differences between them despite being a part of the same industry. This comparative strategy seeks to build from the data initially collected to provide additional insights, which is described by Palmberger and Gingrich (2014) as dependent methodologies given their need to rely on data collected from other methods. The choice for a qualitative comparative practice analysis strategy matches well with the multiple-case research strategy for it is considered by Palmberger and Gingrich (2014) as a small-n comparison in which purposefully selected cases are compared for their complexity, thus the need for low number
114
of cases. Also, these authors claim that larger samples would add variables and complexity without a guarantee of finer results. Lewis (apud Palmberger and Gingrich, 2014) concludes that comparative analysis are valuable not for measuring differences, but to understand them. Once again, we highlight that it is among the goals of this research to identify the ties between associations with other innovation system’s components instead of quantifying or qualifying them. The data analyzed is displayed, by case descriptive meta-matrixes. Initially, they are used to describe the data collected from each association separately. Later, on the comparative analysis, these matrixes are used to identify the commonalities and differences between them. The data are presented in the following sequence: AURP Canada, Anprotec, and IASP, followed by the comparative analysis in which their data are compiled and contrasted. The sequence of presentation of data followed the overall progression in which the interviews were conducted.
115
4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 AURP Canada 4.1.1 History and trajectory The Association of University Research Parks in Canada (AURP Canada) is a non-profit association established for the purpose of promoting and supporting research and technology parks. Founded in 2007, it is considered a “chapter” of AURP, based in Arizona (USA) – one of the oldest associations of SPs (founded in 1986). According to its executive team, the idea of founding AURP Canada came during the conferences organized by AURP. Former President and co-founder Carol E. Stewart claims that, during these events, the Canadian executives representing various parks usually arranged parallel meetings to discuss their national scenario and challenges. From these regular meetings came the decision to found a chapter devoted to Canadian parks, made formal in 2007. AURP Canada is a formal chapter of AURP and is slightly different in terms of its strategic model and how they approach and serve their Canadian members. Current President Larry Shaw believes that the International association is focused on it 349 members around the world acting mostly for enabling projects, building relationships and networks, knowledge exchange through events and maintaining the conversation about the parks, its best practices and its necessary training programs, much like the IASP. He claims that:
[...] the AURP is more of a numbers game, keeping the information flow like in IASP [...] they don’t see themselves as lobbyists, or changing innovation policies within the country, only at an academic level. Inside the AURP International there is no part of the organization that tries to impact the federal innovation agenda outside of the USA. But in Canada, we come together as one voice (SHAW, Personal interview, 2016).
4.1.2 Structure and business model The Chapter is a non-governmental organization (NGO), consisting of 30 members (all of which are research and science parks) across Canadian provinces. According to Laura O’Blennis (2016), the association’s executive director, Laura O’Blennis, there are two
116
Science Parks (SPs) in Atlantic Canada; 11 in Québec; 10 in Ontario; and seven in Western Canada. There are additional emerging parks expected to become members between 2017 and 2018, yet, Larry Shaw believes the chapter’s membership in the future will remain small compared to bigger ones such as IASP, fluctuating between 30 to 40 members. Canada is described as a very particular market with specific needs and, although the majority of national parks are affiliated with AURP Canada, a few of them chose not to be members given its individual approaches. TABLE 7 – Members of AURP Canada Parks Edmonton Research & Technology Park Innovate Calgary Discovery Parks Vancouver Island Technology Park Smartpark Perennia Innovation Park Knowledge Park David Johnston R+T Park Innovation Park - Queen's University Kanata North Technology Park MaRS Discover District McMaster Innovation Park Sault Ste. Marie Innovation Centre Trent Research and Innovation Park University of Guelph Research Park Advanced Manufacturing Park Western Research Park Western-Sarnia-Lambton Research Park Bromont Scientific Park Développement Économique Longueil Innoparc de Lévis (Planned Park) Laval Technopole Parc Innovation - Université de Sherbrooke Parc Micro Science Trois-Rivières Québec Metro High Tech Park Saint-Hyacinte Technopole Sherbrooke Innopole Innosphère (Technocentre en Écologie Industrielle) Technoparc Montreal Technopole Maritime du Québec Innovation Place – Prince Albert Innovation Place - Regina Innovation Place – Saskatoon Source: prepared by the author.
Province Alberta Alberta British Columbia British Columbia Manitoba Nova Scotia New Brunswick Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Québec Québec Québec Québec Québec Québec Québec Québec Québec Québec Québec Québec Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Saskatchewan
Founded in 1985 1983 1980 2001 1999 1998 1997 2002 2008 1978 2005 2005 1999 Exp. in 2018 1986 2011 1989 2003 1975 2002 1996 2008 2009 1988 2011 2010 2008 1987 2000 2006 2000 1980
AURP estimates that there are approximately 1600 companies currently operating in its member-parks, employing around 65,000 people and generating $4.3 billion Canadian Dollars (CAD) in GDP (gross domestic product); $3.2 billion CAD in salaries and $596 million CAD in tax revenues. 75% of the parks have accelerators; 33% of its tenants have half of its
117
employees with Masters or PhD degrees; and 49% of these companies export actively or occasionally. These parks’ executive managers become a member of the international association and also joint the Canadian Chapter. Chapter members get a vote to elect a volunteer board – President; Past-President; Vice-President; and Treasurer. The volunteer board, composed of five park managers, is responsible for hiring an Executive Director – the only paid employee in the
association.
The
board's volunteers usually hold
paid
positions within
institution/member parks. Individually, each park is structured and managed on its own terms, without any control or interference from the chapter. According to Carol E. Stewart, “there is a strong network, regular calls with members, board meetings every month. Given we all hold positions in research parks, the projects we work on are usually three or four a year, and since they are very significant we probably interact a minimum of two dozen times a year” (STEWART, Personal interview, 2016).
FIGURE 8 – AURP Canada’s structural hierarchy Source: Prepared by the author.
The association has no core funding but all of its members pay an annual fee of $1,500 US. All parks are members of AURP International with membership at approximately $ 1,000 US and an additional $500 US Chapter fee. Members are enabled to engage and participate in the chapter’s projects that usually revolve around economic development; foreign direct investment (FDI); infrastructure; standard practices; incubation; and acceleration. The membership funds are not sufficient to cover all of the association’s annual expenses, but they are complemented with matching government programs and fees charged in special projects, directed to specific members that pay additional $5,000 CAD, or with the revenue from
118
individual demands for specific services. According to Larry Shaw, “AURP Canada engages in FDI for its members by searching for opportunities and leads that some parks may be interested in pursuing directly” (SHAW, Personal interview, 2016). Regarding the association’s business model, Carol E. Stewart states that:
[…] we have boot strapped this chapter with no funding from other sources, so our projects are very specifically value-driven to the parks’ needs. Do they attend only the parks’ needs, or do we search for new opportunities that come from no specific demand? A little bit of both. Proposed projects are reviewed by the board first, to check if the idea is valid, reach out to the members for their participation and necessary funding. Sometimes we require $5.000 CAD for smaller projects, other times we need to go as up to $20.000 CAD to implement larger ones (STEWART, Personal interview, 2016).
Despite the chapter’s name specifying a relationship between parks and universities, its members are not obliged to be formally attached to academic institutions. According to Larry Shaw, there is, however, a preference for members to be part of what he calls the innovation agenda and ecosystem, providing economic outputs while also being commercially viable. He mentions as an example Knowledge Park, located in Fredericton, NB, which has no formal affiliation with local universities yet constantly establishes partnerships with the University of New Brunswick in order to accomplish economic activities in the region. The stance of Carol E. Stewart on the matter is slightly different. She argues that AURP International started with conformity and that the few members not related to universities eventually left due to their real-estate only focus. She claims: […] a university related (to the park) is important. It is one of our distinguishing factors and it gives us more credibility since the companies are always looking for talent, and the universities are the talent pool. I think that is one of our highest values: being related to a university. When it comes to a network it is important to have close relationships, and of course we will not exclude anyone, but the district does need to have that university connection (STEWART, Personal interview, 2016).
While the ties with universities may be mandatory in other associations, for Larry Shaw, such a change in the Canadian chapter was a migration led by their main objectives and the Canadian market’s reality. Having economic outputs in a commercially viable model was (and remains) essential for enabling AURP Canada to act on behalf of its members with municipal, provincial and federal governments as a political leverage.
119
4.1.3 Objectives and specific goals The association’s overall objectives are described by Larry Shaw as to: (I) provide a network for all the members; (II) create national awareness of federal government (to open doors for funding; recognize the role of universities and the relevance of parks in economic development); and (III) plan and implement special projects at a park level (FDI or infrastructure). The fulfillment of objectives I and II involves regular missions (three to four a year) to Ottawa (Canada’s capital) to lobby in ministerial level conversations about how to foster innovation, which policies to prioritize, and what subsequent infrastructure investments and funding are required. This is where Larry Shaw believes the economic outputs of the parks are vital. Carol E. Stewart points out that around its initial years, the association’s ability to act as a lobbyist was limited and AURP Canada was constantly challenged by some federal agents requiring tangible indicators. This led the association to invest resources for a period of two years in order to put together the National Impact Economic Study performed by PwC, published in 2013. The report had a positive impact on AURP Canada’s lobbying activities, since:
[…] it validated everything we said and was a great tool, even providing some projections. Since then, things have evolved. Now when we go back to Ottawa, people understand who we are representing, and so now they are asking us to take on projects, or to consider projects, which is a big turnaround from where we started in 2007-2008. They look to us for directions of new policies, new ideas, and priorities. Now, we are at the table and part of the dialogue, something impossible 10 years ago (STEWART, Personal interview, 2016).
As for specific goals, Larry Shaw cites: (a) focus on Accelerators (develop a best practices model); and (b) influence the capital infrastructure program. Regarding the fulfillment of objective (a), he details some particularities regarding Canadian intermediaries. The Federal government had a funding program of $100 million in awards destined for projects of acceleration, some of which were to be allocated in a diagnostic, evaluation and standardization of accelerators. Initially, AURP was a participant in this program’s discussions of its format and the creation of a proposal that would provide certification, commonalities and best practices. Shaw claims that the Federal government later found out that such goals were not being effectively produced by other organization and therefore invited AURP back into discussions to present a program of evaluation and standardization of accelerators.
120
AURP’s intent in providing benchmark exercises or best acceleration practices are more closely related to public goals of economic development attained through effective commercialization. Larry Shaw further details this issue by pointing out that venture capital (VC) accelerators interests lie in their return of investments in high growth, high spin-off companies. This model is extremely important and is a critical part of the overall ecosystem. Within the AURP member’s accelerator programs long term growth and economic development impacts are the primary objectives for efficient accelerator results. As Shaw explains:
We are primarily interested in economic development, and typically that means jobs. We have 40 companies here (on Knowledge Park) with over 800 jobs. Our fundamental approach is to focus on building companies that are going to be here for the next 5, 10 years. So they will pay taxes, their employees will buy homes, cars, local products and services, etc. Out of all the work we do, only about 6% qualifies as a high growth, high potential VC-oriented type of investment (SHAW, Personal interview, 2016).
As to goal (b), Shaw mentions that it is difficult to acquire such capital for infrastructure since sometimes they are driven by commercial real-estate demands like pre-leasing 75% of the building before it can be built. Despite some limitations, he argues that AURP’s incursions to Ottawa have allowed companies located in parks to be eligible for applications to federal funds in infrastructure, something he considers to be a great improvement. 4.1.4 Main components relations 4.1.4.1 Government AURP’s executives described the association’s position with government through a layered composition. According to Larry Shaw, the Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff’s (2000) Triple Helix model is more complex in reality, and the component representing government, at least in Canada’s context, should be unfolded into federal; provincial; and municipal levels. All of these levels are described as vital to SPs activities yet AURP Canada’s interventions on each of them are different. The federal level is considered the most relevant one by Shaw in terms of the association’s efforts in lobbying for national policies and funds. AURP acts on behalf of the collective parks and may sometimes intervene for individual ones. He claims it is difficult to point out specific examples, but intuitively it is possible to see how federal requirements and demands
121
have been directed towards the parks. Shaw mentions the PwC 2013 report to say that the federal government was unaware of the parks worth of $5 billion CAD and the downstream effect of that was government shifting substantial resources towards the innovation agenda (previous resources of $100 million went up to $800 million CAD, starting 2017). He understands that this change is not exclusively due to AURP actions but he believes that its efforts were a part of the substantial increase of funding allocated in the federal innovation agenda. For Carol E. Stewart, the association’s relationship with federal government is only positive today as a result of almost a decade of conversations and incursions to Ottawa in which not only did they have to push for greater support, but also reposition AURP’s approach in order for its lobbying to be more effective:
The relationship of AURP with government has changed. Since 2007, we started at ground zero. Other than they actually funding most of the research parks, there was no interaction. We had a real education task on our hands, to educate them on what science parks were. We thought we were Canada’s best kept secret since they had no idea there were 26 parks across the country, with 1600 tech companies within them, approximately 50.000 knowledge workers, and that the majority of parks had incubators or accelerators (STEWART, Personal interview, 2016).
At the provincial level, AURP’s support for the parks is concentrated on their individual operational and sustainability aspects. They provide instructions and references for the parks in their requests for provincial funding for its operations and special projects. Depending on how new the park or its managers are, the association provides them with directions on how to approach the provincial governments more efficiently in terms of numbers (revenue, jobs and spending) to make a case for their regional relevance. In between the provincial and federal layers, Stewart mentions the regional funding bodies as the most significant for the parks in terms of capital for individual investments. Regionally based institutions such as Federal Development (FedDev) in Ontario, the Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency (ACOA) in Atlantic Canada, and the Western Diversification in Western Canada are said to be common players with AURP’s members, usually inviting them to apply for funding for their specific projects. The municipal level concerns lined items’ operational costs, such as tax offsets, infrastructure building (sewer, electrical) and how they may be negotiated according to the parks’ local impacts. For example, in Knowledge Park’s case, for every dollar the municipality offsets its costs, the park returns $23 dollars in consumer spending (this is determined by independent
122
consultants contracted by each park, that analyze the jobs created and the downstream purchases and commercial activities from them). 4.1.4.2 Universities Despite having no obligation to be linked to a university, there are advantages for a member when academic relations are part of its activities. For Larry Shaw, the obvious reasons are the intellectual property (IP) being developed in universities while the less obvious are skills – students with high quality education and knowledge. Also, given that a lot of regions have universities at the forefront of their innovation agendas, the probability of economic impact is greater than in parks without such connections. According to Shaw, all of Knowledge Park’s economic activities are cored around the research and infrastructure within the university, which does not mean that other companies outside of the university spectrum are not supported: “our strategic time is spent around university-related activities while our reactive time is spent around local stores or businesses retails” (SHAW, Personal interview, 2016). The relationship with the university is also relevant in terms of the parks’ abilities to indicate how they contribute to them. For Shaw, a poor relationship is constrained to land rent, therefore, if a park is unwilling or unable to show its impact on student employment or attraction, its value will be negatively perceived by universities and its long-term results will likely be limited. He claims “it is their job [park managers] to show and explain how they actually contribute to the university” and in parallel, it is AURP’s responsibility making sure they are aware of it and receive the proper instructions to do so. He continues:
Knowledge Park has 95% of its 800 workers with a degree, 50% of which comes from the UNB (University of New Brunswick).The university doesn’t even talk to me about land rent. Do they give me free land rent, though? No. But I would say that the amount of rent I pay for their land is inconsequential to the value we bring to them (SHAW, Personal interview, 2016).
The research parks also play a role in bridging adequate industry components to universities. Carol E. Stewart argues that rent costs should not be the main reason for a company to move into a park the same way that tenancy revenues should not influence which companies a park decides to harbor. She believes in prioritizing the companies that bring value to the parkuniversity relationship and all those involved in it:
123
[…] to have tenancy in a park you actually need to want a relationship with the university, so if it’s a call center coming in that needs 600 lower level education people to hire, that’s not the place for them to be. What we want is high level education positions for the graduates and undergraduates to potentially work in. We also have companies that may be big or small but that need to have positive impact on the community. It has to go both ways and be win-win (STEWART, Personal interview, 2016).
In addition to the ties with representatives of individual universities or research institutions, the AURP Canada also has partnerships with organizations that collectively represent them, such as Universities Canada – that gathers Canadian universities’ presidents, U15 – a group of research-intensive universities in Canada, and Orion – a non-profit organization that supports research, education and innovation in the province of Ontario. 4.1.4.3 Industry The association’s relationship with small, medium or large companies usually is built through bridging university-industry interests and enabling joint projects with both components. Initial efforts are usually made by companies interested in taking residency on the parks or in eventual internship programs for university students. For Larry Shaw, this is beneficial for both sides:
Research Parks are the enabling access to innovation research to industry. We are a physical expression of the ability of business to occupy space and build a direct relationship with the university, getting access or influence to IP and the innovation agenda. From the business perspective, they get access to R&D, capability inputs, partnership shares in IP, access to skilled workers (through direct hiring or internship of students, or in co-op education) (SHAW, Personal interview, 2016).
According to Stewart, bigger companies such as IBM and Google are be positive players in parks due to its substantial resources for R&D investment that end up contributing to local students and universities, but AURP park members also work more intensively with start-up companies and entrepreneurs given that they outnumber larger corporations in terms of park tenancy and overall use of its incubators and accelerators. Although AURP Canada does not represent industry alone or prioritizes private business interests, it partners with other institutions that are more closely related to industry such as OCE (Ontario Centres for Excellence) – a provincial institution that invests in industry research and product development, the NRC-IRAP (National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program) – a national program of industrial research assistance,
124
Communitech – an industry-led innovation center supporting start-ups and creative companies, Canarie – a non-profit association that provides digital infrastructure for businesses, and the Export Development Canada (EDC) – a credit agency for export with trade finance and credit export insurance. 4.1.4.4 Financial institutions Similar to the industry component, financial institutions are not directly engaged by the AURP Canada without universities or its parks’ interests being involved. Due to federal funding restraints, the association is not eligible to apply for funding like other triple helix components, so when they reach out to financial institutions such as Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) or Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD), AURP Canada represents its members by lobbying for better rates, deals, and elite financial services, according to Carol E. Stewart. This position is described by Larry Shaw equivalently:
At the end of the day we are about influencing policy for innovation, but we don’t actually have funds to do any of that. We are usually at the table for the conversations and are usually consulted regarding the rules or the deficiencies of funding, how does early-stage funding happens, bootstrapping, angel investors, venture capital, what’s the point of VC investment, etc. All of this, we discuss on a macro level, but we don’t actually get in the micro level of it. We don’t provide any startup funding at all (SHAW, Personal interview, 2016).
Despite AURP Canada’s involvement being limited to allocation of infrastructure funds at a federal level, the parks themselves usually have closer contact with financial institutions. As Shaw points out, it is not uncommon for research parks to engage in the allocation of provincial funds through seed loans for start-ups at emerging, bootstrapping, pre-angel, or pre-VC phases. Also, these allocations may happen directly with provincial, municipal or local funding agencies. 4.1.4.5 Other intermediaries Being a Canadian chapter and geographically close to the USA, the association does not engage in some activities that are already provided by AURP International to its members (ex: customized education programs, best practice knowledge exchange, peer to peer forums, park immersion programs, mentoring and awards for recognition). Importing such services is seen by its executives as a positive arrangement both in a cost reduction perspective while also allowing the chapter to concentrate on core-activities that are indispensable for its national
125
scenario. Furthermore, AURP Canada also provides its chapter members some FDI opportunities, commerce, soft landing programs and economic impact analysis both nationally and regionally. As for the IASP, the relationship is usually based around FDI projects from the mutual interest of North American and European companies that want to invest abroad. IASP annual conferences are also mentioned as a reference for networking and learning about relevant/new information, yet Larry Shaw calls for greater interaction between both organizations and claims that many of the services they provide may be overlapping:
There are areas for improvements and for more collaboration. A lot of AURP members are also IASP members and most of the board here goes to IASP events because we see a lot of value in that. It would serve us all well if, in a park level conversation, it would not be necessary to be a member simultaneously of IASP, AURP, CABI [Canadian Association of Business Incubation], etc (SHAW, Personal interview, 2016).
The World Alliance for Innovation project (WAINOVA) promoted by IASP in 2005 and made official in 2006 is an example of how these associations have been trying to combine efforts worldwide, yet with limited success. According to Shaw, “even though it brings big players together, the granularities [details] in the specific places start to be overlooked” (SHAW, Personal interview, 2016). Worldwide, even though the initiative tries to combine international, national and regional SPs associations to strengthen their lobbying and park representing abilities, there is still a challenge to show parks that these efforts are not redundant internationally and locally ineffective. Regionally, AURP Canada is also connected with Zones Québec Innovation (ZQI) – the association representing parks of the province of Québec. There are occasional conversations at an executive level but Larry Shaw claims that ZQI has been more closely aligned with IASP. The remaining research park associations around the world seldom interact with AURP but this usually happens due to FDI programs required by companies or parks. The associations that represent them act as a bridge for bilateral agreements or programs to be arranged and made formal. Carol Stewart exemplifies these usual interactions with the soft landing program between Tecnosinos, a SP from São Leopoldo, RS - Brazil, and AURP Canada. The program
126
was made public in January 2017 and aspires to attract Canadian companies in AURP’s parks interested in connections or knowledge on how to establish their business in Brazil. The Canadian chapter also partners with Canadian Technology Accelerators (CTA) and StartUP Canada, governmental and non-governmental organizations that support technologybased companies to access knowledge, funds and training required for their growth and expansion. 4.1.5 Functions and services The management services provided by AURP Canada can illustrate SPs associations’ different approach compared to other intermediaries. Unlike consultants (BESSANT; RUSH, 1995), AURP does not focus exclusively on management services, offering only a limited scope of this type of services19. They provide its members with (1) foresight and diagnostics such as feasibility studies; site location; and definitions of infrastructure or future facilities. This service is commonly available for emergent parks or mature ones, during expansions. Services like strategy development (2) and decision-making advice & consulting (6) are also provided, yet only recently. Decision making meetings are held monthly with members through video calls and bi-annually, face to face. Being a younger association while also linked to AURP International, in its initial years the association provided such services only indirectly by linking Canadian member’s demands to AURP International. Over time such demands began to be assisted internally, but the possibility to reach out to AURP International still exists when required. Demand articulation (3) services of marketing and communication are provided and organizing discourse, alignment and consensus (8) services as well. While the first deals with external demands or contingencies, the other revolves around internal needs or the coordination of parks as a collective body. In parallel, benchmarking (11) is also provided for members so they may catch-up with best-practices or improve their existing ones. Finally, the association also offers counseling for investing (9) in new or emergent projects related to innovation. TABLE 8 – AURP Canada’s management services
19
See Table 8.
127
Management Services 1 Foresight and diagnostics 2 Strategy Development 3 Demand Articulation 4 Business Strategy Implementation 5 Project management, design and evaluation 6 Decision Making advice and consulting 7 Technology assessment 8 Organizing discourse, alignment and consensus 9 Counseling for investing in new/emergent/innovative projects 10 Formulation of specific research strategies and/or sectoral activities 11 Benchmarking Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
The services that the association does not provide are business strategy implementation (4); project management, design and evaluation (5); and formulation of specific research strategies (10) – which are left to each park’s management and their priorities; and technology assessment (7) services. Carol E. Stewart claims there is an existing technology standardization project at AURP, yet this was not qualified as an established service that is regularly provided. The articulation and mobilization services that AURP Canada provides are similar to the ones existing in other types of associations (industry, business or trade) described by Bennett (1998a, 1998b, 2001), Dalziel (2006, 2010), Damsgaard e Lyytinen (2001), Koschatzky et al. (2014), Schmitter e Schreek (1999), Bennett e Ramsden (2007), and Watkins et al. (2015). Articulating, configuring and aligning interests (12) are all essential activities for the association’s cohesion and its collective bargaining effectiveness. Arbitration (13) is necessary for the possible disputes emerging in this process, although Larry Shaw claims they do not happen often enough to become a problem. Club and social support (14) activities aim at member’s integration and interaction while the articulation of innovation needs (15) targets members’ ability to improve their own services or to attend to their tenants’ demands. TABLE 9 – AURP Canada’s articulation & mobilization services Articulation & Mobilization Services 12 Articulating, Configuring, Aligning interests 13 Arbitration based on neutrality and trust 14 Club and social / peer support 15 Help users articulate innovation needs 16 Joint promotional activities Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Networking services offered by the association meet the description of bridging intermediaries that act to enable bilateral or multilateral exchanges of Bessant and Rush
128
(1995), Carlsson (1995), Dalziel (2006), Klerkx and Leuwis (2009), and Sapsed et al. (2007). AURP Canada fits this description by actively bridging member parks needs and that of their tenants with external companies and institutions that may provide strategic services, technology or know-how. The ongoing partnership established in 2014 with Canarie (a company that manages Canada’s digital infrastructure) is an example of such intermediation. The partnership offers the subsidized or free use of ICT technologies by the start-ups and SMEs established in member parks, in order to facilitate their processes from concept to commercialization. Canarie’s Digital Accelerator for Innovation and Research (DAIR) program offers free cloud-based, network and storage resources that help these tenants lower their costs and increase their effectiveness. This partnership is considered a key factor by the association given its strategic potential for economic development and the connection of several actors involved in the national innovation system. TABLE 10 – AURP Canada’s networking services Networking Services 17 Consulting of Networking establishment 18 Adapting / Implementing network models 19 Networking performance assessments 20 Management of network structure / Channels 21 Creation and facilitation of new networks 22 Interfirm networking activities 23 Building linkages with external knowledge system Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Therefore, consulting of networking establishment (17), adapting network models (18), creation and facilitation of new networks (21) and building linkages with external knowledge system (23) are all services that AURP Canada provides to its members, even if in a broader way than those services specific to individual members. Other services such as networking performance assessments (19), management of network structure (20), and interfirm networking activities (22) are indirectly offered to its members through its partnership with Canarie. As for technical services, both the provision of specific technical services (24) and standards development or support (25) are not offered by the association since they are not included in its main objectives, cost and staff structure. Such services must be sought by individual members in other organizations.
TABLE 11 – AURP Canada’s technical services
129
Technical Services 24 Provision of specific technical services 25 Standards development and support for systems development Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Technology & knowledge brokering services are partially offered to members. Unlike networking services where two or more parties are connected by AURP Canada, these services involve more than just identifying convergent interests and resources. Brokering services require that the intermediary itself performs the transfer or even the processing and recombination of technology or knowledge, as described in Oldham and McLean (1997), Hargadon (1998), Vogel and Kaghan (2001), and Ward et al. (2009). Knowledge processing and combination (26), knowledge transfer support (27) or support of technology transfer (30) are all available services, as is the provision of access to expertise/equipment (28) involved in such technologies or knowledge. However, their adoption, training, testing or validation (31, 32 and 33) are not provided and remain under members’ responsibility. Intellectual property management (29) is also not available, although there is currently an ongoing project in the association with aspirations of national IP management and cataloguing. TABLE 12 – AURP Canada’s technology and knowledge brokering services Technology& knowledge brokering services 26 Knowledge processing and combination / recombination 27 Knowledge transfer support 28 Provision of access to expertise / equipment 29 Intellectual property management 30 Support of Technology transfer 31 Test and validation of new technologies and equipment 32 Acceleration of new technologies application 33 Adapting technologies for alternate applications Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Information services are widely offered by AURP and must not be confused with technology and knowledge brokering or networking ones. While all of them require an active intermediation of scanning and prospecting, information services refer to know-what instead of know-how (brokering) or know-who (networking) content. Services 34 to 40 are all available from AURP Canada to its members. Some of them may be required by individual members such as scanning and prospecting (34) or information gathering, processing, generation and combination (35), while the remaining ones are usually provided by the association’s initiative or through its formal activities or regular publications such as newsletters (39), its knowledge-sharing meetings (38), or its special publications (40) like the bi-annual Canada NOW magazine.
130
TABLE 13 – AURP Canada’s information services Information services 34 Scanning and prospecting external information 35 Information gathering, processing, generation and combination 36 Communication and dissemination of knowledge 37 Diffusing information of best practices techniques 38 Hosting knowledge-sharing meetings 39 Newsletter 40 Special publications / Reports Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Social activities and status services usually are the ones more easily perceived by the public since they are traditional in various types of associations. They are described by Larry Shaw as “very niche and specific” since AURP hosts social events (41) that do not conflict with AURP International. Also, the Canadian meeting (43) happens only bi-annually and other forum or club activities (42) are organized according to emergent demands or opportunities. Forums usually are centered on a theme or activities segment, gathering the attendance of specialists and those members, tenants or unaffiliated individuals or institutions interested in their information. These events are generally hosted in a member park location, like the 2017’s Forum on energy innovations in Fredericton, New Brunswick (home of Knowledge Park). The association also promotes among its members other events (summits, conferences, fairs or programs) that are organized externally, usually by its institutional partners, but that hold value for its member parks or their tenants. Awards or recognition prizes (44) such as park of the year or rookie of the year are offered to Canadian members and its staff or tenants, but through AURP International. Other services like promotion of members (45) in the association’s website, events or printed material are provided, although paid advertising (46) is not required by members nor offered by the Canadian chapter. TABLE 14 – AURP Canada’s social activities services Social activities& status services 41 Social events 42 Forum / Clubs activities 43 Conferences 44 Awards / Recognition 45 Promotion / Kudos by association 46 Advertising Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
131
Regulation and legitimization services are not part of AURP Canada’s core activities. Usually, regulatory activities are more common on government-related agencies acting upon specific policies that must be implemented, or in technology transfer offices in universities that may perform regulatory functions to students or incubated companies regarding intellectual property. At AURP Canada, there are some accreditations for parks and its management and future plans for sustainability practices (50), but no standards development and setting (47), testing and validation (48), protection of results (49) or self-regulation (51) services are performed. TABLE 15 – AURP Canada’s regulation and legitimization services. Regulation & Legitimization Services 47 Standards development & setting and licensing promotion 48 Testing and validation 49 Protecting results 50 Accreditation 51 Self-regulation Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Staff training and development services are provided externally due to the Canadian association’s structure and business model. Most of member demands for courses, workshops, specializations and coaching (52) are channeled to AURP International and its larger platform and resources. Most of these services are provided during international conferences or in spring training sessions, with a greater request for programs for new park managers, operational standards, funding or tenant contracts. Carol E. Stewart claims that these events often have large attendance (200 + people) and their results have a very positive acceptance since the content and know-how they present are very specific and difficult to source outside the association. On the other hand, international exchange projects (53) are offered directly by AURP Canada. They are usually structured around countries with high global value and require the support or initiative of foreign parks or institutions that will likely be associated with other international/national/regional SPs associations.
132
FIGURE 9 – AURP’s parks soft-landing program. Source: House of Commons, Canada. Available at: . Accessed on: 15 Jan. 2018.
The most recent of such projects is the Soft Landing in Brazil program, hosted at the Tecnosinos Tech Park in Rio Grande do Sul, a state in the south of Brazil. Designed for startups or companies engaged in innovation with plans of exporting/expanding to Brazil, the soft landing one-week course offers strategic knowledge sessions about key areas like legal, IP, financial and human resources, marketing and sales; and also connections with local companies; and exploring tours of regional clusters. TABLE 16 – AURP Canada’s staff training and development services Staff Training & Development Services 52 Training & skills workshops; courses; specializations; coaching 53 International exchange projects Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Financing services are partially provided by the association, although direct financing is not a part of its core activities. The prospection of potential funding (54) happens occasionally at a lobbying level when AURP articulates the allocation of federal or provincial funding for its members as a collective body. Also, the association may engage in conversations with third parties on behalf of a member when necessary, therefore making a business case (56) with
133
potential investors. However, there is no direct/indirect allocation of funding (55) by the association to its members, whether from public or private investors. Funds for new technology development (57) are also outside the chapter’s core activities. TABLE 17 – AURP Canada’s financing services Financing Services 54 Prospecting potential funding activities 55 Direct / Indirect funding through collaborations (venture capital, seed funds) 56 Making a business case (representation to possible investors) 57 New technology development funding Source: Prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Representation and lobbying services seem to be AURP Canada’s main focus. Despite not managing external resources (59) directly, it is possible to argue that the association articulates them. TABLE 18 – AURP Canada’s representation & lobbying services Representation & Lobbying Services 58 Identifying, mobilizing and involving relevant actors 59 Managing external resources 60 Cluster promotion 61 Collective bargaining Source: Prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Identifying, mobilizing and involving relevant actors (58) are core activities. Cluster promotion (60) and collective bargaining (61) are also services the association provides as a representative for its members in hopes of better support and resources for its activities, as previously described by AURP Canada’s executives and founders, and illustrated by its incursions to the federal capital and provincial ones. Such services are also offered collectively since they attend to all members simultaneously. One example is the “Innovation Agenda”, a strategy for cluster promotion presented to Canada’s House of Commons in 2016, in an attempt to persuade public representatives to consider investments in the SPs industry and a pan-Canadian cluster strategy of biotechnology, clean technology, digital technology, and natural resources.
134
FIGURE 10– Canadian clusters in science parks regions Source: House of Commons, Canada. Available at: . Accessed on: 15 Jan. 2018.
Finally, policing public policy services must be differentiated from the representation and lobbying ones. While the previous are services where the association chapter takes action towards other systemic components, these are services where the Canadian chapter serves as a channel through which government plans, coordinates, implements and/or regulates public policies. There aren’t any policies that are controlled through the association (62), but supporting innovation policy strategies (63) and coordinating their priorities (64) are included in AURP Canada’s activities. This can be exemplified by the current Science and Technology Plan being outlined by the federal government, which is organizing several round table meetings across the country. Usually they take place at member parks and the association chapter is appointed responsible for a relevant part of the inputs being collected and specially for gathering industry, academia and other innovation system’s players to such meetings, in order for future policies to meet a wide array of demands. TABLE 19 – AURP Canada’s policing public policy services Policing Public Policy Services 62 Public Policy implementation, regulation, dissemination 63 Supporting or implementing innovation policy strategies 64 Coordination of policy priorities Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
135
4.2 Anprotec 4.2.1 History and trajectory The founding of Anprotec coincides with two projects that started in the 1980s in Brazil, a time when the awareness of SPs and Incubators as important development and innovation tools followed a world trend of their establishment. The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq) launched in 1984 a program of Implementation of Technological Parks, which also ended up originating the first incubators in the country. This initiative and the public money allocated in it were followed in parallel by a joint project of mapping the existing parks and incubators in Brazil and in Latin America (Argentina, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay), implemented by the national Financier of Studies and Projects (Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos – FINEP) and the Organization of American States (Organização dos Estados Americanos / Organización de los Estados Americanos – OEA) in 1986. This study was scheduled to end with an international seminar about technological parks, taking place in Rio de Janeiro between the 1st and 4th of December of 1987.
FIGURE 11 – Poster of the international seminar, 1987. Source: Memória Anprotec. Available at: . Accessed on: 15. Jan 2018.
The efforts involved in organizing this seminar and both CNPq and FINEP/OEA’s projects eventually connected several professionals involved in them that had relevant roles in the Brazilian innovation scenario. This resulted in a meeting that took place months before the international seminar (October 30th, 1987), composed of 16 people from 12 institutions from 5
136
states that decided to found Anprotec (PLONSKI, 2016). According to Maurício Guedes, interviewd in 2017, Anprotec’s president between 1995 and 1999 […] it was because of FINEP and OAS’ project that the people working with this subject (parks and incubators) met each other. During the two years of interviews in Brazil and other Latin American countries these people got to know each other and just a few months before the seminar, a small number of people decided to found an association: Anprotec. Our first meetings were at a simple table, with about a dozen people participating (GUEDES, Personal interview, 2012).
For Sylvio Goulart Rosa Jr., interviewed in 2017, president of the association between 1989 and 1993, the movement – as he called Anprotec – began earlier in the 1980s with Lynaldo Cavalcanti de Albuquerque, CNPq’s president between 1980 and 1985. Rosa Jr. claims that Albuquerque set the initial efforts to replicate in Brazil the incubators and innovation centers projects he witnessed when traveling to Europe during his term. The initial SPs projects in Brazil were directly supported by his leadership in CNPq in 1984, when six science parks foundations were opened in Campina Grande (PB), Florianópolis (SC), Manaus (AM), Petrópolis (RJ), Santa Maria (RS) and São Carlos (SP) with the intention to structure technology transfer centers in these cities’ universities. According to Guilherme Plonski (2016) and Anprotec (2014), the CNPq’s initiative was the first of its kind in Latin America and expected to transfer technology from universities to the private sector, inspired by international successful cases. Francilene Garcia, interviewed in2017, also highlights Albuquerque’s decisive role in these initial projects for issuing the executive resolution 084/84 within CNPq to begin the first expeditions aimed at formalizing these parks and their management teams, which coincidently gathered many of Anprotec’s future presidents around these projects: Maurício Guedes (4th president) in Rio de Janeiro, Telmo Silva de Araújo (3rd president) in Campina Grande, Sylvio Goulart Rosa Jr. (2nd president) in São Carlos and César Muniz Filho (1st president) in Paraná. From these six projects, only the ones in Campina Grande and São Carlos were successful, with the remaining ones closing operations or adapting into incubator formats. Rosa Jr. mentioned that all of Aprotec’s early presidents were university-related, except for César Muniz Filho, who at the time was a part of the Development Bank of Parana State. Muniz Filho and his directors were not elected, but appointed, forming the association’s first board of directors in the 1987-1989 term. Rosa Jr. confirms he was the first president to be
137
elected20, and that his successors were not only closely related to universities, but also members of their predecessor’s board of directors. Both Rosa Jr. and Garcia agree that the progression of presidents in Anprotec was an informal pass of the baton, considered to be positive for the association since it helped obtain consistency in both management and projects over time. Luis Afonso Bermúdez, also interviewed in2017, called it a tradition that, despite being seen by some as a form of nepotism, ensured Anprotec’s development and expansion over the years. TABLE 20 – Anprotec’s list of presidents Name César Muniz Filho Sylvio Goulart Rosa Jr. Sylvio Goulart Rosa Jr. Telmo Silva de Araújo Maurício Guedes Maurício Guedes Luís Afonso Bermúdez Luís Afonso Bermúdez José Eduardo Fiates José Eduardo Fiates Guilherme Ary Plonski Guilherme Ary Plonski Francilene Procópio Garcia Francilene Procópio Garcia Jorge Nicolas Audy Source: prepared by the author.
Term 1987-1989 1989-1991 1991-1993 1993-1995 1995-1997 1997-1999 1999-2001 2001-2003 2003-2005 2005-2007 2007-2009 2009-2011 2012-2013 2014-2015 2016-2017
In 1990, the association signed its first agreement with SEBRAE – Brazilian Service of Support for Micro and Small Enterprises, a private non-profit organization, one of its current and most crucial partners. Since this first agreement, SEBRAE has been the main sponsor of Anprotec’s annual conferences and seminars, as well as public edicts for new incubators, educational and mentoring courses, accreditations and other activities. According to Rosa Jr. (2017), the establishment of Anprotec in SEBRAE’s national and state councils was his biggest achievement as president. Up until 1990, CEBRAE (Centro Brasileiro de Apoio à Pequena e Média Empresa) Brazilian Center of Support to Small and Medium Enterprises – was a public entity. After 1990, it was transformed into a private non-profit organization under Brazil’s President Collor, and re-named as SEBRAE. After these changes, SEBRAE 20
See Table 20.
138
initiated efforts to allocate representatives from relevant institutions in Brazil to be allocated in its national council. Rosa Jr. claims that, from a mutual friend’s indication, Anprotec was suggested to SEBRAE since it was the only institution openly supporting innovative entrepreneurship in the country. After meetings in Brasilia, one of the council’s much disputed seats was granted to Anprotec, joined by other 12 relevant institutions such as BNDES, Bank of Brazil, ANPEI (National Association for Research and Development of Innovative Companies), CACB (Brazilian Confederation of Business and Commercial Associations), among others. SEBRAE’s state association councils emulated the configuration of its federal council, which granted Anprotec the power to nominate some of its members to these councils. Rosa Jr. highlights that: […] since we were still a small association with about 20 members, we didn’t have enough of them to nominate into the 27 state councils. Several of our nominations were accepted, which strengthened the Association since we gained proximity with much of Brazil’s stronger institutions. Also, this gave us access to the ‘money table’, facilitating our participation in many large and successful projects. (ROSA JR., Personal interview, 2017.).
Anprotec was a small association during its first two terms with circa 15 members and no membership fees. Rosa Jr. claims that in his term, fees were only charged when events were sporadically organized. Having no physical headquarters, providing many services was a challenge since the association was “a bunch of papers, agreements and a checkbook that the acting president would bring along in his briefcase wherever he would travel to” (ROSA JR., Personal interview, 2017). Francilene Garcia called this “an installation phase”, encompassing the presidential terms of Araújo and Guedes. Garcia mentions that this was a crucial period for the association and its main challenge was to bring awareness about SPs and incubators to government, universities and society’s representatives. She also states that: […] this was one of Telmo’s greatest achievements, to spread knowledge stemming from international experiences into our national reality back then, and also, to ‘catechize’ these people about the necessary structure and surrounding services in order for these innovation mechanisms to thrive. He and his board traveled a lot in Brazil to share this knowledge with others (GARCIA, Personal interview, 2017).
At that time, there was only one paid employee to work with the board of directors, supported indirectly by CNPq. Garcia also adds that the structuring phase during Rosa Jr. and Araújo’s terms were essential to make the association “get out of paper”. In Araújo’s term the national conferences officially started to be held annually and a few specialized publications were published. In parallel, Maurício Guedes states that this was a period of strengthening ties with international bodies and organizations, something he believes was essential to boost the number of members associating with Anprotec. He mentions two examples, the 1992 Latin-
139
American conference and the 1996 international conference held in parallel to IASP’s annual conference: […] it was a remarkable moment for Anprotec. Both conferences held in Rio helped us gain a clear leadership in Latin America in terms of engagement in the movement for science parks and incubators. The majority of IASP’s Latin America division was Brazilian. At this point our brand became much stronger, and we even created our first logo. […] the rise in our membership numbers was expressive (GUEDES, Personal interview, 2017).
For Rosa Jr., the gain of international credibility was a direct result of the seriousness behind every arrangement and collaboration project Anprotec established with its international partners, along with several missions with associates and members of the board to learn about successful cases worldwide. This was expanded in 1996 during the IASP’s world conference in Rio. According to Bermúdez, in this occasion Anprotec managed to convince the IASP to open its membership base to incubators, since there were only a dozen of successful parks in Latin America while Brazil alone already had around 30 incubators. This claim was readily accepted by IASP given that Brazil’s engagement, size and representativeness made it a valuable ally for IASP to consolidate itself in the region (BERMÚDEZ, Personal interview, 2017). The association’s headquarters was officially moved to Brasília in 1993, in hopes of placing itself on a closer and more appropriate position to work alongside the Brazilian Government. This was achieved with the help of Bermúdez, who at the time was only a director of management-finance on Araújo’s presidential term. Bermúdez was the director of the Technology Development Center (CDT) at the University of Brasilia, responsible for incubating small technology-based companies. Bermúdez (2017) claims he made an agreement with the university’s dean to bring Anprotec to a vacate space inside the university, giving it an address inside CDT’s incubator as an incubated company. Bermúdez and Guedes joked about this arrangement, claiming it could get Bermúdez arrested if it was made nowadays since it granted a public space to a private organization. Establishing Anprotec’s daily operations in Brasília was mentioned by Bermúdez as one of the most relevant transformations at the time. He was in charge of these operations for almost 12 years, as a director, Vice President, and President. During this time most of his efforts were directed towards educating governmental staff and representatives in the executive and legislative powers about the importance of incubators as the locus for innovation in the country – “that is
140
why our magazine is called Locus” (BERMÚDEZ, Personal interview, 2017). Another important decision at the time was to designate its directors a specific region in Brazil to be prioritized by each of them: Every director was responsible for participating in his region’s events on behalf of the association. This was important to disseminate and clarify the concept of incubators since back then it was much harder for information to be shared and traveling to every corner of Brazil was a lot more expensive (BERMÚDEZ, Personal interview, 2017).
When Anprotec moved to Brasília, the numbers of national SPs and Incubators were still small. In the early 1990s, only three SPs and seven incubators existed in the country, a number that was quick to grow with the increasing influence of the association and other institutions’ efforts (such as SEBRAE, CNPq, CAPES [Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel], among others) to boost national entrepreneurship. By 1995, there were already 27 incubators in Brazil and in 1996, Anprotec performed its first detailed report on national SPs and incubators. These numbers climbed as national and international support and visibility from other institutions successively sustained the association’s efforts.
FIGURE 12 – Evolution of BIs and SPs initiative between 1988 and 2006 Source: Adapted from Fiates et al. (2007)
By the end of 2000, the number of incubators was over ten times as in 1993, with 135 of them being operational (PLONSKI, 2016). With increasing public and private support, Plonski (2016) claims that a number of varied models of incubators was established throughout all 27 states by efforts of several municipalities and development agencies. This led to a
141
diversification of members in the association’s membership, which at that time was more commonly composed by academic institutions. The year 2000 marked the launch of PNI – the National Program to Support Business Incubators by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MCTIC)21, which at the time had incorporated both the CNPq and FINEP. From this point forward, a rise in SPs initiatives was apparent, boosted by a national conference organized by the Brazilian Academy of Science (ABC) and the Ministry of Science and Technology, held in September of 2001. According to Plonski (2016), this conference was responsible for gathering over 1300 institutional representatives from governmental, academic and the private industry’s spheres and is seen until today as the reason why innovation became a mantra in the country’s economic development challenges. From the 94 existing science parks’ projects in Brazil in 2015, 85% of them was initiated after the year 2000, some of which were only made possible after the association’s proposition to change the PNI into a program of wider range that included more innovation mechanisms other than incubators. In 2009, after a proposition from Anprotec, the Ministry upgraded the PNI by including new requirements in its regulation and by adding SPs in its altered name – National Program to Support Business Incubators and Technological Parks (PLONSKI, 2016). According to former president Plonski (2016), from this upgrade came the most relevant change in the program: the creation of an advisory council controlled by the MCTIC composed of representatives from CNPq, FINEP, Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade (MDIC), National Development Bank (BNDES)22, National Council of State Secretaries for Science, Technology and Innovation-Related Issues (CONSECTI), SEBRAE, National Industry Confederation (CNI) and Anprotec. Participating in this advisory council enhanced the association’s links in the network of national institutions engaged in innovation. Plonski (2016) highlights this strengthening of Anprotec’s influence adding that it also became stronger since its own advisory board was composed of representatives from other relevant institutions and associations such as the Federal Congress, Brazilian Association of Private Equity & Venture Capital (ABVCAP) and the Brazilian Agency for Industrial Research and Innovation (EMBRAPII). The 2000s also marked the beginning of Anprotec’s strategic planning, mostly via José Eduardo Fiates. Before his two terms as president, Fiates was a director between 1993 and
21
Currently identified as MCTIC – Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications.
142
1995, being later invited by Bermúdez to serve as his vice-president. Fiates, in the interview conducted in 2017, mentioned that it was already as Bermúdez’s VP that he started to elaborate the associations strategic plans for the following years, later formalizing it. This strategic planning was later revised during my terms as president and it was significantly relevant for the association to establish the paths it was going to take in terms of generating knowledge, and training and developing parks’ managers so they could better serve their tenants and generate better results. My intention was and always will be to generate GDP, developing the country economically through job generation and tax collection. For as long as we remained irrelevant in these indicators, the less relevant we would be as a ‘movement’ (FIATES, Personal interview, 2017).
Fiates also emphasized the relevance of formalizing and systematizing the knowledge that was relevant to Anprotec’s members. He had already started such practices while serving as a director under Araújo’s term, when supported by other peers, he “assembled the first manuals of incubation practices, one about incubated tenants’ contracts and another one about selection processes” (FIATES, Personal interview, 2017). In his terms as president, many efforts and resources were channeled towards the development of structured development programs for incubators and parks manager with medium to long term processes, as well as formalizing the practice of technical missions for foreign benchmarking purposes. In terms of partnerships, Fiates also mentions prioritizing the mobilization of agents that could allocate resources in member-incubators by way of public programs, especially FINEP, SEBRAE and MCTIC. The most relevant of these programs, Reference Centre for supporting new entreprise (CERNE), is a partnership between Anprotec and SEBRAE that started to be planned during Fiates’ term, becoming operational in 2009 with the support of its successors Plonski and Garcia. CERNE is an accreditation model-management program for incubators to improve their results by adopting practices and processes in four sequenced maturity levels. Since its beginning, it has already allocated over US$25 million dollars via SEBRAE’s public bids into workshops and programs that have already attended to over 140 incubators and 450 of its managers in Brazil (GARCIA et al., 2015). By then, the association’s members base consistently grew to a point of becoming one of the largest in its industry.
143
FIGURE 13 – Anprotec’s members base evolution 1987-2007 Source: Adapted from Fiates et al. (2007)
Plonski’s presidential term continued to mobilize partner institutions to allocate resources towards training and developing parks and incubators’ managers. One example was the MBA program of Management of Innovation Habitats, developed with Foundation Institute of Management (FIA), based in São Paulo, with the support of SEBRAE, FINEP, CNPq and the PNI. Plonski highlights that the PNI was in need of stimuli at the time, specifically towards SPs, which he mentioned was one of his main efforts as president. From the discussions initiated around the PNI, Anprotec launched in a partnership with the MCTIC, SEBRAE, FINEP and CNPq in 2008, SAPI, the Follow-up System of Technology Parks and Business Incubators, a virtual portal designed to work as a large database of all Brazilian SPs and BIs indicators, impacts and results. Promoting the awareness of intellectual property and technology transfer among the companies of Anprotec’s members was also an objective in his term, pursued by partnering with National Forum of Innovation and Technology Transfer Managers (FORTEC) (PLONSKI, Personal interview, 2017). Finally, with increasing demands for Anprotec to perform studies involving innovation and its different mechanisms, “the Becker Institute was created as a part of the Anprotec family to act as a think tank”, organizing such projects that were starting to become too demanding for the association’s staff at the time (PLONSKI, Personal interview, 2017). Garcia’s presidential term maintained the association’s efforts through new projects and activities. Parallel to maintaining CERNE, Francilene Garcia called attention to UniAnprotec,
144
an educational program focused not only on BIs and Parks’ managers, but also local innovation agents (people connected to governments, universities or the industry). Its pilot three-module program was launched in 2015, ending in 2016 after being held in different regions of the country. Internationalization projects were also proposed, the most relevant one being Anprotec and Brazilian Trade and Investment Promotion Agency, APEX-Brasil’s land2land platform, a soft landing program involving 12 countries’ parks and incubators in a network that provides matchmaking, mentoring and training services for companies interested in entering new regional or international markets. On these partnerships, Garcia declares that: Today, and this is something that was achieved in my presidential term, we have partnerships with the EU and some of its institutions to receive European startups as well as sending our own startups abroad to experience foreign incubators and science parks for some period of time, much like a residency program, so their internationalization process gains strength (GARCIA, Personal interview, 2017).
Other international missions to Europe, Asia and North America were also organized in partnership with APEX-Brasil. Alongside these internationalization activities, Garcia (2017) states that many efforts were channeled in her term towards public representatives in the legislative and executive spheres, particularly involving the approval of the country’s science, technology and innovation Legal Mark. For Garcia , these efforts resulted in a significant outcome when science parks, incubators and other innovation mechanisms were included in the Legal Mark approved in 2016, an improvement compared to the 2004’s Innovation Law which wasn’t inclusive enough of these innovation mechanisms and limited the scope of projects and programs that could involve, regulate or fund them. As an association we made sure to be included in every conversation on the subject, which started in 2011 but where intensified after my initial term in 2012. We often consulted with our pairs and members to make sure no shadow was left on innovation-promoting enterprise and their relationship with governmental, academic and industry actors. Although the law still needs to be sanctioned, we are still working so that the diversity of names and types of such mechanisms is completely regulated, like the more recent accelerators and co-working spaces. We want to make sure there are no misinterpretations regarding their role and links with public or private universities (GARCIA, Personal interview, 2017).
Anprotec’s focus on innovation mechanisms became more inclusive during Audy’s presidential term when the association incorporated Brazilian Association of companies accelerating innovation and investments (ABRAII) and its 21 accelerators to its member-base, on December 2016. For Jorge Luis Audy, the incorporation was something planned for years
145
given that both would benefit from it. While Anprotec saw these accelerators as new alternatives for promoting innovation in a period of economic crisis, ABRAII would profit from Anprotec’s experience and strengthen ties with other relevant innovation-related institutions. 4.2.2 Structure and business model Anprotec is a non-governmental, non-profit association, legally registered in Brasília (BRA) through its legal bylaws and currently formed by 343 members. There are 369 incubators, around 100 science parks and 35 accelerators initiatives associated with Anprotec (PIRES, 2017). These members are all gathered in Anprotec’s general assembly, its supreme deliberative unit23.
FIGURE 14 – Anprotec’s hierarchical structure Source: Prepared by the author.
Among its duties, the general assembly’s main responsibilities are to: (I) elect and dismiss members of the board of directors, of the consultative board, and of the fiscal board; (II) deliberate on entry or exclusion of associates; (III) elect the national location for its annual conference; (IV) reform and revise the legal bylaws, among other administrative, strategic and budgetary approvals or refusals. The general assembly is summoned once a year by the association’s acting president, usually happening at the end of the annual conferences. According to its legal bylaws, any entity or individual acting in the support, strengthening or management of innovation mechanisms (science parks, incubators, and accelerators) are 23
See Figure 14.
146
eligible to become associates of Anprotec, under three different categories: (I) effective associates – institutions actively creating, managing or operating an innovation mechanism24; (II) corporate effective associates – institutions that hold in its legal structure more than one innovation mechanism 25; and (III) collaborative associates – which are institutions, individuals or networks (both national or foreign) that show interest in Anprotec’s activities and projects. Each category has different annual fees and only the effective associates and corporate effective associates have a right to vote in the general assembly’s elections and deliberations. Effective associates pay an annual fee of R$ 2.300 BRL, while corporate effective associates pay BRL R$ 2.300 + 25% for each innovation mechanism it houses. Collaborative associates pay fees of R$ 1.380 BRL (for institutions), or R$ 830 BRL (for individuals). In order for new members to be accepted, in addition to the fees they must submit their application for an initial approval from the director of networks and associates, and later, from the general assembly (LEITOGUINHO, Personal Interview, 2017). Below the general assembly is the consultative board, a strategic counseling unit formed by 3 members of past management (usually the three past presidents that finished their terms) and up to other six elected members for two-year terms. Its main attributions are to assist the board of directors strategically, providing counseling, support and guidance to the association in its efforts to implement strategies, allocate resources and mobilize partners. The board of directors is formed by eight directors (there were four directors until 1999): one president-director, one vice-president director and other six theme-directors (currently the director of international relations, technical director, director of enterprises, director of management-finance, director of innovation habitats, and the director of networks and associates). All of these directors are elected together in the same running slate. It is mandatory that every slate running for election has in its proposed board of directors’ representatives from all five regions of the country, and that all of them have previous experience in their appointed theme directory (ANPROTEC BYLAWS, 2016).These elected members are all voluntary and have no monetary compensation for their positions. Originally, Anprotec allowed the re-election of a board of directors, but this has recently changed and presidents and vice-presidents can no longer be re-elected (LEITOGUINHO, 2017). The
24 25
One example is a university with an incubator, or an accelerator, or a science park. As exemplified by the University of Brasília or TecnoPUC, both of them holding incubators and science parks.
147
board of director is financially supervised by the fiscal board, which is also elected, holding three official members and three other substitute members, all of them appointed for two-year terms. Below the board of director is the Superintendence, the executive team responsible for all operational aspects of the association. It holds eight paid employees, most of which are located at the HQ in Brasília. The executive superintendent is the highest ranked staff member that is not elected, being responsible for managing operations and bridging the board of directors’ strategic decisions. The remaining staff members are distributed in positions such as coordinator of associate support, coordination of management-finance, international projects consultant, projects consultants, parliamentary consultant, and administrative assistants. 4.2.3 Objectives and specific goals When asked about Anprotec’s objectives all of the interviewed members were in agreement: promote innovation and innovative entrepreneurship. Unlike other associations in the world, Anprotec does not focus solely on incubators, science parks or other mechanisms, but all of them. Sheila Oliveira Pires, interviewed in2017, highlights the fact that unlike In BIA that focused on incubators or the AURP that associates only with science parks that are related to universities, Anprotec is one of the few large associations that focuses simultaneously on science parks, incubators, accelerators and other modern formats aimed towards innovation. She declared that: We are one of the few associations in the world that gathers all of these initiatives. Our essence is to promote the creation and development of innovative enterprise, and I highlight the word innovative because we are focused not only on technologybased enterprise, it can also be process innovation, business model innovation, services innovation, etc. Innovation, as a whole, is our motif (PIRES, Personal interview, 2017).
Pires claims that it is misleading to presume that incubators are Anprotec’s priority solely because of their larger numbers compared to those of science parks. She argues that despite having almost three times more incubators than SPs, these numbers are merely a reflection of how complex, costly and long-term science parks projects are compared to those of incubators, which became more numerous in Brazil as an adaptation mechanism to the country’s institutional, economic, political and social context. Francilene Garcia, also interview in2017, shared a similar view, stating that:
148
Parks usually require long term projects with better structuring and a strategy that demands consistency over time. Since we have traditionally struggled in Brazil to assure continued budgets and resources for medium or long term projects, the actions we take in order to facilitate these projects end up requiring more time, advancing in a slower pace when compared to the incubators’ programs. Also, while it is much easier and less expensive for many incubators to be supported by municipal offices, science parks usually demand public-private partnerships to thrive in Brazil.[…] Until today, we have not seen a consolidated public policy to make sure these enterprisesare supported in a sustainable way (GARCIA, Personal interview, 2017).
Initially, Anprotec’s name was National Association of Entities Promoting Advanced Technologies Enterprises, later adapted in 1999, substituting Advanced Technologies for Innovative, therefore being recognized as the National Association of Entities Promoting Innovative Enterprises. Unlike other associations founded at the time, Anprotec’s focus was not exclusive to SPs or incubators, but both. For Plonski (2016, p. 129) the association presented itself internationally as the Brazilian Association of Science Parks and Business Incubators, yet their Portuguese name’s description indicated their openness to other varied Innovative Enterprises. One of the reasons for such a broader scope was the fact that from the initial six SPs projects predicted and funded by CNPq’s 084/84 resolution, only two prospered, with some of the remaining ones adapting into incubators. Plonski (2016, p. 130) states that incubators were “simpler to implement and much cheaper than a technology park. It was also more in tandem with the maturity level of the Brazilian innovation system”. For Maurício Guedes, interviewed in 2017, the CNPq was not prepared for the financial challenges involved in the establishment of science parks and the country’s reality, which led to the failure of a few parks, forcing the remaining ones to adapt. In turn, he claims that such challenges eventually contributed to insert the topic of interest in universities while also highlighting the importance of innovative entrepreneurs in regional economies. He stated that: There is a trend in Brazil around SPs, but we don’t have the capacity to invest and sustain the 100 parks in the country. We have a risk of demoralizing the concept if several parks start to fail. I was tired to be visited by inner-city mayors looking for guidance on how to create a park in their districts. My answer was always ‘Mr. Mayor, first you have to go back to your town and invest in a university, then in 20 years, come back so we can continue our conversation’ (GUEDES, Personal Interview, 2017).
Guedes concludes by saying that SPs aren’t bought with money, but built by a mobilization of several actors that enable it by sharing knowledge, providing institutional or financial support.
149
In its legal bylaws, Anprotec’s social purpose appears to corroborate with Garcia, Pires and Plonski’s statements, mentioning not only science parks and incubators but also other innovation mechanisms. These purposes are to: (I) congregate and support all entities engaged in the creation, development and operations of innovative enterprises, including incubators, business accelerators, science parks/hubs or similar mechanisms with potential economic, social technological development; (II) to promote an international framework that enables these mechanisms to thrive; (III) to interact with national and international governing bodies or agencies in the pursuit of support for these mechanisms, (IV) to disseminate these mechanisms as tools for social, economic and technological development in the country; and (V) to perform, participate in, and support studies and research in order to produce and disseminate technical and scientific knowledge regarding these innovation mechanisms. As mentioned on purpose (III), from the beginning, Anprotec has engaged in building ties with other actors in the Brazilian and International scenario to gather and allocate resources. According to Garcia, despite not prioritizing incubators or parks, the relationship with these other institutions and the projects they engage in together are what may vary according to the finality of these ties: “in my term as president, the only difference is the institutions and partners we engage when trying to arrange programs for each of them [parks or incubators]” (GARCIA, Personal interview, 2017). While incubators were usually assisted by projects with SEBRAE and APEX, parks were usually supported by projects with BNDES, PNI or different ministries (GARCIA, Personal interview, 2017). 4.2.4 Main components relations 4.2.4.1 Government The interviews with the presidents of the association reveal that Anprotec, from the beginning, has built ties with many institutions or agencies in pursuit of the interests of its members or the resources that could benefit them. On the government-level of the system, FINEP, CNPq, APEX and CAPES were the ministerial agencies most mentioned. Given that FINEP and CNPq are linked to MCTIC, APEX to MDIC and CAPES to MEC, it is possible to argue that these agencies also focus on the industry (mostly through APEX, FINEP and CNPq) and university (CAPES and CNPQ more significantly) levels. All of the aforementioned are connected to the federal government. Also, it is important to mention that on a state governmental level, all of Brazil’s states (except for Roraima) possess a Foundation for Research Support (FAP). Although the association’s ties with FAPs are usually promoting
150
their events, programs and partnerships, Anprotec’s ties are most commonly established with the council that gathers all of these FAPs’ representatives (National Council of State Foundations for Research Support – CONFAP).
Anprotec has acted towards the government in lobbying, awareness and technical activities throughout its existence, something deliberately planned when the association’s HQ was settled in Brasília. According to Rosa Jr., the association first became involved with government via informal acquaintances with ministries’ representatives, an involvement that became more often as Anprotec joined SEBRAE’s council and the PNI’s advisory council. As the association gained visibility as the protagonist of the entrepreneurial innovation motto, its presence and opinion began to be requested in Brasília, as Rosa Jr. and Bermúdez described. Despite building a stronger image, Anprotec has actively engaged in the awareness and lobbying among governmental representatives, especially those in the legislative power. For Bermúdez, the initial challenge was to make the innovation concept a common and familiar topic among deputies and senators. During elections years, Anprotec “made innovation guides for elected mayors and distributed them among municipal representatives in Brasília, so the concept could spread out to other parts of the country” (BERMÚDEZ, Personal interview, 2017). Anprotec currently has a parliamentary consultant on its staff whose purpose is to follow-up on processes, projects or proposed constitutional amendments to trigger Anprotec when critical issues arise. Jorge Luis Audy, interviewed in 2017, declares that: Our parliamentary consultant only acts when law projects are about to be implemented or voted and some technical support from us is necessary. For example, when the national innovation code about to come to vote came to the Senate, many senators were unclear regarding what it meant for an incubator manager to be able to have shareholding rights in startups, so our consultant immediately warned us, so we could draft a technical note and forward it to the designated Senator for that project (AUDY, Personal interview, 2017).
For Sheila Oliveira Pires, the parliamentary consultant is also valuable for identifying gaps or opportunities in regulations or legislation in which the association could be able to induce changes with potential benefits to the innovation ecosystem. Bermúdez claims that this parliamentary consultant position was a consequence of an early alliance between Anprotec, Brazilian Association of Technological Research and Innovation Institutes (ABIPTI), and ANPEI to influence federal deputies and journalists about each of their roles and potential contributions. They often coordinated breakfast sessions to invite members from the
151
legislative power in times where they felt they could or should be more present or to influence changes on ongoing law projects. Francilene Garcia mentioned that the federal deputy Sibá Machado, a member of Anprotec’s council during Garcia’s term, had a vital role in drafting the law 13.243 and in its articulation between the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. Nowadays, Pires and Audy ratify that the majority of Anprotec’s activities happen on a national level, and mostly with legislative representatives. The ties with municipalities are not effective and usually happen only through the institutions that represent them, such as National Council of Science, Technology and Innovation Secretariats (CONSECTI).Some public policies may come to fruition by the Government’s executive acts via its ministries or through the Legislative Power’s law projects, however, Pires says that Anprotec’s activities with the Executive Power happen mostly with four ministries: MCTIC (via FINEP and CNPq), MDIC (via APEX), Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MRE) and Ministry of Education (MEC). Today we have enough credibility to not need to knock on doors, since we are currently being invited by governmental agencies or ministries to participate in projects, hearings or events. This does not mean that we are no longer proactive, since we still pursue opportunities and projects through which we may contribute. (PIRES, Personal interview, 2017).
Finally, Pires points out that, in addition, their ties with the government component also comes from within its membership base, given that some of them are municipal offices or state secretariats. 4.2.4.2 Universities Anprotec’s ties with universities are evident. Since more than 80% of Brazilian parks, incubators and accelerators are located inside of federal, state or private universities, the majority of members in the association are, legally, universities (PIRES, Personal interview, 2017). However, Jorge Luis Audy points out that their overwhelming formal connections with universities happens solely because SPs, BIs and accelerators must have the same National Register of Legal Entity26 number as the universities in which they are based. Therefore, the association’s day-to-day communications and projects are not exchanged or built with university deans, but with parks and incubators’ managers. Even though universities are indirectly relevant to Anprotec’s activities, they have historically been the most relevant source of human capital since the association was founded. From the 26
CNPJ – Cadastro Nacional de Pessoa Jurídica.
152
late 1980s onwards, Sylvio Rosa Jr. claims that university professors, researchers or managers were the most relevant leaders and executors of the movement. Also, Guilherme Plonski recalls that during his and Fiates’ terms the association deliberately tried to strengthen ties with members of academia by holding Anprotec and the National Association of Leaders of Federal Institutes of Higher Education (ANDIFES) conferences simultaneously and by composing directories with appointed university executives. 4.2.4.3 Industry On the industry-level of the system, Anprotec has partnered with many institutions representing industry, businesses and small companies, most notably with CNI, SEBRAE, EMBRAPII, ABDI, ANPEI, and CACB. Sheila Oliveira Pires claims that industry’s demands and projects are not part of Anprotec’s core activities and therefore discussing industry and its competitiveness on a macro level is not part of its focus. The association’s ties with industry usually revolve around innovative enterprise and the institutions that promote it; however, there are projects with small, medium or large companies’ research, technology and innovation departments. She continues: We deal with any large company that has open innovation or corporate venture projects, as for startups or small companies, especially those within parks, incubators or accelerators, we have joint actions that aim at inserting them in large companies’ value chain whether it is through mergers, acquisitions, supply chains or joint-ventures. That is what we work towards: stimulating technological cooperation between them, aiding their internationalization processes, through large companies’ expertise, and also to attract investments for their expansions. (PIRES, Personal interview, 2017).
Not all industry-based innovation projects are of the association’s interest, though. In order for Anprotec to decide to engage in such projects there must be a direct benefit for their members, as illustrated by the CERNE and Land2Land projects, sponsored by SEBRAE and APEX, respectively (PIRES, Personal interview, 2017). Regardless of whether the origin of funds were governmental or private sector in these projects, the association’s members were provided with specialized training and accreditation courses (CERNE) and networking and internationalization platforms (Land2land). The Samsung-Anprotec Creative-Startups program is an example of how a partnership with a large company must provide benefits for the association’s members. The program, planned between Anprotec, Samsung and the Korean Center of Creative Economy and Innovation
153
(CCEI), was initiated in 2015 under President Garcia’s term, established after the Korean and Brazilian governments consented to support the program, via tax relief resources from the Brazilian Law n° 8.24827. The program consists of subsidized 6-months cycles of specialized training for start-ups acting on specific areas such as well-being, digital health, digital agricultural, artificial intelligence, digital education, among others. Only start-ups from incubators that are registered members of Anprotec and accredited by CERNE are eligible to apply the program. For Francilene Garcia, the cooperation with Samsung has been successful in its three rounds so far and has been considered by the association as an example that must be replicated in other agreements with national or international corporations. For Jorge Luis Audy , even though the association is more concerned with dealing with parks, incubators and accelerators’ managers, programs such as CERNE and the cooperation with Samsung inevitably influence the companies and start-ups within them to adapt themselves into practices and processes designed and implemented by Anprotec. These practices and processes are described by Audy as quality management principles that are designed to improve the effectiveness of their members and their tenants. Garcia adds that much like CERNE’s training, the Land2land’s internationalization and soft landing programs also requires members to fulfill a checklist of practices in order for them to become eligible to participate. From both Garcia and Audy’s perspectives, Anprotec does have an indirect impact on their members’ tenant companies. Sheila Oliveira Pires and Guilherme Plonski add that Anprotec has historically partnered with institutions whose main focus is industry and the private sector such as CNI28, ANPEI, CACB, APEX, SEBRAE, Brazilian Agency of Industruial Development (ABDI), among others. For Pires , these institutions have been a valuable support for Anprotec and have contributed to the innovation scenario as a whole. 4.2.4.4 Financial Institutions Being a non-profit civil association, Anprotec has no direct funding input activities with its members (PIRES, Personal interview, 2017). Its ties with banks or financial institutions, that indeed have direct inputs, has been limited to past informal cooperation with federal banks in making their staff aware of incubators or park related projects, during Fiates’ presidential term (PLONSKI, Personal Interview, 2017). 27 28
Lei da Informática, law nº 8.248, from October 23 1991. Anprotec’s current advisory council President is also CNI’s Innovation director.
154
However, the association has had several partnerships with private or federal institutions throughout its trajectory to facilitate the access of funds to its members and their tenant companies or to instruct and train parks and incubators’ managers for the financial or investments scenario. In the past, Anprotec has partnered with FINEP, CNPq and the World Bank to indirectly allocate funds into its members’ projects and tenants. In 2008, FINEP’s Prime program allocated BRL R$ 249 million to more than 3.000 companies, supporting them in their start-up phase. Of this total, 775 companies were tenants of incubators associated with Anprotec. In the 1990s, CNPq provided scholarships for incubators and parks’ managers through the RHAE program, designed to subsidize strategic human capital. In 2003, the association partnered with SEBRAE to compete on the World Bank’s InfoDev program that supported high-growth entrepreneurs. The partnership won the dispute over other relevant international associations, receiving funds to develop a web database support system for national incubators (FIATES, Personal interview, 2017). Additionally, Guilherme Plonski mentions that BM&FBOVESPA was invited to hold a seat in the association’s council in an attempt to bring stock exchange players closer to the innovative companies installed in national SPs and BIs. Currently, the most relevant partnerships are the ones with Anjos do Brasil (Angels of Brazil) and ABVCAP, according to Sheila Oliveira Pires.The association has formal cooperation with these institutions to provide members with courses such as: (a) understanding risk capital; (b) preparing to negotiate with investors; (c) how to prepare your company to receive investments, among others. While Anjos do Brasil focuses on trainings related to seed capital, ABVCAP concentrates on private equity and risk capital programs. Pires also mentions partnerships to attract foreign investments for their members with APEX and Inter-American Development Bank (BID), to finance high-impact projects. Other relevant partnerships inside Brazil involve FINEP, BNDES and CONFAP – which gathers all state financier agencies in Brazil. The latest of these projects is FINEP’s Primatec, an investment fund set out to allocate BRL R$ 40 million in innovative companies that are current tenants or that have graduated in Anprotec’s parks or incubators programs. 4.2.4.5 Other intermediaries By Dalziel’s (2010) definition of innovation intermediaries, Anprotec’s ties are mostly established with other intermediaries. ANPEI, CACB, CNI, and SEBRAE (examples of industry or trade associations), together with ABDI, APEX, EMBRAPII, CNPq and FINEP
155
(examples of economic development agencies) and the ABC, ANDIFES, Council of Brazilian Universities’ Deans (CRUB), Forum of Research and Post-Graduate Deans (FOPROP) and FORTEC (examples of research institutes or networks) are all positioned between government, industry and academia to purposely work towards their members/clients success. In addition, if considered that SPs, BIs and accelerators are also considered intermediaries (DALZIEL, 2010) then part of Anprotec’s role can be described as intermediating other intermediaries. Anprotec is the largest association of its nature in Brazil and serves as a reference for all national parks, incubators and accelerators. Also, many SP and BIs associations on a regional level are part of its associates, such as Network of Incubators, Tecnhology parks and Poles of Rio de Janeiro (ReINC) and Gaucha Network of Business Incubators and Tecnhology parks (REGINP) from the sates of Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande do Sul, respectively. As for accelerators, with the incorporation of ABRAII, in 2016, the association now gathers among its members a more diverse set of innovation intermediaries, or as they call it, innovation mechanisms. The stronger of its ties with similar foreign associations are the ones with the IASP, mentioned by the majority of Anprotec’s interviewed presidents as the most relevant and present of its international members. Anprotec is an institutional member of IASP and many of its parks and incubators are also associated with IASP. These ties have grown stronger since 1996, the year that Anprotec and IASP held their annual conferences simultaneously, in Rio de Janeiro. Luis Afonso Bermúdez claims that from this year forward the projects and collaborations between the associations have only increased. Anprotec is also a part of WAINOVA, an international alliance of SPs associations of the world, and of Network of Science Parks and Business Incubators’ Associations (RELAPI), a similar network established among the associations in Latin America. Guilherme Plonski argues that establishing such ties are especially relevant for the knowledge exchange they provide and by the opportunity to access international projects with potential contributions to national ones. He cites Anprotec’s partnership with EBN’s Connect Program that promotes the exchange between Brazilian and European companies as another example of how beneficial it can be to work along with similar associations worldwide. Recently, on December 7th of 2017, Anprotec signed a memorandum with ANPEI, ABIPTI, ABStartups, ABVCAP, Anjos do Brasil, and FORTEC to establish for an initial three-year
156
period the National Network of Innovation Associations (RNAI). This new network was formed to promote activities pertinent to innovation and technology development among public or private institutions, universities and other institutions, as way to join efforts to achieve their common goals in the Brazilian innovation system. 4.2.5 Functions and services Anprotec provides its members many services, yet from the data collected on the interviews, those of information, networking, and training and development appeared to be considered as its core services and the ones most traditionally offered to its members. On its website, the association lists ten benefits of becoming a members: (I) access and discounts to specialized training and other courses pertinent to SPs and BIs managers; (II) access to national and international missions for knowledge exchange, and business prospecting; (III) exclusive access to financing projects from Anprotec’s partner institutions; (IV) special discount in the acquisition of specialized publication edited by the association; (V) inclusion of BIs and SPs data/information for research and academic studies presented to supporting institutions; (VI) promotion and disseminations of members’ activities, projects and results in its communication tools channels; (VII) representativeness in national support institutions through Anprotec’s seats in councils or advisory boards and access to public policy debate forums next to the Executive and Legislative powers; (VIII) voice and speaking rights to suggest changes/proposals in innovation-related laws or legislative projects; (IX) special discounts for its annual conference; and (X) Anprotec’s institutional support to member’s projects and events. Jorge Luis Audy stated that all of the associations’ management services are provided collectively, therefore, they do not attend to individual demands from members, which he describes as “something forbidden”. Vanusa Leitoguinho and Guilherme Plonski ratify that management services are not directly provided to members, which makes Anprotec’s managerial services somewhat different from those of consultants, described by Bessant and Rush (1995). While Audy claims that most of the management services are provided colectively, Plonski and Leitoguinho argue they are not provided at all. Considering that Anprotec does provide specialized training and relevant knowledge that directly benefits their members in regards to SPs and BIs management, most of these services are better qualified under the categories of training and development, information or technology and knowledge brokering, since they are far from applied or tailored services such as those of consultants.
157
With the impediment of attending to individual members’ demands, Leitoguinho stated that when individual requests are received they are always forwarded to more suited partner institutions. TABLE 21 – Anprotec’s management services Management Services 1 Foresight and diagnostics 2 Strategy Development 3 Demand Articulation 4 Business Strategy Implementation 5 Project management, design and evaluation 6 Decision Making advice and consulting 7 Technology assessment 8 Organizing discourse, alignment and consensus 9 Counseling for investing in new/emergent/innovative projects 10 Formulation of specific research strategies and/or sectoral activities 11 Benchmarking Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Benchmarking (11) is the sole provided service in this category, exemplified by the technical missions Anprotec has organized for its members since the 2000s. These missions usually coincide with partner associations’ international conferences such as IASP, NBIA, AURP and EBN and are opened for any member interested and willing to pay for the extra costs. They usually involve 20-30 members that visit the infrastructure of SPs, incubators, research centers, universities and other institutions to learn about the best practices implemented worldwide and also for networking purposes. While some of these missions are tailored to SPs, BIs managers or its tenant companies, others may prioritize leaders of federal government’s development agencies and ministries, state and municipal secretariats of science, technology and innovation, FAPs presidents or representatives of similar institutions.
158
FIGURE 15 – Anprotec’s technical missions Source: ANPROTEC. Available at: . Accessed on: 15 Jan. 2018.
Articulation and mobilization services are also provided, especially articulating, configuring and aligning interests (12) and joint promotional activities (16). According to Leitoguinho, Anprotec holds two annual general assembly’s meetings, one during the annual conference and the other one at the end of the year, also hosting an annual breakfast with its members and partners to close the year and align the actions for the following one.
Figure 16 – General Assembly held at Anprotec’s annual conference in 2017 Source: ANPROTEC. Available at: . Accessed on: 15 Jan. 2018.
159
Promoting activities and events of partners, members or institutions supporting innovation are one of Anprotec’s most common services, usually provided through their newsletter Info-e, clippings, Facebook® page or official Ttwitter® page and also through its press office. TABLE 22 – Anprotec’s articulation & mobilization services Articulation & Mobilization Services 12 Articulating, Configuring, Aligning interests 13 Arbitration based on neutrality and trust 14 Club and social / peer support 15 Help users articulate innovation needs 16 Joint promotional activities Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Networking services are only partially provided. Consulting of network establishment (17) and creating and facilitating new networks (21) are provided. When regional networks of incubators or science parks request their support, Anprotec assists them by collecting and compiling data from the region and also by mobilizing local contacts for additional assistance. Building linkages with external knowledge systems (23) is one of the association’s core services, as seen by its active engaged in partnerships with other intermediaries and institutions whose joint programs and activities generally involve gathering members and interested parties to engage in knowledge sharing activities. The remaining services (18, 19, 20 and 22) are not a part of the association’s activities. TABLE 23 –Anprotec’s networking services Networking Services 17 Consulting of Networking establishment 18 Adapting / Implementing network models 19 Networking performance assessments 20 Management of network structure / Channels 21 Creation and facilitation of new networks 22 Interfirm networking activities 23 Building linkages with external knowledge system Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Technical services are not provided by Anprotec since they do not fall into the scope of the association’s objectives nor into the profile of its associated members and the support they demand (LEITOGUINHO, Personal interview, 2017). TABLE 24 – Anprotec’s technical services Technical Services 24 Provision of specific technical services 25 Standards development and support for systems development Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
160
Technology and knowledge brokering services are also not a part of Anprotec’s assistance. Knowledge processing and combination (26) is something that the association does provide to its members, yet given that this is something done unilaterally without the request – or more importantly – without any compensation from other parties, they are better classified as information services. The remaining services in this category are also outside of the association’s scope. TABLE 25 – Anprotec’s technology and knowledge brokering services Technology & knowledge brokering services 26 Knowledge processing and combination / recombination 27 Knowledge transfer support 28 Provision of access to expertise / equipment 29 Intellectual property management 30 Support of Technology transfer 31 Test and validation of new technologies and equipment 32 Acceleration of new technologies application 33 Adapting technologies for alternate applications Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Information services were mentioned in unison by the association’s presidents as a core function. For José Eduardo Fiates and Francilene Garcia they originated from the members necessity to learn and apply a highly specialized set of information and knowledge that has been traditionally hard to access in the SPs and BIs industry. As Maurício Guedes recalls, one of the reasons for Anprotec’s initial presidents to get acquainted in the first place was OEA/FINEP’s project in the 1980s, which was basically arranged for scanning and prospecting external information (34) and information gathering and processing (35) purposes. Additionally, partnering with SEBRAE, IASP, INBIA or the InfoDev to organize and host conferences, or to collaborate with ABDI, CNPq or CAPES in research projects were actions clearly directed towards fulfilling the purpose of services 36, 37 and 38. TABLE 26 – Anprotec’s information services Information services 34 Scanning and prospecting external information 35 Information gathering, processing, generation and combination 36 Communication and dissemination of knowledge 37 Diffusing information of best practices techniques 38 Hosting knowledge-sharing meetings 39 Newsletter 40 Special publications / Reports Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Luis Afonso Bermúdez and José Eduardo Fiates mentioned that the association has periodically provided from its early years an information bulletin via fax machine. Over time,
161
these bulletins have been replaced with the Locus magazine (with over 80 numbers and 20 years of free distribution), the Info-e (Anprotec website’s newsfeed with almost 224 virtual editions) and a clipping page with 963 external news involving the association. All of the aforementioned are examples of newsletter (39) services. Services 34 to 37 and 40 are provided through a series of joint efforts with institutions that result in specialized publications. The first of these studies was made in 1996, followed by others in 2007 (with ABDI), 2008, 2012 (with MCTIC), 2014 (with UnB and MCTIC), 2015 (with Certi and MCTIC), and 2016 (with SEBRAE). Additionally, the association has produced or edited 14 books since 1997, and more recently, three eBooks. Hosting knowledge-sharing meetings (38) is more commonly a service that Anprotec provides in convergence with programs in which its members are already a part of, such as CERNE (with SEBRAE) and the Creative Economy program (with Samsung).
Figure 17 – Anprotec’s special publication and research reports Source: ANPROTEC. Available at: . Accessed on: 15 Jan. 2018.
Social activities and status services are also among Anprotec’s core services. Advertising (46) is the only exception among these services since the association does not receive any compensation when publicizing or broadcasting information about its members or partners’
162
events and projects through their press office, website or social media channels. For this reason, such services are more suited if qualified under promotion / kudos by association (45). Social events (41) are periodically provided, the most traditional ones being the meetings, assemblies and workshops that happen during its annual conferences. Vanusa Leitoguinho also mentions planning meetings and the annual breakfast hosted at the Brasília HQ every December to close the year and to present the winners of SEBRAE’s National Award for Innovative Entrepreneurship, an awards and recognition service (44). TABLE 27 – Anprotec’s social activities services Social activities & status services 41 Social events 42 Forum / Clubs activities 43 Conferences 44 Awards / Recognition 45 Promotion / Kudos by association 46 Advertising Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Forum and club activities (42) do not happen often and are usually parallel to the annual conference. There are meetings that gather directors and members interested in common issues such as accelerators and its practices and also forums organized with partners such as SEBRAE and MCTIC to discuss specific issues of interest for its members, as shown in Figure 18.
FIGURE 18 – Anprotec’s forums promotion images Source: ANPROTEC. Available at: . Accessed on: 15 Jan. 2017.
Anprotec’s annual conferences (43) started being held since 1987. Initially called National Seminars of Technology Parks and Business Incubators, the conferences became annual
163
during Araújo’s presidential term in the early 1990s and, after the year 2000, SEBRAE became the official partner in its organization and support. The conference has been held 27 times in many cities across Brazil, usually gathering from 800 to 1000 people, which makes it the most traditional and large event in this industry (GARCIA, Personal interview, 2017). TABLE 28– Anprotec’s past annual conferences Year Location State Year 1987 Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro 2004 1988 --------------------- ---------------------2005 1989 --------------------- ---------------------2006 1990 --------------------- ---------------------2007 1991 --------------------- ---------------------2008 1992 Campina Grande Paraíba 2009 1993 --------------------- ---------------------2010 1994 Florianópolis Santa Catarina 2011 1995 São Carlos São Paulo 2012 1996 Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro 2013 1997 Salvador Bahia 2014 1998 Belo Horizonte Minas Gerais 2015 1999 Porto Alegre Rio Grande do Sul 2016 2000 Belém Pará 2017 2001 Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro 2002 São Paulo São Paulo 2003 Brasília Federal District Source: prepared by the author from various sources
Location Recife Curitiba Salvador Belo Horizonte Aracaju Florianópolis Campo Grande Porto Alegre Foz do Iguaçu Recife Belém Cuiabá Fortaleza Rio de Janeiro
Country Pernambuco Paraná Bahia Minas Gerais Sergipe Santa Catarina Mato Grosso do Sul Rio Grande do Sul Paraná Pernambuco Pará Mato Grosso Ceará Rio de Janeiro
Awards and recognition (46) are also a part of Anprotec’s role, the most traditional of it being the National Award for Innovative Entrepreneurship, in a partnership with SEBRAE. Since 1997, the annual award is given to projects and innovation mechanisms with expressive results that contribute to Brazil’s innovation scenario. In 2017, the award was given to 19 companies, seven of which were associated with Anprotec. Besides the recognition from Anprotec, SEBRAE and also the CNI, the winning companies are entitled to BRL R$ 900.000, pre-approved in the Industry Innovation Bid. Past editions have also awarded the top-three winners with direct cash prizes and additional funds for business and study trips. Also, the best papers presented at its conferences are awarded, and its authors receive wide recognition during the event and through the association’s website.
164
FIGURE 19 – National Award for Innovative Entrepreneurship Source: ANPROTEC. Available at: . Accessed on: 15 Jan. 2017.
Regulation and legitimization services are only partially provided since Anprotec has limited power of regulation being a non-governmental association. Standards development and setting and licensing promotion (47) services may be exemplified by the CERNE program, designed by Anprotec in a partnership with SEBRAE to qualify incubators and its managers for the peculiar challenges in their industry. Guilherme Plonski stated that it is not only a program for qualifying managers, but also for incubators to professionalize their management and processes as a way to achieve better results. The program was designed with the help of CNPq and, although its four-stage format is not mandatory for Anprotec’s associated incubators, only those certified by the program have access to special bids from FINEP, SEBRAE, Samsung’s Creative Economy program, among others. Therefore, this qualifies CERNE as an accreditation (50) service. Vanusa Leitoguinho adds that Anprotec has pleaded with MCTIC that CERNE accredited incubators have access to resources from Law n° 8.248. TABLE 29 – Anprotec’s regulation and legitimization services Regulation & Legitimization Services 47 Standards development & setting and licensing promotion 48 Testing and validation 49 Protecting results 50 Accreditation 51 Self-regulation Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
165
Staff training and development services have been provided by the association since its early days. Guilherme Plonski claims the association has organized many training activities through workshops, specialized courses or coaching activities. José Eduardo Fiates argues that they have become formalized and better structured as the demand for such courses kept increasing, which resulted in programs like CERNE. TABLE 30 – Anprotec’s staff training and development services Staff Training & Development Services 52 Training & skills workshops; courses; specializations; coaching 53 International exchange projects Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
During Garcia’s term the UniAnprotec educational program was created with SEBRAE for the purpose of developing more diverse training for all of the association’s member, such as BIs, SPs or public managers. These courses are designed for members but exceptions can be made if external individuals pertinent to the course (such as the one for public managers) manifest their interest in participating. Leitoguinho adds that they are divided into three modules that take place in different regions of the country as a way to ease the costs of transportation for members of distant regions.
FIGURE 20 – UniAnprotec’s promotion of its manager courses Source: ANPROTEC. Available at: . Accessed on: 15 Jan. 2017.
166
International exchange projects (53) have been periodically provided through its soft landing platform that facilitates the entry of companies (that are tenants of Anprotec’s members) into international or national markets. The land2land platform offers 32 innovation mechanisms (SPs or BIs) from 12 different countries from four continents from which a company may request services such as provisional tenancy, market-entry analysis or operational support for internationalization. Other examples of exchange programs are those provided in partnerships with EBN (Connect program in 2012) and Samsung (in which start-ups from Brazil are taken to South Korea). Additionally, in 2014, a post-doctoral scholarship project was launched by CAPES and Anprotec to support 14 SPs managers and their families for international research and training.
FIGURE 21 – Anprotec’s softlanding platform Source: ANPROTEC. Available at: . Accessed on: 15 Jan. 2018.
Financing services are not provided since Anprotec does not directly allocates funds into members’ projects or tenants. Despite not providing them the association has partnered with institutions such as Anjos do Brasil, ABVCAP and BM&FBOVESPA in an attempt to approximate members and the institutions with funds and the power to invest them on innovation-related projects. Making a business case (56) is the lone service available, usually provided when large corporations (such as 3M or Natura) that are seeking projects to invest ask Anprotec for advice, Plonski adds that the association often pleads the case for its members to public funding agencies, requesting allocation of resources that may benefit them.
167
TABLE 31 – Anprotec’s financing services Financing Services 54 Prospecting potential funding activities 55 Direct / Indirect funding through collaborations (venture capital, seed funds) 56 Making a business case (representation to possible investors) 57 New technology development funding Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Representation and lobbying services have been at the core of Anprotec’s activities since its founding (PLONSKI, Personal interview, 2017) and are explicitly expressed in its bylaws as a benefit for members. For Bermúdez, Pires and Garcia, the ability and influence to represent its members has increased over time due to Anprotec’s sustained efforts to instruct, inform and mobilize governmental agents and agencies to support its members’ industry or to propose the necessary changes to benefit them. Identifying, mobilizing and involving relevant actors (58) and collective bargaining (61) have been provided with greater frequency after the association established its HQ in Brasília and built a bigger staff to strengthen ties with public offices and officers, most notably the parliamentary consultant. Audy ratified that Anprotec has intensified these activities with Government, in an attempt to insert innovation concepts and principles into the Constitution, as in PEC 82. External resources management (59) does not fall into its attributions, since it only lobbies for their allocation or articulates those with the power to do so. Cluster promotion (60) has been provided since the 1990s, when Anprotec deliberately made it an intern policy that every board of directors should be composed of members from all five regions of the country. For Garcia and Leitoguinho this was an important step for strengthening clusters of innovation in regions (especially the north and northeast) or states (Piauí, Amazonas, Acre, Roraima, among others) far from the stronger economic markets in the south and southeast of the country. TABLE 32 – Anprotec’s representation & lobbying services Representation & Lobbying Services 58 Identifying, mobilizing and involving relevant actors 59 Managing external resources 60 Cluster promotion 61 Collective bargaining Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
As for policing public policy, Anprotec does not have any power to regulate or implement policies (62), but it does disseminate all changes in regulations or approved law projects among its members, making sure they become aware of opportunities or risks. Policy strategies are not implemented by the association alone, yet it does support (63) many
168
programs of ministerial agencies by promoting them among its network of members and partners. Coordinating policy priorities (64) was mentioned by Audy, Leitoguinho and Plonsky as a service that Anprotec does not provide. Despite not having the authority to delegate over priorities by itself, the association actively influences them, yet this is better categorized as a collective bargaining (61) service. TABLE 33 – Anprotec’s policing public policy services Policing Public Policy Services 62 Public Policy implementation, regulation, dissemination 63 Supporting or implementing innovation policy strategies 64 Coordination of policy priorities Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
4.3 IASP 4.3.1 History and trajectory The International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation (IASP) is a non-profit organization, founded in 1984 by a group of people in charge of different SP projects in Europe and an additional one from Japan. According to Ebba Lund, IASP’s Chief Operations Officer, in our interview in 2017, the founding members became aware of one another by reading in newspapers and technical reviews that there were other SP initiatives taking place around the world. The novelty of science parks and its managerial intricacies made them realize that perhaps it would be useful to arrange a meeting for all of them to share their experiences and insights about the similar challenges they faced at the time. For Luis Sanz, Director General of IASP, the basic motivation behind the founding members getting together was a “human one”. Since they were all professionals charged with completely new projects. In his words: […] we discovered that we were not the only ones doing that sort of new job and that somebody else was trying to do the same thing in other cities in Europe. Nobody really knew exactly what science and technology parks were, certainly not in Europe, perhaps in the States, but they didn’t used these expressions yet. So we had a very vague knowledge and no references, except maybe the Boston area, and the famous - always mentioned but never really well understood - Silicon Valley, but we knew we had to do something. At the end what we needed, desperately (and I would underline the adjective), was to exchange views and learn from each other. So we ended up contacting one another (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017).
The main initiative came from two SPs in Europe. First, from the Sophia Antipolis technology park in Cote d’Azur, in the southwest part of Nice (FRA), under the impulse of French
169
Senator Pierre Laffitte. Because of his political contacts, Mr. Laffitte had some institutional support, budget and apparatus, as well as the help from the mayor of Nice, which allowed him to take a leading role in gathering other members involved in similar projects (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017). The second initiative came from Heriot-Watt University’s research park in Edinburgh (Scotland, UK). After an initial meeting in Sophia Antipolis, under the coordination of Senator Laffitte, participants from France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, and Japan decided that it would be desirable for them to remain connected for mutual support. Despite the majority of them being European, all of the participants agreed that they should start an association with a global scope (LUND, 2017; SANZ, 2017).This meeting marked the beginning of the association, initially named Club de Technopoles, a French taxonomy soon replaced by the broader English one – IASP –, in 1984. As the association grew in numbers of international members, so did its presidency became more diverse in terms of country of origin (see Table 34). TABLE 34 – IASP’s list of presidents Name Pierre Laffitte Piero Gastaldo Ian Dalton Michael Ryan Barry Orr Michel Lacave Pertti Huuskonen Lex de Lange Peter Why Klaus Plate Marco Baccanti Raivo Tamkivi Chachanat Thebtaranonth Joan Bellavista Mauricio Guedes Rick Weddle Jean-François Balducchi Josep Piqué Source: prepared by the author.
Country France Italy United Kingdom Ireland Australia France Finland The Netherlands Australia Germany Italy Estonia Thailand Spain Brazil USA France Spain
Term Honorary 1984 1985 - 1987 1987 - 1989 1989 - 1991 1991 - 1993 1993 - 1995 1995 - 1998 1998 - 2000 2000 - 2002 2002 - 2004 2004 - 2006 2006 - 2008 2008 - 2010 2010 - 2012 2012 - 2014 2014 - 2016 2016 - 2018
After adopting the IASP taxonomy, the founding members decided to have 2-years term presidents, but there was no clear management structure since IASP had no headquarters or physical space. They functioned in a rotating basis, but after realizing that it was necessary to have someone in charge of the association, a decision was made to hire an executive officer,
170
but without a support staff or office (LUND, Personal interview, 2017). Until then, there was only one person in charge of travelling around and travelling to the place where the current president at the time would be based. As the time went on, this rotating basis proved to be inadequate as more members joined the association progressively (IASP reached 100 members in 1988) and the need for a permanent headquarters became clear. The first chosen location for a HQ was Montpellier, in France, home of one of IASP’s members. Later on, the HQ was moved to Bordeaux. In 1994, the association’s expansion to almost 200 members set off an internal crisis due to the insufficient management structure and the officer’s profile at the time. According to Lund, “he was a good choice for the beginning phase of the association, but a new profile of professional was necessary for the expansion stage” (LUND, Personal interview, 2017). As a consequence, the board of directors met in order to decide how they would act upon a professionalization need. They opened a competition among its members to receive proposals for future headquarters, which was decided by an election at the general assembly during the IASP’s 1st World Conference in Beijing, China. The requisites were simple: the candidates should provide sufficient office space for the association to operate free of costs. After a brief review, they ended up with six finalists from the initial 11 bids: Sidney (AUS), Paris (FRA), Amsterdam (NED), Funchal (POR), Barcelona (SPA) and Malaga (SPA). In the first round of voting, Paris, Amsterdam and Malaga were selected, then, after the withdrawal of Amsterdam’s bid, only Paris and Malaga remained. In the final round, the members chose Malaga with an overwhelming amount of votes (LUND, Personal interview, 2017). During the process of mobilizing resources to operationalize the HQ, current Director General Luis Sanz was a Vice President of IASP and also a member of its board of directors. Since he was based in Spain at the time, Sanz was appointed as the responsible for all the operational activities in Malaga. When this task was completed in 1996, Sanz was officially chosen as the CEO of IASP, being in charge of running the association. The association grew from 200 members in 2002 to 300 members in 2005, spread across over 60 countries, reaching the mark of 400 members in 2014, from 70 countries.
171
FIGURE 22 – IASP’s membership growth Source: IASP. Available at: . Accessed on: 16 Jan. 2018.
Currently, the association gathers 375 members from 77 countries, having organized 34 world conferences and 116 regional events. Throughout its 33 years of operations, Sanz claims that the IASP became a bigger and more complex association in terms of management, provided services and external demands. Despite this, he believes that IASP has not changed its underlying mission, which is to provide their members relevant knowledge about how to be better professionals in the SP industry. Although their core missions remain the same, he argues that the main challenges that emerged in their trajectory were related to the diversity and heterogeneity of its worldwide members. He states that: What has changed a lot is the level of complexity. Even if we understood that we wanted to be global since day one, the truth is that we’ve started being European, except for the one Japanese member. After we’ve started having new members from Asia, the Americas and Africa, we soon discovered that the differences between the European members were minor when compared to the ones from the members of other regions. That added a lot of cultural and political complexity to the management (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017).
The added pressure from the diverse economic, political and cultural contexts brought on by its members is mentioned by both Luis Sanz and Ebba Lund as a catalyst for the association’s learning curve. Situations such as members being used by local governments as political lobby tools or other members advocating for new divisions based on geopolitical and historical conflicts exemplify such complexities. Aside from these factors, the diversity of
172
maturity of its members was highlighted by Sanz as a cause for their expansion of operations and knowledge base efforts. In his words: It requires a diverse set of knowledge to serve the needs of members with projects that are still on paper, of those with a park that has already begun putting up its buildings, of those with parks operating for more than 3 years and already has its first tenants, than those of a park that is very mature. They have a completely different set of needs and challenges, and if you want to serve them all you find that it is increasingly difficult. So, the diversity of maturity of our members added a lot of complexity. (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017).
4.3.2 Structure and business model The IASP is “an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations” (IASP, 2017). The association has legal bylaws registered as an international body in a public office in Spain, which also makes it recognized by the European Union and other international organizations. Being a membership-based association, Ebba Lund argues that its members are equivalent to shareholders, holding voting and speaking rights through their paid membership fees. There are three offered types of membership: Full, Affiliate, and Associate. Each of them varies in cost and acquired rights. Full membership is offered to operational SPs, areas of innovation, and technology-based incubators, with an annual cost of €1700, gaining rights to speak and vote at the General Assembly, eligibility to run for IASPs governing bodies and highest discounts for conferences registration or book/reports purchases. Affiliate membership is offered to SPs, areas of innovation and tech-based incubators that are still under construction, with an annual fee of €1135 and acquired right to speak at the General Assembly, as well as less significant discounts than those of full members. The Associate membership is offered to organizations/individuals interested in joining IASP’s network, with an annual fee of €390, acquired right to speak at the General Assembly and discounts similar to those of the Associate members. All memberships have a €500 registration fee included. Currently, there are 271 Full members, 39 Affiliate members, and 59 Associate members. There are only five independent incubators associated with IASP; however, the majority of its associate SPs have operational incubators or incubation services/support. All of IASP’s 375 members are a part of the General Assembly, as shown in Figure 23, that meets annually
173
during the international conferences. The association estimates that its members combine around 142.000 companies worldwide.
FIGURE 23 – IASP’s Organigram Source: IASP. Available at: . Accessed on: 16 Jan. 2018.
Directly under the General Assembly lies the International Board of Directors – composed by four people in an Executive board, seven Regional Division Presidents, five Directors, and four Consulting Directors, all of which (except the Director General) are volunteers. The International Board of Directors is succeeded by two substructures: the Executive Board and the Regional Divisions. The Executive Board is a reduced committee of the International Board of Directors, composed by the President, Vice-President, Treasurer and Director General, as well as Consulting Directors (which don’t have voting rights), all of them providing inputs to the Board of Directors about their direct work with the members. Below the Director General is the Advisory Council, formed by four members (one of them being Anprotec’s former president Guilherme Ary Plonski) appointed by the Board of Directors, which help and assist them within the strategy formulation process, acting as a think tank, also helping with the organization of world conferences and its scientific content (such as papers, speakers, among other). They have no decision-making powers, concentrating, therefore, in advising either under direct request from the Board or the Director
174
General, or by providing them sensitive information by their own initiative. For Ebba Lund the Advisory Council is a very important body, since IASP is a knowledge space, and the value it tries to add to its members is closely related to this knowledge. The Staff Headquarters in Malaga assists the Director General in the daily operations while the Board of Directors assists the Director General, strategically. According to Lund, the International Board of Director approves the overall strategy, the Executive Board makes the decisions required by the association’s bylaws, and the Director General makes the tactical decisions to implement them. Despite the Staff HQ and the Director General being the only paid employees, the Staff HQ may sometimes contribute with some of the Board of Directors’ expenses when in service for the association, something that Lund states has only been done since the HQ moved to Malaga. Currently, there are eight paid employees with two additional interns working at the Staff HQ in Malaga. The Staff China Office was opened in 2001, and it holds other three employees; however, their costs and salaries are all covered by Chinese members. Originally, the China Office was named Beijing Office, where it was initially settled upon the request of several Chinese members. They advocated for a local HQ as a response to their growing numbers and difficulties with English (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017). The Beijing Office was carried out after a proposal from the city of Beijing to establish an office that they would finance themselves even if working under IASP’s authority. Sanz claims that while this arrangement worked in the beginning, increasing complaints from other Chinese members outside Beijing resulted in the relocation of the HQ to Tsinghua University’s technology park, were they are currently based and only IASP’s Chinese members attend it. As for the Regional Divisions, they started to be created from1989 onwards, in a period where IASP’s membership base began to spread across the world. These divisions have no infrastructure and work solely through appointed regional Presidents that are responsible for managing the information and demand flow among the members in their divisions, getting an automatic seat at the board of directors and becoming involved in the strategy formulation process. About these regional divisions, Ebba Lund claims that: […] we’ve decided to create these regional divisions for projects that would require smaller dimensions. For example: in the Latin America or the newly created Eurasia division, they have some specific training demands for their practical purposes. They have their own dynamics with their regional division presidents, which is
175
responsible for managing the flow of information, but always reporting back to the HQ so we can support them or the members (LUND, Personal interview, 2017).
These divisions usually hold local workshops or events among members, directed towards their specific needs. This allows them to engage in forums or discussions outside the annual world conference, something considered important by Lund since it provides them a sense of local support despite being part of a global association. For Sanz, the existence of these divisions is also relevant for representation purposes: In Europe this was very clear. We wanted to be able to advocate for our members in Europe (not lobby, since lobbying actually requires some legal issues to be acceptable). It was difficult for me to travel around Europe and say ‘I am a member of the IASP, let’s see what we can do for our European members?’, if they would reply that they didn’t want anything with our members from the rest of the world. So when I could “wear the hat” of IASP’s European Division, things changed (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017).
Having regional divisions may also work as a two-way channel for members from a certain area to provide feedbacks or make requests about their local context. Sanz argues that these feedbacks are usually constructive, although sometimes ethnical and political demands can bring complexity and diplomatic issues: The Eurasia division was a long request, from 5 years ago. The other divisions were a little bit more top-down, a reflex of the world’s continental framework. There was already an exception, which was the WANA division (West Asia + Northern Africa). Before, there was no African division, only an Asia-pacific division, since Asia was too big and for example, Jordan and Korea had not much in common but happened to be in the same region. It was a complicated birth, because we wanted to avoid strictly political or ethnical criteria, so then we created the Africa division. However, northern Africans were much more inclined to integrate with Europe, so we split it into two African divisions: the Africa division and also North Africa with Western Asia, including non-Muslim countries too (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017).
There are future plans of establishing offices in some regional divisions, yet Sanz argues that such decisions are still being analyzed in terms of operational costs and adequacy for local demands. 4.3.3 Objectives and specific goals The association was initially founded to gather science parks and the people or companies involved with them, something that changed along IASP’s growth. Innovation-based incubators began to be accepted as members from a direct request of IASP’s Brazilian members, something motivated by the fact that Brazil’s economic, political and social circumstances around 1990 were more suited for planning and executing incubation projects than those of SPs (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017). Most of these Brazilian members were
176
also members of Anprotec, which already started to function in 1987 by associating SPs and incubators, and supported the inclusion of incubators in IASP’s membership’s base. According to Sanz: [..] it was also a way of ensuring that SPs and Incubators always worked together because many business incubators are in fact inside SPs, and even managed by the same team. So we said ‘OK’, we would open our doors to business incubators but without transforming ourselves into something we were not. We accepted them, but still encouraged them to also join associations more connected with their specific needs. (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017).
In 2012, the association changed its name, adding Areas of Innovation to its IASP acronym. The expression was coined by them and is conceptualized as: ‘Areas of innovation’ are places designed and curated to attract entrepreneurialminded people, skilled talent, knowledge-intensive businesses and investments, by developing and combing a set of infrastructural, institutional, scientific, technological, educational and social assets, together with value added service, thus enhancing sustainable economic development and prosperity with and for the community (IASP, 2017).
The inclusion of such expression in the association’s name reflects its interest in affiliating members other than SPs or incubators, especially now that modern initiatives are becoming popular around the world (LUND, Personal interview, 2017). Being the first international association in the industry to actually make changes to include new configurations engaged in innovation, Lund states that IASP is still studying the different existing models in order to build appropriate strategies and services for them. For Sanz, urban initiatives like accelerators and co-working spaces may provide an alternative for companies to get settled and started in detriment of more traditional models, like SPs and BIs. Such initiatives merge and point to goals similar to those of SPs, but are quite different in size and projects and may require different resources to be managed. Why not include them too? They would sooner rather than later need to gather in a network. If we are flexible enough and generous in our bylaws to really open up to include them, why not? So we decided to accept those projects too, trying to make our traditional members learn from these projects, gaining from them and even associating themselves. Competition will always exist, but we think it is better to make a bigger cake before trying to divide it. (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017).
Lund states that incubators are not mentioned in IASP’s bylaws or constitution, but are allowed to be members. Therefore, the board would likely accept accelerators or other modern initiatives as well. The membership fees represent the majority of the association’s funding, while other projects and consultancy assignments provide complementary funds, usually on a case by case basis or
177
upon members’ request. Projects with the European Commission or the World Bank that the IASP is invited are examples of such ad hoc projects. Additionally, IASP’s annual events and training workshops raise additional funds. If members require extra services or support that are not included in the membership fees, the association negotiates remuneration fees (LUND, Personal interview, 2017). 4.3.4 Main components relations 4.3.4.1 Government Unlike national or regional associations, the IASP does not interact directly with federal, state or municipal governments, limiting itself to representing its members before international governing bodies such as the European Union (EU) and its European Commission (EC)29, the United Nations and some of its branches like United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), and other supranational financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Interamerican Development Bank. For Sanz, the association has been able to gain recognition through the years in which it advocated in favor of SPs and is now seen as a speaker for such organizations worldwide. In his words: […] in our advocacy activities with the EU we are finally being successful breaking some impenetrable walls they used to have. Now, they acknowledge that SPs exist, that they are important and should be heard. Know they are calling us instead of us knocking at their doors, inviting us to participate in many, many things. Recently, Ms. Lund and our European division president were at an important meeting at the European Parliament to talk about science and technology organizations, to show our side of the story and to say how the fiscal laws in Europe should take into account the SPs. Fortunately, today we are being summoned to participate in many projects. (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017).
Despite its HQ being based in Spain and having constructive interactions with public bodies, more direct advocacy or operational projects are left under the tutelage of Asosiación de Parques Científicos e Tecnológicos de España (APTE) – Spain’s national association. Lund claims that APTE’s national domain is respected by IASP, which accompanies its Spanish members in its actions towards governmental spheres. In other countries where there are no established national associations such as APTE, Anprotec or AURP Canada, IASP acts on behalf of members as an international representative of science parks. In countries with less sophisticated institutions, legal systems or SPs industry, members require greater involvement of IASP, which usually collaborates with ministries, city councils or national parliaments to 29
The European Commission is the institution responsible for legislation propositions and decisionimplementing under the European Union, swore under Luxembourg’s European Court of Justice.
178
define policies related to the development of science parks’ industry or overall innovation. Sanz claims that: […] what we do sometimes is accompany the members or the national associations, we second them in some initiatives, provide some information, we acknowledge that they work with us. It is not our turf, they know better than us, logically they are the ones to this sort of advocacy. We are more confined to international bodies, yet we don’t go to the European Union to advocate for improvements in innovation policies of Luxembourg, for example, but for the industry broadly, in a European level. Our focus is international, so we avoid advocating too much on a national level, it wouldn’t suit us (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017).
The IASP holds a special consultative status with the UN; however, it has no official regulatory powers granted by international or federal bodies. Consequentially, the association does not receive any public funding to directly invest in projects. Even though its HQ is located in the publicly owned Andalusia Technology Park, it is APTE that provides its office space free of rent. 4.3.4.2 Universities According to Ebba Lund and Luis Sanz, IASP has close relationships with universities but they usually happen indirectly through its members, often based within universities’ campuses. The association participates in universities’ knowledge-oriented events like conferences, workshops but this is usually requested by IASP’s members. Often, the association reaches out to its individual members working in academia for support in evaluating its conferences’ papers or to aid in specific projects. Such collaborations does not require memorandums of understanding (MOUs) and Sanz claims that many of IASP’s internal reports have had university collaborators involved in its execution. There are future projects to engage some of these academic members in negotiations with innovation or economic indexed journals to launch special issues dedicated to SPs or innovation areas, in an attempt to raise more interest about them among top scholars. Also, when universities approach the association directly for support in building their own SP, IASP provides consultancy, advice and networking for such projects in starting phases. 4.3.4.3 Industry The association has a direct relation to industry and the private sector, starting with all of the tenant companies of its members SPs and BIs. For these members and their companies, the association provides several services that will be detailed further on this section. For the
179
companies that are not part of the association’s network, the main available service provided by IASP is the POINT program. Its main objective is to broker multinationals or other large corporations’ technological demands with IASP’s network of startups and tenant companies that may be suited to meet such demands. The POINT program is an open-innovation service that, upon the private sector demands, searches and filters IASP’s member’s network of over 142.000 companies spread across 40 technology sectors to present a targeted set of technology-based start-ups with potential solutions for such demands. Usually, the program is hired by multinationals that are established within parks and engage in scoping local start-ups for potential solutions (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017). The overall results so far have been more qualitative than quantitative since the service requires many human and financial resources to work properly: […]The POINT has some difficulties. We’ve had only a few projects, and they had been pretty successful, but they are not too many overall. We would certainly have a lot more successful stories if we’d give it a boost in terms of human resources, but takes a lot of money and time to customize the projects. The big companies would love that. They are tired of people presenting them an unfiltered list of many companies they found on Google, they want the due diligence applied to not waste time talking business. We have tofind the right methodology to make it a more industrial scale. (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017).
4.3.4.4 Financial institutions IASP does engage often with financial institutions since it does not provide funding services to its members. By participating in important international projects the association has built connection with members of the World Bank, the Interamerican Development Bank, and the European Investment Bank. However, the communication between the association and such institutions happens as a channel to provide its members relevant information about credit lines. 4.3.4.5 Other intermediaries Being the largest association of science parks and the most global one, Ebba Lund and Luis Sanz believes that their relations to other SPs associations, either national, regional or international, are usually positive. Most of the largest SPs associations around the world such as the AURP, Anprotec, UKSPA, ASPA, ADT and EBN are members of the IASP and for Sanz, the competition among them often is limited to their total member numbers. Despite some bigger national associations accept members from other countries, most of them declare their national scope and therefore do not compete directly with IASP. Aside from information
180
services, considered by Sanz impossible to keep restricted, IASP’s international scope and services are the most established in SPs industry. The founding of APTE in 1987 did not cause any territorial dispute in Spain with IASP, especially since Luis Sanz was one of its founding members. He claims that: APTE knew from the start that their turf was Spain and that when the matters became global, that they should encourage their members to reach out to IASP. At the end, when we opened our doors to national and regional associations as associate members (with speaking but not voting rights) they immediately joined us (SANZ, Personal interview, 2017).
For Lund, some overlapping in some of the services they both provide may exist, yet the relationship between the associations flows quite naturally. Some science parks may question why join the global association if they can access information through the national one, but IASP manages to provide “many other relevant services beyond information ones” (LUND, Personal interview, 2017). There are other regional SPs associations in Spain like the Xarxa de Parcs Científics I Tecnològics de Catalunya (XPCAT), Andalusian Technology Network (RETA), Madrid Network and the Basque Country Network of Technology Parks (RPTE), which Josep Piqué considers to be complementary to one another. They individually represent the parks embedded in a complex regional reality but all of their members are allowed to associate with other regional, national and international organizations in a collaborative way. In 2008, the World Alliance for Innovation (WAINOVA) was created by many SPs associations in the world, IASP being of its founding members and Luis Sanz, its creator and appointed coordinator. The rationale for the alliance’s founding is to legitimate the world’s larger and most relevant SPs associations, BIs and other areas of innovation, currently gathering 46 of the world’s largest SPs associations. Sanz affirms that the idea to create WAINOVA was a result of some individuals that approached the World Bank in a request for funds, claiming they represented the SPs of the world, despite having no connections with IASP, representing a few parks in Eastern Europe. After being warned by the WB, IASP and Sanz mobilize the most relevant SPs associations to create WAINOVA as a way to collectively certify the credentials of other associations in the industry. For Sanz, this protective move has been well accepted by other associations and is open for BIs associations and other innovation related organizations to join. However, the lack of a sustainable model for funding has limited the alliance to activities mostly related to accreditation of its members.
181
In 2009, WAINOVA launched a 576-page innovation atlas where they present their goals, members and the numbers associated with their innovation projects worldwide. 4.3.5 Functions and services There are only six provided services listed on IASP’s website: international networking, knowledge, open innovation support, training and consultancy, global visibility, and strategic profiling. Current President Josep Piqué believes two of them to be the core services of IASP: Knowledge and Networking. For Piqué, they are “the two key elements of IASP, because knowledge is vital for better managing the parks and incubators, while networking is essential to connect them to projects involving other relevant players” (PIQUÉ, Personal interview, 2017). However, after the collected data were analyzed and cross examined with the intermediary functions’ questionnaire, it is possible to assert that the association provides a higher number of services for its members. The IASP provides various management services, most of which are included in their membership fees. Foresights and diagnostics (1) like site locations and infrastructure diagnostics are offered to members, although feasibility studies are usually requested individually30. Strategy development (2) is also available to all members yet the depth of this service may vary according to each case. For all members, the association offers the Strategigram®, a software-support program idealized by Luis Sanz that assists SPs managers to understand their parks’ profiles and how different decisions may affect them. The program also enables these managers to compare different models of SPs and their results, although it does not serve as a direct result-assessment tool for individual parks.
30
Examples of such feasibility studies are the 2013 study for implementing a SP in Cluj-Napoca in Romania and the 2008 study for a SP in the Al Khod Valley in Oman, with €29,000.00 and €23,000.00 budgets, respectively.
182
Figure 24 – IASP’s Strategigram® Source: IASP. Available at: . Accessed on: 16 Jan. 2018.
Demand articulation (3) and project management, design and evaluation31 (5) are also provided for all members, but business strategy implementation (4) and decision making advice and consulting (6) services are only offered according to members’ individual demand32. Technology assessment (7), organizing discourse, alignment and consensus (8) or counseling for investing in new/emergent/innovative projects (9) are not provided, as shown in Table 35. Formulation of specific research strategies and/or sectoral activities (10) and benchmarking (11) services are also available33, with some of their features being included in Strategigram ®. TABLE 35 – IASP’s management services Management Services 1 2
31
Yes
No
Foresight and diagnostics Strategy Development
A recent example of this service was IASPs collaboration with Ilfov regional council on a project to create a new science park in Magurele (Romania). 32 In 2007, IASP was requested a study to strategically model a SP in Mexico and to transfer methodologies to its implementation, with a budget of €94,000.00. 33 One example is the 2010 study for six SPs in Minas Gerais, Brazil, requested by the Secretaria de Estado de Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior with a budget of €45,000.00.
183
3 Demand Articulation 4 Business Strategy Implementation 5 Project management, design and evaluation 6 Decision Making advice and consulting 7 Technology assessment 8 Organizing discourse, alignment and consensus 9 Counseling for investing in new/emergent/innovative projects 10 Formulation of specific research strategies and/or sectoral activities 11 Benchmarking Source: prepared by the author.
Articulation and mobilization services such as articulating, configuring and aligning interests (12) or joint promotional activities (16) are usually arranged by the association as a consequence of its large member base and regional particularities. The creation of the new Eurasia regional division is an example of how various members may need to be attended to according to its geographical positions and subsequent aligning interests. Also, as Sanz highlighted, disagreements may often emerge due to cultural, economic, political or ethnical reasons and it is in the association’s interest that its members are coordinated in the most diplomatic manner possibly. TABLE 36 – IASP’s articulation & mobilization services Articulation & Mobilization Services 12 Articulating, Configuring, Aligning interests 13 Arbitration based on neutrality and trust 14 Club and social / peer support 15 Help users articulate innovation needs 16 Joint promotional activities Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Networking services are mentioned by Ebba Lund, Josep Piqué and Luis Sanz as the main services provided by IASP34 . Piqué emphasizes the relevance of such services in an industry with such a particular dynamic, claiming “the networking is imperative for all agents involved in innovation to get to know each other and to have a common framework that enables them to organize and execute international projects that involve science parks and incubators” (PIQUÉ, Personal interview, 2017). Consulting of networking establishment (17), adapting/implementing network models (18), networking performance assessments (19), management of network structure and channels (20), creation and facilitation of new networks (21), interfirm networking activities (22) and building linkages with external knowledge systems (23) are all services the association provides to its members. One example of such networking services is IASP’s engagement in the Increasing international Science Technology
34
See Table 37.
184
and Innovation cooperation between Brazil and the EU (INCOBRA) project, a part of EU’s Horizon 2020 framework program for research and innovation with an €80 billion budget between 2014 and 2020. The association is one of the eight European and seven Brazilian partners in the INCOBRA project, initiated on March 18th of 2016. During its 3-year period, IASP will engage in the identification of trends, coordination of funding opportunities, business and institutional matchmaking and networking activities to promote the agenda of research and innovation between the European Union and Brazil. Since it began, IASP has hosted meetings with Anprotec’s President Jorge Audy on June 30 th of 2016 and another one with 10 deans from Brazilians universities on October 7th. It has also engaged its project team to participate in INCOBRA’s meeting on November 22nd in Campinas (BRA), and a training camp in Rio de Janeiro on June 26th, focused on industry-academia interactions. TABLE 37 – IASP’s networking services Networking Services 17 Consulting of Networking establishment 18 Adapting / Implementing network models 19 Networking performance assessments 20 Management of network structure / Channels 21 Creation and facilitation of new networks 22 Interfirm networking activities 23 Building linkages with external knowledge system Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
As for technical services, they are not provided by the association since most of its services does not require special assistance of this nature. Therefore, the staff and structure of IASP are not aimed at the provision of specific technical services (24) or standards development and support for systems development (25). TABLE 38 – IASP’s technical services Technical Services 24 Provision of specific technical services 25 Standards development and support for systems development Source: prepared by the author.
Yes
No
Some technology & knowledge brokering services are provided by the association, such as knowledge processing and combination/recombination (26), knowledge transfer support (27)35 and the provision of access to expertise/equipment.
35
In 2009, the IASP was requested by Aertec to perform a feasibility study which included know-how and knowledge transfer involving managerial and networking activities for a SP project in Jordan.
185
FIGURE 25 – IASP’s POINT service website Source: IASP. Available at: . Accessed on: 16 Jan. 2018.
The POINT program is an example of how the association directly engages in bridging members’ tenant startups and companies with multinationals interested in technological solutions36 . The service is free of cost for all active members, but for the large companies, multinationals or non-member science parks it targets, the service is paid. Intellectual property management (29), support of technology transfer (30), test and validation of new technologies and equipment (31), acceleration of new technologies application (32) or adapting technologies for alternate applications (33) are not services the associations provides. TABLE 39 – IASP’s technology and knowledge brokering services Technology & knowledge brokering services 26 Knowledge processing and combination / recombination 27 Knowledge transfer support 28 Provision of access to expertise / equipment 29 Intellectual property management 30 Support of Technology transfer 31 Test and validation of new technologies and equipment 32 Acceleration of new technologies application 33 Adapting technologies for alternate applications Source: prepared by the author.
36
See Figure 25.
Yes
No
186
All of the Information services are provided to members37 (), which Sanz claims to be one of IASP’s main objectives since its founding. Scanning and prospecting external information (34) is a provided service, as exemplified by IASP’s MOU with VR First, a virtual reality company. This collaboration between the organizations aims to enable members and its tenant companies with access to facilities and specialized staff assigned to educated and explore how virtual/augmented reality technology may be used in universities, SPs or BIs38. Information gathering, processing, generation and combination (35) are provided in various ways. Available in IASP’s website is the Knowledge Room, shown in Figure 26, a window that offers all members a variety of books, e-books, conference papers, reports, articles, and webinars with free-of-charge content related to SPs and areas of innovation. Part of this content originates from members information (collected and processed statistically) or conference participants, while part of it is internally processed, gathered and elaborated (such as e-books about commercializing SPs or managing areas of innovation) by IASP staff members or appointed officials. For non-members, these items must be purchased.
FIGURE 26 – IASP’s Knowledge Room Source: IASP Knowledge Room. Available at: . Accessed on: 16 Jan. 2018.
Communication and disseminations of knowledge (36) services are provided by statistics services, collected internally through regular consultations among members, and also by webinars about relevant topics, such as networks, areas of innovation and cities, or how to use Strategigram®. 37
See Table 40. IASP does not directly engage in transferring this knowledge or technology, limiting itself to the provision of access to VR First, free of cost. Therefore this is not considered a brokering service of support of technology transfer (30). 38
187
FIGURE 27– IASP’s Webinars Source: IASP Webinar. Available WEBINAR>. Accessed on: 16 Jan. 2018.
at:
