3CIntelligence Territoriale Gaussens-Gilardone PréSentation


Published on

A collaborative knowledge platform to promote the implementation of the Regional Innovation Strategy

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

3CIntelligence Territoriale Gaussens-Gilardone PréSentation

  1. 1. Intelligence Territoriale et prospective socio-écologique 24, 25, 26 Mars 2010, Nantes et Rennes<br />A collaborative knowledge platform to promote the implementation of the Regional Innovation Strategy<br />by<br />Olivier Gaussens and Muriel Gilardone<br />CREM UMR CNRS 6211 / MRSH UMS 843, Université de Caen Basse-Normandie. <br />e-mail address: olivier.gaussens@unicaen.fr and muriel.gilardone@unicaen.fr<br />
  2. 2. Whatis a collaborative knowledgeplatform ?<br />meta-organizationadapted to «cognitive interactions» betweendifferentactors<br />in ourcontext : SMEntrepreneurs, social scientists, innovation policyimplementers, innovation policymakers<br />to steer the Regional Innovation Strategy (RIS) in a context of «agencyfication»<br />Finally to improve the individual and collective competencies about innovation processus<br />
  3. 3. Why a knowledgeplatform to steer the RIS ?<br />Our hypothesis: the actor’sviews, judgements, decisions or actions are based on implicit positions or mental modelswhichconstituteimpediments to the development of innovation<br />The platform, thanksto confrontations of different expertises, should help actors to reconsidertheir initial positions <br />by clarifyingthem<br />to perceive or assess innovation in a more pertinent way<br />
  4. 4. A knowledge base for actors’ interactions<br />Composed of indicators and dashboards of synthetic analysis from databases, it allows actors to: 1)position themselves2) stimulate the explicitness of problems and solutions related to innovation<br /> 3) build their own tools of steering innovation. <br />
  5. 5. database<br />The knowledge base is building from databases : for example, enterprises data emergefrom a representative (random and stratified) sample of 70 regional and industrial SME (Projet IDEIS, CPER-Feder, 2007-2013)<br />
  6. 6. 5 entrepreneurs’ positional biaises as impediments to innovation <br />1) Entrepreneurs have difficulty to assess their own innovative effort<br />2) Entrepreneurs use a network mainly limited to their professional sphere to access the knowledge<br />3) Main businesses innovate to increase their competitiveness mainly through innovation-oriented customer satisfaction<br />4) Entrepreneurs cooperate little to generate new knowledge.<br />5) Entrepreneurs have difficulty assessing aid policies and innovation support for them.<br />
  7. 7. For example<br />Entrepreneurs use a network mainly limited to their professional sphere to access the knowledge : <br />The suppliers (55%), customers (50%) and competitors (50%) are more frequent knowledge sources that the universities (10%), research organizations (5%), or even the bodies of business support (15 %) (open access sources) <br />Patents and norms are not important sources of knowledge <br />The innovation process is opened : it is based on interactions with different actors (“thinking out the box”)<br />
  8. 8. For example<br />Entrepreneurs cooperate little to generate new knowledge.<br />They innovate in a rather informal and non cooperative relationship<br />They use more information sources (open access) than sources of knowledge through a cooperative partnership<br />The innovation process is based on knowledge interactions : these require a cooperative framework <br />
  9. 9. For example<br /> Main businesses innovate to increase their competitiveness mainly through innovation-oriented customer satisfaction.<br />The dominant reasons to innovate appear as the following: "increase or maintain market share“ (80%) and "new markets“ (70%). <br />In contrast, <br />the development of environmentally friendly products is less prominent (65% of enterprises)<br />the “reduction of production costs design” is infrequently evoked, while this factor directly impacts the profitability of innovation.<br />improved sharing or transferring knowledge is not mentioned.<br />The innovation process is based on the economic, social and cultural value creation (innovation efficiency, sustainable development, poverty reduction, better job, competencies and creativity development,…) <br />
  10. 10. What action model suitable for innovation policy ?<br />Policy-makers are designing policies based on implicit models of collective action.<br />Innovation policies are built on market failure <br /> the corresponding action model is the “allocative innovation” model. <br />For example, the motive for subsidizing research<br />
  11. 11. “Allocative model” relevant ?<br />1) the established facts show (IDEIS survey, 2009) that :<br /> non-market incentives to innovate are not very effective<br />The property rights are not as crucial that we advance<br />2) The “model of allocative innovation” is based on a random, science-technology-pushed model of innovation<br />
  12. 12. Policy-makersneedan alternative model<br />Based on a representation of innovation as a process<br />to steerthe Regional Innovation Strategy (RIS)<br />To overcome "apparently" contradictory <br />For example : competitiveness of SMEs vs sustainable development <br />Policy-makers should seek to orient innovation toward the creation of social - and not simply economic value <br />
  13. 13. Allocative model and agencyfication : policy implementers<br />1) it tends to partition the different "policy implementers,"<br />2) it provides little visibility into the real causes of "policy-implementers” performance. <br />The learning platform is the right tool for the deployment of RIS by allowing to effectively coordinate policy-implementers<br />
  14. 14. The role of social scientists in the platform<br />Organize the conditions for a collective production of knowledge<br />Help actorsexpliciting and analysingtheirneeds and representations<br />Invoke a widevariety of viewpoints, outlooks and models on innovation, confronte them and try to reach a bettermutualunderstanding<br />Highlightactors’ positional biaises<br />Provide micro and macro evaluationtools<br />
  15. 15. Between open and private model of innovation<br />In our view, the pure “private model of innovation”is particularly counterproductive because it doesn’t : <br />overcome positional illusions <br /> stimulate cognitive interactions between different actors . <br />In contrast the pure “open science model” <br />enables to avoid the social loss problem<br />but it creates problems with respect to motivating contributors<br />Between the two, the knowledge platform can be considered as a framework adapted to develop innovation<br />for example, the “private collective innovation model”(von Hippel and von Krogh model (2003))<br /> <br />