Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY: POLICY EXPERIMENTATION FOR PAN-EUROPEAN INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS

448 views

Published on

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation TEKES and the Finnish Innovation Fund SITRA organised in autumn 2016 an international workshop to compile international research data on developing ecosystems. Totti Könnölä, CEO of Insight Foresight Institute, presented the paper “Co-creating Pan-European Innovation Ecosystems: reflections from the EIT”.


Industrial Policy for New Growth Areas and
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
Research workshop in Helsinki 28.-29. November 2016
Convenors: Timo Hämäläinen, Sitra and Antonio
Andreoni, SOAS University of London
Organizers: Sitra, Tekes & MEE
Invited lecture

Published in: Leadership & Management
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY: POLICY EXPERIMENTATION FOR PAN-EUROPEAN INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS

  1. 1. EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY: POLICY EXPERIMENTATION FOR PAN-EUROPEAN INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS Industrial Policy for New Growth Areas and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Research workshop in Helsinki 28.-29. November 2016 Convenors: Timo Hämäläinen, Sitra and Antonio Andreoni, SOAS University of London Organizers: Sitra, Tekes & MEE Invited lecture José Manuel Leceta & Totti Könnölä Insight Foresight Institute (IFI), Madrid, Spain Twitter: @IFI_Institute Web: www.if-institute.org/ Email: info@if-institute.org
  2. 2. EIT was set up in 2008 to promote and strengthen synergies and cooperation among businesses, education institutions and research organisations through Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KIC). EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY (EIT)
  3. 3. FEW ACADEMIC ANALYSIS ON THE EIT Studies around its foundation (Jones, 2008; Jofre et al, 2009; Gornitzka and Metz, 2014; Didier, 2010; Tindemans and Soete, 2007; Huisman and de Jong, 2014) Key performance indicators for the EIT to steer its operations. Rohrbeck and Pirelly (2010) Thematic priority areas for a new wave of KICs. Haegeman et al (2012) Networked foresight in one of the KICs. Heger and Boman (2015) There is no substantive research about the EIT’s “setup” (2009-2010) and “consolidation” (2011-2014) periods. Missing the ‘insider view’ from the EIT Headquarters to learn from the EIT model and management practices as a European innovation policy experiment. 25 November 2016 3
  4. 4. OUR APPROACH AND OBJECTIVE Our empirical analysis on the EIT builds on the action research (Checkland, 1981; (Argyris et al., 1985) The authors are former EIT employees over the period of 2011 and 2014. ­ Interviews across the EIT community & day to day interaction subject to interpretation biases (Yin, 2003). ­ Attested by proofs documented in empirically grounded materials developed by the EIT and its stakeholders. The paper examines EIT practices as a policy experiment and opens up an avenue for further work on governance of Pan-European Innovation Ecosystems. 25 November 2016 4
  5. 5. PREMISES: SCHUMPETERIAN DEVELOPMENTAL AGENCIES & PAN-EUROPEAN INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS A new paradigm, from project collaboration to long-term partnerships for enabling ecosystems: ­ Capitalising on existing capabilities and alignment of public support available in Europe; ­ Bottom-up community-driven partnerships for co-creation and multilevel synergies; ­ Focus on the emergence and growth of world-class young dynamic firms (‘yollies’)/scaleups; ­ Acceleration, the exploitation of tacit knowledge and addressing societal challenges. ‘Schumpeterian developmental agency’, continuous policy experimentation (Kuznetsov, 2009). Breznitz and Ornston (2013): ­ at the periphery of the governmental structures, in low-profile set ups with relatively few hard resources and limited political prestige and less vulnerable to political interference. 25 November 2016 5
  6. 6. ENTREPRENEURIAL INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS Ács et al. (2014) ­ “National System of Entrepreneurship is the dynamic, institutionally embedded interaction between entrepreneurial attitudes, ability, and aspirations, by individuals, which drives the allocation of resources through the creation and operation of new ventures.” Russell et al (2011 ­ Innovation ecosystem entails: “the inter-organizational, political economic, environmental and technological systems of innovation through which a milieu conducive to business growth is catalysed, sustained and supported. An innovation ecosystem is a network of relationships through which information and talent flow through systems of sustained value co-creation.” Entrepreneurial innovation ecosystem: “the dynamic, inter-organizational, political, economic, environmental and technological milieu of… interaction between entrepreneurial attitudes, ability, and aspirations, by individuals, and moderated by institutions, … which drives knowledge and value creation towards the structural change and the enhanced allocation of resources.” Herein, we consider a Pan-European entrepreneurial innovation ecosystem the one that wires up local ecosystems across Europe (see also Pombo-Juárez et al, 2016). 25 November 2016 6
  7. 7. CASE STUDY: THE EIT – A POLICY EXPERIMENT 7
  8. 8. THE EIT: A POLICY EXPERIMENT The EIT, an experimental shift from today’s EU-level interventions and current emphasis in trans-national collaborative projects (in R&D) to a new paradigm in fostering Pan-European innovation ecosystems. 25 November 2016 8
  9. 9. • Climate-KIC: Co-location Centre RIC (Regional Implementation and Innovation Centre) • EIT ICT Labs: Co-location Centre Associate Partner • KIC InnoEnergy Co-location Centre (**) Composite map of CLCs for the three first KICs THE FIRST 3 KICS’ HOT SPOTS 9
  10. 10. POLICY EXPERIMENTATION WITH BUSINESS LOGIC AT EIT: KIC DESIGN ­ Business logic ­ an independent legal entity, gathering knowledge triangle partners; a minimum of 7 years to eventually become self- sustainable ­ governed by a Board of KIC partner organisations; run by a CEO and a management team ­Investment logic ­ EIT funding to KICs is max. 25 % ­ KICs’ Business Plan with measurable deliverables, results and impact. ­ The investment culture is promoted 25 November 2016 10
  11. 11. THE EIT MANAGEMENT AGENDAS i) Monitoring ­ EIT Governing Board defined a Scoreboard which the EIT further elaborated jointly with the three KICs into a Performance Monitoring System (PMS); applied as one of the criteria to determine the annual funding allocation. ii) Simplification ­ Access and exit of European partners in the KICs as “living partnerships” ­ Empower KIC Legal Entities for secure internal controls vis-a-vis their KIC Partners. ­ Setting up criteria to select projects at KIC level. ­ ‘Derogations’ for approval by EU institutions; e.g. SMEs and individuals do not need to become formal partners to receive financial support. ­ Since 2014 part of the Horizon 2020. iii) Dissemination ­ Dissemination of results and practices through studies and conferences; EIT Stakeholder Forum. 25 November 2016 11
  12. 12. EIT AND ITS INITIAL IMPLICATIONS ON POLICY AND PRACTICE Towards networked excellence in enabling spaces ­ KICs’ operations in five to six innovation ‘hot-spots’ or so-called ‘co-location centres’ (CLCs) which the amended Regulation in 2013 finally defined as follows: "co-location centre" means a geographical area where the main knowledge triangle partners are based and can easily interact, providing the focal point for the KICs’ activity in that area". Beyond mobility, trans-national incubation and acceleration ­ While CLCs work together, exploit and take advantage of their diversity, thereby fostering actual synergies and complementarities across European borders. ­ CLCs to facilitate ‘soft landing’, mutual exchange of support, exposure of the start-up business plans to other marker environments, match-making international partners along the value chains to scale up trans- national impact, etc. ­ KICs facilitate opportunities to high growth potential ventures which can be nurtured and their growth accelerated with large corporations in the KIC partnerships. 25 November 2016 12
  13. 13. Concluding remarks CONCLUDING REMARKS
  14. 14. DISCUSSION KICs impact and their legal and management set up fit remain to be seen. ­ ‘Too large’ communities risk losing the focus and even leading to incremental rather than radical and/or disruptive innovations. Monitoring – measuring impact ­ Both in societal and economic terms, including behavioural additionality. Simplification – a ‘trusted partner’ ­ KIC financial reporting, simplified costs, risk assessment incl. systematic ex post and ex ante verifications, and applying financial instruments either alone or in combination with grants. Dissemination ­ New innovation models and bringing about a systemic change to the European innovation landscape. Design of multi-level initiatives developing international (or Pan-European) innovation ecosystems. ­ ‘Clusters of innovation’ (Engel and del-Palacio, 2009; Engel, 2014) 25 November 2016 14
  15. 15. CONCLUSIONS The EIT is building Pan-European innovation ecosystems but KICs still to demonstrate their strengths. ­The sustainability of KICs after the seven years commitment is open. The EIT was proposed by former President Barroso and this created high expectations leading to risk averse governance sometimes over innovation and experimentation. ­Hence, with hindsight, similar kind of initiatives could benefit from some more distance to political spheres and from higher autonomy to operate. 25 November 2016 15
  16. 16. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to Professor Gonzalo Leon (UPM) and anonymous reviewers for their comments to the earlier versions of this paper. The preparation of the paper was made possible due to the financial support of Madrid-based Insight Foresight Institute specialised in transforming innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems. The opinions presented in the paper are the authors’ only and do not represent an official view of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. 25 November 2016 16
  17. 17. www.if-institute.org info@if-institute.org @IFI_Institute Insight Foresight Institute (IFI) Avda. Concha Espina, 8-1 Dcha. 28001 Madrid, Spain THANK YOU! “With us, achieve game-changing strategies, implement them effectively and reach out to have impact”
  18. 18. Ben Martin (UK) •SPRU, Univ. of Sussex •(University of Cambridge) Charles W. Wessner (US) •Georgetown Univ. •(National Academy of Sciences) Dan Breznitz (CA) •University of Toronto, Munk School of Global Affairs, Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute •(Georgia Tech, MIT) Dirk Pilat (NL/FR) •Deputy Director of the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation •(OECD Committee on Industry, Innovation and Entrepreneurship) Emma Fernández (ES) •Advisor, Corporate Leader •(Indra) Gonzalo León (ES) •Vice-President of the Technology for Defence and Security Program, CESEDEN •(Universidad Politécnica de Madrid) Göran Roos (SE/AU) •Value Add and Ind. Growth, Econ. Dev. Board in Adelaide •(Innovation Performance Australia,VTT) John Kao (US) •Institute for Large Scale Innovation •(Global Advisory Council on Innovation of WEF, Harvard Business School) Ken Guy (UK) •Wise Guys, Ltd •(OECD, EC JRC-IPTS, Technopolis) Kurt Deketelaere (BE) •LERU •(Flemish Gov., Univ. Of Leuven) Maria Bejuméa (ES) •Startup Spain (South Summit) •(Serial entrepreneur) Mariana Mazzucato (IT/US) •SPRU, Univ. Of Sussex •(INNOGEN, The Open University) Ray Garcia (US) •European Commission, , Buoyant Capital •(University of Pisa, MIT Media Lab,University of Arizona) Riel Milller (CA/FR) •UNESCO •(xperidox, OECD) Ron Johnston (AU) •Australian Centre of Innovation •(Australian Commission for the Future) HIGHLEVELADVISORYBOARD
  19. 19. MANAGING DIRECTOR Totti Könnölä Background: Impetu Solutions, EIT,UP Comillas, IE, JCR-IPTS, VTT DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY Francisco Jariego Background: Telefónica DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT David Cano Background: TECOPY, IDOM Leadership SOCIAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT • Renowned global leaders and thinkers High-level Advisory Board • Recognised senior experts and mentors Innovation Council • Experts engaged in projects Expert Network • User-side representatives Challenges Committee • Strategic partner organisations Strategic Alliances Communities
  20. 20. ECOSYSTEM Businesses Academia Government Investors Society Media “We work with businesses, governments, academia and other stakeholders to foster insight and foresight that transform entrepreneurial innovation ecosystems with lasting impact on society.” OUR MISSION The entrepreneurial innovation ecosystem is • the dynamic, inter-organizational, political, economic, environmental and technological milieu of • interaction between entrepreneurial attitudes, ability, and aspirations, by individuals, mediated by institutions, • which drives knowledge and value creation towards the structural change and the enhanced allocation of resources. (Leceta & Könnölä, 2016)
  21. 21. OUR APPROACH Government incl. Agencies Academia incl. Universities Business incl. Large Firms APLICATION ACROSS TRIPLE HELIX • Acculturation & Alignment • Insight & Foresight • Strategy & Governance • Management & Implementation IFI Consulting Services to Transform Ecosystems • Platform Economy • Circular Economy Insight Foresight Initiatives SERVICES Other Stakeholders

×