Strategic Considerations in Leading an Innovation Ecosystem

2008

Discussions of university-based economic development practice have evolved from discrete discussions about constituent elements (ex. technology transfer, firm start-ups, etc…) to more integrated discussions about the role of the entrepreneurial university in shaping innovation districts. Policy analysts have identified “innovation ecosystems” connected to anchor institutions in Baltimore, Buffalo, Cambridge, Cleveland, Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Diego, and “Tech Square” in Atlanta. These innovation districts share characteristics in common with the “Triple Helix” thesis combining university, industry, and government partners to build innovation neighborhoods connected to anchor institutions. Although the success of these innovation districts has been widely noted, the elements underlying that success have not been systematically identified. This study contributes to this evolving scholarship by examining the development and evolution of Technology Square in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. The “triple-helix” thesis articulated by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff argues successful innovation cultures are fostered by continuous and iterative interaction among universities, governments, and industry. The Brookings Institution’s innovation districts model further considers the physical space and relationship culture in which these triple helix interactions manifest: 1) Economic assets (the triple-helix actors); 2) Physical assets (public and private space, infrastructure, and connectivity); and 3) Networking assets (the relationships among the various actors that help advance new ideas). This paper analyzes the “Tech Square” project. It was built from 2001 to 2003 and simultaneously expanded the size and scope of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a major public research university with an urban campus. The project was initially driven by the need for more programming and academic space, but multiple factors shaped it into the foundation of a growing innovation hub. This case study uses a review of the literature on university knowledge and technology transfer; archival records; interviews; contemporary accounts; and mapping to build an ex post evaluation of Tech Square based on evolving theories of innovation district design. This study makes key contributions through a close examination of the physical form of Tech Square and how it was shaped by its particular Triple Helix environment. In addition, the Tech Square case highlights how the U.S. political context of limited government funding for university expansion necessitates a more creative economic development role for universities as anchor institutions. The findings of this study will be of interest to practitioners and scholars of economic development, public policy, urban planning and design, public-private partnerships, and higher education seeking to better understand the evolving role of research-intensive urban universities in building and shaping innovation districts.

Technovation, 2016

Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy, 2017

Innovation process research is changing. In addition to the former territorial approach (examining countries or regions), the description of innovation cooperation in local areas is becoming more and more accepted. Instead of the innovation ability of the traditional large enterprises, research has begun to study the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, non-governmental organizations, local governments, and educational institutions (especially universities), which foreshadows the development of a new innovation system. In 2015, we conducted a study focusing on the civil and corporate relations of a major university. We tried to determine the new directions based on the economic and social cooperation as well as to search for the practical implementation of the theoretical helixes in these interactions. We came to the conclusion that universities not only are determinative according to the triple helix model but also have a prominent role in the creation of new innovation ecos...

INTED Proceedings

Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present an adaptation of a program that is at the intersection of two dynamic force fields. The first relates to imperatives impinging upon and inherent in higher education. The second ties to the concept of ecosystems as spaces for aligning actors and resources to create value. Design/methodology/approach Tables I-III present pre-test and post-test means and p-values for the paired sample t-tests for the measures. Findings As expected, post-test means are consistently significantly higher (or lower depending on item wording) for a shift in beliefs away from self-censoring and prejudging ideas during ideation and more toward greater openness in the ideation process. Originality/value The paper examines the outcome of an educational program.

Vìsnik Nacìonalʹnogo tehnìčnogo unìversitetu «Harkìvsʹkij polìtehnìčnij ìnstitut», 2021

Engineering Management Research

The “science park” model has long been showing signs of aging, with many science parks now facing budget cuts by local and regional governments. In this study, we dissect the blueprint of a highly successful campus-based ecosystem, the High Tech Campus Eindhoven (HTCE). As an innovation ecosystem, the HTCE provides its residents (a) access to shared resources and facilities, to facilitate research and product development, and (b) an innovation community that enhances knowledge sharing between people at the campus. The success of the HTCE arises from a deep and inclusive understanding of the conditions in which an ecosystem for research and development can thrive, and the commitment to carefully grow and sustain these conditions. These conditions include: low physical distances between the various buildings, offices and shared facilities; a dynamic portfolio of thematic workshops and meetings stimulate knowledge sharing and informal networking; careful management of the diversity and...

Global Transitions, 2019