From high-tech clusters to open innovation ecosystems: a systematic literature review of the relationship between science and technology parks and universities

Abstract

As part of the third mission of universities to promote innovation and economic development, the popularity of science and technology parks (STPs) as a policy tool is increasing. The co-location of innovative companies and universities should be conducive to knowledge exchange between universities and industry, thus leading to more innovation. However, STPs have evolved in different contexts and to serve different purposes. Furthermore, the research on them has evolved mainly through case studies of individual parks and it is scattered across different disciplinary conversations. Building on 1,711 articles published from 1985 onwards, this study presents a systematic literature review of research on STPs and their relationships with universities. We find three different phases in the evolution of this literature: a formation phase (before 2000), where the focus was on the creation of STPs; a geographical expansion phase (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010) reflecting the geographical expansion of STPs to East Asia and other emerging economies, with heavy focus on high-technology firms mainly in ICT; and a topical expansion phase (2011 onwards) when the literature expands to cover a diversity of new topics, including open innovation and sustainability, reflecting broader changes in the understanding of innovation.

How can industrial management contribute to a brighter future?

“…First, designing innovation ecosystems would benefit from anticipating the dimensions of ecosystem virtuality, that is, the reliance on various digital technologies for collaboration as well as the required task-and actor-specific levels of conveyable informational value and temporal dispersion. In practical terms, acknowledging virtuality as an ecosystem property can inform balanced investment decisions for collaboration infrastructure such as science and technology parks (Sandoval Hamón et al 2022) or innovation hubs (Haukipuro et al 2023). Moreover, setting up innovation ecosystems for adequate degrees of virtuality could broaden their inclusivity and better accommodate remote actors from businesses, academia, policy, and society.…”

“…Innovation ecosystems commonly comprise actors that contribute to a joint value proposition in spite of their geographical location. At the same time, innovation ecosystems often feature colocated actors such as in science and technology parks (Sandoval Hamón et al 2022), and corresponding research on territorial innovation offers a wealth of insights into the benefits of spatial proximity (e.g., Howells/Bessant 2012). However, the post-pandemic work reality has become less bound to traditional conceptions of workplaces (Leone 2023), and thus, substantially increases spatial flexibility by leveraging virtual tools (Haefner/Sternberg, 2020).…”

Navigating Ecosystem Virtuality

“…First, designing innovation ecosystems would benefit from anticipating the dimensions of ecosystem virtuality, that is, the reliance on various digital technologies for collaboration as well as the required task-and actor-specific levels of conveyable informational value and temporal dispersion. In practical terms, acknowledging virtuality as an ecosystem property can inform balanced investment decisions for collaboration infrastructure such as science and technology parks (Sandoval Hamón et al 2022) or innovation hubs (Haukipuro et al 2023). Moreover, setting up innovation ecosystems for adequate degrees of virtuality could broaden their inclusivity and better accommodate remote actors from businesses, academia, policy, and society.…”

“…Innovation ecosystems commonly comprise actors that contribute to a joint value proposition in spite of their geographical location. At the same time, innovation ecosystems often feature colocated actors such as in science and technology parks (Sandoval Hamón et al 2022), and corresponding research on territorial innovation offers a wealth of insights into the benefits of spatial proximity (e.g., Howells/Bessant 2012). However, the post-pandemic work reality has become less bound to traditional conceptions of workplaces (Leone 2023), and thus, substantially increases spatial flexibility by leveraging virtual tools (Haefner/Sternberg, 2020).…”

The impact of university STEM assets: A systematic review of the empirical evidence

“…In a similar vein Feser [ 8 ], reviewed the literature on innovation intermediaries and knowledge sharing. Two recent reviews have focused on the relationship between universities and science and technology parks [ 9 , 10 ]. In contrast to these previous studies, the focus of the present paper is on the wider economic impacts of a diverse range of university STEM assets, including the conceptualisation and measurement of any such impacts.…”