Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Structure, Boundaries, and Dynamics

Bernardi, Paola De; Azucar, Danny

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33502-1_3

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…O Pilar_10, então, devido à variável institucional "transferência de tecnologia", que mensura a qualidade do sistema de ciência e de tecnologia de um país (Ács et al, 2018b), possui suporte teórico, o que garante a sua permanência no MMF. Segundo alguns pesquisadores (Belitski & Desai, 2016;De Bernardi & Azucar, 2020;Malerba & McKelvey, 2020;Radosevic & Yoruk, 2013), a qualidade do ambiente de inovação impulsiona a criação de novas empresas inovadoras. Por outro lado, a variável individual "novo produto", que mensura se os empreendedores introduzem novos produtos para alguns de seus clientes, combinada com a variável institucional que avalia a "qualidade do sistema de C&T", representam um avanço em relação aos índices de empreendedorismo que fornecem um diagnóstico da qualidade do ambiente de inovação, mas não informam se a inovação efetivamente ocorre.…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

Evaluation of the Global Entrepreneurship Index validity

Dionísio

Silva

Quadros

et al. 2022

IBJESB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: our objective is to assess whether the Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEI) is a valid methodology for measuring the national systems of entrepreneurship. Theoretical framework: we use the structural equation modeling (SEM) as a theoretical lens to evaluate the Global Entrepreneurship Index. Design/methodology/approach: to achieve the research objective, we perform structural equation modeling to measure the formative model of GEI, using the SmartPLS 3.0 software, in order to verify the convergent validity of the constructs; the collinearity of indicators and their relevance for measuring entrepreneurship. Findings: the results obtained show that the sub-indices and indicators are adequate to measure entrepreneurship. However, we identified that there is a need to replace the micro-level components of the opportunity perception and networking indicators which provide distorted results of what is understood as productive or high impact entrepreneurship. Research, practical and social implications: the main contributions of our study are directed to the indicators’ developers. We suggest the use of components that capture aspects associated with high-impact or technology-based entrepreneurship instead of any attempt to create a new business, as our results indicate that generic components provide short-sighted results on the state of entrepreneurship, hampering comparative studies at the country-level. Originality/value: although the GEI is based on the OECD recommendations for the construction of composite indicators (indices), we have not identified any studies (not even performed by the GEI developers) on the validity of the index as a methodology for measuring entrepreneurship.

show abstract

Section: Resultsunclassified

Evaluation of the Global Entrepreneurship Index validity

Dionísio

Silva

Quadros

et al. 2022

IBJESB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Applying the concept of ambidexterity to research on EEs reveals interesting and promising perspectives. The literature has defined the entrepreneurial process as ambidextrous (Vrontis et al ., 2019), as entrepreneurship is effective only when it makes use of specific skills, competencies and leadership; when it generates, acquires and combines information and knowledge from different sources; and when it ensures that this knowledge is exploited through suitable appropriation mechanisms (De Bernardi et al ., 2020a, b). Our study sheds light on the ecosystem-level dynamics of ambidexterity, which also resembles the organizing principles recently invoked to facilitate interorganizational collaboration in the face of complex societal challenges such as climate change and COVID-19.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enablers of explorative and exploitative intellectual capital in entrepreneurial ecosystems

Grande

Bertello

Bernardi

et al. 2022

JIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the intellectual capital (IC) dynamics in entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) by conceptualizing EEs as systems whose purposes include the (re)generation of the intangible resources needed for effective entrepreneurship. The study proposes a taxonomy of the key enablers of IC and develops a model that captures the unfolding interdependencies across the enablers of explorative and exploitative human, relational and organizational capital in EEs.Design/methodology/approachThe authors purposefully selected a successful EE around an entrepreneurial university in Latin America as empirical case. Specifically, they investigated the IC dynamics of the EE in the context of a series of internationally awarded hackathons and related activities organized at the ecosystem level over three years (2019–2021). The research leveraged participant observations, in-depth interviews with multiple EE actors and archival documents. For the data analysis, this study combined the Gioia method with an abductive approach.FindingsFirst, the study identified 27 operationalizable enablers of IC at the EE level clustered into human, relational and organizational capital and further differentiated these enablers considering the explorative and exploitative facets of IC. Second, it determined that the dynamic interplay across IC enablers is critical for an EE to flourish and evolve adaptively. This study concludes that assessing IC enablers and their dynamics can aid the understanding, evaluation and management of EEs.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to conceptualize EEs as systems whose purposes include creating the conditions for an effective interplay of explorative and exploitative IC at the system level. The resulting taxonomy of IC enablers provides formative constructs that will benefit both scholars and practitioners investigating the crucial role of intangible resources in EEs and guide managers, entrepreneurs and policymakers in their decision-making processes.

show abstract

“…As authors of the tool state, it has been developed within 'seven iterations of testing, in which hundreds of participants mapped more than 250 different ecosystems' [53]. It can be used to describe various ecosystems, which take into account the structural elements of ecosystems, making it possible to compare the research input and results [54]. Scholars used it to describe the ecosystem of start-ups in Espoo [55], demand-side management in district heating and cooling in Finland [56], the ecosystem of Smart Energy Buildings in The Netherlands [57], the information system in the healthcare sector [58], and the Sustainable Self-supporting Urban Smart Grid [59].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the Local Innovation and Entrepreneurial System Structure Towards the ‘Wrocław Innovation Ecosystem’ Concept Development

Helman

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The city of Wrocław is an important Polish center for creating innovations and modern technological solutions. In general, Polish innovation system is having problems with a lack of cooperation among different actors, a low level of commercialization and a weak uptake of technologies. Based on that, the objectives of this paper were set on the identification of the local innovation and entrepreneurial opportunities, the analysis of the current innovation system and the development of a community’s ecosystem theoretical concept. Currently, in Wrocław, many organizations are dealing with innovation. To assess the regional situation of the innovation system the ethnographic analysis was conducted. Each of the stakeholder segments was analyzed based on the resources, activities, value addition and value capture factors. The research showed a huge potential for creating an innovation ecosystem, however due to the variety of different activities, there is no common Innovation Ecosystem. Based on the analysis results, the Ecosystem Pie Model tool was used to create the ecosystem model concept. Research showed a huge potential for creating an innovation ecosystem. Therefore, Wrocław should aim to create a development policy framework that favors entrepreneurial innovation and will allow sustainable regional development.

show abstract

Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Structure, Boundaries, and Dynamics

Cited by 20 publications

References 68 publications

Evaluation of the Global Entrepreneurship Index validity

Evaluation of the Global Entrepreneurship Index validity

Enablers of explorative and exploitative intellectual capital in entrepreneurial ecosystems

Analysis of the Local Innovation and Entrepreneurial System Structure Towards the ‘Wrocław Innovation Ecosystem’ Concept Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About