Structural dynamics of innovation networks funded by the European Union in the context of systemic innovation of the renewable energy sector

Kang, Moon Jung; Hwang, Jongwoon

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.017

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Except for the 15 nodes that are disconnected, the rest forms a connected network, consisting of 1514 nodes, bringing together 222 projects. These results are similar to those of Kang and Hwang (2016), who find two related networks formed by 1,366 nodes (FP6)…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…While the literature has exhaustively studied the performance of these research consortia from the point of view of the joint project and of the participating companies Pinheiro et al, 2016;Muldur et al, 2007;Arranz and Fernandez de Arroyabe, 2006), the system of relationships created by the research consortia and their impact on the research objectives have not been analysed extensively (see, for example, Muniz et al, 2018) with the result that we have several inconclusive results in this area (see, for example, Kang and Hwang, 2016;Muñiz and Cuervo, 2018). There are many reasons for this: first, previous studies have focused mostly on several issues -such as the study of regional cohesion (see, for example, Amoroso et al, 2018;Di Cagno et al, 2016), the study of interactions among countries (Muñiz et al, 2018;Scherngell and Barber, 2009) or the problems of integrating SMEs in innovation systems (De Marco et al, 2020) that did not require an analysis of the underlying network.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This creates a network of relationships between projects and partners that facilitates the exchange of information among them. Secondly, unlike previous works (for example, Kang and Hwang, 2016) that analysed the network properties and topology structure passively 4 , we assume that the node has an active role in the network. It is the node that participates in the various innovation activities, taking an active role in achieving the network's objectives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding the network structure of agri-food FP7 projects: An approach to the effectiveness of innovation systems

Arróyabe

Schumann

Sena

et al. 2021

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding the network structure of agri-food FP7 projects: An approach to the effectiveness of innovation systems

Arróyabe

Schumann

Sena

et al. 2021

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The vision of systems thinking we have presented here will arguably add value in the context of systemic innovation for sustainability as much as, if not more than, others that are already being well used in this domain (e.g., Meadows et al, 2004). This is because we know that there are systemic barriers to change (e.g., Kang & Hwang, 2016), with vested interests reinforcing these, so understanding power relations, conflict, marginalization and how to respond to these is highly pertinent (e.g., Ison, 2010; Midgley, 1994; Ulrich, 1993).…”

Section: Integrating the Systemic Innovation And Systemic Intervention Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systems perspective on systemic innovation

Midgley

Lindhult

2021

Syst Res Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use, but there is no consensus on its meaning: five understandings of the term can be identified, each based on a different view of what the word ‘systemic’ should refer to. The first understanding focuses on technologies, where the innovation in focus is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, ‘systemic’ refers to technological innovations interacting in a larger product system. A second use of the term refers to the development of policies and governance at a local, regional or national scale to create an enabling environment for innovation systems. Here, ‘systemic’ means recognition that innovation systems can be enabled and/or constrained by a meta‐level policy system. The third use of the term says that an innovation is ‘systemic’ when its purpose is to change societal laws and norms to place new enablers and constraints on innovation in the interests of ecological sustainability. What makes this systemic is acknowledgement of the existence of nested systems: innovation systems are parts of economic systems, which are parts of societal systems, and all societies exist on a single planetary ecosystem. The fourth use focuses on collaboration in innovation networks with multiple actors. This has evolved from the first understanding of systemic innovation, but the critical difference is the primary focus on people and processes rather than technological products. The word ‘systemic’ refers to the interdependency of actors in a business or community context, leading to a need to cocreate value and innovate in concert or through coevolutionary dynamics. The fifth use of the term ‘systemic innovation’ concerns how people engage in a process to support systemic thinking and action, and it is primarily this process, and the thinking and action it gives rise to, that is seen as systemic, rather than the innovation system that they exist within or are trying to create. It is this fifth understanding that accords with most of the literature on systems thinking published over the last 50 years. The current paper offers a contemporary perspective on what systems thinkers mean by ‘systemic’, and this not only enables us to provide a redefinition of ‘systemic innovation’, but it also helps to show how all four previous forms of innovation that have been described as systemic can be enhanced by the practice of systems thinking.

show abstract

“…It is considered that the Institutional Impulse of the EU through the framework programs creates a network of relationships between actors that propitiates the exchange of knowledge and information, which, in line with previous research [50,51], is a crucial element for the innovation and technology development. Moreover, following similar works [52,53], the topological and structural characteristics of the regional innovation systems have been assessed. From our results, it can be concluded that, contrary to previous works [54,55], the centrality metrics provide information to consider the efficiency and efficacy of the regional innovation systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of the Horizon2020 Program to the Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialization in Coal Regions in Transition: The Spanish Case

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work aims to assess how regional innovation systems support research and innovation smart specialization strategies (RIS3) in coal intensive regions. Although many authors have analyzed energy transition paths for the European coal regions, no study has assessed how the network properties of their innovation systems are aligned with the priorities identified in their RIS3. This work fills this gap, relying on social network analysis (SNA) to assess innovation systems’ underlying networks, considering the active role of their nodes, thus, contributing to the innovation systems literature in the areas of modelling, simulation and performance evaluation. Within this work, regional innovation systems are modelled as research networks. These networks are promoted by the consortia funded by the European H2020 program. The assessment of the topology and properties of these networks enables the evaluation of the functioning of the innovation system, its technological strengths, as well as the key players involved. Based on these results, the characteristics of the innovation systems are compared to the priorities established by the RIS3. Three Spanish coal intensive regions (Aragón, Asturias and Castilla y León) are considered as use cases in this study. The obtained results indicate that, in some cases, the technological strengths of the regional innovation systems are not considered in the identification of the RIS3 priorities, while some RIS3 priorities are not supported by the innovation system. Considering these results, this paper proposes recommendations for regional and European policymakers, as well as for participants in the European research programs.

show abstract

Structural dynamics of innovation networks funded by the European Union in the context of systemic innovation of the renewable energy sector

Cited by 23 publications

References 98 publications

Understanding the network structure of agri-food FP7 projects: An approach to the effectiveness of innovation systems

Understanding the network structure of agri-food FP7 projects: An approach to the effectiveness of innovation systems

A systems perspective on systemic innovation

Contribution of the Horizon2020 Program to the Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialization in Coal Regions in Transition: The Spanish Case

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About