SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ANALYSIS OF SECTORAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS Joao Aguirre RamĂrez Mauricio Restrepo Restrepo
SUMMARY: This article addresses the issue of sectoral innovation systems (SIS)1 in carrying out an holistically analysis2, evaluating the performance of scientific literature based on conceptual definitions, exploring the different features that SIS possess, identifying emerging trends of research topics and high level of relationship, and thereby establishing a clear picture of the subject evolution level, based on a detailed scientific basis and specialized searches. Several technological maps showing the relationship between lead authors on SIS, the publishing trends and the level of referencing are showed, similarly exploring the partnership dynamics between institutions and countries that have more influence on the knowledge development and advancement on issues related to SIS. Keywords: Technology Intelligence, Surveillance Technology, Competitive Intelligence, R+D+i, Sectoral Innovation System, Information Technology Platform, Strategy for Growth, National Systems of Innovation, innovation, technology roadmaps, relationship dynamics, Scientific Evolution. INTRODUCTION A sector is a set of activities that are unified by some related product group for a given or emerging demand and that share some basic knowledge (Malerba 2002). One sector is then a part of the productive chain that is focused on all the activities related to the production and commercialization of certain product or service. Many governments have developed policies and programs focused on financial support for innovative companies as a strategic response to the economic and financial crisis, to restore the long-term growth and create a sustainable economic future. In this sense there is the notion of National Innovation System (NIS) as an interactive model of knowledge creation and use of which participate in the various actors involved in the production and technological development.
1
A sectoral system is a set of products and which agents perform market interactions for the creation, production and sale of specialized products. (Franco Malerba 2002) 2 A set of products and agents which perform market interactions.
Innovation plays a determinant role in development of productive sectors, and as each of them has its own characteristics, the innovation process can be unique for each one of them, having different developers, interests, priorities and routes for each sector. That yields to the introduction of Sectoral Innovation Systems, as a very effective way to understand the innovation processes of the productive sectors. A Sectoral Innovation System (SIS) is a set of agents carrying out market and non-market interactions for the creation, production and sale of sectoral products (Malerba, 2002). These agents are people or organizations involved in the productive sector, whose interactions are governed by their opinions, objectives, reputations, etc. This paper introduces a heuristic framework for analyzing and explaining the different SIS patterns of change based on the evolution of the SIS scientific literature, which represents a new approach to study and analyze the origin of specified processing capacity and sectoral adaptive capacity changes in socio-economic structures supported on technological opportunities and different social patterns that influence the transformation of the SIS (Albino, Carbonara, y Giannoccaro 2006; Asheim y Coenen 2005; Lars Coenen y Díaz López 2010; Dolata 2008; Edquist y Hommen 1999; Freeman y Soete 2009; Metcalfe 2004; Robledo, Aguilar, y Pérez 2011; Rogge y Hoffmann 2010). The SIS daily demand special attention because of its complexity, since each economical sector behaves differently in the market, according to their needs (Malerba 2002). For this reason, the industrialized countries have supported their development policies on strategies and structures that focus on increasing the competitiveness of strategic industries through a commitment to science, technology and innovation. When analyzing the dynamics of technological innovation systems, we identified a number of researchers and analysts that have conducted empirical studies of innovation systems in order to understand its current structure and proposed development dynamics, and they repeatedly argued that the literature analyze this phenomenon from different perspectives like growth processes, relationships and networks, learning systems, politics and more.(Robledo, Aguilar, y Pérez 2011), (Metcalfe 1992), (Aguirre y Robledo 2010), (Smith 2000), (Lundvall et al. 2002), (Metcalfe 2004), (Miyazaki y Islam 2007), (Bergek et al. 2008), (Lars Coenen y Díaz López 2010), (Berkers y Geels 2011) Academic studies often experience difficulties in extracting relevant information to identify the state of the art and process of evolution of such studies. For this reason, the present paper shows an analytical approach based on Technological Intelligence to analyze the dynamics of emergence and evolution of the SIS, from a practical scheme of analysis supported by scientific literature, not only to identify influential elements of research in this area, but also to establish different relationships with other topics of current research interest, identifying the state of the art, and leading authors and institutions related to SIS.
The main purpose of this research is the bibliometric analysis of the SIS to the establishment of a theoretical frame and state of art about SIS, which can be useful not only to know the actual state and research trends of the SIS, but also to formulate recommendations and policies about these systems (Aguirre 2011). The theoretical framework is the basis for further research on this topic, because it allows knowing where the investigation is going to, what are the emerging and promising research lines and which of them are getting obsolete, which is important to save money and time by avoiding redundant investigations. For politicians or sector investors, it may be useful the information about the leading researchers and institutions if they want to get some advice in the improvement of their own sectoral capabilities. The most important factor to note is that the SIS issue is in stage of growth and evolution, since there has been a particular interest in the academic community to develop research in this direction, the issue study has presented a dynamic growth in the last decade, from different perspectives and approaches, and actually is a topic of interest for several academic institutions worldwide, especially in the European community.
DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY Initially we proceeded with a keyword analysis3 (Figure 1) which permitted to identify the relevance of the criteria used in the study, and showed search filters to use in relevant databases4. This is also important to identify the main topics in which are interested the SIS authors, thus providing an overview of the fields where SIS find application. The concept was first used by (Warf 1995), with a work which examined the changing geographies based on the knowledge for the telecommunications sector, then (Breschi, Lissoni, y Malerba 2003) addressed the issue from a conceptual standpoint, which presented the foundations of a later work in which (Malerba 2002) marked a major milestone, by proposing that SIS is a set of products, knowledge and agents that have different interactions for the creation, production and sale of products, which interact through processes of communication, exchange, cooperation and competition in search of creating a co-evolutionary transformation of these different elements. The components that must contain an SIS according to Malerba are agents, processes, networks5, institutions6, relationships, knowledge and technologies.
3
Scopus, Science Direct, Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, General Science Full Text, Springerlink, among others, during the month of November 2011. 4 It is important to note that the appearance dates of keywords in question, are not necessarily the dates of first mention in the literature, but it can be regarded as the beginning of relationship between the keyword and the focus of research. 5 Networking: It is the interaction between heterogeneous agents through processes of communication, exchange, cooperation and competition, within sectoral systems. 6 Institutions: Are the rules that affect the achievement of management objectives of the system, such as rules, regulations, labor markets, etc.
Figure 1 SIS Keywords and their evolution over time On the other hand, (Chung 2002) based their research from a broad perspective, which discussed the construction of sub-regional and sector innovation systems as a key enabler of innovation and sustainable in terms of agents distribution, their relationship and their interactive learning. Later (Geels 2004) proposed a new approach to SIS from an analysis of socio-technical systems of agents, considering the link between agents and structures, based on the inertia and stability of institutions, providing a coherent concept from the sociological approach, agency theory and innovation studies under the first fruits of longterm relationship. Since 2006 the interest in continuous publication has increased. Remarkable studies like (Balaguer y Marinova 2006; L. Coenen et al. 2006; Gilsing y Nooteboom 2006; Klincewicz y Miyazaki 2006) presented case studies in different sectors, especially those that are based on knowledge and technological advances. Another key element to note is the relationship of SIS with emerging issues associated to energy sector, which although has been investigated over time from several perspectives, only in the beginning of 2006 woke up an interest in analyzing the energy sector from an innovation systemic approach.
(Sapsed, Grantham, y DeFillippi 2007) addressed the relationship between organizations and SIS, analyzing some factors to promote creativity and innovation within companies, demonstrating that these are key factors for the development and growth of a cluster. On the other hand (Dalziel 2007) proposed an alternative approach to industry classification, which must self-organize in a collaborative way to promote innovation. In addition, Beerepoot and Beerepoot (2007) analyzed the relationship between government policies and their influence on the development of sectoral innovation through an example in Dutch construction sector; in a similar way, by documenting an empirical case, (GutiĂŠrrez de Mesa y MuĂąoz 2007) analyzed the most influential factors in the biopharmaceutical industry in Spain. 2008 was the year when historically more scientific articles related to SIS were published. Most of the proposals were case studies applied to specific industries and under the interest parameters of each individual researcher. (Pitt, Mamdani, y Charlton 2001) made an application in the Australian meat industry, exploring different options for developing innovative culture and its influence on SIS. Pakneiat Mehrizi Rezazadeh (2008) conducted a comparative analysis of the SIS with Porter's diamond model in the telecommunications industry, similar work was performed by Vale and Caldeira (2008), where they analyze the fashion knowledge management for the case of footwear sector in Portugal. On the other hand, Kristinsson and Rao (2008) studied the interactive learning and knowledge transfer in the wind industry in Denmark and India. (Yoon-Zi y Lee 2008) studied the convergence of technology in the industry of capital goods in Korea, and in the same direction Xin (2009) Anquan approached from the telecommunications industry. Dolata (2009) presents a very interesting study, which addresses the transforming ability, patterns of change and adaptability of the SIS7, analyzing substantial and incremental impact on the socio-economic change. In this study, institutions and actors meet the new market opportunities and these factors are closely linked with the ability to adapt over long periods of adjustment requiring industrial districts. Similarly, from 2009 some empirical studies using sectors such as automotive (Xi, Lei & Wu 2009; Oltra & Saint Jean, 2009), telecommunications (Xin, 2009), nanotechnology (Kumiko Miyazaki & Islam, 2007; Malerba & Mani, 2009), software (Sarma & Krishna, 2010; Klincewicz & Miyazaki, 2011), agriculture (De-Haan & Juarez, 2010; Cusmano, Morrison & Rabellotti, 2010; Berkers & Geels, 2011) and tourism (Aldebert, Dang & Longhi, 2011) have been published. After careful analysis of this literature, authors conclude that the most outstanding specialized SIS investigations are Asheim, Coenen, Malerba and Miyazaky, although some authors such as Malerba not reprinted scientific articles in the subject, it established itself as leading reference. Analyzing Figure 2 can be noted primarily that authors such as Asheim, Miyazaky, Berkers, Geels and Klincewizs have recently addressed this research
7
Based on previous publications by the same author (Ulrich, Ramer, y Leguer 2006)
topic and are currently active, not saying that other authors that have recently published are not yet working on these issues8.
Figure 2 Chronology of authors publishing leaders Analyzing some of the leading authors networks (see Figure 3), it could be seen the independence and isolation of the Italian authors (Malerba and company), while a group of leader authors are working together, exceeding limits of countries and institutions.
Figure 3 networks of leading authors A lead author is not only measured by the number of articles published, it is also important to analyze the number of references that has had its publication. Malerba is the most cited author with his work "Sectoral Systems of Innovations and production" in 2002, followed by Lundvall, Nelson, Dosi and Edquist, who have jobs of great importance for its scientific foundation and structure to provide an explanation and a foundation for innovation systems and clusters.
8
Scientific journals have published the evaluation period and more than 2 years.
The Figure 4 shows the time course in the authors citation that displays that authors do not necessarily have written more articles referencing this specific subject area (SIS), but their work in other areas of knowledge have elements needed for a justification of the SIS. In this analysis it is highly regarded some authors and experience in issues related to innovation, noting that in general the authors presented in the figure currently are being referenced, which provides the possibility of arguing that their research is still in force and have input into knowledge generation at present. Technological intelligence tests also provide clarity about scientific production by country of origin, geographical distribution provides a special understanding of the topics of interest in research in each country (Bottazzi et al. 2008) and as can be seen in Figure 5, the pioneer and the one with the largest number of published research in the area is the United Kingdom, showing a continuity of interest in the subject, being currently in effect. In general we can analyze the issue of research really begins to have a strong interest from 2000.
Figure 4 Chronology of Lead Authors
Figure 5 Timeline of the leading countries
The country networks have a special relationship dynamics, where the United Kingdom becomes the main connecting node in SIS research, working together with a group of countries that in turn work with each other (see Figure 6), highlighting their relationship with Germany, China, Netherlands and the United States, which are also pioneers in the subject.
In addition, it could be viewed that there are still countries with authors that are working individually, without establishing academic links outside its borders, as is the case of Portugal, Taiwan, Belgium, Brazil, Peru, Argentina, India and South Korea, from which could emerge the hypothesis that the relationship to scientific research is closely linked to cultural and language barriers of each region.
Figure 6 networks by country
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK The presented work was a review of the state of the art in SIS, that showed the growing academic interest in addressing this issue and its practical application in various sectors, as evidenced in studies of the last five years in which there have been several ways to approach the subject from multiple perspectives. It highlights the difference between countries, institutions and lead authors, as well as the lead author of numerous publications related to the topic. This last one is Bjorn Asheim, Professor at the University of Lund in Sweden, while the author with the most referencing is Franco Malerba, Professor at Bocconi University in Italy. On the other side, the country with the largest number of scientific papers in the area is United Kingdom, and surprisingly
the institution with the largest number of publications is the University of Eindhoven in the Netherlands. Although, it is noted that current research mainly is dominated by Europe. From the above data we can conclude that there is currently a dominant research group in the topic otherwise it may show that the interest of research in this area is broken down by different parts of the world, although it is worth noted that the anchor institution, considered as a pioneer for their high relationship level is the University of Sussex in the UK. Analyzing the authors, countries and institutions networks, we can highlight the high level of relationship that exists when there is uniformity of language or even a geographical proximity, generating a series of invisible entry barriers for countries with different to English language, since is evident that Francophone nodes are working in isolation, and some other Latin American are self-employment nodes. The theoretical concept is the main pillar made to generate a rigorous approach to the issues of sectoral innovation, creating a close relationship of the respective agents, structure, processes, relationships, coordinated manner, providing an argument to the growing interest in developing research in this direction. The methodology presented addresses the issue of the SIS from internationally indexed scientific articles, excluding some texts, conferences and presentations that are not included in these databases., It is noteworthy that there may be some works that are not documented in this analysis, this is mainly because there is no worldwide indexing and recognition for them.
REFERENCES Aguirre, J. 2011. «Vigilancia Tecnológica Como Estrategia de Crecimiento Económico para el Sistema Sectorial De Innovación de la Cadena Eléctrica Colombiana». VI Congreso Internacional de Sistemas de Innovación para la Competitividad 2011 Agentes de la Innovación: hacia una economía sostenible en I+D+i. Aguirre, J, y J. Robledo. 2010. «Evaluación de capacidades de innovación tecnológica en la industria colombiana de software utilizando lógica difusa’». En Gestión de las capacidades de innovación tecnológica para la competitividad de las empresas antioqueñas de software, 95–210. Medellín (Colombia): Todográficas Ltda. Albino, Vito, Nunzia Carbonara, y Ilaria Giannoccaro. 2006. «Innovation in industrial districts: An agent-based simulation model». International Journal of Production Economics 104 (1) (noviembre): 30–45. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.12.023. Asheim, Bjørn T., y Lars Coenen. 2005. «Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters». Research Policy 34 (8) (octubre): 1173–1190. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013. Balaguer, A., y D. Marinova. 2006. «Sectoral transformation in the photovoltaics industry in Australia, Germany and Japan: Contrasting the co-evolution of actors, knowledge, institutions and markets». Prometheus 24 (3): 323–339. Bergek, Anna, Staffan Jacobsson, Bo Carlsson, Sven Lindmark, y Annika Rickne. 2008. «Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis». Research Policy 37 (3) (abril): 407–429. doi:doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003.
Berkers, E., y F.W. Geels. 2011. «System innovation through stepwise reconfiguration: The case of technological transitions in Dutch greenhouse horticulture (1930-1980)». Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 23 (3): 227–247. Breschi, S., F. Lissoni, y F. Malerba. 2003. «Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification». Research Policy 32 (1): 69–87. Chung, S. 2002. «Building a national innovation system through regional innovation systems». Technovation 22 (8): 485–491. Coenen, L., J. Moodysson, C. Ryan, B. Asheim, y P. Phillips. 2006. «Comparing a pharmaceutical and an agro-food bioregion: On the importance of knowledge bases for socio-spatial patterns of innovation». Industry and Innovation 13 (4): 393–414. Coenen, Lars, y Fernando J. Díaz López. 2010. «Comparing systems approaches to innovation and technological change for sustainable and competitive economies: an explorative study into conceptual commonalities, differences and complementarities». Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (12) (agosto): 1149–1160. doi:doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.04.003. Dalziel, M. 2007. «A systems-based approach to industry classification». Research Policy 36 (10): 1559–1574. Dolata, U. 2008. «Technological innovations and sectoral change - Transformative capacity, adaptability, patterns of change: An analytical framework». Zeitschrift fur Soziologie 37 (1): 42–59. Edquist, Charles, y Leif Hommen. 1999. «Systems of innovation: theory and policy for the demand side». Technology in Society 21 (1) (enero): 63–79. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(98)00037-2. Freeman, y Luc Soete. 2009. «Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: What we can learn from the past». Research Policy 38 (4) (mayo): 583–589. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.018. Geels, F. 2004. «From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory». Research Policy 33 (6-7): 897–920. Gilsing, Victor, y Bart Nooteboom. 2006. «Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology». Research Policy 35 (1) (febrero): 1–23. doi:doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.06.007. Gutiérrez de Mesa, E., y E. Muñoz. 2007. «Foresight on biopharmaceuticals: Designing foresight methods for Spanish biopharmaceuticals». Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (3): 281–297. Klincewicz, K., y K. Miyazaki. 2006. «Software sectoral systems of innovation in Asia. Empirical analysis of industry-academia relations». En ICMIT 2006 Proceedings - 2006 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, 1:494–498. 2006 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, ICMIT 2006. Singapore. Lundvall, Bengt-Åke, Björn Johnson, Esben Sloth Andersen, y Bent Dalum. 2002. «National systems of production, innovation and competence building». Research Policy 31 (2) (febrero): 213–231. doi:doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00137-8. Malerba, F. 2002. «Sectoral systems of innovation and production». Research Policy 31 (2): 247– 264. Metcalfe, S. 1992. «The Economic Foundation of Technology Policy. Equilibrium and Evolutionary Perspectives». University of Manch- ester, Manchester. ———. 2004. «Policy for Innovation. ESRC Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition». University of Manch- ester, Manchester. Miyazaki, Kumiko, y Nazrul Islam. 2007. «Nanotechnology systems of innovation—An analysis of industry and academia research activities». Technovation 27 (11) (octubre): 661–675. doi:doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2007.05.009. Pitt, Jeremy, Abe Mamdani, y Patricia Charlton. 2001. «The open agent society and its enemies: a position statement and research programme». Telematics and Informatics 18 (1) (febrero): 67–87. doi:10.1016/S0736-5853(00)00019-8. Robledo, J., J.J. Aguilar, y J.D. Pérez. 2011. «Methodological Tool for Measurement and Assessment of Technological Innovation Capabilities». En Portland (ORE), USA: Portland State University.
Rogge, Karoline S., y Volker H. Hoffmann. 2010. «The impact of the EU ETS on the sectoral innovation system for power generation technologies - Findings for Germany». Energy Policy 38 (12) (diciembre): 7639–7652. doi:doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.047. Sapsed, J., A. Grantham, y R. DeFillippi. 2007. «A bridge over troubled waters: Bridging organisations and entrepreneurial opportunities in emerging sectors». Research Policy 36 (9): 1314–1334. Smith, K. 2000. «Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: rethinking the role of policy». Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies 1: 73–102. Ulrich, Dolata, Chistian Ramer, y Harald Leguer. 2006. National Systems of Innovation in comparation: Structure and Performance Indicators for Knowledge Societies. Springer. Warf, B. 1995. «Telecommunications and the changing geographies of knowledge transmission in the late 20th century». Urban Studies 32 (2): 361–378. Yoon-Zi, K., y K. Lee. 2008. «Sectoral innovation system and a technological Catch-Up: The case of the capital goods industry in Korea». Global Economic Review 37 (2): 135–155.