IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i3p2301-2321d46136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regional Open Innovation Roadmapping: A New Framework for Innovation-Based Regional Development

Author

Listed:
  • Wim Schwerdtner

    (Faculty of Life Sciences, Economics of Horticultural Production, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, Berlin 10099, Germany)

  • Rosemarie Siebert

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Institute of Socio-Economics, Eberswalder Straße 84, Müncheberg 15374, Germany)

  • Maria Busse

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Institute of Socio-Economics, Eberswalder Straße 84, Müncheberg 15374, Germany)

  • Ulf B. Freisinger

    (Freie Universität Berlin, Kaiserswerther Str. 16-18, Berlin 14195, Germany)

Abstract

To foster sustainable regional development, many regions rely on innovations. To safeguard the generation of innovations and their market introduction, companies have increasingly used technology roadmapping and open innovation. The project INNOrural (Innovations for sustainable rural development) expanded these concepts by applying them to regions. This led to the rise of the “Regional Open Innovation Roadmapping” framework for innovation-based regional development (ROIR). This framework was tested by conducting two innovation roadmapping processes in the model region of Märkisch-Oderland (MOL), Germany: the certification of regional wood fuel and the establishment of a competence center for precision farming technology. Both innovation ideas were selected during the roadmapping process by applying a sustainability assessment. After 12 months, two complete roadmaps were ready for implementation. Key principles of ROIR were identified, including the use of a clear and replicable sustainability assessment method, the involvement of all relevant stakeholder groups in the early process and the cooperation between regional and subject experts. Generally, the broader adaptation of ROIR for additional regions will be useful. Nevertheless, the ROIR processes need to be evaluated in depth to develop a better understanding and to provide evidence of the benefits and limitations of this approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Wim Schwerdtner & Rosemarie Siebert & Maria Busse & Ulf B. Freisinger, 2015. "Regional Open Innovation Roadmapping: A New Framework for Innovation-Based Regional Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-21, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:3:p:2301-2321:d:46136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/3/2301/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/3/2301/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elias G. Carayannis & Dimitris Assimakopoulos & Masayuki Kondo, 2007. "Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters," Post-Print hal-02298105, HAL.
    2. Belussi, Fiorenza & Sammarra, Alessia & Sedita, Silvia Rita, 2010. "Learning at the boundaries in an "Open Regional Innovation System": A focus on firms' innovation strategies in the Emilia Romagna life science industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 710-721, July.
    3. Alexey Kindras & Dirk Meissner & Konstantin Vishnevskiy, 2019. "Regional Foresight for Bridging National Science, Technology, and Innovation with Company Innovation: Experiences from Russia," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(4), pages 1319-1340, December.
    4. Vecchiato, Riccardo & Roveda, Claudio, 2014. "Foresight for public procurement and regional innovation policy: The case of Lombardy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 438-450.
    5. Knut Koschatzky, 2005. "Foresight as a Governance Concept at the Interface between Global Challenges and Regional Innovation Potentials," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 619-639, June.
    6. Lee, Jung Hoon & Phaal, Robert & Lee, Sang-Ho, 2013. "An integrated service-device-technology roadmap for smart city development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 286-306.
    7. Williamson, Oliver E., 1988. "Technology and transaction cost economics : A reply," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 355-363, October.
    8. Kathrin Specht & Rosemarie Siebert & Ina Hartmann & Ulf Freisinger & Magdalena Sawicka & Armin Werner & Susanne Thomaier & Dietrich Henckel & Heike Walk & Axel Dierich, 2014. "Urban agriculture of the future: an overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(1), pages 33-51, March.
    9. Carvalho, M.M. & Fleury, André & Lopes, Ana Paula, 2013. "An overview of the literature on technology roadmapping (TRM): Contributions and trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(7), pages 1418-1437.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kathrin Specht & Felix Zoll & Henrike Schümann & Julia Bela & Julia Kachel & Marcel Robischon, 2019. "How Will We Eat and Produce in the Cities of the Future? From Edible Insects to Vertical Farming—A Study on the Perception and Acceptability of New Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Arnould, Maxence & Morel, Laure & Fournier, Meriem, 2022. "Embedding non-industrial private forest owners in forest policy and bioeconomy issues using a Living Lab concept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    3. Marco Bellandi & Lisa De Propris, 2021. "Local Productive Systems’ Transitions to Industry 4.0+," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-17, November.
    4. Saba Sareminia & Alireza Hasanzadeh & Shaaban Elahi & Gholamali Montazer, 2019. "Developing Technology Roadmapping Combinational Framework by Meta Synthesis Technique," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(02), pages 1-36, April.
    5. Irina S. Zinovyeva & Yuri А. Kozenko & Kirill B. Gerasimov & Yulia I. Dubova & Margarita S. Irizepova, 2016. "Regional Innovation Development as a Feature of Competitiveness in the XXI Century," Contemporary Economics, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw., vol. 10(4), December.
    6. Isabela Neto Piccirillo & Daniel Capaldo Amaral & Maicon Gouvêa De Oliveira, 2022. "A Research Agenda for Collaborative Roadmapping Supported by Blockchain Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-16, October.
    7. Kathrin Specht & Rosemarie Siebert & Susanne Thomaier & Ulf B. Freisinger & Magdalena Sawicka & Axel Dierich & Dietrich Henckel & Maria Busse, 2015. "Zero-Acreage Farming in the City of Berlin: An Aggregated Stakeholder Perspective on Potential Benefits and Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-13, April.
    8. Anke Kutschke & Alexandra Rese & Daniel Baier, 2016. "The Effects of Locational Factors on the Performance of Innovation Networks in the German Energy Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Lu Cheng, 2022. "The Effects of Open Innovation at the Network Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-23, November.
    10. Shufang Wang & Xiao Xue & Axing Zhu & Yuejing Ge, 2017. "The Key Driving Forces for Geo-Economic Relationships between China and ASEAN Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, December.
    11. Sukrit Vinayavekhin & Robert Phaal, 2019. "Synchronization in Strategic Planning: A Roadmapping Framework," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(06), pages 1-21, October.
    12. Kimpimäki, Jaan-Pauli & Malacina, Iryna & Lähdeaho, Oskari, 2022. "Open and sustainable: An emerging frontier in innovation management?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    13. Marek Jemala, 2019. "Problematic Roadmapping for Companies in Less Developed Regions of Slovakia," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(08), pages 1-26, December.
    14. Hung-Wei Chen & Fu-Ren Lin, 2018. "Evolving Obligatory Passage Points to Sustain Service Systems: The Case of Traditional Market Revitalization in Hsinchu City, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-25, July.
    15. Abel García-González & María-Soledad Ramírez-Montoya, 2019. "Systematic Mapping of Scientific Production on Open Innovation (2015–2018): Opportunities for Sustainable Training Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Francesco Cappa & Fausto Del Sette & Darren Hayes & Federica Rosso, 2016. "How to Deliver Open Sustainable Innovation: An Integrated Approach for a Sustainable Marketable Product," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Juan Milán-García & Juan Uribe-Toril & José Luis Ruiz-Real & Jaime de Pablo Valenciano, 2019. "Sustainable Local Development: An Overview of the State of Knowledge," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-18, February.
    18. Wen-Cheng Huang & Yi-Ying Lee, 2016. "Strategic Planning for Land Use under Extreme Climate Changes: A Case Study in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexey Kindras & Dirk Meissner & Konstantin Vishnevskiy, 2019. "Regional Foresight for Bridging National Science, Technology, and Innovation with Company Innovation: Experiences from Russia," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(4), pages 1319-1340, December.
    2. de Alcantara, Douglas Pedro & Martens, Mauro Luiz, 2019. "Technology Roadmapping (TRM): a systematic review of the literature focusing on models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 127-138.
    3. Chi-Yo Huang & Jih-Jeng Huang & You-Ning Chang & Yen-Chu Lin, 2021. "A Fuzzy-MOP-Based Competence Set Expansion Method for Technology Roadmap Definitions," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-26, January.
    4. Bloem da Silveira Junior, Luiz A. & Vasconcellos, Eduardo & Vasconcellos Guedes, Liliana & Guedes, Luis Fernando A. & Costa, Renato Machado, 2018. "Technology roadmapping: A methodological proposition to refine Delphi results," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 194-206.
    5. Hussain, M. & Tapinos, E. & Knight, L., 2017. "Scenario-driven roadmapping for technology foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 160-177.
    6. Yuya Mitake & Kenshiro Hiramitsu & Yusuke Tsutsui & Mar’atus Sholihah & Yoshiki Shimomura, 2020. "A Strategic Planning Method to Guide Product—Service System Development and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-23, September.
    7. Park, Hyunkyu & Phaal, Rob & Ho, Jae-Yun & O'Sullivan, Eoin, 2020. "Twenty years of technology and strategic roadmapping research: A school of thought perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Chulok Alexander, 2021. "Applying blended foresight methods for revealing incentives and future strategies of key national innovation system players," Engineering Management in Production and Services, Sciendo, vol. 13(4), pages 160-173, December.
    9. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    10. Spaniol, Matthew J. & Rowland, Nicholas J., 2022. "Business ecosystems and the view from the future: The use of corporate foresight by stakeholders of the Ro-Ro shipping ecosystem in the Baltic Sea Region," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    11. Tommaso Pucci & Mara Brumana & Tommaso Minola & Lorenzo Zanni, 2020. "Social capital and innovation in a life science cluster: the role of proximity and family involvement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 205-227, February.
    12. Ghisetti, Claudia, 2017. "Demand-pull and environmental innovations: Estimating the effects of innovative public procurement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 178-187.
    13. Leena Erälinna & Barbara Szymoniuk, 2021. "Managing a Circular Food System in Sustainable Urban Farming. Experimental Research at the Turku University Campus (Finland)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    14. Montero, J.I. & Baeza, E. & Heuvelink, E. & Rieradevall, J. & Muñoz, P. & Ercilla, M. & Stanghellini, C., 2017. "Productivity of a building-integrated roof top greenhouse in a Mediterranean climate," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 14-22.
    15. Rosina Moreno & Ernest Miguélez, 2012. "A Relational Approach To The Geography Of Innovation: A Typology Of Regions," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 492-516, July.
    16. Devi Buehler & Ranka Junge, 2016. "Global Trends and Current Status of Commercial Urban Rooftop Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, October.
    17. Michael Martin & Elvira Molin, 2019. "Environmental Assessment of an Urban Vertical Hydroponic Farming System in Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-14, July.
    18. Potstada, Michael & Parandian, Alireza & Robinson, Douglas K.R. & Zybura, Jan, 2016. "An alignment approach for an industry in the making: DIGINOVA and the case of digital fabrication," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 182-192.
    19. Carmen SAVULESCU & Corina Georgiana ANTONOVICI, 2018. "The smart city as dynamic digital ecosystem," Smart Cities International Conference (SCIC) Proceedings, Smart-EDU Hub, Faculty of Public Administration, National University of Political Studies & Public Administration, vol. 6, pages 195-205, November.
    20. Ferretti, Marco & Guerini, Massimiliano & Panetti, Eva & Parmentola, Adele, 2022. "The partner next door? The effect of micro-geographical proximity on intra-cluster inter-organizational relationships," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:3:p:2301-2321:d:46136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.