IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hig/fsight/v12y2018i2p62-76.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open Innovation Platforms as a Knowledge Triangle Policy Tool – Evidence from Finland

Author

Listed:
  • Mika Raunio

    (University of Tampere (Finland))

  • Nadja Nordling

    (University of Tampere (Finland))

  • Mika Kautonen

    (University of Tampere (Finland))

  • Petri Rasanen

    (Council of Tampere Region (Finland))

Abstract

Open innovation platforms (OIPs) as a new tool fostering the convergence of innovation, education, and research activities have been gaining popularity over the course of recent years. Innovative activities are evolving towards more agile and user-driven processes. OIPs are the key mechanism for orchestrating these processes, providing a qualitatively new space for the interactions between science, education, and innovation. Platform actors have the opportunity to share knowledge and use the urban environment as a ‘living lab’. Using the case of Tampere (Finland), the paper explores OIPs’ role in the orchestration of joint innovation projects within the framework of the ‘smart city’ model. The functions of the platforms in coordinating innovation are illustrated by the practices of three universities implementing the ‘knowledge triangle’ strategy. The initial data for the analysis of the cases were collected within the framework of the Six Cities Strategy project. The authors were guided by a participatory action research (PAR) approach and directly participated in events aimed at the development of strategy. The results of the case analysis should contribute to the evolution of the OIPs concept both from the academic and policy perspectives. The authors highlight some tentative policy implications and recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Mika Raunio & Nadja Nordling & Mika Kautonen & Petri Rasanen, 2018. "Open Innovation Platforms as a Knowledge Triangle Policy Tool – Evidence from Finland," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 62-76.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:fsight:v:12:y:2018:i:2:p:62-76
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/data/2018/07/03/1153164951/5-Raunio-62-76.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin J. Boudreau & Andrei Hagiu, 2009. "Platform Rules: Multi-Sided Platforms as Regulators," Chapters, in: Annabelle Gawer (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    3. Nooteboom, Bart & Van Haverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & Gilsing, Victor & van den Oord, Ad, 2007. "Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1016-1034, September.
    4. Mariana Mazzucato, 2016. "From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 140-156, February.
    5. Bjørn Asheim & Ron Boschma & Philip Cooke, 2011. "Constructing Regional Advantage: Platform Policies Based on Related Variety and Differentiated Knowledge Bases," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(7), pages 893-904.
    6. Vesa Harmaakorpi & Tomi Tura & Helinä Melkas, 2011. "Regional Innovation Platforms," Chapters, in: Philip Cooke & Bjørn Asheim & Ron Boschma & Ron Martin & Dafna Schwartz & Franz Tödtling (ed.), Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Philip Cooke & Carla De Laurentis, 2010. "The Matrix: Evolving Policies for Platform Knowledge Flows," Chapters, in: Philip Cooke & Carla De Laurentis & Stewart MacNeill & Chris Collinge (ed.), Platforms of Innovation, chapter 12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Sundararajan, Arun, 2016. "The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262034573, April.
    9. Annabelle Gawer, 2009. "Platforms, Markets and Innovation: An Introduction," Chapters, in: Annabelle Gawer (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Philip Cooke & Bjørn Asheim & Ron Boschma & Ron Martin & Dafna Schwartz & Franz Tödtling (ed.), 2011. "Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13482.
    11. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    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. Chunyu Zhang & Wenge Zeng, 2024. "Evaluating the Construction of a Digital Supervision Platform for Digital Trade Systems: a Multilateral Perspective," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 12503-12534, September.
    2. Catalá-Pérez, Daniel & Rask, Mikko & de-Miguel-Molina, María, 2020. "The Demola model as a public policy tool boosting collaboration in innovation: A comparative study between Finland and Spain," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    3. Daniel Catalá‐Pérez & María de‐Miguel‐Molina, 2021. "Analyzing Territorial and Sectorial Dimensions of Public–Private Partnerships in Science, Technology, and Innovation policies," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 113-138, January.
    4. Yejin Yoo, 2021. "Toward Sustainable Governance: Strategic Analysis of the Smart City Seoul Portal in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-29, May.

    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. Ron Boschma & Carlo Gianelle, 2014. "Regional Branching and Smart Specialisation Policy," JRC Research Reports JRC88242, Joint Research Centre.
    2. Vesa Harmaakorpi & Satu Rinkinen, 2020. "Regional development platforms as incubators of business ecosystems. Case study: The Lahti urban region, Finland," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 626-645, June.
    3. Janssen, Matthijs J. & Abbasiharofteh, Milad, 2022. "Boundary spanning R&D collaboration: Key enabling technologies and missions as alleviators of proximity effects?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    4. Hundt, Christian & Holtermann, Linus & Steeger, Jonas & Bersch, Johannes, 2019. "Cluster externalities, firm capabilities, and the recessionary shock: How the macro-to-micro-transition shapes firm performance during stable times and times of crisis," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-008, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Haifeng Qian, 2018. "Knowledge-Based Regional Economic Development: A Synthetic Review of Knowledge Spillovers, Entrepreneurship, and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 32(2), pages 163-176, May.
    6. Niccolò Innocenti & Luciana Lazzeretti, 2018. "Relatedness and growth: The impact of creative industries to the wider economy," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1819, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Apr 2018.
    7. Villani, Elisa & Rasmussen, Einar & Grimaldi, Rosa, 2017. "How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 86-102.
    8. Sverre J. Herstad, 2018. "Beyond ‘related variety’: how inflows of skills shape innovativeness in different industries," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 396-420, February.
    9. Lundquist, Karl-Johan & Trippl, Michaela, 2009. "Towards Cross-Border Innovation Spaces. A theoretical analysis and empirical comparison of the Öresund region and the Centrope area," SRE-Discussion Papers 2009/05, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    10. Roman Martin & Jan Ole Rypestøl, 2018. "Linking content and technology: on the geography of innovation networks in the Bergen media cluster," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(10), pages 966-989, November.
    11. Delorme, Donatienne, 2023. "The role of proximity in the design of innovation intermediaries' business models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    12. Riccardo Crescenzi, 2014. "The evolving dialogue between Innovation and Economic Geography. From physical distance to non-spatial proximities and 'integrated' frameworks," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1408, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Mar 2014.
    13. Lars Coenen & Bjørn Asheim & Markus M Bugge & Sverre J Herstad, 2017. "Advancing regional innovation systems: What does evolutionary economic geography bring to the policy table?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(4), pages 600-620, June.
    14. Marina Knickel & Sabine Neuberger & Laurens Klerkx & Karlheinz Knickel & Gianluca Brunori & Helmut Saatkamp, 2021. "Strengthening the Role of Academic Institutions and Innovation Brokers in Agri-Food Innovation: Towards Hybridisation in Cross-Border Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, April.
    15. Trippl , Michaela & Grillitsch , Markus & Isaksen , Arne & Sinozic , Tanja, 2015. "Understanding Cluster Evolution," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/46, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    16. Elekes, Zoltán, 2016. "A regionális növekedés új tényezői az evolúciós gazdaságföldrajzi kutatásokban. A változatosság és a technológiai közelség [The new factors of regional growth in research into evolutionary economic," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 307-329.
    17. Strambach, Simone & Pflitsch, Gesa, 2020. "Transition topology: Capturing institutional dynamics in regional development paths to sustainability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    18. Kristina Jespersen & Damiana Rigamonti & Morten Berg Jensen & Rune Bysted, 2018. "Analysis of SMEs partner proximity preferences for process innovation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 879-904, December.
    19. Hundt, Christian & Holtermann, Linus & Steeger, Jonas & Bersch, Johannes, 2019. "Cluster externalities, firm capabilities, and the recessionary shock: How the macro-to-micro-transition shapes firm performance during stable times and times of crisis," MPRA Paper 91802, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Annalisa Caloffi & Francesca Gambarotto, 2017. "Cognitive distance in public procurement and public–private partnerships: An analysis of the construction sector," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(5), pages 765-783, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    open innovation platforms (OIPs); knowledge triangle; network effect; university–industry cooperation; innovation policy; orchestration of innovation; Finland;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O18 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hig:fsight:v:12:y:2018:i:2:p:62-76. 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: Nataliya Gavrilicheva or Mikhail Salazkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

    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.