Open innovation: trends, agenda, impact
Henry Chesbrough's concept of open innovation and his insights into open innovation models have restructured the world of research and development (R&D) shifting it to search and development (S&D). Organisations are rapidly reshaping their innovation processes moving from a “closed” in-house R&D to an “open model” where ideas flow in and out of organisations to advance the development of new technologies.
Innovation is spreading geographically, engaging a diverse range of stakeholders and extending from technology to service and business model innovation. In other words, innovation is becoming more open, collaborative and creative.
What effect open innovation has on the development and growth of university, its research, education and translational activities? What are the key trends to watch to remain competitive?
The workshop will be illustrated by case studies on innovative business models.
Chair: Tatiana Schofield, The Founder and Managing Director of Synergy lab, UK
Theory and Assessment of Entrepreneurial Education
This workshop will provide attendees with a basic understanding of the Intention Model (EIM), a leading theory guiding research on entrepreneurship psychology, and a valuable approach to the assessment of entrepreneurship education and training.
The workshop will begin with a presentation of how the EIM mediates the effects of education, skills and experience: Education courses and activities only influence the intention to be an entrepreneur if they first influence both student confidence in their capabilities and the perceived value they expect to receive if they are successful. The absence of any indirect effects means that if a program does not change either student attraction to entrepreneurship and innovation, or student confidence that they can perform the necessary tasks, one will have little or no effect at all on their future behavior.
This understanding allows instructors both to design improved entrepreneurial courses and activities, and to accurately assess whether those educational activities are successful. Time will be spent on the guidelines for writing items that together form a measure of specific forms of self-efficacy, and those attending will then be asked to form groups to work together to write their own items on capabilities of interest to them. Following a work period, participants will present their items for group discussion.
In closing, a short presentation will describe the steps in conducting pre-test/post-test panel studies using self-efficacy, and what are the most commonly used statistical tests to evaluate any change.
Workshop Learning Goals:
- To review the Entrepreneurship Intention Model, its origins, how it is used, and the evidence that narrowly defined self-efficacy predicts future behavior;
- To present the use of existing self-efficacy scales for the study of technology-based innovation and entrepreneurship;
- To survey the most common statistical tests for determining self-efficacy change
- To conduct group activities, assisting participants to develop their own scales
Chair: William A. Lucas, Director of Assessment, Gordon Engineering Leadership Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Governance of Biomedical Innovations in Contemporary Russia and the World
Governance of biomedical innovations is one of the issues that is important for every country. It is connected with complicities, safeties and risks followed up them. How different substitutes of Triple Helix relations understand these concepts? What kind of distinctions are in different countries and various actors? The role of governance of biomedical innovations in addressing social problems in Russia and the world will be discussed during the workshop. The representatives of different areas of activities and sectors will come together: medical practitioners and scientists, members of state organizations and high-tech companies, staff members of non-commercial organizations working in biomedicine, including foreign ones, as well as sociologists and anthropologists. Such inclusive approach is important for analyzing innovations in modern biomedicine and understanding the processes, difficulties and risks in this field in Russia and the world.
- Role of biomedical innovations in addressing social problems in Russia and the world;
- Models of governance of biomedical innovations in different regions;
- Relations between international standards and development of biomedical innovations in different countries;
- Issues of import and export of medical devices and pharmaceuticals.
Format of event: 3-4 presentations (7-10 min. each) about different countries model (Russia, Bulgaria, Brazil), and the discussion
Organizers: Centre for Policy Analysis and Studies of Technologies (PAST Centre), Tomsk State University
Grassroots Innovation: Prospects for the Triple Helix Model
The study of innovation systems within the concept of the Triple Helix Model (THM) has taken place mainly in the framework of formal institutions and organizations (Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorff, L., 1995; 2000). Since the early 2000s, there has been growing interest and research on the feasibility and applicability of THM in Developing Countries (DCs). Key discussion points range from the challenges of building synergy between the major National System of Innovation (NSI) actors, i.e. university, business and government, to the prospects of THM in DCs in promoting innovation, sustainable development, science, technology and innovation (STI) policies and public policymaking (Ranga, M. and H. Etzkowitz, 2013).
However, there still exists a substantial gap in these studies, attention to which can significantly enhance the THM. We know that a considerable part of developing countries’ economies is informal and operates within the unorganised sector (Report of the Committee, 2012; International Labour Office, 2009; Perry, G., W. Maloney and O. Arias, 2007; OECD, 2009). This would make no difference for the THM if these two facts did not exist: the presence of innovative activity outside the organised sector and the integration of this innovative activity in the formal system of the country, as in the case of India (Gupta, A. K.,2006).
Innovative activity outside the formal sector, referred to grassroots innovation (GRI) in most of the scientific literature (Hilmi, M. F., 2012; Hua, L., Jiang, Y., & Lin, Y., 2010; Smith, A., Fressoli, M., & Thomas, H., 2014; ), inevitably leads to changes in the role and functions of the main actors of any NSI network. With no universally accepted definition of GRI in STI literature yet, the introduction of the workshop will include short explanation of GRI by posing questions such as: Is GRI a phenomenon? What are its specific features and drivers? How is GRI being framed and conceptualised?
Drawing from examples of countries such as India, Nigeria and Russia (as repreentatives of three major regions – Asia, Africa, and Europe), the workshop will address the following topics:
- GRI as a new actor of innovation activity within the NSI network. Case studies from India, Nigeria and Russia.
- GRI and NSI nexus: the role of universities, business and government (THM).
- GRI in the context of DCs; why it is important to consider it within the THM.
Chair: Professor Anil K. Gupta, Ph.D., Management, M.Sc. (Genetics), B.Sc.(Hons), Agri. Indian Institute of Management, Executive Vice Chair, National Innovation Foundation
Information about the experts:
Chux Daniels is based at SPRU (Science & Technology Policy Research Unit), School of Business, Management and Economics (BMEc), is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Sussex, United Kingdom.
Olga Ustyuzhantseva is a scientific fellow of the Center of Oriental Studies at National Research Tomsk State University (Tomsk, Russia).
The involvement of universities into social entrepreneurship
The social entrepreneurship becomes a growing trend in the world. The number of social entrepreneurs increases rapidly. The leading universities do not stand aside and launch programs both for research and support of the social entrepreneurship and the social entrepreneurs.
The Russian universities joint this trend as well – SPSU and MSU launched special educational programs for social entrepreneurs, HSE initiated special Center for social entrepreneurship and social innovations, ITMO implements actively the social entrepreneurship as a tool for cooperation with the authorities and the business representatives of the city.
Key workshop questions to be addressed:
- Why the universities are occupied with the social entrepreneurship issue?
- How the social entrepreneurship allows the university forging relationship with the local community, stakeholders and the state?
- What mechanisms do universities apply to develop the social entrepreneurship? What impedes and promotes this?
- Why do outside stakeholders may be interested in the universities as platforms for the social entrepreneurship development?
Chair: Sergey Golubev, General Director of Social Investments Fund LLC, Presidential RANEPA associate professor, Russia
- Philipp Kazin, Deparment Head for ITMO project development, Saint-Petersburg, Russia
- Duncan Levinsohn, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University, Sweden