4 results
12 - Innovation and entrepreneurship: Building the systems and strategies for South Australia
- from Conclusion
-
- By Allan O'connor, The University of Adelaide, Göran Roos, The University of Adelaide
- Edited by Gšran Roos, University of Adelaide, Allan O'Connor, University of Adelaide
-
- Book:
- Integrating Innovation
- Published by:
- The University of Adelaide Press
- Published online:
- 05 February 2016
- Print publication:
- 01 May 2015, pp 357-379
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
This final chapter considers all the chapters in this volume with the following objectives in mind:
• to portray the key issues emerging through a review of the chapter contributions and the interlinkages between the chapters
• to illustrate the integrated nature of innovation systems through an intellectual capital [IC] lens
• to identify strategies to improve the South Australian innovation Ecosystem
• to articulate a future research program.
To meet these objectives we first consider the chapters in each of the parts of the book in turn to draw out the common elements and particular issues raised pertaining to the relevant focus. Next, we illustrate how innovation works across the macro to micro issues and identify the key interlinkages that influence the different levels of discussion and the particular focus of the innovation system that each chapter takes. Using this systems perspective we then consider the implications of the work to identify where and how intellectual capital interventions may help to shape and integrate the regional innovation ecosystem. Lastly, we conclude by suggesting a program of ongoing research and development that will increase our understanding not only of how innovation is integrated within South Australia [SA] but also of how the management of the innovation system can be effected, the outcomes improved and entrepreneurship integrated.
Part 1: Regional-level perspectives
The three chapters in this section draw attention to the regional innovation system [RIS]. This is as distinct to the national innovation system [NIS] and brings into focus dependencies on both the local (South Australian) and the national innovation infrastructures, policies and programs. In other words, ‘we are not alone’ — and for innovation to occur through the RIS in SA, both internal and external contexts need to be carefully considered and monitored.
For instance, Jane Andrew in her chapter makes the case for how both the broad discipline areas of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences [HASS] and Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths [STEM] are of critical importance for an RIS and yet both of these discipline areas have internal regional influences through the policies, strategies and offerings made by the regional education institutions and the external influences of national government policy on the Higher Education system and national school curriculum. The RIS is sandwiched in between these two dynamic forces.
1 - The idea of integrating innovation: Entrepreneurship and a systems perspective
- from Introduction
-
- By Göran Roos, The University of Adelaide, Allan O'connor, The University of Adelaide
- Edited by Gšran Roos, University of Adelaide, Allan O'Connor, University of Adelaide
-
- Book:
- Integrating Innovation
- Published by:
- The University of Adelaide Press
- Published online:
- 05 February 2016
- Print publication:
- 01 May 2015, pp 3-32
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction: The ambition of this book
In 2011, the South Australian [SA] Government enlisted the services of Professor Göran Roos as Adelaide Thinker in Residence to examine the innovation challenges faced by the manufacturing sector. Professor Roos's brief was to work with a group of ten small- to medium-sized manufacturing firms and two government departments to guide the participants through a process that would actively engage them in business model innovation. At the time, a group of researchers were also engaged to work with the firms and government agencies to help document specific aspects and challenges confronted by the firm's leaders and managers and the government agencies that seek to facilitate regional transformation and transition.
Professor Roos's residency inspired this book and, with the support of the University of Adelaide Press, we issued a call for South Australian research that would not only demonstrate the drivers and processes of innovation but also illustrate the interdependencies of innovation across multiple levels, ranging from the individuals with innovation ideas and ambitions through to government support agencies that create the supporting context and infrastructure for innovation.
Although the manufacturing sector provided the setting for Professor Roos's work, for contributions to this book we loosened this constraint. We purposefully invited open submissions for research that dealt with innovation and correspondingly entrepreneurship from any perspective as long as it was original research based in South Australia which offered insight on the idea of integrating innovation through entrepreneurship strategies and systems. We welcomed articles that addressed relevant and related subjects pertinent to the South Australian innovation system. As a result we attracted articles dealing with both innovation and entrepreneurship that varied from not-for-profit firms with social missions to the research and development division of a pharmaceutical company; from public infrastructures such as education and intellectual property patenting systems to private infrastructures of Enterprise Resource Planning systems.
The book itself is designed as a seed for an innovative idea and its editors held three ambitions for the work. The first was to draw together initially South Australian research and researchers (later we wish to expand this collective) who are actively engaged in creating and contributing to new knowledge about innovation by adopting a systems view of entrepreneurship.
3 - A patent perspective of South Australian innovation: An indicator within the regional innovation system story
- from Part 1 - Regional-level perspectives
-
- By Kym Teh, The University of Adelaide, Göran Roos, The University of Adelaide
- Edited by Gšran Roos, University of Adelaide, Allan O'Connor, University of Adelaide
-
- Book:
- Integrating Innovation
- Published by:
- The University of Adelaide Press
- Published online:
- 05 February 2016
- Print publication:
- 01 May 2015, pp 63-90
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
We explore innovation performance in the context of measuring and analysing patent data within the Australian state of South Australia [SA]. However, we discuss and identify the use of patent data to measure innovation performance and the underlying assumptions and any limitations of such an approach in greater detail in this chapter.
Notwithstanding that it has been possible to suggest certain conclusions concerning that state's innovation trajectory from the patent data, integral to this exploration are the economic, regulatory and constitutional features that affect and define the nation of Australia and its states. For the purpose of this research, we launch from a discussion on SA patent activity to discuss the state's regional innovation system [RIS]. The RIS has typically been examined and defined in terms of a nation state. Uniquely, this research exploration brings together the two elements of examining an innovation system unit that is smaller than a nation state — in this case a state in Australia — and linking that with an analysis of that state's innovation performance.
Background
In relation to innovation performance, as assessed through patent data, this chapter specifically discusses the application of a particular approach to selecting the type of ‘patent families'. In this case we have chosen the Derwent World Patent Index [DWPI] of families (Thomson Reuters, 2012). The analysis included activity timelines (including ‘family’ expansion rate); a geographical analysis (source of innovation; destination of innovation); patent grant success rates; entity analysis (sector, portfolio size, number of inventions, entity citations); patents held by individuals; and the same analysis against the dimension of technical categories (such as pharmaceuticals, and agriculture and food), and academic intellectual property.
There is a significant body of research concerning innovation performance, and the particular role of patents as a metric. That research illustrates the strengths, weaknesses and limitations of such an approach. More broadly for example, Hagedoorn and Cloodt (2003) strongly advocate the merits of innovation performance being assessed using multiple indicators, and an example of that approach being applied is Dutta and Benavente's (2011) Global Innovation Index [GII], where patent data is only one of the inputs.
10 - The validity of measurement frameworks: measurement theory
-
- By Stephen Pike, Director Research at Intellectual Capital Services Ltd, Goran Roos, Professor Cranfield School of Management
- Edited by Andy Neely, Cranfield University, UK
-
- Book:
- Business Performance Measurement
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 13 December 2007, pp 218-236
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
When considering measurement, the first practical questions faced by managers should be: what is it that requires measurement, and what is measurement? Answering these two questions at something more than a superficial level can take managers a long way towards the design and development of a measurements system suited to their needs.
One surprising issue often overlooked when measuring systems are designed concerns the nature and purpose of the measurement. Quite often this is brutally exposed by the chief executive if, when presented with new results for the first time, he or she says “So what?”. A considerable benchmarking industry has grown up around the subject of performance measurement. Performance measurement assumes that the results it provides and the benchmarking activities that accompany it are useful in themselves. The motivation of the chief executive in the statement above is to question value – that is, how valuable this performance is to the company. Would it make a difference to any of his/her stakeholders or shareholders if the performance of certain factors were to increase by 10 per cent or if they were to decline by 10 per cent? The distinction between value and performance is critical, and, in general, performance measurement should be seen only as the first step on the way to providing useful value-based output. Measuring value adds some particular difficulties, especially with the definition of value, and involves the axiology of the individual.