Entrepreneurship and Innovation Systems: Towards a Development of the ERIS/IRIS Concept

Abstract

This contribution addresses two important streams of research—innovation system research basically addressing the system level and entrepreneurship research basically interested at the actor (firm or individual) level. Building on previous research in these fields (primarily on Cooke [(2001) Regional innovation systems, clusters and the knowledge economy, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), pp. 945–974], Cooke and Leydesdorff [(2006) Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: The construction of advantage, Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), pp. 5–15], Sarasvathy [(2001) Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency, Academy of Management Review, 6(2), pp. 243–263], Johannisson [(2000) Modernising the industrial district: Rejuvenation or managerial colonisation? in: E. Vatne & M. Taylor (Eds) The Networked Firm in a Global World, pp. 283–308 (Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate Publishing)]), a typology developed depicting characteristics both at the system level and at the actor level of an institutional regional innovation system (IRIS) and an entrepreneurial regional innovation system (ERIS) as well as a “conceptual bridge” between innovation system research and entrepreneurship research is suggested. While the developed ERIS type of regional innovation systems due to its marked orientation towards individual actors and their behaviour leans more towards the main stream of entrepreneurship research, the IRIS type of regional innovation systems has more similarities with conventional innovation system research. It is argued that by also applying concepts depicting different management preferences and behaviour from entrepreneurship research, we should be able to better understand the different logics guiding these two types of regional innovation systems. The relevance of the extended typology thus developed is then illustrated by two empirical cases located in northern Sweden and form the base for policy implications derived from this study.

Notes

Vinnväxt may be described as a government-initiated programme for developing regional innovation systems, where different project proposals were competing for Vinnova funding (up to 10 million SEK for 10 years) for the development of innovations through Triple Helix-based cooperation. One of the winners in this competition is ProcessIT Innovations, which has been used as an empirical illustration in this paper.

For recent overviews on this development, see Laestadius (2007), Asheim and Coenen (2006), Carlsson et al. (2002), Malerba (2002) or Edquist (1997).

Eliasson and Eliasson (1996) have developed Dahmén's concept further by specifically highlighting the importance of technical-economic functions and competences, and conceptualizing constellations formed by competent customers, innovators, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, second-hand capital markets and industrialists as competence blocks.

Schumpeter himself was, however, not particularly interested in this process, but more in its effects: how a successful market introduction of innovations creates new demands on the market and causes “creative destruction” of existing, often outdated market structures.

For an overview of research on the entrepreneur, see e.g. Landström (2005a, 2005b), Bjerke (2005) or Julien (1998), but also other contributions in this special issue.

This is demonstrated, e.g. by the fact that innovative performance in network constellations is normally recognized and measured at the firm (and not on the network) level.

This may be regarded as a development of ideas presented by Cooke (2001).

Data from these two cases have continuously been collected during the past few years due to the author's and his colleagues’ assignments as interactive researchers in R&D projects where ProcessIT and DesignTech have participated. During December 2007, personal complementary interviews with managers from both cases were conducted, and “data sets” (the vignettes with descriptive information used in this paper) formulated. This information was then sent over to respondents for approval in order to avoid any misunderstanding or other kinds of bias.

I am aware that the selected empirical cases are not comparable in size and origin. These differences are actually the most important reason (selection criteria) why these specific cases have been studied.

A more elaborate description and analysis of ProcessIT Innovations is found in Laestadius et al. (2007).

Similar collaborative systems, largely based on personal relations and trust, are depicted by Berggren and Lindholm Dahlstrand 2008.

It should, however, be noted that while Johannisson talks about entrepreneurialism and managerialism as “ideologies” (i.e. value-rooted ways of thinking having effects on behaviour over time), Sarasvathy sees causation and effectuation as two modes of decision-making that may both be utilized by a specific entrepreneur, depending on the specific situation.

An argument that is often also used to explain why the Triple Helix concept achieved such a level of acceptance in Europe while it is more or less neglected in US.

Vinnväxt is one of few programmes at Vinnova that has such a regional perspective. The risk of regional lock-in-effects and lower innovative potential is addressed by Laestadius et al. (2007).

Landström's picture may be understood as depicting a development of the entrepreneurship discourse. Anders W. Johansson addresses another important aspect of the entrepreneurship discourse in his paper (Paper 7).