The post about how I teach on the topic of innovation systems two weeks ago really elicited a much bigger response than I expected. The tips, ideas, confirmations and questions received inspired me to think how I can share more practical training advice. I have a lot to share, simply because I love teaching on a wide range of topics. True to my mental construct of an innovator, I constantly develop small modules that can be combined, re-arranged, shortened or expanded to meet the requirements of the teams I support and coach.
For instance, the innovation systems outline that I explained in this previous posts consists of two parts: Part 1 is made up of modules on innovation and technology:
- Innovation, invention and different kinds of innovation,
- Knowledge generation in enterprises,
- What is technology? Definitions, applications and implications of various definitions,
- Different kinds of competition and its effect on the innovative behavior of enterprises,
- Knowledge generation in enterprises and organisations
Part 2 then builds on this foundation with topics central to the promotion of innovation systems, with modules on:
- Knowledge generation, co-generations and assimilation in societies,
- Defining innovation systems,
- Role of different kinds of economic and social institutions in innovation systems,
- The importance and dynamic of building technological capability,
- Systemic competitiveness as a way of focusing meso level institutions on persistent market failure,
If needed it is easy to bring in many other topics such as:
- Technological change, social change, economic change (based on the excellent work by Eric Beinhoecker),
- Assisting stakeholders to embrace sophisticated demand as a stimulus,
- Diagnosing value chains,
- Technology transfer, demonstration and extension, and so on
Yesterday I was reflecting with Frank Waeltring about the order of these sessions, why in my experience Part 1 goes before Part 2 and how difficult it is to present part 2 without the basics of part 1 in place. We reflected on why it is easier to start with foundation topics on innovation and technology management, and thereafter moving to the more abstract content of innovation systems.
In my experience, development practitioners and policy makers often believe the link between the subjects of innovation/technology management and innovation systems promotion is the concept of “innovation”. Almost as if innovation happens in enterprises, and innovation systems is then the public sectors way to make innovation happen in enterprises. This logic is an important stumbling block that many people I have supported struggle with. In my book on the promotion of innovation systems I created the following table to explain the difference.
The connector between these two domains is not innovation (despite it being common two the names of the two domains). It is knowledge. Not necessarily formal knowledge (more engineers & phds = more innovation kind of over simplistic logic), but various forms of knowledge. Tacit knowledge. Knowing of who to speak to. Being exposed to other people from different knowledge and social domains. The costs and ease of getting information from somebody you know or don’t know. Learning from your own mistakes and the attempts of others.
Some places, countries and industries get this right, others struggle. Trust is central. This dynamic takes time to develop. You can sense its presence way before you can figure out how to measure it. While many of these issues can be addressed at a strategic level in an organisation like a company (or a publicly funded institution), many of these kinds of knowledge flows are inter-dependent and can be accelerated by taking an innovation system(ic) perspective.
The conclusion is a real tongue twister: The connection between the body of knowledge of innovation/technology management and the body of knowledge about innovation systems development is the body of knowledge on knowledge and how it emerges, gets assimilated, absorbed and further developed.
That is why knowledge generation, learning by doing fits in so well with part 1, but why it is not complete if not also addressed in part 2, especially the systemic elements of knowledge dissemination and absorption. It is the bridge.