key: cord-0058114-cjm823cm
authors: Vidmar, Matjaz
title: Conclusion
date: 2020-12-18
journal: Innovation Intermediaries and (Final) Frontiers of High-tech
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-60642-8_7
sha: 3ff4777a8f90710d548be21d0bfc1cdd6ea8964e
doc_id: 58114
cord_uid: cjm823cm

This conclusion summarises the main findings and arguments presented in this book and reiterates the need for a comprehensive understanding of innovation intermediaries’ interventions and their roles in innovation processes and in policymaking. It further proposes some policy directions for the studied context, the New Space sector in peripheral countries, crucially in Scotland, as well as making final observations about the evolving nature of innovation intermediation, with particular reference to recent digitisation of the activities involved and likely policy agenda in the post-Covid-19 pandemic era.

The analysis presented in this book examined the current state of the art in the innovation intermediaries' literature, especially related to high-tech open-innovation-driven economic development policy, as outlined in detail in the Introduction (Chap. 1). Through a systematic literature review of the recent empirical work in innovation intermediation, the tendency amongst researchers to frame their work in a geographically and sectoral bounded cases was noted. Hence, Geographically-Bound Sectoral Systems of Innovation (GSSI) framing was proposed as the de facto analytical unit for comprehensive analysis of innovation intermediation. This literature survey also reiterated some of the most persistent challenges for analysts and practitioners alike, namely an acute lack of integration of various theories and meaningful systematisation of available actions, which often leads to poor application of state-of-the-art insights. Based on these insights, this book set to remodel innovation intermediation understanding to address functional and analytical gaps and divisions. This led to a five-step theoretical and empirical examination and development of conceptual and operational framing of innovation intermediation, grounded within the study of the New Space sector in Scotland.

Firstly, Chap. 2 showed that the specific focusing on functional distinctions in the analysis of innovation intermediaries causes most problems. Examining the prevalence of knowledge borkerage as intermediary activity, the scope of the framing was extended to cover other aspects of support for innovation. In the end, an augmented pragmatic definition was adopted-the focus shifted from intermediaries as organisations towards their interventions as the main objective of the study. This is a key change of perspective, enabling a closer link between analytical systematisation of innovation intermediaries' roles and functions to their operational planning and deployment.

Secondly, as noted by many other authors and practitioners (policymakers and managers), the functional fragmentation and disconnectedness of the conceptual framework of innovation intermediation are of theoretical and practical concern. In particular, these challenges are seen to stand in the way of establishing comparative analysis of best practice in innovation intermediation, as well as leaves intermediaries without a coherent perspective on types of available tools. In Chap. 3, this was put to the test, as the understanding of innovation intermediation was explored within the example of the emerging New Space sector in Scotland. Using documentary and interview evidence of four typical cases within the Scottish New Space GSSI led to the finding that the complexity of the ground operations makes it difficult to assess and develop the intermediation provision.

Thirdly, Chap. 4 is examining the key dividing lines between systemic literature reviews (Dalziel 2010; Howells 2006; Kilelu et al. 2011; Kim 2015; Kivimaa 2014; Lukkarinen et al. 2018; Nilsson and Sia-Ljungström 2013) and additional studies. Building on these insights, this study proposed a comprehensive and inclusive classification framework based on distinctions between interventions based on the provision of resources (such as infrastructure and tools) versus deployment of activities (through framing and projects). These were further qualified with sub-categories of infrastructure, knowledge, tools and skills resources provision and activities to enable interaction, translation project work and capital. Using such a holistic classification enables theoreticians and practitioners alike to identify the systemic role of a particular intervention as well as identify a specific type of intervention in order to fulfil systemic requirements. This was expanded further by developing a proto-typology of contextual factors, noting the importance of close involvement, systemic investment, strong vision/mandate and soft leadership for the delivery of the respective intervention classes. These contextual factors were then directly linked to a series of intermediaries' roles of enabling the ecosystem, equipping the players, shaping the vision and moving the development of a sector.

Fourthly, using the case of New Space sector, the new model was deployed to (re-)examine a practical example of the innovation intermediation landscape in Chap. 5. This comprises a more detailed comparative analysis of two (largest) innovation intermediation interventions in two different geographical domains-Scotland and Slovenia as well as structural analysis of the Scottish innovation intermediation provision. The comparison of the Scottish Higgs Centre for Innovation to the Slovenian Space-SI showed that a path-dependency in the policy outlook and organisational set-up leads to diverging interventions on the ground. Specifically, Scottish intermediary focused on competitively providing business development support, whilst the Slovenian one focused on developing bespoke R&D. Such a near dichotomous split in provisions could be leading to a gradual loss of competitive advantage in both cases, so a more holistic approach to intervention design is advised. In order to understate the sum of the innovation intermediation interventions, a further aggregate analysis of needs and provision assessment is made on the four case studies within the Scottish New Space sector from Chap. 3, showing a relatively well-matched demand and supply and a critical need for direct project work (R&D) interventions.

Finally, examining the design of innovation intermediation interventions in Chap. 6, logic modelling, key performance indicators, impact assessment frameworks and the development of entrepreneurial culture were briefly outlined. Whilst not providing a complete overview of all the available tools, this chapter encourages policymakers, intermediaries' managers and entrepreneurs to look beyond the individual interventions and their effects and examine complementarities of developing a dynamic ecosystem of players supporting each other in the processes of innovation and business development. Particular role of higher education institutions is highlighted, as well as emerging new ways of collaborative working, such as the Living Laboratory framework.

Overall, this book argues for a comprehensive and holistic approach in developing, deploying, analysing and assessing innovation intermediation. The structural evolution of thinking from interventions to contextual factors and finally organisational roles can be an important unifying framework to ensure that the investment of public funds in innovation support is well thought through.

Here, several recommendations for the Scottish New Space sector are relevant, in particular the acute need for more advanced R&D investment, 1 a better understanding of the entrepreneurial culture and processes of (inter-)organisational learning, as well as a (more) strategic deployment of soft leadership (less of broad interaction, more focus on marketisation/ sales). However, it is important to note the significant involvement of public actors in this sector and the potential pitfall of continuous (over) reliance on public support-that is firms receiving serial R&D grants to fund core operations rather than building revenue streams and market capitalisation. If not resolved, these issues may quickly evolve in serious challenges for maintaining competitive advantage in a global marketplace, particularly if compounded by wider economic disruption due to the Covid-19 pandemic and uncertainty of post-Brexit trade relationships.

Current limitations of this work relate to the inherent difficulty of harmonising the myriad of different frameworks, which inevitably leads to certain generalisations and omissions. Further analyses of this model, the classes, categories, contextual factors, organisations' types, linkages and the policy rationales are all very welcome, as would be its application in other high-tech sectors as well as those diverging from the high-tech paradigm. It is hoped that more such studies become available in the near future. An additional opportunity for further research lies in examining different geographical framings of sectoral development policy-either on larger national level (e.g. Vallejo et al. (2019) or more detailed (sub-) regional one (see for instance Bačić and Aralica 2017).

In particular, the current dominance of data-driven/digital innovation in the UK lends itself to further study of the new organisational dynamics within SMEs and innovation intermediation. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the culture of IT firms is seeping into other industrial sectors and spreading along the value chains to make for more lean and agile innovation processes and business operations (Birkinshaw 2020) . This is a particularly interesting dynamics, within the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. On the one hand, a more widespread digitisation of more business transactions, including those previously reserved for in-person contacts such as networking and deal-making, may change the innovation culture and shift requirements for intermediation. On the other hand, the needs for offseting the required significant investment into larger scale equipment for the manufacturing processes and the need for close R&D support in emerging industrial sectors will likely remain present.

A rapid responses study actually showed that the New Space Industry (in teh UK) is quite resilient in the face of the Covid-19 challenges (Vidmar et al. 2020) . Whilst this may in part be due to its existing high level of upfront investment and so far relatively low commercial market capitalisation, as a bulwark against cash flow fluctuations, the existing prevalence of digital tools and agile/lean business models also have to be noted. Thus, the sector's close interaction with innovation intermediaries and the expanse of knowledge transfer between the various actors, may have led to development of innovation processes and general business management practices that are proving vital in these turbulent times.

Regional Competitiveness in the Context

The New Boardroom Imperative: From Agility to Resilience

Why Do Innovation Intermediaries Exist?

Intermediation and the Role of Intermediaries in Innovation

Beyond Knowledge Brokering: An Exploratory Study on Innovation Intermediaries in an Evolving Smallholder Agricultural System in Kenya

Facilitating Innovation in SMEs: The Case of Public Intermediaries in South Korea

Government-Affiliated Intermediary Organisations as Actors in System-Level Transitions

An Intermediary Approach to Technological Innovation Systems (TIS)-The Case of the Cleantech Sector in Finland

The Role of Innovation Intermediaries in Innovation Systems

Open Innovation and Innovation Intermediaries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability, 11

Resilience of New Space Firms in the UK During the Early Stages of Covid-19 Crisis: The Case for Strategic Agility