Driving Productivity Growth

Diversity is increasingly at stake in early 21st century. Diversity is often conceptualized across ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual preference, and professional credentials, among other categories of difference. These are important and relevant considerations and yet, they are incomplete. Diversity also rests in the way we frame questions long before answers are sought. Such diversity in the framing (epistemology) of scientific and societal questions is important for they influence the types of data, results, and impacts produced by research. Errors in the framing of a research question, whether in technical science or social science, are known as type III errors, as opposed to the better known type I (false positives) and type II errors (false negatives). Kimball defined "error of the third kind" as giving the right answer to the wrong problem. Raiffa described the type III error as correctly solving the wrong problem. Type III errors are upstream or design flaws, often driven by unchecked human values and power, and can adversely impact an entire innovation ecosystem, waste money, time, careers, and precious resources by focusing on the wrong or incorrectly framed question and hypothesis. Decades may pass while technology experts, scientists, social scientists, funding agencies and management consultants continue to tackle questions that suffer from type III errors. We propose a new diversity metric, the Frame Diversity Index (FDI), based on the hitherto neglected diversities in knowledge framing. The FDI would be positively correlated with epistemological diversity and technological democracy, and inversely correlated with prevalence of type III errors in innovation ecosystems, consortia, and knowledge networks. We suggest that the FDI can usefully measure (and prevent) type III error risks in innovation ecosystems, and help broaden the concepts and practices of diversity and inclusion in science, technology, innovation and society.

The potential impact of technology innovation supporting social and economic development in developing countries is very dependent on the level of maturity of National Innovation Ecosystems (including policy environment, infrastructure and socio-economic diversification). Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda have recently experienced considerable technological entrepreneurial growth, facilitated by Innovation friendly regulatory environments, evolution of National Research Education Networks (NReNs) and rollout of Obre optic backbones. However, while it is clear that ICT, Job Creation and developing a Knowledge Economy are common policy priorities, the Innovation Ecosystems in Nairobi, Dar es Salaam and Kampala are still fragmented. Innovation Spaces are insufficiently differentiated and have sustainability challenges with their business models and there is a limited funding and entrepreneurship support as well as insufficient collaboration and coordination between Stakeholders. This paper analyses these Innovation Ecosystems and provides some recommendations about how these challenges can be addressed.

Power demand of China grows strongly in few decades. Developing nuclear power industry is not only a strategic measure to meet electrical energy demand, but also an inevitable choice to achieve energy conservation and promote green low-carbon development. Innovation Ecosystem theory provides new perspectives and ideas for studying on the sustainable development of nuclear power industry. In this paper, we consider the sustainable development of nuclear power industry would achieve in the Innovation Ecosystem. The characteristic of the nuclear power industry determines that construction and development of nuclear power industry will involve lots of vendors and enterprises, and require all vendors and enterprises that involved make collaborative effort, around the end-user (nuclear power plant) for the design, production and manufacturing, realize win-win finally. Common development and co-evolution of all participants in the nuclear ecosystem is the premise and guarantee of nuclear power industry’s sustainable development.

Innovative economic development is one of the priorities of state policy at both federal and regional levels. At the same time, special attention is paid to the formation of regional innovative subsystems, since effective functioning of the national innovative system is not possible without their development and interaction. The article focuses on the main problems of creating regional innovative subsystems in Russia with an emphasis on forming the ecosystems of social innovation. This issue is quite relevant as technological innovations prevail among Russian studies devoted to regional economics and management practices. At the same time, global experience shows that social innovations can make a significant contribution to solving many issues of economic and social development of the territories and regional development growth. In this regard, the author proposes to identify the regional socio-innovative subsystem within the framework of the regional innovative subsystem and to analyze its development from the point of view of the ecosystem approach. The article presents an overview of key issues of implementing social innovations and creating social innovative ecosystems in Russia dealing with both theoretical and practical issues of the topic under consideration (underdevelopment of theoretical and methodological basis of research on social innovations, underdevelopment of existing legislation in the sphere of social innovations, lack of statistical records and information about social innovations, low level of social activity of the population). The author emphasizes the main drivers and barriers to the development of social innovations and suggests the main directions of solving the identified problems in the context of developing regional social and innovative ecosystems.

Collaborative design has become one of the main challenges in several fields of studies, especially social and communication sciences, physics and computer sciences and even biology, architecture and ecosystems of innovation. It is part of the future research program in humanities and digital social sciences. Designers want to create systems where several entities (organizations and individuals) could collaborate to society projects in an autonomous way, on site and in their sphere of respective work. Actually this social design process occurs within the collaborative network framework. Collaborative design seeks to allow collaborators to work in a more efficient way by realizing collaborative actions beyond cultural, disciplinary, geographical and temporal barriers. However, for the system to work, we must configure it in order to meet the needs of social requests and changes. According to Lu et al. (2007), few disciplines have addressed the collaborative design study rigorously, which remains a field of the occult science or black magic. These authors grant we should transform collaborative design in a real discipline, in other words, to take it from black magic practiced by very few people to a rigorous discipline understood by all (Lu et al. 2007). Researches on collaboration found a strong resistance from the determinist philosophical tradition followers, resistance also coming from some misunderstandings created by previous works. We were wondering, for example, how to evaluate the human collaboration as an acquired social dexterity if we cannot study it scientifically. In other words, if we cannot provide mathematical proof of the existence of collaboration, its uniqueness, its stability or convergence properties when collaborative design does not rely on any intellectual substance, in view of the low number of serious studies on collaboration sciences that have been led until here. In this case, how to build a collaborative design that allows to generate and share the knowledge? According to Wenger and Gervais, design does not rely on a simple communication activity: Here, it is about unifying and coordinating the skills that exist in a practice constellation. The design challenge in organizations is not to find the form of skill that conditions all the others, but at the contrary, to coordinate multiple forms of skills in the organizational learning. (Wenger and Gervais 2005, p. 269) The present chapter suggests an outline for the creation of the community informatics ecosystem’s design and suggests a few leads and recommendations. It also provides a methodological framework, even a multi-methodological one, to support virtual environments. In other words, it is about experiencing a community information systems design or to present the general architecture of a collaboration software, the “reference design for open collaboration”. The community informatics design assistance system (SADC) is essentially a framework presenting the adjustable design modalities according to the users’ needs. It is the starting point for virtual organizations and communities that wish to implement new collaboration solutions. As an adjustable socio-collaborative platform, the SADC covers both the community informatics design’s scientific bases, the design of virtual communities and the collaboration aspects. It links them in order to facilitate the information circulation and the access to knowledge and bring closer the users’ communities. To a lesser degree, the SADC is also a reference model, a conceptual framework defining a middle ground and a common terminology for communication and a platform prototype of open service, expandable and adaptable for the structuring and integration of all sorts of online activities, socio-technical systems, personalized portals and even all sorts of collaboration platforms like virtual communities or campuses.

Quality of life for all people and communities is directly linked to the availability of clean and abundant water. Natural and built water systems are threatened by crumbling infrastructure, floods, drought, storms, wildfires, sea-level rise, population growth, cybersecurity breaches, and pollution, often in combination. Marginalized communities feel the worst impacts, and responses are hampered by fragmented and antiquated governance and management practices. A standing grand challenge for the water sector is transitioning society to a future where current silos are transformed into a significantly more efficient, effective, and equitable One Water system-of-systems paradigm—in other words, a future where communities are able to integrate the governance and management of natural and engineered water systems at all scales of decision-making in a river basin. Innovation in digital technologies that connect data, people, and organizations can be game changers in addressing this societal grand challenge. It is envisioned that advancing digital capabilities in the water sector will require a Smart One Water approach, one that builds upon new technologies and research advancements in multiple disciplines, including those in engineering, computer science, and social science. However, several fundamental knowledge gaps at the nexus of physical, social, and cyber sciences currently exist on how a nationwide Smart One Water approach can be created, operationalized, and maintained. Convergent research is needed to investigate these gaps and improve our current understanding of Smart One Water approaches, including the costs, risks, and benefits to diverse communities in the rural-to-urban continuum. At its core, implementing the Smart One Water approach requires a science-based, stakeholder-driven, and artificial intelligence (AI)–enabled cyberinfrastructure platform, one that can provide a robust framework to support networks of river-basin collaborations. We refer to this envisioned cyberinfrastructure foundation as the digital research and operational platform (DROP). DROP is envisioned to exploit advances in data analytics, machine learning, information, communication, and decision support technologies for the management of One Water systems via AI-enabled digital twins of river-basin systems. Deploying DROP at a large-basin scale requires an understanding of (a) physical water systems (natural and engineered) at the basin scale, which interact with each other in a dynamic environment affected by climate change and other societal trends and whose data, functions, and processes must be integrated to create digital twins of river basins; (b) the social aspects of One Water systems by understanding the values and perspectives of stakeholders, costs and benefits of water management practices and decisions, and the specific needs of disadvantaged populations in river basin communities; (c) approaches for developing and deploying the digital technologies, analytics, and AI required to efficiently operate and manage Smart One Water systems in small to large communities; (d) strategies for training and advancing the next-generation workforce who have expertise on cyber, physical, and social aspects of One Water systems; and (e) lessons learned from testing and evaluating DROP in diverse testbeds. The article describes a strategic plan for operationalizing Smart One Water management and governance in the United States. The plan is based on five foundational pillars: (a) river-basin scale governance, (b) workforce development, (c) innovation ecosystem, (d) diversity and inclusion, and (e) stakeholder engagement. Workshops were conducted for each foundational pillar among diverse stakeholders representing federal, state, and local governments; utilities; industry; nongovernmental organizations; academics; and the general public. The workshops confirmed the strong desire of water communities to embrace, integrate, and grow the Smart One Water approach. Recommendations were generated for using the foundational pillars to guide strategic plans to implement a national-scale Smart One Water program and facilitate its adoption by communities in the United States, with global applications to follow.

모든 국가는 지역 균형성장과 함께 4차 산업혁명 시대에도 대비해야 하는 과제를 안고 있다. OECD가 강조해온 지역정책과 산업정책을 결합한 지역기반의 혁신성장전략이 주목받는 이유다. 국내에서도 클러스터 기반의 지역혁신시스템이 여러 곳에서 태동·발전하고 있으나 개선해야 할 점들이 적지 않다. 이러한 맥락에서 EU가 추진해온 ‘스마트 전문화 전략(RIS3)’과 유럽의 지역혁신시스템은 우리에게 정책적 시사점을 줄 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 EU의 스마트 전문화 전략(RIS3)을 살펴보고 혁신성과를 조절변수로 한 위계적 조절회귀분석을 실시하여 유럽 지역혁신시스템(RIS)의 경제성과에 영향을 주는 요인을 규명하였다. 분석 결과 지역혁신시스템은 혁신성과와의 조절효과를 통해 경제성과에 유의한 영향을 주며, 여기에는 지역혁신시스템을 구성하는 4개의 요소가 모두 필요함을 확인하였다. 또한 ‘지역혁신역량’과 ‘지역 거버넌스’는 혁신성과와의 상호작용을 통해 경제성과에 유의한 영향을 미치는 반면, ‘기업 역동성’과 ‘협력 및 상호작용’은 혁신성과의 조절효과가 입증되지 않았다. 이는 유럽의 많은 낙후 지역에서 ‘기업 역동성’과 ‘협력 및 상호작용’이 아직 혁신성과와 연계되지 못하고 있음을 뜻한다. 기업 역동성과 협력 및 상호작용이 혁신성과와 어우러져 지역경제 활성화에 기여하려면 개방적이고 역동적인 혁신생태계가 필요하다. 본 연구의 시사점은 첫째, 정책의 우선순위를 지역혁신역량의 강화에 두어야 하고, 둘째, 경제주체들이 참여하는 효율적인 거버넌스를 구축해야 하며, 셋째, 기업 역동성과 협력 및 상호작용이 혁신성과와 연계되도록 역동적인 혁신생태계 조성에 꾸준히 노력해야 한다. 넷째, 지역혁신시스템의 고도화 및 역동적인 혁신생태계의 구축은 하루아침에 이루어지지 않는다. EU와 회원국들이 오래 전부터 민간 주도의 개방화된 스마트 전문화 전략을 지속적으로 추진해온 이유도 바로 여기에 있다.All countries have the task of preparing for the 4th industrial revolution along with regional balanced growth. This is why the regional-based innovative growth strategy that combines regional and industrial policies that the OECD has emphasized is drawing attention. In Korea, cluster-based regional innovation systems are growing in various places, but there are many points that need to be improved. In this context, the ‘smart specialization strategy (RIS3)’ promoted by the EU and the regional innovation system in Europe can give us many policy implications. In this study, EU s smart specialization strategy (RIS3) was examined and the factors affecting the economic performance of 280 European regional innovation systems were identified by using hierarchical adjustment regression analysis with innovation performance as a moderating variable. As a result of the analysis, it was confirmed that the regional innovation system (RIS) had a significant effect on economic performance through the moderating effect (interaction effect) with the innovation performance. This study also confirmed that the economic performance of the regional innovation system is improved when the innovation performance is high, and that four elements(‘Regional innovation capacity’, ‘regional governance’, ‘business dynamism’, ‘cooperation and interaction’) constituting the regional innovation system are necessary to improve the economic performance. In addition, it was confirmed that regional innovation capacity and regional governance brought a significant difference to the economic performance of the regional innovation system through the interaction with the innovation performance. On the other hand, the direct effects of corporate dynamism and cooperation and interaction on economic performance were confirmed, but the moderating effect of innovation performance was not confirmed. This means that many underdeveloped regions in Europe have not yet been able to link corporate dynamism, cooperation and interactions with innovation activities. In order for corporate dynamism and cooperation and interaction to contribute to vitalization of the local economy, an open and dynamic innovation ecosystem must be created. The policy implications of this study are: First, the priority of policy should be placed on strengthening regional innovation capabilities. Second, in order for the regional innovation system to be successful, efficient regional governance in which all economic actors participate should be established. Third, continuous efforts should be made to create an open innovation ecosystem so that corporate dynamism, cooperation and interaction can be linked with innovation performance. Fourth, the advancement of regional innovation systems and the establishment of a dynamic innovation ecosystem cannot be achieved overnight. This is the reason why the EU and its member states have been continuously pursuing private-led open smart specialization strategies for a long time.

As an upper-middle-income country, Armenia should develop and implement targeted policies, such as increased R&D investments, education reforms, and industry-academia collaboration, to enhance its innovation performance. Strengthening these areas is expected to contribute to higher Global Innovation Index (GII) rankings, reflecting improved national innovation capacity.This study aims to estimate the impact of various GII components (including pillars, sub-indices, and sub-pillars) on the overall GII and pillar scores for upper-middle-income countries. Based on these findings, the study seeks to identify Armenia’s key policy priorities and provide targeted recommendations for enhancing its innovation performance. This study employs a cross-sectional regression to analyze the factors influencing GII scores in upper-middle-income countries, assessing the impact of sub-indices, pillars, and sub-pillars. The analysis reveals that market sophistication and creative outputs strongly influence GII scores among upper-middle-income countries, contributing significantly to national innovation performance. Additionally, knowledge and technology outputs, human capital and research, and infrastructure pillars show a statistically significant impact at the 5% level. Notably, even minor improvements in innovation output sub-index scores account for substantial variations in GII rankings. These findings suggest that Armenia should prioritize targeted education reforms, increase R&D investment, and strengthen university-industry linkages to enhance its innovation ecosystem and improve its global competitiveness. AcknowledgmentThe research was supported by the Science Committee of the Republic of Armenia within the framework of the project No. 21T-5B234.

According to the European Commission, the smart specialization strategy is intended as a response to complex development challenges and a tool for stimulating innovation at the regional level. At the same time, it is known that the conditions in which businesses operate, including institutional framework, socio-economic aspects, infrastructure and forms of business support, do not always meet their needs. The research and analyses carried out in this study were aimed at testing the relationships mainly between the external activities that most create/develop innovation in enterprises, networking within the innovation ecosystem, and barriers inhibiting innovation development. For this purpose, 250 survey interviews were conducted with representatives of innovative enterprises from five regions in Poland. Our research and analyses have shown that regions make considerable efforts to comprehensively define rather complex RIS3 (Research and Innovation Smart Specialization Strategy) policy priorities, while in reality these priorities often do not coincide with the expectations of entrepreneurs.

The article reveals the modern problem of Ukrainian strategizing practice of socio-economic development that a separate factor associated with the creation of research, entrepreneurial, and innovation Universities has been absent there. It is shown that this reality directly contradicts the current world trends, where the development of the mentioned types of universities is an important priority of the state economic policy. An analysis of the evolutionary transformation of the content and role of the functioning of university-type institutions as a production factor of the economic development of countries, which ensures the influence of the scientific activity of universities on the effectiveness of economic systems, is performed. A review of the literature is presented, which demonstrates the evolution of organizational types of universities from purely research to entrepreneurial and innovative ones.A problematic analysis of the state of innovative performance of Ukrainian universities, particularly those that had the status of “research”, was carried out according to official statistics of inventive activity, which reflect the indicators of the stages of the innovation cycle: the number of received patents, inventions, useful models and industrial samples. This analysis of the innovation potential of the leading Ukrainian universities showed that they do not ensure the commercialization of their inventions and scientific and technological developments in the form of industrial samples. In this context, for the post-war restoration of the scientific and innovative potential of Ukraine, it is proposed to create organizational and material and technical conditions for the formation and effective functioning of research, entrepreneurial and innovative universities. It is shown that the implementation of an innovative model of economic development in Ukraine determines new principles of organization of the field of higher education and science, which provide this field with a central place in innovation ecosystems through the introduction of the “Triple Helix” model that should be included in management on all stages of innovation cycle.

Full Throttle: COVID-19 Open Science to Build Planetary Public Goods.

This book provides analysis of current trends in research evaluation worldwide and compares the research assessment and innovation ecosystems in Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia. It argues that in each country the research assessment system is interdependent with the national innovation system and the overall institutional governance/enforcement. The lead author, Albena Vutsova, has over 20 years of experience in research assessment both in Bulgaria and at European institutions (incl. JRC) and has been a member of the European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities. The three authors work at Sofia University, Bulgaria.

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are under increasing pressure to conduct research that has an effect on society and to actively interact with non-academic stakeholders who are seeking solutions to their problems. In contrast to natural sciences, which heavily depend on quantifiable data and statistics, social sciences, such as business, management, and entrepreneurship, face a unique challenge in this regard. Explains how to strengthen partnerships and stakeholder cooperation with non- academic partners and stakeholders within research and innovation ecosystems. A framework for managing research in HEIs with societal impact is suggested to assist the work of the HEI. The desired levels of quality in education and research can only be achieved by teachers and students who are enthusiastic, competent, and working in a supportive academic environment. The establishment of such a stimulating academic environment at the numerous universities and colleges is crucial for the research output from these organizations to reach a level of excellence that is internationally competitive. Additionally, this would give the right framework for looking for novel industrial uses and answers to societal problems. The nation must place a high priority on delivering high-quality education and encouraging cutting-edge fundamental research at its higher education institutions if it is to turn the enormously large and aspirational youth population into a real asset rather than a burden. The study also investigates current platforms that provide comparable functions and offers insights into their strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately, the platform for global faculty interaction has the power to change the ways in which educators cooperate, share knowledge, and improve their capacities for both teaching and research, ultimately raising the bar for education around the world.

This bibliometric study explores the role of academicians as catalysts in maintaining Malaysia's cattle supply chain industry through the lens of the Quadruple Helix model, which integrates academia, industry, government, and civil society. Utilizing bibliometric analysis, the research examines trends in scholarly publications from 2001 to 2025, focusing on productivity, subject areas, influential authors, and international collaborations. Data extracted from Scopus reveals a growing interest in the Quadruple Helix framework, with a significant surge in publications post-2020, particularly in fields such as Business, Management, and Accounting (19.7%), Social Sciences (15.4%), and Economics (12%). Notably, Agricultural and Biological Sciences remain underrepresented (1.7%), highlighting a critical research gap. The study identifies Elias G. Carayannis as the most cited author, emphasizing his foundational contributions to Quadruple Helix theory. Geographically, Indonesia leads in publications (11.08%), while Malaysia accounts for only 2.99%, underscoring the need for localized research. Keyword analysis reveals themes like sustainability, entrepreneurship, and innovation ecosystems, yet lacks an agriculture-specific focus. Co-authorship networks highlight strong European collaborations, with Malaysia showing emerging ties in Southeast Asia. The findings advocate for enhanced academic-industry-government-civil society partnerships to address challenges in Malaysia's cattle supply chain, offering a roadmap for future research and policy interventions.

Innovation Ecosystems and the Humanities and Social Sciences in Japan: A review of historical developments in the formation of disciplinary science and technology innovation ecosystems and governance for Responsible Research and Innovation