roadMAP [PDF, 1.9 MB] - fteval

We assume that innovation networks arrange the required reciprocal linking of heterogeneous
information and knowledge stocks as well as complementary resources better than hierarchic or
market steering alone. Research and innovation networks are thus an institutional answer to
heightened challenges in technology competition 5 .
Policy makers and innovation researchers have found also other reasons to come forward with
Multi Actor – Multi Measure programmes. Such reasons are of course closely related to the
above mentioned innovation system and Mode II approaches (Stampfer 2003a):
• Inclusion of new actors like innovative SMEs, the demand side (Arnold et. al. 1996) or public
agencies from different sector policies like education, transport or environment into funding
activities (Lundvall 2002);
• Securing interconnected long-term funding of project clusters without setting up new
institutions;
• Integration of multi- and interdisciplinarity, as many MAPs address applied research needs
for industry – and most of these challenges can only be met by approaches combining
different disciplines and competences.
4.2.2 Is it possible to create innovation networks 6 politically?
Innovation networks have a number of challenges for policy makers. They are of high
importance for the functioning of innovation systems. Public actors can do a lot to ease birth
and life of such networks: Awareness raising, partner search, building trust and a shared
knowledge base, network organisation, provision of complementary resources and active
cooperation can be typical public roles (Polt 2001). It would lead too far to analyse all these
factors here but two questions seem to be central:
A first question in this respect regards equality versus dominance: If the principal economic
policy regulatory question, whether the emergence of innovation networks should as a rule be
left up to the self-organising powers of the innovation system, is answered with no, then the
next question is, how should public promotional activities look like? A possible dilemma of public
promoters can be that in Multi Actor arenas according to their self-conception they are the first
among equals, in a network concept – and sometimes in reality – however only equal among
equals (Kuhlmann 1998). As research on industrial districts, i.e. regionally anchored innovation
networks shows (Crouch et. al. 2001), networks cannot be commanded, but are the product of a
complex development process.
5
Note that for us, Competence Centres are conceptualised as a form of an innovation network, though in some
cases such Centres have to be set up forming a legal entity of their own. However, network characteristics
such as non-hierarchical forms of communication, cooperation and decision within the competence centres are
dominant.
6 Note that also the creation of physical Cooperative Centres is to be understood as a measure to strengthen
innovation networks of a multitude of different actors.
roadMAP 17