The government’s role in creating an innovation ecosystem: the Springfield Armory as hub in the Connecticut River Valley

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 557-579
Author(s):  
Robert C. Ford ◽  
Keenan D. Yoho
Keyword(s):  
River Valley ◽  
Direct Result ◽  
Innovation Ecosystem ◽  
Connecticut River ◽  
Role Of Government ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Innovation Ecosystems ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Connecticut River Valley

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to illustrate, through the example of the Springfield Armory and its role in the development of interchangeable parts, the critical role of government in establishing a cluster of organizations that evolved into an innovation ecosystem primarily located in the Connecticut River Valley in the 1800s. Using the Springfield Armory example, we use the related but largely unjoined concepts of ecosystem and networks to show that these organizational forms are effective in driving innovation. Design/methodology/approach The design uses an in-depth analysis of the role of the Springfield Armory to explicate the joining of network and ecosystem theory as an early example of the importance of governmental funding and support for innovation. Findings The development of interchangeable parts in the American arms industry in the 19th century transformed manufacturing worldwide. At the heart of this transformation was the network of arms makers that developed in the Connecticut River Valley as a direct result of US Government investment and support. This network of arms makers evolved into an ecosystem of mutually reinforcing relationships as machine tool manufacturers benefited from an environment of free-flowing intellectual property, information and growing governmental demand for arms. The Armory illustrates the government’s role in initiating and sustaining clusters of innovation that otherwise might not have developed as quickly. Originality/value Much of the research on the role of government in creating innovation ecosystems and organizational networks is based on modern organizations. This use of the Springfield Armory in the early 1800s broadens the knowledge on how innovation ecosystems in conjunction with networked organizations can be created by governments serving the public good.

scholarly journals Intermediaries and social entrepreneurship identity: implications for business model innovation

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maribel Guerrero ◽  
Carlos A. Santamaría-Velasco ◽  
Raj Mahto
Keyword(s):  
Business Model ◽  
Social Entrepreneurship ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Innovation Ecosystem ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Social ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Social Innovations

PurposeThe authors propose a theoretical basis for understanding the role of ecosystem intermediaries in the configuration of social entrepreneurship identities in social purpose organisations (SPOs) and their business model innovations (BMIs).Design/methodology/approachAdopting a retrospective multiple-case study, the authors offer insights into the paths/elements that determine the building of 44 social entrepreneurship identities in the context of an emerging economy (Mexico).FindingsThe study sheds light on the role of intermediaries in the configuration of the entrepreneurial identities of Mexican SPOs and BMIs, as well as several externalities generated during the process of capturing the social and economic value, especially when social innovations are focussed on solving societal, economic and ecological social problems.Research limitations/implicationsThe first limitation is related to the analysis of intermediaries within the social entrepreneurship ecosystem, which needs more conceptual and empirical evidence. The second limitation is that the analysis focussed only on intervened SPOs, as the authors did not control for non-intervened SPOs. Thus, this allows for future in-depth analysis of intermediary efficiency in a focus group (intervened SPOs) and a control group (non-intervened SPOs).Practical implicationsThe study also provides insights for Mexican SPOs on how a social entrepreneurship identity helps to capture the value creation of social innovations within an innovation ecosystem. Indeed, it is strongly aligned with the United Nations' Social Development Goals.Originality/valueThe study enhances the discussion about how intermediaries could encourage social entrepreneurial identity, as well as how intermediary intervention could facilitate the design and implementation of BMIs in the innovation ecosystem.

Cooperation in a minimum-waste innovation ecosystem: a case study of the Czech Hemp Cluster

2022 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jindrich Spicka
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Business Strategy ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Ecological Guilds ◽  
Natural Ecosystems ◽  
Innovation Ecosystem ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Innovation Ecosystems

PurposeInnovation ecosystems face many environmental challenges. The literature review shows that innovation ecosystems accelerate innovation activity, but empirical studies have not provided enough case studies focusing on the minimum-waste business strategy as one aspect of the circular economy. Various forms of interaction between members occur in the innovation ecosystems, which determines the level of cooperation. This paper aims to show the structure and forms of cooperation in an innovation ecosystem using the Czech Hemp Cluster (CHC) and its surroundings and suggest research directions in the field of interaction between members in an innovation ecosystem. Although hemp is associated with the production and distribution of narcotics, it is a versatile plant supporting the minimum-waste business strategy.Design/methodology/approachThe research is based on a theoretical part of a literature review of major scientific articles on innovation ecosystems from 2016 to 2021. The case study of the CHC and the hemp ecosystem is based on qualitative research in the form of a content analysis of the mission of the cluster members. In addition to content analysis, the classic multidimensional scaling method and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to reveal ecological guilds.FindingsThe case study highlighted the specific relationship between the cluster and the ecosystem. The cluster does not determine the ecosystem boundaries, but the ecosystem is a much broader system of cooperation and interaction between organisations. Clusters emerge after an ecosystem has existed for a particular time to coordinate collaboration and information between organisations and stakeholders. The analysis of the CHC revealed the specific role of non-profit organisations (NPOs) in the innovation ecosystem. NPOs are not engaged in primary functions in the value chain, but they provide supporting activities through coordinated networking, disseminating information on innovation, awareness-raising and stakeholder education. Compared to natural ecosystems, innovation ecosystems are typically characterised by higher forms of collaboration between members.Research limitations/implicationsAn exciting opportunity for research on innovation ecosystems is the ecological guilds taken from natural ecosystems and whose identification can help define the boundaries of innovation ecosystems. An opportunity for further research is the comparison of NPO-based and government-based clusters playing a central role in developing innovation ecosystems. Regarding the problematic generalisability of the case study to the entire agricultural production, a challenge is a search for minimum-waste business models in agriculture characterised by the biological nature of production.Originality/valueTheoretical and empirical studies have not yet considered innovation ecosystems in the minimum-waste context to a sufficient extent. The paper builds on previous scholarly studies focusing on innovation ecosystems and, for the first time, discusses the role of NPOs in the innovation ecosystem. The CHC case study adds a suitable minimum-waste business model to the still very scarce literature on sustainable innovation ecosystems. The article discusses the purpose and forms of cooperation in an innovation ecosystem, identifies a complementarity of roles in the innovation cluster and describes the interrelationship between the cluster and the ecosystem. Discussion of the ecosystem leader in the cluster-based innovation ecosystem shows the differences between Czech, Polish and German life science ecosystems.

Identifying and describing constituents of innovation ecosystems

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pegah Yaghmaie ◽  
Wim Vanhaverbeke
Keyword(s):  
Open Innovation ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
The State ◽  
Innovation Ecosystem ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Central Focus ◽  
Innovation Ecosystems ◽  
Level Of Analysis

Purpose Innovation ecosystems have not been defined univocally. The authors compare the different approaches to innovation ecosystems in the literature, the link with open innovation, the value creating and value capturing processes in innovation ecosystems, and the need to orchestrate them properly. In this way, the purpose of this paper is to provide a highly needed, concise overview of the state of the art in innovation ecosystem thinking. Design/methodology/approach A systematic screening of the literature searching for publications focusing on innovation ecosystems is carried out in the paper. The authors found 30 publications and compared the different approaches to innovation ecosystems: the authors classify them according to industries, the level of analysis, their central focus on innovation ecosystems, whether frameworks are developed in the publications, the main actors, focus on SMEs or large companies, the success of innovation ecosystems and the role of the orchestrator. Findings The authors found different approaches to innovation ecosystems in the literature. Some papers look at the link with open innovation, and others at the value creating and value capturing processes in innovation ecosystems, the role of orchestrators, etc. The authors also provide an overview about the industries, the level of analysis, the central focus of the research, the main actors in the networks and the success factors. The authors observe that most publications have been written in Europe and apply to European ecosystems. The approach in Europe is, to some extent, also different from the main focus of leading American scholars. Research limitations/implications The authors compare different approaches to innovation ecosystems. This provides a highly needed understanding of the state of the art in innovation ecosystem thinking. There are some limitations as well: the paper only does a literature review, and the authors are not developing a new framework to study innovation ecosystems. Practical implications The literature overview is not primarily focused on practitioners, but the tables in the paper provide a quick overview of good management practices for setting up and managing innovation ecosystems. Social implications Innovations ecosystems are, in some cases, established to solve major societal problems such as changes in healthcare, energy systems, etc. Therefore, they require the interaction between different types of partners including universities, research institutes and governmental agencies. Studying innovation ecosystems is crucial to facilitate social or societal changes. Originality/value The paper presents a highly needed overview of the literature about innovation ecosystems and a concise examination of the different aspects that are studied so far.

The role of actors in interactions between “innovation ecosystems”: drivers and implications

IMP Journal ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 333-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tommaso Pucci ◽  
Andrea Runfola ◽  
Simone Guercini ◽  
Lorenzo Zanni
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Knowledge Economy ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Innovation Ecosystem ◽  
Group Approach ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Industrial Marketing ◽  
Innovation Ecosystems

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study the role of the actors (especially firms) in interactions between contexts defined as “innovation ecosystems.” Design/methodology/approach The paper presents a conceptual framework. A review of the literature to frame the concepts of innovation ecosystems and the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) approach is presented. A possible integration of the two concepts is then discussed. Findings The paper adds new discursive inputs to the concept of innovation ecosystem that validate its use in the context of the knowledge economy and extends the theories of knowledge, by analyzing the role that various actors who populate an innovative ecosystem play in the creation, learning, use, and dissemination of knowledge. Originality/value The paper furnishes an approach to the research on knowledge management and innovation, in the attempt to relate the IMP Group approach with the perspective of the “innovation ecosystems” concept.

The Hoe Complex of the Connecticut Valley

1946 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
William S. Fowler
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Development ◽  
River Valley ◽  
Connecticut River ◽  
Volcanic Origin ◽  
Trade Routes ◽  
Occupied Territory ◽  
Connecticut River Valley ◽  
Connecticut Valley

The aboriginal agriculturists discussed here lived in a somewhat secluded environment, the Connecticut River Valley from Bellows Falls to the Connecticut line. In this long-occupied territory, surrounded by high ridges of volcanic origin, heavily wooded, and watered by innumerable spring-fed streams, the cultural development of the inhabitants was apparently of a homogeneous nature. As late as 1636, when the English began to establish plantations throughout the valley, the natives were found united in a well-defined River Confederacy, with frequent intercourse maintained through river travel. While trade routes probably connected this section with many other parts of the country, cultural contacts had apparently persisted among the river tribes in spite of occasional raids of warlike groups from other regions.

The Captive’s Lament: Reinterpreting Rowlandson’s Narrative

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Brooks
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous People ◽  
Extended Family ◽  
River Valley ◽  
Close Reading ◽  
Connecticut River ◽  
Mary Rowlandson ◽  
Connecticut River Valley ◽  
Indigenous Geographies

This chapter presents a nuanced close reading of The Sovereignty and Goodness of God . . . A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson, framed within Indigenous geographies. Although Rowlandson conveyed a picture of a forbidding wilderness, she traveled through an intricately mapped network of Indigenous people and places, including the Nipmuc interior and the Connecticut River Valley. This chapter provides an alternative map and narrative of Rowlandson’s “removes” through Native towns and territories and elucidates the ways in which the stories of Weetamoo, James Printer, and Mary Rowlandson intertwined. Shortly after the raid on her town of Lancaster, Rowlandson was carried to the Nipmuc stronghold of Menimesit, where she encountered James and his extended family, and was given to Weetamoo, whom she followed deep into the interior of Nipmuc and Sokoki countries, as the saunkskwa sought protective sanctuaries for Native families who were evading colonial troops.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document