The role of organization intermediaries in science-/techno-push versus user-centric approaches in health care innovation

PurposeHealth care ecosystems instantiate different innovation trajectories, driven either by science-/techno-push or user-centric rationales. This article focuses on organization intermediaries (OIs), respectively, active in health care ecosystems driven by science- and techno-push versus user-centric innovation processes; it aims at characterizing their operation and intervention modes. The analysis elaborates on network and content brokerage. Innovation also needs to consider various challenges associated with physical vicinity. The authors check whether territorial anchoring plays a role in brokerage, depending on the innovation model.Design/methodology/approachThe article offers an investigation of eight French organizations matching the definition of OIs and active in different areas of health care-related innovation. It follows a qualitative and abductive research protocol adhering to the precepts of grounded theory.FindingsFirst, the authors show that content and network brokerage specialize in specific activities in each innovation model. On network brokerage, the authors show that OIs foster the development of communities of practice in the science-/techno-push model, while they nurture communities of innovation in the user-centric model. Services materializing content brokerage are typical consequences of activities performed in each model. The second contribution deals with physical vicinity. In the science-/techno-push model, OIs install a physical space (the “internal” dimension) to support the development of communities of practice, while the “external” dimension copes with agglomeration effects. In the user-centric model, OIs deliver services thanks to the “internal” space; communities of innovation create a leverage effect on the physical space to operate their activities that are supported by “external” network effects.Originality/valueThe originality of the article lies in the description of the alternative roles plaid by organization intermediaries in the science-/techno-push versus user-centric approaches of innovation. In these two approaches, (contents and network) brokerage and physical vicinity play different roles.

Detecting and Visualizing the Communities of Innovation in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration Based on the Patent Cooperation Network

For a deep understanding of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei (BTH) collaborative innovation, we detected and visualized the communities of innovation in BTH Urban Agglomeration based on the patent cooperation network. China Patent Database was connected with Business Registration Database and the Tianyan Check to achieve the geographical information of organizational innovators. Spinglass algorithm was applied and ultimately 12 communities of innovation were detected. Based on the different structure characteristics, we further clustered the 12 communities into four typical structures that are hierarchical, single-center, polycentric, and flat structures. The hierarchical structure is usually large in scale and the cooperative intensity is relatively high. Single-center structure has a center with a high proportion of centrality and the cooperative intensity is relatively low. Polycentric structure has multiple centers with similar proportions of centrality. Flat structure is usually small in scale and has no obvious network center. In the patent cooperative network of BTH Urban Agglomeration, universities and state-owned enterprises occupied the centers and acted important roles to connect other organizations. Some communities of innovation showed significant industry characteristics, mainly involving six industry fields that are electric power, construction, petroleum, metallurgy and materials, municipal transportation, and railway. From the geographical perspective, some communities manifested local attributes and some demonstrated cooperation between regions. Beijing was the center of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei patent cooperation network. Compared with the pair of Beijing-Tianjin and the pair of Beijing-Hebei, Tianjin and Hebei were not closely connected. In the future, Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei collaborative innovation should strengthen cooperation between Tianjin and Hebei.

Communities of innovation

Purpose This paper aims to increase our understanding of the nature and role of communities within organizations with regard to innovation management, the drivers of community innovation and macro-processes of community innovation management. Design/methodology/approach The authors first use an inductive qualitative technique to analyze data gathered from a UK university to build up the concept of communities of innovation and then refine the concept of communities of innovation by contrasting it to the more established literature on communities of practice. Finally, with the aid of existing literature on collaborative innovation and the innovation processes, the authors induce from the data the drivers of community innovation and the three macro-processes of community innovation management. Findings The research findings suggest communities of innovation play a central and pivotal role in contributing to the generation of innovations within organizations. Drivers of innovation included corporate culture, money and time, intellectual property management, motivation, knowledge facilitators, activists and maintenance and opportunities to interact. The three macro-processes of community innovation management are identified as divergence management, gateway management and convergence management. Research limitations/implications As this is an exploratory research into communities of innovation, all the 11 communities of innovation analyzed belong to ABC University. It is necessary to expand on this research within the education industry, as well as into other industries to further test the reliability of the findings in this paper. Practical implications Business executives who have a better understanding of communities of innovation, the drivers of community innovation and the macro-processes of community innovation management will be better able to promote innovation within their organizations. Social implications Governments that have a better understanding of communities of innovation, the drivers of innovation and the macro-processes of community innovation management will be better able to promote innovation within their countries. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the first research studies attempting to understand communities of innovation and the macro-processes of community innovation management.