IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v39y2022i3p353-378.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Government‐led innovation acceleration: Case studies of US federal government innovation and technology acceleration organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick S. Roberts
  • Jon Schmid

Abstract

How can agencies that have operational activities as a primary focus improve the procurement and transition of innovative technologies, particularly from the private sector? This study seeks to inform scholars and public‐sector managers about organizational design for innovation and technology acceleration using a systems approach. It examines three organizations responsible for mission‐oriented innovation: In‐Q‐Tel, stood by up the Central Intelligence Agency; the FBI's Operational Technology Unit; and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). It finds that collaboration and mission‐inspiration can bridge public–private sector divides, but that distance from operators can slow technology adoption. It recommends establishing metrics for innovation investments and outcomes and gaining a better understanding of end user needs. Venture capital characteristics in quasi‐government innovation organizations show promise but are untested outside of defense and intelligence. This study contributes to the literature by analyzing technology acceleration rather than initiation, development, adoption, or diffusion. It also adds to the study of technology acceleration in mission‐oriented agencies that are less often the focus of R&D scholarship on big science. ¿Cómo pueden las agencias que tienen actividades operativas como enfoque principal mejorar la adquisición y transición de tecnologías innovadoras, particularmente del sector privado? Este estudio busca informar a académicos y gerentes del sector público sobre el diseño organizacional para la innovación y la aceleración tecnológica utilizando un enfoque de sistemas. Examina tres organizaciones responsables de la innovación orientada a la misión: In‐Q‐Tel, apoyada por la Agencia Central de Inteligencia; la Unidad de Tecnología Operativa del FBI; y el Instituto Nacional de Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional (NIOSH). Encuentra que la colaboración y la inspiración de la misión pueden salvar las divisiones entre el sector público y el privado, pero que la distancia de los operadores puede retrasar la adopción de tecnología. Recomienda establecer métricas para inversiones y resultados en innovación y obtener una mejor comprensión de las necesidades del usuario final. Las características del capital de riesgo en las organizaciones de innovación cuasi gubernamentales son prometedoras, pero no se han probado fuera de la defensa y la inteligencia. Este estudio contribuye a la literatura al analizar la aceleración de la tecnología en lugar de la iniciación, el desarrollo, la adopción o la difusión. También se suma al estudio de la aceleración de la tecnología en agencias orientadas a la misión que, con menos frecuencia, son el foco de atención de los estudios de investigación y desarrollo en la gran ciencia. 摘要 将业务活动作为重点的政府机构如何能提升创新技术采购和转型，尤其是来自私人部门的技术?本研究试图通过系统方法让学者和公共部门管理者了解用于创新和技术加速的组织设计。本研究分析了负责以任务为导向的创新机构:In‐Q‐Tel(为美国中央情报局提供服务)；美国联邦情报局的操作技术部门；以及美国国家职业安全卫生研究所(NIOSH)。本研究发现，协作和任务‐灵感能在公共部门和私人部门之间搭建桥梁，但经营者之间的距离能减缓技术采纳的速度。本研究建议，应建立创新投资和结果衡量标准，并更好地理解终端用户的需求。准政府创新组织中的风险投资特征看起来是有希望的，但还未在国防和情报范围之外经历检验。通过分析技术加速而不是技术创立、发展、采纳或扩散，本研究为相关文献作贡献。本研究还对以任务为导向的机构的技术加速研究作贡献，这类机构通常不是大科学研发文献的重点。

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick S. Roberts & Jon Schmid, 2022. "Government‐led innovation acceleration: Case studies of US federal government innovation and technology acceleration organizations," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(3), pages 353-378, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:39:y:2022:i:3:p:353-378
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12474
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12474?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jakob Edler & Wouter P Boon, 2018. "‘The next generation of innovation policy: Directionality and the role of demand-oriented instruments’—Introduction to the special section," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 433-434.
    2. Youtie, Jan & Shapira, Philip, 2008. "Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1188-1204, September.
    3. Rosenstock, L. & Olenec, C. & Wagner, G.R., 1998. "The National Occupational Research Agenda: A model of broad stakeholder input priority setting," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 88(3), pages 353-356.
    4. Merle Jacob & Olof Hallonsten, 2012. "The persistence of big science and megascience in research and innovation policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 411-415, July.
    5. Cooke, Philip & Gomez Uranga, Mikel & Etxebarria, Goio, 1997. "Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 475-491, December.
    6. Jack S. Levy, 2008. "Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(1), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Balconi, Margherita & Brusoni, Stefano & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2010. "In defence of the linear model: An essay," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, February.
    8. Robinson, Douglas K.R. & Mazzucato, Mariana, 2019. "The evolution of mission-oriented policies: Exploring changing market creating policies in the US and European space sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 936-948.
    9. Charles Edquist, 2004. "Reflections on the systems of innovation approach," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(6), pages 485-489, December.
    10. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1397 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Renaud Bellais & Renelle Guichard, 2006. "Defense Innovation, Technology Transfers And Public Policy," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 273-286.
    12. Jane E Fountain, 1998. "Social capital: Its relationship to innovation in science and technology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 103-115, April.
    13. Shane M. Greenstein, 1993. "Did Installed Base Given an Incumbent Any (Measurable) Advantages in Federal Computer Procurement?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(1), pages 19-39, Spring.
    14. Erik Fisher & Roop L Mahajan, 2006. "Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 5-16, February.
    15. William B Bonvillian, 2018. "DARPA and its ARPA-E and IARPA clones: a unique innovation organization model," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(5), pages 897-914.
    16. Renaud Bellais & Renelle Guichard, 2006. "Defense, Innovation, Technology Transfers and Public Policy in France," Post-Print hal-01160780, HAL.
    17. Evan S. Michelson, 2013. "“The Train Has Left the Station”: The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and the Shaping of Nanotechnology Policy in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(5), pages 464-487, September.
    18. Michael Givel, 2010. "The Evolution of the Theoretical Foundations of Punctuated Equilibrium Theory in Public Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(2), pages 187-198, March.
    19. Bo Carlsson, 1995. "Technological Systems and Economic Performance," Chapters, in: Mark Dodgson & Roy Rothwell (ed.), The Handbook of Industrial Innovation, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Link, Al, 2019. "Technology Transfer at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)," UNCG Economics Working Papers 19-8, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    21. Tether, Bruce S. & Tajar, Abdelouahid, 2008. "Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1079-1095, July.
    22. Ingmar van Meerkerk & Jurian Edelenbos, 2018. "Facilitating conditions for boundary-spanning behaviour in governance networks," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 503-524, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Inke Torfs & Ellen Wayenberg & Lieselot Danneels, 2023. "Institutional shifts and punctuated patterns in digital policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(3), pages 363-388, May.
    2. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder & Colette S. Vogeler, 2022. "Crises, technology, and policy change," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(3), pages 252-254, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro, 2011. "The Dynamics of Technological Knowledge: From Linearity to Recombination," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Joanna Stryjek, 2021. "Counteracting the COVID-19 Crisis with Innovation Policy Tools: A Case Study of the EU’s Supranational Innovation Policy," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3), pages 450-468.
    3. Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro, 2011. "The dynamics of technological knowledge," Post-Print halshs-00727633, HAL.
    4. Ogink, Ruben H.A.J. & Goossen, Martin C. & Romme, A. Georges L. & Akkermans, Henk, 2023. "Mechanisms in open innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    5. Sofia Patsali, 2021. "University Procurement-led Innovation," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-13, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    6. Paola Rucker Schaeffer & Bruno Fischer & Sergio Queiroz, 2018. "Beyond Education: The Role of Research Universities in Innovation Ecosystems," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 50-61.
    7. Falk Strotebeck, 2014. "Running with the pack? The role of Universities of applied science in a German research network," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 34(2), pages 139-156, October.
    8. Binz, Christian & Truffer, Bernhard & Li, Li & Shi, Yajuan & Lu, Yonglong, 2012. "Conceptualizing leapfrogging with spatially coupled innovation systems: The case of onsite wastewater treatment in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 155-171.
    9. Iris Wanzenböck & Joeri H Wesseling & Koen Frenken & Marko P Hekkert & K Matthias Weber, 0. "A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: Alternative pathways through the problem–solution space," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 474-489.
    10. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Rosario Marin, 2011. "Potential Dual-Use Of Military Technology: Does Citing Patents Shed Light On This Process?," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 335-349.
    11. Sleuwaegen, Leo & Boiardi, Priscilla, 2014. "Creativity and regional innovation: Evidence from EU regions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1508-1522.
    12. Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    13. Landoni, Matteo & ogilvie, dt, 2019. "Convergence of innovation policies in the European aerospace industry (1960–2000)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 174-184.
    14. Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Crescenzi, Riccardo, 2012. "R&D, Socio-Economic Conditions and Regional Innovation in the United States," CEPR Discussion Papers 9265, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Riccardo Crescenzi & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2013. "R&D, Socio-Economic Conditions, and Regional Innovation in the U.S," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 287-320, June.
    16. Lars Jonsson & Enrico Baraldi & Lars-Eric Larsson & Petter Forsberg & Kristofer Severinsson, 2015. "Targeting Academic Engagement in Open Innovation: Tools, Effects and Challenges for University Management," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(3), pages 522-550, September.
    17. Adi Weidenfeld & Nick Clifton, 2023. "The Evolution of Transnational Knowledge Networks of Cities: Outlining a Future Research Agenda," Working Papers 2023-14, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    18. Natalie Holden, 2015. "An exploration of interactive contextual and dispositional factors which influence a collective process of entrepreneurial activity: a novel case at Bristol Zoo," Working Papers 27, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Nov 2015.
    19. Havas, Attila, 2016. "Recent economic theorising on innovation: Lessons for analysing social innovation," MPRA Paper 77385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Maximilian Benner, 2021. "System-level agency and its many shades: How to shape the system for path development?," PEGIS geo-disc-2021_10, Institute for Economic Geography and GIScience, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:39:y:2022:i:3:p:353-378. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.