IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joiaen/v13y2024i1d10.1186_s13731-024-00428-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Design of a conceptual model of open innovation for the decentralization of the science, technology, and innovation system in Colombia from an organizational ecology perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Jhon Wilder Sánchez-Obando

    (Universidad de Manizales)

  • Luis Fernando Castillo-Ossa

    (Universidad de Caldas
    Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Manizales)

  • Néstor Darío Duque-Méndez

    (Universidad Nacional de Colombia)

  • Eduardo Carrillo Zambrano

    (Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga)

Abstract

Science, technology, and innovation (STI) systems are fundamental to the economic development of any nation. However, their high hierarchy and centralization create inequities for the more dispersed regions to access their benefits. Traditional approaches to STI system decentralization have been through public control and investment policies, posing a challenge for emerging economies. Given these conditions, it is necessary to explore alternative approaches such as open innovation (OI), which can facilitate bringing the STI system to the regions by breaking its hierarchical structure; and organizational ecology (OE), which can contribute to the construction of ecosystemic appropriation of STI in the regions. The objective of this research is to propose a conceptual model that addresses the need to decentralize Colombia's STI system through an alternative approach to public policy governance, utilizing OI and OE. The methodology used for this research is Design Science Research (DSR), which allows for the creation of an artifact-type model, validated through the representational validation technique, supported by a cross-impact analysis matrix completed by 67% members of the subregional STI committees in the department of Caldas. The result is a conceptual model that integrates the components of Colombia's STI system, decentralizes them through OI factors, and ensures the ecosystemic appropriation of STI in the regions through OE factors. Model criteria, such as organizational readiness, collaborative capacity, absorptive capacities, intellectual capital, technological capital, and local niche, are presented as key elements in the decentralization of the STI system and the ecosystemic appropriation in the co-creation of a mutualistic STI system in Colombia's regions. The findings of the model represent an integrated model that unfolds sequentially; the first phase develops the decentralization through OI factors, and the second phase develops the ecosystemic appropriation from OE factors. This research contributes an integrated OI and OE model as an alternative to the traditional STI system decentralization approach from public policy governance and nation-region control, overcoming the hierarchical barrier of the system and granting ecosystemic appropriation of science, technology, and innovation in the regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jhon Wilder Sánchez-Obando & Luis Fernando Castillo-Ossa & Néstor Darío Duque-Méndez & Eduardo Carrillo Zambrano, 2024. "Design of a conceptual model of open innovation for the decentralization of the science, technology, and innovation system in Colombia from an organizational ecology perspective," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-28, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joiaen:v:13:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1186_s13731-024-00428-x
    DOI: 10.1186/s13731-024-00428-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13731-024-00428-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13731-024-00428-x?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Allen N. Berger & Timothy H. Hannan, 1998. "The Efficiency Cost Of Market Power In The Banking Industry: A Test Of The "Quiet Life" And Related Hypotheses," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(3), pages 454-465, August.
    2. Robert D. Dewar & Jane E. Dutton, 1986. "The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(11), pages 1422-1433, November.
    3. Yolanda Ramírez-Córcoles & Montserrat Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015. "The relevance of intellectual capital disclosure: empirical evidence from Spanish universities," Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 31-44, February.
    4. Fariborz Damanpour & Richard M. Walker & Claudia N. Avellaneda, 2009. "Combinative Effects of Innovation Types and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Study of Service Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 650-675, June.
    5. Seleshi Sisaye, 2021. "The influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on the development of voluntary sustainability accounting reporting rules," Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 1(1), pages 5-23, April.
    6. Yongan Zhang & Umair Khan & Seoyeon Lee & Madiha Salik, 2019. "The Influence of Management Innovation and Technological Innovation on Organization Performance. A Mediating Role of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, January.
    7. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    8. Stefan Kuhlmann & Arie Rip, 2018. "Next-Generation Innovation Policy and Grand Challenges," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 448-454.
    9. repec:eme:jbsed0:jbsed-02-2021-0017 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Jean-Frédéric Morin, 2020. "Concentration despite competition: The organizational ecology of technical assistance providers," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 75-107, January.
    11. Joseph A. Schumpeter & A. J. Nichol, 1934. "Robinson's Economics of Imperfect Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 249-249.
    12. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon, 2004. "Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1201-1215, October.
    13. Fang Huang & John Rice, 2012. "Openness In Product And Process Innovation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(04), pages 1-24.
    14. Dorin Maier & Andreea Maier & Ioan Așchilean & Livia Anastasiu & Ovidiu Gavriș, 2020. "The Relationship between Innovation and Sustainability: A Bibliometric Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, May.
    15. Giulio Cainelli & Rinaldo Evangelista & Maria Savona, 2004. "The impact of innovation on economic performance in services," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 116-130, January.
    16. Oh, Deog-Seong & Phillips, Fred & Park, Sehee & Lee, Eunghyun, 2016. "Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-6.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Demircioglu, Mehmet Akif & Vivona, Roberto, 2021. "Depoliticizing the European immigration debate: How to employ public sector innovation to integrate migrants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    2. Xie, Zongjie & Hall, Jeremy & McCarthy, Ian P. & Skitmore, Martin & Shen, Liyin, 2016. "Standardization efforts: The relationship between knowledge dimensions, search processes and innovation outcomes," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 69-78.
    3. Hou, Hong & Shi, Yongjiang, 2021. "Ecosystem-as-structure and ecosystem-as-coevolution: A constructive examination," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Kim, Youngok & Lui, Steven S., 2015. "The impacts of external network and business group on innovation: Do the types of innovation matter?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(9), pages 1964-1973.
    5. Flor, M. Luisa & Cooper, Sarah Y. & Oltra, María J., 2018. "External knowledge search, absorptive capacity and radical innovation in high-technology firms," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 183-194.
    6. Jiménez-Jiménez, Daniel & Sanz-Valle, Raquel, 2011. "Innovation, organizational learning, and performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 408-417, April.
    7. Nasrin Sultana & Ekaterina Turkina, 2023. "Collaboration for Sustainable Innovation Ecosystem: The Role of Intermediaries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, May.
    8. Bagheri, Mahshid & Mitchelmore, Siwan & Bamiatzi, Vassiliki & Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, 2019. "Internationalization Orientation in SMEs: The Mediating Role of Technological Innovation," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 121-139.
    9. Marlenne G. Velazquez-Cazares & Anna M. Gil-Lafuente & Ernesto Leon-Castro & Fabio Blanco-Mesa, 2021. "Innovation capabilities measurement using fuzzy methodologies: a Colombian SMEs case," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 384-413, December.
    10. Giacomo Marzi & Lamberto Zollo & Andrea Boccardi & Cristiano Ciappei, 2018. "Additive Manufacturing in SMEs: Empirical Evidences from Italy," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 1-22, February.
    11. Anna Vuorio & Lasse Torkkeli & Liisa-Maija Sainio, 2020. "Service innovation and internationalization in SMEs: antecedents and profitability outcomes," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 92-123, March.
    12. Ashok, Mona & Narula, Rajneesh & Martinez-Noya, Andrea, 2016. "How do collaboration and investments in knowledge management affect process innovation in services?," MERIT Working Papers 039, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    13. Francesco Gerli & Veronica Chiodo & Irene Bengo, 2020. "Technology Transfer for Social Entrepreneurship: Designing Problem-Oriented Innovation Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, December.
    14. Anna Cabigiosu & Diego Campagnolo, 2016. "The economic performance of innovations in a collaborative setting: the case of KIBS firms," Working Papers 22, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    15. Christoph Grimpe & Wolfgang Sofka & Andreas P. Distel, 2022. "SME participation in research grant consortia—the emergence of coordinated attention in collaborative innovation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1567-1592, December.
    16. Huiyang Dai & Lun Li & Jizhen Li, 2025. "The impact of network centrality on employee innovation on a digital experimentation platform," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 14(2), pages 107-125, June.
    17. Arundel, Anthony & Bloch, Carter & Ferguson, Barry, 2019. "Advancing innovation in the public sector: Aligning innovation measurement with policy goals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 789-798.
    18. Hong Jiang & Sipeng Gao & Yang Song & Kuang Sheng & Gehan A. J. Amaratunga, 2019. "An Empirical Study on the Impact of Collaborative R&D Networks on Enterprise Innovation Performance Based on the Mediating Effect of Technology Standard Setting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.
    19. Hallberg, Niklas L. & Brattström, Anna, 2019. "Concealing or revealing? Alternative paths to profiting from innovation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-174.
    20. Jie Wu & Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Siah Hwee Ang & Zefu Wu, 2019. "The impact of imitation strategy and R&D resources on incremental and radical innovation: evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 210-230, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:spr:joiaen:v:13:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1186_s13731-024-00428-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.