جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "بوم سازگان نوآوری" در نشریات گروه "علوم انسانی"

Various frameworks have been presented for modeling innovation ecosystems. Despite the overlap of some components, each one lacks some components mentioned in the other, which can damage their boundary object. Therefore, the current research deals with the typology of modeling structures of innovation ecosystems.

The current research is exploratory in terms of purpose, basic in terms of usage, and secondary research in terms of the method using the systematic review process. To collect data, the library method and the phishing tool were used. The research community included modeling articles of innovation ecosystems and the research sample included 17 articles out of 1321 primary references. The research strategy in the analysis of articles is based on comparative qualitative content analysis and the quality control of the research is based on the criteria for measuring the quality of qualitative research.

based on analyzing selective articles , The modeling constructs of innovation ecosystems were identified and categorized into three levels: (1) Axial construct (active and passive) (2) actor-level construct (role emersion and types of acting roles) (3) background-level constructs including environment (institutional and Macro environmental conditions) , capacities (hard and soft) and orienteers (foresight, ecosystem vision and ecosystem life cycle).

The findings of the research enable the policy makers to modify, align and rearrange its constructs in terms of the multiple dimensions of the innovation ecosystems, and by avoiding the asynchrony or dispersion of the decisions of constructs, smoothen the ground for adopting flexible and realistic policies.

As an innovation, power electronic devices plays a significant role in changing the paradigm of the traditional power grid structure and the emergence of smart grids. Based on the new public governance paradigm (NPG), one of the necessities for the emergence of power electronic device innovations is to pay atten`1tion to collaborative approaches such as innovation ecosystems. Considering the necessity of building power electronic devices innovation ecosystems in the country and the lack of coherent research in this regard, the present research designs this ecosystem to empower policymakers in their efforts to analyze ecosystems across relevant categories and to develop an informed strategy.The research method was based on Design Science Research methodology (DSR). In the Awareness phase, theoretical dimensions and related documents/reports were reviewed. In the Suggestion phase, 23 interviews conducted with experts along with selected documents were coded and categorized based on comparative qualitative content analysis through an unstructured matrix. In the Development phase, the output of the Suggestion phase was reviewed and finalized by an expert panel consisting of 15 experts in the field of power electronic devices. In the Evaluation phase, the output of the Development phase was evaluated and confirmed by using three tools including evaluation of the appropriateness of the components, expert panel and trustworthiness of inquiry. In the Conclusion phase, based on the results, implications and suggestions of the research were proposed. The design of power electronic devices innovation ecosystems and providing policy implications and suggestions based on it.

Although the theory of innovation ecosystems is well structured and developed in the field of technology and in a sense in basic sciences and engineering, it is not shaped in humanities and social sciences and soft technologies. Perhaps because researchers in the field of innovation studies have always looked at the concept of “innovation” with an economic mindset. This economic approach is the beginning of the formation of the “instrumental value” discourse in the valuation of humanities and social science researches, which started as a rationale for getting financial support and began to expand. The spread of this discourse and the comparison of the research results of these sciences with the basic and engineering sciences by the same evaluation criteria have caused many challenges and harms among the activists in the field of humanities and social sciences and has led to the creation of a discouraging atmosphere and their isolation. In contrast to this discourse, humanities and social science researchers believe that the work they do has an “intrinsic value” in contrast to "instrumental value" in which the economy cannot play a role. This confrontation creates serious strategic differences in the justification and logic of investing in the activities and researches of humanities and social sciences. In this article, while reviewing the views proposed about the “value” of humanities and social sciences research in innovation ecosystems, a model is proposed to show the channels of participation of these sciences in innovation ecosystems. This model can be a solution for the compromise of critics of instrumentalism in front of economists and make the way forward for financing humanities and social sciences research smoother. Finally, implications for policy making in the field of financing each of the channels of humanities and social science research participation in innovation ecosystems have been stated.

Fintechs or financial startups are progressively impacting the financial services value chain every day. Fintechs has provided the country's financial markets governors with an irreplaceable opportunity to reform the country's financial system mechanisms. The ecosystem development of these innovative businesses in the financial system is demanding as the prudential requirements of the financial system, and the obstacles that generally exist for innovative businesses. This descriptive research investigates the systemic problems of fintech ecosystem development and its solutions. The analytical texts published in one year and 49 semi-structured interviews with experts were analyzed with a deductive thematic analysis methodology based on Nicoletti's model. Then, the systemic network problems besides institutional mapping of the fintech ecosystem have been extracted; also its validity has been discussed in five focus groups. Then, the existing problems for the development of the fintech business ecosystem are categorized into six sectors: policy, regulation, and supervision (28 problems) such as the lack of a fintech development vision, science production, and promotion (4 problems) such as the lack of fintech scientific field in universities, investment (4 problems) such as the lack of investment statistics in fintech, financial solutions (10 problems) such as weakness in the inclusive financing system, and fintech demand (4 problems) such as low urgency of fintech with financial regulatory bodies. Ultimately, based on the issues raised, the policy implications of this research are presented to facilitate the governance of the

In recent years, the concept of innovation ecosystems has become commonplace for understanding the process of creating shared value. On the other hand, due to the importance of radical innovations in creating a unique defense capability and evolving of these innovations in a network of different actors, the need for an ecosystem view is felt more. In this research, with a qualitative approach and in the form of a multi grounded theory strategy, using latent content analysis tactics and semi structured interviews, a framework for radical innovators in the Iranian defense sector has been introduced. The interviewees were selected from senior managers in the field of defense innovation by snowball sampling method and the researcher saturated the data after 28 interviews. Findings showed that the components of radical innovations ecosystem include actors, capital, infrastructure, regulations, knowledge, ideas, commonalities and communication channels, culture, and structural principles.

Despite its various technological capabilities, East Azerbaijan Province is one of the most unsuccessful research regions in terms of innovation typology. Therefore, in accordance with the dependence of innovation on the characteristics of regions, this article seeks to design a policy mix for the development of regional innovation ecosystem in East Azerbaijan Province. For this purpose, first, based on the grounded theory strategy and via interview, the experiences of senior managers of the province are extracted and translated to a local framework for designing a policy mix for the development of regional innovation ecosystem in the province was developed. Then the framework is implemented in the auto parts manufacturing industry. Based on the research findings, attracting the participation of a wide range of stakeholders, aligning with horizontal and vertical policies, paying attention to the regional innovation infrastructure and emphasizing on trans-regional integration are highlighted in the macro model of innovation policy. Also the importance of typology, ecosystem components' exploration, CSF identification and life cycle analysis in the evaluation of innovation ecosystems was also emphasized, and finally the necessity of the evaluation of the probable effects of the policy tools and the further planning for the implemention of the policy mix was explained.

Despite its popularity among scholars, practitioners and policymakers, there is still no consensus around the term “innovation ecosystem” and related concepts. Ecosystem approach, which focuses on relationships between innovation system players and their interdependence to co-create value, role of private sector and small firms, role of digital technologies, open innovation, and market forces and demand side of innovation, can provide a complementary approach to innovation system to help augment innovation systems. In this paper, different ecosystem approaches are introduced and innovation ecosystem components, ecosystem life cycle phases, and policies to strengthen innovation ecosystems are reviewed. Since ecosystem literature is more focused on firm strategies than government policies, there is still no comprehensive framework for innovation ecosystem policies, so in this paper different innovation ecosystem policies are reviewed. Innovation ecosystems’ success depends on multiple factors, and different innovation ecosystem policies were introduced in literature, including supporting ecosystem transition, supporting shared vision creation, supporting co-evolution, supporting geographic proximity, supporting platform creation, and supporting desired ecosystem properties. At the end, Iran’s biopharmaceutical innovation ecosystem is introduced as a case study.       * Corresponding author: elyasi.atu@gmail.com