Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) have been considered as the future vision for the automotive industry. An increasing number of concepts and prototypes have been introduced in the last decade. In parallel with the technological development, recent discussions about global warming and climate change bring public support for emission free vehicles. Despite of the advancements and support, the speed of introduction of FCEVs is still not at the desirable levels. From a transition management perspective, the present paper seeks to answer the underlying factors behind the implementation of the FCEVs. The discussion goes beyond a technical one to cover broad factors and interests of stakeholders with an ‘eagle-eye view’. Following a discussion the key drivers of change for the FCEV sector and wild cards with disruptive effects, the paper proposes a strategic roadmap template to set an agenda for a successful transition towards FCEVs.
There is broad consensus that economic development and society welfare correlate with the effectiveness and efficiency of countries’ science, technology, and innovation infrastructure. There is a broad range of actors active in all fields with diverging ambitions, missions, and aims striving for scientific, technological, and innovation excellence. Still one actor alone faces severe challenges in the respective global competition which is why increasingly clusters are formed and quipped with professional management. This raises the question if knowledge diffusion channels function more effective and efficient in organically grown self-organized channels or if targeted public policy intervention is needed to enhance these channels by means of attached cluster management. The article discusses the major conceptual features of cluster management and spillovers and the resulting implications for cluster management activities.
Involvement in the global innovation system and the level of ICT influence the technologicalstateoftheBrazil,Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) countries and their position in the world economy. Many studies were inspired that examined these economies from various prospective. However, only a few have specially focused on information and communication technologies (ICT), and particularly in services sectors. This paper aims to contribute to the analysis of the evolution of services ICT systems in BRICS. The main hypothesis of the article is that BRICS has made significant progress in economic cooperation, at the same time, the group has not been equally successful in designing and implementing their own agenda in the technology field. The BRICS are not released at a sufficient level of interaction and advocacy in ICT services, which would increase their role in international trade. The authors observe the retrospective of the process of formation of national innovation systems of thecountry participants of BRICS, consider current trends and challenges in the development of national markets for these services in each member country,and highlight future directions for the development. Then they provide an analysis of BRICS countries’ participation in the international ICT services trade. An estimation of revealed comparative advantage indicators allowed determining the dynamics in comparative advantage for ICT service trade in BRICS. Despite the increase in the volumeof export operations in the trade in ICT services, their level of competitiveness is declining. The most vulnerable to the reduction of revealed comparative advantage was India, at the same time Brazil and South Africa showed the least volatile dynamics. It is argued that the policies aimed at promoting investment and enhancing conditions for trade in ICT services contributed significantly to services exports expansion in BRICS. Based on the analysis, a conclusion is made about the current problems and insufficient level of technical cooperation within the group.
This study determines the factors that exert important influences on the success of collaborative research and development (R&D) projects. The study uses data from a cross-European sample of collaborative R&D projects under EU Framework Programs, supported with relevant qualitative evidence from a series of case studies, and focuses on three levels of possible factors: market, firm, and project levels. The results indicate that partnering firm innovation experience, innovation protection mechanisms, effective management of rules and regulations, and the existence of commercially driven projects that open up new technological areas are the factors with the strongest significant effect on product and/or process innovation. The findings contribute to understanding of how and under what conditions innovation can be developed in collaborative R&D projects.
Three approaches are developed for assessment of different types of organizational ambidexterity proposed in the relevant literature. The new model for measurement of organizational ambidexterity using data envelopment analysis (DEA) is introduced. The DEA score based on innovation activity inputs and two different performance outputs acts as a proxy for organizational ambidexterity. Sustainability goals and product ambidexterity are also analyzed as the key characteristics of ambidextrous behavior. The introduced three approaches are tested for their aptness to complement each other as well as to support a strategic decision-making. Empirical examples from energy and pharma sectors associate organizational ambidexterity with firms’ performance. We measured the organizational ambidexterity of energy and pharma companies by (1) pursuing long-term versus short-term organizational performance measured as a DEA two-output efficiency score; (2) the share of disruptive products in a company’s activities assessed through the proportion of R&D expenditure or sales; and (3) sustainability versus financial performance of the company, where the Green ranking and participation in innovative financing programs were used as proxies for sustainable development. Positive relation between performance and organizational ambidexterity for energy sector are discovered. At the same time, orientation towards sustainability disrupts performance of pharmaceutical companies. Results of the OA impact on performance are highly industry-sensitive and depend on the methods used in empirical assessment. Our findings suggest that the scarcity of data sources make all three approaches complementary and mainly functional for strategic decision-making.
The paper looks at cooperation models for science, technology, and innovation with clear aims at delivering value and progress in these fields. Such cooperation models have been established in various forms in many countries. One special form of cooperation is the public-private partnership which also comes in many different forms. The article is based on the analysis of 20 public-private partnerships located in Austria, Australia, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Public-private partnerships for science, technology, and innovation have various institutional and organizational models. The common central issue of all different models is an interdisciplinary management committee consisting of both academic and industrial representatives which is responsible for the alignment of all partners’ interests. In addition, public-private partnerships need carefully developed strategies and well-thought-out contractual basis in line with respective stakeholder communication. Frequently, public-private partnerships are established by a small number of partners but extended at later development stages requiring a seamless and transparent partner selection procedure. Equally important is a sustainable financial agreement which allows mid-term and long-term work by the public-private partnerships. Moreover, in the course of globalization, the regulatory requirements for public-private partnerships in countries and regions are becoming increasingly important. Therefore, in addition to statutory regulations, human resources, scientific excellence, and infrastructure are important determinants for locations which aim at providing attractive framework conditions for public-private partnerships. Finally, it must be noted that two different research cultures meet in public-private partnerships: Synergies have to be found between basic academic research and applied industrial research, and they have to be used for mutual added value. Before establishing public-private partnerships formally, particular attention must be paid to so-called competing values. These must be regulated in a contract, and transparent control and sanction mechanisms must be introduced. In so doing, the mistrust associated with divergent interests (for example in relation to intellectual property rights) can be effectively prevented from the outset.
Whereas national and corporate foresight are established instruments for anticipatory Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) policy and innovation strategy respectively, regional foresight is a rather new phenomenon in this arena. Placed in between national and corporate foresight, regional foresight can be considered to fulfill a bridging role by taking advantage of the corporate foresight done at corporations which is based in the regions and by focusing on the broader national foresight and the related challenges covered by these studies. In addition, regional foresight also involves stakeholders who might be engaged in national as well as corporate foresight, but presumably these stakeholders play a more important and prominent role in the regional foresight. Also, it is understood that regional networks are important for the successful implementation of the results. Also, at the regional dimension, it shows that stronger personal linkages exist than in national or corporate foresight. The article introduces and discusses two regional foresight case studies in Russian regions, namely, Bashkortostan and Samara. Regional foresight in both case studies was designed to mirror the quadruple helix instead of focusing on the triple helix only as it is done in many other regional foresight cases; e.g., the focus was extended beyond the science, government, and industry stakeholders by including civil society as well. However, the limitation of the case studies is the modest participation and representation of the innovative industry sectors which is also due to the general weakness of Russian industry overall. Still it is found that both cases not only created reasonable momentum for developing the regions in the STI dimension but also even broader economic and social welfare dimension.