2nd day of TCI: from clusters to innovation systems and the increasing importance of trust!
October 13, 2009
The second day of the TCI Conference can actually be seen as the official start. Whereas I asked myself yesterday where the 350 participating experts might be, today it became obvious that they really arrived. And it was an interesting start.
Further shift from cluster debate to innovation systems provide new insights
The presentation of several cluster case studies at the second day did not really provide many new insghts. But what can be observed during the last TCI conferences and even more at present is the shift of discussions towards innovation systems. Most of the discussions were based on national innovation systems as well as transnational innovation systems (see e.g. Baltic Sea initiatives) than regional or sectoral approaches.
Interactive elements get higher attention in the Conference ´09
In difference to the earlier conferences which were very much input and presentation-driven, the organisational team here in Finland involves more interactive elements. Small signs on the tables ask people to participate actively and prepare themselves with a key question they want to get answered during the Conference Additionally a cluster lounge has been set up where experts can meet each other on different topics and share concrete experiences in small groups. Tools like “cluster clinic” and “learning journey” are on the aganda.
Facilitating trust promotion between public and private sector becomes even more important than in the past
One main insight for me from the day: Trust is still on the agenda and gets addressed nowadays in a more systemic way The Academic summit provided different research insights in this regard. One of them was of special interest: The role, nature and evolution of trust in innovation ecosystems, from Kirsimarja Blomquist (downloadable here, in blue box). Is this topic not old enough to be left out? No it is not and maybe has been tackled only superficially in the past.
Blomquist demonstrated that the determinants of trust in innovation networks have to been analyzed from a more systemic perspective. She emphasized especially 2 critical factors, which were marginalized in the discussions during the last years but underline the soft but critical aspects of innovation systems:
- the individual capacity of people involved (micro level) to trust and the “willingness to be vulnerable” as one key human quality for drivers of change and a prerequisite to create interpersonal and organisational trust
- the importance of societal and cultural trust at the meta level which enhances again the individual´s propensity to trust as well as the interpersonal, interorganisational and community levels of trust
Although the question on cultural heritage as well as individual elements of trust have been mentioned in the industrial district discussions in the 1990s, Blomquist demonstrated again its crucial importance as well as the lack of intervention approaches to address these factors. Whereas the systemic competitiveness approach has addressed these meta and micro elements of change of human and economic systems, the innovation system debate has marginalised this aspect during the last years and focused more on the macro level policy discussions and institutional meso level .
Need for better change facilitation to overcome divide between public and private sector
It is crucial to consider again more into debt the topic of trust especially to overcome a further divide between the public and private sector in the context of the promotion of innovation systems. Do we not often as consultants and researchers loose the contact to our target group, the businesses? Are we not often driven by our meta ideas when we discuss about e.g. radical innovation requirements without being really entrpreneurship-driven ourselves? Do we not often like to talk about networks without really understanding the business insights of the companies?
What we will need is a closer sensitivity about the business rationalities, our own mindset and interests that drive us as stakeholders involved. Additionally we need more facilitation knowledge on how to tackle the micro elements and meta elements of trust.
Jyvaskyla was a place where I had a chance to see another angle of clusters and cluster facilitation. Although the technology is high as a friend told me “I do not think that you can learn much because the technology available here is too high and advanced and is not applicable in your country” but one learns a lot through such interactions. I responded to my friend that it is not the question of copying the technology but “innovating your technology” by changing what you see in e.g. Jyvaskyla and Finland to what you have and can apply in your country. I would recommend such interactions like the TCI to anyone wanting or already in a process of developing a cluster. The after conference comments are the best and I would like to hear the experiences of participants back in their countries and clusters.