Читать книгу Innovation Economics, Engineering and Management Handbook 1 - Группа авторов - Страница 49

Although close, BE and EE reading grids are different, although, in essence, they both defend the idea of an innovation dynamic that is born from the interactive relationships between firms, entrepreneurs and institutions. The EE includes a territorial dimension, which is not favored in the BE. But this is not the only difference. The BE is said to have been born in 1995 (Roundy et al. 2018) following a study of Silicon Valley. Since then, it has been adopted by many researchers. A wide variety of definitions of the BE can be identified. These definitions focus on various aspects, depending on the researcher’s objectives. Interaction relationships between interdependent actors are frequently favored (Stam 2015). In addition to companies, other actors are involved, first and foremost institutions participating in the development of a “local entrepreneurial environment” (Masson and Brown 2014). The EE is also known for its capacity to support the creation of start-ups through open innovation strategies (Pustovrh et al. 2020). In this sense, an EE is not closed, while being marked by strong geographical and socio-cultural characteristics. The entrepreneur plays an important role. Roundy et al. (2018) emphasize the intentionality and adaptive tensions of entrepreneurs (existence of key agents that influence cognitive relationships and entrepreneurial behavior) and the coherence of entrepreneurial activities (many entrepreneurs share the same intentions and values that help shape the structures of the EE through a “business friendly community”). Cognitive relationships between entrepreneurs are privileged (Nambisan and Baron 2013). Moreover, although the EE is characterized by a strong internal coherence due to the above-mentioned elements, it is also an open system. The EE is permeable to the entry of new resources thanks to investors who share the same values.

The EE also includes a public policy dimension (Isenberg 2010) aimed precisely at supporting entrepreneurial activity and innovation in a given territorial space. The EE is also seen as a powerful tool for fighting poverty by enhancing individual initiative (Prahalat 2005). In this sense, the EE is not the result of an individual decision (public or private), but of a set of interactions that emerge in the absence of a “global controller” (Roundy et al. 2018). The BE also includes a set of interrelationships between different stakeholders, which may include not only other businesses, consumers, etc., but also universities or non-profit organizations. Autio et al. (2014) criticize the theories of entrepreneurship that essentially focus on the individual dimension of the entrepreneur while neglecting the contextual aspects (industrial, technological, organizational, institutional, social, temporal and spatial). Cultural dimensions are largely emphasized to characterize an EE through the sharing of common values. Venture capitalists also present on the territory support the creation of start-ups there because they are convinced of their chances of success. Regional or local public authorities organize events to support entrepreneurial activity at the territorial level (Scaringella and Radziwon 2018). By emphasizing the role of the entrepreneur, the EE also includes the idea of bottom-up development, generally by poorer populations who find in entrepreneurship an opportunity to create their own jobs. In this context, we will speak of an agile innovation that comes from the combination of reduced resources. The institutional changes that emerged from the 1990s with the end of the Cold War and the planned economy are widely discussed. The market and the creation of companies within the framework of these changes have been singled out as powerful tools to fight poverty (Prahalat 2005).

Criticizing the use of the term ecosystem, which is used excessively in their opinion (BE, EE, innovation, etc.), Scaringella and Radziwon (2018) constructed a reading grid to identify the invariants of the ecosystem approach. We will use it to distinguish the BE from the EE, highlighting invariants and characteristics. The invariants are the following: 1) territory 2) values; 3) stakeholders; 4) economic theories; 5) social policy; 6) knowledge and 7) results obtained by the BE or EE (see Table 3.1).

Table 5.1. Business and entrepreneurial ecosystems, invariants and own characteristics (source: Scaringella and Radziwon (2018))

Invariants	Description
Business ecosystem	Entrepreneurial ecosystem
Territory	Close relationships between stakeholders	Preferred geographical dimension (region, country)
Values: trust, sense of community, mutual understanding, reduced uncertainty, culture, history, routines	Trusting relationships between stakeholders forming a community involved in a co-creation process	Sharing of common values uniting stakeholders with a shared vision of entrepreneurship
Stakeholders: firms, inter-firm networks, other stakeholders	A network of interacting inter-company relations facilitating the dynamics of learning processes between stakeholders who develop complementary activities Apart from firms, other stakeholders play a major role: consumers, suppliers, subcontracting firms, manufacturers of related products and services	Network of inter-firm relations and support institutions for business creation (e.g. incubator) Importance of the role of the public authority in supporting local development through business creation and innovation.
Economic theories	Economics of localization, spin-offs, industrial economy (economies of scale)
Social: cooperative/competitive relationships between stakeholders, job creation, human resources	Cooperative and/or competitive relationships within the framework of a co-opetitive relationship Symbiosis between stakeholders Importance of job creation	Stimulation of technical progress, socioeconomic interactions between private companies in symbiotic relationships and the production of new knowledge through interactions
Knowledge: different types, dynamics of creation, synergistic relationships	Protection of knowledge (patent) Knowledge mobility and synergistic relationships between innovation resources	Production of new knowledge through interaction relationships Creation of start-ups
Outcome: innovation and entrepreneurship development	Value creation Innovations to improve performance Competitive advantage through collaboration in a network of value creation in a process of adaptation/evolution	GDP growth Radical innovations A process of co-creation and evolution encouraged by public policies

There are subtle differences between the BE and EE. The dominant idea is the creation of an economic community whose members maintain synergistic and co-creative relationships to encourage innovation. The territorial dimension is diminished in the BE as opposed to the EE, which also emphasizes coherence, which is reinforced by appropriate public policy measures. The BE is part of a reflection that favors individual initiative. Poorer populations are thus accorded a route out of poverty by innovating. Emphasis is placed on the coherence of the ecosystem and on the sharing of common values and objectives among stakeholders. The role of innovation support institutions (e.g. incubators) is frequently emphasized in the BE. On the other hand, in the BE, it is the pivotal firm that is designated as a driver for innovation.