innovation ecosystem case study

designing for a more equitable world

Twitter Facebook Youtube LinkedIn

Understanding Innovation Ecosystems: A Framework for Joint Analysis and Action

Publication | Jun 24, 2019 | Elizabeth Hoffecker, Molly Wenig Rubenstein

Having trouble with the link above?

Try this Google Doc version of Understanding Innovation Ecosystems: A Framework for Joint Analysis and Action

Introduction

Place-based innovation ecosystems play a crucial role in driving local and regional economic development. This role has been documented and understood for over 40 years in industrialized economies but is only starting to be appreciated in the context of emerging and developing economies. However, the past several years have seen an intensification of interest in innovation ecosystems among global development actors as well as practitioners and policymakers working across the Global South.

Whether at the municipal level, in places such as Medellín, Colombia and Guadalajara, México, or the national level in Rwanda, South Africa, or India, we see governments, multi-laterals, donors, and civil society actors embarking on initiatives to strengthen local innovation ecosystems. The International Development Innovation Alliance, for example, which includes many of the largest public and private global development agencies, has created a set of recommendations for why and how actors investing in economic development should support the strengthening of innovation ecosystems.

Within the past year, MIT D-Lab has been invited to play a role in some of these ecosystem-strengthening efforts. In contexts ranging from Oaxaca, México to Accra, Ghana, we have been asked to convene ecosystem actors and stakeholders in order to facilitate joint ecosystem strengthening work. In preparing for these engagements, we have researched the state of the field regarding both innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems as well as existing ecosystem frameworks, models, and tools.

In doing so, it has become clear that much of the current thinking and practice related to these concepts is drawn from research on innovation processes and entrepreneurial clusters in highly developed economies — places like Silicon Valley and Kendall Square, Boston. Much less is known about innovation ecosystems in less-developed contexts in terms of how they can be characterized, how they function, and — most importantly — how they can be strengthened.

To that end, the Local Innovation Group at D-Lab has been conducting multi-year research on local innovation ecosystems in the types of contexts where D-Lab and our partners engage. This involves learning about diverse processes of ecosystem development through primary and secondary case study research.

Based on this research, we have developed a framework for understanding local innovation ecosystems, which we share in this publication. We have found the framework, and accompanying visual model, to be a useful tool for orienting and organizing conversations among ecosystem actors on how particular innovation ecosystems are functioning, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and where opportunities for further development might lie.

This document shares this framework and how we have used it over the past year to catalyze ecosystem-strengthening efforts. We start by clarifying the concept of a “local innovation ecosystem” and presenting the core ideas informing the visual model. We then describe the model and each of its individual components. We follow with guidance from our research on best practices for conducting ecosystem strengthening work, and share three examples of how we have used the model to facilitate ecosystem-strengthening conversations in distinct local contexts.

Innovation Ecosystems: A Cross-Industry Examination of Knowledge Flows and Collaboration Dynamics

• Published: 23 April 2024

Cite this article

• Mingyang Nan 1 &
• Longyang Huang 2  

100 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This comprehensive study investigates the intricate dynamics of knowledge flows and collaboration within the innovation ecosystem of the United Kingdom, employing a concurrent embedded design that integrates qualitative and quantitative methods. By examining facilitators, impediments, and industry-specific influences, the research provides nuanced insights into the multifaceted nature of innovation ecosystems. Triangulating qualitative and quantitative findings, the study reveals the critical roles of trust, effective communication, and network density in fostering knowledge exchange. Exploration of diverse collaboration forms, from formal partnerships to mentorship programs, underscores their prevalence and impact on innovation outcomes. The study advances existing literature by offering a cross-industry perspective, introducing a novel theoretical framework, and providing empirically grounded recommendations for cultivating more effective and impactful innovation ecosystems. While acknowledging certain limitations, such as the focus on a specific geographical context, the study significantly contributes to our understanding of these dynamic environments, offering a foundation for future research and practical guidance for stakeholders involved in fostering innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research

Global value chains: A review of the multi-disciplinary literature

Digital platform ecosystems

Data availability.

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Aaldering, L. J., & Song, C. H. (2019). Tracing the technological development trajectory in post-lithium-ion battery technologies: A patent-based approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241 , 118343.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abbate, T., Codini, A. P., & Aquilani, B. (2019). Knowledge co-creation in open innovation digital platforms: Processes, tools and services. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34 (7), 1434–1447.

Abioye, S. O., Oyedele, L. O., Akanbi, L., Ajayi, A., Delgado, J. M. D., Bilal, M., & Ahmed, A. (2021). Artificial intelligence in the construction industry: A review of present status, opportunities and future challenges. Journal of Building Engineering, 44 , 103299.

Aliasghar, O., Sadeghi, A., & Rose, E. L. (2023). Process innovation in small-and medium-sized enterprises: The critical roles of external knowledge sourcing and absorptive capacity. Journal of Small Business Management, 61 (4), 1583–1610.

Al-Tabbaa, O., & Ankrah, S. (2016). Social capital to facilitate ‘engineered’ university–industry collaboration for technology transfer: A dynamic perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104 , 1–15.

Appio, F. P., Lima, M., & Paroutis, S. (2019). Understanding smart cities: Innovation ecosystems, technological advancements, and societal challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142 , 1–14.

Arrow, K. J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29 (3), 155–173.

Arthur, D., Moizer, J., & Lean, J. (2023). A systems approach to mapping UK regional innovation ecosystems for policy insight. Industry and Higher Education, 37 (2), 193–207.

Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2022). 39. The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Elgar Encyclopedia on the Economics of Knowledge and Innovation, 317.

Azeem, M., Ahmed, M., Haider, S., & Sajjad, M. (2021). Expanding competitive advantage through organizational culture, knowledge sharing and organizational innovation. Technology in Society, 66 , 101635.

Bacon, E., Williams, M. D., & Davies, G. (2020). Coopetition in innovation ecosystems: A comparative analysis of knowledge transfer configurations. Journal of Business Research, 115 , 307–316.

Bakshi, V., & Biswas, A. (2023). Global narratives of knowledge and innovation-based development. Urban commons, future smart cities and sustainability (pp. 3–28). Springer International Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Barman, P., Dutta, L., Bordoloi, S., Kalita, A., Buragohain, P., Bharali, S., & Azzopardi, B. (2023). Renewable energy integration with electric vehicle technology: A review of the existing smart charging approaches. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 183 , 113518.

Bauer, Z., AbouAssi, K., & Johnston, J. (2022). Cross-sector collaboration formality: The effects of institutions and organizational leaders. Public Management Review, 24 (2), 159–181.

Belz, F. M., & Binder, J. K. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship: A convergent process model. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26 (1), 1–17.

Blažek, J., Květoň, V., Baumgartinger-Seiringer, S., & Trippl, M. (2020). The dark side of regional industrial path development: Towards a typology of trajectories of decline. European Planning Studies, 28 (8), 1455–1473.

Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357 (6352), eaan1114.

Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., Heaton, S., & Teece, D. J. (2019). Strategic management of open innovation: A dynamic capabilities perspective. California Management Review, 62 (1), 77–94.

Botha, A., Kourie, D., & Snyman, R. (2014).  Coping with continuous change in the business environment: Knowledge management and knowledge management technology . Elsevier.

Breslin, D., Kask, J., Schlaile, M., & Abatecola, G. (2021). Developing a coevolutionary account of innovation ecosystems. Industrial Marketing Management, 98 , 59–68.

Brydon-Miller, M., & Maguire, P. (2009). Participatory action research: Contributions to the development of practitioner inquiry in education. Educational Action Research, 17 (1), 79–93.

Camisón, C., & Forés, B. (2010). Knowledge absorptive capacity: New insights for its conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Business Research, 63 (7), 707–715.

Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., & Wurth, B. (2022). OR for entrepreneurial ecosystems: A problem-oriented review and agenda. European Journal of Operational Research, 300 (3), 791–808.

Castañer, X., & Oliveira, N. (2020). Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organizations: Establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. Journal of Management, 46 (6), 965–1001.

Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2021). Small-medium enterprises and innovative startups in entrepreneurial ecosystems: Exploring an under-remarked relation. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17 , 1843–1866.

Chandler, J. D., Danatzis, I., Wernicke, C., Akaka, M. A., & Reynolds, D. (2019). How does innovation emerge in a service ecosystem? Journal of Service Research, 22 (1), 75–89.

Chandler, N., & Krajcsák, Z. (2021). Intrapreneurial fit and misfit: Enterprising behavior, preferred organizational and open innovation culture. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7 (1), 61.

Chow, W. S., & Chan, L. S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45 (7), 458–465.

Corvello, V., Felicetti, A. M., Steiber, A., & Alänge, S. (2023). Start-up collaboration units as knowledge brokers in corporate innovation ecosystems: A study in the automotive industry. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8 (1), 100303.

Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2005). A leadership framework for cross-sector collaboration. Public Management Review, 7 (2), 177–201.

Cross, R., Ehrlich, K., Dawson, R., & Helferich, J. (2008). Managing collaboration: Improving team effectiveness through a network perspective. California Management Review, 50 (4), 74–98.

Crupi, A., Del Sarto, N., Di Minin, A., Phaal, R., & Piccaluga, A. (2021). Open innovation environments as knowledge sharing enablers: The case of strategic technology and innovative management consortium. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25 (5), 1263–1286.

Cuvero, M., Granados, M. L., Pilkington, A., & Evans, R. (2023). Start-ups’ use of knowledge spillovers for product innovation: The influence of entrepreneurial ecosystems and virtual platforms. R&D Management, 53 (4), 584–602.

Dahesh, M. B., Tabarsa, G., Zandieh, M., & Hamidizadeh, M. (2020). Reviewing the intellectual structure and evolution of the innovation systems approach: A social network analysis. Technology in Society, 63 , 101399.

Davis, J. P. (2016). The group dynamics of interorganizational relationships: Collaborating with multiple partners in innovation ecosystems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61 (4), 621–661.

De Wit-de Vries, E., Dolfsma, W. A., van der Windt, H. J., & Gerkema, M. P. (2019). Knowledge transfer in university–industry research partnerships: A review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44 , 1236–1255.

Del Giudice, M., Carayannis, E. G., & Della Peruta, M. R. (2011).  Cross-cultural knowledge management: Fostering innovation and collaboration inside the multicultural enterprise  (Vol. 11). Springer Science & Business Media.

Delgado, J. M. D., Oyedele, L., Ajayi, A., Akanbi, L., Akinade, O., Bilal, M., & Owolabi, H. (2019). Robotics and automated systems in construction: Understanding industry-specific challenges for adoption. Journal of Building Engineering, 26 , 100868.

Della Porta, D. (2020). Building bridges: Social movements and civil society in times of crisis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31 (5), 938–948.

Dharmayanti, N., Ismail, T., Hanifah, I. A., & Taqi, M. (2023). Exploring sustainability management control system and eco-innovation matter sustainable financial performance: The role of supply chain management and digital adaptability in Indonesian context. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9 (3), 100119.

Duffy, B. E., Poell, T., & Nieborg, D. B. (2019). Platform practices in the cultural industries: Creativity, labor, and citizenship. Social Media+ Society, 5 (4), 2056305119879672.

Google Scholar  

Durugbo, C. (2016). Collaborative networks: A systematic review and multi-level framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54 (12), 3749–3776.

Duxbury, N., Bakas, F. E., & Carvalho, C. P. (2023). Participatory knowledge co-production to activate culture in the development of small cities and rural areas in Portugal. Social Enterprise Journal.

Elia, G., Margherita, A., & Passiante, G. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150 , 119791.

Fabiano, G., Marcellusi, A., & Favato, G. (2020). Channels and processes of knowledge transfer: How does knowledge move between university and industry? Science and Public Policy, 47 (2), 256–270.

Ferreira, J. J., Fernandes, C. I., Veiga, P. M., & Dooley, L. (2023). The effects of entrepreneurial ecosystems, knowledge management capabilities, and knowledge spillovers on international open innovation. R&D Management, 53 (2), 322–338.

Filieri, R., McNally, R. C., O’Dwyer, M., & O’Malley, L. (2014). Structural social capital evolution and knowledge transfer: Evidence from an Irish pharmaceutical network. Industrial Marketing Management, 43 (3), 429–440.

Gann, D. (2001). Putting academic ideas into practice: Technological progress and the absorptive capacity of construction organizations. Construction Management & Economics, 19 (3), 321–330.

Gao, C., & McDonald, R. (2022). Shaping nascent industries: Innovation strategy and regulatory uncertainty in personal genomics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67 (4), 915–967.

Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31 (3), 417–433.

Gibson, C. B. (2017). Elaboration, generalization, triangulation, and interpretation: On enhancing the value of mixed method research. Organizational Research Methods, 20 (2), 193–223.

Giffords, E. D., & Calderon, O. (2015). Academic and community collaborations: An exploration of benefits, barriers and successes. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39 (4), 397–405.

Goldman, M. (2012). The innovative medicines initiative: A European response to the innovation challenge. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 91 (3), 418–425.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (S2), 109–122.

Guerrero, M., Herrera, F., & Urbano, D. (2019). Strategic knowledge management within subsidised entrepreneurial university-industry partnerships. Management Decision, 57 (12), 3280–3300.

Heath, R. G., & Frey, L. R. (2004). Ideal collaboration: A conceptual framework of community collaboration. In  Communication yearbook 28  (pp. 192–233). Routledge.

Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C. H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65 (2), 153–169.

Huntjens, P. (2021).  Towards a natural social contract: Transformative social-ecological innovation for a sustainable, healthy and just society  (p. 205). Springer Nature.

Ireta Sanchez, J. M. (2023). Attributes of scaling up SMEs in the IT sector towards sustaining high-performance business results. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 15 (5), 910–944.

Järvi, K., Almpanopoulou, A., & Ritala, P. (2018). Organization of knowledge ecosystems: Prefigurative and partial forms. Research Policy, 47 (8), 1523–1537.

Keane, C., & Costin, Y. (2019). Collaboration in an entrepreneurial cluster: A study of an urban coop. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 13 (5), 605–624.

Khan, A., & Tao, M. (2022). Knowledge absorption capacity’s efficacy to enhance innovation performance through big data analytics and digital platform capability. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7 (3), 100201.

Kikoski, C., & Kikoski, J. (2004).  The inquiring organization: Tacit knowledge, conversation, and knowledge creation: Skills for 21st-century organizations . Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Klein, J. T. (2021). Building capacity for transformative learning: lessons from crossdisciplinary and cross-sector education and research.  Environment, Development and Sustainability , 1–14.

Koch, K. (2018). Geopolitics of cross-border cooperation at the EU’s external borders: Discourses of de-and re-bordering, territorial perceptions and actor relations within the Finnish-Russian ENI cooperation network. Nordia Geographical publications, 47 (1).

Köhler, J., Sönnichsen, S. D., & Beske-Jansen, P. (2022). Towards a collaboration framework for circular economy: The role of dynamic capabilities and open innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31 (6), 2700–2713.

Kolade, O., Adegbile, A., & Sarpong, D. (2022). Can university-industry-government collaborations drive a 3D printing revolution in Africa? A triple helix model of technological leapfrogging in additive manufacturing. Technology in Society, 69 , 101960.

Kotiranta, A., Tahvanainen, A., Kovalainen, A., & Poutanen, S. (2020). Forms and varieties of research and industry collaboration across disciplines.  Heliyon ,  6 (3).

Lager, T. (2017). A conceptual analysis of conditions for innovation in the process industries and a guiding framework for industry collaboration and further research. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 9 (3), 189–219.

Lawrence, T. B., & Shadnam, M. (2008). Institutional theory.  The international encyclopedia of communication .

Lütjen, H., Schultz, C., Tietze, F., & Urmetzer, F. (2019). Managing ecosystems for service innovation: A dynamic capability view. Journal of Business Research, 104 , 506–519.

Morrison-Smith, S., & Ruiz, J. (2020). Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: A literature review. SN Applied Sciences, 2 , 1–33.

Mu, J., Tang, F., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2010). Absorptive and disseminative capacity: Knowledge transfer in intra-organization networks. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (1), 31–38.

Nawaz, W., & Koç, M. (2020). Industry, university and government partnerships for the sustainable development of knowledge-based society . Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Nippa, M., & Reuer, J. J. (2019). On the future of international joint venture research. Journal of International Business Studies, 50 , 555–597.

Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & Van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36 (7), 1016–1034.

Noviaristanti, S., Acur, N., & Mendibil, K. (2023). The different roles of innovation intermediaries to generate value.  Management Review Quarterly , 1–33.

Nowell, B. (2009). Profiling capacity for coordination and systems change: The relative contribution of stakeholder relationships in interorganizational collaboratives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 44 , 196–212.

O’Dwyer, M., Filieri, R., & O’Malley, L. (2023). Establishing successful university–industry collaborations: Barriers and enablers deconstructed. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48 (3), 900–931.

Oguamanam, C. (2013).  Intellectual property in global governance: A development question . Routledge.

Olk, P., & West, J. (2020). The relationship of industry structure to open innovation: Cooperative value creation in pharmaceutical consortia. R&D Management, 50 (1), 116–135.

Pagano, A., Carloni, E., Galvani, S., & Bocconcelli, R. (2021). The dissemination mechanisms of Industry 4.0 knowledge in traditional industrial districts Evidence: from Italy. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 31 (1), 27–53.

Pak, Y. S., & Lee, J. M. (2023). Organizational learning platforms for knowledge creation in international joint ventures: The mediating role of formal and informal communication.  Asian Business & Management , 1–29.

Pandiarajan, V. (2022).  Business innovation: A case study approach . Routledge.

Paruchuri, S., & Awate, S. (2017). Organizational knowledge networks and local search: The role of intra-organizational inventor networks. Strategic Management Journal, 38 (3), 657–675.

Proeger, T. (2020). Knowledge spillovers and absorptive capacity—Institutional evidence from the ‘German Mittelstand.’ Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11 , 211–238.

Prokop, V., & Stejskal, J. (2018). The effects of cooperation and knowledge spillovers in knowledge environment.  Knowledge spillovers in regional innovation systems: A case study of CEE regions , 3–46.

Radziwon, A., & Bogers, M. (2019). Open innovation in SMEs: Exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146 , 573–587.

Reeves, M., & Pidun, U. (Eds.). (2022).  Business ecosystems . Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Rehm, S. V., & Goel, L. (2015). The emergence of boundary clusters in inter-organizational innovation. Information and Organization, 25 (1), 27–51.

Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Simske, S., & Keogh, J. G. (2023). Exploring blockchain research in supply chain management: A latent Dirichlet allocation-driven systematic review. Information, 14 (10), 557.

Remko, V. H. (2020). Research opportunities for a more resilient post-COVID-19 supply chain–closing the gap between research findings and industry practice. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40 (4), 341–355.

Reypens, C., Lievens, A., & Blazevic, V. (2016). Leveraging value in multi-stakeholder innovation networks: A process framework for value co-creation and capture. Industrial Marketing Management, 56 , 40–50.

Ritala, P., & Stefan, I. (2021). A paradox within the paradox of openness: The knowledge leveraging conundrum in open innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 93 , 281–292.

Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change.  Journal of Political Economy ,  98 (5, Part 2), S71-S102.

Rong, K., Lin, Y., Yu, J., Zhang, Y., & Radziwon, A. (2022). Exploring regional innovation ecosystems: an empirical study in China. In  Innovation Policies and Practices within Innovation Ecosystems  (pp. 10–34). Routledge.

Russell, M. G., & Smorodinskaya, N. V. (2018). Leveraging complexity for ecosystemic innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136 , 114–131.

Santoro, F. M., Borges, M. R., & Rezende, E. A. (2006). Collaboration and knowledge sharing in network organizations. Expert Systems with Applications, 31 (4), 715–727.

Secundo, G., Toma, A., Schiuma, G., & Passiante, G. (2019). Knowledge transfer in open innovation: A classification framework for healthcare ecosystems. Business Process Management Journal, 25 (1), 144–163.

Sehnem, S., Provensi, T., da Silva, T. H. H., & Pereira, S. C. F. (2022). Disruptive innovation and circularity in start-ups: A path to sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31 (4), 1292–1307.

Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2022). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: A 2021 update. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26 (1), 126–145.

Sharma, S. K., & Meyer, K. E. (2019).  Industrializing innovation-the next revolution . Springer International Publishing.

Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., & Van Wee, B. (2012). Technological diversity of emerging eco-innovations: A case study of the automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37 , 211–220.

Srisathan, W. A., Ketkaew, C., & Naruetharadhol, P. (2023). Assessing the effectiveness of open innovation implementation strategies in the promotion of ambidextrous innovation in Thai small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8 (4), 100418.

Thirumalesh Madanaguli, A., Kaur, P., Bresciani, S., & Dhir, A. (2021). Entrepreneurship in rural hospitality and tourism. A systematic literature review of past achievements and future promises. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33 (8), 2521–2558.

Turner, S. F., Cardinal, L. B., & Burton, R. M. (2017). Research design for mixed methods: A triangulation-based framework and roadmap. Organizational Research Methods, 20 (2), 243–267.

Vaccaro, A., Veloso, F., & Brusoni, S. (2009). The impact of virtual technologies on knowledge-based processes: An empirical study. Research Policy, 38 (8), 1278–1287.

Villani, E., & Phillips, N. (2021). Formal organizations and interstitial spaces: Catalysts, complexity, and the initiation of cross-field collaboration. Strategic Organization, 19 (1), 5–36.

Visnjic, I., Neely, A., Cennamo, C., & Visnjic, N. (2016). Governing the city: Unleashing value from the business ecosystem. California Management Review, 59 (1), 109–140.

Weiss, K., Hamann, M., Kinney, M., & Marsh, H. (2012). Knowledge exchange and policy influence in a marine resource governance network. Global Environmental Change, 22 (1), 178–188.

Wright, M., Tartari, V., Huang, K. G., Di Lorenzo, F., & Bercovitz, J. (2018). Knowledge worker mobility in context: Pushing the boundaries of theory and methods. Journal of Management Studies, 55 (1), 1–26.

Ye, Y., & Crispeels, T. (2022). The role of former collaborations in strengthening interorganizational links: Evidence from the evolution of the Chinese innovation network. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 47 (5), 1343–1372.

Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6–7), 587–613.

Zahoor, N., & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2020). Inter-organizational collaboration and SMEs’ innovation: A systematic review and future research directions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 36 (2), 101109.

Zeng, J., Glaister, K. W., & Darwish, T. (2019). Processes underlying MNE subsidiary absorptive capacity: Evidence from emerging markets. Management International Review, 59 , 949–979.

Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management. Journal of Business Research, 63 (7), 763–771.

Download references

The authors acknowledge financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 42301299).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Marxism, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430074, China

Mingyang Nan

School of Public Policy and Administration, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 400044, China

Longyang Huang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Longyang Huang .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Nan, M., Huang, L. Innovation Ecosystems: A Cross-Industry Examination of Knowledge Flows and Collaboration Dynamics. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01986-x

Download citation

Received : 24 January 2024

Accepted : 10 April 2024

Published : 23 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01986-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Innovation ecosystems
• Knowledge flows
• Collaboration dynamics
• Empirical research
• Cross-industry perspective
• Triangulation methodology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 06 March 2024

Innovation dynamics within the entrepreneurial ecosystem: a content analysis-based literature review

• Rishi Kant Kumar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5681-0203 1 ,
• Srinivas Subbarao Pasumarti 2 ,
• Ronnie Joshe Figueiredo 3 ,
• Rana Singh 1 ,
• Sachi Rana 4 ,
• Kumod Kumar 1 &
• Prashant Kumar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9160-5811 5  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  366 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1983 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Business and management

Entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) delineate concepts from varied streams of literature originating from multiple stakeholders and are diagnosed by different levels of analysis. Taking up a sample of 392 articles, this study examines how innovation fosters the emergence of self-operative and self-corrective entrepreneurial ecosystems in the wake of automatic market disruptions. It also finds that measures lending vitality and sustainability to economic systems across the world through a mediating role played by governments, along with synergies exhibited by academia and “visionpreneurs” at large, give rise to aspiring entrepreneurs. The study also aligns past practices with trending technologies to enrich job markets and strengthen entrepreneurial networks through spillover and speciation. The research offers valuable insights into entrepreneurial ecosystems’ practical policy implications and self-regulating mechanisms, and it suggests that governments overseeing these entrepreneurial ecosystems should identify and nurture the existing strengths within them. Additionally, entrepreneurial ecosystems can benefit from government support through subsidies and incentives to encourage growth. In collaboration with university research, specialized incubation centers can play a pivotal role in creating new infrastructures that foster current and future entrepreneurial development.

Similar content being viewed by others

Changing entrepreneurial attitudes for mitigating the global pandemic’s social drama

The impact of digital capabilities and dynamic capabilities on business model innovation: the moderating effect of organizational inertia

Entrepreneurial universities and integrated sustainability for the knowledge-based economy: self-perception and some structural challenges in the Gulf region

Introduction.

Innovation provides a gateway to products/services in varied market dynamism by transcending time horizons. Innovations work on the back and call of automatic disruptions that happen in markets through the mediating role of governments, institutions, and academicians, leading to “self-operative” and “self-corrective ecosystems.” Most of the time, innovative processes are self-corrective and operate without much effort. As innovations in products keep evolving, they rekindle customers’ interest and increase the prospects of products for better sales and a long-life cycle (for example, entrepreneurs may offer new features or new looks to older products). To undertake this sort of initiative, commercial freedoms must be guaranteed, which can be used to create, deploy, and protect intangible assets (Teece, 2007 ; Sprinkle, 2003 ). Thus, innovations together with entrepreneurial networks or ecosystems provide dynamic capabilities to the economy by imparting continuity. In that process, entrepreneurs, through their better learning skills and novel methods, create opportunities in changing markets (Garnsey and Leong, 2008 ; Garnsey et al., 2008 ; Kantarelis, 2009 ; Levinson, 2010 ; Biggs et al., 2010 ), as markets are always fueled by disruptions in entrepreneurial ventures, and old products must be replaced by newer ones.

Further, synergy between entrepreneurial ecosystems and research plays a pivotal role in fostering disruptive innovations within contemporary markets. This collaboration, exemplified by the establishment of “spin-off companies” from academic research, is instrumental in guiding aspiring talent and cultivating growth in local economies. However, despite this symbiosis, a notable gap exists in knowledge spillovers between universities and their surrounding entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems. To address this, collaborative and interactive research is recommended, as proposed by Mehta et al. ( 2016 ). Such initiatives not only facilitate self-operative and self-corrective entrepreneurial ecosystems but also contribute to knowledge spillovers that fuel product development and speciation. The interconnected processes of institutionalizing methods, policy entrepreneurship, and knowledge spillovers underscore the intricate relationship between academia, institutional research, and market dynamics, emphasizing the need for cohesive strategies to bridge existing gaps and maximizing the impact of disruptive tendencies in entrepreneurship. This mechanism can receive a boost with the assistance of sustainable innovation of society through “social entrepreneurship education (SEE) programs” (Kim et al., 2020 ), which can be designed and operated to cultivate social entrepreneurial abilities and contribute to the development of innovation hubs for entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs). For example, a study by Igwe et al. ( 2020 ) focused on frugal innovations and informal entrepreneurship, which could lead to the creation of fresh, innovative tendencies in informal sectors of different nations.

So, looking forward, the relevance for the development of entrepreneurial networks (Teece, 2007 ), where innovation can accentuate the need for the intersection of researchers, entrepreneurship, and regional economic development while holding entrepreneurship as a key mechanism. Although there has been much innovative research done in recent years using a systematic literature review approach, it was observed that existing literature typically lacked the required comprehensive theoretical foundations; more work can contribute to the development of suitable theoretical methodologies for practical results in economic development. For example, past literature is focused on intervention of innovation with digital entrepreneurship (Satalkina and Steiner, 2020 ), social entrepreneurship (Fauzi et al., 2022 ). In a similar way, Montes-Martínez and Ramírez-Montoya ( 2022 ) oriented their research towards finding the relationship between educational and social entrepreneurship innovations using a systematic mapping technique and suggested a potential research gap in this area by collating the number of articles published and geographical contributions. Further, the literature also talked about sustainable entrepreneurship (Thananusak, 2019 ), technological innovation and entrepreneurship in management science (Shane and Ulrich, 2004 ), or the role of open innovation in entrepreneurship (Portuguez-Castro, 2023 ).

Conversely, most of these studies deliberated on the genesis, development, and operation of innovative entrepreneurial ecosystems and subsidiary literature contributing to their existence and growth, then those for laying down foundations for newer tendencies the world is witnessing and vying to enable and sustain them during the times of “Contaminant Economic Trends” (abrupt economic disruptions due to the advent of some natural, environmental, or manmade phenomenon such as COVID-19). It is essential to combine and progress research in several important areas to fill the current gaps in the literature on innovation and entrepreneurship. First, a thorough investigation of information effects is necessary for the present connection between innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems, especially through subsidiaries businesses. Mehta et al. ( 2016 ) support collaborative research, but more research is required to understand the mechanisms and obstacles preventing knowledge transfer from institutions to entrepreneurial ecosystems. This research aims to examine the following research questions:

What are the key thematic progressions in innovation research within the field of entrepreneurial ecosystems?

What conceptual models can be recommended based on the existing literature to guide and inform future research endeavors at the intersection of innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems?

To examine the research questions, we applied the text mining approach of the content analysis method on the articles collected on the keywords related to innovation and entrepreneurship for a selected period. This study also aims to fill this gap by designing a model of EE offering multidimensional insights into recent developments in the field of entrepreneurial ecosystems. This study contributes theoretically by synthesizing insights from a systematic literature review to construct a comprehensive model elucidating the intricate dynamics influencing entrepreneurial ecosystems. Identified decisive components—namely, “Evolutionary Theories,” “Governmental Assistance,” “Global Outreach of Academic Innovations,” “Open and Distributed Models of Innovation,” “Entrepreneurial Learning Experience,” and “Social Entrepreneurship”—provide a nuanced understanding of factors shaping enhanced entrepreneurial landscapes. The structured model unveils the synergies underpinning ecosystem development across diverse nations and economies amid economic uncertainties. Moreover, the study posits that government policies, such as subsidized infrastructural support, play a pivotal role in fostering entrepreneurial growth, thereby contributing novel perspectives to the scholarly discourse on entrepreneurial ecosystem evolution.

From this point forward, the paper progresses as follows: Section “Theoretical background and analysis” explains the meaning of innovation and its place in entrepreneurship development and entrepreneurial ecosystem networks; Section “Methodology” reviews prior literature on innovation in the entrepreneurship context; Section “Results” discusses the methodology adopted for the present study and delves into the methods of data collection and analysis for present research; Section “Discussion” discusses the results and analysis done in the present study; Section “Implications, Limitations, and Future Trends” delineates the theoretical implications of the present research and proposes a conceptual model for better innovation in entrepreneurship; and Section “Conclusion” takes up the conclusion part of the study.

Theoretical background and analysis

Past research has mainly focused on developing entrepreneurial ecosystems and their genesis. They hardly focused on what is mainly lacking in the growth process of these ecosystems and why academic knowledge fully fails to translate into entrepreneurial achievements. Moreover, past studies have explored and delineated the extant ecosystems with their peculiarities without looking deep down into the self-operative and self-corrective mechanisms of entrepreneurial ecosystems, which have their own strengths that make them resilient to economic turbulences. The present study highlights this mechanism and forwards a model that explains the process of enhanced ecosystems.

What is innovation?

As per the Schumpeterian view, the practical implementation of ideas for developing new goods and services is innovation (Mehmood et al., 2019 ). ISO TC 279, in the standard of ISO 56000:2020, states that innovation is “a new or changed entity realizing or redistributing value” (ISO, 2020). Definitions of innovations focus on newness, improvement, and the spread of ideas or technologies, products, processes, services, technologies, and artworks (Lijster, 2018 ). Business models that are brought forward by innovators to the market, governments (Bhasin, 2012 ), and society are certain modes through which innovation takes place.

Innovation and entrepreneurship

The advancement of entrepreneurial innovation has necessitated an increased demand for policy interventions that encourage and complement entrepreneurial ecosystems. These interventions are crucial for managing and containing emerging disruptions by introducing effective strategies. The goal is to harness these disruptions for the development of newer and improved entrepreneurial ecosystems, ultimately bringing greater benefits to entrepreneurial ventures. By employing business strategies in indigenous markets, entrepreneurs can carve out niches to meet existing demands and expand into international markets (Sprinkle, 2003 ).

This approach not only enhances enterprise performance in an open economy but also stimulates rapid innovation and disperses dynamic capacities across enterprises, entities, and institutions. According to Teece ( 2007 ), it establishes micro-foundations for entrepreneurial ecosystems, contributing to the formation of innovative networks that support emerging industries (Garnsey and Leong, 2008 ). Additionally, it generates conceptual dimensions by developing complementarities that assist in the adoption of compatible applications (Garnsey et al., 2008 ).

For instance, recent literature on entrepreneurial practices during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic business activities catalyzed by the digital revolution highlights the acceleratory role of digitization in expanding the business world. This digital transformation has led to the development of novel social innovations, transforming entrepreneurial practices and liberating the workforce from being “cabin cooped in individuals” to “flexible timers.” These social disruptors have also prompted the exploration of groundbreaking approaches for assessing nuances that emphasize sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. Lastly, we present the core concepts related to these domains in Table 1 .

Methodology

Many researchers have applied different methodologies for literature review, such as theory-based review (Debellis et al., 2021 ); framework-based systematic review (Rosado-Serrano et al., 2018 ); theme-based structured review (Pansari and Kumar, 2017 ); techno-commercial literature review (Chatterjee et al., 2018 ; Kumar et al., 2020 ); and literature review based on text mining (Kumar et al., 2019 ). As for article selection, researchers indicate selecting a database such as Scopus or Web of Science (Kumar et al., 2023 ; Donthu et al., 2021 ), with which researchers get a better grasp of a specific domain of research (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2020 ) and set the stage for future research (Elsbach & Knippenberg, 2020 ). By looking at our research questions, we have employed content analysis with a text mining approach in this study, which presents thematic analysis and helps present contextual analysis.

Database preparation

The present study seeks to explore the themes underlying the domain of innovation in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Considering the methodology followed by Akter and Wamba ( 2016 ), we searched keywords such as “business entrepreneurship,” “entrepreneurial ecosystem,” and “entrepreneurial networks” on Scopus in the abstract, title, and keywords fields to search relevant documents. There were 2136 articles matching the keywords in January 2023; following this, a search for “innovation” yielded 772 documents. The final filter was performed to select articles and reviews only, which left us with a batch of 392 documents belonging to different subject areas like business management (34.6%), followed by Social Sciences (17.0%), Economics (14.4%), Engineering (7.7%), Environmental Sciences (6.4%), Computer Sciences (3.1%), Decision Sciences (3.1%), Energy (2.7%), Psychology (1.9%), Biochemistry (1.7%), and others (7.4%). All 392 articles’ abstracts were subjected to content analysis (text mining) after selecting the timeframes outlining the extracted themes to showcase the changes in the research.

Different approaches exist for selecting time duration: while Leone et al. ( 2012 ) proposed three years, Kumar et al. ( 2019 ) suggested five years for getting ideal time durations. In this study, the initial timeframe covered research for 13 years (2003–15) as in these years there were very few publications. Afterward, two sets of two-year durations of 2016–17 and 2018–19 were included, followed by three sets of single-year durations (2020, 2021, and 2022). We initially categorized articles by year but found that there were relatively few articles published in the earlier years, with a significant increase after 2010. Consequently, selecting either a 3-year or 5-year timeframe would have resulted in sample size variation by including the number of articles in each timeframe. To address this, we segmented the articles into eight periods, each containing over 40 articles in each timeframe. The year selection was done to reduce the redundancy found during the content analysis of the abstracts.

Analysis method

Looking toward our first research question of key thematic progressions in the selected domain, we applied the content analysis method to the abstract of 392 articles. In the content analysis approach, text mining (Kumar et al., 2019 , Tiwary et al., 2021 ) is a natural language processing (NLP) technique used to explore valuable insights and uncover relationships from unstructured text data. Text mining provides various benefits due to its feature of processing and analyzing large volumes of data quickly, which allows researchers to find trends and patterns effectively, which could be difficult using human approaches. Furthermore, text mining makes it possible to generate useful numerical indices that support the quantification and methodical examination of word clusters, thereby improving the accuracy and effectiveness of content analysis techniques. Text mining is being used in academic research to speed up the analytical process and improve the quality and scope of insights obtained from unstructured textual material (Karami et al., 2020 ; Gurcan and Cagiltay, 2023 ). We applied text mining to capture the themes that emerged from the articles and to create meaningful numeric indices to analyze word clusters (Feldman & Sanger, 2007 ). As for text mining, we used the widely accepted bibliometric tool “VOSViewer” (Van Eck and Waltman, 2010 ) to analyze the abstract by creating a term co-occurrence map.

Following our RQ1 of exploring maturity and themes of innovations in entrepreneurial ecosystems, we first analyzed all the articles published annually as per maturity and research exploration. We present the results from each year group below separately:

Theme that emerged during the year 2003–2015

Conceptual visualization.

During this period, the focus was on exploring themes that were categorized under specific clusters (see Fig. 1 ), “business ecosystem, capability, customer, development, ecosystem service, entrepreneur, Europe, firm, goal, innovation ecosystem, new venture, opportunity, resource, student, success.” These word clusters indicate entrepreneurial symphony , especially capturing nurturing success in the business ecosystem . Further, a cluster containing words like “adoption, case study, culture, ecosystem, emergence, knowledge, phenomenon, small firm, society, strategy, transformation, value” indicates its connection with Cultural Catalysts , unveiling small firm transformation through ecosystem adoption . The third theme under these years contains words like “entrepreneurial innovation, entrepreneurship framework, government, innovation, issue, policy, region, Silicon Valley, university,” indicating its connection with Elevate by Innovation by crafting a robust entrepreneurship framework for regional growth and navigating government policies . The last theme under these years contains words such as “business, case, company, consumer, convergence, enterprises, factor, growth, medium, product, technology” grouping theme under TechConverge Enterprises , which navigates business growth through consumer-centric mediums and product innovation .

Theme of study during the years 2003–2015.

Together, these four themes delve into the complex worlds of innovation, company culture, and entrepreneurship. The focus on cultural catalysts and technological convergence offers a comprehensive knowledge of entrepreneurial alterations, geographic expansion strategies, and the complex aspects influencing global business performance, even while the European and regional views offer specialized insights. For example, Sprinkle ( 2003 ) drew attention to concurrent policy restrictions on commercial and entrepreneurial freedoms that inhibit bioscience advancement. Teece ( 2007 ) explored the globally dispersed sources of invention, innovation, and dynamic manufacturing capabilities to create a self-operative and self-corrective entrepreneurial network based on creative destruction, commercialization, and transformation of product technologies. Le and Tarafdar ( 2009 ) underscored the importance of interactive collaboration and value co-creation in the era of commerce and the Web 2.0 version, as took place on Facebook, Google, and Myspace.

Theoretical aspects

During this period, entrepreneurial success became synonymous with innovation research, primarily stemming from university research efforts. This led to creative destruction, fostering the commercialization, speciation, and transformation of existing products and strategies. Companies sought value co-creation, supported by government policies and academic advancements. Teece ( 2007 ) emphasized the importance of dynamic capabilities, in which firms deploy tangible assets for business through innovative networks. Governmental R&D played a pivotal role in shaping these networks, aligning research with policies. The collaborative nature of business models, as highlighted by Garnsey and Leong ( 2008 ), facilitated speciation, branching, and technological advancement, contributing to “techno-organizational speciation spin-offs” and niche creation for transformative innovations (Kantarelis, 2009 ). However, this perspective is challenged by evolving policies and practices leading to urbanization, expanding markets, and technological speciation across different geographic areas, negatively impacting rural vitality (Nybakk et al., 2009 ).

Proposition: University-driven efforts, collaborative business models, and government policies combined to drive the intersection of innovation research and entrepreneurial success, which resulted in commercialization and transformation. In addition, changing policies and practices have affected rural vitality through urbanization, market expansion, and technological evolution .

Theme emerged during the year 2016–2017

The emergence of clusters (see Fig. 2 ) during the timeframe of 2016–2017 majorly saw research surrounding themes of innovative interactions through entrepreneurial university dynamics community-driven economies (e.g., community, demand, design, economy, entrepreneurial university, government, growth), entrepreneurial evolution by nurturing sustainable innovation and open innovation economy (e.g., entrepreneurship, evolution, innovation, open, innovation), TechHub Nexus by maximizing R&D efficiency, fostering creative development and focusing commercialization capability (e.g., capability, commercialization, creative, economy) and urban prowess through innovative business models by crafting a dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem (e.g., dynamic, ecosystem, business model, regional). Many articles address important aspects of contemporary enterprise, innovation, and regional development. These topics highlight the delicate interplay between academics, technology, and policy, offering nuanced viewpoints critical for supporting innovation, sustainable development, and entrepreneurial growth in a variety of situations.

Theme of study during the year 2016–2017.

Most prominent themes, which were accentuated through the creation of academic entrepreneurship for the creation of maker spaces and creative economy which could forward and contribute towards regional innovations through the “University’s Economic Development Mission” that was instrumental in building up the prospects for “transforming economy” leading to “regional development,” which gave rise to “new ventures development” and created platforms for novel entrepreneurship. Herein, the university ecosystem examines individual intermediaries and facilitates “Student Spin-off Industries” (Hayter, 2016 ). For example, the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States takes up ownership of students’ inventions funded by the government. Consequential, novel themes and new ventures in the entrepreneurial ecosystem emerged (Soundarajan et al., 2016 ) because of emerging models of entrepreneurial universities for transforming the economy in pursuit of regional development through “University Business Cooperations (UBCs)” (Guerrero et al., 2016 ) to tackle the disruptor dilemma by showing the entrepreneurs the profitable path providing platforms for the overall development of regional innovation systems.

Proposition: Academic entrepreneurship facilitated by initiatives like maker spaces and the creative economy may foster regional innovation and new ventures driven by the university’s economic development mission and exemplified by entities such as student spin-off industries .

Theme emerged during the years 2018–2019

The course of this timeframe saw themes associated with (see Fig. 3 ) “startups,” “network,” “innovation policy,” “service innovation,” “social entrepreneurship,” and “academic,” among others. These cluster themes drew on the concepts “Innovation Driven Gazelle Enterprises (IDEs),” “prototype equipment facilities,” “translational research by local universities,” “platformization,” “Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship (KIE),” “KIE Concentration,” “innovative milieus,” “voluntary horizontal knowledge spillovers,” and “Silicon Valley.”

Theme of study during the years 2018–2019.

The most prominent of all themes were “startups” and “networks,” fueling regional entrepreneurship and leading to radically innovative products and services (de Vasconcelos Gomes et al., 2018 ). The cross-connection of entrepreneurial factors and networks in academic and industrial circles is key to transmitting knowledge bases (Qian, 2018 ), leading to the growth of startups. Furthermore, the government’s innovation policies lead to the development of “services innovation” and “social entrepreneurship” through the supportive programs of entrepreneurial development that are further boosted by strong networks created by startups advancement in any regional or national entrepreneurial ecosystem. However, it is still unknown how knowledge networks (Miller et al., 2018 ) influence entrepreneurship processes through supportive environments fostering innovative startups (Spigel and Harrison, 2018 ).

Proposition: The symbiotic relationship between startups, knowledge networks, and government innovation policies may be pivotal in driving regional entrepreneurship, particularly in the development of services innovation and social entrepreneurship, yet the specific influence of knowledge networks on entrepreneurial processes within supportive environments remains unclear and requires further exploration .

Theme that emerged during the year 2020

The themes that originated during this timeframe (see Fig. 4 ) were associated with “academic entrepreneurship,” “social entrepreneurship,” “urban-rural divide,” “disruptive innovation,” and “tourism,” the origination of which was based on tagged-in factors such as “innovation hubs for Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (EEs),” “informal entrepreneurship,” “frugal innovation,” “utility-maximization,” “business incubators,” “innovation transition,” etc.

Theme of study during the year 2020.

“Academic” and “social” were the most prominent themes that emerged during this timeframe, encompassing “academic entrepreneurship,” “social entrepreneurship,” “urban–rural divide,” and “disruptive innovation.” The theme emphasized that academic and social are the two most basic and crucial benchmarks for any economy to have the presence of entrepreneurial ecosystems. They are the only factors that give rise to social entrepreneurship that use social issues as the basis for developing new entrepreneurial ideas to establish social enterprises. This is not only blurring the urban–rural divide but is also using this divide to determine, locate, and pick new opportunities and turn them into successful social entrepreneurship model firms, giving rise to informal and frugal innovations that are leading to utility maximization in resource-scarce ecosystems. This even helps in attaining sustainable innovation, which is the only way for nations to balance industrial growth and the sustainability of resources. For example, Kim et al. ( 2020 ) discussed the role of social entrepreneurship programs in developing sustainable innovation through balanced industrial growth and opined for internal and external connectivity through innovations and sustainable informal entrepreneurship (Igwe et al. 2020 ).

Proposition:The intertwining of academic and social themes within entrepreneurial ecosystems may serve as a foundational driver for social entrepreneurship, blurring the urban–rural divide and fostering sustainable innovations that balance industrial growth with resource sustainability .

Theme that emerged during the year 2021

During this timeframe (see Fig. 5 ), the research focused on “policy implication,” “frugal innovation,” “research,” “innovative behavior,” “intermediary,” “open innovation,” “empirical evidence,” “agent,” “community,” and “social entrepreneurship,” driving on concepts such as “digitization,” “digital platform,” “digital entrepreneurial ecosystems,” “COVID-19”, “pandemic” and “women entrepreneurship,” “circular entrepreneurship,” “sociology,” “emergent entrepreneurship,” “phenomenological inquiry,” “nascent,” “knowledge-intensive,” “returnee entrepreneurial firms,” “Entrepreneurial Discovery Theory,” and “artistic place-making,” among others, which were recurrently referred to by authors in their research works. Furthermore, these themes were spawned from the factors and concepts related to “moderate innovation ecosystems,” “digital platform ecosystems,” “innovation leaders,” “culture entrepreneurship,” “interacting predictors,” etc.

Theme of study during the year 2021.

Out of all themes, the most important themes that emerged were policy implication, frugal innovation (Frugal innovations encompass affordable new products, methods, and designs developed for or emerging from the underserved lower segment of the mass market, often referred to as the ‘bottom of the pyramid), and “innovative behavior,” which were heavily drawn from “digital” associated with terms such as “digitization,” “COVID-19”, “pandemic” etc., and “women entrepreneurship,” “women entrepreneurs,” “women economic empowerment,” “job losses,” and “COVID-19 impact”. These themes essentially and visibly emanated from the term COVID-19, which has been the most effective disruption witnessed in several centuries, sending shock waves and necessitating ‘totally out of the box,’ yet basic and indigenous thought processes and helping the creation of innovations outposts (Decreton et al., 2021 ). The COVID-19 crisis prompted impactful frugal innovations, particularly among jobless women, fostering widespread women’s entrepreneurship amid the digital revolution (Cullen & De Angelis, 2021 ). Digitalization facilitated startups as effective innovation brokers, connecting ecosystems, and promoting synergies. The “Waste Not” strategy contributed to resource-efficient production, circular entrepreneurship, and social purpose organizations. This global shift towards novel economic empowerment models, including priority action roadmaps for women, emerged in response to the pandemic’s impact, creating innovative approaches and strategies (Cullen & De Angelis, 2021 ).

Proposition: The unprecedented disruption caused by COVID-19 has catalyzed transformative innovations, particularly in frugal entrepreneurship driven by jobless individuals, notably women, harnessing digital revolution and waste reduction strategies, thereby fostering women’s entrepreneurship, circular economies, and social purpose organizations on a global scale .

Theme that emerged during the year 2022

The clusters that were accentuated in this timeframe (see Fig. 6 ) were: “biomedical entrepreneurship,” “sustainability,” “translational research,” “demand,” “databases,” “social innovator,” etc. among others, which had their origination from themes such as “digital entrepreneurship,” “digital entrepreneurial ecosystems,” “smart cities,” “circular business models,” “incremental innovation,” “Schumpeterian Entrepreneurship,” “social innovations’ systems,” “Isenberg’s Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Model” (international reference guide for collecting and using data on innovation), “Financial Technology (FinTech) Innovation,” “investment advisory sector,” “trans-disciplinary research,” and “cross cutting themes,” which got frequently referred to by authors in their articles.

Theme of study during the year 2022.

This time period saw the emergence of many “incremental innovations” adding to and revitalizing the existing ones in the wake of COVID-19 (Henrekson et al., 2022 ). To this end, every nation was endeavoring to get hold of resources and diverting them towards translational research, comprising academic entrepreneurial innovations and social innovations (Audretsch et al., 2022 ), culminating in biomedical research and entrepreneurship. Biomedical entrepreneurship was in its heyday as it was the most important aspect related to the major disruptor COVID-19 at the time. As a result, there was a mushrooming of startups catering to biomedical resources to fulfill the demand that was extant in almost all the markets of the world. In addition, the most prominent entrepreneurial success was witnessed in “digital entrepreneurial enterprises,” which rose quickly due to the widespread digitization of almost all of the world’s economies in the wake of COVID-19. This trend of enterprises surpassed all records of success and they skipped decades in their growth journey.

Proposition: The aftermath of COVID-19 witnessed a global pursuit of resources for translational research encompassing social innovations, fueling a surge in biomedical entrepreneurship and the rapid success of digital enterprises due to widespread digitization surpassing conventional growth timelines .

Starting with the first research question, which aimed to organize the thematic progress of innovation research in entrepreneurship, we applied a text-mining approach of content analysis on the six identified year groups. The results highlight that in recent years digitization and frugal innovations have acted as catalysts for novel business models, termed “Abrupt Circumstantial Business Handling Practices (ACBHP)”. These practices spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic include customized products, increased home deliveries, pop-up shops, and ventures, breaking traditional business norms. This led to the emergence of a “Minimalistic Business Model of Manufacturing” (MBMM), where businesses adapted with minimal resources based on market needs during the pandemic. Such disruptions created uncertainties but also introduced new entrepreneurial ecosystem dynamics. In light of this, we present the findings as follows:

Insight 1: Speciation of innovations and technologies

Innovations, technologies, and strategies are the major drivers of economic growth and development. “Speciation” is one such force and mechanism underlying the business thought process, policy formulation, and practices. It enables the factors and actors facilitating entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems to perform business initiation and expansion (Ganzaroli et al., 2014 ), thereby giving rise to newer research factors concerning policy formulations, dynamic capabilities lying latent, and innovative networks. Speciation largely leads to the branching and advancing of technologies (Kantarelis, 2009 ), as was found in the case of the USA, wherein speciation drew attention to the concurrent policy restrictions on commercial and entrepreneurial freedoms. Thereafter, it was witnessed in the most recent case of disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, wherein “digitization” was the main source used by almost every new technology as mainstream, and several speciation methods, products, and strategies emanated from that. This magnetized the innovative network and the think pools to leverage assets and strategies at hand and bring out the necessary synergies, leading to required entrepreneurial and policy frameworks to assist in entrepreneurial advancements.

Insight 2: Global outreach of academic knowledge and innovations

The global outreach of entrepreneurship facilitates rapid innovation, leading to knowledge dispersion, inventions, and enhancement of manufacturing capabilities. Moreover, it helps in “nascent opportunity generation” and innovation networks for inventions, leading to augmentation and advancement of technologies. For example, Guerrero et al. ( 2016 ) delineated the soaring need for research in business and economy and further discussed the issue of individual growth and restriction on scientific and commercial freedoms. Collaborative and interactive research has further been facilitated by innovative value co-creation (Mehta et al. 2016 ), along with the extension of new management processes for the extension of processes beyond existing ecosystems. However, at the same time, it poses a concern for damage and serious harm like mishandling, and misuse of dangerous innovative products, which is why it is necessary to foresee and assist scientific and commercial freedoms (Hayter, 2016 ) with precautions that should be taken to prevent scientific inventions and innovations from harming society in general (Roundy, 2016 ).

Insight 3: Government assistance generating synergies for growth

Government assistance by funding innovations leads to better academic research and innovation-centric activities that generate synergies, impacting and enhancing innovative business ecosystems (Harper-Anderson, 2018 ). Even in developing countries, governments have come forward with schemes for payment for ecosystem services (PES), as done in Costa Rica, for biodiversity protection and conservation endeavors (Fischer et al., 2018 ). The heterogeneity among ventures is largely facilitated by knowledge spillovers and dispersion at the global level (Autio et al., 2018 ), corporate research development (Eckhardt et al., 2018 ), and the regional economic development policy agenda of the nations (Crammond et al., 2018 ), which takes up corporate research to bring about regional-level multidimensional economic systems. To further this process, the traditional “Triple Helix Innovation Model,” focusing on the university-industry-government relationship, and the “Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems” can be used to bring about the required synergies (Mirvis and Googins, 2018 ) and ensure success in business ecosystems based on collaboration and competition (Hu, Yu & Chia, 2018 ; Carayannis et al., 2018 ).

Insight 4: Regional transformation and platformization

Regional transformation through open and distributed models of innovation facilitates the pursuit of entrepreneurship. Regional transformation can be hailed as the “basic innovation driver,” disgorging newer approaches toward entrepreneurship (Igwe et al., 2020 ) and helping policymakers and practitioners (Guerrero et al., 2020 ). Moreover, regional transformation together with platformization creates a typology of different ecosystem structures, thereby shaping high-growth entrepreneurship. Furthermore, they help in exploring the dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems for rural and urban areas (Huggins and Thompson, 2020 ). To this end, many regions are following the “educate, deregulate, and finance” approach to entrepreneurship, as happened in the case of “Financial and Institutional Reforms for Entrepreneurial Society” in Europe (Lyons et al., 2020 ). Another example is the “Innovation Hub Organizations” in African cities, which have become “Fixtures” (Švarc et al., 2020 ). However, regional transformation is not possible without a proper policy (Jia & Desa, 2022 ) that works on key components and factors influencing entrepreneurial processes (Halbinger, 2020 ).

Insight 5: Management of collective risk for radically innovative products

The management of collective risk by social entrepreneurial ecosystems helps in strengthening institutional environmental and bridges uncertainties to radically innovative products (Khurana and Dutta, 2021 ). Investigating innovation drivers in the informal sector may scrutinize the impact of “complementors” within business owners’ strategies, navigating formal and informal rules (Gifford et al., 2021 ). Further, regional economic ecosystems, influenced by human behavior, culture, and environment, require the measurement and development of skills. Tools like “Entrepreneurship Skill-Building Framework (ESBF)” and “Readiness Inventory for Successful Entrepreneurship (RISE),” based on “communimetrics: theory of measurement,” are crucial (Nthubu, 2021 ). The European Smart Specialization Strategy (S3) reflects the latest entrepreneurial ecosystem developments (Khatami et al., 2022 ).

In addition, addressing systematic inequities involves social innovations and financial models like “blended financing” and “public-private partnerships” (PPP) (Volkmann et al., 2021 ). Other factors include affordable business models for resource settings (Guerrero et al., 2021 ), knowledge economy expansion (Plata et al. 2021 ), and new evaluative approaches to local entrepreneurial ecosystems (Liu et al., 2021 ). Innovation strategies by companies like Apple and Uber, financial technology ecosystem development (Canh et al., 2021 ), growth-oriented entrepreneurship in the African business environment (McDaniel et al., 2021 ), and risk mitigation through public-private ownership (Moraes et al. 2023 contribute to assessing and enhancing the global entrepreneurial climate, including the US (Schaeffer, Guerrero & Fischer, 2021 ).

Insight 6: Discovering latent entrepreneurship for emergent entrepreneurship

Empirical studies underscore the crucial role of entrepreneurial learning and experience in unlocking latent resources and hidden capabilities within social and economic ecosystems. A prime example is the transformative impact observed in the US drone industry (Henrekson et al., 2022 ). Innovative ecosystems, particularly those with a knowledge-intensive focus, foster emergent entrepreneurship, notably when returnee entrepreneurs contribute to local firms, enhancing innovation performance in their home countries (Bakry et al., 2022 ). The “discovery theory” further illuminates how digital applications stimulate entrepreneurial alertness, especially in diverse innovation ecosystems, such as the influence of creative industries on social entrepreneurship (Ho and Yoon, 2022 ). The success of new ventures hinges on navigating multifaceted components within entrepreneurship ecosystems (EE) and the broader business environment (Johnson et al., 2022 ).

To overcome these challenges, entrepreneurs strategically establish complex ecosystems, temporarily gaining monopolistic advantages by eliminating competition during the development phase (Raposo et al., 2022 ). Various factors shape entrepreneurial sustainable innovations (ESIs),” with distinct emphasis on policy, finance, human capital, support, and culture within entrepreneurial ecosystems (Berman et al., 2021 ). While creating new businesses is essential, the establishment of institutions supporting entrepreneurial growth is equally vital. Although “Schumpeterian entrepreneurs play a role, the limitations of “top-down policies” in fostering thriving ecosystems for Schumpeterian entrepreneurship are evident (Henrekson et al., 2022 ). Social entrepreneurship, guided by local actors and social innovators with insights into emerging needs, can lead to profit-oriented innovations (Audretsch et al., 2022 ; Bakry et al., 2022 ). Implementing these strategies demands entrepreneurial ecosystems equipped with tools that address the complex and dynamic aspects of development (Johnson et al., 2022 ; Schmutzler et al., 2022 ).

Model for enhanced entrepreneurial ecosystems

The systematic literature review conducted for the present study has yielded insights that can be utilized to enhance entrepreneurial ecosystems. These insights have been integrated into a model explaining the relationship between various decisive components crucial for achieving improved entrepreneurial ecosystems. The key insights of the model are outlined below.

First, the attainment of enhanced entrepreneurial ecosystems is influenced by several factors that interact and synergize, ultimately resulting in the creation of new ecosystems or the enhancement of existing ones. “Evolutionary Theories,” “Governmental Assistance,” “Global Outreach of Academic Innovations,” “Open and Distributed Models of Innovation,” “Entrepreneurial Learning Experience,” and “Social Entrepreneurship” are identified as decisive components in this research. Alongside underlying factors, these components promote and contribute to the enhancement of entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Figure 7 illustrates that entrepreneurial ecosystems develop unique synergies in all nations and economies in response to different types of economic disturbances arising from individual and collective uncertainties. Although there is a pattern and path with the highest probability of yielding better network creation and rapid development of entrepreneurial ecosystems, it is generally guided by the path of economic turmoil or uncertainty they face. Additionally, government policies play a significant role in influencing the creation, operation, and pace of the progress of entrepreneurial ecosystems. For instance, in countries such as South Korea, where entrepreneurs are provided with free or subsidized space for their ventures, there is a notable boost in entrepreneurial growth, leading to the creation of a higher-quality entrepreneurial ecosystem with better services and growth prospects.

Model for Enhanced Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (bidirectional arrow represents interaction between those factors; unidirectional arrow represents research related to innovation across different domains).

Government assistance and support are crucial components that contribute to the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Evolutionary theories from different fields serve as a repository of past initiatives that have proven successful, guiding and enlightening the thought processes of entrepreneurs. These theories often emerge as corrective responses to individual and collective uncertainties or as attempts to rectify anomalies in different ecosystems. Furthermore, government assistance, when integrated into academic research programs, fosters the creation of heterogeneous, innovative models that can be emulated by others. Support for research projects aids in the development of entrepreneurial ecosystem models aligned with market trends and economic turbulence, providing a foundation for theories and fostering entrepreneurial growth.

In addition, the global outreach of academic innovations plays a crucial role in disseminating these innovative models. Through concerted paths, it leads to the development of newer technologies and products. The open and distributed models involved in this process facilitate knowledge spillovers, permeating and transforming the urban and rural economies of nations. Subsequently, this transformative process initiates knowledge spillovers and the diffusion of technology across nations, ushering in uncharted methodologies for addressing challenges and seizing opportunities. This dynamic gives rise to creative industries, fostering a culture of continuous learning and adaptation essential for achieving business sustainability. The enrichment of entrepreneurial learning and experience is evident across diverse nations. Ultimately, this interconnected synergy propels actors and agents of change toward assuming collective responsibilities and championing the cause of social entrepreneurship for greater good and universal growth. The diverse trajectories of entrepreneurial growth invariably encompass these interconnected elements and sequential steps, underscoring the complexity and interdependence inherent in entrepreneurial growth.

Implications, limitations, and future trends

The following section provides implications and limitations.

Theoretical implications

The study underscores crucial theoretical implications, emphasizing that innovation not only introduces novel attributes to business culture but also gives rise to ecosystems capable of developing self-operative and self-corrective mechanisms in response to market disruptions. It asserts that innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems play pivotal roles in implementing sustainable measures to invigorate global economic systems. An examination of the specified period reveals noteworthy themes that significantly contribute to existing knowledge in business and entrepreneurship. The onset of the pandemic triggered a transformative shift in entrepreneurial ecosystems, leading to “venture mushrooming” driven by dynamic factors (Castellani et al., 2022 ). The disruption prompted a strategic response from entrepreneurial think tanks, showcasing their adept management of unprecedented challenges and highlighting the resilience and adaptability of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Ramezani and Camarinha-Matos, 2020 ). Moreover, the disruptions unveiled opportunities and novel resources, particularly in the digital realm, fostering niche entrepreneurial ecosystems driven by individuals, especially women, responding to COVID-19-related challenges (Cullen & De Angelis, 2021 ). The evolution of these ventures highlighted the self-operative and self-corrective nature of entrepreneurial ecosystems, offering insights into the evolving dynamics of the business environment.

Given the unified global markets and increasing trade transactions, entrepreneurial innovations emerge as essential tools to counter challenges to the global economy. To establish effective progressive and corrective mechanisms for market disruptions, there is a pressing need for innovative speciation that addresses specific market needs and customer bases. Global outreach of innovations is crucial for swift knowledge dissemination, and governments should develop collaborative assistance mechanisms to foster growth. Regional transformation and platformization are equally vital for cultivating novel entrepreneurial tendencies among youth. Creating a catalytic environment requires managers to take initiative in dealing with collective uncertainties, fostering the creation of radically innovative products. Finally, to facilitate the process of creating entrepreneurial ecosystems, emphasis should be placed on recognizing emerging entrepreneurial tendencies at regional, national, and international levels through timely support—technical, economic, and moral—to budding entrepreneurs and “visionpreneurs”.

Practical implications

The study underscores critical policy implications by highlighting the role of entrepreneurial ecosystems in fostering and empowering aspiring entrepreneurs. However, it acknowledges the challenges posed by unprecedented changes, which may prove difficult to address. These situations, whether rooted in knowledge banks or not, often present formidable obstacles that cannot be easily overcome with existing skill sets. The study emphasizes the need for emergent entrepreneurs to draw on their previous exposures, urging them to boldly anticipate and explore future trends, particularly as technologies and skill sets evolve with increasingly shorter product life cycles.

Furthermore, the study advocates for close collaboration between governments and entrepreneurial faculties to mitigate negative economic downturns. Given the interconnected and inseparable nature of international trade indices, this research stresses the importance of collective action to prevent potential cascading effects that could lead to significant economic damage in a short period. The research contributes practical policy implications by proposing a model for entrepreneurial ecosystems with self-operative and self-corrective mechanisms. It suggests that governments support the strengths inherent in their ecosystems, providing subsidies, incentives for growth, and specialized incubation center facilities. These facilities, collaboratively developed with university research outcomes, aim to build new infrastructures for entrepreneurial development, ensuring both present and future entrepreneurial growth.

Limitations

This study presents a comprehensive review of collected papers utilizing text mining and content analysis to delve into the dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. However, it acknowledges certain limitations that could impact the breadth and clarity of perspectives. The review focused exclusively on papers matching specific keywords like “Innovation,” “Business Entrepreneurship,” “Entrepreneurial Ecosystem,” and “Entrepreneurial Networks.” Notably, the exclusion of other keywords such as “academic entrepreneurship,” “spillover effects,” and “speciation” might have yielded different insights not covered in this analysis.

Additionally, the choice of the Scopus database as the sole source for article extraction poses another limitation, as utilizing different databases could have resulted in a diverse set of research articles, potentially altering the domain and theme structures. The study’s methodology is also recognized as a limiting factor, as alternative approaches could have produced varied results. Furthermore, the consideration of a nearly two-decade timeframe raises concerns about the relevance of earlier reviews in the rapidly evolving landscape of entrepreneurial needs and trends.

Despite these limitations, the paper makes a noteworthy contribution by providing a general outline and direction for the development of enhanced entrepreneurial ecosystems. It acknowledges the lack of first-hand exposure to entrepreneurial ecosystems, which could have enriched the output. Nevertheless, the study’s significant contribution lies in its comprehensive analysis of entrepreneurial ecosystems and their interplay, aiming for greater output generation, improved growth for the collective good, and the overall welfare of economies, beyond mere economic gains.

In conclusion, while innovations and entrepreneurial ecosystems have been extensively explored in research, a collaborative effort between governments and the intelligentsia is essential to reshape policies. Addressing the identified gap in the literature, the research emphasizes that entrepreneurial ecosystems are not confined to traditional business circles but have evolved through the ingenuity of individuals facing job losses or career shifts. Therefore, this paper aims to provide the thematic improvement that happens in literature and based on that, present the enhanced entrepreneurial ecosystems. This study’s result indicates the necessity of global outreach for swift knowledge dissemination and emphasizes collaborative efforts between governments and entrepreneurial entities to foster growth. Regional transformation and platformization are identified as pivotal in nurturing novel entrepreneurial tendencies, particularly among youth.

This study elucidates critical theoretical implications, highlighting the transformative power of innovation in shaping not only novel attributes within business culture but also the creation of adaptive entrepreneurial ecosystems. The study underscores the need for proactive policymaking and infrastructure support to empower these ecosystems to navigate the evolving landscape. The collaboration between governments and the intelligentsia is highlighted as crucial for ensuring that entrepreneurial ventures thrive and contribute significantly to the broader economic context. This integrated approach aligns policy measures with the dynamic needs of entrepreneurial ecosystems, fostering resilience, adaptability, and sustained success in the face of emerging global challenges. In essence, this research not only contributes to the existing knowledge but also fills a crucial gap by shedding light on the dynamic nature of entrepreneurial ecosystems in the face of unprecedented challenges, providing valuable insights for future research and practical applications.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Akter S, Wamba SF (2016) Big data analytics in E-commerce: a systematic review and agenda for future research. Electron Mark 26:173–194

Article   Google Scholar  

Alvesson M, Sandberg J (2020) The problematizing review: A counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s argument for integrative reviews. J Manag Stud 57(6):1290–1304

Audretsch DB, Eichler GM, Schwarz EJ (2022) Emerging needs of social innovators and social innovation ecosystems. Int Entrepreneurship Manag J 18:217–254

Autio E, Nambisan S, Thomas LD, Wright M (2018) Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strateg Entrep J 12(1):72–95

Bakry DS, Daim T, Dabic M, Yesilada B (2022) An evaluation of the effectiveness of innovation ecosystems in facilitating the adoption of sustainable entrepreneurship. J Small Bus Manag https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2022.2088775

Berman A, Cano-Kollmann M, Mudambi R (2021) Innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems: fintech in the financial services industry. Rev Manag Sci 16(1):45–64

Bhasin K (2012) This Is The Difference Between ‘Invention’ And ‘Innovation’. Business insider, 2–4. https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-difference-between-invention-and-innovation-2012-4?IR=T

Biggs R, Westley FR, Carpenter SR (2010) Navigating the back loop: fostering social innovation and transformation in ecosystem management. Ecol Soc 15:2

Brown R (2016) Mission impossible? Entrepreneurial universities and peripheral regional innovation systems. Ind innov 23(2):189–205

Canh NP, Nguyen B, Thanh SD, Kim S (2021) Entrepreneurship and natural resource rents: evidence from excessive entrepreneurial activity. Sustain Prod Consum 25:15–26

Carayannis EG, Campbell DF (2011) Open innovation diplomacy and a 21st century fractal research, education and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem: building on the quadruple and quintuple helix innovation concepts and the “mode 3” knowledge production system. J Knowl Econ 2:327–372

Carayannis EG, Grigoroudis E, Campbell DF, Meissner D, Stamati D (2018) The ecosystem as helix: an exploratory theory‐building study of regional co‐opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models. Rd Manag 48(1):148–162

Google Scholar  

Castellani D, Perri A, Scalera VG, Zanfei A (Eds) (2022) Cross-border innovation in a changing world: players, places, and policies. Oxford University Press

Chatterjee S, Kumar P, Chatterjee S (2018) A techno-commercial review on grid connected photovoltaic system. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 81:2371–2397

Crammond R, Omeihe KO, Murray A, Ledger K (2018) Managing knowledge through social media: Modelling an entrepreneurial approach for Scottish SMEs and beyond. Baltic J Manag 13(3):303–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-05-2017-0133

Cullen UA, De Angelis R (2021) Circular entrepreneurship: A business model perspective. Resour conserv recycl 168:105300

de Vasconcelos Gomes LA, Salerno MS, Phaal R, Probert DR (2018) How entrepreneurs manage collective uncertainties in innovation ecosystems. Technol Forecast Soc Change 128:164–185

Debellis F, Rondi E, Plakoyiannaki E, De Massis A (2021) Riding the waves of family firm internationalization: a systematic literature review, integrative framework, and research agenda. J World Bus 56(1):101144

Decreton B, Monteiro F, Frangos JM, Friedman L (2021) Innovation outposts in entrepreneurial ecosystems: how to make them more successful. Calif Manag Rev 63(3):94–117

Donthu N, Kumar S, Pandey N, Lim WM (2021) A bibliometric retrospection of marketing from the lens of psychology: insights from psychology & marketing. Psychol Mark 38(5):834–865

Eckhardt JT, Ciuchta MP, Carpenter M (2018) Open innovation, information, and entrepreneurship within platform ecosystems. Strateg Entrepreneurship J 12(3):369–391

Elsbach KD, van Knippenberg D (2020) Creating high‐impact literature reviews: An argument for ‘integrative reviews’. J Manag Stud 57(6):1277–1289

Fauzi MA, Muhamad Tamyez PF, Kumar S (2022) Social entrepreneurship and social innovation in ASEAN: past, present, and future trends. J Soc Entrepreneurship https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2022.2143870

Feldman R, Sanger J (2007) The text mining handbook: advanced approaches in analyzing unstructured data. Cambridge university press

Fischer BB, Schaeffer PR, Vonortas NS, Queiroz S (2018) Quality comes first: university-industry collaboration as a source of academic entrepreneurship in a developing country. J Technol Transf 43:263–284

Ganzaroli A, De Noni I, Pilotti L (2014) The role of social entrepreneurship in leveraging exaptation in locked-in industrial districts: the case of Idrogenet in the industrial district of Lumezzane. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 27(3):254–274

Garnsey E, Leong YY (2008) Combining resource‐based and evolutionary theory to explain the genesis of bio‐networks. Ind Innov 15(6):669–686

Garnsey E, Lorenzoni G, Ferriani S (2008) Speciation through entrepreneurial spin-off: the Acorn-ARM story. Res Policy 37(2):210–224

Gifford E, McKelvey M, Saemundsson R (2021) The evolution of knowledge-intensive innovation ecosystems: co-evolving entrepreneurial activity and innovation policy in the West Swedish maritime system. Ind Innov 28(5):651–676

Groth OJ, Esposito M, Tse T (2015) What Europe needs is an innovation‐driven entrepreneurship ecosystem: Introducing EDIE. Thunderbird Int Bus Rev 57(4):263–269

Guerrero M, Santamaría-Velasco CA, Mahto R (2021) Intermediaries and social entrepreneurship identity: implications for business model innovation. Int J Entrepreneurial Behav Res 27(2):520–546

Guerrero M, Urbano D, Gajón E (2020) Entrepreneurial university ecosystems and graduates’ career patterns: do entrepreneurship education programmes and university business incubators matter? J Manag Dev 39(5):753–775

Guerrero M, Urbano D, Fayolle A, Klofsten M, Mian S (2016) Entrepreneurial universities: emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Bus Econ 47:551–563

Gurcan F, Cagiltay NE (2023) Research trends on distance learning: a text mining-based literature review from 2008 to 2018. Interact Learn Environ 31(2):1007–1028

Halbinger MA (2020) The relevance of makerspaces for university-based venture development organizations. Entrepreneurship Res J 10(2)

Harper-Anderson E (2018) Intersections of partnership and leadership in entrepreneurial ecosystems: Comparing three US regions. Econ Dev Q 32(2):119–134

Hayter CS (2016) A trajectory of early-stage spin-off success: the role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Small Bus Econ 47:633–656

Henrekson M, Kärnä A, Sanandaji T (2022) Schumpeterian entrepreneurship: coveted by policymakers but impervious to top-down policymaking. J Evolut Econ 32(3):867–890

Ho JY, Yoon S (2022) Ambiguous roles of intermediaries in social entrepreneurship: the case of social innovation system in South Korea. Technol Forecast Soc Change 175:121324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009

Huggins R, Thompson P (2020) Human agency, entrepreneurship, and regional development: A behavioural perspective on economic evolution and innovative transformation. Entrepreneurship Reg Dev 32(7-8):573–589

Hu TS, Yu CW, Chia PC (2018) Knowledge exchange types and strategies on the innovation interactions between KIBS firms and their clients in Taiwan. Cogent Bus Manag 5(1):1534527

Igwe PA, Odunukan K, Rahman M, Rugara DG, Ochinanwata C (2020) How entrepreneurship ecosystem influences the development of frugal innovation and informal entrepreneurship. Thunderbird Int Bus Rev 62(5):475–488

Jia X, Desa G (2022) Social entrepreneurship and impact investment in rural–urban transformation: An orientation to systemic social innovation and symposium findings. In Social Innovation and Sustainability Transition (pp. 283–305). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland

Johnson E, Hemmatian I, Lanahan L, Joshi AM (2022) A framework and databases for measuring entrepreneurial ecosystems. Res Policy 51(2):104398

Kantarelis D (2009) Entrepreneurship in the USA: architecture, market structure and incentives. Int J Entrepreneurship Innov Manag 9(3):191–203

Karami A, Lundy M, Webb F, Dwivedi YK (2020) Twitter and research: a systematic literature review through text mining. IEEE Access 8:67698–67717

Khatami F, Scuotto V, Krueger N, Cantino V (2022) The influence of the entrepreneurial ecosystem model on sustainable innovation from a macro-level lens. Int Entrepreneurship Manag J 18:1419–1451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00788-w

Khurana I, Dutta DK (2021) From latent to emergent entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: the role of entrepreneurial learning. Technol Forecast Soc Change 167:120694

Kim MG, Lee JH, Roh T, Son H (2020) Social entrepreneurship education as an innovation hub for building an entrepreneurial ecosystem: The case of the KAIST social entrepreneurship MBA program. Sustainability 12(22):9736

Kumar P, Hollebeek LD, Kar AK, Kukk J (2023) Charting the intellectual structure of customer experience research. Mark Intell Plan 41(1):31–47

Kumar P, Sharma A, Salo J (2019) A bibliometric analysis of extended key account management literature. Ind Mark Manag 82:276–292

Kumar R, Anand A, Kumar P, Kumar RK (2020) Internet of Things and social media: a review of literature and validation from Twitter Analytics. In 2020 International Conference on Emerging Smart Computing and Informatics (ESCI) (pp. 158–163). IEEE

Le TT, Tarafdar M (2009) Business ecosystem perspective on value co-creation in the Web 2.0 era: implications for entrepreneurial opportunities. Int J Entrepreneurial Venturing 1(2):112–130

Leone RP, Robinson LM, Bragge J, Somervuori O (2012) A citation and profiling analysis of pricing research from 1980 to 2010. J Business Res 65(7):1010–1024

Levinson NS (2010) Innovation in cross-national alliance ecosystems. Int J Entrepreneurship Innov Manag 11(3):258–263

Lijster T (2018) The future of the new: Artistic innovation in times of social acceleration. Valiz

Liu H, Kulturel-Konak S, Konak A (2021) A measurement model of entrepreneurship education effectiveness based on methodological triangulation. Stud Educ Eval 70:100987

Lyons TS, Lyons JS, Jolley GJ (2020) Entrepreneurial skill-building in rural ecosystems: a framework for applying the Readiness Inventory for Successful Entrepreneurship (RISE). J Entrepreneurship Public Policy 9(1):112–136

McDaniel M, Sutter C, Webb JW, Elgar FJ, Parker KF, Nwachu J (2021) Breaking the cycle of crime: promoting the positive social spillover potential of entrepreneurship. J Bus Venturing Insights 16:e00249

Mehmood T, Alzoubi HM, Alshurideh M, Al-Gasaymeh A, Ahmed G (2019) Schumpeterian entrepreneurship theory: evolution and relevance. Acad Entrepreneurship J 25(4):1–10

Mehta K, Zappe S, Brannon ML, Zhao Y (2016) An educational and entrepreneurial ecosystem to actualize technology-based social ventures. Adv Eng Educ 5(1):n1

Miller K, Alexander A, Cunningham JA, Albats E (2018) Entrepreneurial academics and academic entrepreneurs: a systematic literature review. Int J Technol Manag 77(1-3):9–37

Mirvis P, Googins B (2018) Engaging employees as social innovators. Calif Manag Rev 60(4):25–50

Montes-Martínez R, Ramírez-Montoya MS (2022) Systematic mapping: educational and social entrepreneurship innovations (2015–2020). Educ+ Train 64(7):923–941

Moraes GHSMD, Spers EE, Mendes L, Silva HMRD (2023) Corporate entrepreneurship at the university: the influence of managerial support, autonomy and reward on the innovative behavior of university professors. J Entrepreneurship Emerg Econ 15(2):404–424

Nthubu B (2021) The value of a co-design visualization approach: Enhancing the understanding of local entrepreneurial ecosystems. Des J 24(5):749–760

Nybakk E, Crespell P, Hansen E, Lunnan A (2009) Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. For Ecol and Manag 257(2):608–618

Pansari A, Kumar V (2017) Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and consequences. J Acad Mark Sci 45:294–311

Peña Gallo ML (2021) The European Social Innovation Diplomacy, a post-2020 Strategy to put the EU at the Global Scene: The role of Sweden as an innovative leader

Plata G, Aparicio S, Scott S (2021) The sum of its parts: examining the institutional effects on entrepreneurial nodes in extensive innovation ecosystems. Ind Mark Manag 99:136–152

Portuguez-Castro M (2023) Exploring the potential of open innovation for co-creation in entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review. Adm Sci 13(9):198

Qian H (2018) Knowledge-based regional economic development: a synthetic review of knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Econ Dev Q 32(2):163–176

Ramezani J, Camarinha-Matos LM (2020) Approaches for resilience and antifragility in collaborative business ecosystems. Technol Forecast Soc Change 151:119846

Ranga M, Perälampi J, Kansikas J (2016) The new face of university–business cooperation in Finland. Sci Public Policy 43(5):601–612

Raposo M, Fernandes CI, Veiga PM (2022) We dreamed a dream that entrepreneurial ecosystems can promote sustainability. Manag Environ Qual: Int J 33(1):86–102

Rosado-Serrano A, Paul J, Dikova D (2018) International franchising: a literature review and research agenda. J Bus Res 85:238–257

Roundy PT (2016) Start-up community narratives: The discursive construction of entrepreneurial ecosystems. J Entrepreneurship 25(2):232–248

Satalkina L, Steiner G (2020) Digital entrepreneurship and its role in innovation systems: a systematic literature review as a basis for future research avenues for sustainable transitions. Sustainability 12(7):2764

Schaeffer PR, Guerrero M, Fischer BB (2021) Mutualism in ecosystems of innovation and entrepreneurship: A bidirectional perspective on universities’ linkages. J Bus Res 134:184–197

Schmutzler J, Pugh R, Tsvetkova A (2022) Contextual and evolutionary perspectives on entrepreneurial ecosystems. insights from Chris. Freeman’s Think Innov Dev 12(1):13–21

Shane SA, Ulrich KT (2004) 50th anniversary article: technological innovation, product development, and entrepreneurship in management science. Manag Sci 50(2):133–144

Soundarajan N, Camp SM, Lee D, Ramnath R, Weide BW (2016) NEWPATH: an innovative program to nurture IT entrepreneurs. Adv Eng Educ 5(1):n1

Spigel B, Harrison R (2018) Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strateg Entrepreneurship J 12(1):151–168

Sprinkle RH (2003) The biosecurity trusts. BioScience 53(3):270–277

Švarc J, Dabić M, Daim TU (2020) A new innovation paradigm: European cohesion policy and the retreat of public science in countries in Europe’s scientific periphery. Thunderbird Int Bus Rev 62(5):531–547

Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and micro foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 28(13):1319–1350

Tiwary NK, Kumar RK, Sarraf S, Kumar P, Rana NP (2021) Impact assessment of social media usage in B2B marketing: A review of the literature and a way forward. J Bus Res 131:121–139

Thananusak T (2019) Science mapping of the knowledge base on sustainable entrepreneurship, 1996–2019. Sustainability 11(13):3565

Van Eck N, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84(2):523–538

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Volkmann C, Fichter K, Klofsten M, Audretsch DB (2021) Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: an emerging field of research. Small Bus Econ 56(3):1047–1055

Yoda N, Kuwashima K (2020) Triple helix of university–industry–government relations in Japan: transitions of collaborations and interactions. J Knowl Econ 11:1120–1144

Zahra SA, Nambisan S (2011) Entrepreneurship in global innovation ecosystems. AMS Rev 1:4–17

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chandragupt Institute of Management Patna, Patna, India

Rishi Kant Kumar, Rana Singh & Kumod Kumar

Department of Management studies, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, India

Srinivas Subbarao Pasumarti

Centre of Applied Research in Management and Economics, Polytechnic Leiria, Leiria, Portugal

Ronnie Joshe Figueiredo

Dewan Institute of Management Studies CCS University, Meerut, India

O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India

Prashant Kumar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Rishi and Srinivas designed the study, performed data analysis, and wrote the manuscript. Ronnie contributed to data collection, interpretation of results. Rana and Sachi contributed to the interpretation of the data and critical revision of the manuscript. Kumod assisted in data acquisition and manuscript preparation. Prashant provided critical feedback, improvised network diagram and model, and revised the manuscript for intellectual content. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. All contributed authors have been listed in this article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rishi Kant Kumar .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kumar, R.K., Pasumarti, S.S., Figueiredo, R.J. et al. Innovation dynamics within the entrepreneurial ecosystem: a content analysis-based literature review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 366 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02817-9

Download citation

Received : 25 September 2023

Accepted : 09 February 2024

Published : 06 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02817-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Intelligent Cities – Smart Cities – Innovation Ecosystems
• Research Areas
• [email protected]
• +30 2310 028 615

Watch: Innovation ecosystems

Place-based innovation ecosystems: a case-study comparative analysis.

The authors seek to generate scientific evidence for the future development of the European Union policies related to innovation in the context of regional and urban Innovation Ecosystems, emphasising the importance of the place-based dimension of innovation for the purpose of local economic transformation.

The selected PIE cases across EU are Espoo Innovation Garden and Aalto University (Finland), Digital Social Innovation in Barcelona (Spain), Volvo companies in Gothenburg (Sweden) and Ljubljana Start-up Ecosystem and the Technology Park Ljubljana (Slovenia). These cases are targets of the European Union’ s cohesion policy framework, with RIS3 as an ex-ante conditionality (EU Regulation 1301/2013).  The Boston-Cambridge Innovation Ecosystem (Massachusetts, United States of America) serves as a “Satellite’ case in the case series and follows a different (non-European) policy framework (RIS3 is not mandatory).

Rissola and Haberleithner create the conceptual framework for the case studies based on the following questions that highlight the territorial dimension of innovation:

• why does innovation take place in certain places and not in others?
• what are the contextual conditions and public interventions enabling such innovations to happen in a specific site?

Throughout the study, the term “place-based” reflects efforts towards urban or regional economic transformation that exceeds the eventual effects of national or even EU level strategies. The authors recognise the basis of this concept in the empowerment of a bottom-up approach that seeks benefits for the concerned city or region, and connect it with the philosophy behind Smart Specialisation.

Five different models of Place-based Innovation Ecosystems are defined based on the territorial dimension, the roles of main actors, the ecosystem contextualisation of Smart Specialisation strategies and entrepreneurial discovery process  and the key enabling factors of each innovation ecosystem:

• The Entrepreneurial University Innovation Ecosystem (Espoo)
• The Digital Social Innovation Ecosystem (Barcelona)
• The Industrial Innovation Ecosystem (Gothenburg)
• The Start-up Innovation Ecosystem (Ljubljana) and
• The Innovation District Ecosystem (Boston-Cambridge)

Each of these models has  the potential to serve as an indicative reference for the development of other EU (and non-EU) cases.

This study evidences a high complexity of innovation ecosystems with different levels of implementation of the Quadruple Helix Model and different kind of interrelations with Smart Specialisation Strategies and their inherent Entrepreneurial Discovery Processes.

The conclusions are summarised by the authors in the following points:

• The analysed innovation ecosystems are of high complexity, with strong individual system properties. Each system is representing a particular type of innovation ecosystem
• There are different levels of implementation of the Quadruple Helix Model (4H), from a rudimentary application to a transforming stage from Triple Helix to 4 H and up to fully adapted
• Smart Specialisation Strategies (RIS3)- and, in particular, the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (EDP), which vertebrates their definition and implementation- have different levels of interrelation with the questioned ecosystems, from a very low influence to the ecosystem up to fully related to the relevant processes and dynamics.
• The orchestrators or main key-players play an essential role in the innovation ecosystems, influencing directly and indirectly their development- they are enabling interaction across the quadruple helix actors and implement governance structures that support the circulation of knowledge dynamically on different territorial scales.
• Local, regional, national and international innovation-related policy agendas have a relevant impact on the strategic directions of innovation ecosystems, for example the UN2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
• Innovation ecosystems are significantly dependent on talent attraction and retaining, on an entrepreneurial and risk-taking culture, as well as on the presence of R&I infrastructure and on compatible and complementary system stakeholders.
• Internationalisation is a core element of competitive, sustainable and successful implementation of place-based innovation ecosystems.
• There is no single and conclusive recipe for the successful implementation of place-based innovation ecosystems.

The next steps on this JRC research line will be the conceptualisation of a case analysis model based on this comparative analysis and a critical review of the original conceptual and methodological framework.

Find the study here .

Related Articles

• New Paper_DIY Laboratories and Business Innovation Ecosystems: The case of…
• Paper_Classifying Pathways for Smart City Development
• New paper: The Use of IoT Technology in Smart Cities and Smart Villages:…
• New book: Geographies of Disruption
• Ten use cases of innovative data - driven approaches for policymaking at EU level
• New Paper_Smart Specialisation 2.0: Driving Public Funds Towards Platforms and Ecosystems
• A Vision for Europe: Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World
• New Paper_ Digital Transformation of City Ecosystems: Platforms Shaping Engagement…
• Local Innovation Systems project
• Future Innovation Ecosystems
• New book: Quantitative Methods for Place-Based Innovation Policy_ Measuring the…
• What is an Innovation Ecosystem?
• INTELLIGENT CITIES
• Digital Cities / Cyber Cities
• Intelligent / Smart Cities Strategy
• Business Models
• IntelCities Measurement
• Videos on Intelligent Cities
• INNOVATIONS ECOSYSTEMS
• Knowledge Economy
• Innovation Clusters
• Innovative Companies
• Technology Parks
• Living Labs
• Innovative Cities & Regions
• Regional Systems of Innovation
• Innovation Strategies
• Innovation Measurement
• PLATFORMS – APPLICATIONS
• Platforms, Apps, Solutions
• Virtual Environment-Technologies
• Smart Cities Solutions
• Strategic Intelligence – Foresight
• Collective Intelligence
• Technology Transfer – Learning
• Collaborative Innovation
• Dissemination – Promotion

Beyond the pandemic: The next chapter of innovation in vaccines

Vaccines are vital to global health, saving millions of lives each year. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored their importance, with more than 20 million lives saved in the first year of vaccine deployment alone. This achievement was fueled by an unprecedented acceleration in innovation, with multiple COVID-19 vaccine candidates developed and launched within roughly one year, a process that historically has taken a decade on average.

About the authors

This article is a collaborative effort by Adam Sabow , Jennifer Heller , Michael Conway , and  Rosa Poetes , with Elizabeth Rowland and Jen DeBerardinis, representing views from McKinsey’s Life Sciences Practice.

This level of activity was dramatically different from what we saw in our 2019 analysis , which revealed signs that the vaccine innovation engine had begun to sputter. While the two decades preceding the pandemic saw strong growth in the vaccine industry—with pipelines doubling and annual growth rates of 12 to 15 percent—we identified four indicators of stagnation in 2019: slowing revenue growth (only 5 percent across the industry over the previous five years), a flattening development pipeline, higher attrition rates for vaccines compared with other biologics, and limited progress targeting disease areas of high unmet need, particularly those endemic to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

At that time, we highlighted opportunities to reinvigorate vaccine innovation across six major vaccine archetypes (Exhibit 1) by addressing commercial and technical obstacles and advocated for a comprehensive and shared approach among the relevant stakeholders, including manufacturers, governments, academia, research centers, and the private sector. Some of these strategies proved instrumental to the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Now, roughly three years after the surge of innovation spurred by the pandemic, the vaccine industry faces another critical juncture. Despite accelerated vaccine innovation for certain diseases, progress remains uneven, and significant unmet needs persist. This article explores how the pandemic transformed the business case for vaccines. It proposes five actions the vaccine ecosystem can take to harness the pandemic-driven momentum to accelerate vaccine innovation more broadly and to tackle global health challenges more effectively.

Progress (and unmet needs) across the postpandemic vaccine landscape

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines was propelled by multiple factors, including enhanced funding, operational efficiency, technological advancements, and regulatory flexibility. The COVID-19 innovation model has spurred advancements in other areas, particularly in respiratory diseases, which saw ten launches in the United States alone from 2020 to 2023 (up from three between 2016 and 2019). 1 Vaccines licensed for use in the United States, US Food and Drug Administration, updated on December 1, 2023. In the past several years, multiple vaccines targeting diseases that primarily affect LMICs, such as dengue and chikungunya, have also been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The vaccine development pipeline has also seen a rise in Phase III candidates (Exhibit 2), which include two meningitis vaccines, a possible human cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine, and a promising vaccine against invasive pneumococcal disease in adults.

The overall vaccine development timeline is also compressing (Exhibit 3). Although not as rapid as the unprecedented COVID-19 timeline, which was roughly one year, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines have been developed within a three- to five-year time frame (the start of clinical development through regulatory approval), 2 Based on data from ClinicalTrials.gov, National Library of Medicine, accessed in April 2024. a pace significantly quicker than historical norms. Other vaccine types that are also moving relatively quickly through the clinical phases include Moderna’s messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) combination vaccine candidate for RSV and seasonal influenza, which is on a three- to four-year projected development timeline. 3 Based on data from ClinicalTrials.gov, National Library of Medicine, accessed in April 2024.

Despite these advances, progress has been uneven across different vaccine archetypes (Exhibit 4). 4 The archetypes have been slightly modified from the 2019 article to reflect market evolution. Multiple vaccines were launched in recent years that target residual unmet needs (archetype two) such as malaria, pneumonia, and meningitis, with additional late-stage candidates in the pipeline. However, few vaccine candidates for neglected diseases (archetype five) have progressed to late-stage clinical development. Vaccines for this disease archetype face high levels of commercial uncertainty as well as technical complexity, including difficulty in generating protective immunity.

Vaccines targeting persisting global threats (archetype three), including HIV and the Epstein–Barr virus, face technical challenges in identifying appropriate antigens and generating sufficient immune responses, especially for pathogens with complex life cycles. And although concerns about hospital-acquired antibiotic-resistant infections have piqued interest in nosocomial-associated threats (archetype six), efforts to develop vaccines for them have returned mixed results.

Some projects, such as an E. coli vaccine candidate, 5 “Press release: Sanofi announces agreement for potential first-in-class vaccine against extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli,” Sanofi, October 3, 2023. have moved into Phase III trials; others, including several C. difficile vaccine attempts, 6 Nick Paul Taylor, “Pfizer fails phase 3 C. diff vaccine test but still spies possible path forward,” Fierce Biotech, March 1, 2022. have not been successful. These initiatives also face commercial and logistical challenges, including uncertainties about how to identify the target demographic for vaccination and the optimal timing for vaccine administration.

Addressing disparities and accelerating vaccine development for these unmet needs remain crucial in the ongoing fight against infectious diseases. Overcoming technical challenges and streamlining the development process will be essential to closing the gaps in the vaccine development pipeline and ensuring worldwide equitable access to lifesaving vaccines.

How COVID-19 vaccine development changed the business case

The development of vaccines targeting infectious diseases has historically been hindered by an unfavorable business case characterized by high capital costs, long regulatory timelines, increased opportunity costs, technical complexity, and commercial uncertainty. However, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic strengthened the vaccine business case and led to a remarkable 30 percent increase in vaccine candidates over the past five years (Exhibit 5). These changes to the business cases—which demonstrated what is possible when the right stakeholders work together to accelerate innovation—included the following:

• Clarity of commercial demand. Advanced purchase commitments by organizations—including the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the US Department of Defense, which collectively purchased $29 billion worth of COVID-19 vaccines between 2020 and 2022, and the public–private partnership (PPP) Gavi, which committed to raising $3.8 billion for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines for 92 LMICs 7 “New partnership to help meet country demand for COVID-19 vaccines,” MedAccess, April 7, 2022. —provided demand clarity and reduced commercial uncertainty for COVID-19 vaccines.

Economic R&D and manufacturing incentives. Unprecedented levels of funding were also appropriated for vaccine R&D, including more than $2 billion each from the US federal government and the global PPP Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). Canada, Germany, and other public- and private-sector stakeholders worldwide also directly invested in expanding manufacturing capacity to reduce the financial risk of scaling up vaccine production. 8 “COVID-19 vaccine R&D investments,” Knowledge Portal on Innovation and Access to Medicines, European Commission, June 6, 2021.

Despite a substantial increase in public funding, it is important to note that private funding for infectious disease vaccine R&D still lags behind funding in other areas, with only 3.4 percent of the total venture capital raised for biopharmaceutical companies during the past ten years going to companies with infectious-disease-vaccine programs, compared with 38 percent for oncology programs. 9 David Thomas and Chad Wessel, The state of innovation in vaccines and prophylactic antibodies for infectious diseases , BIO, December 2023.

• Collaboration, data sharing, and early consultation on innovation design. The collaborative operating model between innovators and regulators included more frequent interactions, clarity on target product profiles and trial design, and a commitment to rapid-review timelines, all while prioritizing patient safety. This new operating model significantly reduced clinical trial risk and uncertainty for innovators, leading to faster development and authorization of COVID-19 vaccines.

Although the speed, magnitude, and cohesiveness of these responses are far more sustainable during a pandemic than in a “steady state” (noncrisis-related) vaccine development environment, they have given the industry a model for accelerating innovation.

Five actions for accelerating vaccine innovation beyond a crisis

The vaccine ecosystem now faces another inflection point: Will it revert to a state that is more susceptible to a challenging business case, or will it draw lessons from the pandemic and sustain or even accelerate the vaccine innovation momentum it ignited? The five actions detailed below (and outlined in Exhibit 6) aim to enhance the vaccine development landscape by addressing key drivers such as investment requirements, regulatory hurdles, and market uncertainties.

1. Expanding R&D and manufacturing partnerships: New collaboration models

The COVID-19 pandemic showed how alliances among companies, not for profits, academia, and governments can accelerate R&D and manufacturing. Several of the most quickly approved COVID-19 vaccines represented R&D partnerships among research institutes, academia, and industry, including the National Institutes of Health/Moderna and the University of Oxford/AstraZeneca collaborations.

In addition, broader collaborations such as the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) partnership brought together US federal agencies, innovators, academia, and others to develop a research strategy to accelerate the development of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics and coordinate clinical trials. Vaccine manufacturing partnerships and networks also grew significantly during the pandemic—more than 70 percent of the 374 manufacturing and supply chain announcements involved a collaboration among multiple stakeholders. 10 “First-of-its-kind event brings together 10 companies that partnered to deliver vaccines and treatments in response to COVID-19,” IFPMA, June 9, 2023.

There are signs that these types of partnerships will continue to grow in the coming years, particularly partnerships focused on rapid production of vaccines for future pandemics, such as the one CEPI is building in the Global South. 11 “CEPI invites vaccine developers and manufacturers to join global outbreak response network,” CEPI, April 6, 2022. Maintaining these partnerships beyond the pandemic context could lower capital costs and speed up production. However, new collaboration models are required to ensure rapid technology transfer with minimal risk and resource demands.

2. Enhancing commercial viability through global funding: New sources for vaccine development

The scale of COVID-19 funding is unrealistic for steady-state vaccine development and potentially even unnecessary for more commercially attractive “blockbuster” vaccines. However, targeted funding commitments can reduce investment risks and promote ongoing innovation, particularly for vaccine candidates aimed at diseases prevalent in LMICs. The ones set up by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and Gavi could inspire the design of future funding mechanisms.

Even without the scale of COVID-19 investment, global funders and international institutions can boost the commercial appeal of vaccine development if they offer clear innovation funding incentives. For example, Gavi’s recently established African Vaccine Manufacturing Accelerator has committed to making $1 billion available to manufacturers at critical moments in the development process to offset their start-up costs and create demand certainty for vaccines that may be needed to prevent future pandemics.

3. Boosting vaccination rates: New ecosystem partnerships to create commercial demand

The pandemic demonstrated the potential for high vaccination rates among the adult population. Sustaining such levels will require coordinated efforts across the healthcare ecosystem to improve vaccine access, engage populations that are more vulnerable to certain diseases, and innovate delivery methods.

COVID-19 vaccination rates among adults who received first doses were historically high during the pandemic; conversely, the vaccination rates for subsequent booster doses have been in line with and, in some cases, lower than the rates for other adult vaccines. As of March 2024, fewer than 25 percent of eligible adults in the United States had received an updated 2023–24 COVID-19 vaccine since September 2023. 12 COVIDVaxView: Weekly COVID-19 vaccination dashboard, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024. Despite the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended immunization schedule for adults, 13 “Recommended adult immunization schedule, United States, 2024,” Annals of Internal Medicine , January 2024, Volume 177, Number 2. adult immunization rates are consistently lower than those of children and vary significantly by geography and demography. 14 Routine vaccinations: Adult rates vary by vaccine type and other factors , US Government Accountability Office, October 17, 2022. Each year for the past decade, only 30 to 50 percent of mid-adults (18 to 64 years old) have gotten a seasonal influenza vaccine. 15 Flu vaccination coverage, United States, 2022-23 influenza season , US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 10, 2023.

To help ensure the public health benefits and stabilize the commercial demand, the public sector, vaccine manufacturers, retail pharmacies, and other stakeholders could take the following coordinated and complementary actions:

• Gather better insights related to vaccination rates and drivers, with an aspiration to build COVID-19-level granular data on vaccination rates and demographics, as well as investments to regain vaccine confidence and build momentum.
• Use digital and nondigital tools to disseminate and clarify the immunization schedule for individuals, recognizing barriers to reach certain populations.
• Invest in novel strategies to identify target populations that are more vulnerable to certain diseases and engage them where they are, including employing trusted messengers.
• Maintain access to vaccines through new channels that were activated during the COVID-19 pandemic (for example, pharmacies and mobile clinics) to support more convenient delivery of new vaccines.
• Utilize innovator and funder investments in new delivery technologies that have the potential to increase people’s willingness to get vaccinated. For example, vaccine microarray patches (VMAPs) and vaccine pills, which can potentially increase vaccine adoption, will need to overcome significant hurdles to widespread availability, including production at commercial scale.

4. Investing in flexible manufacturing capabilities: New funding and incentives to derisk vaccine production

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of fungible capacity to reduce bottlenecks to widespread vaccine availability. Transitioning toward flexible, multiproduct manufacturing can help ensure readiness for future pandemics and streamline production processes.

The historical model, in which most large vaccine manufacturing facilities specialize in a single product, may no longer be fully fit for purpose, particularly given the need to prepare for future pandemics. One example of fungible manufacturing is at-scale systems that either allow the production of multiple vaccine types on the same platform or can produce the same vaccine on various platforms. Such flexible technology platforms will be critical to avoid building excess capacity. They will also likely be most crucial in the shorter term, particularly in the context of pandemic preparedness.

However, the expense of flexible capacity will require new incentives and significant investment on behalf of funders and manufacturers. We are seeing some promising signs of innovation. For example, Sanofi’s Evolutive Vaccine Facilities platform is designed around a central unit housing several fully digital production modules, making it possible to produce three to four vaccines simultaneously. 16 “Sanofi invests to make France its world class center of excellence in vaccine research and production,” Sanofi press release, June 16, 2020. This modularity can make it possible to prioritize the production of a specific vaccine more quickly.

5. Advancing global regulatory alignment and regulator–innovator collaboration: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the benefits of cooperation, communication, and collaboration between innovators and regulators, which could be integrated into regular practice for other diseases. For example, at a 2023 US Senate hearing, the FDA commissioner discussed a program from the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) devoted to emerging pathogens. The program would, among other things, expedite reviews, provide guidance to developers, leverage real-world data for product assessment, and support advanced manufacturing. 17 “Preparing for the next public health emergency: Reauthorizing the pandemic and all-hazards preparedness act: Testimony of Robert M. Califf,” US Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, May 4, 2023.

Initiatives launched before the pandemic can offer inspiration for the design of new vaccine-focused mechanisms. For example, the European Union’s PRIME initiative, launched in 2016, offers enhanced support for the development of therapies addressing unmet needs, including early contact with the European Medicines Agency and expedited scientific advice during development. The FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence Real-Time Oncology Review (RTOR) program, launched in 2018, enables faster reviews by allowing submission of top-line efficacy and safety results for drug candidates likely to demonstrate substantial improvements or candidates with straightforward study designs. This allows for earlier identification of issues that may arise during development and helps regulators and innovators align on trial design.

Global regulatory cooperation can also accelerate vaccine innovation and streamline administrative processes. During the pandemic, forums such as the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities formed COVID-19 working groups that rapidly accelerated vaccine development by establishing governing protocols, agreeing on approaches to adapt vaccines to address variants, and improving regulatory agility. Also, the WHO-backed African Vaccine Regulatory Forum introduced an emergency joint review process that led to an accelerated review turnaround. Working groups for other diseases could promote consistent standards and requirements, encouraging innovation and bolstering clinical trial efficiencies. Expanding regulatory measures such as accepting electronic files and conducting virtual inspections could also promote vaccine innovation.

In the meantime, innovators can consider assessing and improving the level of their “ submission excellence ,” or their ability to quickly prepare high-quality regulatory submissions, which can help boost the odds of first-cycle approval.

The COVID-19 pandemic ignited a revolution in vaccine development. Unprecedented speed and scale brought lifesaving vaccines to the world in record time. However, without concerted effort, the urgency that fueled innovation during the crisis could easily dissipate. The five actions outlined in this article provide a road map for sustaining the innovation surge and accelerating the development of lifesaving vaccines for the world’s most pressing health challenges. With collective action and unwavering commitment, stakeholders in the vaccine ecosystem can harness the lessons of the pandemic to spur transformative change and help secure a healthier future for all.

Adam Sabow is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Chicago office; Jennifer Heller is a partner in the Bay Area office; Michael Conway is a senior partner in the Philadelphia office, where Elizabeth Rowland is an associate partner; Rosa Poetes is a partner in the Zurich office; and Jen DeBerardinis is a consultant in the Boston office.

The authors wish to thank Jenna Benefield, Delaney Burns, Ying Chen, Mitch Cuddihy, and Jeff Morell for their contributions to this article.

This article was edited by Jermey Matthews, an editor in the Boston office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Getting strategic about new-product submissions in the pharma industry

Refueling the innovation engine in vaccines

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, innovation ecosystems: a meta-synthesis.

International Journal of Innovation Science

ISSN : 1757-2223

Article publication date: 25 April 2018

Issue publication date: 15 October 2018

This metasynthesis aims to build a theory on the concept of innovation ecosystem from the state of the art of qualitative case studies available in indexed scientific production using interpretive synthesis (Hoon, 2013).

Design/methodology/approach

This research was conducted by the postulates of the metasynthesis method (Hoon, 2013) to generate theory from qualitative case studies. The authors retrieved 77 research papers from databases, of which 6 were used for synthesis purposes. Each selected research paper reported one or more cases, which were analyzed separately. At the final stage, a data synthesis was structured and the cases were crossed, which allowed the development of a schematic representation and a theoretical construction of the innovation ecosystem concept. The approach used in this research is a metatheoretical assumption from economics and management and ecology to explore the theoretical gap in the concept of innovation ecosystems.

There is not yet a conceptual consensus on the term, which sometimes leads researchers to address partial or complementary concepts. The analysis identified constitutive elements of an innovation ecosystem that lead to structuring a framework of organic and dynamic interrelationships that a given organization has with various external organizations, allowing the creation of innovative products in a faster way.

Research limitations/implications

This paper helps scholars and researchers consider a new metatheoretical perspective to analyze dynamics, constitutive elements and multilevels of an innovation ecosystem.

Practical implications

For practitioners, this paper sheds lights on the importance of recognizing a systemic consideration of innovation ecosystems that falls in global relationships, industry dynamics and identification of main global–local actors/enablers to produce innovations internally at a given organization.

Originality/value

The novelty of this paper lies in a more delineated definition and a schematic representation of an innovation ecosystem based on a global–local perspective of product creation and manufacturing and interactions that a given company has, regardless of the geographical location of its dispersed strategic partners.

• Entrepreneurship
• Industry dynamics
• Innovation ecosystems
• Interrelationships
• Meta-synthesis

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Associate Editor and the anonymous reviewers for their time in evaluating our research paper and for their valuable comments that improved this research. Marcos Ferasso thanks to CAPES Brazilian Funding Agency for the support through a scholarship.

Ferasso, M. , Wunsch Takahashi, A.R. and Prado Gimenez, F.A. (2019), "Innovation ecosystems: a meta-synthesis", International Journal of Innovation Science , Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 495-518. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-07-2017-0059

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2018, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here