The Architure of Health Technological Innovation Ecosystem by Using the System Dynamics; Case Study Innovation Ecosystem of University of Tehran& Tehran University of Medical Sciences
Subject Areas : Special
Alireza Motevallian
1
,
Amir Albadvi
2
,
jalil hidari
3
,
Reza Bandarian
4
1 - * PhD Candidate, Management of Technology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 - Professor of Information Systems, Faculty of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 - Associate Professor, Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4 - Assistant Professor, Faculty Member of Commercialization and Business Development Department, Research Institute of Petroleum Industry, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Architecture, Health, Innovation Ecosystem, Modeling, System Dynamics,
Abstract :
The innovation ecosystem consists of a group of actors and dynamic processes that provide innovative solutions to new challenges. The main purpose of this research is to design a university-centered innovation ecosystem. For this purpose, ecosystem functions were first identified through literature review. Due to the limitation of As-Is data in Iran, interviews with stakeholders were chosen as a complementary technique. The second round of interviews were developed to identify the rules and processes of the ecosystem. The results of this study led to the choose Triple Layers core-periphery framework of innovation ecosystem called "Core-Platform-Development & Application". In this framework, the Institute of Health Technological Innovations is placed at the core layer, which is associated with these six platforms: Work Integrated Learning, Idea Generation, Entrepreneurship, Innovation, Shared Services, and Investment and Financing. Each of these platforms communicates with actors in that field at the Development & Application layer. After confirming the conceptual architecture with a triangulation technique, the ecosystem interaction model was designed & the results of the architecture in the case study were simulated by system dynamics method. For validation, the simulation results of the model under the two scenarios of continuation of the existing conditions and the establishment of the proposed architecture showed that the proposed architecture will clearly have a positive effect on the model variables in the future. Generally, the results obtained from the implementation of the model in favor of the implementation of architecture in the environment of innovation are studied in UT & TUMS
1- Mason, C., & Brown, R.(2014). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship. OECD.
2- Adner, R. (2006). Match Your Innovation Strategy to Your Innovation Ecosystem. Harvard Business Revie , 107-98, (84) 4.
3- Alexy, O., George, G., & Salter, A. J. . (2013) The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academic Management Reveiw, 270, (2) 38, 291.
4- Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. . (2009). Mode 3 and quadruple helix: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem . International Journal of Technology Management.234- 201, (3-4) 46.
5- Dahshan, M. E., Tolba, A. H., & Badreldin, T . (2012).. Enabling Entrepreneurship in Egypt: Toward a Sustainable Dynamic. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 83- 106, (2).
6- Etzkowitz, H. . (1998).. The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research policy, 823-833, 27.
7- Garnsey, E., Lorenzoni, G., & Ferriani, S (2008). Speciation through entrepreneurial spin-off: the acorn-ARM story. Research Policy, 224- 210, (2) 37.
8- Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. . (2008). How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan.
9- Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. . (2014). May). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Production and Innovation Management,433- 417, (31)3.
10- Halligan, U. . (2009). Skills in Creativity, Design and Innovation. Forfás.
11- Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Elder, T. (1997). Mapping the University Technology Transfer Process. Journal of Business Venturing, 423- 434- 12.
12- Helms, M. M. (2006) . Encyclopedia Of Management (the edition). Gale Cengage.
13- Iyer, B., & Davenport, T. H . (2008). Reverse engineering Google's innovation machine. Harvard Business Review, 86(4).
14- Jackson, D. J. (2011). What is an innovation ecosystem. National Science Foundation. http://erc-assoc.org/sites/default/files/download-files/DJackson_What-is-an-Innovation-Ecosystem.pdf
15- Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy, 88- 87, (4).
16- Kao, J . (2009). Tapping the World’s Innovation Hot Spots. Harvard Business Review.114- 109, (3) 87.
17- Kvale . (1996). An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.
18- Li, Y. (2009). The technological roadmap of Cisco’s business ecosystem. Technovation 379- 386, (5) 29.
19- Metcalfe, S., & Ramlogan, R . (2008). Innovation Systems and the Competitive Process in Developing Economies. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 433- 446, 48.
20- Oksanen,, K., & Hautamäki, A. (2014). Transforming Regions into Innovation Ecosystems—A Model for Renewing Local Industrial Structure. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal (2) 19.
21- Patton, M. Q., & Cochran, M . (2002). A guide to using qualitative research methodology, https://evaluation.msf.org/
22- Rabelo, R. J., & Bernus, P. (2015). A Holistic Model of Building Innovation Ecosystems. IFAC, 1.
23- Rampersad, G. C . (2015). Building University Innovation Ecosystems: The Role of Work Integrated Learning as a Core Element in the University-Industry Nexus. Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management 231- 240, (1) 4.
24- Rohrbeck, R., Hölzle, K., & Gemünden, H. G. (2009). Opening up for competitive advantage – how Deutsche Telekom creates an open innovation ecosystem. R&D Management (4) 39.
25- Romero, D., & Molina, A. (2011). Collaborative networked organisations and customer communities: value co-creation and co-innovation in the networking era. Production Planning & Control (6-5) 22, 472- 447.
26- Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. . (2005). Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organ Sci , (5) 16,. 508- 491.
27- Su, Y.-S., Zheng, Z.-X., & Chen, J. . (2018).A multi-platform collaboration innovation ecosystem: the case of China. Management Decision, 125- 142.
28- Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. . (1997).The Organizing Vision in Information Systems Innovation. Organization Science. 458- 474, (5).
29- Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal.1350- 1319, (13) 28.
30- Vaishnavi, V., & Kuechler, W. Design Science Research Methods and Patterns, Innovating information and communication technology (Second Eddition). Boca Raton & London & New York: Taylor & Francis Group, CRC Press.
31- تابش, ی., مروتی, م., & اکبرپور, م. (1394). شناخت دره سیلیکون. معاونت علمی و فناوری ریاست جمهوری اسلامی ایران.
32- حاجیزاده ابراهیمی, ف. و کزازی, ا. (۱۴۰۰). بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر همکاریهای فناورانه بین شرکتهای زایشی دانشگاهی و صنایع در حوزه فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات با نقش میانجی نهادهای واسط. فصلنامه نوآوری و ارزشآفرینی, ۱۰(۱), ۱۲۱-۱۳۲.
33- متولیان, ع., البدوی, ا., حیدری, ج. و بندریان, ر. (۱۴۰۰). رساله دکتری معماری زیستبوم نوآوریهای فناورانه حوزه سلامت. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
34- محمدی, ا., البدوی, ا., صدقیانی, م. و یداللهی, م. (1397). شناسایی بازیگران کلیدی در توسعه اکوسیستم نوآوری صنعت پاییندست پتروشیمی ایران. فصلنامه رشد فناوری, 54.
35- مهدی, ر. و شفیعی, م. (۱۳۹۸). ریشهیابی سستپیوندی دانشگاه ایرانی با صنعت از دیدگاه خبرگان آموزش عالی. فصلنامه نوآوری و ارزشآفرینی, ۱۹(۱), ۳۹-۵۴.
36- میثمی, ا. م., حجازی, س. ر., دهکردی, ع. م. و محمدی الیاسی, ق. (۱۳۹۶). ابعاد و مولفه های اکوسیستم کارآفرینی فناورانه در ایران. فصلنامه مدیریت توسعه فناوری.
