• Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.87-109
• /
• 2022

The study attempts to examine the system-building activities of scientific institutions in developing the Molecular Diagnostic (MDs) Innovation System in India. Scientific Institutions are the precursor of any technological development with their capabilities in generating new ideas. MDs are advanced and accurate diagnostic technology with considerable scope to serve the diagnostic needs and requirements of the healthcare system. We adopted a System framework and analyzed the development of MDs in terms of the Technological Innovation System (TIS) functions, and the systematic challenges are assessed through the System Failure Framework (SFF). Based on the secondary and primary survey of prominent science base actors, the study finds that the role of government is crucial for facilitating technological development within a science base through the mobilization of resources. In India, the MDs technological development gained significant momentum over the last decade with the development of specialized human resources and dedicated research institutes. However, we do find that the innovative capabilities in attaining need-based TIS are sub-optimal owning to the specific diagnostic needs of highly burdened diseases in the society. The system analysis reveals that the TIS functions are underperforming because of the absence of a well-defined funding mechanism and goal-oriented targeted policy regime of the government. Since MDs have a transformative effect on the present healthcare system, we argue that the government has to address the system-based challenges and issues for developing a need-based technological innovation system for MDs in the country.

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.47-66
• /
• 2004

The relationship between innovation policies and locational competitiveness has emerged as an important area in the analysis of economic development, reflecting both the centralisation and decentralisation of globalising economic activities. The underlying spatial and institutional components are subject to a pattern of cumulative causation in which strategic interventions of policy actors exercise a decisive role in shaping competitive advantages, while promoting interactions with local and foreign partners both from the private and public sectors. The Singaporean development experience illustrated these strategic interdependencies of innovation policies and locational competitiveness. Based on her role as a manufacturing and service hub, Singapore is viewed as an infrastructural nodal point which is interconnected to global production networks. Paralleling efforts in the domain of technological innovation, Singapore's policies for locational competitiveness aim at an adaptive harmonisation of the needs of international investors with local developmental objectives. This orientation characterises also current efforts in promoting Singapore as a knowledge agglomeration with a distinct science base, expanding R&D operations and an innovation-driven pattern of economic development. In conclusion, the locational rationale of Singapore's innovation policies provides lessons for dealing with the spatial and institutional implications of technological globalisation.

• World Technopolis Review
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.108-118
• /
• 2016

There are very few studies on governance structure for the collaboration between HEIs and science and technology parks until today. Major activities between science parks and HEIs are R&D activities, collaborative researches, technology transfer, space provision for BIs and Technology BIs in the science parks, provision of technical, legal and financial services for start-ups and venture firms. Governance structure for the collaboration of high education institutes with science and technology parks is the handling of complexity and management of dynamic flows of collaboration between two groups. Three models on the governance structure for the collaboration are suggested in this study. The first model is a governance structure that links R&D system such as universities, public research institutes and private research institutes with industrial production cluster such as a group of companies and industrial parks. The second model is a governance structure that has four layers of hierarchy. This hierarchical governance model is composed of four levels of organizations such as central government, three actors, one center for collaboration and many individual research performers. The third model is a governance structure that networks all the stakeholders horizontally. Under this structure, governance is conducted by the network members with no separate and unique governance entity.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.65-98
• /
• 2016

Living Lab is being introduced and applied as an innovation model driven by social entities (residents, users, etc.) and as an innovation place based on local and field. This study analyzed three living lab cases of Bukchon IoT living lab, Seong-Daegol energy transition living lab, and Daejeon Geonneoyu project, which were designated as 'Living Lab' to solve local problems. We analyzed the local problem, the problem solving goal, the role of each participant and the subject, the living lab promotion system, the significance in each case. In addition, the types and characteristics of living labs were elucidated and future development plans were discussed. The result is as follow. First, each case has a tendency to link science technology and ICT with local problem solving though there is a difference between the technologies used. Second, local residents played a leading role in the whole living lab process from problem identification to technical experimentation, diffusion and application. Third, the role of the intermediaries commonly played an important role in the operation of the living lab. Last but not least, each case has different types of living lab. Bukchon IoT living lab being operated as a project by the government / municipality to create a living lab activity-base or to support actors' activities. On the other hand, the Seong-Daegol energy transition living lab and Daejeon Geonneoyu project were conducted by the civil society itself to define problems and explore technologies in order to solve local problems.