به کارگیری روش‌های تأمین مالی جمعی و نوآوری باز در راهبری عناصر زیست‌بوم پژوهش و فناوری صنعت برق؛ پیشنهاد الگوی پلتفورمی

نوع مقاله : ترویجی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد آینده‌پژوهی، پژوهشگر گروه آینده‌نگاری و سیاست‌پژوهی پژوهشگاه نیرو

2 دکترای آینده‌پژوهی، پژوهشگر گروه آینده‌نگاری و سیاست‌پژوهی پژوهشگاه نیرو

چکیده

پژوهش و تحقیق و توسعه با هدف بر طرف کردن نیازها و چالشهای فناورانه صنعت برق و انرژی، یکی از رویکردهای اصلی راهبری پژوهش و فناوری وزارت نیرو بوده است. روشی که برای راهبری پژوهش در وزارت نیرو استفاده می‌شود بر مبنای پارادایم نظام نوآوری و با رویکرد سلسله مراتبی و عمودی است. نظامهای نوآوری به منظور تبیین روشی برای تحقق اهداف دولتها در حوزه‌ی نوآوری و چگونگی استفاده از منابع پژوهشی (بودجه، دانش تخصصی و نیروی انسانی) در دوره‌ای بسیار کارآمد بوده اند. ولی با ظهور مفهوم زیست بوم کسب و کار و ظهور اقتصاد پلتفورمی، ظرفیتهای فراوانی که می‌تواند در مسیر توسعه و نوآوری صنعت برق و انرژی قرار گیرد، در نظام خطی و سیاست‌های عمودی فعلی ممکن است نادیده گرفته شود. در این مقاله با استفاده از روش مورد کاوی، ضمن بررسی دقیق نظام راهبری پژوهش و فناوری صنعت برق و انرژی، از مفاهیم نوآوری باز، اقتصاد پلتفورمی و سرمایه‌گذاری جمعی استفاده شد و با استفاده از روش فراترکیب، الگوی پلتفورمی راهبری پژوهش در صنعت برق و انرژی پیشنهاد شد. این الگوی راهبری می‌تواند به عنوان جایگزینی برای الگوی عمودی فعلی و در راستای پیاده‌سازی رویکرد افقی سیاست‌های نوآوری قلمداد شود تا بستر مناسبی برای افزایش مشارکت بازیگران و فعالان زیست‌بوم نوآوری در جهت‌دهی به نوآوری و تخصیص منابع ایجاد کند. در انتها، برخی مزایا و ملاحظات اجرایی الگوی پیشنهادی نیز بررسی شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Embedding the crowdfunding and open innovation in the power industry R&D ecosystem governance; a platform-based model

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Aghaei 1
  • Alireza Asadi 2
1 Futures Studies Master’s, Foresight and Policy Research Group, Niroo Research Institute (NRI)
2 Futures Studies Ph.D., Foresight and Policy Research Group, Niroo Research Institute (NRI)
چکیده [English]

Responding to the technological challenges of the power energy industry by nurturing domestic R&D has been one of the main approaches for R&D activities in the Ministry of Energy of Iran (MOE). The current R&D governance in MOE is a hierarchical and vertical governance system, mainly based upon the paradigm of innovation systems. Although governments could apply the innovation systems theory very effectively in the innovation goal setting and allocation of R&D resources (such as budget, knowledge, and expertise), the emergence of the concepts of the innovation ecosystem and platform economics challenged the innovation system in terms of leadership and participation of the actors. There might be other R&D governance approaches that are better than the current linear and top-down governance system. In this article, using the case study research method, the current system of R&D governance in the power energy industry is carefully examined. We synthesized concepts of open innovation, platform economics, and crowdfunding to create a new R&D governance model. This model can be considered as an alternative to the current vertical model to implement the horizontal approach of innovation policy, and to create a platform for increasing the participation of public and private actors of the innovation ecosystem in terms of directing the innovation and resource allocation. Finally, some of the advantages and practical considerations of the proposed model were discussed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • innovation ecosystem
  • R&D governance Platform
  • Horizontal Innovation Policy
  • S. Dawson and J. S. Denford, A playbook for CIO-enabled innovation in the federal government, Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government, 2015.
  • A. Schumpeter, The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle, Harvard College, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Economic Studies, Vol. 46, 1934.
  • C. Mowery, The practice of technology policy, in Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change, Cambridge, Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1995; 513-557.
  • Cowan and G. van de Paal, "Innovation policy in a knowledge-based economy," European Commission DG-Enterprise, 2000.
  • Goudarzi, H. Rezaalizadeh, J. Gharibi and M. Mohseni, Pathology of Science and Technology Policies in Iran: An Analysis of Five-Year Development Plans, Journal of Technology Development Management, 1393; 2 (3): 137-161,.
  • Bikar, H. Capron and M. Cincera, Implementing an integrated evaluation scheme of the institutional set-up through the generation of new S&T indicators, ULB--Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, 2004.
  • Freeman, Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness, Industrial and Corporate Change, 2004; 13 (3): 541-569,
  • Freeman, C. Freeman and S. Freeman, Technology, policy, and economic performance: lessons from Japan, Burns & Oates, 1987.
  • Å. Lundvall, National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. The Learning Economy and the Economics of Hope, 2016; 85.
  • Breschi and F. Malerba, Sectoral innovation systems: technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries, Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, 1997; 1: 130-156.
  • A. de Vasconcelos Gomes, A. L. F. Facin, M. S. Salerno and R. K. Ikenami, Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends, Technological Forecasting and Social Change ,2018; 136: 30-48.
  • Granstrand and M. Holgersson, Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition, Technovation, 2020; 102098: 90-91.
  • Omidvar, H. Heirani, S. R. Razavipour and N. Bagheri Moghadam, Mapping Processes of the Research System; Case Study: Passive Defense of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology [Persian], Rahyaft, 1391; 22 (51): 51-64.
  • Berahmandpour, N. Moslemi, S. Kamankesh, J. N. Namini and S. Salimi, Proposing the structure of research management in the country's electricity industry. [Persian]," in 28th International Conference on Electricity, Tehran, 2013.
  • Ministry of Energy - Information Technology and Statistics Office, "Regulations [Persian]," 30 1 1394. [Online]. Available: https://moe.gov.ir/Inner-Pages/MainNav/RulesRegulations/RuleDetail?Rules RegulationID=4113.
  • Moghimi, "Case Study Methodology and its Applications in Social Sciences [Persian], Quarterly Journal of Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1386: 13 (50): 71-102.
  • P. Gall, W. R. Borg and M. D. Gall, Educational Research: An Introduction, United Kingdom: Allyn and Bacon, 2003.
  • Faraj-Shoushtari-Pour, "Introduction to Case Study Research Method [Persian], in 4th International Conference on Economics, Management, Accounting with Value Creation Approach, Shiraz, Iran, 1395.
  • D. Wimmer and J. R. Dominick, Mass Media Research: An Introduction, Thomson, Wadsworth, 2006.
  • K. Yin, Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, United States: SAGE Publications, 2017.
  • Sandelowski and M. Barroso, Handbook for synthesizing, New York: Springer, 2007.
  • Akbari, Validation and Quality Assessment in QUAN, QUAL, and Mixed Method Research [Persian], Quarterly Journal of Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1397; 24 (94): 23-45.
  • Mazzucato and D. K. R. Robinson, Co-creating and directing Innovation Ecosystems? NASA’s changing approach to public-private partnerships in low-earth orbit, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136: 166-177, 2018.
  • F. Moore, Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition, Harvard business review, 1993; 3 (71): 75-86.
  • Adner, Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem, Harvard business review, 2006; 4, (84): 98.
  • Adner and R. Kapoor, Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations, Strategic Management Journal, 2010; 3 (31): 306-333.
  • Gawer and M. A. Cusumano, Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002; 29-30.
  • W. Chesbrough, Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, Harvard Business Press, 2003.
  • Goudarzi and K. Rudi, Explaining the scientific authority for the scientific institutions of the country with the approach of the theory of fundamental conceptualization. [Persian], Science and Technology Policy, 1390; 2) 4(: 75-89.
  • G. Parker, M. W. Van Alstyne and S. P. Choudary, Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you, WW Norton & Company, 2016.
  • Afsharpour, S. Askareh and S. Zarandi, The Role of Collective Investment in Financing Entrepreneurs. [Persian], Technology Growth; 1394; 11 (43): 2-13.
  • S. Dawson and J. S. Denford, Governing innovation in US state government: An ecosystem perspective ,The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2016; 4 (25): 299-318.
  • Śledzik, Schumpeter’s View on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, SSRN Electronic Journal, 2013.
  • Chesbrough, Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape, Harvard Business Press, 2006.
  • Hanush and A. Pyka, Introduction, in Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007.
  • Porter and S. Stern, The New Challenge to America’s Prosperity: Findings from the Innovation Index, Council on Competitiveness, Washington, DC, 1999.
  • A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 3rd edition, London: George Allen and Unwin 1976, 1942.