"Happy accidents": Innovation-driven opportunities and perspectives for development in the knowledge economy

Carayannis, Elias G.; Campbell, David F. J.; Rehman, Scheherazade S. Article "Happy accidents": Innovation-driven opportunities and perspectives for development in the knowledge economy Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Carayannis, Elias G.; Campbell, David F. J.; Rehman, Scheherazade S. (2015) : "Happy accidents": Innovation-driven opportunities and perspectives for development in the knowledge economy, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ISSN 2192-5372, Springer, Heidelberg, Vol. 4, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-015-0021-9 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/146836 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ RESEARCH Open Access “Happy accidents”: innovation-driven opportunities and perspectives for development in the knowledge economy Elias G. Carayannis 1* , David F.J. Campbell 2,3 and Scheherazade S. Rehman 4 * Correspondence: [email protected] 1 Department of Information Systems and Technology Management, George Washington University, School of Business, Washington, DC 20052, USA Full list of author information is available at the end of the article Abstract From Development as Democracy to Innovation as Development: Current local, regional, and global economic and financial conditions and trends make the need to trigger, catalyze and accelerate high quantity and quality entrepreneurial initiatives that are based on high quality and quantity innovations. Given the uncertainty and change inherent in the innovation process, management must develop skills and understanding of the process: a method for managing the disruption. Technology changes the way society functions. The dramatic advances in technology over recent decades have collaterally precipitated wide sweeping and profound change to the functioning of almost every form of human exchange, the world over. Income inequality in the US has being growing since the late 1970s, but easy credit and rising asset prices had allowed American households to increase financial leverage to finance consumption. Now an increasing number of academics and intellectuals recognize that the growing income inequality is one of the key aspects behind the financial crash. The first step in understanding how the income re-distribution can lead to innovation and help an economy move from a stagnant state into a new sustainable economic growth path is to understand how long-term trends in rising and falling income inequality affect the market environment that firms must survive in. In the late twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century, numerous scholars and practitioners such as Peter Drucker have identified knowledge as a crucial and most important key input and output factor of economic activity. The knowledge-based economy can be characterized as fractal. It is non-linear, unstable, and stochastic. From Development as Democracy to Innovation as Development: and back to from Innovation as Development to Development as Democracy. Keywords: Democracy; Development; Cyber-Democracy; Cyber-Development; e-Development; Equality; Happy accidents; Innovation; Knowledge economy; Sustainable development; Technology Background Developed and developing economies alike face increased resource scarcity and competitive rivalry. Science and technology increasingly appear as a main source of competitive and sustainable advantage for nations and regions alike. However, the key determinant of their efficacy is the quality and quantity of entrepreneurship-enabled and ICTdriven innovation that unlocks and captures the pecuniary benefits of the science enterprise in the form of private, public, or hybrid goods. In this context, there is © 2015 Carayannis et al. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Carayannis et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2015) 4:7 DOI 10.1186/s13731-015-0021-9 ample and growing evidence that intangible resources such as knowledge, know-how and social capital will prove to be the coal, oil, and diamonds of the twenty-first century for developed, developing, and emerging economies alike. 1 Moreover, there are strong indications and emerging trends that there are qualitative and quantitative differences between the twentieth and the twenty-first century drivers of economic growth. 2 Specifically, technology and knowledge have become the key factors of production; knowledge is now the basic form of capital. Economic growth is driven by the accumulation of knowledge, and new technological developments create technical platforms for further innovations. These technical platforms are, in turn, drivers of economic growth. Technology raises the return on investment. Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) facilitate human exchange, particularly commercial and political transactions, which in turn, develop the base of knowledge capital and raise the stakes for attaining and sustaining competitiveness in global markets. Our working definition for the knowledge economy (KE) is as follows: “The Knowledge Economy is a state of economic being and a process of economic becoming that leverages intensively and extensively knowledge assets and competences as well as economic learning to catalyze and accelerate sustainable and robust economic growth”. 3 Our working definition of Cyber-Development (an alternate, earlier term being e-Development) is as follows: Cyber-Development is a set of tools, methodologies, and practices that leverage ICT to catalyze and accelerate social, political, and economic development or in other words, Cyber-Development is information-and-communication technology- (ICT)-enabled and knowledge-economy-(KE)-inspired development that may enable the economies of developing and especially transitioning countries to become knowledge economies. This also applies to the advanced economies (Carayannis et al. 2014). Here, Cyber-Development also cross-refers to Cyber-Democracy (Campbell and Carayannis 2014). Advanced democracies or democracies of a high quality are also a “knowledge democracy”. This draws a connection in co-evolution between knowledge democracy and knowledge economy. One underlying understanding here is that knowledge, knowledge creation, knowledge production, and knowledge application (innovation) behave as crucial drivers for enhancing democracy, society, and the economy (Carayannis and Campbell 2014). Knowledge democracy fosters and excels innovation, and the interplay of knowledge and innovation enables, supports, and carries sustainable development. Between political pluralism in democracy and the diversity and heterogeneity of knowledge in a knowledge society and knowledge economy, there operates a congruence in structures and processes. Knowledge democracy does not only apply to industrialized countries, but offers, in principle, also important references for developing democracies, the newly industrialized countries and emerging markets. The implication of “Cyber-Democracy”is to look at knowledge democracy from the perspective of a globally evolving knowledge society in configurations of a multi-level architecture Carayannis et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2015) 4:7 Page 2 of 16 (global, trans-national, supra-national, national, sub-national, and local). Ramifications of Cyber-Democracy are as follows: (1) the networking opportunities and capabilities of interaction and communication increase; (2) the volume of codified knowledge cumulates, and the possibilities to access (publicly access) this knowledge also improve; (3) digitalized (electronic) information and knowledge, and the world-wide web, created a network-style fundament and infrastructure of knowledge, allowing a knowledge conversion of the local into the global (gloCal) and vice versa, resulting in a gloCal platform for communication and knowledge interaction and knowledge enhancement. How does Cyber-Democracy relate to Cyber-Development and CyberDefense? Cyber-Democracy raises challenges for governance and of governance and the next steps of further development of society and democracy (see furthermore: Campbell and Carayannis 2013 and Campbell and Carayannis 2014; Carayannis and Campbell 2009, 2010, 2012; Carayannis et al. 2014; Umpleby 1990; Wiener 1948). Introduction: the point of departure of the analysis Developed and developing economies alike face increased resource scarcity and competitive rivalry. Science and technology increasingly appear as a main source of competitive and sustainable advantage for nations and regions alike (Carayannis and Papadopoulos 2011). However, the key determinant of their efficacy is the quality and quantity of entrepreneurship-enabled innovation that unlocks and captures the pecuniary benefits of the science enterprise in the form of private, public, or hybrid goods (for instance, bio-entrepreneur-millionaires, knowledge for the public good, i.e. public health awareness, and new public–private research centers funded partly by bio-entrepreneurmillionaires and monies levied as taxes on bio-ventures). Entrepreneurship and Innovation are human endeavors and socioeconomic phenomena that are intrinsic to human nature as well as constitute both social and political engines of positive change and growth provided they are balanced and guided by effective and transparent regulatory and incentive systems in place. Current local, regional, and global economic and financial conditions and trends make the need to trigger,catalyze,and accelerate high quantity and quality entrepreneurial initiatives that are based on high quality and quantity innovations (low-tech, medium-tech, and high-tech) even more clear and present as this is one of the major ways and means to target and achieve real,sustainable,and eventually accelerating GNP growth. Such growth is much more likely to come from new and qualitative different and superior initiatives (from “sunrise”industries) rather than re-structuring existing (and perhaps “sunset”) industries. It may be strategically more prudent to invest scarce and precious resources in carefully calculated strategic “bets”rather than keep throwing them after waning industrial sectors and declining firms and in that sense, it may be best to provide aggressive socioeconomic re-training, re-insertion, and/or early retirement programs to allow for real growth strategies to be implemented. Moreover, we believe that the concepts of robust competitiveness and sustainable entrepreneurship (Carayannis 2008) are pillars of a regime called “democratic capitalism”(Carayannis and Kaloudis 2010) (as opposed to “popular or casino capitalism”), where real opportunities for education and economic prosperity are available to all and especially the younger people (but not only). Carayannis et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2015) 4:7 Page 3 of 16 This would be the direct derivative of a collection of top-down policies as well as bottom-up initiatives (including strong R&D policies and funding but going beyond that to the development of innovation networks and knowledge clusters across regions and sectors; see Carayannis and Campbell 2006a): We define sustainable entrepreneurship (Carayannis 2008) as the creation of viable, profitable,and scalable firms. Such firms engender the formation of self-replicating and mutually enhancing innovation networks and knowledge clusters (innovation ecosystems) leading towards robust competitiveness. We understand robust competitiveness (Carayannis 2008) as a state of economic being and becoming that avails but also questions systematic and defensible “unfair advantages”to the entities that are part of the economy. Such competitiveness is built on mutually complementary and reinforcing low, medium, and high technology, public and private sector entities (government agencies, private firms, universities, and nongovernmental organizations). 4 Existing and new small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that can provide better solutions for less will always be winners (even and perhaps especially in down markets and recessionary economic cycle stages), and this is the area where fiscal, monetary, institutional, intellectual property rights (IPR)-related, and other public–private sectors programs and initiatives are needed to help unlock, capture, and leverage fully the value-adding potential of the knowledge creation infrastructure (i.e., universities, research institutions, and private sector research and development R&D facilities) by providing incentives and establishing a large number, scale, and scope of pilots connecting organically and effectively all stages of the value-adding knowledge chain (from the lab to the market via world-class SMEs that will be both locally as well as globally oriented by design and the new ones from their inception). Innovation as development “Discovery consists of looking at the same thing as everyone else and thinking something different”. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi—Nobel Prize Winner Innovation is a word derived from the Latin, meaning to introduce something new to the existing realm and order of things or to change the yield of resources as stated by J.B. Say quoted in Drucker (Drucker 1985). In addition, innovation is often linked with creating a sustainable market around the introduction of new and superior product or process. Specifically, in the literature on the management of technology, technological innovation is characterized as the introduction of a new technology-based product into the market: “Technological innovation is defined here as a situationally new development through which people extend their control over the environment. Essentially, technology is a tool of some kind that allows an individual to do something new. A technological innovation is basically information organized in a new way. So technology transfer amounts to the communication of information, usually from one organization to another.”(Tornazky and Fleischer 1990). Carayannis et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2015) 4:7 Page 4 of 16 The broader interpretation of the term “innovation”refers to an innovation as an “idea, practice, or material artifact”(Rogers and Shoemaker 1971, p. 19) adopted by a person or organization, where that artifact is “perceived to be new by the relevant unit of adoption”(Zaltman et al. 1973). Therefore, innovation tends to change perceptions and relationships at the organizational level, but its impact is not limited there. Innovation in its broader socio-technical, economic, and political context can also substantially impact, shape, and evolve ways and means people live their lives, businesses form, compete, succeed, and fail, and nations prosper or decline. What results is an “innovation ecosystem”(Carayannis and Campbell 2009), which may also be portrayed in terms of an “innovation landscape”(see Fig. 1). Specifically, Fig. 2 attempts to illustrate the nature and dynamics of an emerging globalization framework in which creativity and innovation (as enabler of technological effort in manufacturing and as an engine of industrial development) can lead to improved competitiveness and sustained development. On the other hand, lack of creativity and innovation constitutes a factor for failure in manufacturing performance and, as a result, is a factor for failure in economic performance, too. For those countries in which creativity and innovation is applied effectively, globalization can be an engine of beneficial and sustainable economic integration. However, globalization can be a powerful force for deprivation, inequality, marginalization, and economical disruption in those non-competitive countries. Government or market success or failure is determined by how they take advantage of the four major elements that shape the setting for creativity, innovation, and competitiveness in the globalized world: (1) The coordination and synergy in the relationship between governments, enterprises, research laboratories and other specialized bodies, universities, and support agencies for small and medium enterprises (SMEs); (2) the power of information and communication technology; (3) the efficiency that managerial and organizational systems can bring to production and commerce; Fig. 1 The EU’s research and innovation landscape. Source: European Commission (European Union) Carayannis et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2015) 4:7 Page 5 of 16 and (4) the international agreements, rules and regulations. All the four elements of this framework will impact on creativity and innovation at the micro level (firm level) as well as on innovation and competitiveness at the macro level (industry, national, global). From a business perspective, an innovation is perceived as the happy ending of the commercialization journey of an invention, when that journey is indeed successful and leads to the creation of a sustainable and flourishing market niche or new market (see Carayannis et al. 2003). Therefore, a technical discovery or invention (the creation of something new) is not significant to a company unless that new technology can be utilized to add value to the company, through increased revenues, reduced cost, and similar improvements in financial results. This has two important consequences for the analysis of any innovation in the context of a business organization. First, an innovation must be integrated into the operations and strategy of the organization, so that it has a distinct impact on how the organization creates value or on the type of value the organization provides in the market. Second, an innovation is a social process, since it is only through the intervention and management of people that an organization can realize the benefits of an innovation. In much of the foregoing discussion, a recurring theme about innovation is that of uncertainty, leading to the conclusion that an effective model of innovation must include a multidimensional approach (uncertainty is defined as unknown unknowns whereas risk is defined as known knowns) (Carayannis et al. 2003). One model posited as an aide to understanding is the Multidimensional Model of Innovation (MMI) (Cooper 1998). This model attempts to define the understanding of innovation by Fig. 2 Twenty-first century innovation ecosystem (Carayannis and Kaloudis, Diversity in the Knowledge Economy and Society, Edward Elgar, May 2008) Carayannis et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2015) 4:7 Page 6 of 16 establishing three-dimensional boundaries. The planes are defined as product-process, incremental-radical, and administrative-technical. The product-process boundary concerns itself with the end product and its relationship to the methods employed by firms to produce and distribute the product. Incremental-radical defines the degree of relative strategic change that accompanies the diffusion of an innovation. This is a measure of the disturbance or disequilibrium in the market. Technological-administrative boundaries refer to the relationship of innovation change to the firm’s operational core. The use of technological refers to the influences on basic firm output while the administrative boundary would include innovations affecting associated factors of policy, resources, and social aspects of the firm. Innovation posture, propensity, and performance We develop our conceptual model of organizational innovation from a resource-based perspective of the firm (Penrose 1959; Barney 1991). In particular, we draw upon the concept of knowledge as an intangible resource that flows throughout organizations to render new routines, technologies, or structures that affect future performance (Nelson and Winter 1982). In order to capture the multi-layered influence of organizational innovation, we conceive our framework for innovation routines as a procedural model. We focus on intangible resources that contribute inputs to the innovation process. We examine the firm’s capabilities for engaging in innovating activities and finally consider the range of organizational outputs from innovation that spans short-horizon outcomes to long-horizon lasting impacts. This composite of measures is housed within a “3P”framework for organizational innovation. Innovation emerges from three critical firm-level factors: posture,propensity,andperformance (Carayannis and Provance 2007). 5 “Posture”refers to an organization’s position within the greater innovation system of its environment (i.e., region, industry, technological domain). Specifically, posture comprises a firm’s state along three dimensions: the organizational, technological and market lifecycles, reflecting its readiness to both engage in and benefit from innovation (Damanpour 1991). It thus identifies the conditions influencing a specific firm within a specific technology regime serving a specific market. Each firm’s ability to engage in innovative activities will be constrained by its posture, which is exogenous to the innovation process being measured. That is, regardless of whether and what type of innovation process is employed, a firm exists at a point in its lifecycle from formation to failure (organizational lifecycle). The firm also selects technologies to employ in the implementation of its strategies and thus is subject to the state of the technology regime lifecycle within which these technologies exist (technological lifecycle). For example, a handful of stagecoach companies continued operation for a period of time after the introduction of the automobile and thus their place in the stagecoach technology regime could be measured. Finally, the firm exists on a competitive landscape within significant strategic activities in one or more markets. These markets exist at various points in their own lifecycle; therefore they also constrain the innovative actions available to the firm. “Propensity”is a firm’s ability to capitalize on its posture based on cultural acceptance of innovation. In this way, propensity is an intangible reflection of processes, routines, Carayannis et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2015) 4:7 Page 7 of 16 and capabilities established within a firm. A firm may possess adequate resources and consequently higher externalized innovation stature, yet have an underdeveloped capacity for innovation due to cultural or other constraints. “Performance”is the lasting result of innovation. This part of the framework comprises three levels: output, outcome, and impact. Outputs occur as the immediate, internalized results of innovation. New product introductions, patents, and technology transfer licenses are among the outputs that emerge. Outcomes include mid-range results such as revenues contributed by new products. Finally, impacts represent more lasting, long-range benefits that accrue to the firm from its innovative competence and are transformed into results for the firm’s environment too. Examples of impact performance include status as a top innovator in the industry. All three factors (posture, propensity, and performance) are captured empirically in the form of a combinatorial we define as the Composite Innovation Index (CII). This comprehensive measure demonstrates the superior evaluative results of measuring innovation across all facets of its process in concert (Damanpour 1991). Development as democracy Technology changes the way society functions. The dramatic advances in technology over recent decades have collaterally precipitated wide sweeping and profound change to the functioning of almost every form of human exchange, the world over (Carayannis et al. 2006; Carayannis et al. 2014). What emerged in developed economies during the latter years of the twentieth century is knowledge-based economics—an evolutionary framework of social transaction that now dominates the behavior of mankind in the twenty-first century. The conceptual framework of knowledge economy “For countries in the vanguard of the world economy, the balance between knowledge and resources has shifted so far towards the former that knowledge has become perhaps the most important factor determining the standard of living—more than land, than tools, than labour. Today’s most technologically advanced economies are truly knowledge-based.”—World Development Report, 1999. In classical economics, land, labor, and capital are the only factors of production: “Knowledge, productivity, education, and intellectual capital are all regarded as exogenous factors, falling outside the system”(Singh 2010, p. 2). 6 The New Growth Theory recognizes two additional factors: technology and the knowledge on which it is based. In today’s environment, technology and knowledge are not merely additional factors of production; they have become the key factors of production. Knowledge is the basic form of capital. Economic growth is driven by the accumulation of knowledge and new technological developments create technical platforms for further innovations. These technical platforms, in turn, are drivers of economic growth. Technology raises the return on investment, which is why developed countries can sustain growth and why developing economies cannot attain growth without it. Even with unlimited labor, natural resources, and ample capital, traditional economics predicts that there are diminishing returns on investment. New Growth theorists argue that the non-rivalry and technical platform effects of new technology can lead to increasing rather than Carayannis et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2015) 4:7 Page 8 of 16 9 Of course it should be added that GDP constitutes a highly aggregated measure. Furthermore, GDP and GDP per capita do not provide information on the distribution of GDP across a population. 10 See furthermore http://aei.pitt.edu/59041/1/ACESWP_Carayannis_2_2007.pdf. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Authors’contributions EGC is the main author and main conceptual architect of this article. DFJC and SSR complemented by adding to the analytical architecture of EGC. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Author details 1 Department of Information Systems and Technology Management, George Washington University, School of Business, Washington, DC 20052, USA. 2 Alpen-Adria-University of Klagenfurt, Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (iff), Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO), Schottenfeldgasse 29, A-1070 Vienna, Austria. 3 University of Applied Arts Vienna, Unit for Quality Enhancement (UQE), Oskar Kokoschka-Platz 2, A-1010 Vienna, Austria. 4 Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, 1957 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA. Received: 2 June 2015 Accepted: 19 August 2015 References Barney, JB. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’.Journal of Management, 17,99–120. Campbell, DFJ, & Carayannis, EG. (2013). Epistemic governance in higher education. Quality enhancement of universities for development. (SpringerBriefs in business). New York, NY: Springer. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+ management/organization/book/978-1-4614-4417-6. Campbell, DFJ, & Carayannis, EG. (2014). Explaining and comparing quality of democracy in quadruple helix structures: the quality of democracy in the United States and in Austria, challenges and opportunities for development. In EG Carayannis, DFJ Campbell, & Marios Panagiotis Efthymiopoulos (Eds.), Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy and Cyber-Defense. Challenges, opportunities and implications for theory, policy and practice (pp. 117–148). New York, NY: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-1028-1_4. Campino, J. (2010). Inequality and development. Doctoral thesis, GWUSB. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Carayannis EG (1994) Gestion Strategique de l’Apprentissage Technologique. Le Progrès Technique (no. 2), Paris, France. Carayannis, EG. (1998). Higher order technological learning as determinant of market success in the multimedia arena: A success story, a failure, and a question to mark: Agfa/Bayer AG, enable software, and sun microsystems. Int J Technovation, 18(10), 639–653. Carayannis, EG. (1999). Knowledge transfer through technological hyperlearning in five industries. Int J Technovation, 19, 141–161. Carayannis, EG. (2000). Investigation and validation of technological learning versus market performance. Int J Technovation, 20, 389–400. Carayannis, EG. (2001). The strategic management of technological learning. Learning to learn and learning to learn-howto-learn as drivers of strategic choice and firm performance in global, technology-driven markets. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Carayannis, EG. (2008). Knowledge-driven creative destruction, or leveraging knowledge for competitive advantage: strategic knowledge arbitrage and serendipity as real options drivers triggered by co-opetition, co-evolution and co-specialization. Ind High Educ, 22(6), 343–353. Carayannis, EG, & Campbell, DFJ. (2014). Explaining and comparing quality of democracy in quadruple helix structures: the quality of democracy in the United States and in Austria, challenges and opportunities for development. In EG Carayannis, DFJ Campbell, & Marios Panagiotis Efthymiopoulos (Eds.), Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy and Cyber-Defense. Challenges, opportunities and implications for theory, policy and practice (pp. 5–22). New York, NY: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-1028-1_1. Carayannis, EG, & Campbell, DFJ. (2006a). Knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters: a comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. Carayannis, EG, & Campbell, DFJ. (2006b). “Mode 3”: Meaning and implications from a knowledge systems perspective. In EG Carayannis & DFJ Campbell (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters (pp. 1–25). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. Carayannis, EG, & Campbell, DFJ. (2009). “Mode 3”and “quadruple helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234. http://www.inderscience.com/ browse/index.php?journalID=27&year=2009&vol=46&issue=3/4 and http://www.inderscience.com/search/ index.php?action=record&rec_id=23374&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or. Carayannis, EG, & Campbell, DFJ. (2010). Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69. http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/article.aspx?titleid=41959. Carayannis, EG, & Campbell, DFJ. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. 21st-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development. SpringerBriefs in Business, volume 7. New York, New York: Springer. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/book/978-1-4614-2061-3 and http://www. springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9781461420613-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1263639p174250662. Carayannis et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2015) 4:7 Page 15 of 16 Carayannis, EG, & Campbell, DFJ. (2014). Developed democracies versus emerging autocracies: arts, democracy, and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3, 12. http://www. innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/pdf/s13731-014-0012-2.pdf and http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship. com/content/3/1/12. Carayannis, Elias G. (1993) Incrementalisme Strategique. Le Progrès Technique (no. 2), Paris, France. Carayannis, Elias G. (1997) Data warehouse, electronic commerce, and technological learning: Successes and failures from government and private industry and lessons learned for 21st century electronic government. Online Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce (March). Carayannis, Elias G. (2007). Why Joseph Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction? Everything has changed, so it is the same: Towards “Mode 3”. Research Grants & Working Paper Series #5. Washington DC: ACES –EU Center (EU Center of Excellence) (http://aei.pitt.edu/59041/1/ACESWP_Carayannis_2_2007.pdf). Carayannis, Elias G, Caroline M. Sipp (2006). e-Development toward the Knowledge Economy. Leveraging Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship for “Smart”Development. Houndmills: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Carayannis, EG, & Kaloudis, A. (2008). Diversity in the knowledge economy and society. London: Edward Elgar. Carayannis, EG, & Kaloudis, A. (2010). A time for action and a time to lead: democratic capitalism and a new “New Deal” for the US and the world in the twenty-first century. J Knowl Econ, 1(1), 4–17. Carayannis, EG, & Papadopoulos, CB. (2011). The innovation diplomacy concept and the Hellenic-American innovation bridge as a special case-in-point. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2(3), 257–326. http://link.springer.com/article/ 10.1007/s13132-011-0056-5. Carayannis, EG, & Provance, M. (2007). Measuring firm innovativeness: towards a composite innovation index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. Int J Innovat Reg Dev, 1(1), 90–107. Carayannis, EG, Gonzales, E, & John, W. (2003). The nature and dynamics of discontinuous and disruptive innovations from a learning and knowledge management perspective. In LV Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 115–138). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Carayannis, EG, Popescu, D, Sipp, C, & Stewart, MD. (2006). Technological learning for entrepreneurial development (TL4ED) in the knowledge economy (KE): Case studies and lessons learned. Technovation, 26, 419–443. Carayannis, EG, Campbell, DFJ, & Marios Panagiotis Efthymiopoulos. (2014). Cyber-Development, Cyber-Democracy and Cyber-Defense. Challenges, opportunities and implications for theory, policy and practice. New York, NY: Springer. http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/political+science/book/978-1-4939-1027-4. Chesbrough, H. (2001). Open innovation: a new paradigm for managing technology. In: New Business Strategies for R&D, presented to OECD Conference, October 22, 2001 Cooper, JR. (1998). A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation. Manag Decis, 36(8), 493–502. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590. Drejer, A. (2002). Strategic management and core competencies. New York, NY: Quorum Books. Drucker, PF. (1985). “Entrepreneurial Strategies”innovation and entrepreneurship practice and principles (pp. 207–243). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Nelson, RR, & Winter, SG. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Penrose, ET. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York, NY: Wiley. Ramasami, R. Senapathi (2011). Knowledge Management. Lulu.Com (http://www.loot.co.za/product/dr-r-senapathiramasami-knowledge-management/pzkd-2280-g720). Rogers, EM, & Shoemaker, FF. (1971). Communication of innovations: a cross-cultural approach. New York, NY: Free Press. Routti, Jorma (2003). Research and Innovation in Finland –Transformation into a Knowledge Economy. In Competitiveness and the Knowledge Economy Research and Innovation Strategies: Cases of Chile and Finland, presented at the Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC Singh, Vikash Kumar (2010).IT as a competitive Advantage Tool in the Knowledge Economy. Social Science Research Network (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1641630). Tornazky, LG, & Fleischer, M. (1990). The processes of technological innovation. Lexington, MA: DC Heath. Umpleby, SA. (1990). The science of cybernetics and the cybernetics of science. Cybernetics and Systems, 21(1), 109–121. ftp://ftp.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/Papers_Umpleby/Science-Cybernetics.txt. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Zaltman, G, et al. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from: 7 Convenient online submission 7 Rigorous peer review 7 Immediate publication on acceptance 7 Open access: articles freely available online 7 High visibility within the fi eld 7 Retaining the copyright to your article Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com Carayannis et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2015) 4:7 Page 16 of 16