CENTERIS 2013 - Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / PRojMAN 2013 - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCIST 2013 - International Conference on Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies

The lack of common objectives is harmful to display a dynamic innovation system, where universities-firms-governments walk together in the same way to accomplish a common objective: produce high levels of innovation that aim to enhance the competitiveness of European economy. The sharing of practices, attitudes, expectations, rules and values that enable the flow and the distribution of tacit knowledge and other ways of proprietary knowledge are essential to promote an innovation system coming from Educational Institutions. In this paper we offer a diagnosis of the Spanish Science and Technology System by making use of the normalized protocol for responsible partnering proposed by EIRMA (European Industrial Research Management Association) in 2009. Afterwards we build a SWOT analysis that can be of interest to University and Innovation policy makers in Spain. We suggest the use of the same tools to analyze what is happening in other contexts in order to find best practices that will lead us improve different systems. © 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of CENTERIS/ProjMAN/HCIST.

[1]  Joe Tidd.  The Competence Cycle: Translating Knowledge Into New Processes, Products And Services , 2000 .

[2]  Construir zonas de intercambio entre la academia y el mercado: una aproximación desde la pragmática cultural , 2007 .

[3]  P. Cooke.  Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: Exploring 'Globalisation 2'--A new model of industry organisation , 2005 .

[4]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Competing for the Future , 1994 .

[5]  Jody Hoffer Gittell,et al.  High Performance Healthcare: Using the Power of Relationships to Achieve Quality, Efficiency and Resilience , 2009 .

[6]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Using grounded theory in psychological research. , 1997 .

[7]  D. Partington.  Building Grounded Theories of Management Action , 2000 .

[8]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos , 1998 .

[9]  Luz Jeannette Quintero-Campos.  Aportes teóricos para el estudio de un sistema de innovación , 2010 .

[10]  Andy Lowe.  The basic social processes of entrepreneurial innovation , 1995 .

[11]  M. Polanyi.  Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[12]  Karen Locke.  Grounded Theory in Management Research , 2000 .

[13]  S. Winter,et al.  An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.by Richard R. Nelson; Sidney G. Winter , 1987 .

[14]  H. Demsetz,et al.  Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization , 1975, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[15]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[16]  Michael C. Jensen,et al.  A Theory of the Firm: Governance, Residual Claims, and Organizational Forms , 2001 .

[17]  José Emilio Navas López,et al.  El capital relacional como fuente de innovación tecnológica , 2009 .

[18]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Strategy as stretch and leverage. , 1993, Harvard business review.

[19]  Bengt-Åke Lundvall,et al.  National Systems of Innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning London: Pint , 1995 .

[20]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES, WHAT ARE THEY? , 2000 .

[21]  G. Day.  The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations , 1994 .

[22]  C. Prahalad,et al.  The Core Competence of the Corporation , 1990 .

[23]  Maurizio Zollo,et al.  Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities , 2002 .

[24]  D. Teece,et al.  The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: an Introduction , 1994 .

[25]  Alice Lam.  Tacit Knowledge, Organizational Learning and Societal Institutions: An Integrated Framework , 2000 .

[26]  W. Powell,et al.  The Knowledge Economy , 2004 .