Knowledge generation

Besides the issues of who should participate and how they should do it, there is also the issue of what sort of knowledge should be generated and who would generate it. First of all, it has been established that companies should know the markets (Foray 2015), universities should know the latest research (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff 2000), public organisations should know the relevant actors (Morgan 2017b) and civil society should have useful personal experience (Lundström & Mäenpää 2017) either based on knowledge of products or by knowing the different actors. However, how can one efficiently gather this sort of knowledge? Especially as there are a lot of stakeholders in the region and they are not perhaps willing to share everything. The longitude of the process may help, as mentioned in the previous chapter, but the S3 process needs some sort of basis which can be used to start this process. Even at the outset of the RIS3 formulation, the regional stakeholders’ knowledge would be very useful in order to guide the region in the right direction.

If the public organisations know the regional stakeholders well, then they can invite different representatives to participate in wider discussions or arrange interviews or surveys in order to gain insights regarding future areas of specialisation. If the regional stakeholders are not known, then the public organisation may seek the help of local development agencies or universities in

order to better understand the regional activities. One useful way of gaining knowledge regarding regional activities may also be via the inclusion of civil society (Lundström & Mäenpää 2017; Benner 2014).

For example, civil society members may spot future sunrise-industries or point out otherwise interesting entrepreneurs or products which may help in defining the direction for future specialisation. If we take Foray’s (2015: 20–21) example of the Morez region’s glass manufacturers, then one citizen may have pointed out the “new glass-making company” and this might have spread interest among other local practitioners such as entrepreneurs, who subsequently followed the path to become glass manufacturers themselves. The glass cluster might have emerged this way. Nowadays one kick-starter video or YouTuber can spread the word to thousands of people in an instant.

These speculative examples also demonstrate another specific ability of civil society members. Whereas companies and universities operate in their own spheres of excellence (markets and research fields), civil society can give feedback to both of them via their behaviour. More than that, they can spread good ideas and thus make the regional specialisation better known (Lundström & Mäenpää 2017). Overall, there have been studies indicating that individuals can make a difference in innovation (Benner 2014) and this highlights the role of wide participation in regional projects.

There are three key issues which help in acquiring the necessary knowledge for future specialisation. These are:

-knowledge of the scale and nature of activities -knowledge of products/services

-knowledge of future trends

An important aspect regarding this knowledge is the scale and nature of activities. The main focus naturally is on regional innovation activities, but these may very well include (both intra- and) extra-regional activities. A single stakeholder might have several linkages, and this creates a quite complex and dynamic structure for understanding what is happening in the region. Only by understanding the wider picture can one start to understand the regional innovation activities and how important the different actors are and how they can contribute to the future. Besides this, there needs to be an understanding of the actual regional products or services. Only by understanding the background conditions or necessities can one truly start to ponder what the reasonable options might be. This sort of knowledge

is very often limited to the end users of innovations or inside companies regarding products and/or services and therefore can be very challenging to acquire. Universities may also have this knowledge, but usually it relates more to policies or individual properties of the products/services and therefore it is not on the right “scale”.

A future orientation is obviously important, and this shows stakeholders, who are internationally interesting, or have the ability to reach global markets sometime soon in the future. One area of knowledge might relate to the ideas or views of a particular field and how it will change in the future. One way to look at the future is by studying key enabling technologies (Foray et al. 2012) and their adaptation. Foray (2015: 27) has demonstrated a number of ways on how to reach for future domains. For example, transition, modernisation, or diversification may be ways to achieve this. Transition refers for new activities that emerge from existing industrial commons as new ideas/trends etc. emerge. Modernisation refers for new technologies (such as key enabling technologies), which transform existing products or services. Diversification refers to new activities that emerge alongside an existing activity, as synergies (economies of scope) make new markets attractive and profitable. Examples might include specific service companies or sub- contractors. Foray (2015: 28) has also suggested that there may be a possibility for radical foundation which means regional specialisation without existing knowledge. Obviously this is not intended directly, but may turn out to be a side effect of mutual innovation activities.

By focusing on the knowledge regarding activities, products/services or future trends, it is possible to ask the right questions in order to look at the existing activities and forecast their future. By analysing this knowledge, one is able to see whether existing activities could be a focus for future specialisation or whether there would be a need for totally new sorts of activities. This is something that the regional stakeholders ought to think about.