Innovative ecosystem based on a sixtuple helix on the example of the Podkarpackie Voivodeship
More details
Hide details
Uniwersytet Gdański, Wydział Zarządzania Politechnika Gdańska, Wydział Architektury
Uniwersytet Gdański, Wydział Zarządzania
Submission date: 2023-01-04
Final revision date: 2023-09-29
Acceptance date: 2023-10-01
Publication date: 2023-10-31
Corresponding author
Elżbieta Wojnicka-Sycz   

Uniwersytet Gdański, Wydział Zarządzania Politechnika Gdańska, Wydział Architektury
JoMS 2023;52(3):172–189
The objective of this article is to verify the proposed model of the innovation ecosystem based on a six-fold helix: enterprises, intermediary institutions, science, administration, society and the natural environment, corresponding to the post-materialist paradigm in innovation. This model complements the existing helix models of the innovation system with intermediary institutions for innovation transfer, as well as new types of innovation (eco-innovation, social innovation, etc.). The post-materialist paradigm is also pointed to as a direction for the development of the system paradigm in science, as well as in innovation.

Material and methods:
A survey research was carried out using an online survey questionnaire (CAWI) among 145 agents of the Podkarpackie innovation system, mostly enterprises. The basis for the formulation of the survey questionnaire was the proposed six-helix model. The results of the survey were analyzed using logit regression.

The survey showed that the goals of sustainable development are important to the entities of the Podkarpackie region, and that quite a few of them declare cooperation with representatives of different groups of the sixfold helix. For entities implementing research, development and innovation (R&D&I) projects, cooperation with scientists, consulting firms and in membership organizations was particularly important.

The research confirmed the holistic, systemic nature of innovation and the importance of approach consistent with sustainable development corresponding to post-materialism. The results indicate that with regard to innovation studies at the national or other regions' level, it is necessary to take into account the new goals of innovation that are linked to corporate social responsibility in its social and environmental dimensions.

Bolisani, E., Kassaneh, T. C., Lis, A., Scarso, E., Stolarek-Muszyńska, E., & Zięba, M. (2023). KM Challenges in Small KIBS Companies: Multi-case Analysis in Two Countries.
Callahan, J.F. (1987). Riffing and Paradigm-Building: The Anomaly of Tradition and Innovation in Invisible Man and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Callaloo, No. 30.
Carayannis, E.G., Barth, T.D. & Campbell, D.F. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. J Innov Entrep 1, s. 2.
Cempel C. (2008). Teoria i inżynieria systemów. ITE Radom.
Coenen L. (2007) The role of universities in the regional innovation systems of the North East of England and Scania, Sweden: providing missing links?, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2007, vol. 25.
Coenen, L., Asheim, B., Bugge, MM, Herstad, SJ. (2017). Advancing regional innovation systems: What does evolutionary economic geography bring to the policy table?. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(4), ss.600-620.
Corsini, L., Dammicco, V., Moultrie. J. (2021). Frugal Innovation in a Crisis: The Digital Fabrication Maker Response to COVID-19.. R&D Management, 51 (2), ss.195–210.
Edler, J., Cunningham, P., Gok, A., Shapira, P. (red.) (2016). Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact. Eu-SPRI Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation Policy series, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham.
Gancarczyk, M., Najda-Janoszka, M., Gancarczyk, J. Hassink, R. (2023). Exploring Regional Innovation Policies and Regional Industrial Transformation from a Coevolutionary Perspective: The Case of Małopolska, Poland, Economic Geography, 99:1, 51-80, DOI: 10.1080/00130095.2022.2120465.
Gancarczyk, M., Rodil-Marzábal, Ó. (2022). Fintech framing financial ecologies: Conceptual and policy-related implications. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Innovation, 18(4), 7-44.
Granstranda, O., Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, Volume 90–91.
Hagen, A., Higdem U. (2019). Calculate, Communicate, and Innovate: Do We Need Innovate as a Third Position?. Journal of Planning Literature, 34(4), ss. 421-433.
Leydesdorff, L., Zawdie, G. (2010). The triple helix perspective of innovation systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22:7, ss. 789-804.
Martin, R., Moodysson, J. (2011). Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of knowledge sourcing in the regional innovation system of Scania, Sweden. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20(2), ss. 170–187.
Mazzucato, M. (2021). Mission economy. a moonshot guide to changing capitalism. London: Allen Lane.
Nakicenovic, N., Zimm, C., Matusiak, M., Ciampi Stancova, K. (2021). Smart Specialisation, Sustainable Development Goals and environmental commons. Conceptual framework in the context of EU policy, EUR 30882 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
North, D.C. (1997). Towards a Theory of Institutional Change. Quaterly Review of Economics and Business, No 79.
OECD/Eurostat. (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation. 4th Edition, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg.
Roman M., Fellnhofer K. (2022). Facilitating the participation of civil society in regional planning: Implementing quadruple helix model in Finnish regions. Land Use Policy, Volume 112.
Schot J., Steinmuelle W.E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, Vol. 47, Iss. 9, ss. 1554-1567.
Shabanova Y. (2019). Conceptual Foundations of the Postmaterialist Paradigm of Science. Philosophy and Cosmology, Vol. 22.
Silva-Flores M.L. (2019). Social Innovation Policies: A Way Through Consolidating Emerging Innovation Infrastructures. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 24(3).
Stål, H.I., Babri M. (2020). Educational interventions for sustainable innovation in small and medium sized enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 243, s. 1.
UE (2022). Dyrektywa Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2022/2464 z dnia 14 grudnia 2022 r. w sprawie zmiany rozporządzenia (UE) nr 537/2014, dyrektywy 2004/109/WE, dyrektywy 2006/43/WE oraz dyrektywy 2013/34/UE w odniesieniu do sprawozdawczości przedsiębiorstw w zakresie zrównoważonego rozwoju, Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej 16.12.2022 r., dostęp 29.09.2023.
UMWL (2022). Program Rozwoju Innowacji do 2030 roku. Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa Lubuskiego,, dostęp 29.09.2023.
Voyer, R. (1998). Knowledge-Based Industrial Clustering: International Comparisons. w: John Mothe i Gilles Paquet, Local and Regional Systems of Innovation, ss. 81-110, Springer New York.
Wessner, Ch.W. (2013). Best Practices in State and Regional Innovation Initiatives: Competing in the 21st Century. National Academies Press.
Wojnicka, E. (2003). The First Overview of Clusters in Poland. Argumenta Oeconomica, 1-2.
Wojnicka-Sycz E., Piróg K., Sycz P., Mularz K. (2022). Ekspertyza dotycząca dobrych praktyk w zakresie wzmacniania zaangażowania interesariuszy regionalnych systemów innowacji. IBERIS i Univentum Labs dla Urzędu Marszałkowskiego Województwa Podkarpackiego.