Table 1. Features of a TIS – Frenken... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1.

Features of a TIS – Frenken (2017) extended/summarised

Feature	Description	References (beyond Frenken)
1) “Wicked problem” context	The formation of a TIS is appropriate in cases in which there are persistent market and/or systems failures; involving a range of different actors who do not fully agree on solutions; require innovation across economic, technical and institutional domains; and which “incremental” change is unlikely to resolve	- Peters (2017) - Weber and Rohracher (2012) - Rittel and Webber (1973)
2) Locally-defined objective	A “clear” (set of) objective(s) – and a process for achieving clarity around objectives is a necessary precursor to the formation of a TIS. Furthermore, the participants in this process must include those closest to the targeted issue(s) and with something to gain from their resolution. The phrase “demand articulation” is used to express this activity in innovation theory and “demand articulation failure” is identified by Weber and Rohracher as one of the four likely areas of failure in urban transformation theory	- Boon et al. (2011) - Weber and Rohracher (2012)
3) Temporary coalition of heterogeneous actors	Frenken posits that to achieve “unrelated diversification” through innovation it is necessary to have a broad range of participants that bring different competencies and expertise to bear. However, he notes that the interactions amongst these actors should not be formalised to “avoid possible clashes between already existing institutional logics, sunk investments and interests (p. 44)”	None – other than Frenken (2017)
4) Tentative governance	Echoing Lindblom’s (1959) description of “muddling through”, this is an unspecified set of activities and connections between the actors participating in the temporary coalition above. Kuhlmann et al. (2019) describe it as a “dynamic process to manage interdependencies and contingencies in a non-finalising way; prudent (e.g. trial and error or learning processes in general) and preliminary (e.g. temporally limited) rather than prescriptive and persistent”	- Kuhlmann et al. (2019) - Rhodes et al. (2011) - Lindblom and Woodhouse (1993) - Lindblom (1959)
5) “Mode 2” knowledge production processes	Originally identified by Gibbons et al. (1994) as a phenomenon of greater interdisciplinarity arising out of the globalisation of information exchange, Mode 2 knowledge production involves a broader range and variety of participants. This paved the way for the concept of “triple-helix” innovation processes (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 1996) involving business, government and universities. Frenken suggests that whilst difficult to achieve, Mode 2 knowledge production is a likely route to “unrelated diversification” innovation. Our insertion of the “transaction consultant” below is aimed at facilitating Mode 2	- Hardeman et al. (2015) - Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz (1996) - Gibbons et al. (1994)
6) Translation consultant	Originally identified in Nichols and Wagner (2017) in relation to SIBs in the US, this actor appears in a number of SIB projects across the EU and so was identified by Rhodes and Donnelly-Cox (2019) as a potentially key factor in temporary innovation systems involving stakeholders from diverse backgrounds, holding different assumptions about the context and speaking in different institutional “languages”. The translation consultant provides a “translation” service between institutional actors and – in the case of SIBs – helps to clarify risk and return for each participant	- anonymised for the review process (2018; 2019) - Nichols and Wagner (2017)

Feature	Description	References (beyond Frenken)
1) “Wicked problem” context	The formation of a TIS is appropriate in cases in which there are persistent market and/or systems failures; involving a range of different actors who do not fully agree on solutions; require innovation across economic, technical and institutional domains; and which “incremental” change is unlikely to resolve	- Peters (2017)- Weber and Rohracher (2012)- Rittel and Webber (1973)
2) Locally-defined objective	A “clear” (set of) objective(s) – and a process for achieving clarity around objectives is a necessary precursor to the formation of a TIS. Furthermore, the participants in this process must include those closest to the targeted issue(s) and with something to gain from their resolution. The phrase “demand articulation” is used to express this activity in innovation theory and “demand articulation failure” is identified by Weber and Rohracher as one of the four likely areas of failure in urban transformation theory	- Boon et al. (2011)- Weber and Rohracher (2012)
3) Temporary coalition of heterogeneous actors	Frenken posits that to achieve “unrelated diversification” through innovation it is necessary to have a broad range of participants that bring different competencies and expertise to bear. However, he notes that the interactions amongst these actors should not be formalised to “avoid possible clashes between already existing institutional logics, sunk investments and interests (p. 44)”	None – other than Frenken (2017)
4) Tentative governance	Echoing Lindblom’s (1959) description of “muddling through”, this is an unspecified set of activities and connections between the actors participating in the temporary coalition above. Kuhlmann et al. (2019) describe it as a “dynamic process to manage interdependencies and contingencies in a non-finalising way; prudent (e.g. trial and error or learning processes in general) and preliminary (e.g. temporally limited) rather than prescriptive and persistent”	- Kuhlmann et al. (2019)- Rhodes et al. (2011)- Lindblom and Woodhouse (1993)- Lindblom (1959)
5) “Mode 2” knowledge production processes	Originally identified by Gibbons et al. (1994) as a phenomenon of greater interdisciplinarity arising out of the globalisation of information exchange, Mode 2 knowledge production involves a broader range and variety of participants. This paved the way for the concept of “triple-helix” innovation processes (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 1996) involving business, government and universities. Frenken suggests that whilst difficult to achieve, Mode 2 knowledge production is a likely route to “unrelated diversification” innovation. Our insertion of the “transaction consultant” below is aimed at facilitating Mode 2	- Hardeman et al. (2015)- Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz (1996)- Gibbons et al. (1994)
6) Translation consultant	Originally identified in Nichols and Wagner (2017) in relation to SIBs in the US, this actor appears in a number of SIB projects across the EU and so was identified by Rhodes and Donnelly-Cox (2019) as a potentially key factor in temporary innovation systems involving stakeholders from diverse backgrounds, holding different assumptions about the context and speaking in different institutional “languages”. The translation consultant provides a “translation” service between institutional actors and – in the case of SIBs – helps to clarify risk and return for each participant	- anonymised for the review process (2018; 2019)- Nichols and Wagner (2017)