A synthesis of the emerging results related to shared value-creation process in the studied cases
| Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| WHAT is created | |||
| Output sphere | Different output spheres are in focus; members are required to monitor specific indicators at project level | Different output spheres in focus (importance of the social one). A performance measurement system will stress the relevance of the “joint” results | Social, economic, innovation and environmental impacts generated and partially monitored by the hub Economic returns necessary to reinvest for having the other ones |
| Performance | Intensity is fostered by the width of the IE and the nature of actors | Resilience is in focus in the design of the IE | Rapidity is particularly key |
| HOW value is created | |||
| Coopetition | Collaboration at project level, supported by formal mechanisms (i.e. IP rules) | Anchors are not competitors. Other actors may be also competitors and their collaboration in the same place might open opportunities | Collaboration and openness are values of the actors in the IE |
| Alignment | Internal alignment at project level. Formal procedures are necessary to grant it at IE level. External viability supported by the width of the structure | Internal alignment supported by the anchors and the physical proximity. External viability strengthened by the type and role of anchors | Internal alignment strengthened by the presence of the hub and the internal coherence of actors |
| WHO creates value | |||
| Actors | Dispersed and diverse: mainly companies of diverse sizes (from multinationals to start-ups) | Very diverse anchors: hospital, research center, private multinational, public entity, university | Private hub firm + its components, complementors and clients |
| Relationships | Relationships strengthened at project level. Difficult to be identified and maintained at IE level Tangible and intangible resources shared at project level, with care | Both internal and external, strengthened by the anchors. Spaces and intangible resources shared (rational openness) | Mainly internal, stemming from the hub and client and then among all IE actors Tangible and intangible resources shared |
| Governance | Top-down mandate and bottom-up development Independent industry led consortium | Top-down mandate (with independence of the tops) and bottom-up future development Multi-layered governance structure | Hub's centrality and bottom – up development Governance structure overlapped with the hub |
| Policies | |||
| Role | Key role in promoting, funding, designing the IE | Important in promoting PPPs and enabling some anchors' roles | Policy gap at national and local level |
| Type | Incentives and funds Regulations Consistency at diverse levels | Funding Regulations ad – hoc Incentives for research (at diverse levels | Incentives and funds (especially for research at international level) |
| Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Output sphere | Different output spheres are in focus; members are required to monitor specific indicators at project level | Different output spheres in focus (importance of the social one). A performance measurement system will stress the relevance of the “joint” results | Social, economic, innovation and environmental impacts generated and partially monitored by the hub |
| Performance | Intensity is fostered by the width of the IE and the nature of actors | Resilience is in focus in the design of the IE | Rapidity is particularly key |
| Coopetition | Collaboration at project level, supported by formal mechanisms (i.e. IP rules) | Anchors are not competitors. Other actors may be also competitors and their collaboration in the same place might open opportunities | Collaboration and openness are values of the actors in the IE |
| Alignment | Internal alignment at project level. Formal procedures are necessary to grant it at IE level. External viability supported by the width of the structure | Internal alignment supported by the anchors and the physical proximity. External viability strengthened by the type and role of anchors | Internal alignment strengthened by the presence of the hub and the internal coherence of actors |
| Actors | Dispersed and diverse: mainly companies of diverse sizes (from multinationals to start-ups) | Very diverse anchors: hospital, research center, private multinational, public entity, university | Private hub firm + its components, complementors and clients |
| Relationships | Relationships strengthened at project level. Difficult to be identified and maintained at IE level | Both internal and external, strengthened by the anchors. Spaces and intangible resources shared (rational openness) | Mainly internal, stemming from the hub and client and then among all IE actors |
| Governance | Top-down mandate and bottom-up development | Top-down mandate (with independence of the tops) and bottom-up future development | Hub's centrality and bottom – up development |
| Role | Key role in promoting, funding, designing the IE | Important in promoting PPPs and enabling some anchors' roles | Policy gap at national and local level |
| Type | Incentives and funds | Funding | Incentives and funds (especially for research at international level) |
Source(s): Author's own creation