
e-ISSN: 2576-0971. April - June Vol. 7 - 2 - 2023 . http://journalbusinesses.com/index.php/revista
21
Innovation ecosystems.
To answer our initial question of our work on innovation ecosystems are needed to
improve agribusiness performance we must begin by noting the models of innovation
ecosystems found in the literature review.
For Jackson (2011), as cited in (Finquelievich et al., 2017) The difference between a
biological ecosystem and an innovation ecosystem is that the former refers to a set of
relationships between life, habitat and residents in an area, while the latter refers to
complex relationships in the economy that promote the development of technology
and innovation. The key elements in an innovation ecosystem include material resources
and human capital, such as students, professors, researchers and companies, which are
part of institutional entities such as universities, companies and funding agencies.
Currently, the most economically prosperous cities are those that have managed to
create urban environments that function as innovation ecosystems. These environments
promote the circulation and transfer of knowledge to the economic system and society
in general. As a result, knowledge-intensive companies with a global vision and strong
growth, willing to learn constantly, develop. This has a positive impact on the economy
of the regions involved, on the development of university research centers and on
society in general, which becomes more receptive to innovation and better prepared
to act in the Knowledge Society.
In the paper entitled Species in the Wild: a typology of innovation ecosystems, Klimas
& Czakon (2021) using a critical analysis of systematic literature reviews and a thematic
analysis, identify 34 different types of innovation ecosystems intentional (deliberate,
planned), emergent (implicit), orchestrated (hierarchy), collectively coordinated
(heterarchy), emergent, developmental, mature, declining, dead, corporate-dominated,
university-dominated, meta-organizational, centralized, decentralized, egocentric (firm-
centric; center-based), microscopic, mediocopic, macroscopic, radical innovation-
centered, incremental innovation-centered, pioneering innovations-centered, high-tech,
multi-platform, urban/innovation districts, local, regional, national, international, global,
digital (just clicks), successful (strong), promising, profitable, and sustainable. (Klimas &
Czakon, 2021, p. 275)
With these results Klimas & Czakon (2021) extend their classification to a total of 50
types of innovation ecosystems by adding the following complementary types as:
"self-coordinated, symmetric, asymmetric, ecocentric, disruptive innovation-focused,
social innovation-focused, medium-tech, low-tech, single-platform, bricks-and-clicks,
unsuccessful (weak), unprofitable and unsustainable". Depending on the extent to which
innovation co-creation relationships are exploited through innovation processes
implemented by IE actors (innovation ecosystems), they aggregate into: (1 ) co-
discovery; (2) co-development; (3) co-implementation; (4) co-delivery; (5) co-diffusion;
and (6) multi-stage co-innovation." (Finquelievich, Feldman, & Girolimo, 2017, p. 275)
For our research, we will take the types of ecosystems mentioned above that we have
considered best suited to our study.