Dear Prof. Romme,

Thanks for posing this question. In my view, we do need such syntheses. For the LIPSE project (EU FP7, see www.lipse.org) we do conduct systematic reviews (using the PRISMA-method for systematic review, see http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000100) on innovation topics. It can highlight gaps in the literature and for instance drivers and barrier of co-creation during innovations. These articles are now under construction (some in review at journals). See for another interesting recent study http://jom.sagepub.com/content/36/4/857.short.

All the best,

Lars Tummers

Dear Prof. Romme,

Thanks for posing this question. In my view, we do need such syntheses. For the LIPSE project (EU FP7, see www.lipse.org) we do conduct systematic reviews (using the PRISMA-method for systematic review, see http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000100) on innovation topics. It can highlight gaps in the literature and for instance drivers and barrier of co-creation during innovations. These articles are now under construction (some in review at journals). See for another interesting recent study http://jom.sagepub.com/content/36/4/857.short.

All the best,

Lars Tummers

Interesting question...my take on it: "yes and no" (short version ;-) )

Longer version (scroll down for conclusion):

Hegel's - or maybe even better - Popper's dialectical ansatz of "problem 1 --> preliminary theory 1.0 --> "debugging" --> problem 2 --> preliminary theory 2.0 -->...." suggests that we MIGHT get some usable result (i.e. a set of tools/methods for designing innovation).

Imho the topic (i.e. "Innovation") is too complex to allow systematic AND true AND meaningful derivation of "Erkenntnis" (for the lack of a suitable word in English) and synthesis

(which would give us sort of a "blueprint" or "toolkit" for solving innovation and/or entrepreneurial problems).

Imo business and entrepreneurship are highly practical and creative domains - which ex ante collides with scientific rigour.

BUT: there are scientific methods which imo could help consolidate (or maybe even synthesize) PARTS of knowledge we have gathered in the domain of entrepreneurship.

Examples:

*)A good example is the Soviet TRIZ-method, where scientists and practicians systematically collected all (so far known) possibilities for changing the function of a machine.

*)Also, in a recent blogpost from "The Economist" (http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21593591-are-startups-just-workaholic-white-male-lumpen-preneurs-founders-blues) the author has made the imo correct case that the venture capital industry has by now dissected and decomposed the entreprenurial/start-up processes sufficiently well to "know" when&how to invest and under which conditions and how the start-up has to be built.....which all in all commoditizes the whole thing thereby steamrolling the creative process.

Now virtually anybody can be a start-up CEO - the VCs have a pool of ideas, they stipulate how the start-up is going to be build up, the "CEO" becomes merely the executor of the VC team. Whether this is good or bad we cannot tell, but FOR THE MOMENT it works!

So there is evidence that scientific methods for classifying, consolidating or synthesizing work in the domain of innovation and entrepreneurship can work.

The big question is how long the half-life and the quality of those methods are.

How timeless are they, how timeless can they be?

CONCLUSION:

*)If we look at medicine, engineering etc.: all their methods are 1.) only partially synthesized 2.) have a certain half-life (sometimes methods work for hundreds of years, sometimes they fade away within months).

*)If we use the "onionskin-model" for science (where physics is the core, next comes chemistry, then biology etc....), "entrepreneurship" is on one of the outer shells, and these are very difficult to describe (and therfore difficult to synthesize).

*) Still, synthesizing/consolidating/classifying can work in entrepreneurship or innovation.

*) The main issues in synthesing entreprenurship-related knowledge are complexity and half-life. We have to consider them.

*) My solution to the issue would be: to create a "history book of entrepreneurship", to use a historical approach (which must not be too rigid), viz. to collect methods, tp examine methods over time and over domains and geographical regions, to detect emerging patterns, to build classifying models, to present different models - and to write the book in way that lets entrepreneurs breathe inspiration when reading this potpourri of antrepreneurial knowledge.

Synthesis is needed on innovation and entrepreneurship education. There are well known journals devoted to Management Education (such as AMLE) and Engineering Education. However, innovation and entrepreneurship education has received less attention despite rhetoric around the importance for generating such skills of the 21st century. Universities are increasingly being criticized for their failure in innovation and entrepreneurship education with their excessive focus on storytelling about entrepreneurs, business planning competitions and lean start up models. Stemming from many cases of leading entrepreneurs who were either university drop-outs or did not go to university at all, there is cynicism in the community about the effectiveness of universities in generating innovators. However, there are in fact successful approaches to developing creativity and innovation skills being used by universities such as work integrated learning (WIL). Research shows that this approach is beneficial to both students in developing their creativity and innovation skills, confidence, self-efficacy and leadership and also to businesses in contributing towards the development and commercialization of new products and services and the recruitment of talented employees. Therefore, synthesis is critical in knowledge sharing about these successful techniques for the innovation and entrepreneurship discipline to articulate its effective pedagogical approaches and showcase its impact on business. For further details on preliminary work on such approaches, see: http://www.apjce.org/files/APJCE_15_1_1_11.pdf

Thanks Georges for your interesting question.

One could say that International Standards (like ISO 9000, 14000, etc.) and Excellence Models (like those behind EFQM, Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award and many others around the World) are in fact kinds of “synthesis” of best practices of management.

In fact, even though the scope of the first ones is international and the latters’ is regional or national, both are “models” created as “guides” to improve the Quality Management Systems of the organizations.

Similarly, on the Innovation Management field, there are many “models” that “synthesize” what we could call “best practices” that altogether, in your words, can be a kind of “action principles, to inform and guide professional practice”.

One of the pioneering experiences in the World is the “UNE 166000” standards series, related to the R&D&i field (R&D&i = Research and Development and Innovation). For example, the UNE 166002 standard defines the requirements of a R&D&i Management System, while the UNE 166001 defines the requirements of a R&D&I Project. These standards were developed in Spain more than a decade ago, and this Country is currently leading the process for the creation of similar standards at the European level.

More recently in our Country, we have developed the Uruguayan Innovation Management Model (MUGI = Modelo Uruguayo de Gestión de la Innovación). I am very sorry that it is in Spanish, but supposing you can understand that language, I am attaching a ZIP file containing the two volumes that currently make up the MUGI –the first one contains the model itself and the second, the levels for evaluating an organizations’ maturity.

The MUGI is the result of an interesting collaborative work carried out by the National Institute of Quality (INACAL), the Laboratory of Technology of Uruguay (LATU), the Catholic University of Uruguay (UCU), the National Research and Innovation Agency (ANII) and the Uruguay Chamber of Industry (CIU).

I hope it's of interest.

Best regards,

Álvaro Sorondo.

Dear Professor,

I believe that it is too early to have a research synthesis for entrepreneurship. Fundamental problems in entrepreneurship are yet to be resolved. For example, we were unable to introduce a new form of opportunity besides five forms introduced by Schumpeter in 1934. Also we do not know sources of opportunity other than social/ demographic, political/regulatory, and technological (Shane, 2003:263). We are researching only on productive entrepreneurship. But unproductive entrepreneurship (Baumol, 1990) is taking place in every country at varing magnitudes, specially in developing countries. Confining research only to productive entrepreneurship will not help policy makers to formulate policies to develop entrepreneurial activities of a country unless they (policy makers) aware about unproductive entrepreneurship and and its contribution/reduction to economic growth of the country. The very nature of disciplines you mentioned (medicine, architecture etc, ) do not permit to have unproductive aspects. if we can collect data accurately, I believe unproductive entrepreneurship bring about more profits than the productive ones. Then how can we set standard for entrepreneurship without knowing the other half of entrepreneurship(unproductive entrepreneurship).

From a practice point of view I strongly agree that we need such an integrated research. Entrepreneurship basically means founding a new company leveraging a business model or technology innovation. The start up company is the way to make money from an idea, hence to make it a real innovation. I think, both, entrepreneurs and innovators, would benefit from such and integrated research - especially since these are often the same people.

Lars, Leon, Giselle, Alvaro, Upananda & Mathias,

Thanks for your great comments and various suggestions! Lot's of food for thought for future work in this area.

Dear Sir,

I accept your gratitude. I believe that gratitude or reciprocity is one aspect essential for theory building effort.

Upananda

We definitely need, since only innovative entrepreneurship is good for development. See my survey paper:

http://icc.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/14/icc.dtt005

That's good topic for discussions, no doubt innovation and entrepreneurship is a practical path, from my point of view research synthesis is necessary. Entrepreneurship is also alertness and responsive to the surrounding environment. For capacity building while responding the uncertainties strategic planning and quick response can be the right approach. Here Research synthesis can be considered as important tool in this regard.

Dear all

teaching entrepreneurship is a miracle in itself. For sure it's an issue to teach students outside the management and economics courses the basics of company operations and the like but be cautious in teaching them management. in many engineering and natural sciences students' mindset management is about marketing and accounting which they don't like at all, too artificial and less value adding in their opinion. this is true I beliefe (being a management studies graduate myself). now what seems more efficient is teaching engineering and natural sciences students the impact of their education and research (their competences in a broader sense). such should be a matter of innovation courses, courses which tell them to set priorities in research and science, prepare project plans, look for applicaiton fields etc. the word entrepreneurship is a little bit like a buzzword which actually doesn't mean anything else than innovation. if you succeed and convince students that there always was and still is a difference between idea, invention and innovation you'll propoably have made a great success. the awareness alone is worth gold you could argue. in addition it should be made clear to students especially that spin-offs are one way of making innovation happen. It might be really worthwhile to run a study comparing different approaches and their outcomes - but any approach will be targeted at the hosting institutions' framework which makes comparision difficult.

Definitely yes, see my recent article attached