In the InnoBridge project the core is to improve Innovation Bridge and related policy instruments for SMEs to increase SMEs’ competitiveness. Each partner region has addressed a policy instrument for a peer review process to find improvements and develop stronger impact on SMEs competitiveness. Tampere Region has been implementing Open Innovation Platform (OIP) policy for about 10 years. This is done with a strong focus on more dynamic ecosystem - like innovation environment - by funding and supporting actions with different value adding processes encouraging especially the co-creation of different organizations. From this experience it was a natural choice for Tampere Region to choose OIP policy to InnoBridge project as instrument for further improvement.
Open Innovation Platform (OIP) as a concept is known for its fuzzy and complicated definition. Each and every one talking about it has a little different perspective to it, creating a guaranteed confusion for the audience. Presenting OIP and the related policy work to InnoBridge project partners and exposing both for a Peer Review has been particularly interesting during this reporting period. The process has challenged us to rethink the definition of OIP, to develop further the mutual understanding for OIPs in the Regional Council and define especially how and why do we need platform policy in our region.
OIP policy has not survived without criticism. Based on the Peer Review report that Tampere Region produced, InnoBridge project partners raised up 20 critical questions concerning the policy and funding of OIPs and interlinked concrete activities. It was more than valuable to go thru those questions and have the discussion about the issues to build a common understanding of OIP policy and the innovation activities that are possible on OIPs. Due to the InnoBridge Peer Review workshop we realized even better that many regions actually have innovation activities related to innovation platforms even though they are not named as platforms. They are called as networks, co-operational relationships, partnerships etc. From our point of view all of those co-creation and co-operation activities have the potential to be designed and developed as Open Innovation Platforms to create stronger networking effect for the actors. All in all, the different concepts come and go and in the end it doesn’t matter how you call these things. It is the people and the added value that is created that matters. As a colleague Sevdalina Voynova from Sofia Development Association wrote in her blog: “The greatest Tampere success in my opinion is that there is a new subject in the leading role in the innovation scene - the community, while structural funds, public administration, universities are in supporting roles of co-creators and customers. That is an incredible achievement!”
www.pirkanmaa.fi/blog/2017/03/28/tampere-innovations-the-road-less-travelled/
We are very happy to start the development of our Action Plan based on the review process. Now we are better aware of the lacks and the strengths we have. We know we have an advantage of a community of local actors with close relationships, but that we need to develop more the monitoring and governance of OIP policy. We also see more clear the possibilities of using the current resources to disseminate the knowledge of OIPs abroad but we also need to be aware of that this kind of an ecosystem policy can have some difficulties to match with the ERDF Funding instrument and its regulations. We are truly grateful for the InnoBridge partners for this intensive peer review process and the support they have provided us during it.
