Innovation Cannot Be Institutionalized.

Abstract

This critique evaluates a comprehensive review paper focused on Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy (MOIP) and its applicability to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region. While this paper, titled "Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy for Sustainable Development: A Systematic Literature Review" and published in "sustainability", makes a significant contribution by synthesizing various drivers, enablers, and governance models, it exhibits several shortcomings that limit its utility for practitioners and policymakers in the GCC. These limitations include the absence of evidence on the actual implementation of innovation policies in the GCC, overlooking key drivers of innovation such as corporate culture and intrinsic motivation, and a somewhat unidimensional focus on government-led initiatives. Drawing from my ongoing doctoral research and practical experience as the founder of AcceMind, a movement aimed at proliferating a culture conducive of innovation in the GCC, this critique argues for a more relevant, multi-dimensional and inclusive approach to understanding and fostering radical innovation in this unique socio-economic context.

Praise

The paper under review offers an insightful and expansive exploration of Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy (MOIP) with a particular focus on its applicability to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. The authors engage in a comprehensive literature review that lays down the framework for MOIP, investigating its drivers, enablers, governance models, and its necessity across different stages of the policy cycle. This undertaking is ambitious, and the authors deserve due praise for their rigorous academic approach.

The paper is notable for its depth of research, especially in how it synthesizes a large body of literature (137 articles out of which 72 were included from over 27 academic journals) to provide an overarching perspective on MOIP. The authors identify multiple categories of drivers for MOIP, ranging from grand societal challenges to spatial development. This provides a nuanced and layered understanding that is often missing in policy discussions.

Furthermore, the paper highlights critical enablers for MOIP, including innovation policies, research, and stakeholder collaboration; all essential for the effective implementation of innovation strategies. The paper also identified types of governance models such as Private-Public Partnership, and regional collaborative approach.

Additionally, the paper’s analysis of policy cycles adds another layer of complexity to the discourse, breaking down the various stages at which MOIP can be implemented. This is a valuable contribution that offers a practical roadmap for policymakers.

The attempt to adapt MOIP to the specific context of the GCC countries is also worthy of praise. The GCC is a unique geopolitical entity with specific challenges and opportunities that are often overlooked in global discussions about innovation and sustainable development. The paper's focus on this region fills an important gap in the literature.

Lastly, the paper’s highlight on the alignment of MOIP with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provides a global context that is increasingly important in discussions about national and regional policies. This alignment is particularly crucial for fostering international collaborations and for ensuring that local and regional initiatives contribute to global objectives.

In summary, the paper stands as a robust academic exercise, seeking to marry theory with practical implications, and serves as a valuable resource for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners interested in the field of mission-oriented innovation policy, especially in the GCC context.

Acknowledgment

The authors have undertaken the monumental task of conducting a systematic literature review to capture the myriad complexities surrounding Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy (MOIP). Their endeavour to provide a comprehensive overview is commendable and should contribute meaningfully to the existing body of work. The research is especially timely given the post-pandemic era, particularly for the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and their focus on economic diversification.

I would like to acknowledge the authors of this paper for their extensive work and contribution to the field of innovation policy, particularly in the poorly studied GCC context. Their effort to map the landscape of radical innovation opens the door for future research and provides a valuable resource for policymakers and scholars alike.

In essence, the paper is a well-executed, comprehensive analysis that adds substantive value to the existing literature on MOIP, and serves as a resourceful guide for policy formulation, especially in the context of the GCC countries.

Reflexivity

As the founder of AcceMind, a startup aimed at solving the GCC region's innovation deficit, my views on Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy (MOIP) are shaped by my involvement in this field. AcceMind aims to catalyse transformative change by fostering a culture of innovation, facilitating research, and enhancing sustainable growth. It seeks to break through the innovation ceiling by addressing the root causes that hold organizations and, by extension, the region back - namely, the organizational culture, education, mindset, and approach to innovation.

AcceMind's objectives, both short-term and long-term, align with the critical gaps identified in the research paper. As we work towards securing key corporate engagements, launching leadership programmes, and promoting academic research, our aim is to elevate the GCC region's innovation metrics to global standards. This involves cultivating a network of thought leaders to influence and drive change and offering platforms for young entrepreneurs to showcase their innovation potential. I hope my efforts here are clearly aligned with this objective.

Therefore, my critique of this paper is informed not just by academic interest but also by practical experience in grappling with the complexities of fostering innovation in a region burdened by various socio-economic and cultural challenges. AcceMind's approach is grounded in academic rigor, yet it is also practical and actionable, striking a balance that I believe is crucial for the successful implementation of radical innovation. This dual focus on academic insight and practical application informs my reading of the paper and shapes my critiques, particularly concerning what I perceive as the paper's methodological limitations and its somewhat narrow focus.

While I recognize the paper's contributions to existing innovation research, my experience with AcceMind provides me with a unique perspective for evaluating this study. This perspective is influenced by the pressing need to shift from theory to practical strategies that can truly impact the GCC's innovation environment.

It is important to note that I am in the final stages of completing my doctoral thesis on innovation. However, I have not yet published any scholarly work in this area, hitherto. My observations are grounded in years of academic research and practical experience, and they should be understood in the context of my ongoing scholarly journey and entrepreneurial pursuits.

Points of Agreement

Importance of Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy (MOIP): The paper correctly highlights the critical role that MOIP can play in addressing grand societal challenges, especially in a world increasingly burdened by complicated and multifaceted challenges. The directed and purposeful approach of innovation is not only relevant but crucial.

Multistakeholder Collaboration: I wholeheartedly agree with the paper's stress on the importance of collaboration among various stakeholders. This is a cornerstone in AcceMind's approach to innovation as well. A collective approach is often necessary to tackle the complex challenges we face today.

Policy Cycle Analysis: The paper's detailed examination of the various stages of the policy cycle - problem definition, agenda setting, formulation, implementation, and evaluation - is insightful especially the inclusion of examples of applications. This framework is invaluable for understanding how innovation processes can be effectively integrated into governance structures.

Highlighting Enablers: Identifying enablers like research, stakeholder collaboration, and innovation ecosystems is a significant point which I feel is largely missed in the GCC area. These elements are often overlooked at a nation’s level despite how vital they are for understanding radical innovation.

Human-Centred Approach: I commend the paper for advocating a human-centred approach in scientific research to assess social impact. This aligns well with AcceMind's mission to foster ethical leadership and adaptability within organizations.

SDGs as a Framework: The paper's mention of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provides a globally recognized framework for understanding and targeting societal challenges. While the applicability of each SDG can vary by region, their inclusion offers a structured approach to problem-solving.

GCC Focus: The paper's focus on the GCC region is timely, essential and fills an intellectual void. As the GCC countries seek to diversify their economies, the only way is by catalysing radical innovation. Studies like this are in desperate need, which provide crucial insights and guideposts.

Points of Contention

Lack of Evidence on Current GCC Policies: The paper discusses the potential applicability of MOIP to the GCC but fails to provide evidence that GCC countries are incorporating or lacking innovation policies in their plans. An analysis of blueprints such as Saudi Vision 2030, We The UAE 2031 and others in the region would have added much depth and relevance to the conclusion.

Omission of Radical Innovation Drivers: While the paper does an excellent job outlining various drivers for innovation, it overlooks the body of knowledge that highlights key drivers of radical innovation like government, talent, capital and culture, which have been studied extensively in the literature (Nelson, 1993; Bartholomew, 1997; Demirgüç-Kunt & Levine, 2001; Furman, et al., 2002; Chesbrough, 2003; Teece, 2007).

Omission of Culture: Despite the importance of culture in shaping innovation practices, the paper overlooks this critical factor. This is particularly surprising given the unique cultural landscape of the GCC and its impact on innovation, a point I highlight in my work with AcceMind. Although culture can be discerned in the paper from phrases such as “Grand Societal Challenges”, “behavioural changes”, and “complex dynamics of multiple stakeholders”, culture is such an important factor that deserves its own explicit mention. The skills and behaviours that make people great innovators are not solely determined by genetics but can be learned and mastered by anyone. This implies that culture, which encompasses the values, beliefs, and assumptions shared by organizational and society members can shape and foster the development of these skills (Hofstede, 1983; Naranjo-Valencia, et al., 2011; Dyer, et al., 2012).

Ignoring Corporate Culture: Corporate culture is a critical enabler of innovation, yet the paper fails to address this. My work with AcceMind focuses heavily on fostering a culture of innovation within organizations, and the omission of this factor is puzzling, considering it as the primary driver of radical innovation in nations (Tellis, et al., 2009; Schein, 2017).

Misplaced Focus on Grand Challenges: The paper highlights UN-stipulated grand challenges like food, energy security, life below water and climate action which may not be as top-of-mind to the GCC region given its unique economic and social landscape. The primary concern should be economic diversification away from oil and gas rather than these global challenges which would not resonate with most in the GCC. However, the paper mentions, towards the end, the importance of aligning with SDG 9.

Market-Driven Policies and Social Inequality: The paper's assertion that market-driven policies contribute to 'wicked' problems and social inequality is overly simplistic and ignores the complexities involved. The role of free market mechanisms in fostering innovation and economic growth has been well documented. This is a dangerous proposition as the alternative could be construed as Marxist, socialist or price-coordinated markets (Porter, 1990; Sowell, 2014).

Historical Inaccuracy: The paper cites the U.S. moon landing as a mission-oriented project without considering its primary objective of fostering national unity during the Cold War era. It was a way for the US to showcase its capabilities and assert its position as the leader of “the free world”, which is a more nuanced perspective offered by historians. (Lai, 2003)

Overemphasis on Government Role: The paper appears to lean heavily on government policies as the primary driver for innovation, minimizing the role of private enterprises and community initiatives. This perspective contradicts the Silicon Valley model, where innovation is often driven by private enterprises with enabling policies from the government (Saxenian, 1996).

Methodological Shortcomings: The paper seems to focus more on methodology rather than providing a contextual focus, impacting the relevance and applicability of the findings. For instance, the choice of dates for the GII index seems arbitrary and could affect the paper's conclusions.

Misrepresentation of GCC's GII Performance: The paper's assertion that the GCC is steadily improving in the Global Innovation Index (GII) does not capture the oscillatory nature of these rankings over a longer time frame. Additionally, it fails to address trailing metrics like the number of research publications and patents, which are crucial indicators of innovation.

Intrinsic Motivational Factors: The paper focuses exclusively on extrinsic drivers and enablers, ignoring intrinsic factors like desire, self-belief, and cultural support systems that can significantly influence innovation at a societal and market levels.

Conclusion

The paper under review offers valuable insights into the field of Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy (MOIP), particularly its applicability to the GCC region. Its comprehensive review of existing literature and analysis of various drivers, enablers, and governance models is commendable. However, the paper falls short in several key areas, including its lack of validation for GCC policies, overlooking crucial drivers of innovation, and omitting the critical role of corporate culture. The paper also seems to adopt a somewhat Western-centric perspective. These are not trivial shortcomings; they detract from the paper's goal of offering actionable recommendations for implementing radical innovation in the GCC.

Further, the paper's emphasis on government-led initiatives, while minimizing the role of private enterprise and intrinsic motivational factors, presents a skewed and dangerous perspective. The GCC region, with its unique socio-economic landscape, requires a more nuanced approach that considers intrinsic drivers, corporate culture, and the role of private enterprise in fostering innovation. The alternative would be an excessive dependence on, and unrealistic expectations from, central authorities to deliver radical innovation, rather than facilitate it. These are not just gaps in the paper but opportunities for future research and practical applications.

In the context of my work at AcceMind, I would argue that the GCC region is the best place in the world to foster a culture of innovation; the geopolitical stability, respect and trust for authorities, and existing collaboration policies between the nations are evidence to this claim. The limitations of the paper highlight the need for a multifaceted approach to innovation. This approach should extend beyond government policies to encompass corporate culture, research, education, and a nuanced understanding of the region's specific challenges and opportunities.

As a practitioner in the final stages of a doctoral thesis on innovation, I find that the GCC region is far too complex and dynamic to be adequately addressed through a single perspective, and any attempt to do so risks missing the intricate web of factors that influence innovation in this unique setting. The paper should have at least mentioned those missing points as further avenues for others to investigate and research.

Works Cited

Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E. & S., . S., 2002. The Determinants of National Innovative Capacity. Research Policy, Volume 31, p. 899–933..

Bartholomew, S., 1997. National systems of biotechnology innovation: complex interdependence in the global system.. Journal of international business studies, Volume 28, pp. 241-266.

Chesbrough, H. W., 2003. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology.. s.l.:Harvered Business Press.

Demirgüç-Kunt, A. & Levine, R., 2001. Financial structure and economic growth: A cross-country comparison of banks, markets, and development. s.l.:MIT Press.

Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B. & Christensen, C. M., 2012. The innovator's dna: mastering the five skills of disruptive innovators.. Choice Reviews Online, 49(8), p. 4551.

Hofstede, G., 1983. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories.. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), pp. 75-89.

Lai, B., 2003. Examining the goals of us foreign assistance in the post-cold war period, 1991-96.. Journal of Peace Research, 40(1), pp. 103-128.

Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D. & Valle, R. S., 2011. Innovation or imitation? the role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), pp. 55-72.

Nelson, R. R., 1993. National innovation systems: a comparative analysis.. USA: Oxford University Press.

Porter, M., 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations.. New York: Free Press..

Saxenian, A., 1996. Regional advantage: Culture and competition in silicon valley and route 128, with a new preface by the author.. s.l.:Harvard University Press..

Schein, E. H., 2017. Organizational culture and leadership. 5 ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons..

Sowell, T., 2014. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy. s.l.:Basic Books.

Teece, D. J., 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance.. Strategic management journal, 28(13), pp. 1319-1350.

Tellis, G. J., Prabhu, J. C. & Chandy, R. K., 2009. Radical innovation across nations: The preeminence of corporate culture.. Journal of marketing, 73(1), pp. 3-23.