Economic development leaders in Canada and worldwide redouble efforts to create wealth for all while tackling social and environmental issues. All aspire to maximize regional capacity to generate innovations and innovative enterprises, to renew our economy and our sources of prosperity. And today, the sustainability imperative is the norm and poses challenges more complex than ever. 

In this context, developing regional innovation/entrepreneurial ecosystems is attracting ever growing interest. We are literally witnessing a global race as policymakers worldwide are intensifying their efforts to cultivate and develop them as quickly and effectively as possible. 2, 10, 5, 13 (). They see these regional development mechanisms as guarantees of a prosperous and sustainable future for their populations.15 The evidence is clear: establishing high-performing ecosystems drives innovation, strengthens competitiveness, and supports adaptation to global changes and the achievement of sustainable development goals.1 . These efforts are fundamental not only for stimulating economic development and wealth creation 14, 17 but also for enabling citizens in various regions to meet new societal challenges, and they can have a genuine impact on the economy and society. 4, 11, 12, 21, 25 

In Canada, some innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems are exemplary in terms of performance 19, 20 Consider Waterloo, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and now Calgary, which have risen among the world’s most dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystems9 Others are now rapidly following suit in Quebec City, Ottawa, Sherbrooke, Hamilton, Fredericton, St. John’s, London, and so many more. In Quebec, we now have official innovation zones in Sherbrooke, Bromont, the Mirabel-St-Laurent-St-Hubert, as well as Bécancourt-Trois-Rivière-Shawinigan. 

The question therefore becomes, how can we accelerate their development and foster their performance so they could fulfill their promises? 

It is essential for the researchers, practitioners, and scholars gathered by the Canadian Science Policy Center, along with international colleagues, to tackle this question. Together, we must identify what could make a difference in fueling, if not catalyzing, the development of our innovation ecosystems.

The fundamental ingredients are clear and have been extensively studied and articulated by the entire research community in economic and entrepreneurial geography. Various approaches to the triple or quadruple helix models are proposed, emphasizing the roles of government actors, academia, businesses, as well as facilitators and connectors. They advocate for the coordination of key elements and close interaction between regional innovation actors, combining activities led by the public sector and private sector, partnerships between the two, and their intelligent and agile orchestration. They outline systemic conditions for success, including entrepreneurial networks, leadership, funding, talent, knowledge, and support services. 7, 11, 22, 24 Yet, the development of high-performing regional innovation ecosystems remains a challenge for policymakers and leaders. Knowing how to build, enhance, and propel them forward remains difficult, here like everywhere. Despite extensive research, the underlying dynamics—human, epistemic, and temporal—are still poorly understood and far from being mastered. So, while the ingredients are clear, how are they assembled, managed, optimized, and put into action? What fundamental dynamics drive performance and innovation? What social and cultural elements are at play? And above all, how can these fundamental dynamics be orchestrated?

Dear delegates, colleagues, friends, and collaborators in the quest to foster innovation in our regions and nations, I encourage us all, more than ever, to rise to the challenge posed by these questions. It is our duty to deepen our knowledge and expertise on these issues and in these fields.

To that end, I suggest exploring the social, human, cultural, and knowledge dynamics that are, in my opinion, essential to the success of innovation ecosystems. Indeed, recent work I had the privilege of conducting with fellow researchers from Quebec and Strasbourg, France6,8,18,19,20 suggests that the performance of our innovation ecosystems fundamentally depends on the coordinated management of three types of shared resources: social, symbolic, and knowledge capital. They encompass essential elements for the success of any regional ecosystem: networks of relationships, elements that nurture a shared and inspired vision, and the know-how required to do things well. In exploring these elements, rediscover as I have the notion of “commons”16 , and more interestingly the concept of innovation commons3 which suddenly shines as a theoretical foundation for explaining these significant phenomena in the management of innovation ecosystems in our territories and regions.

In this context, my research suggests that the strength of high-performing innovation communities results from a dynamic sequence of different innovation commons, orchestrated by a passionate community of actors, “commoners,” engaged in a collective endeavor.

Indeed, recognizing that these fundamental elements can only be established through the strong, intentional actions of motivated leaders is crucial. Behind every successful innovation ecosystem, lies a group of passionate individuals determined to assemble all the elements necessary to create a thriving innovation community, bringing hope and opportunity for future generations. 

Researchers, practitioners, policymakers, local leaders, regional development agents, and delegates of the Canadian Science Policy Center, it is our duty to rise up.  You may already be one of these passionate leaders shaping the future of your communities. With this conference and braintrust, I believe we all have the potential to become one. 

REFERENCES

1. Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of management, 43(1), 39-58. 
2. Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic management journal, 31(3), 306-333. 
3. Allen, D., & Potts, J. (2015). The innovation commons–why it exists, what it does, who it benefits, and how. What it Does, Who it Benefits, and How (June 11, 2015). 
4. Boutillier, S. (2018). Le coworking, l’empreinte territorialeessai d’analyse d’une agglomération industrielle en reconversion. Revue Interventions économiques. Papers in Political Economy(60). 
5. Breznitz, D. (2021). Innovation in real places: Strategies for prosperity in an unforgiving world: Oxford University Press, USA.
6. Dionne, K.-E., Sirois, L., & Boulenger, H. (2021). Hacking Health: Building a Community of Innovation Through Events. In COMMUNITIES OF INNOVATION: How Organizations Harness Collective Creativity and Build Resilience (pp. 205-239): World Scientific.
7. Foster, G., Shimizu, C., Ciesinsik, S., Davila, A., Hassan, S., Jia, N., . . . Hiscock-Croft, R. (2013). Entrepreneurial ecosystems around the world and company growth dynamics, Industry Agenda. Paper presented at the Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.
8. Gagné, C., Veilleux, S., Armellini, F., Cohendet, P., & Sirois, L. (2021). Measuring the Outcomes of Open Innovation Events. Paper presented at the ISPIM Conference Proceedings.
9. Genome, S. (2022). The global startup ecosystem report 2022. In: Startup Genome LLC. https://www. startupgenome. com.
10. Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90, 102098. 
11. Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard business review, 88(6), 40-50. 
12. Levy, S. (1984). Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution (Vol. 14): Anchor Press/Doubleday Garden City, NY.
13. Mazzucato, M. (2021). Mission economy: A moonshot guide to changing capitalism: Penguin UK.
14. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis: Oxford University Press, USA.
15. Oh, D.-S., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. Technovation, 54, 1-6. 
16. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action: Cambridge university press.
17. Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition (Vol. 76): Harvard Business Review Boston.
18. Sirois, L., & Dionne, K.-E. (2022). From spatiality to temporality: Turbocharging innovation ecosystems with events: the case of Hacking Health. In Open Labs and Innovation Management (pp. 106-125): Routledge.
19. Sirois, L., Niamié, O., & Cohendet, P. (2022). Communitech in Waterloo, Canada: How open lab organisations can drive a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem. In Open Labs and Innovation Management (pp. 126-145): Routledge.
20. Sirois, L., Niamié, Y. O., & Cohendet, P. (2023). MON ARTICLE – Communitech et la dynamique des communs d’innovation au sein d’un espace collaboratif. Revue internationale de psychosociologie et de gestion des comportements organisationnels, 28(75), 127-149. 
21. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759-1769. 
22. Stam, F., & Spigel, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. USE Discussion paper series, 16(13). 
23. UnitedNations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 
24. Viitanen, J. (2016). Profiling regional innovation ecosystems as functional collaborative systems: The case of Cambridge. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(12). 
25. Westley, F. (2008). The social innovation dynamic. Frances Westley, SiG@ Waterloo.