Innovation

A Comparison of Business Simulations in Innovation, Marketing, Product Management

A Comparison of Business Simulations in Innovation, Marketing, Product Management

Jan Spruijt

Why simulation-based learning is becoming AI-resistant by design

In times of rapid advances in artificial intelligence, a fundamental shift is taking place in higher education. As AI systems become increasingly capable of generating analyses, solving structured problems, and supporting managerial decision-making, the question is no longer whether students can arrive at the right answers. Instead, the question is whether they are engaging in forms of learning that cannot be easily replicated or outsourced.

Simulation-based learning is gaining renewed relevance in this context.

Unlike traditional assignments, simulations introduce a layer of interdependence that is inherently difficult for AI to resolve. Outcomes are not only determined by models or data, but by the decisions of multiple teams acting simultaneously. Each decision influences the environment in which others operate, creating feedback loops that evolve over time.

While AI can optimize within a predefined system, it struggles to anticipate how that system will change when multiple actors interact dynamically. This makes simulations one of the few educational formats where learning remains fundamentally human: shaped by judgment, timing, interaction, and uncertainty.

A closer look at widely used simulations such as Glo-Bus, Capsim, Marketplace Simulations, Cesim and Markstrat reveals that they differ significantly in what they actually model and therefore in what they teach.

Comparative overview of widely used simulations

Simulation Organizational perspective Thematic focus Primary decision domain Role of innovation Learning orientation Level of abstraction Type of complexity
Glo-Bus Product & market positioning Competitive strategy in technology markets Pricing, production, product features, market positioning Implicit (via R&D and product design) Competitive performance and market positioning Medium Financial and market-driven
Capsim Functional business system Integrated firm management Cross-functional decisions (R&D, finance, marketing, operations) Partial General management and business acumen Medium Analytical and data-intensive
Marketplace Simulations Customer & market interface Marketing strategy and customer behavior Product launch, branding, segmentation, pricing Limited Customer insight and market strategy Medium Market dynamics and positioning
Cesim (Global Challenge) Strategy & external environment Global strategy and sustainability trade-offs Global expansion, strategy, sustainability decisions Emerging Strategic decision-making in global contexts Medium–high Strategic and financial
Markstrat Product portfolio management Marketing strategy and product lifecycle management Product portfolio, segmentation, R&D Moderate Market strategy and lifecycle management Medium Analytical and market-based
Innovation Management Game (Innovative Dutch) Innovation system & organizational design Managing exploration vs exploitation and innovation portfolios Portfolio balance, resource allocation, long-term alignment Central and explicit Innovation capability and strategic alignment High Systemic and strategic

Two fundamentally different logics

At first glance, these simulations appear structurally similar. Teams make decisions in iterative rounds, receive feedback, and compete for performance. Yet beneath this shared format lie two fundamentally different logics.

Most simulations, including Glo-Bus, Capsim, Marketplace, Cesim, and Markstrat, model the organization as a firm operating within a competitive market. The task of the participant is to improve performance within that environment. Success is typically measured in terms of profit, market share, or strategic positioning.

In contrast, the Innovation Management Game operates at a different level. Rather than simulating the market itself, it focuses on how organizations design and manage their innovation system over time.

Most simulations model the outcomes of innovation: products, markets, and performance.
The Innovation Management Game models the system that produces those outcomes.

Innovation Management Game session in practice

What becomes visible in practice is that simulation-based learning is not only about making decisions, but about experiencing how those decisions interact over time. Participants are confronted with uncertainty, conflicting priorities, and the need to align short-term actions with long-term strategy.

This is where the difference between market-based simulations and innovation-oriented simulations becomes tangible. Rather than optimizing isolated decisions, participants must develop coherence across their choices and understand how their actions shape the system as a whole.

The Innovation Management Game explicitly focuses on this dynamic, placing participants in a setting where innovation is not a single decision, but an evolving system of trade-offs.

Market-based simulations: optimizing within a given system

Simulations such as Glo-Bus, Capsim, Marketplace, Cesim, and Markstrat are rooted in a paradigm of optimization. The organization is treated as a system that already exists, and the role of the participant is to make better decisions than competitors within that system.

Glo-Bus illustrates this clearly. Although positioned as a technology design simulation, participants primarily configure products and compete on price, features, and market positioning. Innovation is present, but mainly as a function of product development.

Capsim extends this by integrating multiple business functions. Participants must align decisions across departments, interpret financial data, and manage trade-offs between growth and profitability. The complexity increases, but remains analytical in nature.

Marketplace Simulations emphasize customer-driven decision-making, focusing on segmentation, branding, and product launches. Cesim adds layers of international strategy and sustainability, while Markstrat deepens understanding of portfolio management and product life cycles.

Across these simulations, a consistent pattern emerges: complexity arises from the number of variables and the need to interpret data. The challenge is to optimize performance within a relatively well-defined system.

Designing the system: a different level of decision-making

The Innovation Management Game starts from a different premise. Instead of assuming a fixed system, it focuses on how that system is designed and evolves.

Participants are not primarily concerned with pricing or production decisions. Instead, they must address questions such as how resources should be allocated between exploration and exploitation, how balanced the innovation portfolio is, and how short-term results relate to long-term renewal.

These decisions are inherently systemic. Their impact is often indirect, delayed, and dependent on how different elements of the organization interact over time.

As a result, the nature of decision-making changes. There is no single optimal solution. Instead, participants must develop coherence in their choices and understand how those choices shape the organization’s ability to innovate.

Analytical versus systemic complexity

This difference is most clearly visible in the type of complexity each simulation introduces.

Market-based simulations are analytically complex. Participants are presented with large amounts of data and must identify patterns, calculate trade-offs, and make decisions that optimize performance indicators. The challenge is primarily cognitive and quantitative.

The Innovation Management Game introduces systemic complexity. Outcomes depend on interactions between decisions, timing, and alignment. Cause-and-effect relationships are less direct, and success depends on the ability to understand and manage interdependencies.

This distinction is increasingly relevant. While analytical complexity can often be supported, or even partially automated, by AI, systemic complexity remains difficult to externalize.

Abstraction and learning outcomes

Another key difference lies in the level of abstraction.

Most simulations operate at a relatively concrete level, focusing on products, markets, and financial results. This makes them highly effective for developing business acumen and functional knowledge.

The Innovation Management Game operates at a higher level of abstraction. It focuses on capabilities, processes, and strategic alignment. This allows participants to explore how organizations create value over time, rather than how they optimize performance in a given moment.

The learning outcomes therefore differ. Market-based simulations are effective in developing business acumen and functional knowledge. Simulations focused on innovation systems contribute to a broader understanding of strategy, organizational design, and long-term value creation.

Implications for education

These differences are not merely technical. They reflect broader shifts in how organizations are understood.

Traditional simulations align with a view of organizations as entities competing in relatively stable environments. Success depends on efficiency, optimization, and informed decision-making.

More recent approaches reflect a view of organizations as adaptive systems operating under uncertainty. Here, success depends on the ability to innovate, experiment, and continuously rebalance competing priorities.

In this context, simulation-based learning is not only a way to teach business fundamentals, but also a way to engage with the limits of those fundamentals.

Conclusion

Business simulations are often treated as a single category, but a closer analysis reveals that they operate at fundamentally different levels.

Simulations such as Glo-Bus, Capsim, Marketplace, Cesim, and Markstrat provide valuable insights into how organizations perform within markets. They strengthen analytical thinking, financial reasoning, and competitive decision-making.

The Innovation Management Game operates at a different level. It focuses on how innovation systems are designed, balanced, and evolved over time, shifting attention from outcomes to the mechanisms that produce them.

In an AI-driven world, this distinction becomes increasingly important. As analytical tasks become easier to automate, the ability to think in systems, navigate uncertainty, and design for long-term innovation may well become the defining capability for future professionals.

The question for educators is therefore not which simulation is best, but what kind of thinking they want to develop.

Innovation Excellence Framework: Using ISO 56001 to Manage Quality in Innovation Management Systems.

Innovation Excellence Framework: Using ISO 56001 to Manage Quality in Innovation Management Systems.

Jan Spruijt

Innovation is no longer a solo endeavor. The age of open innovation has arrived, where collaboration across industries, disciplines, and borders is key to addressing global challenges and driving progress. In this dynamic landscape, the launch of ISO 56001:2024 represents a monumental step forward for organizations striving to innovate smarter, faster, and more sustainably.

What Is ISO 56001?

ISO 56001 is the latest international standard for innovation management systems. Its goal is to provide a robust framework for organizations to manage innovation systematically, bridging creativity with structured processes. Unlike earlier approaches that often treated innovation as an isolated activity, ISO 56001 emphasizes integration, scalability, and adaptability—key pillars for open innovation.

But what sets ISO 56001 apart is its potential to harmonize collaboration across ecosystems. It recognizes that innovation thrives when ideas, expertise, and resources flow freely between partners. By aligning organizations around common principles and practices, this standard can make open innovation more accessible and impactful.

Innovation Excellence Framework

The Innovation Excellence Framework is a comprehensive system designed to guide organizations in managing their innovation processes. By incorporating internationally recognized standards, it provides a solid foundation for improving the organization’s innovation capabilities and aligning them with long-term goals.

What makes the Innovation Excellence Framework so powerful is its holistic and integrated approach. By incorporating the full ISO 56000 series, it ensures that your innovation efforts are aligned with international best practices, covering everything from strategy development to execution and performance evaluation.

Organizations that adopt this framework are not just improving their innovation processes; they are fostering a culture of continuous improvement, resilience, and strategic collaboration. This positions them to stay ahead of the competition, adapt to emerging trends, and effectively manage innovation in an ever-changing landscape.

In the infographic, the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle is integrated with the Operational-Tactical-Strategic layers to visually communicate the interconnectedness of different ISO standards in the Innovation Excellence Framework. Each element represents a different stage or layer in the innovation management process, helping organizations understand how to implement and evaluate their innovation strategies.

The PDCA cycle is a widely recognized approach for continuous improvement and is central to effective management systems. It involves four stages:

  • Plan: Set goals and define processes to achieve them.
  • Do: Implement the plan and execute the innovation activities.
  • Check: Monitor and measure the outcomes to ensure the objectives are met.
  • Act: Adjust processes and strategies based on the feedback to improve future innovation activities.

Each of these stages in the PDCA cycle is color-coded to align with the different ISO standards, making it easier to understand which standard applies to each stage.

The Operational-Tactical-Strategic layers represent different organizational levels at which innovation management is applied:

  • Operational Layer: This is where day-to-day activities take place—focused on implementation, execution, and innovation performance at the ground level.
  • Tactical Layer: Involves mid-level management, which ensures that innovation initiatives are aligned with broader goals and that innovation processes are optimized for efficiency.
  • Strategic Layer: Focuses on long-term innovation strategies, aligning innovation with organizational objectives, vision, and global trends.

These layers align with the PDCA cycle stages, ensuring that innovation management is integrated across all levels of the organization.

Each layer of the PDCA cycle and each stage of the operational, tactical, and strategic levels is represented by a distinct color, which corresponds to specific ISO standards. This color-coding allows viewers to immediately identify which ISO standard is most relevant at each stage or organizational layer. Here’s a breakdown of the colors and the corresponding standards:

  • ISO 56000: This standard serves as the foundational element for all innovation management activities, providing essential vocabulary and principles. It is placed at the Strategic level because it guides overall innovation direction.
  • ISO/FDIS 56001: Representing the Plan phase of the PDCA cycle, this standard focuses on establishing an Innovation Management System (IMS) and its requirements. It applies at the Strategic and Tactical levels to ensure proper alignment between innovation strategy and operational actions.
  • ISO 56002: A complementary standard to ISO 56001, offering practical guidance on implementing an IMS. It supports the Do phase in the PDCA cycle and applies at both the Tactical and Operational layers to guide the execution of innovation processes.
  • ISO 56003: This standard covers tools and methods for innovation partnerships, essential for collaboration across all levels of the organization. It is aligned with the Tactical and Operational layers to ensure collaboration within innovation ecosystems.
  • ISO/TR 56004: Focuses on Assessing Innovation Performance, which ties into the Check phase. It applies at the Tactical and Strategic levels to evaluate how well innovation is performing and identify areas for improvement.
  • ISO 56005: Addresses tools for managing intellectual property during innovation activities. This standard is connected to the Operational layer as intellectual property often plays a central role in day-to-day innovation processes.
  • ISO 56006: Provides tools for strategic intelligence management, focusing on gathering and analyzing market and industry data to inform innovation decisions. This standard fits at the Strategic level, guiding long-term innovation planning.
  • ISO 56007: Focuses on the management of opportunities and ideas, aligned with the Do phase of the PDCA cycle. It supports the Operational layer by providing tools to generate and assess innovation opportunities.
  • ISO 56008: This standard focuses on measuring the operational success of innovation initiatives. It connects with the Check phase in PDCA, ensuring that the Operational layer has the right metrics in place to track innovation progress.
  • ISO/TS 56010: This standard provides illustrative examples of how to apply the ISO 56000 series. It serves as a resource for all levels but does not directly correlate to a single stage of the PDCA cycle or a specific layer.

In summary, the Innovation Excellence Framework based on the ISO 56000 standards offers a proven pathway for organizations looking to manage and optimize their innovation efforts. Whether you’re aiming to improve internal processes, collaborate with external partners, or gain access to funding, this framework provides the tools and insights needed for success.

Why ISO 56001 Matters for Open Innovation

Open innovation—the practice of sharing ideas, technologies, and solutions beyond organizational boundaries—has become a cornerstone of progress. Yet, it comes with its own challenges, including managing intellectual property, fostering trust, and aligning diverse stakeholders. ISO 56001 addresses these barriers in several ways:

  • A Shared Language: ISO 56001 establishes a common vocabulary and framework for innovation. This simplifies collaboration between companies, research institutions, and startups, ensuring everyone is on the same page.
  • Trust Through Structure: Open innovation requires trust, and trust is built on transparency. By providing guidelines for processes like risk management and decision-making, ISO 56001 helps organizations navigate uncertainties collaboratively.
  • Scalability and Adaptability: Innovation ecosystems are diverse, with partners ranging from local entrepreneurs to multinational corporations. ISO 56001’s flexible framework accommodates these differences, enabling seamless collaboration across scales.

Real-World Impact

Consider a biotech company partnering with a university to develop sustainable agriculture solutions. With ISO 56001 as their foundation, both parties can align their objectives, streamline their workflows, and manage intellectual property with clarity. The result? Faster breakthroughs and a stronger impact on global food security.

Or take the example of a city government working with tech startups to build smarter infrastructure. ISO 56001 can guide how these diverse entities share data, integrate their innovations, and create scalable solutions that improve urban living.

A Call to Action for Innovators

The release of ISO 56001 couldn’t come at a better time. As the world faces complex challenges—from climate change to public health crises—the need for open, collaborative innovation has never been greater. This standard offers a roadmap for turning collective ideas into actionable solutions.

For innovators, ISO 56001 is more than a set of guidelines; it’s an opportunity to lead. By adopting the standard, you can position yourself as a reliable partner in the global innovation ecosystem, attract funding, and drive meaningful change.

How to Get Started

Whether you’re part of a multinational corporation, a small business, or an academic institution, ISO 56001 offers something for everyone. Start by:

  1. Exploring the Standard: Learn about its principles, structure, and how it aligns with your innovation goals.
  2. Building Internal Capacity: Train your teams on best practices for innovation management.
  3. Engaging in Dialogue: Use ISO 56001 as a bridge to connect with potential partners and collaborators.

ISO 56001 is more than a technical standard—it’s a tool for shaping the future of innovation. By embracing its principles, we can create a world where ideas flow freely, challenges are tackled collaboratively, and progress knows no boundaries. Let’s innovate together.

Weekly Science Selections: AI-driven Innovation & NeuroentrepreneurshipWeekly Science Selections

Jan Spruijt

Every week, this section contains newly published scientific articles in the field of innovation & entrepreneurship. This section contains the #EditorsChoice and a list of articles grouped into #MustReads, #ShouldReads and #CouldReads. Subscribe to our newsletter to receive these in your inbox.

Permutated feature importance for the top 20 predictors (Heideman et al, 2024)
  • #MustRead: Complex Problem Solving as a Source of Competitive Advantage (Veríssimo et al, 2024): The study emphasizes the increasing importance of problem-solving skills in today’s complex business environment. Solving complex problems is identified as a crucial skill that can enhance organizational success and competitiveness. Understanding the value of problem-solving and incorporating it into organizational strategy is essential for achieving sustainable competitive advantage in today’s dynamic business landscape.
  • #MustRead: Heterogeneous university funding programs and regional firm innovation: An empirical analysis of the German Excellence Initiative (Krieger, 2024) In a revealing study, researchers unveil the hidden power of university funding in driving regional innovation. Their findings reveal that targeted investment in Excellence Clusters turbocharges firms’ ability to innovate, particularly in regions with a robust cluster presence. However, the impact of Graduate Schools or University Strategies remains underwhelming. This discovery underscores the pivotal role of strategic funding in shaping the innovation landscape, sparking vital discussions on optimizing investment strategies to supercharge regional growth.
Geographical distribution Excellence Cluster funding across regions. (Krieger, 2024)
  • #MustRead: Neuroentrepreneurship: state of the art and future lines of work (Juarez-Varón, Zuluaga & Recuerda, 2024) Neuroentrepreneurship, a field at the intersection of neuroscience and entrepreneurship, has gained traction since 2009, illuminating how brain function influences business decisions. Despite a growing body of literature, a unified understanding of the field remains elusive. This paper addresses this gap by examining key themes in neuroentrepreneurship literature and refining definitions to provide clarity. Understanding the neural mechanisms behind entrepreneurial behavior offers practical insights for decision-making and opportunity recognition. By leveraging biometric techniques like EEG and GSR, entrepreneurs can gain a deeper understanding of risk perception and response. This review not only consolidates existing knowledge but also provides a framework for future research and practical applications in enhancing entrepreneurial decision-making processes.
  • #ShouldRead: Middle Managers’ Relational Dynamics in the Context of Acquisitions: Balancing Strategic Interdependence and Organizational Autonomy (Birollo, Rouleau & Wolf, 2024): Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) pose a challenge in balancing the need for strategic interdependence with the preservation of organizational autonomy. Middle managers (MMs) are identified as key players in this balancing act. Intersubjectivity refers to the mutual understanding and shared meaning that arises between individuals through interaction, enabling effective communication and collaboration. In mergers, intersubjectivity is crucial as it facilitates middle managers’ ability to navigate complex integration tasks by considering the perspectives and goals of both acquiring and acquired organizations, fostering smoother transitions and alignment of objectives. Similarly, in innovation, intersubjectivity fosters a collaborative environment where diverse perspectives and insights can converge, leading to the co-creation of novel solutions and the maximization of creative potential within teams and across organizational boundaries.Figure 2: A process model of actionable intersubjectivity as a crucial ability for balancing strategic interdependance and organizational autonomy (Birollo et al, 2024)
  • #ShouldRead: Age and entrepreneurship: Mapping the scientific coverage and future research directions (Syed et al, 2024) Research interest in understanding the relationship between age and entrepreneurship has surged in recent years, driven by the recognition of age as a significant factor influencing entrepreneurial behavior and career decisions. Various studies have explored the motivational factors shaping self-employment decisions, revealing age’s nuanced impact on entrepreneurial intentions and actions. While younger individuals may exhibit greater enthusiasm for entrepreneurship due to their ambitious nature and future income potential, older individuals leverage their extensive experience and social capital to navigate entrepreneurial ventures successfully. However, age-related preferences, influenced by factors such as cultural views and opportunity costs, also play a role in shaping entrepreneurial pursuits.
  • #ShouldRead: The Double-Edged Sword of Exemplar Similarity (Majzoubi et al, 2024) Ever wondered how your firm’s image relative to industry leaders affects investor perception? New research spills the beans! Aligning with category exemplars boosts your firm’s visibility and initial screening success. But beware: it also triggers comparisons that might not always work in your favor. The key? Understanding your industry’s landscape and positioning strategically. Dive into the study for practical insights to finesse your firm’s approach and ace those investor evaluations!
  • #CouldRead: Evaluating the impact of individual and country-level institutional factors on subjective well-being among entrepreneurs (Gashi et al, 2024): This study explores the relationship between subjective well-being (SWB) and entrepreneurship. Stimuli of well-being are: fostering political stability, reducing bureaucratic hurdles, and promoting economic prosperity to support entrepreneurial ventures and enhance overall satisfaction. The study also offers practical suggestions for entrepreneurs to improve their well-being, such as self-care, meaningful engagement, building strong support networks, prioritizing health, and finding purpose in their work.
  • #CouldRead: Financial stress and quit intention: the mediating role of entrepreneurs’ affective commitment (Kleine, Schmitt & Wisse, 2024) This paper delves into how financial stress impacts entrepreneurs’ desire to quit their businesses, focusing on the emotional connection entrepreneurs have with their ventures. The findings suggest that when entrepreneurs face financial stress, they’re more likely to consider quitting, especially when their emotional attachment to the business decreases. Essentially, the stronger the emotional bond with their venture, the more likely they are to persist through tough times. These insights can guide consultants and decision-makers to support entrepreneurs effectively. For instance, if a business has potential, efforts to boost the entrepreneur’s emotional commitment could increase motivation to overcome challenges. Conversely, if closure seems inevitable, strategies to help entrepreneurs emotionally detach from the business may prevent further losses. Overall, understanding and addressing entrepreneurs’ emotional ties to their ventures can inform practical strategies to navigate financial difficulties and plan for the future effectively.

Chris Freeman: the entrepreneur who created the concept of ‘innovation studies’

Jan Spruijt

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive posts like this weekly.

After our deepdive into the story of Ted Levitt last week, we’ll dive into the extraordinary story of Christopher Freeman (1921 – 2010) this week. By many renowned for his substantial conributions to the academic field of innovation, and as such named a ‘social sciences entrepreneur’ (Fagerberg, Fosaas, Bell and Martin, 2011), Chris Freeman was an expert at the intersection of economics and innovation. His legacy included many ‘firsts’, such as being the first director of SPRU – the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex -, the first Frascati manual (1962), the first studying ‘technology gaps’ (1960s), the first editor of Research Policy and the author of the first textbook on innovation, ‘The Economics of Industrial Innovation’. His contributions to theory also included works on Industrial Waves and Disruption, National Innovation Systems and The Economics of Change. Freeman had a significant contribution to schumpetarian thinking about disruption.

Christopher Freeman (Fagerberg et al, 2010)

Background

Christopher Freeman was born in Sheffield in the United Kingdom. He was raised with liberal ideas: his father Arnold worked for the Webb’s whose ‘Fabian Society’ shaped reformist-socialist left-wing views on democracy. His father later on pioneered with ‘Workers’ Educational Association’ and as such also heavily impacted his son’s radical ideas. Christopher Freeman “was educated at the progressive Abbotsholme School in Staffordshire, where he founded a cell of the Young Communist League” (Independent, 2010). He started studying at the London School of Economics (LSE) in 1941, continued in Cambridge to study economics, which he interrupted to join the Royal Military Academy, after which he returned to LSE to graduate in 1948. At LSE he was part of an extraordinary cohort, which included Norman MacKenzie, Claus and Mary Moser and Marion Stern, the mother of Nicholas Stern, an economist and well-known ambassador of taking early action on climate change. Nicholas later said that his passion was largely due to the discussions that he had been part of when his parents, Freeman and other classmates in his early childhood (Stern, 2017). This also forms the main line in Freeman’s career: on the one hand he followed the line of thinking of Schumpeter, popularizing Schumpeter’s – now widely accepted – idea of creative destruction and the fact that there no boundaries to growth, and on the other hand a critical acclaim to capitalism, claiming that a more institutional approach to innovation systems – an approach that is now classified as neo-schumpeterian economics, which takes ingredients from different economic schools such as the austrian school, lausanne school and keynesiasism.


His ideas and early career expertise on innovation policy, led to one of his most famous contributions to the academic world: the notion of innovation systems, and later on also his work on national systems of innovation (Guardian, 2010). He also argued that science plays an important role in establishing industries, much in line with Bernal’s work on the science-based industry and science policies (Fagerberg et al, 2010). As such, he is widely recognized for being ‘an entrepreneur’ in science, developing innovation science as a separate field of study alongside economics, management and entrepreneurship – which led to him being the first director of SPRU – the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex. As an academic he supervised many scholars, wrote many articles and books and as such had a lasting impact on the science, economics and industry of innovation.

Key Ideas

  • The Economics of Industrial Innovation: Freeman adopted a dynamic perspective on capitalism, heavily influenced by Marx and Schumpeter. He viewed capitalism as a system characterized by continuous interaction between technological progress, capital accumulation, and social and institutional conditions. Drawing from that, Freeman emphasized the role of technological competition between firms as a driving force behind capitalist development. He focused on understanding the dynamics of technological change within firms and its implications for economic growth and competitiveness. Freeman argued that traditional economic theories often failed to adequately account for the role of research and development (R&D) in driving technological progress and economic development. He highlighted the importance of R&D activities within firms and advocated for policies and management strategies that promote innovation.
  • National Innovation Systems: Freeman, together with i.e. Lundvall, was instrumental in developing the concept of national innovation systems, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of various actors, institutions, and policies within a country that contribute to innovation and economic development. He advocated for a holistic approach to understanding innovation processes, beyond the traditional focus on individual firms or sectors. He emphasized the role of institutions, including government policies, research organizations, universities, and industry associations, in shaping national innovation systems. He argued that effective innovation policies require a deep understanding of the institutional framework within which innovation occurs (Freeman, 1995). In his own words:

“Sectoral systems, regional systems are all very constructive and helpful. (…) You can point to the success of Pakistan in medical instruments or Brazil in boots or shoes or whatever (…) and if you point out the role of innovation in all those micro level studies, that’s very useful. And if you point out certain regions of countries are more innovative, and the north of Italy has contributed more to the growth of the country than Sicily, that’s all very useful. But I don’t think you’ll change the main paradigm of neoclassical economics, I think you have to attack it head on in the centre (…) Most of the people working on innovation systems prefer to work at the micro-level. They are a bit frightened still of the strength of the neoclassical paradigm at the macroeconomic level. But I think that’s where they have to work. You have to have an attack on the central core of macroeconomic theory. It is happening but not happening enough.” (Unpublished interview with Sharif, 2003)

Impact

  • Public impact: Freeman highlighted the importance of knowledge diffusion and learning mechanisms within national innovation systems. He emphasized the role of networks, collaborations, and knowledge spillovers in facilitating innovation and technology transfer. Freeman’s work on national innovation systems had significant policy implications. He advocated for policies that promote collaboration between government, industry, and academia, as well as investments in education, research infrastructure, and technology transfer mechanisms. His ideas contributed to the design of innovation policies aimed at enhancing the competitiveness and resilience of national economies (Fagerberg et al, 2011).
  • Industrial impact: Freeman emphasized the importance of fostering a culture of innovation within industries. He highlighted the role of research and development (R&D) activities, technological competition, and dynamic interactions between firms in driving innovation. By advocating for policies and management strategies that support innovation, Freeman encouraged industry leaders to prioritize investments in R&D, technology development, and knowledge creation.
  • Academic Impact: Under his leadership, SPRU became a global center for innovation research, attracting scholars, policymakers, and industry practitioners from around the world. This collaborative environment facilitated knowledge exchange, interdisciplinary research, and the co-creation of innovative solutions to industry challenges.

Key take-aways

  1. Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration: Embrace collaborative efforts across disciplines to gain comprehensive insights into innovation dynamics.
  2. Emphasize a Systems Approach: Consider the historical, economic, and systemic dimensions of innovation to develop a nuanced understanding of its complexities.
  3. Tap into the Academic Community: Foster an inclusive academic environment that encourages knowledge exchange and inspires new avenues of inquiry in innovation studies.
  4. Explore Macro-Level Analysis: Delve into macroeconomic perspectives to discern broader implications of innovation on national and regional innovation ecosystems.
Unleashing Innovation: Strategic Simulation Games as a solution to the use of AI and ChatGPT in Business Education

Unleashing Innovation: Strategic Simulation Games as a solution to the use of AI and ChatGPT in Business Education

Jan Spruijt

In the world of business education, the usage of AI and ChatGPT has severe impact. Not only does it open doors for new ways of learning, it also threatens traditional learning methods, activities and deliverables – and forces educators to update curricula in a fast pace. As became apparent over the last few years, strategic simulation games are immersive learning experiences that go hand-in-hand with the rise of the usage AI and ChatGPT in education. As a premium partner of Innovative Dutch, who is developing and running strategic simulation games in universities worldwide, we’ve experienced during the last year that there are many benefits arising from using strategic simulation games in education, knowing that students will move to AI to ask for help. Interested in learning more about the simulation games of Innovative Dutch? Check their website for the Innovation Management Game and the Business Model Game. Their games are played in over 25 countries by 10K+ students annually.

Here are nine advantages of leveraging strategic simulation games enhanced by AI in business education:

Read more →
Regenerative Innovation Process Through Systems Thinking [Infographic]

Regenerative Innovation Process Through Systems Thinking [Infographic]

Jan Spruijt

About a month ago, Kasper Benjamin Reimer Bjørkskov, posted a message on LinkedIn that contained an impressive methodology to look at regenerative systems thinking. The idea sparked my mind and I gave it a lot of thinking during the last few weeks. And, although I explicitly do acknolwedge the strength and simplicity of the model that was proposed, I believe from a theoretical perspective, it could be improved a bit. Let me first paraphrase the initial post and infographic:

🌍 Regenerative System Thinking:
Bridging the Gap Between Intent and Action 🌱

While technology is a powerful tool in our fight against the climate crisis, it alone can’t drive the change we need. We’ve done well in raising awareness about sustainability, but there’s a gap between understanding and action. It’s time to bridge that gap! To truly combat the climate crisis, we must intertwine the realms of technology, humanities, and social sciences. After all, the root of the crisis lies in human behavior. Only by altering our behaviors can we hope to find a solution. 🔗 By merging the insights from social and natural sciences, we can ensure that knowledge isn’t just acquired but acted upon. The current system often makes the effort seem greater than the reward, creating an intention-action gap. But through systemic design, we can offer a holistic understanding of societal and ecological needs. To Translate complex, real world challenges into solutions that creates positive social and  environmental impact, for all, we need regenerative system thinking.

Regenerative System Thinking. 6-step approach to Regenerative System Thinking:

1️⃣ Empathize & Observe:
1A: Empathize: Engage deeply with people to understand their perspectives and identify the barriers they face.
1B: Observe: Delve into the system’s intricacies to comprehend its functioning and dynamics.

2️⃣ Define & Explain:
2ADefine: Pinpoint the specific challenges and problems faced by individuals.
2B:Explain: Grasp and articulate how the system operates, shedding light on the root causes of the problems.

3️⃣ Ideate: Brainstorm innovative solutions that cater to both human needs and the planet’s well-being.

4️⃣ Design: Craft comprehensive strategies and solutions that serve both humanity and our environment.

5️⃣ Prototype: Develop tangible prototypes to test and refine ideas. Remember, action often brings clarity and deeper understanding.

6️⃣ Evaluate: Rigorously assess the impact of the solutions on both the system and its people, ensuring alignment with our regenerative goals.
Together, let’s turn understanding into impactful action. 🌟🌍 #RegenerativeThinking#ClimateActionNow

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kasper-benjamin-reimer-bj%C3%B8rkskov-660a4899_regenerativethinking-climateactionnow-activity-7117382272009269248-2JEU?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Turning a social model into a hybrid model

  1. My primary feedback pertains to the model’s reliance on a 2P basis, whereas the literature suggests that a 3P basis might lead to more effective outcomes. The Triple P framework is often referred to as People, Planet, Profit, though the latter may be replaced by Progress to encompass a broader perspective on social innovation. Please refer to sources such as Dwivedi & Weerawardena (2018), McMullen & Warnick (2016), Weerawardena et al. (2021), and Saebi et al. (2019).
  2. Another change in perspective is that systems thinking should not be limited to the Planet aspect of innovation. To exclude consideration of people and progress from systems thinking, in my opinion, would not constitute true systems thinking. I believe that the combination of these two (or three) processes could be referred to as systems thinking. You can find further insights in sources like Spender et al. (2017), Shepherd et al. (2015), and Rossignoli et al. (2018).
  3. Lastly, the iteration of processes outlined in the initial model does not align with existing literature and practical execution of innovation. You can reference works such as Crossan & Apaydin (2010), Barney & Felin (2013), Miron-Spektor et al. (2018), Bryan et al. (2021), Gans et al. (2019), and Landry et al. (2002) for a more accurate representation of how innovation is typically executed.

Therefore, I’ve designed a new infographic that more closely resembles regenerative innovation processes using systems thinking. In the dynamic landscape of innovation, the pursuit of regenerative progress stands for merging sustainability, profit, and human-centric principles into viable offerings. In this innovative model, three distinct but interwoven processes unfold in parallel, converging at Step 3 to craft a regenerative future that harmonizes the planet, progress, and people. This model encapsulates the essence of responsible leadership, ambidextrous leadership, and creative leadership, each playing a pivotal role in shaping regenerative innovation.

  1. Responsible Leadership (Planet) requires innovators to study the root causes of environmental and societal challenges, recognizing that regeneration begins with a deep understanding of the issues at hand. At Step 3A, leaders collaboratively formulate design principles that embrace ecological and ethical considerations, creating a blueprint for responsible strategy. This strategy, implemented with meticulous care, ensures that regenerative innovation is continually measured and monitored for its impact on the planet.
  2. Ambidextrous Leadership (Progress/Profit) unfurls a visionary path through diligent market research, seeking opportunities where profit can be harmonized with regenerative principles. At Step 3B, innovators craft bold ideas that resonate with the sustainable future they aspire to create. Within this collaboration, a multilayered business model emerges, serving as a robust platform for regenerative innovation. The model provides the necessary scaffolding to launch regenerative solutions into the market successfully.
  3. Creative Leadership (People) places the human element at the heart of regenerative innovation. By knowing their customers intimately, innovators ensure that solutions are not only ecologically sound but also responsive to the needs, desires, and values of the people they serve. At Step 3C, creative leaders join forces with their counterparts in Ambidextrous Leadership, forging smart solutions that prioritize the well-being of both the planet and humanity. They craft prototypes that are not only effective but also user-friendly, culminating in an evaluation process that centers on the customer experience.

This three-pronged approach to regenerative innovation redefines the boundaries of progress, profit, and sustainability. The magic lies in the convergence of these three leadership paradigms at Step 3, where ideas, strategies, and solutions synergize to create a regenerative force greater than the sum of its parts. Together, they pave the way for a future where responsible, ambidextrous, and creative leaders collaborate to shape a world that is not only profitable but also harmoniously interwoven with the planet and its people.

This infographic is part of the book Innographics: A Visual Guide to Innovation Management

Download a Free Preview

☑ I agree with opting in for the newsletter, our terms and privacy policy.

Avoid the Toxic Trap: the Toxic Matrix

Avoid the Toxic Trap: the Toxic Matrix

Jan Spruijt

Innovation is the foundation of progress and success in business. A culture of innovation is essential for companies to thrive and stay competitive. One of the biggest challenges for companies is to ensure that the culture of innovation is not overshadowed by a culture of toxicity. There are a number of potential pitfalls that must be avoided in order to create an environment that encourages creativity and collaboration. This blog will discuss these issues, as well as strategies for avoiding the Toxic Trap.

Read more →
2 Decades of Open Innovation: an infographic

2 Decades of Open Innovation: an infographic

Jan Spruijt

The rise of open innovation has been a long-standing trend in business. In the early 1990s, companies were starting to realize that they could improve their competitive edge by sharing their ideas and innovations with others. This led to the development of the concept of “open source” software, which allows for free exchange of information among developers. Open innovation is a term first coined by professor Henry Chesbrough in his 2003 book “Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology”. It describes the process of organizations leveraging external ideas and resources to drive innovation and growth. This can be done through things like open R&D, corporate venturing, collaborative research, etc.

Read more →
Infographic: Innovation Learning Arches

Infographic: Innovation Learning Arches

Jan Spruijt

What if we look at innovation from the perspective of learning? In that case, the sole intention of innovation management is not systematically generating and implementing viable offerings, but optimizing the amount of learning that an organization can handle when dealing with processes of creativity. For the purpose of this infographic I’ve combined the theories on a) stage-gate processes in innovation and technology development, b) organization learning and absorptive capacity and c) learning arches as they are widely used on higher education.

Read more →
Inneagram: Stakeholder Collaboration in Innovation Ecosystems

Inneagram: Stakeholder Collaboration in Innovation Ecosystems

Jan Spruijt

The story of this infographic began 16 years ago during a Summer School organized by the University of Cambridge. Not in the City of Perspiring Dreams itself, but on the mystical mountain Uludağ in Turkey, with 15 fellow students in a mountain hut more than 1 hour away from the nearest town with cellphone reception. On this mountain, led by Cambridge professor Jim Platts, we took an ESTIEM traineeship in transformative leadership. Without taking a deep dive into the material of the Summer School, one of the models that we started to work with was the Enneagram. Not only the power of the model itself, but also the history behind it, really intrigued me and so the story began.

Over the years, I’ve read much more about the Enneagram. Mostly used in (business) psychology, the framework is best described as an adaptive approach to recognize your own – and others’- behaviour in interactions with others. So it’s not, as many think, a framework for personality traits, like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) or the Big-5 personality test. It perhaps holds the middle between these personality tests and the Rose of Leary, a theory of behavioral influence. The theory helps you to find your comfort-spot and from there on explains how your interactions with others happen and could be improved if you learn how to read it. It’s adaptable: it may change under different circumstances, under different preconditions and in different situations.

Read more →