Facilitating Innovation for Complex Societal Challenges: Creating Communities and Innovation Ecosystems for SDG Goal of Forming Partnerships

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have carefully considered and read the manuscript entitled “Facilitating Innovation for Complex Societal Challenges: Creating Communities and Innovation Ecosystems for SDG Goal of Forming Partnerships” and have the following observations:

This study applies a social transformation perspective and aims to provide a conceptual framework for different innovation-driven communities and platforms designed to answer complex problems. Based on the SDG goal # 17 on partnership, we examine the structures, strategies, and processes designed by the Israel Innovation Institute (III) and the four innovation communities established by the institute. Our research questions are as follows: What is needed to advance partnerships in an innovation community? And what are the management capabilities and networking forms that are needed to develop partnerships in these communities? Based on data from interviews, participant observations, and document analysis, we analyzed the pre-conditions for establishing these communities, the community managers’ main strategies, and the characteristics of the ecosystem in which these community platforms operate.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

This paper needs a little more clarity about your manuscript's theme. There are some still spelling errors, and minor clarifications and improvements are needed for reconsidering it as a publication in Sustainability Journal.

In addition to the above, I have a few major points for the authors to consider before the publication of this work:

• In the abstract please recheck the grammatical and typo errors carefully, such as a typo error and grammar mistakes from a native speaker.
• Please accurately highlight your contribution and novelty in more detail in the introduction.
• Please update your literature with a few latest studies in 2022-23 if applicable:

• Recheck the references and their style according to the journal requirements, and in-text and end-text should be the same and vice versa.
• In the result section methods have been used, could your check by using some robust tests for more verifications of your outcomes?
• In the discussion section, the key findings should be compared and contrasted with existing studies.
• The conclusion, key recommendations, limitations, and future implications should be more realistic and be based on your results and discussion. So, do consider it accordingly and improve this section.
• The acronyms should be defined at first appearance in the manuscript and then must be consistently used throughout the manuscript.

The English language should improve and eliminate typos and spelling errors; the overall demonstration of this manuscript is fine but should improve more extensively according to the aforementioned comments.

Author Response

01, June  2023

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript: Facilitating Innovation for Complex Societal Challenges: Creating Communities and Innovation Ecosystems for SDG Goal of Forming Partnerships

Dear Special Issue Editors: Dr. Chunyan Zhou and Prof. Dr. Henry Etzkowitz,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript of " Facilitating Innovation for Complex Societal Challenges: Creating Communities and Innovation Ecosystems for SDG Goal of Forming Partnerships" for publication in the Sustainability Journal.

The suggestions offered by the reviewers were helpful and we would like to thank them for their valuable comments. We implemented most of those suggestions and highlighted the changes in the revised manuscript.

Below, please find a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments and description of the changes we made (page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file).

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully considered and read the manuscript entitled “Facilitating Innovation for Complex Societal Challenges: Creating Communities and Innovation Ecosystems for SDG Goal of Forming Partnerships” and have the following observations:

This study applies a social transformation perspective and aims to provide a conceptual framework for different innovation-driven communities and platforms designed to answer complex problems. Based on the SDG goal # 17 on partnership, we examine the structures, strategies, and processes designed by the Israel Innovation Institute (III) and the four innovation communities established by the institute. Our research questions are as follows: What is needed to advance partnerships in an innovation community? And what are the management capabilities and networking forms that are needed to develop partnerships in these communities? Based on data from interviews, participant observations, and document analysis, we analyzed the pre-conditions for establishing these communities, the community managers’ main strategies, and the characteristics of the ecosystem in which these community platforms operate.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

This paper needs a little more clarity about your manuscript's theme. There are some still spelling errors, and minor clarifications and improvements are needed for reconsidering it as a publication in Sustainability Journal.

Authors' response: Thank you for the comment. We worked on clarifying the foci of the paper, and on eliminating the spelling errors by submitting the paper to a language editor.

In addition to the above, I have a few major points for the authors to consider before the publication of this work:

• In the abstract please recheck the grammatical and typo errors carefully, such as a typo error and grammar mistakes from a native speaker.

Authors' response: Thanks again for this comment.

• Please accurately highlight your contribution and novelty in more detail in the introduction.

Authors' response: Thank for this comment. We clarify the contribution and novelty of the paper in the introduction (pp. 3-4) and in the conclusion chapters (page 10).

• Please update your literature with a few latest studies in 2022-23 if applicable:

Authors' response: We added 6 additional recent relevant studies to the paper. Please find the changes in the introduction (pp. 2-4) and in the related theoretical framings and conceptualizations (pp. 4-6) chapters.

• Recheck the references and their style according to the journal requirements, and in-text and end-text should be the same and vice versa.

Authors' response: Done.

• In the result section methods have been used, could your check by using some robust tests for more verifications of your outcomes?

Authors' response: Our study is qualitative in nature and does not have any robustness tests for verifying our findings.

• In the discussion section, the key findings should be compared and contrasted with existing studies.

Authors' response: We added a comparison of our study with the one of Adner – who offered the most relevant structure – in the conclusion chapter. Please find the addition on page 10.

• The conclusion, key recommendations, limitations, and future implications should be more realistic and be based on your results and discussion. So, do consider it accordingly and improve this section.

Authors' response: We have worked on the conclusion, and we hope it as improved. Please find the revised chapter on page 10.

• The acronyms should be defined at first appearance in the manuscript and then must be consistently used throughout the manuscript.

Authors' response: Thanks for the comment. We added a definition for the SDG acronyms on page 2. The acronym III is consistent throughout the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language should improve and eliminate typos and spelling errors; the overall demonstration of this manuscript is fine but should improve more extensively according to the aforementioned comments.

Authors' response: The manuscript was reviewed by a language editor to eliminate typos and spelling errors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

My Review provides an extensive response to your outstanding paper.  In brief, I believe you have put a bit too much into this paper.  Although the quality of your research lends itself to sharing so many findings and details, as a reader the paper becomes over-burdened, and hard to read.  As I say in the attached, I would very much like to see a scaled-back version that emphasizes the key insights you want to share in this paper.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

01, June 2023

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript: Facilitating Innovation for Complex Societal Challenges: Creating Communities and Innovation Ecosystems for SDG Goal of Forming Partnerships

Dear Special Issue Editors: Dr. Chunyan Zhou and Prof. Dr. Henry Etzkowitz,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript of "Facilitating Innovation for Complex Societal Challenges: Creating Communities and Innovation Ecosystems for SDG Goal of Forming Partnerships" for publication in the Sustainability Journal.

The suggestions offered by the reviewers were helpful and we would like to thank them for their valuable comments. We implemented most of those suggestions and highlighted the changes in the revised manuscript.

Below, please find a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments and description of the changes we made (page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file).

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My Review provides an extensive response to your outstanding paper.  In brief, I believe you have put a bit too much into this paper.  Although the quality of your research lends itself to sharing so many findings and details, as a reader the paper becomes over-burdened, and hard to read.  As I say in the attached, I would very much like to see a scaled-back version that emphasizes the key insights you want to share in this paper.

Authors' response: Thank you for the comment and good advice. We have reduced the scope of the paper by reviewing only two theoretical approaches, and focused only on figure 1. We also deleted the description of the four communities and offer only our general insights and removed the presentation of the strategies in the conclusion chapter as you have suggested. We hope these changes improved the flow of the paper and the over-burden.

Facilitating Innovation for Complex Societal Challenges

Sustainability – 2408014. Dear Authors,

Your Research Study, exploring the dynamics and outcomes of a world-class Innovation Accelerator, is remarkable.Likewise, your paper is teeming with Findings. From the notion of “engineered serendipity,” to the layer dynamics of an Innovation Community, to the strategies for enacting collaborative innovation, your immersion and expertise brings an incredible amount to this paper. As a scholar I am impressed with your insights.

As a reviewer I am a bit overwhelmed by all of the content you have shared.

Let me give you a brief overview of this issue.

You begin with a comprehensive summary of five relevant theories (Institutional theory, Complexity theory, Organized Serendipity, Open Innovation, and Innovation Communities). These lead to three Constructs for enacting innovation (Conditions / Activities / Ecosystems).

Your findings include:

• Main Strategies developed by the Institute (Ecosystem Management, Info for Collaborations, Support for Open Innovation).
• Functions of III (Encounters; Facilitating Resources; Reconfigurations).
• Processes within III (Creating Operational Routines; Community Engagement; Re-evaluation)
• Comparisons across the Four Communities
• Strategies of Ecosystem Management, including
• Supply-Side Increases; and Demand-Side Increases
• Parameters for “how innovation communities can advance innovation” (Market Failure; Attracting EcosystemMembers; Identifying Domain Barriers; Education for Open Innovation; Translation of

This extensive list doesn’t include the many frameworks you bring on the Theory side, including These lead to ThreeConstructs for How to Enact Innovation.

Authors' response: We fully agree with your observation and thank you for suggesting to reduce the topics we cover. Please see the above comment on what we eliminated.

Overall, your paper is exhaustive, and thereby it is a bit exhausting. Below I give one example of this problem, through a close reading of your Findings.

My sense is, a solid edit would reduce the complicatedness of your writing, and some thoughtful decisions willhighlight your most essential points for this paper, allowing you to save a good amount of material for another paper(s).

Although there are plenty of other things to mention, permit me one query (push-back) on your System Dynamics:namely the causality you propose: Function 3 -> Function 2; Function 2 -> Function 1; and Function 3 -> Function 1.This is an ingenious insight, but leads into a bit of a conundrum. If I understand these Functions, you’re claiming thatEncounters (F1) are ‘caused’ by Facilitating Actors 1

(F2) and by the Reconfiguration of the System (F3).   If so, the self-organization of the system is as much a top-down processas it is a bottom-up one.

Authors' response: We agree and thank you for this comment. We made the needed changes in the paper.

As an entrepreneurship scholar steeped in Complexity Science, I’m not convinced. For, your model suggests that F1has no agency: Its enactment is caused by External Actors (F2) and by System Change (F3).

However, F1 is the source of Innovation – any innovation is sparked by an Agent (“actors from startup firms, hospitals, research centers…). Minimally, the collaborative drive to innovate (F1) ‘causes’ the need to find new resources (F2), which ultimately leads to the instantiation of a Platform that allows for multi-level interactions (F3).  If so, there would be a parallel set of causal arrows: F1 -> F2, and F2 -> F3.

Thank you for considering this idea. As your Reviewer I am not suggesting (requiring) you take it on.

Authors' response: Thank you for this excellent observation and suggestion. The causality errors were mistaken, and we changed them. Please find this change on pages 7-8.

Finally, forgive my long-winded Review.I spent many hours on it, mainly in acknowledgment of the high-qualityresearch it represents, and the esteem I have for the first author, who has made significant contributions to the Field.

Authors' response: Thank you for identifying the high- quality of the paper and for the most valuable review and comments.

=-=-=-=EXAMPLE OF THE OVER-COMPLEXITY OF YOUR WRITING -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

As one example, consider how you introduce your findings, (lines 351-385).  You begin by identifying “the mainstrategies” developed by III: Ecosystem Management; Access to Info for Collaborations and Funding; Support for Open Innovation. (lines 351-354).

But on the next line you use a new term, Function. There you introduce three Functions, which don’t seem to relate to the three Strategies. Below (line 355) you explain that the figure regards the first Strategy, namely Ecosystem Management. Your explanation is confusing, “Figure 1 describes the three main functions of the dynamic community processes.” Are you saying that Ecosystem Management can be described as a “dynamic community process?”(Perhaps Figure 1 needs to be placed after a clearer explanation).

Authors' response: Thanks again for the comment. We rewrote the explanation. Please find the change within lines 532-535 on page 8.

Figure 2 is rather remarkable, but here too there is just too much information to take in. The three Functions are intriguing: 1. Facilitate Encounters; 2. Bring in External Actors with Knowledge; 3. High-Order Change Re-configures the System. Much could be said about these.

But at the same time you introduce a new set of findings, the Dynamic Processes within III.  These are: 1. CreatingOperational Routines, 2. Community Engagement; and 3. Re-evaluation of Routines.

Your description in the text is understandably complex. Re-reading lines 367-384: You refer to processes, functions, and feedback loops. “The first process aims to create encounters…” thus referring to the Function of FacilitateEncounters (?). “The second process, community engagement and reaction…” Does this refer to the Dynamic Process of 2. Community Engagement? You close by saying, “The third process is the re-evaluation of operational routines”which I know refers to the Dynamic Process of 3) Re-evaluation of Routines.

Here's my view. You rightfully have made careful distinctions in the Processes, Dynamics, and Outcomes (Functions) that drive III. This version includes ALL of those distinctions, which is impressive, but very hard to take in all at once.

Consider what are the most important Findings, and concentrate on those. Additional details can then be saved for another publication(s). As but one example, your Strategies for Ecosystem Management (line 461-537) is rich with insight and packed with tangible recommendations, each of which could be drawn out in more detail. Although it isuseful as a summary in this paper, there is plenty of room to expand this into a more practice- or strategy-oriented publication.

Authors' response: Thanks for the comment. Indeed, it might be too much information for one paper. We took out two theoretical approaches and both Figure 2 and Figure 3, as well as any of their relevant explanations from the text. In addition, we follow your good suggestion and removed the strategies that were in the conclusion chapter and will use them in another paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, and Editors,

Bravo!! Exceptional work.  To start, thank you for your listening to my concerns. You went far beyond my expectations, leading to a paper that is eminently readable, and makes several important contributions to current thinking and practice. 

In a way the paper exemplifies an Open Knowledge-Creation process: You identified a world-class leader in Collaborative Innovation Ecosystems, who allowed you to carefully identify the drivers of its creation and ongoing vitality.  The result is a playbook for how to expand innovation potentiality, with strategies that can be enacted by any who are interested. Remarkable. Thank you for that gift of actionable knowledge.

What more should be said.  You responded directly to all of my concerns, which were paralleled by the other reviewer.  Your editing was superb; the paper reads smoothly and with a good tempo. The result is an impactful Review, of the highly relevant process of Innovation.

As a reviewer, I'm grateful to work with world-class thinkers and writers.  All best, {:=>)