This paper focuses on the local additive manufacturing AM for life science ecosystem. It aims to study the roles of the different stakeholders, and the strengths and weaknesses of the local AM ecosystem through the lens of the research on Innovation ecosystems (IE), Innovation Systems (IS), and Innovation clusters (IC). The main framework used in this study is technological innovation systems (TIS). The methodology of this research relies on a mixed-methods approach that involved surveys administered through structured interviews and self-completion questionnaire. The stakeholders involved in the study include organizations from the industrial sector, healthcare providers, academia, public agencies, and innovation support. Data collected from twenty-two participants was compiled and used to determine response frequencies on nine multiple response questions, and mean scores for thirty-two Likert scale questions. The frequency response tables were used to determine the stakeholder roles, while mean scores were used to determine the TIS functional components ratings and overall standings. The roles of the stakeholders were determined through the lens of the existing literature on IE. The stakeholders have mixed involvement across the ecosystem, sometimes occupying multiple role categories within the ecosystem. It was found that healthcare stakeholders, and industry stakeholders fill direct value creation and value support roles due to their active participation in defining medical needs and supporting the ecosystem. Next, Public agency stakeholders fill leadership roles, due to their regulatory and actor integration roles. Finally Academic stakeholders fill leadership roles by providing research and knowledge to the ecosystem. In terms of strengths and weaknesses, the TIS framework was used to evaluate the seven original functional components, and an additional component that was added based on the IE research. It was found that Function 3 Knowledge Diffusion was the strongest function, due to the noncompetitive environment that the local AM ecosystem has established. Meanwhile, Function 2 Knowledge Development scored lowest and was determined to be the weakest functional component due to a lack in the number of patents within the innovation ecosystem. In addition, individual strengths and weaknesses within the functional components were highlighted for a more nuanced look into the strengths and weaknesses of individual functional components. The highest rated strength of the ecosystem was determined to be collaboration, and its weakest area was the noncompetitive environment.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-531963 |
| Date | January 2024 |
| Creators | Idress, Mohammad Dawood, ElQadi, Ahmad |
| Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Institutionen för samhällsbyggnad och industriell teknik, Uppsala universitet, Industriell teknik |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| Relation | SAMINT-MILI ; 24009 |
Page generated in 0.0026 seconds