During the fourth industrial revolution there could be competition between science parks and innovation districts. The latter seems to be a better answer to changing demand by innovative companies and knowledge workers. However, the science park concept is not static. We think the science park has its own position amidst industrial innovation campuses and innovation districts. But (old, depreciated) science parks need to adjust to the new era. Management of science parks might find inspiration in the characteristics of innovation districts. We propose three considerations that might help science parks to remain competitive:
Consider adding housing (including an impact on service level and reachability);
Consider a shift towards multiple target groups;
Consider to lay more emphasis on community management.
Especially with regard to the first two considerations one has to keep in mind that a science park is not a closed entity. Setting out new strategies also requires a re-orientation of the position and role of science parks in their urban and regional context.
economy, innovation, Innovation districts, masterplanning, Science parks, urban development
campus, city, community Strategy, companies, competition, competitive, concept, considerations, demand, economy, housing, iadp, iasp, innovation, innovation campuses, Innovation districts, jacques van dinteren, knowledge, lessons, Management, paul jansen, progress, Science parks, target group, workers
While the emphasis early on was on the physical development, along with the way developers started realising that science and technology parks (STPs) require an entirely different approach. This blog (partly based on earlier ones) starts with presenting an overview of the development of the STP-concept and the impact of management on the success of these parks. In The Netherlands that success is to a certain extent often hampered by the fact that several parties are involved, having their own responsibilities. A simple model is described in which daily management can have control over the socio-economic and the physical aspects. This model can also be used for co-innovation parks and the upcoming concept of innovation districts (all together: innovation areas). In the last part, it is stated that changing concepts have led to changes in management and this evolution will continue due to, among others, globalisation.
campus, economy, Geen categorie, innovation, Innovation districts, masterplanning, Science parks, urban development
campus, co-innovation, concept, control, developers science park, development, dinteren, economy, iadp, impact, innovation, innovation areas, Innovation districts, jacques van dinteren, Management, model, parks, STP, success, technology park, The Netherlands