Abstract

This paper analyzes Rome Technopole¹ as a case study of a territorial innovation ecosystem, with particular attention to internal governance mechanisms and stakeholder engagement strategies promoted within the framework of the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP). Following a review of the regulatory and theoretical background, the article examines the project's organizational architecture and the network-based logic underlying the hub-and-spoke model, highlighting the role of thematic spokes and project flagships. A specific focus is devoted to Spoke 5—responsible for coordinating public engagement, lifelong learning, and social impact activities—where the authors of this paper are actively involved. The paper explores the mechanisms for activating internal collaborations, the operational tools employed, and a selection of high social-impact case studies launched through independently designed calls. Finally, it discusses the structural challenges posed by cooperation among heterogeneous actors—universities, research centers, and industries—highlighting the resulting tensions and opportunities. The experience of Spoke 5 underscores the need to develop systematic practices and adaptive tools for internal stakeholder engagement as a key condition for ensuring the long-term sustainability of complex partnerships beyond the emergency-driven framework of the NRRP.

Keywords: Public Engagement; Innovation Ecosystems; NRRP; Stakeholder Engagement; Networked Governance; Internal Stakeholders; Participatory Models; Rome Technopole; Spoke 5; Multi-level Coordination

References

1. Baffo I., et al. “Public engagement in research and innovation: Rome Technopole’s Spoke 5 approach”. Advances in Information and Communication: Proceedings of the 2025 Future of Information and Communication Conference (FICC), Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Springer 1 (2025).
2. Bianchi P and Labory S. “Innovation ecosystems and regional industrial policy: A European perspective”. European Planning Studies 30.2 (2022): 223-239.
3. Carayannis EG, Barth TD and Campbell DFJ. “The Quintuple Helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation”. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 1.1 (2012): 1-12.
4. Delanghe H, Muldur U and Soete L. “European Science and Technology Policy: Towards Integration or Fragmentation?”. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing (2011).
5. Etzkowitz H and Leydesdorff L. “The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations”. Research Policy 29.2 (2000): 109-123.
6. European Commission. “A new European Research Area for Research and Innovation”. COM (2020)628 final (2020).
7. Felt U and Fochler M. “Machineries for making publics: Inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement”. Minerva 48.3 (2010): 219-238.
8. Freeman C. “Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan”. London: Pinter Publishers (1987).
9. Garcés-Ayerbe C, Rivera-Torres P and Suárez-Perales I. “Stakeholder engagement mechanisms and their contribution to eco?innovation: Differentiated effects of communication and cooperation”. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26.6 (2019): 1321-1332.
10. George G., et al. “Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research”. Academy of Management Journal 59.6 (2016): 1880-1895.
11. Gioia DA., et al. “Organizational identity formation and change”. Academy of Management Annals 7.1 (2013): 123-193.
12. Gomes LAV., et al. “Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 136 (2018): 30-48.
13. Granstrand O and Holgersson M. “Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition”. Technovation 90-91 (2020): 102098.
14. Klerkx L and Aarts N. “The interaction of multiple champions in innovation networks: Conflicts and complementarities”. Technovation 33.6-7 (2013): 193-210.
15. Kumpu V. “What is public engagement and how does it help to address climate change? A review of climate communication research”. Environmental Communication 16.3 (2022): 304-316.
16. Lundvall B-A. “National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning”. London: Pinter Publishers (1992).
17. Mazzei A and Quaratino L. The State of the Art of Employee Communication in Italian Companies. Milan: FrancoAngeli (2020).
18. Meliciani V and Pini P. NRRP, innovation and territorial divides. Rome: INAPP Policy Brief (2021).
19. MUR - Ministry of University and Research. Guidelines for the reporting and monitoring of NRRP projects (2022).
20. MUR - Ministry of University and Research. Public notice for the submission of project proposals for the creation and strengthening of “Innovation Ecosystems” (2021).
21. Owen R, Macnaghten P and Stilgoe J. “Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society”. Science and Public Policy 39.6 (2012): 751-760.
22. Pellizzoni L and Ylönen M. “Polycentric governance and innovation: Exploring coordination in complex systems”. Policy Studies 41.5 (2020): 514-533.
23. Perkmann M., et al. “Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations”. Research Policy 42.2 (2013): 423-442.
24. Plaza-Úbeda JA, de Burgos-Jiménez J and Carmona-Moreno E. “Stakeholders and development of resources and capabilities: The role of stakeholder integration”. Business Strategy and the Environment 19.5 (2010): 289-308.
25. Rinkinen J, Pansera M and Owen R. “Public policy and innovation ecosystems: Addressing systemic problems”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 174 (2022): 121210.
26. Suboticki I., et al. “Fostering justice through engagement: A literature review of public engagement in energy transitions”. Energy Research & Social Science 99 (2023): 103053.
27. Taverna V, Baffo I and Calabrò G. “Lifelong learning e-learning education systems for sustainable development and public engagement”. Advances in Information and Communication: Proceedings of the 2025 Future of Information and Communication Conference (FICC), Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Springer 2 (2025).
28. Vanhaverbeke W., et al. “Open Innovation: Research, Practices, and Policies”. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2018).
29. Von Schomberg R. “A vision of responsible innovation”. In Owen, R., Bessant, J., & Heintz, M. (Eds.) Responsible Innovation. Chichester: Wiley (2013): 51-74.

Citation

Valentina Taverna., et al. “Networked Architectures and Stakeholder Engagement in Innovation Ecosystems: The Case of Spoke 5 in the NRRP Rome Technopole Project". Clareus Scientific Science and Engineering 2.4 (2025): 20-28.

Copyright

© 2025 Valentina Taverna., et al. Licensee Clareus Scientific Publications. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.