“New Challenges for Sectoral Systems of Innovation in Europe” was presented at DRUID Summer Conference in 2002. It summarises the main results of the ESSY project. This project was funded under FP4 with aims:
1. to build a research methodology which focuses on sectoral systems,
2. to understand the functioning and evolution of six major sectoral systems in Europe,
3. to study the determinants of the European performance in these six sectors,
4. to develop new policy options and implications on this basis.
Franco Malerba claims that sectoral systems of innovation framework is a useful tool in various respects:

  1. Descriptive analysis of differences and similarities in the structure, organisation, and boundaries of sectors;
  2. Understanding differences and similarities in dynamics and transformation of sectors;
  3. Identification of factors affecting innovation, commercial performance and international competitiveness of firms and countries in the different sectors;
  4. Development of new public policy indications.

The sectoral system of innovation is composed of three main building blocks:

  1. Knowledge and technological domain. Every sector is characterised by a specific knowledge base, technological structure and inputs. Here, the issue of the technological boundary is very important. These boundaries are usually not fixed and many links and complementarities exist between different technologies.
  2. Actors and networks. Every sector is composed of heterogeneous actors, groups, organizations and individuals. Firms, universities, government agencies, research institutes, industrial association, entrepreneurs, consumers, financial institutions, trade unions are all contributed directly or indirectly to the evolution of the sector. In addition, these agents are related to each other through forma and informal networks. Malerba argues that they “are connected in various ways through market and non-market relationships”.
  3. Institutions. Interactions between agents are shaped by “institutions. which include norms, routines, common habits, laws, standards and so on”. These institutions can be formal (i.e. specific regulations, intellectual property rights) and informal (i.e. conventions).

Malerba stresses also the importance of the geographical boundaries suggesting that there is not an appropriate one in the study of sectoral systems of innovation.

This preliminary introduction to sectoral systems of innovation framework is then used to describe the results of the ESSY project in the analysis of five sectors: biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, telecom equipment and services, chemicals, software, and machine tools.

At this stage, I do not discuss the second part of the article, which I will address later. The study on telecom and software can be very relevant because ubiquitous computing is related with this two sectors. Now, I just want to discuss one, the definition of technological boundary.
From my understanding, it is very difficult to define which technologies are included in the ubiquitous computing family and which not. Consequently defining precise boundaries seems difficult. If it is so, how can I define the technological boundaries of my research? A deep understanding of ubiquitous computing technologies and applications can help me select a group of related technologies and study them as a part of the ubiquitous computing world. Then, If I use this argument, is sectoral system of innovation framework still applicable? Is technological system of innovation more appropriate for this approach? However, I have to say that recently Bo Carlsson, the technological system of innovation framework guru, seems to prefer the term sectoral system to technological system (see Carlsson, B. et al. 2005. Analyzing the Dynamics and Functionality of Sectoral Innovation Systems – A Manual. DRUID Summer Conference 2005).