Wuhan Future City in Wuhan, Hubei Province, is one of the four concentrated talent bases for China’s major state-owned enterprises. Photo: TUCHONG

As the recent wave of technological and industrial transformation intensifies, national innovation capacity is increasingly crucial in shaping national competitive advantages and building a national security framework. This recent strategic trend places higher and more pressing demands on the transformation and upgrading of the national innovation system.

“Organized innovation” is a new strategic paradigm for China’s national innovation system. It aims to enable a paradigm shift in the system and enhance overall system effectiveness, advance the integration of a well-functioning government with an efficient market, and motivate the entire population to participate, with integrative innovation and scenario-driven innovation as its theoretical bases. The core of organized innovation lies in bringing about three-fold “organized” outcomes through the design and reconstruction of organizational models and operational mechanisms.

Organized, integrative co-creation among innovation entities: The traditional innovation model, wherein higher education and research institutions play a dominant role, and companies play a secondary role, is to be replaced with a newly established paradigm driven by scenarios, led by companies, and characterized by deep integration of industries, universities, and research institutes (IUR integration).

Organized innovation activities across dimensions, levels, and sectors: Driven by missions and guided by strategies, the logic of the company-led innovation model is applied in innovation activities of different types, at different stages, and across different dimensions.

Organized governance that aligns innovation goals with diverse demand incentives: The coordination and mutual facilitation between multiple innovation goals and various demand incentives are achieved by unlocking the potential of new quality innovation entities and elements.

The key to translating the paradigm of organized innovation into concrete practice is to optimize the structural design of the innovation system, strengthen full-chain, whole-process management of scientific and technological innovation, and improve the functional performance of the national innovation system across a wide range of scenarios.

From a structural perspective, new quality innovation entities serve as key nodes within the national innovation system. Internally, hybrid new quality innovation entities mainly operate at the upper and middle levels, while flexible innovation entities concentrate at the lower levels. Externally, national development strategies play an overarching role at the top level.

In terms of process, leading technology companies are integrated into the entire chain of organized innovation, creating a cycle of organized “problem setting,” organized research, and organized transformation of scientific and technological achievements.

With respect to function, scenario construction at the national level acts as an anchor for organized innovation. The definition of nation-level scenarios should consider the requirements of national development for scientific and technological innovation while also clarifying the boundaries and subdivisions of these scenarios wherever possible. Top-level scenarios can be categorized as technology-centered, society-centered, economy-centered, or ecology-centered scenarios. These four categories are interrelated and facilitate each other, with technology-centered scenarios unifying the other three.

Organized innovation should be advanced by adopting a multi-path approach based on the grasp of strategic priorities and process mechanisms. First, it is important to organically integrate multiple innovation goals while adhering to the “people-centered” principle. This principle emphasizes that scientific and technological innovation should address the holistic development needs of individuals, calling for the commitment of innovation entities to embrace the philosophy of “innovation for the people, by the people, and benefiting the people.”

Second, the complementary cycle between top-down institutional guidance and bottom-up innovation emergence should be reinforced. Bottom-up innovation emergence not only aligns with the “people-centered” principle, but is also an inevitable choice for fully harnessing the creativity and agency of innovation entities.

Third, it is necessary to strengthen the central position and leading role of companies in scientific and technological innovation. Organized innovation at specific operational levels relies on government support, through institutional innovation, for companies that have both the motivation and capacity to lead in deep IUR integration. Bolstering the role of companies as primary agents and leaders of innovation can facilitate the transformation of corporate strategic management models and the cultivation of pioneering innovation capabilities, driving the development of new quality productive forces.

Fourth, scenario-driven innovation should be stressed. Scenario-based logic acknowledges the diverse demands and capabilities of innovation entities in real-world contexts, enables dynamic alignment between situational tasks and advantaged entities, and facilitates the self-organization of multiple entities around those tasks.

Fifth, the national innovation system can be upgraded and expanded by adopting a “glocalization” strategy. The organized innovation paradigm necessitates moving beyond the dichotomy between autonomy and openness to promote autonomy-based, open, integrative innovation and build an open, globally competitive national innovation system.

Chen Jin et al. are from Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management, the School of Management at Beijing Institute of Technology, and the School of Management at Zhejiang University.