From
territorial intelligence to competitive & sustainable system
Case
studies in Mexico & in Gafsa university
Yann Bertacchini
Maître de Conférences, HDR
Expert près l’U.E
Chercheur associé UMR Cnrs Thema & UMR Cnrs LISA
Université du Sud Toulon-Var ; labo I3m-EA 3820
BP 132 ; 83957
Marisela Rodríguez-Salvador,
Centro
de Calidad y Manufactura,
Instituto
Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM)
Campus Monterrey
marisrod@itesm.mx , + 52 (81) 83 58 20 00 Ext. 5361
Wahida Souari,
Assistante,
Université De Gafsa Tunisie
Doctorante,
Lab I3m, Université Sud Toulon
Abstract: Can we consider, for two separate situations, territorial intelligence
approach in common, as a model, at the beginning of a National (Mexico) and
internal (Gafsa) System of territorial sustainable Intelligence, to be built? We
shall discuss it, after a brief analysis of the state of development of this
area in
First case study: a territorial intelligence proposal onto the way of a national system
competitive intelligence
This
part presents the theoretical basis to define a National System of Competitive
and Technological Intelligence. It is built from analysis about using notion of
systems within innovation studies as well as on the relationship between this
latter and competitive, technological intelligence. In addition, a model of
application on the sphere of territorial intelligence is discussed, including a
brief analysis of the state of development of this area in
The development
of citizenship, democracy, social equity, as well as social and economic
progress, is the main objectives of territorial development and territorial
governance.
The
systems of territorial intelligence need
using traditional transmission processes of information through Tics as, Intranet,
Extranet or internet Web sites, library, systems of geographical information
and method analysis of data
“The Territorial Intelligence can be compared
with the territoriality which results from the phenomenon of appropriation of
resources of a territory; it consists in know-how transmissions between
categories of local actors of different cultures.” (Bertacchini, 2004).
In
this context, the CAENTI "Coordinated
Action of the European Network of Territorial Intelligence" is a
project financed by the U.E. within the framework of the "6th Research
program of Technological Development" which has for objective integration,
dissemination actions of current research about tools of territorial
intelligence to give them a European dimension.
Fifteen
partners relevant of 8 countries are included into CAENTI which began on March
first, 2006 for a three years time. The framework research is fulfilled of three
research principal activities contributing at the integration of researches
about tools of territorial intelligence: 1) the activity tools part of CAENTI,
2) the methods pool, and 3) the governance activity (CAENTI, on 2007).
By the
end of the CAENTI project, within the framework of the 7th Program of the
European Union for Research & development, will dash the ENTI
"Territorial European Network of Intelligence" with a future line of
planning the constitution of a network of
excellence. This project, which will be called for, is planned within the
framework of the second call in 2009. Therefore it must be right now prepared
because it implies, the extension and the intensification of the Research excellence,
the definition of a project joined of
additional activities, training, publishing and transfer (ENTI, 2007).
The
concept of system was largely covered into the field of studies related to
innovation particularly, when three authors (Freeman, 1987), (Lundvall, 1992),
(Nelson, 1993), inserted this keyword into a wider approach ‘the notion of national system of innovation’.
These have
suggested a global frame analysis, through holistic approach, to consider how
understanding interactions between separate elements, in appearance, when they
are engaged into innovative processes.
In
spite of some problems, as a relative theoretical ambiguousness (Edquist, 2005),
this general frame knew a surprising broadcasting and a miscellaneous of its
aspects were adopted by uncountable specialists, policy analysts, international
organizations, or adapted as starting point for a similar fine-tuning such as
the sector-based and regional systems of innovation and the technological
systems (Breschi & Maleaba 1997, (Carlson 1994), (Cooke et Al 1997)
However,
thanks to theoretical ambiguousness mentioned previously, this distribution around
the notion of systems of innovation implied very varied performances.
At the
origin, we can underline that notion of systems cannot be dissociated of studies
on innovation itself and it can be found in the own evolution life of the concept
of innovation; particularly, when interactive models of this process have been developed,
in opposition to the dominant linear vision, because incorporating influences,
actions, interactions of a large number of factors into the innovation process.
According
to Andersen (1994), this association began during the 70s thanks to
the works of some researchers, around Christopher Freeman and the research
center "Science Policy Research Unit" (SPRU).
These
performances were maybe more connected to the notions as social networks than
with systems, because this last one has more complex phenomenon than simple
interaction between elements.
In
every case, it is clear that these premature associations between notions close
to systems and to innovation implied conceptualization of this phenomenon as a
not linear process which inserts the coordinated participation of actors’ large
number.
On
using the concept of systems of innovation, by the end of the 80s and at the
beginning of the 90s, involved an extended research area. The key role played
by agents' networks in the innovation process have pushed ahead institutions in
the front line joining to, in a certain direction, some aspects of the economy
evolutionist current.
These
new performances, discussed in a vast way, did not bring to us to a unified
notion of innovation system probably because the main actors belong to various
research traditions in which, maybe, the common denominator was affinity with
Schumpeter thesis.
However
and fare away similarities between the opinion suggested by Edquist (2005), we
can add that the main original interpretation of systems of innovation was
dedicated to explain national plans of growth and economic development read, through
the analysis of interactions between actors and participating institutions to
the networks of innovation.
Also
there was an implicit and, sometimes explicit, orientation of the innovation policies
more clearly explained in the Lundvall & alii version, defined in terms of
institutional learning (Dalum and Al, on 1992).
We
could say while this original interpretation called an evolutionist frame to
explain the innovative development in national contexts.
As a
national context is made of a basic structure with established agents,
institutions and interactions, comparison with a system was easy to make and
relate all these national components to national innovation systems.
In
spite of an orientation towards general policies of innovation, none of the original
interpretations included an effective fine-tuning version of systems of
innovation. This one was fundamentally developed by the OECD which adopted the
notion since the end of the year 80 (OECD, 1992); David and Foray, 1994).
From this
point follows what we can name generalize interpretation of innovation system.
It means that the specific national systems can be enough described the enumeration
of main components, agents, institutions which participate in the innovation
process and analysis of its most characteristic interactions.
From
the question «How these interactions generate winning innovation systems ?
", gets loose identification of " better practices", fundamental
components which then act as guide for institutional and organizational
learning within the international environment.
This
wide-spread performance was improved in many OECD reports (OECD, 1994, 1999,
2002) as well as in studies carried out by abroad organizations as the European
Union (Edquist and al, 1998) ; (Soete & al, 2002), and it is normally the main
one which is used in large number of
studies published into the literature referring to innovation systems.
Until
now, we briefly saw revised both main aspects of performance referring to
technological aspects in innovation, the most wide-spread and original vision;
these refer to what we could name excellent innovation systems (major or first level).
If we try
to improve a little more the concept, based on the fine-tuning of systems, it
would be possible to conceptualize the third performance one corresponding to
innovation systems of second order (medium level). It would consist of mechanisms, or systems, specifically
designed to promote creation and broadcasting economically useful knowledge.
We
find the main difference between this third performance and the previous in the
fact that agents and their interactions, which compose the innovative processes,
establish a reliable, complex and multidimensional system which has specific
purposes and comments (Lopez-Martinez, on 2006).
The
analysis in detail of this third performance exceeds the target of our present
contribution, but it is necessary to say that model of a competitive and
technological intelligence system we shall discuss then, is in an intermediate
point between the first level, (major one), system and the second one, (medium
one).
Then,
from starting notion of system which aims at the durability, we underline that
functions of innovation and intelligence are confidentially bound, to support productive
activities which guarantee system survival, we present a short description of elements
which establish a National System of Competitive & technological
Intelligence in agreement with the model proposed by Rodríguez (2005). We shall
also point out conditions of its development in
The
SNICYT is defined as: all the actors who act with each others in the national
environment during the process of information conversion towards a strategic
knowledge through effective intelligence process cycle operation.
This
system includes two categories. The closest to the nucleus is the most important
and it is made of: human resources (intellectual assets), economic resources,
infrastructure and tools of support (data bases, methodologies, software of
treatment, information analysis, and institutions which define, plan kind of
operation.
While
the second category includes: government, universities institutes and various
other agents engaged in education, companies of goods and services, non
profitable organization, services abroad and other actors as group of
researchers, agencies, other organizations.
Following,
the second category will be analyzed in details by underlining some aspects of
the international situation by including
For
several years, some governments, throughout the world, recognized the
activities of competitive and technological intelligence as fundamental for
economic development of a country. Let us mention the case of
In
More
recently, we can refer to Jean-Pierre Raffarin’s initiative, former French
Prime Minister, which have gave a parliamentary mission of evaluation of economic
intelligence in France to Bernard Carayon, who committed an official report in
return, named : “The economic Intelligence,
competitiveness and social cohesion” (Carayon, 2003). By consequence, a
senior official of economic intelligence was appointed and some initiatives
were mainly spread within framework of territorial intelligence.
Various
programs were developed in the world for training to this discipline, since PhD,
masters and licenses (for example Mercyhurst College in U.S, Aix Marseille
university in France, University from Stockholm to Sweden) as well as
certifications and diplomas.
In
Another
institution, where this domain was introduced little by little, is the
Technological Institute and Higher education of Monterrey (ITESM). It is about
a private institute with more of 30 campus in all the country, besides offices in
Europe, in Asia, in North America and in
In
2001, the Competitive and technological Intelligence for Innovation branch built
up itself in the
Companies are taking on a fundamental role in this System by adopting
methodology and also developing new methods of information collect, analysis, and
broadcasting. In this way, under the executive frame of the National Intelligence
System, impact goes beyond the own borders of company environment, external and
internal, transforming company’s management, prospective in general, and so
development of interactions.
On the other hand, when we relate to companies, it does not mean that
each of all is individually running its own intelligence activities without
sharing background with each others. In
Various
associations exist in the world connected with this domain, for example, the
French Association for the Development of the Economic Intelligence (AFDIE) The
French Society of Bibliométrie Appliquée (SFBA), Competia (
The
role of this association was very important; among its activities we list organization
of price, lesson, international matches, congresses, conferences and promotion
of publications in this domain.
To
strengthen its presence, the SCIP has more than 50 branches in the world, two
in Mexico, but their presence here was not asserted as in the other countries,
the interaction is thus made in a more direct way with the headquarter in the
U.S.
It is
also necessary to consider interactions which occur outside. Through agreements
or strategic alliances between companies, universities, N.P.O of the other countries
it is possible to combine efforts and to realize joint actions for measuring,
analysing the external environment. It goes beyond sharing material resources;
it is a question of strengthening also immaterial, intellectual assets to be
connected. For that purpose, it is required to establish working networks
which, besides common purposes, look for generating new capacities and which
add a value to his group.
Last
element to be indicated: during operation of the system of competitive and technological
intelligence, other actors also interfere, non formal associations, agencies,
organizations which can accelerate and strengthen this activity.
To end,
we have to indicate that our proposition could be found inside category of a
System where there are not individual actions which have an impact engendered
between them. Effects exist under various dimensions which can promote or prevent
stream, conversion and assimilation of information until the strategic
knowledge.
In
summary, all these elements should act through establishment and durability process
of synergies set up between various actors. For such a result, we need shared
objectives, encouraged relations between various organizations at a local,
international, private and state level. We put in front of our research that
territorial approach, summed as Bertacchini & al described from 2000 to
2007, can be, ex ante and ex post, resources for such innovation management to
sustainable development.
Incorporation,
using of fine-tuning of systems has measured, substantial advantages for
explanation of phenomena, and for building a competitive & collaborative
environment. In particular case of productive activities and innovation process,
this incorporation finds the origin in the same systematic properties of the
innovation. It is taking advantages live in a complete explanation of complex phenomenon,
which allows on, one, hand global diagnosis, identification of master agents
& valuable interactions.
And on
the other hand, design of appropriate mechanisms, steered to improve agents’ conditions
or their interactions, increasing the general progress of the system. These
establishments allow then to identify better practices in the international
environment which, without being models to be followed, represent the domains
of institutional learning which must be adapted to the particular conditions of
every specific case.
In
this way, under global perspective of the National System of Competitive &
technological Intelligence, acuity of this domain takes on various nuances. At
the macroeconomic level, it emerges the potential impact which it has for innovative
development of the country in general through various actors who compose it.
In this
context for some years, it became established, that under new paradigm of
innovation, conversion of information in knowledge, is a determining
competitiveness factor but not only at the level of a company but at the level
of a whole nation seen as a meta-organisation feed of micro, meso and macro
projects.
While
innovation processes can be conceived as process of transformation from
information in reference, to customers’ needs, market demands and technological
progress, by generating the knowledge which is expressed through creation of
products and new or improved processes (Kerssens-van D.; Weerd-N. and Fisscher,
1996). It is making possible to deduct then, that activities of Competitive
& technological Intelligence acquire a fundamental importance in the
innovation not only for a level micro but also macro economic.
Finally,
it is important to add that countries less developed in this domain, as
Second case study: a local project within the
This second part of our communication takes support on
researches led within the university of Gafsa in Tunisia. Our convergent efforts
are working towards implementation of ‘one to act professional’ of
multidisciplinary and intercultural nature shall revealed on to the form of an
observatory.
Having been chosen as a reception potential center as implementation
of the University Observatory and being aware of efforts to display it and required
means, to make a success of this project, The University of Gafsa presents
down there in this report its strategy and means of action to set up its
observatory.
The implementation of a process of Territorial Intelligence
(I.T) within the University of Gafsa should operate a specific hierarchical
organization and leads many changes in the working customs of which the purpose
to help in the decision-making process & cycle.
We shall show in this communication our ambitious experiment
supported by experts of the European Commission and we suggest considering Observatory
of Gafsa’s University as a Territorial Intelligence process on our territory.
On this fact, What are our objectives, our means and with which strategy we are
going to practise this voluntarist policy ?
1-Complete
overview, Territory, Observatory.
The university of Gafsa is a young university which has been
created in 2004, its creation denotes interest of Tunisia, in some new era of
decentralization, about higher education in order to show major role of the University attached as
locomotive of radiant development.
Decided to be always opened on needs renewed by its studies
and requirements for development of the Southwest region, the U.G’s aim used to
take more advantages of its work and diversifying its services. For insuring
this role several devices were operated, in application among others, the Observatory.
1.1. Définition
The UG’s Observatory is, as we can named it, a one to act
professional of multidisciplinary, intercultural nature which answers to fundamental
objectives of higher education as well as in requirements of various
professional groups, putting together actors of diverse geographical parts,
economic, cultural previous history. These communities attempt to build a virtual
space and use common tools of work and exchange.
1.2.University’s
goals
In relation with
the experimented skill of our young university in particular in the internal
and external evaluation, we propose the following objectives:
· promote a
culture of evaluation of entry into
employment,
· strengthen
opening of the educational system on its socioeconomic environment,
· appreciate needs
of the working market qualification,
· reducing the
distances between both educational and productive systems.
1.3.
Stratégic path
The UG’s reflection on the forward-looking function of
observatories allowed to envisage the Observatory development , conceived
initially as a technical tool of treatment of university datum, in a strategic
tool of national policy of the forward-looking analysis in higher education.
This evolution allows to think, later, at the merger of the
BEPP and Observatories, in a single help assistant to decision, connected with
the cabinet of the ministry which could be entitled Center of Study and
Forward-looking for Higher education (CEPS). It would include functions of,
studies, inquiries and the forward-looking evaluation.
This Observatory will be organized according to the
following seven principles: decision, decentralization, partnership, coherence,
objectivity, commitment, and quality.
the observatory is under the full
and whole responsibility of the president of the university who is the
decision-maker.
the observatory represents
decentralized level by the national BEPP. It is collecting of decentralized
databases from establishments.
the observatory is connected to
all regional actors acting with socioeconomic environment and to all actors
implied on university information system (SINUS) and the management system of
the higher education ( SALIMA).
observation is integrated, in its
starting up step, " under relations
management with environment and professional integration and of the training
continuous” article 16 nouveau du décret n°23-2002 (la décision du MES) – (
cf. rapport de mission d’avril 2006).
the observatory is equipped with
structures of advice and with expertise assessment guaranteeing objectivity in
results performance.
Every socioeconomic or institutional
partner is appointing a corresponding person in charge who participates in
various structures organized by observatories.
The works of observatory respect working
procedures which join a quality step.
1.4. Organization chart
The U.G’s functioning requires creation of structures of,
dialogues, management, analysis and definition rules of functioning according
to the following organization chart:
|
Décision
Validation
Permanent team Coordinator;
statistical engineer sociologist; professor of economy |
Elaboration
|
Equips with work organization
& functioning |
Statistical work team |
Exécution
|
2- New Socio-Technic
device of Information & Communication
Currently, we can thus identify actors who take part in creation of the
observatory such as socio-economic partners (BTS,
All these actors are supposed to make
circulating flows to achieve centre objectives such as information,
coordination, communication, training, valorisation gained experiences and to
put available data base composed of project ideas (valorization of research), qualifications
companies needs (non satisfied employment offers), students’ skill (C.V
management, repertory of trades, companies, talks on line ..
Gathering all these actors from various origins
geographical, economic and cultural, these communities endeavour to build a common space and tools run of work and exchange,
undertaking their activity in the field of research and development, research
in social sciences. These communities melt their programs and methods of
social intervention on the basis to build a structure of decision-making aid
as regards formation, insertion and opening on environment. |
This project seems to be an intelligent process
as regards operation, information treatment and diffusion. Our territory which
must evolve in its culture and reach a true mutualisation of information within
a territorial intelligence process whose Bertacchini (2004 & 2007) suggests
the following definition: "one can regard the territorial
intelligence as an informational, anthropologic process, regular and
continuous, initiated by local actors physically present and/or distant, who transform
resources of a system territorial into project capacity”, (Bertacchini 2004)
The Territorial Intelligence process that one
can describe, as step of information and territorial communication, finds here
its full justification in assistance brought to decision-making as regards training,
insertion and opening on environment.
It is thus necessary to underline heuristic
character of this approach and that on an ontological level; we are referring
to pragmatic of territory and its actors, of the researcher in his relation
with society (Bertacchini, Penalva, 2006)
Lastly, we believe useful to specify that territorial intelligence could not be
limited and reduced to a watch step process, relative rather of a ` Bottom up' project logic which will try
to spread elements of a pro-active attitude at risks and ruptures which can
affect the territory (Herbaux, 2006).
3.Setting
up a Numerical Communication device
This numerical communication device will be made of three
sub features. Firstly, on the
"academic" forms of scientific paper: publication of articles in
reviews at reading Comity, presentation of communications in scientific
conferences, etc. Secondly, during training seminars, targeted in the OUG on contexts
of teaching. Thirdly, on its Web site which has been just created.
In this way, the OUG answers is facing major concerns of its
financiers. For doing it, members of Osbervatory
learnt communication strategies, to add value to actions by shaping and
structuring in a better way their publications.
It resulted from it, a better targeting, a more precise
information, a far more frequent updating of shown documents and broadcasting improvement"
of the scientific results obtained.
4.Conclusion of the second part
The
Observatory of University of Gafsa, this ambitious project, is leading by a
strategy, based on a territorial organizationt, information systems, social
networks, knowledge production processes around common spaces of exchanges.
This ‘one act project’ can be
shown, from this particular point of view, as one of a most decisive components of a Territorial
Intelligence conctructivism process (Bertacchini, 2004; Girardot, 2004) whom scientific communities networks are,
at the same time, actors and the more efficient vectors of broadcasting.
General
conclusion
Onto
these two case studies and, as announced in summary, we would have had as initial
intention to show if, when actors’ project were referring to territorial
approach, they have spoken with ‘the same
background’ at the beginning or an already started project. We are able to
make an answer to the main running question: no. It appeals to justify the
negative point of view mentioned above.
We
have to precise what we called ‘the same
collective background’.
In
other words, could we considered a territorial intelligence approach, announced
for a project, as acquired, at the beginning of a National (
We
were discussing it, after a brief analysis of the state of development of this
area in
The
first case study at a national level, in
The
second case study communication
has taken support on researches led within the
It
acted to explain how, various
professional groups, putting together actors of diverse geographical parts,
economic, cultural previous history, could joigned themselves and
co-constructed, through a specific organization chart, in the goal of regional
development.
In that case, it
was a project led by a university, i.e. in higher education field, decided to be always opened on
needs renewed by its studies in order to take more advantage of its watching
attitude and work.
We have mentionned these communities attempt to build a
virtual space and use common tools of work and exchange. Thus, we have seen
physical and virtual territories in action and in such a territorial
intelligence approach as we have considered in CAENTI.
References
Andersen, E. (1994), Evolutionary
Economics: Post-Schumpeterian Contributions, Pinter, London.
Angélini, J., &
al., « De
Bertacchini, Y. (2004), État de l’art de l'intelligence
territoriale.http://www.territorial-intelligence.org/?file=definition&lang=fr,
February 2007.
Bertacchini,. Y., (2004), Mesurer la distance, Pensez la durée, Mémoriser le virtuel, Vers
l’Intelligence territoriale-volet.2-, Collection les E.T.I.C, Presse
Technologiques, Toulon, 275 p. octobre.
Bertacchini, Y.,
(2004), « Entre information et processus de communication :
l’intelligence territoriale », Les Cahiers du Centre d’études et de
Recherche, Revue Humanisme et Entreprise
n°267,
Bertacchini, Y., et al.,
(2004) « Le rôle de la collectivité locale & le réseau du territoire
numérique en Corée : l’exemple du village numérique de la ville de
Gounpo. », I.S.D.M Review, n°16.
Bertacchini, Y., (2004), « Le territoire, une
entreprise d’intelligence collective à organiser vers la formation du capital
formel », p.35, Revue Communication
& Organisation, n°25, les vallées : sens, territoires &
signes, GREC/O, ISIC, Université de bordeaux 3, 1er semestre 2004.
Bertacchini, Y., (2006) « Editorial politic intention
and Scientific attempt », First
annual conference of territorial intelligence, University “1er decembrie
Bertacchini, Y., Pennalva, J-M., « L’intelligence
territoriale : posture théorique, hypothèses, définition. », in
Intelligence collective, pp.9-17, Presse de l’Ecole des Mines de Paris, Paris,
2006.
Bertacchini, Y., et al.,
(2006)., "De l'intelligence territoriale. Théorie, Posture, Hypothèses, Définitions.”,
in : Actes du 5e colloque "TIC et Territoire : quels
développements ?", Revue ISDM, juin 2006, n° 26.
Bouchet, Y., Bertacchini, Y., « Acteurs locaux &
Intelligence Economique Territoriale : Des modalités d’expression de la
territorialité », in : Actes du 6°colloque international ‘Tic et
Territoire : quels développements ?’, Université Jean Moulin, Lyon,
Revue ISDM, juin 2007.
Bertacchini, Y., (2003) « Observation des
représentations virtuelles d’un territoire : Application à la technopole
Sophia-Antipolis. », Les Cahiers du Centre d’études et de Recherche, Revue
Humanisme et Entreprise n°260,
Bertacchini Y., Dou H., (2001), " The Territorial
competitive intelligence : a network
concept ", Actes du colloque Veille
scientifique stratégique et technologique, Barcelone, 15-19 octobre, pages 101-110.
Bertacchini Y., Dumas, Ph., (2000) « How to federate some
local resources by developing new links ? », Proceedings of ISA 23 Conference
Rio de Janeiro, The Endless Transition, Sciences Studies, USA.
Breschi, S., Malerba, F. (1997), «Sectoral Innovation
Systems: Technological Regimes, Schumpeterian Dynamics, and Spatial
Boundaries», in Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations.
Pinter, p. 130–156, London and Washington.
Champollion, P., (2006),
« TIC, Territoires et recherche : vers une « Intelligence
coopérative » dans les pratiques de communication en réseau »,
5e Rencontre « TIC & Territoires », Besançon 2006, Revue ISDM.
CAENTI (2007), Présentation de
Carayon, B. (2003), Intelligence
économique, compétitivité et cohésion sociale, Collection des Rapports
officiels, Rapport au Premier Ministre,
Carlsson, B. (1994), «Technological Systems and Economic
Performance», in The Handbook of Industrial Innovation. Edward Elgar, p. 13–24,
Aldershot.
CONACYT (2003), Misión y visión.
http://www.conacyt.mx/comunicacion/mision-vision.html, April
2005.
CONACTY-SNI (2005), Reglamento
vigente del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, January 1st 2005 report http://www.conacyt.mx/dac/sni/Reglamento_SNI-2005.pdf,
April 2005.
Cooke, P., et al.,
(1997), «Regional Systems of Innovation: Institutional and Organisational
Dimensions», Research Policy. Vol. 26, n° 4-5, p. 475–491.
Dalum, B., et al.,
(1992), «Public Policy in the Learning Society», in National Systems of
Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter, p.
296–317,
David, P., Foray, D. (1994), Accessing and Expanding the
Science and Technology Knowledge Base. A Conceptual Framework for Comparing
National Profiles in Systems of Learning and Innovation, Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development,
Dumas, P., (2006),
« Territoire & mondialité », 5e Rencontre « TIC &
Territoires », Besançon, Revue ISDM.
Edquist, C. (2005), «Systems of Innovation: Perspectives and
Challenges», in The
Edquist, C., et al.,
(1998), The ISE Policy Statement – the Innovation Policy Implications of the
‘Innovation Systems and European Integration’ (ISE) Research Project, European
Commission, Linköping.
Edquist, C. (1997), «Systems of Innovation Approaches –
Their Emergence and Characteristics», in Systems of Innovation: Technologies,
Institutions and Organizations. Pinter, p. 1–35, London and Washington.
ENTI (2007), Projet de réseau d'excellence en
intelligenceterritoriale.http://www.territorial-intelligence.org/?file=enti&lang=fr,
February 2007.
Forrester, J. W. (1976), Principles
of systems: text and workbook, Wright-Allen Press: Distributed by M.I.T.
Press,
Freeman, C. (2002), «Continental, National and Subnational
Innovation Systems – Complementarity and Economic Growth», Research
Policy. Vol. 31, n° 2, p. 191–211.
Freeman, C. (1995), «The National System of Innovation in
Historical Perspective»,
Freeman, C. (1987), Technology
Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from
Fuld, L. (1995), The
new competitor intelligence: the complete resource for finding, analyzing,
and using information about your competitors, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Herring, J. (1992), «The role of intelligence in formulating
strategy», Journal of Business Strategy. Vol. 13, n° 5, p. 54-60.
Herbaux, Ph., (2007), Intelligence
territoriale, repères théoriques, L’Harmattan, Paris, 195.p.
Herbaux, Ph., Bertacchini, Y., (2007) « Part du construit
sémiologique en intelligence territoriale », in : Actes du 6°colloque
international ‘Tic et Territoire : quels développements ?’,
Université Jean Moulin, Lyon, Revue ISDM, juin 2007.
Herbaux, Ph., et al.,
(2006)" Les temporalités, l’agir et le territoire ", in : Actes du
5°colloque Tic et territoire : quels développements ?, Revue ISDM,
juin 2006, n° 26.
Herbaux, Ph., Bertacchini, Y., (2006) « L’intelligence
territoriale : entre ruptures et anticipations. », , XVe Congrès annuel de
IMPI (2005), Qué es
el IMPI.
http://www.impi.gob.mx/impi/jsp/indice_all.jsp?OpenFile=docs/bienvenida/main_quees_impi.html,
April 2005.
Joachim, J., et al., « Intelligence
économique & système d'information », Revue ISDM, numéro
24, 1e trimestre 2006.
Kerssens-Van, D., Weerd-Nederhof, P., Fisscher, O. (1996),
«Describing the issues of knowledge management in R&D: Towards a
communication and analysis tool», R&D Management. Vol. 26, n° 3, p.
213-230.
Kodama, F. (1992), «Technology fusion and the new R+D»,
Harvard Business Review. Vol. 70, July-August, p.70-78.
Lopez-Martinez, R. (2006), A systems approach to innovation policy, PhD Thesis, The University
of Manchester,
Lundvall, B., Johnson, B., Andersen, E., Dalum, B. (2002),
«National Systems of Production, Innovation and Competence Building», Research
Policy. Vol. 31, n° 2, p. 213–231.
Lundvall, B. (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards
a Theory of Innovation Interactive Learning, Pinter, London and New York.
Martinet, B., Marti,
Y. (1995), L’intelligence économique, les
yeux et les oreilles de l’entreprise, Les Éditions d’Organisation, Paris.
Martre, H. (1994), Intelligence
économique et stratégie des entreprises, Oeuvre Collective du Commissariat
Général du Plan,
Mayer, R. (1990), Information
& compétitivité, Rapport du Xe Plan,
McKelvey, M. (1991), «How Do National Systems of Innovation
Differ? A Critical Analysis of Porter, Freeman, Lundvall and Nelson», in
Rethinking Economics: Markets, Technology and Economic Evolution. Edward Elgar,
p. 117–137, Aldershot and
Nelson, R., Nelson, K. (2002), «Technology, Institutions,
and Innovation Systems», Research Policy. Vol. 31, n° 2, p. 265–272.
Nelson, R. (1993), National Innovation Systems: A
Comparative Analysis,
OECD (2002), Dynamising National Innovation Systems, Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development,
OECD (1999), Managing National Innovation Systems,
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,
OECD (1994), The OECD Jobs Study. Facts, Analysis,
Strategies, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,
OECD (1992), Technology and the Economy: The Key
Relationships, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,
Rodríguez, M. (2007), Inteligencia Competitiva y Tecnológica
para
http://inteligenciacompetitiva.mty.itesm.mx,
February 2007.
Rodríguez, M. (2005), «Sistema Nacional de Inteligencia
Competitiva y Tecnológica: Educación para un desarrollo innovador», Puzzle
Revista Hispana de
Rodríguez, M. (2000), Copyright, Manual del Curso Sistemas
de Inteligencia Competitiva y Tecnológica, Not-published property, only
available under license, All rights reserved.
Rouach, D. (1996), La veille technologique et l’intelligence
économique, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
Soete, L., STRATA-ETAN Expert Group (2002), Benchmarking
National Research Policies: The Impact of RTD on Competitiveness and Employment
(IRCE), European Commission, DG Research,
Venturini, MM., Angelini,
J., (2006). « Société Corse,
Société de l’information : vers l’intelligence territoriale »,
5e Rencontre « TIC & Territoires », Besançon 2006, ISDM Review.
Commission européenne: Contrat cadre AMS/451 LOT8; Lettre de
marché N°2005 /101887-Version1 Mission d’assistance technique pour la mise
en place et le développement des observatoires au sein des universités de
Tunisie. By Lanzaavi, JC., 2007.