The most urgent problems of our times – concerning innovation management processes – are complex and turbulent in nature. In this article we define the vucability approach to innovation management. The VUCA refers to volatile (V), uncertain (U), complex (C) and ambiguous (A) times we are today facing. Many innovation management models do not take these Postnormal Era requirements into consideration. Uncertain and complex VUCA conditions are the fundamental reason to elaborate a new approach for innovation management. Our novel approach focuses in three essential dimensions of innovation management: (1) the density of serendipity thinking, (2) platform utilisation (including business model variety) and (3) innovation ecosystem. We claim that in the evolutionary development of science and technology parks (STPs) should aim to highest sophistication in these three critical fields. In this paper we present the foundations of the ‘vucability’ approach. We also note that in the development of STPs, professionals should evaluate the sophistication level of serendipity thinking, platform utilisation and innovation ecosystem development. Systemic evaluation and development activities will lead eventually to the highest level of vucability excellence. The evaluation and mapping system (EMS-VUCA 1.0) of the vucability assessment will be presented in a robust form in our article.

1. Ilkka Kakko, Jari Kaivo-oja, Kari Mikkelä:
“How to Supportand Develop the Innovation-orientedEntrepreneurship
in TurbulentVUCA conditions?”
Abstract:
The most urgent problems of our times – concerning innovation management processes – are complex and turbulent in
nature. In this article we define the vucability approach to innovation management. The VUCA refers to volatile (V),
uncertain (U), complex (C) and ambiguous (A) times we are today facing. Many innovation management models do not
take these Postnormal Era requirements into consideration. Uncertain and complex VUCA conditions are the
fundamental reason to elaborate a new approach for innovation management. Our novel appro ach focuses in three
essential dimensions of innovation management: (1) the density of serendipity thinking, (2) platform utilisation (including
business model variety) and (3) innovation ecosystem. We claim that in the evolutionary development of science and
technology parks (STPs), professionals on innovation management and governance should aim to highest sophistication
in these three critical fields of innovation management. In this paper we present the foundations of the ‘vucability’
approach. We also note that in the development of STPs, professionals should evaluate the sophistication level of
serendipity thinking, platform utilisation and innovation ecosystem development. Systemic evaluation and development
activities will lead eventually to the highest level of vucability excellence. The evaluation and mapping system (EMS-
VUCA 1.0) of the vucability approach will be presented in a robustform in our article.
1. Introduction to the Postnormal VUCA Era
There are several illustrative terms to describe the near future we are entering. ‘Postnormal times’
is a notion introduced by some academics1
. Postnormal times are characterised by three c’s:
complexity, chaos and contradictions. Especially interesting in this context is the role of
contradictions as Sardar argues: Contradictions may be paradoxical but they perform a very useful
function. They provide us with a perspective, which prevents oversimplified analysis of problems or
situations. We are forced to consider clashing trends, viewpoints, facts, hypothesis, and theories
and realise that the world is not amenable to naive one-dimensional solutions”.
Similar, but to our likening even more attractive term, is the Postnormal Era, which is coined by
Work Futurist Stowe Boyd. As a Chief Researcher at Gigaom and Editor-in-chief at Work Futures
he has a personal focus on future technologies and the future of work and is respected as a
distinguished futurist in these fields. He makes a strong statement about the way how the
Postnormal Era will change everything. ”Organizations are becoming fast-and-loose, reconfiguring
around social networks instead of business processes, becoming more decentralized and as
autonomy increases, more egalitarian. We will belong to our networks – which are our own – and
not to institutions that require us to subordinate our interests and selves.”2
VUCA is a term originally created within US Army to describe the volatile (V), uncertain (U),
complex (C) and ambiguous (A) times we are today facing3
. In order to understand and cope in
VUCA conditions Paul Kinsinger - a professor of business intelligence at Thunderbird School of
Global Management in Phoenix, Arizona and Karen Walch - a professor and consultant at
Thunderbird School of Global Management have introduced leadership paradigm VUCA Prime. It
explains the challenges and offers some guidance:
1) Volatility is mitigated by “vision,” a clear cut master statement of where an organization is
headed. When confronted by volatility, leaders need to communicate clearly and make sure
their intent is understood.
2) Uncertainty yields to “understanding,” the deliberate ability to “stop, look, and listen.” In
1
Ravetz, J.R (1993) Science for the post-normal age,Futures 25 (September (7)) (1993),pp. 735–755.
Ravetz, J.R. & Funtowicz, S.O. (1999) Post-normal,science:an insightnow maturing,Futures 31 (7),pp. 641–646.
Sardar, Z. (2015) Postnormal times revisited,Futures 67 (2015),pp.26-39
Sardar, Z. & Sweeney, J.A. (2016) The three tomorrows ofpos tnormal times,Futures 75, pp. 1-13
Sardar Z. (2010) Welcome to postnormal times,Futures 42,pp.435-444
2 http://www.stoweboyd.com/post/49946797759/how-the-postnormal-era-will-change-everything,accessed 9.8.2016
3
http://www.thunderbird.edu/article/living-and-leading-vuca-world,accessed 8.8 2016

2. uncertain situations, leaders need to make sure they get fresh perspectives and remain
flexible with regard to solutions.
3) Complexity is checkmated by “clarity,” the deliberate effort to make “sense of the chaos.” In
complex situations, leaders need to make sure to collaborate with others and stop seeking
permanent solutions. To paraphrase an old adage, don’t let “perfect” become the enemy of
“good enough.”
4) And ambiguity is matched by “agility,” the ability of a leader to communicate across people and
organizations instantly and to move quickly in applying solutions. When confronted by
ambiguity, leaders need to listen well, think divergently, and set up incremental dividends. This
is captured in the concept of “wirearchy,” as opposed to “hierarchy” — where social networks
that allow you to engage the insights of many trump the brilliance of any one person.
As seen from this introduction, VUCA environments of the Postnormal Era set new requirements
for business activities in all levels. The pressure is felt in the offices of policy makers, in regional
development agencies, in business communities, on individual level and even in societies and
economies. The rule seems to be: ”Disrupt – or be disrupted!” In these highly unpredictable
conditions, individuals, communities and businesses and economies face an urgent need to create
new behaviour and collaboration patterns. We will examine in this article some solutions for
survival and success and recommend measures to cope with VUCA conditions.
Taking into account the hard evidence of the challenges that the emerging turbulent VUCA
environment is bringing, it is surprising that the management teams of science and technology
parks (STPs) so far have only limited interest in the benefits gained by the approach we are
presenting in this article. The conventional Triple Helix model is still a dominant way to organize
STPs even though the limitations of this approach in the emergent VUCA world are so evident.4
The concept of the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relationships initiated in the
1990s by Etzkowitz (1994)5
and Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1995)6
, encompassing elements of
precursor works by Lowe (1982)7
and Sábato and Mackenzi (1982)8
, and it interprets the shift
from a dominating industry-government dyad in the industrial society to a growing triadic
relationship between University-Industry-Government relationships in modern knowledge societies.
Later, for example Kaivo-oja and Santonen (2016, p. 132) have used the concept of Quartet Helix
where consumer and end-users are seen to be fourth element of the Helix relationships.9
Triple Helix Model still mostly represents the old, industrial push-model with linear pipeline thinking,
which works properly in predictable and stable conditions. However, entering Postnormal Era
changes the business environment dramatically and Triple Helix should be supplemented or even
replaced with more flexible, proactive, non-linear and attractive platform thinking. We like to
underline complex adaptive system (CAS) approach here. Robert Axelrod has identified a series
of key concepts for modelling the CAS.10
These are:
• Strategy, a conditional action pattern that indicates what to do in which circumstances
4 Santonen,T., Kaivo-oja,J. & Suomala,J. (2014) The next steps in developing the triple helix model:A briefintroduction
to national open innovation system (NOIS) paradigm.Journal ofSystemics,Cybernetics,and Informatics Vol. 12,
Number 7,pp. 74-82.
5
Etzkowitz, H. (1994) Academic-industryrelations: A sociological paradigm for economic development,in:L. Leydesdorff
& P. van den Besselaar (Eds.),Evolutionary Economics and Chaos Theory:New Directions in TechnologyStudies.
Pinter, London,etc., pp. 139-151.
6
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff,L. (1995). The Triple Helix---University-Industry-Governmentrelations:A laboratory for
knowledge-based economic development.EASST Review 14, pp. 14-19.
7
Lowe, C. U. (1982) The Triple Helix - NIH, industry,and the academic world. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine
55, pp. 239-246.
8
Sábato, J. & Mackenzi, M., (1982) La Producción de Technologia.Autónoma o Transnacional.Nueva Imagen,Mexico.
9
Kaivo-oja, J. & Santonen,T. (2016) Futures of innovation systems and innovation management:Open innovation
paradigm analysed from futures perspectives.In Mention, Anne-Laure & Torkkeli, Marko (eds) Open Innovation: Bridging
Theory and Practice: Volume 1. Open Innovation. A Multifaceted Perspective (In 2 Parts). World Scientific Publ ishing,
pp. 111-158.
10 Robert Axelrod <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Axelrod> & Michael D. Cohen
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Cohen_(academic)> [15]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system#cite_note-15>

3. • Artefact, a material resource that has definite location and can respond to the action of agents
• Agent, a collection of properties, strategies & capabilities for interacting with artefacts & other
agents
• Population, a collection of agents, or, in some situations, collections of strategies
• System, a larger collection, including one or more populations of agents and possibly also
artefacts
• Type, all the agents (or strategies) in a population that have some characteristic in common
• Variety, the diversity of types within a population or system
• Interaction pattern, the recurring regularities of contact among types within a system
• Space (physical), location in geographical space & time of agents and artefacts
• Space (conceptual), "location" in a set of categories structured so that "nearby" agents will tend
to interact
• Selection, processes that lead to an increase or decrease in the frequency of various types of
agent or strategies
• Success criteria or performance measures, a "score" used by an agent or designer in
attributing credit in the selection of relatively successful (or unsuccessful) strategies or
agents
In our VUCA approach the same elements are present.
One perspective, which so far has not widely discussed, is the economic costs of running a Triple
Helix model. It requires many highly paid (in many cases by tax-payer’s money) officials, managers
and directors acting as gatekeepers and facilitators. We will introduce here cheaper and more
impactful solutions to replace or at least supplement existing Triple Helix practises in the chapter 3.
We do not want to underestimate the value of Triple Helix or Quartet Helix approaches, knowing
that it is not easy to implement Triple Helix or Quartet Helix optimally in any real-life contexts of
science and technology parks.
The deeper reason that new solutions and especially platforms have lately captured many
business leaders’ imaginations is that they enable “pull-based” approaches. In the past, sellers
have been limited by the economics of scale thinking both in production and distribution, meaning
that they simply made an efficient batch size of what they sold and delivered it to the marketplace.
This kind of push-based approach is very efficient if business forecasts and strategic foresight is
accurate—and can at least be profitable if, failing that, the marketer is able to alter demand with its
pricing and advertising. But when this thinking is applied in times of the Postnormal Era, there are
too many and too big “IFs.” Thus, it is obvious that today we need a holistic model of building
innovation ecosystems, which takes increasing complexity of business landscape and socio-
technical systems seriously as a challenge.11
Our statement is that the VUCA assumption is a
relevant starting point to build and utilize platforms, to develop the business ecosystem and STI
communications in science and technology parks.
2. SMEs and entrepreneurs as part of the innovation ecosystem
To understand the ecosystem thinking and SMEs multiple role in that we have to consider all the
participants in ecosystem. If we want to create value-added to societies, we must understand the
original message of David J. Teece (1986, 2006)12
and take it into serious consideration. He stated
that distribution of the profits from innovation is broader issue than an entrepreneurial issue. Firms,
innovators, suppliers, customers and many other stakeholders want profit from innovation. Profiting
from innovation is not a simple issue. The traditional Triple Helix stakeholders (Government,
Academy and Business) are in the real world split in many different entities like: start-ups, SMEs,
effectual entrepreneurs, anchor companies, free-lancers, students, wanna-be entrepreneurs,
public organizations, social entrepreneurs, NGOs, associations, researchers, lead users, venture
11
Rabelo,R.J. & Bernus,P. (2015) A holistic model ofbuilding innovation ecosystems.IFAC-PapersOnLine,48-3,pp.
2250-2257.
12
Teece, D.J. (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and
public policy. Research Policy,Volume 15, Issue 6,pp. 285-305.
Teece, D.J. (2006) Reflections on “Profiting from Innovation”. Research Policy,Volume 35, Issue 8, pp. 1131 -1146.

4. capitalist, seed funding organizations etc. Innovations are developed in complex adaptive systems.
Often new ideas and businesses emerge from a combination of these entities and increasingly,
when complexity, chaos and contradictions open new windows of opportunities. Typical SMEs are
elementary actors in this, but not only as creating business for themselves. The often neglected
parallel roles of SMEs and entrepreneurs in ecosystem include to be a customer, outsourced
expert, resource pool, intermediary, promoter for the whole ecosystem, learning opportunity (for
students) and a part of some consortium like CNO (Collaborative Networked Organization).
One way to describe this is using Cyclical Innovation model (CIM) presented by Berkhout et al.
(2006) and Trott et al. 201613
.
Figure 1. Cyclical model of technological entrepreneurship and innovation (Trott et al. 2016, p. 20).
Cyclical model of technological entrepreneurship and innovation links SMEs and entrepreneurship
to four domains:
 (1) scientific exploration,
 (2) technological research,
 (3) market transitions and
 (4) product creation.
Between scientific exploration and technological research there is natural and life science cycle.
Between scientific and market transitions there is social and behavioural sciences cycle. Between
technological research and product creation there is integrated engineering cycle. Finally, between
market transitions and product creation there is differentiated service cycle. These four cycles are
important dynamic forces in innovation ecosystems.
The natural and life science cycle creates technical capabilities. The social and behavioural
sciences cycle creates social insights. Differentiated services cycle creates customer value.
Integrated engineering cycle creates products (see Berkhout et al 2006, Troot et al. 2016, 20).
Typically, patents are linked to natural and life sciences cycle and integrated engineering cycle. On
the other hand, trademarks are linked to social and behavioural sciences cycle and differentiated
services cycle.
13
Berkhout, A.J., Hartmann, D., van der Duin, P. & Ott, R. (2006) Innovating the innovation process. International
Journal of Technology Management, 34(3-4), pp. 390-404. See also Trott, P., Hartmann, D., van der Duinn, P. &
Scholten, V. and Ortt, R. (2016) Managing Technology Entrepreneurship and Innovation. London and New York:
Routledge,p. 20.

5. According to Berkhout “Innovation projects must not be managed along the familiar linear pipeline
but should be organized via cross-disciplinary networks along an innovation circle with ample
internal feedback paths. Innovation may start anywhere on the circle and previous innovations will
inspire new ones: innovations build on innovations. In such an organized chaos, causality is a
meaningless concept and modern communication tools are indispensable. Experience shows that
in innovation a shared mental framework is essential to allow synergy between the large number of
highly diverse players. The Cyclic Innovation Model (CIM) is such a framework, being proposed to
transform our current economy to a circular system: the circular economy.”14
It is important to note that new technical capabilities and functions are in most cases created in
innovation environments created and managed by science and technology parks. Also new social
insights and customer value are created. Entrepreneurs are not working in a socio-cultural
vacuum. They really need serendipity, platforms and dynamic innovation ecosystems to further
develop successful business ideas, inventions and innovations, whether they are technical
innovations, business model innovations or social innovations. Of course, in broad sense, value
added and brands are created for consumers and end-users of products by entrepreneurs.15
In Table 1 we have presented a synthesis about integration of the VUCA approach and key cycles
of technological entrepreneurship and innovation.
Serendipity
management
Innovation
ecosystem
Platforms
Social and
behavioural science
cycle
Increases diversity
and improves the
ability to benefit from
unexpected
Creates gravity to pull
new people and
entities into the
system
Offer a low entry
barrier access to the
system – even for
global talent
Differentiated
services cycle
Helps to identify also
unexpected and
contradictory
differentiated services
cycles
Makes service
dominant logic
available
Serve as breeding
environments for new
and disruptive
business models
Natural and life
sciences cycle
Promotes
transformations inside
natural and life
sciences cycle
Includes physical
infrastructures helping
to create ‘sticky
knowledge’
Host various scientific
communities enabling
multidisciplinary focus
Integrated
Engineering Cycle
Enables the
emergence of new
combinations of
technological
competences
Provides rich catalytic
element for attracting
talent from diverse
backgrounds
Competence platform
enables cross-
disciplinary idea
elaboration making
integrated engineering
cycle stronger and
more productive
Table 1. The integration of VUCA approach and key cycles of technological entrepreneurship and
innovation
3. Some emerging solutions to survive and prosper in the Postnormal VUCA Era
There are some proven solutions that help to survive and prosper in environments, which are
affected by complexity, chaos and contradictions – ’the forces that shape and propel postnormal
14 http://www.aj-berkhout.com/Cyclic%20Innovation%20Model/
15
Kunde, J. (2002) Unique Now or Never. The Brand is the CompanyDriver in the New Value Economy. Prentice Hall.
London.

6. times’16
. Platform thinking, ecosystem development and serendipity management are all either
separately, or even more importantly when combined, the solutions to cope with the VUCA
environments. In fact, all three of them can become also in many industries the underlying power
to cause chaos, contradictions and non-linear developments yet disrupting many traditionally
managed business. Science and technology park management and even more widely understood
– the innovation intermediary business as such - is no exception to that rule. In this chapter we
explain these three elements of vucability from STP management perspective and will give some
practical guidelines how to create environments and practices capable to survive and even prosper
in VUCA conditions.
3.1 Platform thinking
There is at the moment a lot of debate both in business and in academia about the disruptive
elements of platform thinking. The recent evidence about the way how established platforms and
business models have totally transformed entire business areas, such as hospitality industry (by
AirBnB), taxi business (by Uber), music delivery (by Spotify) and publishing (by Facebook) is
strong and this trend is gaining even more momentum, when more industries will be hit by the
newcomers introducing powerful applications of platform thinking.
We argue that this platform based innovation thinking will be the most powerful single disruptor of
traditional business areas and business models in the near future. This is easily understood after
having a closer look at the Table 2 below. It shows the benefits gained by platform thinking and it’s
extremely interesting to see how platform thinking is by definition a perfect solution with the VUCA
conditions.
Pipeline – thinking Platform - thinking Main benefits of platform
- thinking
Command and control
Gate-keepers
Collaboration,
Low entry, zero-friction
Engagement,
Creativity
Institutions,
Shareholder value,
Career
Entrepreneurship,
Stakeholder value,
‘Collectives’
Sustainable ecosystem
thinking
Project management Serendipity management Disruption
‘From me to you’ – lectures,
Conferences,
“Get and Give”
Teaching
‘From anybody to anybody’–
sessions,
Un-conferences,
“Give and Get”
Learning
Apprentice attitude,
Diversity
Innovation intermediaries
Brokering
Regional/national approach
Competence platforms,
Community building,
Global approach
New and unique combinations
of competences
Push principle,
Individuals as consumers and
resources
Pull principle,
Individuals as co-creators and
supporters
Attraction, Gravity,Flexibility,
More effective allocation of
talent (self-organized)
Table 2. Pipeline-thinking vs. platform-thinking, benefits of platform thinking in the VUCA world17
16
Sardar, Z. (2010) Welcome to postnormal times,Futures 42,pp. 435-444.
17
Kakko, I. & Mikkelä, K. (2015) "Platform Thinking within the Third Generation Science Park Concept", WTA / UNESCO
Global Training Workshop,Daejeon,Korea 22.9.2015.

7. We will show some preliminary models how to create an evaluation and mapping system (EMS-
VUCA 1.0) of ‘vucability’, which we define as the ability to prosper in VUCA conditions. This
framework shows the organizational (or individual) capabilities to cope with VUCA environment
and vucability level can be evaluated using some understandable and simple metrics. This
evaluation will cover the entire universe of platforms (and the sophistication level of ecosystem
development and the density of serendipity thinking) – and identifies all types of communication,
trading, technological and competence platforms.18
For the main part it will be based on the critical
elements presented on Table 2.
The massive power of platform thinking is well described by Sangeet Paul Choudary19
in his
argument that: “Firms that once sought advantage based on the strength of their internal resources
and channel access now face competitors that harness armies of connected users and
ecosystems of resources.
1) Platforms will displace high cost gatekeepers with meritocratic crowds;
2) Platforms will aggregate disconnected players in fragmented industries; and
3) Platforms will unlock new value from spare resources and user-generated
content.
Choudary (Choudary et al. 2013) highlights with that argument that in order to remake the role that
experts play inside your business organizations should leverage their user capabilities and build
social curation and reputation systems to employ the collective intelligence and judgment of your
users. We want to note that this distinct need can be covered by competence platforms.
The maximum impact is gained by connecting consumers to their best product options, regardless
of source, through data-driven matchmaking. The company that builds an Open Table for
consumer finance, considering appetites for risk and reputations of products that deliver on
promises, would help buyers make sense of the dizzying array of complex and disconnected
products. The value for the company providing the platform will be enormous, not only in terms of
sales and profit but also in understanding the consumer behaviour and the fundamental needs on
the market.
Finally, solve a consumer problem in your industry by marshalling spare resources. If you’re in
transportation, build systems that employ other people’s trucks before expanding your own fleet.
3.2 Ecosystem development and entrepreneurship
As we see in the Table 2. the traditional Triple Helix model is designed in a way that it fits perfectly
for circumstances where pipeline thinking can be applied. It is very much ‘push’ based, highlights
the role of brokering and employs in many stages different type of ‘gatekeepers’. In most cases
Triple Helix solutions are regional initiatives with multiple objectives trying to fulfil the expectations
of a variety of stakeholders. Unfortunately, in the turbulent and changing VUCA conditions Triple
Helix model often is not able to provide the expected results and impact.
Many scholars have criticized the concept of innovation ecosystem to be vague and having no
analogy to biological ecosystem. Because this scientific criticism, we define that innovation
ecosystem consists of the actors, material entities, and intangibles. Actors are the members of the
academia, government, small business companies, investors and industries, leaders of
government investment programs and business intermediators. The intangibles are the complex
relationships that effectively promote competitiveness of the whole innovation ecosystem.
18
Note: more aboutthis classification,see the WTA/UNESCO article.
19
Choudary, S.P., van Alstyne, M. & Parker, G. (2013) The Rise of the Platform:A Seismic Shiftin Business Models.
The Definitive Starting Point to Understanding WhyPlatforms Are Eating the World. Web:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pwenw882lgx07oz/The-Rise-of-the-Platform-A-seismic-shift-in-business-models.pdf?dl=0,
accessed 7.8.2016

8. Efficiency gains are closely linked to discovery, technology demonstration, product and service
development and market demonstration. Inventing and demonstration are two key functions of an
innovation ecosystem. This definition of an innovation ecosystem is close to the discussion of the
National Science Foundation of the U.S.20
So other type of innovation intermediary structure is needed, and that is offered by novel
ecosystem initiatives based on platform thinking and serendipity management. Although eco-
prefix is in many cases unnecessary and even misleading as Oh, Phillips, Park and Lee argued
at the 2014 UNESCO-Daejeon Global Innovation Forum21
, in this context the eco – prefix is
genuinely justified because these environments actually are nature – like environments with no
‘push’ type of management. The evolvement of the system is based on principles of self-
organization, bottom up approach, grass-root level activities, peer-to peer support and the use of
breeding environment type of platform. So in that respect they come close to Virtual Organization
Breeding Environments, which were comprehensively researched and developed in ECOLEAD
project.22
The platforms and new business model innovations are an elementary part of modern innovation
ecosystem building, because they offer the necessary low-entry, zero-friction access to all
participants in the innovation ecosystem. When a well working competence platform is available
then the vital characteristics of platform thinking like collaboration, community building, ‘pull’-
principle in the form of the gravity of the platform and ‘born global’ approach can all be achieved.
3.3. Serendipitymanagement as key factor in VUCA environment
It is clear that in order to thrive in VUCA environment one has to have the ability to benefit from
unexpected, chaotic and contradictory circumstances. This is the reason why understanding
serendipity is one of the top qualifications in the Postnormal Era. In fact one of most recent
definitions of serendipity is: ”the art of benefiting from unexpected”23
. It is a useful, simple and yet
comprehensive enough description of this expressive word.
In the academia the notion of serendipity is often explained as a process where something
unexpected, odd or contradictory – let it be an event, encounter, accident, test result or team
building action - will generate insight, and that insight will lead to action and value creation. Often
also a prepared mind or at least certain type of preparedness is mentioned as a vital prerequisite
of serendipity process.
The definition of serendipity originates on 18th century, when an English nobleman Horace
Walpole, who read the Persian fairy tale ”The Travels and Adventures of Three Princes of
Serendip” and was fascinated about the ability of the princes to discover new things. He coined the
term serendipity and described the way ”the princes were always making discoveries, by accidents
and sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of” to his long-term correspondence friend
Horace Mann. Step by step the notion started to circulate and gain momentum, first among
librarians and scientists, then also in business contexts (like pharmacy and chemistry) in such a
way that serendipity is at the moment a fashionable ‘buzzword’ – and in danger to lose its original
expression.
For the purposes of this article serendipity can be best explained by using Horace Walpole’s
20
Jackson,D.J. (2011) What is an innovation ecosystem? National Science Foundation. Arlington,VA. Web: http://erc-
assoc.org/sites/default/files/topics/policy_studies/DJackson_Innovation%20Ecosystem_03-15-11.pdf
21
For the critics of using eco-prefixin these contexts see Oh, D-S. Phillips,F., Park, S. & Leed,E. (2016) Innovation
ecosystems:A critical examination,Technovation 54, pp 1-6.
22
Camarinha-Matos,Afsarmanesh and Ollus (eds) (2008):”Methods and Tools for Collaborative Networked
Organizations”.Springer, New York.
23
This definition was created in a panel discussion with serendipitypractitioners in the context of ”Open Innovation 2.0
Conference” in Espoo on July 2015.

9. original definition, which was further elaborated by Robert K. Merton in 1950 (2004, p. 24):
“Serendipity is a quality of mind, which through awareness, sagacity, and good fortune allows one
to frequently discover something good while looking for something else”. This is a comprehensive
definition widely accepted also in academia, it highlights the important sagacity perspective and
applies as well on individual and community as organizational levels. So the widely misused
definition of serendipity being ’a lucky accident’ is totally inadequate and misleading, if a shortened
version is needed, then we can use the notion ’accidental sagacity’, which was also used by
Horace Walpole himself.
This leads us to the definition of serendipity management, which we will use in an organizational
context: “Serendipity management is a comprehensive set of tools and facilitation methodologies,
which by the help of tailored workspace design — both physical and virtual and through the
facilitation of unexpected encounters and collective insight, will support the emergence of new
combinations of competences and the generation of breakthrough ideas.”25
The revolutionary use of serendipity management as a solution to adapt in the VUCA conditions is
explained in the Table 3, where the characteristics of project management are compared with
serendipity management paradigm. We want to emphasize that project management of course is
the only way to solve and implement highly predictable challenges where the outcome is clear (like
construction projects etc.), but it is often unsuitable when the vision is ambitious and unexpected
turnouts and events will affect the implementation process.
Characteristics Project management Serendipitymanagement
Approach Project Journey, exploration
Type of innovation Directional Intersectional, sustainable
Type of human resources Homo faber Homo ludens, homo
aestheticus, homo creativus
Organization Fixed in the beginning Flexible during the process
Focus Effective process Best possible result in the end
Structure Closed innovation Open innovation
Mission Goal decided in the beginning Vision decided in the beginning
Competence search While defining the project Training camp approach
Resources, time schedule Fixed Flexible
Management style Command and control Connectivity and collaboration
Table 3. Project management vs. serendipity management26
4. Espoo Innovation Garden (EIG) case
The Espoo Innovation Garden (EIG), in Finland, is a new but dynamic initiative with a powerful
support from the city of Espoo, Aalto University and VTT. The number of labs, co-creation spaces,
incubators, accelerators in the EIG has grown enormously to include over thirty recently
established communities, with a special focus on RDI to address societal challenges.
EIT Digital, Startup Sauna, Vertical Health Accelerator, Aalto IoT Platform, Micronova (VTT &
Aalto) and RDI units of Huawei, Intel, and Samsung are examples of this. In addition, the Aalto
Campus is the heart of the Finnish startup movement. Aalto Entrepreneur Society, Startup Sauna,
SLUSH, Junction and Aalto Venture Programme all have global impact. In November 2015 SLUSH
24
Merton, R.K. & Barber, E. (2004) The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity – A Study in Sociological Semantics and
the Sociologyof Science. Princeton University Press,Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
25
Kakko, I. (2014) Oasis Way and the Post-Normal Era – How Understanding SerendipityWill Lead You to Success,
2014,St.Petersburg BHV, St Petersburg,Russia.
26
Kakko, I. & Inkinen,S. (2009) Homo creativus:Creativity and serendipitymanagementin third generation science and
technologyparks.Science and Public Policy, 36(7),August 2009,pp. 537–548.

10. gathered 15 621 attendees, 1 686 startups and 777 investors and 251 VC funds from near 100
countries.
The City of Espoo has co-initiated the privately run Urban Mill, a public-private co-working and
co-creation platform for urban innovations on the Aalto University campus. Urban Mill’s success is
demonstrated by its over 50 000 engagements, 2500 events, 1000 pioneers, 100 prototypes and
50 startup teams since 2013. It is a powerful example of an open innovation platform that uses a
thematic approach, agile orchestration and co-creation methods to advance urban change.
”EIG ecosystems operate as test-beds for rapid prototyping of many types of user-driven
innovations: new products, services, processes, structures and systems which need to be
transformative and scalable by nature. EIG is fulfilling its pioneering role as a leading global
innovation hub where ecosystem thinking is fully integrated in practice, and where entrepreneurial
discovery and a startup mentality drive collaboration. All participants experience multiple gains –
business can develop the scalable product and service solutions that users want, the public sector
can provide effective and affordable solutions to regional challenges, citizens share ownership of
the specific, oft en highly personalized solutions they need, and universities can actively contribute
knowledge and reap new knowledge and insights in return. The increased synergy helps achieve a
far greater impact than ordinary development measures allow”27
”EIG shows that the new generation of innovation activities is a socially motivated and open
innovation ecosystem, complex and global by nature. Its human-centred vision of partnerships
between public and private sector actors, with universities playing a crucial role, is an example of
modernizing the Triple Helix and with a special emphasis on collaboration in pioneering societal
innovation test-beds. The collaboration model of EIG emphasizes mutual trust, which clears the
way forward for shared activities and project collaboration, involving all parties in processes of
experimenting, responsible risk taking and the collaborative learning essential for innovation. In
EIG environment cooperation is moving beyond the Triple and Quadruple Helix models towards
true ecosystem thinking."28
We took the opportunity to interview the Co-founder of Urban Mill, Mr Kari Mikkelä, and discussed
his latest insights regarding to Urban Mill, which is one elementary part of EIG. He also
contributed to our paper and gave some valuable viewpoints, how these theories work in practise.
Kari’s view of CIM model (presented in chapter 2) is, that it seems to be good in highlighting the
move from linear thinking to non-linear thinking and taking a more proactive stance towards socio-
technical fundaments of innovation processes, still it does not yet fully describe the shared vision
driven self-organised bottom-up dynamics of the EIG case and the Urban Mill.
Kari suggested to place an Ecosystem of Ecosystems layer underneath and around the whole CIM
model and emphasised self-organising social and cultural contexts of the CIM processes. “Individuals
drive innovation, not organisations. Entrepreneurial ecosystems will bridge innovation ecosystems and
business ecosystems increasingly in the future. Risk taking new entrepreneurs will adopt many roles,
which the public actors used to govern in the Triple Helix era. Thus, a new complementary dynamic
innovation policy approach for the public support and interventions should be co-created together with
other active innovation ecosystem actors”, he continued.
For Urban Mill’s current development phase Kari commented that Urban Mill was founded only
three years ago and it has been an ongoing development journey.29
The experiences so far
strongly indicate that the evolution will continue and they have understood the vucability
perspective also in their own development. The vision is clear but roadmap will be ’fuzzy’, the
27 http://cor.europa.eu/en/documentation/brochures/Documents/Regional-innovation-ecosystems/Regional-innovation-
ecosystems.PDF
28 ibid.
29 More about Urban Mill check: Kakko, I. & Mikkelä, K. (2015) "Platform Thinking within the Third Generation Science
Park Concept", WTA / UNESCO Global Training Workshop,Daejeon,Korea 22.9.2015.

11. development partners may change, yet the actors of the ecosystem will always be in the focal
fundamental role. However, at the moment the main areas of further development seem to be:
1) development of orchestration methodologies and tools
 pragmatic approach and continuous learning while developing them
2) following effectuation principles30
 especially ”Patchwork Quilt”, “Lemonade” and ”Pilot in the Plane” principles
3) supporting lean processes
 agility and resilience as a mean to cope in VUCA conditions
4) improving the use and integration + connectivity of different platforms
 physical as well as digital
5) using visions and themes as the pull factor
 then new agents can easier fit their own goals to the vision of the whole
 self-organisation, cross value creation, interdependence
6) further developing the new, systemic way to operate
 building a CAS-type of ecosystem of overlapping ecosystems
7) the focus based on three processes
 co-learning, co-design and co-effectuation
 facilitation needs in the following areas: Engagement, Curation ja Uplifting
8) encouraging the diversity of communities
 using both direct competence (via direct human contacts) and distributed
mediated competence (via competence platform)
 ability to create ’sticky knowledge’ and ’rootedness’
9) keeping and further developing the strongly event based approach
 enables unexpected encounters and discussions improving potential for
harnessing serendipity
5. Conclusive remarks and suggestions
The three solutions offered by this paper: platform thinking, ecosystem development and
serendipity management will be fundamental in helping to succeed in the VUCA world. They have
proved to be effective in the dynamic, global and non-linear innovation environment of Aalto
University campus in Espoo This encourages us to present some preliminary evaluation models,
which will help all innovation intermediary entities – and especially STPs - to understand and
improve their preparedness for future challenges.
There are three critical dimensions to be considered when adapting into the circumstances of the
Postnormal VUCA Era: (1) the density level of serendipity thinking, (2) the sophistication level of
innovation ecosystems and (3) the sophistication level of platform thinking. We can visualize
scenarios for innovation intermediaries following (see Fig. 2).
30 http://www.effectuation.org/sites/default/files/documents/effectuation-3-pager.pdf

12. Figure 2. Sophistication and activity levels of STP based environments
In Table 3 below we have presented the characteristics of potential STP management scenarios
by the vucability criteria. We can note that there are various development paths towards
excellence in evolutionary VUCA process. This kind of scenario space map of alternative futures is
one way to understand complex adaptive systems and potential futures maps and path
developments (see Virtanen & Malaska 2005).31
This kind of scenario approach is often used in
morphological system analyses (Ritchey 2011).32
Activity level of
serendipity thinking
(including density
evaluation)
Sophistication level of
innovation
ecosystems
Sophistication level of
platform thinking
Scenario C0 Low Low Low
Scenario C1 Low Low Medium
Scenario C2 Low Low High
Scenario C3 Low Medium Low
Scenario C4 Low High Low
Scenario C5 Low Medium Medium
Scenario B0 Medium Low Low
Scenario B1 Medium Medium Medium
Scenario B2 Medium Medium High
Scenario B3 Medium Medium Low
Scenario B4 Medium High Low
Scenario B5 Medium High High
Scenario A0 High Low Low
Scenario A1 High Medium Medium
Scenario A2 High Medium High
Scenario A3 High Medium Low
Scenario A4 High High Low
Scenario A5 High High High
Table 3. Alternative evolutionary VUCA-scenarios of the Postnormal Era.
31 Malaska,P.i & Virtanen, I. (2005) Orienteering in the futures universe:A map-analogy-based set-theoretic approach
to the theory of futuribles.In Contributions to Accounting, Finance and ManagementScience.Essays in Honour of
Professor Timo Salmi. Eds Erkki K. Laitinen and Teija Laitinen. Acta Wasaensia No.143,p. 261-284.
32 Ritchey, T. (2011) Modelling Alternative Futures with General Morphological Analysis.World Future Review, Spring
2011.

13. The highest evolutionary level of the vucability is A5 scenario, where the density and activity level
of serendipity thinking, the sophistication level of ecosystem development and the sophistication
level of platform thinking reach highest possible levels. Naturally lowest level of the vucability is C0
scenario, where the density level of serendipity thinking, the sophistication level of ecosystems and
the sophistication level of platform thinking reach only lowest evolutionary levels.
We will show here a preliminary framework how VUCA index can be applied for the improvement
of STP activities. The scope of this article does not allow a detailed analysis to be presented,
further research based on practical results and insights is needed to define the correct and viable
criteria and ratings.
a. Towards the evaluation and mapping system (EMS-VUCA1.0) of the VUCA approach
However, we take as an example the dimension of serendipity activity with three evolutionary
levels: (1) Low level density of serendipity thinking (scenarios C0-C5), (2) medium level density of
serendipity thinking (scenarios B0-B5) and (3) high level density of serendipity thinking (scenarios
A0-A5). The factors to be evaluated should include for instance criteria like:
 The level of open innovation management skills and capacities. => Closed innovation
management approach indicates low serendipity level
 The overall diversity of the ecosystem => High diversity of participants and stakeholders
indicates high serendipity level
 Local vs. global approach => Local approach indicates low serendipity level
 The number of free agents (students, free-lancers, micro SMEs) in ecosystem => low
number indicates low serendipity level
 The number of gatekeepers, intermediary managers and facilitators => low number
indicates high serendipity level
 The use of competence platforms in team building => active use indicates high serendipity
level.
The full list of validation criteria is needed and will be introduced after more detailed case studies.
With the same approach we can categorize also the other two dimensions, namely sophistication
level of ecosystem development and sophistication level of platform thinking. For the sophistication
level of ecosystem development the factors might include:
 The variety of orchestration methodologies
 The diversity of the communities and number of free agents
 The number of interdepended stakeholders
The full list of validation criteria is needed and will be introduced after more detailed case studies.
The sophistication of platform thinking might be categorized by factors like:
 The utilisation of various platforms, especially the use of competence platform
 The gravity of platform ie. the critical mass of active users and the growth rate
 The number of stakeholders outside the proximity
 The level of self-organized and peer-to-peer curated initiatives
The full list of validation criteria is needed and will be introduced after more detailed case studies.
The categorization of qualitative variables is robust in this paper, but it may be a useful starting
point for further developments. This first evaluation list can be seen as an attempt to introduce
evaluation and mapping system for vucability namely: EMS-VUCA 1.0.
b. Final conclusions and suggestions
Realizing that the speed of change in our global business environment is increasing we focused in
the challenges science and technology parks are facing when entering the Postnormal Era.
Our novel VUCA approach consists of three fundamental dimensions of innovation management:
(1) the density of serendipity thinking, (2) platform utilisation (including business model variety) and

14. (3) innovation ecosystem. We claim that in the evolutionary development of science and
technology parks, professionals on innovation management and governance should aim to highest
sophistication level in these three critical fields of innovation management. In this paper we
presented the foundations of the VUCA approach.
We also argue that in the development of STPs, professionals should evaluate the density of
serendipity thinking, the platform utilisation and the sophistication level ecosystem thinking.
Systemic evaluation and development activities will lead eventually to the highest level of VUCA
excellence, which we have defined in this paper as vucability. Improved vucability of the
ecosystem will attract new participants and the success stories will create the much needed
gravity.
If we want to boost the impact of science and technology parks, we must improve the density level
of serendipity thinking, the sophistication level of ecosystem thinking and platform utilisation. As we
have shown the maturity of the VUCA process can be rated by the set of evaluation indicators. The
actual measures to improve the maturity of VUCA-index and hence the capability to succeed in the
Postnormal Era will be therefore conveniently determined, when further research on the valuation
and selection of valid and useful criteria is conducted.