In the 21st century, the technological world is evolving with increasing rapidity. This is especially true in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), which is transforming markets in revolutionary ways. The aim of this article is to explore the impact of the development of these new AI new technologies on medical services, and products, and to classify them according to patient needs and benefits. We contribute to the literature by demonstrating the added value for the patient, for the healthcare system, and for the physicians (service providers), the interconnectedness of the factors influencing the development of new technologies, and the benefits for key stakeholders. We focus on demonstrating key innovative solutions that enable new functionalities, higher standards of service and improved clinician competence.

The article is both theoretical and practical in nature. Our primary research method is analysis of the literature and information we collected while managing the project “Implementation of a telemedicine model in the field of cardiology by ‘Polish Mother’s Memorial Hospital – Research Institute, 5/NMF/2066/00/62/2023/295, subsidized by the Norwegian Financial Mechanism and the state budget.”

First, we consider the theoretical aspects of the empowerment that emerges from new technologies, products and services, and then focus more on AI based technology for healthcare. Next, we propose an original classification of new e-health technologies according to their added value to the main healthcare stakeholders (patients, clinicians, and the healthcare system itself). Then we discuss some of the challenges faced by the implementation of new e-health technologies, products and services, and finally offer some conclusions.

Empowering new technologies, products and services — theoretical aspects

The process of harnessing new technologies and products in providing healthcare services is deeply embedded within the healthcare system as a whole. In particular, this involves healthcare providers and the services they provide, aimed at strengthening and improving the health of individuals and societies through disease prevention, early detection, treatment, and rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the healthcare situation in most European countries is expected to deteriorate due to population ageing, price increases, and the increasing complexity of healthcare technologies (Marmot et al., 2012). This entails a demand for a disproportionately high level of financial, material, and human resources.

Hence, meeting the health needs of citizens, and thus ensuring the availability of health-related services, depends primarily on a number of critical factors (Sobiech, 1990, p. 10): the volume of financial resources flowing into the health care system of a given country, the number and qualifications of medical staff, their spatial distribution and efficiency, the availability and application of medical technology and apparatus, and access to medical expertise (know-how) (Bukowska-Piestrzyńska, 2013, p. 66). With healthcare funding becoming more constrained every day, it is becoming increasingly important to look more closely at the processes of purchasing, distributing, and harnessing new technologies. Metrics such as stock coverage, urgent purchases, and non-standard purchases are particularly important in the management of healthcare facilities (Santosa et al., 2022, pp. 1-6).

The integration of AI systems in handling some aspects of communications during the diagnosis and treatment process could prove crucial for patient well-being and thus for the doctor-patient relationship. AI-based technologies, products and services will raise new questions about the limits of usability, cost-effectiveness and the ever-increasing cost of healthcare – above all, the issue of optimality in the creation of new products and services (Ayad et al., 2023).

A promising avenue of opportunities to apply new solutions to this challenge lies in digital healthcare, particularly through the implementation of artificial intelligence. These implementations involve a wide range of technologies. Digital tools are “fine-tuning” the capabilities of medical staff and facilitating a shift towards “consumerized” healthcare. This allows citizens to become more involved in managing their family’s healthcare. Digitalization, however, also brings risks, particularly if the challenges it presents are not adequately understood. If these wonderful technological advances are misused, they may expose society to the “dark side” of digital innovation. For example, if smart homes are not designed with the patient’s needs firmly in mind, but instead for the convenience of the “system,” they may give patients a prison-like experience, with robotic and sensor monitoring and control (Stahl & Cockelberg, 2016). Moreover, while AI can improve doctors’ technical skills to operate new technological solutions, it may also reduce their exposure to varied clinical experience (which in turn may make it more difficult to detect rare and atypical diseases).

Accountability in the health sector therefore raises critical questions: accountability for what, and to whom?

Ramachandran et al. (2015), for instance, reported that as many as 60% of patients with chronic diseases show interest in receiving healthcare via telephone, highlighting the a growing demand for e-health services in recent years. The management of chronic diseases is costly for individual patients and their families, as well as for the national health service. Therefore, there is great potential for developing new e-health technologies to improve the management of chronic diseases. Implementing these e-health technologies in healthcare systems can yield significant improvements and facilitate the integration of different aspects of healthcare (Hunt, 2015).

The responsible development of new technologies and bringing innovations to market require the active involvement of all stakeholders, from the very beginning of the innovation process. This helps to accurately identify the needs and priorities of innovation for society (Owen et al., 2012; Stahl et al., 2017). In health care, this means involving patients, carers and other stakeholders in the innovation process, anticipating the risks associated with new solutions, and ensuring that the solutions offered are implemented in a responsible and safe way, with the patient at the forefront (Pawelec, 2022).

New technologies and products in medicine mean smarter, safer, and more patient-centered healthcare services. By improving fit-for-purpose design, efficiency, and effectiveness, they help to reduce errors and shorten the length of hospital stays. The marketing management of healthcare services increasingly focuses on the individual purchaser – a shift emerging in many healthcare organizations thanks in part to new technologies. It should be recognized that there is an important difference between an “ordinary” customer, who can opt out of a purchase, and the patient-consumer of a healthcare service, who relies on medical consultations that directly affect his or her health or life (Białowolski et al., 2012).

Traditionally, patients have often been passive recipients at the endpoint of the service delivery system, rather than active stakeholders. One of the dangers of powerful new technologies is that patients may become even more marginalized, as healthcare is provided and delivered in an increasingly administrative, programmed manner. The doctor may also become more like a robot, carrying out programmed tasks in what could be described as “inhumane services.” The alternative approach places the patient at the center and puts technologies, products, and services at their disposal that allow them to design and control their healthcare based on their own needs. In this, it is important to shift away from seeing patients as a homogeneous group, instead categorizing them as distributed across a spectrum, including:

1)“Informed Users,” who are in a position to use technology with a better understanding;

2)“Engaged Users,” who play an activist role in the wider healthcare system, empowered by technology;

3)“Innovative Users,” who contribute their own ideas based on a deep understanding of healthcare problems.

Artificial Intelligence based technology for healthcare

Advancing safety in the organization of health technology use underscores that while consumers generally trust mature and complex technologies, advances in this area often obscure our understanding of the basics of how such technologies operate. We rely on them not because we are unaware of the potential risks, but because we believe that these risks are properly managed both by control procedures and by human oversight (by a physician). For example, we use increasingly advanced medicines without fear, often without fully grasping the complex clinical trial process that validates their safety. Similarly, we consent to robotic surgeries without fear that our health will be compromised (Turpin et. al., 2020).

The application of new technologies in healthcare should create new value, which may vary depending on the stakeholder. On the one hand, there are private companies that develop and market a technology, product or service, offering it to patients and hospitals in exchange for payment. This technology or product usually enables new functionality, a higher standard of healthcare, or a higher level of proficiency among doctors. On the other hand, there are hospitals that seek to generate maximum value, provided that does not exceed costs. Value is created when it increases revenue, enables more patients to access services, or allows diseases to be detected more quickly, improving quality of life. Value can also be derived from adhering to new global trends, such as the use of AI (Kulkov, 2021).

Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare involves the deployment of advanced mathematical algorithms and computer software to analyze complex medical data. The analysis of large datasets (“big data”) makes it possible to predict the probability of particular medical events. Programs that operate with the support of AI have the ability to learn autonomously (machine learning), by harnessing the collected data and the performed analyses.

Some of the first medical applications of artificial intelligence emerged in the field of radiology. AI systems are able to automatically assimilate X-ray data from databases containing thousands of images and then use this knowledge to assess a particular case and even evaluate a patient’s skeletal age (Jankowski, 2018). Physicians from the Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University conducted a study in which 33 patients with nonspecific or common interstitial pneumonia were enrolled. Participants were selected by radiologists with 15-year experience. The same group of patients was qualified by n AI algorithm and two medics who had attended a one-year training course in the field. The AUC (area under the curve) obtained by the AI was 0.81, indicating its strong diagnostic ability. Interestingly, different diagnostic errors were found between the trained doctors and the algorithm, involving different patients. Such findings suggest the possibility of diminishing the risk associated with human error and the possibility of AI collaborating with physicians to further minimize incorrect diagnoses (Depeursinge et al, 2015).

Artificial intelligence in the field of radiology facilitates the search and analysis process for lesions, and is additionally able to detect the smallest lesions that may have been overlooked by experts (Arbabshirani et al., 2018). Recent studies also show that deep learning can adaptively improve image reconstruction during MRI examinations, leading to shorter scan times and increased quality of the obtained images, and thereby to a higher diagnostic value of the examination performed. Such improvements are particularly notable in images obtained with the FLAIR (fluid-attenuated inversion recovery) MRI sequence, which is commonly used for imaging specific brain structures (Hagiwara et. al., 2019).

A significant advantage of AI in healthcare is its potential to relieve doctors of many of their duties, allowing for more patients to be examined. An example of such an application is a study conducted on 154 diabetic patients, which investigated the efficacy of diabetic retinopathy detection based on ocular fundus examinations by the Remidio NM FOP 10, an AI-based device. Results showed concurrence in 85 cases between the device’s assessments and those of ophthalmologists. There were four instances where diabetic retinopathy lesions were identified and 81 cases with no lesions detected. Discrepancies arose in 21 cases, involving poor-quality images. The study revealed that the Remidio NM FOP 10 has a detection accuracy of 80.2%. Additionally, the device can be operated by a trained individual without an ophthalmologist’s direct involvement, potentially increasing the accessibility of preventive measures for individuals with diabetes (Kaczmarek, 2021). Deep learning holds promise for the automatic detection of diabetic retinopathy, offering consistency and precision due to its methodological approach and detailed analysis capabilities.

Another example of the application of intelligent algorithms is their use in supporting Czech medical unit doctors during appointments with specialists. Here, the AI system listens to the patient and the doctor during the appointment at the medical facility and then files a transcription of their dialog. After a few seconds, the AI generates a report from the visit, capturing the most important information provided by the patient as well as the diagnosis, recommendations, and treatment suggested by the doctor. The specialist can edit the report, add or remove specific information that the algorithm has generated. This process not only improves the visit but also allows for detailed review of previous visits, increasing the potential for seeing more patients and reducing their waiting time.

The methodologies described above have not yet been implemented in standard use. Many systems are still in the testing and observation stage in order to verify their correct functioning. Nevertheless, intelligent algorithms often yield results that are on par with, or sometimes even better than, those achieved by medical experts. The cooperation of AI systems and medical experts can minimize the risk of human error when making a diagnosis. Nevertheless, despite the attractive solutions that AI offers, there are several challenges that cannot be overlooked. It is crucial to collect, store and share medical data correctly, in accordance with current regulations. Intelligent algorithms are trained based on huge databases, with content of quality that can be difficult to access. The more information AI assimilates, the more precise the final results and diagnoses will be. Ultimately, it is crucial for results generated by AI to be verified and approved by experts in the relevant medical field (Char et al., 2018).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, new technology played an important role in allowing health services to function through increased Internet capabilities. Telemedicine, in particular, has seen significant advancements, catalyzing dynamic changes in the medical field. In addition, a variety of applications have been developed to facilitate the monitoring of patient health, as well as websites providing necessary information for those interested in such innovations. Some of the solutions are developing globally, making it possible not only to treat, but also to improve procedures or save patients’ lives, thus raising the standard of medical care in the healthcare sector.

A classification of new e-health technologies according to benefits to the main healthcare stakeholders

This section of the article explores the emerging importance of these and other cutting-edge technologies and products in healthcare. The multifaceted nature of such technologies, exhibiting high complexity, mean that a broad range of traditional health care stakeholders must be taken into consideration in the analysis of their implementation. We evaluate the benefits and added value for various groups, including medical institutions, physicians, nurses, medical technicians, distributors, e-health providers, e-health systems managers, and patients. The needs of these stakeholders vary, necessitating tailored solutions that cater to specific requirements.

While some stakeholders are involved in R&D on new technology and products, others function primarily as distributors or supporters, while still others are end-users. The literature on this topic offers various classifications of new technologies and products – notably including Herrmann et al.’s (2018) classification of over 400 different digital health projects and solutions. These were categorized according to their purpose into ten different types: software as a medical device, advanced analytics, artificial intelligence, cloud services, cybersecurity, interoperability, medical devices data systems, mobile medical applications, wireless technologies, and novel digital health solutions. However, this classification primarily focuses on products aimed at healthcare professionals, mitting those designed for the industry, the insurance companies and other stakeholders.

Severika and Ceranic (2020), in contrast, offer a broader classification of new technologies pertaining to healthcare professionals, industries, insurance companies and other stakeholders. Their proposed categories include: lifestyle intervention tools, diagnostics and prevention tools, research and development & production optimization tools, remote tracing tools, clinical decision support tools, telemedicine tools, and workflow tools. The World Health Organization (2018) emphasizes that digital and mobile technologies are increasingly crucial in supporting the needs of health systems.

From a market perspective, new technologies and products that are implemented in medical units should first and foremost add value for patients and physicians. (The economic value of new technologies cannot be overlooked, of course, but it is not the focus of this article.) From this perspective of the added value for clinicians, we propose to segment the new technologies and products into seven categories: wearable devices, mobile applications, remote monitoring systems, technologies based on artificial intelligence algorithms, telemedicine platforms, electronic health records, and 3D printing technologies. These categories underscore the specialized development and implementation needs within medicine and their potential to offer significant value to clinicians and patients. In many cases, technologies and products span multiple categories.

A detailed table of benefits for patients, doctors and the healthcare system is presented in Table 1.

We will illustrate our classification further by providing a few examples of the first product group in it: wearable devices, where the use of the product by the customer has medical applications. Several solutions will be discussed to illustrate their importance for patients.

HigoSense has created a device with 5 interchangeable tips that capture images and measurements of given areas of the patient’s body and is equipped with a module for listening to breathing, etc. This allows anyone, anywhere, to collect detailed medical data of similar quality to that obtained by a doctor during direct contact with the patient in the office or during a home visit. Data collection, delivery and sharing are carried out by means of the Higo app, which also supports medical interviews, management of patient’ history, scheduling examinations and communications with the doctor. (https://higosense.com/pl/produkt/) MedApp’s CarnaLife Holo solution employs a revolutionary technology for the three-dimensional visualization of diagnostic data to assist in the planning and execution of medical procedures. The HoloLens 2 goggles, developed by Microsoft, provide the ability to view 3D holograms of anatomical structures in a real-world environment. The doctor is able to interact with the holograms, such as rotating, scaling, moving and even entering inside the anatomical structures using gestures and voice commands. The entire process is carried out without the risk of compromising sterility and without the need to cooperate with additional technical staff. The goggles are an interactive screen that can be used for procedure planning and anywhere in the operating room, or even during the procedure. (https://medapp.pl/carnalife-holo/)

telDoc presents an innovative solution related to the Virtual Medical Assistant, which, during the patient’s contact with the medical facility, provides initial, ad hoc assistance and then refers the patient to the appropriate tests and specialist. During the visit, the doctor receives the test results and the initial medical history, which has been conducted by the Virtual Assistant via voice or chat, reducing the time spent on the administrative part of the visit. In addition, the company has created a Virtual Nurse Assistant, which regularly calls patients to ask how they are feeling, collects basic information about the patient’s vital functions, asks or reminds them to take prescribed medication, suggests contacting a medic in an alarming situation, and notifies relatives of the patient’s situation. (https://www.teldoc.eu/projekty)

Nestmedic’s Pregnabit medical device is designed for remote/hybrid KTG monitoring for women from 32 weeks of pregnancy, with indications for examination or hospitalization. The system consists of a mobile KTG device and a Medical Telemonitoring Centre service, where the test results are analyzed by medical experts. The use of specially developed medical algorithms aids doctors and midwives in monitoring and decision-making. (https://nestmedic.com/pregnabit/)

For patients, the main advantages of using modern technology of this sort include reduced access time to the doctor, increased intensity of treatment, a higher level of care resulting in better treatment outcomes, a better standard of living with chronic diseases with all-day health monitoring. Doctors, in turn, can optimize medical care and have faster, often immediate access to data in the form of epics or images. Artificial intelligence is also entering the operating theatre to assist the doctor, making procedures easier and reducing the number of repeat operations. For the healthcare system, however, it is the cost implications that are important. Estimation of the real costs of new implementations, reduction of unit costs with an increase in the number of interventions, possibility of detection of new diseases (including rare diseases).

Challenges for the implementation of new e-health technologies, products and services

Some of the key challenges include:

• Data accuracy and reliability: The accuracy and reliability of data collected by medical devices incorporating intelligent technologies is critical to the effective and efficient management of healthcare services. Patient accountability must ensure the timeliness, accuracy, relevance, appropriateness and consistency of measurements provided by AI devices (Etemadi & Khashei, 2020).
• Data security and privacy: Smart technologies generate and transmit sensitive health data, raising concerns about data security and privacy. Protecting personal data and health information from unauthorized access, breaches and misuse is paramount in the development of cyberhealth. Security measures must be implemented to protect patient data. These must be in line with data protection regulations and encryption techniques (Fatima & Colombo-Palacios, 2018).
• Integration: Integration of different smart healthcare technologies and systems is essential for seamless data exchange and collaboration (Shah et al., 2021). However, the challenges of integrating different devices, digital platforms and electronic health record systems can hinder effective data sharing and communication between patients and their doctors or healthcare organizations. One solution to this involves standardization.
• Adaptability: Devices, systems and platforms must be adapted to the type of patient, the level of health care reference, and the level of technological development of the organization implementing the new solutions (Chronaki et al., 2004).
• User acceptance and involvement: The success of the implementation of intelligent technologies depends on user acceptance and involvement. Patients need to be motivated to make consistent use of these technologies and to take an active part in their own care (Jankowska-Polańska et al., 2014). Clinicians need to follow protocols and monitor the activity and accuracy of patients’ use of the technologies. Overcoming barriers such as technology familiarity, usability concerns and resistance to change is key to widespread use of digital technologies.
• Legislation and regulation: Regulatory changes need to keep pace with the rapid development of smart technologies. Legislation needs to be put in place to ensure the safe, effective and ethical use of technology in healthcare, particularly artificial intelligence. In addition, reimbursement policies should take into account the value and cost-effectiveness of smart technologies, as this may have an impact on their availability and adoption (Orędziak, 2018).
• Accessibility: Ensuring equal access to smart technologies is essential to address inequalities in healthcare. Price, usability and accessibility of new technologies need to be considered (Bokolo, 2021).
• Validation: Rigorous clinical trials are needed for smart technologies, especially those based on artificial intelligence. Rigorous scientific research, randomized controlled trials and analysis of real-world data are needed to demonstrate the clinical value and safety of using smart technologies in healthcare. The margin for error in the use of new technologies in medicine, for example, is very small or may not exist at all. This has to do not only with protecting health, but also with protecting life (ICH Guidelines, 2016).
• Cost-effectiveness: Cost-effectiveness is an important factor in the introduction of new medical technologies. However, its role in improving quality of life and standards of care should also be emphasized (Trzmielak, 2014).

Conclusions

In the coming years, medical professionals can expect to be able to access more advanced and highly specialized tools will be available to medical professionals, increasing their competence and capabilities. Continued advances in artificial intelligence (AI) research in medicine are also likely contribute to the thorough validation of both existing and future systems, which could lead to their widespread adoption. However, the integration of advanced technologies, particularly AI, into healthcare practices represents a significant paradigm shift towards improving patient care and enhancing healthcare delivery systems. Throughout this article, we have explored the multifaceted impact of these technologies, demonstrating how they not only augment clinical practices but also empower patients by offering more personalized and accessible healthcare solutions. The bibliographic analysis and examples discussed herein offer a certain overview of the practical applications and theoretical implications of AI in healthcare, emphasizing the dual benefit to both clinicians and patients.

Our findings illustrate that AI-driven tools can significantly relieve the workload of healthcare professionals, allowing for the expansion of healthcare services and specializations that cater more directly to patient needs. This not only improves the efficiency of healthcare delivery but also enhances the quality of patient care by enabling more accurate diagnoses and tailored treatment plans. The classification of new e-health technologies that we have proposed herein may serve as a clear framework for understanding the various ways in which these innovations can be implemented to maximize their benefits across different sectors of the healthcare industry.

Moving forward, the continuous advancement and deployment of these technologies necessitates a committed approach to research and validation, ensuring that they meet the highest standards of efficacy and safety. The collaborative acceptance by healthcare professionals and patients is crucial for these technological innovations to be successfully integrated into everyday medical practices. Such acceptance is dependent on clear demonstrations of the improvements these technologies bring to patient outcomes and healthcare workflows.

In conclusion, the successful deployment of AI and other innovative technologies in medicine requires ongoing analysis and adaptation to the evolving needs of the healthcare sector. By aligning these technological advancements with the real-world requirements of both healthcare providers and recipients, we can ensure that they lead to more effective, efficient, and empathetic healthcare services. The promising developments discussed in this article not only highlight the current achievements but also pave the way for future innovations that will continue to transform healthcare.

Aknowledgements

The article was funded by the project entitled “Implementation of a telemedicine model in the field of cardiology by Polish Mother’s Memorial Hospital – Research Institute subsidized by the Norwegian Financial Mechanism and the state budget,” under contract no. 5/NMF/2066/00/62/2023/295.

References

Arbabshirani, M. R., Fornwalt, B. K., Mongelluzzo, G. J., Suever, J. D., Geise, B. D., Patel, A. A., & Moore, G. J. (2018). Advanced machine learning in action: Identification of intracranial hemorrhage on computed tomography scans of the head with clinical workflow integration. npj Digital Medicine, 1, 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-017-0015-z

Auwal, F. I., Copeland, C., Clark, E. J., Naraynassamy, C., & McClelland, G. R. (2023, September). A systematic review of models of patient engagement in the development and life cycle management of medicines. Drug Discovery Today, 28(9), 103702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2023.103702

Ayad, N., Schwendicke, F., Krois, J., S. van den Bosch, Bergé, S., Bohner, L., Hanisch, M., & Vinayahalingam, S. (2023, December). Patients’ perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence in dentistry: A regional survey. Head & Face Medicine, 19, Article 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-023-00368-z

Białowolski, P., Grabowska, I., Kotowska, I., Strzelecki, P. &Węziak-Białowolska, D. (2012). Social Diagnosis 2011: The objective and subjective quality of life in Poland. Ed. Czapiński, J., & Panek, T. The Council for Social Monitoring Warsaw.

Bokolo, A. Jnr. (2020). Application of telemedicine and eHealth technology for clinical services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Health and Technology, 11, 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-020-00516-4

Bukowska-Piestrzyńska, A. (2013). Zmiany w systemie opieki zdrowotnej a dostępność usług stomatologicznych w Polsce w XXI wieku [Changes in the healthcare system and the availability of dental services in Poland in the 21st century]. Vol. XIV(10), pt. I. [in Polish]

Char, D. S., Shah, N. H., & Magnus, D. (2018). Implementing machine learning in health care — Addressing ethical challenges. New England Journal of Medicine, 378(11), 981–983. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1714229

Chronaki, C. E., Lelis, P., Chiarugi, F., Trypakis, D., Moumouris, K., Stavrakis, H., Kavlentakis, G., Stathiakis, N., Tsiknakis, M., & Orphanoudakis, S. C. (2004). An open eHealth platform for health management using adaptable service profiles. International Congress Series, 1268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2004.03.201

Depeursinge, A., Chin, A. S., Leung, A. N., Terrone, D., Bristow, M., Rosen, G., & Rubin, D. L. (2015). Automated classification of usual interstitial pneumonia using regional volumetric texture analysis in high-resolution computed tomography. Investigative Radiology 50(4), 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI. 0000000000000127

Etemadi, S., & Khashei, M. (2020). Data accuracy and reliability. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.105138

Fatima, A., & Colomo-Palacios, R. (2018). Security aspects in healthcare information systems: A systematic mapping. Procedia Computer Science, 138, 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.003

Hagiwara, A., Otsuka, Y., Hori, M., Tachibana, Y., Yokoyama, K., Fujita, S., Andica, C., Kamagata, K., Irie, R., Koshino, S., Maekawa, T., Chougar, L., Wada, A., Takemura, M., Hattori, N., & Aoki, S. (2019). Improving the quality of synthetic FLAIR images with deep learning using a conditional generative adversarial network for pixel-by-pixel image translation. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 40(2), 224–230.

Herrmann, M., Boehme, P., Mondritzki, T., Ehlers, J. P., Kavadias, S., Truebel, H. (2018). Digital transformation and disruption of the health care sector: Internet-based observational study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20, 104–112. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9498 Hunt, C. W. (2015). Technology and diabetes self-management: An integrative review. World Journal of Diabetes, 6(2), 225–33. https://doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v6.i2.225

ICH Guidelines. (2016). Harmonized ICH Guidelines, Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1): Good Clinical Practice, E6(R2), version 4. International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E6_R2_Addendum.pdf

Jankowski M., (2018). Sztuczna inteligencja jako narzędzie wspomagające proces diagnostyczno-terapeutyczny, Menadżer Zdrowia, październik – listopad 8-9, 66–67.

Jankowska-Polańska, B., Ilko, A., & Wleklik, M. (2014). Wpływ akceptacji choroby na jakość życia chorych z nadciśnieniem tętniczym [Influence of the acceptance of the disease on quality of life of patients with hypertension]. Nadciśnienie Tętnicze, 18(3), 143–150. [in Polish]

Kaczmarek, E. (2021). Sztuczna inteligencja – pomoc w wykryciu retinopatii cukrzycowej [Artificial Intelligence – Assistance in Detecting Diabetic Retinopathy]. Optyka, 6(73), 48–49. [in Polish]

Kulkov, I. (2023). Next-generation business models for artificial intelligence start-ups in the healthcare. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 29(4).

Marmot M., Allen J., Bell R., Bloomer E., Goldblatt P., (2012). WHO European review of social determinants of health and the health divide, Lancet 2012; 380, 1011–29. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61228-8

Orędziak, B. (2018). Telemedycyna a konstytucyjne prawo do opieki zdrowotnej w kontekście wykluczenia cyfrowego [Telemedicine and the Constitutional Right to Healthcare in the Context of Digital Exclusion]. Zeszyty Prawnicze, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.21697/zp.2018.18.1.06 [in Polish]

Owen, R., Macnaghten, Ph., Stilgoe, J., (2012). Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093.

Pawelec, G. (2022). Rola nowych technologii w podnoszeniu jakości usług zdrowotnych w dobie pandemii COVID-19. [The role of new technologies in improving the quality of health services in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic]. Marketing i Rynek, XXIX(2). https://doi.org/10.33226/1231-7853.2022.2.2 [in Polish]

Ramachandran, N., Srinivasan, M., Thekkur, P., Johnson, P., Chinnakali, P., & Naik, B. N. (2015). Mobile phone usage and willingness to receive health-related information among patients attending a chronic disease clinic in rural Puducherry, India. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 9(6), 1350–1. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296815599005

Santosa, E. S., Fariab, S. C. M., Carvalhob, M. I. S., Molc, M. P. G., Silvab, M. N., & Silva, K. R. (2022, December). Management of unused healthcare materials and medicines discarded in a Brazilian hospital from 2015 to 2019. Cleaner Waste Systems, 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2022.100046

Severika, B., & Ceranic, K. (2020, April). Digital Health Classification Systems. Statistics & Science. https://www.5-ht.com/en/media/blog/digital-health-classification-systems

Stahl, B.C. and Coeckelbergh, M. (2016) Ethics of Healthcare Robotics: Towards Responsible Research and Innovation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 86, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.018

Shah, J. L., Bhat, H. F., & Khan, A. I. (2021). Integration of Cloud and IoT for smart e-healthcare. In V.E. Balas, S. Pal (Eds.). Healthcare Paradigms in the Internet of Things Ecosystem (pp. 101–136). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819664-9.00006-5.

Stahl, S., Morrissette, D. A., Faedda, G. L., Fava, M., Goldberg, J., Keck, P., Lee, Y., Malhi, G., Marangoni, C., Mcelroy, S., Ostacher, M., Rosenblat, J., Solé, E. Suppes, T. Takeshima, M. Thase, M., Vieta, E., Young, A. Zimmerman, M. McIntyre, R. (2017). Guidelines for the recognition and management of mixed depression. CNS Spectrums. 22(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852917000165.

Sobiech, J. (1990). Warunki wyboru ekonomiczno-finansowych mechanizmów kierowania opieką zdrowotną. Zeszyty Naukowe, 109. Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu.

Trzmielak, D. M. (2013). Komercjalizacja wiedzy i technologii – determinanty i strategia [Commercialization of knowledge and technology – determinants and strategy]. Łódź: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. [in Polish]

Turpin, R., Hoefer, E., Lewelling, J., & Baird, P. (2020). Machine Learning AI in Medical Devices, Adapting Regulatory Frameworks and Standards to Ensure Safety and Performance. AAMI, BSI. https://www.medical-device-regulation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/machine_learning_ai_in_medical_devices.pdf

Ullah, M., Hamayun, S., Wahab, A., Khan, S. U., Rehman, M. U., Haq, Z. U., Rehman, K. U., Ullah, A., Mehreen, A., Awan, U. A., Qayum, M., & Naeem, M. (2023, November). Smart Technologies used as Smart Tools in the Management of Cardiovascular Disease and their Future Perspective. Current Problems in Cardiology, 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2023.101922

Verbraecken, J. (2021, September). Telemedicine in Sleep-Disordered Breathing: Expanding the Horizons. Sleep Medicine Clinics, 16(3), 418–445.

World Health Organization. (2018). Classification of Digital Health Interventions v 1.0: A shared language to describe the uses of digital technology for health. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/260480/WHO-RHR-18.06-eng.pdf

Online sources:

https://higosense.com/pl/produkt/
https://medapp.pl/carnalife-holo/
https://nestmedic.com/pregnabit/
https://www.teldoc.eu/projekty

Various ongoing global events, the scientific-technological revolution, economic and social crises, and problems caused by the pandemic have intensified the race for knowledge development worldwide to achieve competitiveness and economic growth. The universities in the Caucasus countries also conducted research, although their task (or main interest) was not to ensure that the results of the research would apply to society. By combining university research and business, while simultaneously involving the public and private sectors in the research process, it will be possible to develop the real sector of the region, discover successful products and achieve economic growth (Dhebar, 2016).

In the countries of the region, there is a different, but clear increase in expectations from universities, which should create such human resources that can initiate and implement innovative processes-with discoveries and technologies based on them.

Rising expectations from universities and their role in the country’s innovation ecosystem and economic development increase the relevance of UBC’s research. A modern university should be a flexible incubator for startups and technology transfer.

UBC is any interaction between universities and businesses for mutual benefit and is considered an important driver of the knowledge-based economy and society, as UBC can solve the organizational problems of universities and businesses, and therefore the current social and economic problems of the country.

The article is theoretical and analytical in nature. The basic research method is the analysis of the literature on the subject, statistical data and documents of the European Commission and government materials of the analysed countries. The results of the analysis can be used in the economic practice of scientific and research organisations, especially in the business environment sector, which is considered a bridge between science and business. The implementation of scientific projects with a foreign partner is a very important part of the internationalisation of the activities of business support institutions and is crucial for the development of researchers’
careers. The article indicates the ecosystem for the development of longterm systemic relations in the area of internationalisation, and support for the mobility of scientists in the implementation of research projects, carried out jointly by international partners. The analysis of ecosystems in Caucasus countries will show how to create knowledge so that universities and research centres are not perceived as producers of higher knowledge for themselves, without much contact with society.

And UBC’s full-spectrum research shows that:

• Why academic, research and entrepreneurial entities and business support institutions should work together;
• How universities and businesses can cooperate and how these activities are interconnected;
• What is the extent of the institutionalisation of UBC;
• What is the culture and vision for the development of such cooperation;
• Results of university, national/regional governments, and business influence on UBC;
• The university’s innovative ecosystem, startup ecosystem, and its formation-development process;
• The operation of the mechanisms for promoting the development of UBC, identifying problems, and eliminating the hindering factors and the features of their interdependence/impact.

The Universities and Business Cooperation — Theoretical Background

The role of science has become better understood by entrepreneurs.

Governments promote R&D through direct and indirect support (grants and tax subsidies, public infrastructures development) (Wilson, 2005). In the oldest surviving poem by Georgian poet Shota Rustaveli, The Knight in Tiger’s Skin, we find a maxim that may convey the importance of cooperation between science and business 'He who does not seek a friend is an enemy to himself’ (Rustaveli, 2016). The claim touches on an issue that is universal and has accompanied man since time immemorial. Beyond that, when analysing the concept of cooperation, we have to face questions about the possibility of understanding two worlds governed by different 'institutional logics’ (Sijde, Firmansyah, Frederik, & Redondo, 2014), what unites and what divides them, as well as coexistence within the socioeconomic environment.

In the works of Trzmielak and Zehner (Dubinskas, 1988; Trzmielak & Zehner, 2011), it is also repeatedly stated that the scientist and the entrepreneur are immature market dreamers and mature realistic market managers.

In Europe and the United States, academic and business cooperation dates back to the 19th century. Through the efforts of the University of Cambridge (UK) and entrepreneurs, a spin-out company, Cambridge Instruments, was created by Horacy Darvin in1881(Cattermole & Wolfe, 1987). In the early 1980s, Cambridge was one of three clusters of new industry activity and research centres in the UK, along with London and central Scotland (Wissema, 2009). Among the many examples of European pioneers combining science and business, the venture of German chemistry professors Liebig, Hofmann and Ladenburg, who used chemical theory to develop an artificial fertiliser in the mid-19th century, stands out (Jackson, 2008). Although their business venture failed, Etzkowitz (2002) considers them forerunners of cooperation between the scientific and industrial communities. The Hatch Act (US) laid the legislative foundation for the development of an agricultural research centre. This idea, pioneering for the time, was intended to launch basic research that would be commercialised in the future. Interesting insights were indicated by Elizondo-Noeriega, Muńiz-Rivera, Mendoza-Enríquez, Aguayo-Téllez, and Güemes-Castorena (2014) regarding academic entrepreneurship and cooperation between science and business in countries influenced by U.S. trends, such as Mexico and other Latin American countries. The mentioned countries have less technological knowledge and this creates conditions of educational and technological vulnerability for entrepreneurship. However, these countries have a different cultural, educational, technological and socioeconomic context than the United States and some European countries. These societies are less dynamic and the transfer of knowledge, technology, capital, and goods and services is less dynamic. Hence, cooperation between the scientific and entrepreneurial communities involving doctoral students and academics faces serious problems. Young people are dropping out of education or not getting on the path of obtaining a degree. These trends paralyse national initiatives and delay in better understanding of science and business actors (Martins-Lastres & Cassiolato, 2005). In the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, a key element in the academic transition to cooperation between science and business along the lines of developed countries has become, in the first instance, the ability of universities to respond to the changing employment conditions of graduates. The drive for innovation and business competitiveness has subsequently resulted in interest in instruments for intensifying cooperation between science and business. Emerging opportunities for commercial cooperation between science and business with tangible results for both parties passed through the academic 'gray area’, involving the implementation of outsourced tasks using university equipment and infrastructure (Matusiak, 2010).

However, the phenomenon of third-generation universities, which included cooperation with industry in their mission alongside science and teaching, began in the 1970s. The developed concept of economic policy assumed the need to support innovation processes, the development of the small and medium-sized enterprise sector and the active formation of an entrepreneurial culture. Within the framework of the measures taken, it is important to emphasise the strong preference for academic entrepreneurship dynamising changes in the science and research sector. Matusiak (2010) refers to this as opening up silos of knowledge and increasing the possibility of commercial use of developed knowledge resources. Etzkowitz (2008) still uses the term 'capitalization of knowledge’, in the sense of building ties between the worlds of science and business. The capitalisation or otherwise commercialisation of knowledge causes universities to become important market players. Matusiak (2010) analyses the 'entrepreneurial university’ in two dimensions:

• the entrepreneurial activity of the university itself in the commercialisation of its know-how,
• the business activity of those associated with the university.

Researchers of science-industry relations add also the concept of 'entrepreneurial science’. Thorp and Goldstein (2010) scientific and research centres should be an enterprise for scientists, in which money is invested and which should bring a return on the invested capital.

The emerging knowledge economy has determined the emergence of new forms of science-intensive products and services. The current basis for industry-university cooperation was established, also enabling companies to become more competitive (Kamisi, 2000). 'The entrepreneurial science’, on the other hand, is strongly linked to 'knowledge transfer partnership’, which is an effective mechanism for cooperation between the two communities in question: science and industry (Howlett, 2010).

The corporation became more information-oriented and universities become more business-oriented. There emerged a novel class of human organisation: intellectual institutions (Kuhn & Munitz, 1988). Early involvement of business in cooperative efforts with universities speeds up commercial products or technology developments (Eller, 1988). In the XXIst century, there is little doubt that scientific and technological capacity is directly related to its education and training system (Wilson, 2005).

The traditional explanation for business cooperation is given by Badaracco (1991). Businesses seek cooperation to:

1. increase their competitiveness and revenue,
2. reduce the risk of operating in the market,
3. increase accessibility to resources and expand those they already have,
4. minimise barriers to entry into new markets or for new products on those already available. Książek and Pruvot (2011) further add the opportunity to learn from partners, especially the more experienced ones. We have to emphasise that the process of learning is key to shaping leaders of innovation and transfer of knowledge and technology from science to industry (Wiśniewska, Głodek, & Trzmielak, 2015).

Increasing the competitiveness of an enterprise is the natural operation of an organisation in the market (Jasiński, 2013). Reducing the risk of operation refers to operating in a selected, uncertain, market for R&D products.

Cooperation reduces risk and uncertainty associated with inappropriate management of the knowledge and technology commercialisation process. The reduction of uncertainty and risk also comes from linking the resources of partners (Silver, Pagaza, & Coraz-Flores, 2005; Maliszewska, 2017). Two trends emerging in the 1980s and 1990s, the emergence of science parks and spin-offs, should also be linked to increasing accessibility to resources and minimising barriers to entry into new markets or for new products. The first was the emergence of science parks encouraging scientists to collaborate with businesses as a new source of funding and market knowledge. The second was the emergence of spin-offs, which used the innovative activity of students and scientists to exploit intellectual property created at universities (Nadirkhanlou, Pourezzat, Gholipour, & Zehtabi, 2013).

However, we cannot overlook the many sceptical works and evaluations of cooperation between science and business. In the research of Trzmielak, Grzegorczyk, and Gregor (2016), we find the following main bases of scepticism for cooperation between science and business:

• the scientific dependence of research on the academic publication (track),
• the divergent mentality of scientists and entrepreneurs, which brings a passive attitude to cooperation,
• the level of scientific research that does not relate to the transferability of knowledge and technology to industry-scientism detached from the problems of the market.
• misalignment of external policies of universities and R&D institutes with the needs of the market,
• laws not adapted to the formation of academic companies.

The Knowledge Status of the Caucasian Countries —
The Global Secondary Data Analysis

Based on the Global Knowledge Index (GKI) 2021 data, we see a real picture of the development of the knowledge society in the countries of the Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan), (Table 1).

The table shows that Azerbaijan is far behind Georgia and Armenia in higher education, scientific research, innovation, and development indicators. However, overall, the positions of all three countries of the region in this direction are unsatisfactory.

In terms of the Enabling Environment Index, with its strong economy, Azerbaijan lags far behind Armenia and Georgia, the leaders in this respect. Azerbaijan also lags behind Georgia and Armenia in terms of preuniversity/ educational education.

Universities can be key drivers of change and innovation, especially when interacting at the local, national and international levels. Universities and the entire higher education sector are uniquely positioned at the crossroads of education, research and innovation.

Cooperation between universities and businesses (UBC) is crucial in solving social problems, sharing and exchanging knowledge, building long-term partnerships, and stimulating innovation, entrepreneurship, and creativity.

UBC is key to stimulating innovation in higher education and a vital part of the overall Commission’s Directorate General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) policy in higher education (European Commission, Press release, 18 January 2022, Strasburg).

The main goal of DG EAC policy is to preserve and develop European values, as well as the participation of citizens in the European integration process. Its main tasks are:

• building a Europe of knowledge (lifelong learning programmes, promoting exchange programmes);
• preserve and develop cultural diversity in the EU in all forms;
• involve citizens in European integration processes to promote mutual understanding, trust and tolerance.

DG EAC targets all kinds of higher educational institutions, independent of their size and location, faculties and disciplines, and oriented national positioning. On the business side, it not only addresses companies (in particular small and medium enterprises — SMEs) but also public authorities, regions, cities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), hospitals, museums, etc. in the EU and Erasmus countries.

The European Commission supports University Business Cooperation with several instruments, such as the Erasmus+ Alliances for Innovation (formerly Knowledge Alliances and Sectorial Skills Alliances) and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT).

Since 2021, the European University Association (EUA), has started developing an evidence base for innovative activities of universities in Europe. EUA Solutions is a tailored service created to assist higher education institutions and stakeholders. (https://eua.eu). The association identifies different levels of innovation capacity in European universities and how these levels contribute to a wide range of impacts and social outcomes. Based on data from 166 institutions located in 28 European countries, the EUA and its Expert Group on Innovation Ecosystems can now provide a pan-European picture of innovation in universities, as well as key recommendations for universities, policymakers, and funding agencies to increase the contribution of universities to European innovation ecosystems. Thus, this policy position is an overview of how to support the growth of the innovative capacity of universities.

EUA plays a crucial role in the Bologna Process and in influencing EU policies on higher education, research and innovation. Through continuous interaction with a range of other European and international organisations, EUA ensures that the independent voice of European universities is heard.

By 2022, many universities in the Caucasus countries are members of the EUA, which means that they support its policies and express their readiness for active cooperation. (Table 2).

Despite significant efforts by European national governments and the European Commission to increase participation in UBC, there is a lack of understanding of how universities and businesses can work together and how these activities are (inter)linked. The perception of limited mutual benefits from cooperation reduces the usefulness of university training programmes for the labour market. The consequence is that university graduates are less likely to be employed according to their qualifications. The uncertainty of cooperation between science and business has an impact on the high risk of joint research.

A multi-stakeholder effort to increase UBC in Caucasus countries will have positive consequences for students, entrepreneurs, scientists, university authorities, and investors’ activities. The former will obtain employment opportunities under their competencies and skills acquired during their studies (which also reduces migration). The second will acquire personnel for the company’s development needs (which reduces the cost-quality personnel relationship) and ideas for innovation. The researchers can pursue increasingly ambitious research plans. The university authorities gain access to new sources of funding for science. The investors, in turn, reduce the risk of investing in R&D products, because UBC provides, in a sense, guarantees that university research is aligned with market needs.

It is recognised worldwide that university-business collaboration (UBC) is a complex and nonuniform field and its positive impact on economic outcomes has long been the subject of research and analysis in social sciences, innovation economics, entrepreneurship, marketing, and management scientific communities. UBC is an important component of the country’s innovation ecosystem.

The development of UBC requires a systematic and comprehensive study (of the innovation culture of the university, its ecosystem and development mechanisms, joint activities of the UBC operating model, and interconnected infrastructure elements (orientation to the common interests of the research process and UBC supporting mechanisms), mechanisms for identifying problems and removing obstacles.

The State of UBC in Europe study presents a mixed picture. To increase the low levels of cooperation, UBC needs to focus on drivers rather than barriers, the mechanisms of UBC need to be developed and aligned and relationships need to be placed at the core of UBC. In short, UBC needs to be seen as an ecosystem that requires careful management. For UBC to institutionalise and increase its impact, there should be a concerted effort between governments at national and regional levels, Higher Education Institutrion (HEI) and faculty boards, and business managers (Davey, Meerman, Muros, Orazbayeva, & Baaken, 2018).

The Global Startup Ecosystem Index Report 2022 (The Global Startup Ecosystem Index Report 2022 report https://www.startupblink.com/ startupecosystemreport) shows rankings of Caucasian countries. Among the Caucasian countries, Armenia moved up to 60th place from 65th a year earlier, ahead of Georgia, which took 73rd position (against 80th a year earlier) and Azerbaijan-to 85th (against 89th a year earlier).

In particular, according to the source, in the presented indicators, 100 countries were evaluated according to 3 criteria: quantitative (the number of startups, co-working spaces, accelerators, and events dedicated to startups), qualitative (the presence of statistical branches and R&D, corporations, branches of transnational companies, the volume of the rating is overall penetration of individuals into the number of start-up ecosystems, the presence of large individuals-business angels, venture morbidity, etc.), and the business environment (Doing Business rating, and the speed of the Internet, censorship, investment in R&D-design work), etc.). (Table 3.).

In 2022, Yerevan entered the top 250 city ranking globally. Yerevan has seen a major jump, improving by 38 spots to 244th globally, and reversing its declining momentum from 2021. This increase pushed Yerevan up the ladder in Eastern Europe, where it is now ranked 19th, versus 29th in 2021. Yerevan is the highest-ranking city in the Caucasus region, with a safe margin. Its score is more than double Tbilisi’s score, and more than triple Baku’s score.

In the countries of the Caucasus, systems for developing opportunities for university start-ups are dynamically developing, the existence of most of which is less than 5–6 years. (Table 4.).

Armenia

Armenia Startup Academy cooperates with world-famous service startups, accelerators and incubators, venture capital companies, and business angels. Academy is focusing on building game-changing entrepreneurship and startup education programmes that will armour capable teams with knowledge and skills for building products that customers love.

The Entrepreneurship and Product Innovation Centre (EPIC) is a platform of the American University of Armenia (AUA) for promoting entrepreneurial education, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and startup venture incubation. EPIC provides an ecosystem for emerging entrepreneurs consisting of first-class facilities and collaborative workspace, programmes and events, and a network of mentors, advisors, and investors. EPIC fosters the understanding and application of entrepreneurship in students and faculty at AUA to craft high-impact multidisciplinary ventures.

By the decision of the independent jury of the entrepreneurship world cup (EWC) Armenia 2022 National Finals, two Armenian startups, Text’nPayMTopshop, took first place and will represent Armenia in the EWC Global competition. They will compete for a chance to win $1 million in prizes.

Text’nPayMe is a banking keyboard that enables bank clients to send money by way of any messaging application or other application that contains an input field.

Hopshop is Shazam for fashion. It helps customers find and purchase clothes or accessories that are available on the Internet and social media and even those they might spot others wearing on the street.

Azerbaijan

Organisations in Azerbaijan that help startups launch and develop their products.

SABAH.lab acceleration centre. The centre is part of the Education Institute of the Republic of Azerbaijan and is supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan. SABAH.lab also hosts many events for startups.

Incubator and accelerator INNOLAND — the State Agency for Services to Citizens and Social Innovation under the President of Azerbaijan (ASAN), includes mentor support, networking, and the opportunity to use office space.

Acceleration programme Azerbaijan Innovation Centre — helps startups from Azerbaijan connect with Silicon Valley. The programme was founded in February 2020 by INNOLAND.

Programme of incubation of NEXT STEP innovation centre — As part of the programme, participants get access to coaching, create an Minimum Viable Product MVP, and develop their own business model.

Sup VC acceleration programme — acceleration programme, which allows startups to grow and enter international markets.

Georgia

The startup ecosystem of Georgia is just being formed, but in the country, especially in the capital, Tbilisi, there are many platforms where you can develop your project. Georgia’s Start-up ecosystem is promoted and developed through different platforms.

THE Crossroads — The innovative startup programme for women entrepreneurs was launched in December 2016 and its goal is to create a suitable environment for both startups and investors. To take part in this project, the company must be registered as a legal entity, and it must be managed by a female director or partner.

Innovfin from Pro credit bank. Implemented in cooperation with the European Investment Bank Group. 'Relatively large innovative projects’ can take part in the programme.

Smartex from Liberty bank. This bank was the first in Georgia to create a startup incubator. Initially, the main areas in the incubator were e-commerce, telecommunications, and electronic payments. One of the projects that received funding under the programme was the startup Swoop.

The Spark Platform is a hub for people who have a business idea but no access to resources. The platform provides space for startups, helps startups calculate risks when developing a business plan and provides advice from financiers, marketers, and analysts. Works with such business areas as tourism, vocational and higher education, medical business, sports, health, IT, innovative business ideas, energy-efficient technologies.

Acceleration programme and coworking space Startup Factory from the Georgian University. The site is open 24/7, and the electronics and engineering lab, the Mobile Application Development Centre, and a stylishly designed space that can accommodate up to 40 people are available for startups.

Several university-based incubators are already operating in Georgia-at the Free University, at the Ili State University, and at the Georgian Technical University.

Since 2009, the Batumi Business Incubator has been operating — a project of the UN Development Programme, which is funded by the governments of Romania, Finland and the Autonomous Republic of Adjara (Batumi is the administrative centre of the Republic of Adjara, the Georgian autonomy). As part of the incubation programme, startups can get free advice on international trade, accounting, taxation, business organisation in a startup, financing, and logistics.

Silicon Valley Tbilisi (based on Business and Technology University) is the first private high-tech centre in Georgia, which combines a university, a business incubator and an accelerator, an IT academy and a media centre.

FasterCapital is an international incubator and accelerator with a portfolio of 20 certified startups, 69 incubation startups and 285 acceleration startups. It helps startups not only to work out their business ideas but also to get funding, and invites startups to become their technical co-founder. There are 3 startups from Georgia on acceleration at FasterCapital.

Startup Grind Tbilisi. A division of the world’s largest independent startup community of 2,000,000 entrepreneurs. The global sponsor of the organisation is Google for startups. Startup Grind Tbilisi hosts events where successful world-class startups share their experience; Startup Grind is also an opportunity to make useful contacts, and find investors and partners.

The universities of the Caucasus countries must make maximum use of the existing opportunities and development systems for university starters. It is possible to cite many such good examples, although their number is small in the region.

Center for Entrepreneurship and Product Innovative Products (CEPIP) of the American University of Armenia (AUA) together with the Entrepreneurship World Cup (EWC) National Leadership Committee at the EWC Armenia 2022 national finals, the main prizes were given to two Armenian startups Text’nPayMe and Hopshop who took first place and represented Armenia at the EWC Global Finals. They competed for the chance to win a $1 million prize.

Georgian startupper Ana Robakidze, the founder and CEO of the AI platform Theneo won a Pitch contest at the world’s largest technology event, Web Summit 2022 in Lisbon among 2,300 startups, representing hundreds of countries worldwide. 'We are the first Georgian company to ever go this far in any kind of big startup competition. So I feel like it’s beyond just me or my company. It also represents a lot for my country. Unfortunately, not a lot of people know about the startup ecosystem in Georgia. There are so many great startups, and I feel like I’m also representing them’, Robakidze said.

Conclusions

In the countries of the Caucasus, more than ever, the awareness of the importance of innovation is constantly growing in society, where the
modern university is the main driving force.

The University and Business cooperation (UBC) is dynamically becoming an important component of the innovation ecosystems of the Caucasus countries, which requires a systematic and comprehensive study of the innovation culture of the universities, its ecosystems and development mechanisms.

To increase the low level of cooperation, UBC must focus on drivers rather than barriers, UBC mechanisms must be developed and agreed upon, and relationships must be placed at the heart of UBC.

One may assert that university and business cooperation arises from the necessity of finding non-state funding to carry out scientific research. We accentuate the fact that higher education institutions should establish spin-off companies or grant licences to companies for their most advanced innovations and R&D work. The model of academic companies is what can be applied in the countries of the Caucasus, particularly Armenia and Georgia, where small business entrepreneurship has its roots in distant history. Universities and research centres in Caucasian countries should not only generate research results but also seek out purchasers for them. This can be most effective if they consider the requirements of industry partners as early as the planning stage of the scientific research. We note that the creation of knowledge on technology at the university and research centres should also be combined with an analysis of future market trends and strategies for businesses.

UBC should be seen as an ecosystem that needs to be carefully managed. For UBC to institutionalise and increase its influence, a concerted effort is needed from national and regional governments, university and faculty boards, and business managers.

Too many universities in the Caucasus countries still do not properly understand the relevance of UBC and its role as an important component of the country’s innovation ecosystem. An important task for such universities should be the formation of an effective UBC model, the effective interaction of related elements and the improvement of development mechanisms. University leaders must be prepared to make strategic and operational decisions to build a successful UBC model based on research and excellence.

Universities of the Caucasus countries should be more committed to improving the opportunities for the development of start-ups and becoming part of the innovation ecosystems of the country and the world. They must express their readiness to create joint programmes in this direction, invite specialists, increase student mobility, and improve curricula in entrepreneurship, marketing and management.

References

1. Badaracco, J. L. (1991). The knowledge link: How firms compete through strategic alliances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, pp. 7–13.
2. Cattermole M. J. G., Wolfe A. F. (1987). Horace Darwin’s Shop, A history of the Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company 1878–1968, CRC Press.
3. Davey, T., Meerman, A., Muros, V. G., Orazbayeva, B., & Baaken, T. (2018). The state of university-business cooperation in Europe. European Union. Retrieved from https://www.ub-cooperation.eu/pdf/englishexec.pdf.
4. Dhebar, A. (2016, November–December). Bringing new high-technology products to market: Six perils awaiting marketers. Business Horizons, 59(6), 713–722.
5. Dubinskas, F. (1998). Making time: Ethno-graphics of high technology organizations. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, s. 201.
6. Elizondo-Noriega, A., Muńiz-Rivera, G., Mendoza-Enríquez, N., Aguayo-Téllez, H., & Güemes-Castorena, D. (2014). Entrepreneur thinking, a brand-new methodology for start-ups. The ISPIM Americas Innovation Forum, Montreal 2014, Forum paper.
7. Eller, D. G. (1998). Innovative science and traditional industry: New Vision in Agritecgnology, pp. 597–601.
8. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 27–43.
9. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. London–New York: Routledge, p.10.
10. European Commission, Press release. 18 January 2022, Strasburg, France. Retrieved from https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/institutions-and-odies institutions-and-bodies-profiles_en.
11. European University Association. The Voice of Europe’s Universities. Nonprofit Organisation. 1040 Brussels, Belgium. 1211 Geneva 3. Switzerland, Europe. Retrieved from https://eua.eu/.
12. Global Knowledge Index 2021. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Regional Bureau for Arab States (RBAS). One United Nations Plaza, New York, NY10017, USA and Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Knowledge Foundation (MBRF). Dubai World Trade Center, Dubai, 214444. Retrieved from UAE.
www.knowledge4all.org.
13. Howlett, R. J. (2010). Knowledge transfer between UK universities and business. In R. J. Howlett (Ed.), Innovation through knowledge transfer (pp. 1–14). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
14. Jackson, C. M., (2008). Analysis and synthesis in nineteenth-century organic chemistry. UCL University of London Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the PhD degree of the University of London, December 2008.
15. Jasiński, A. H. (2013). Aktywność badawczo-rozwojowa przedsiębiorstw kluczem do wzrostu innowacyjności gospodarki. In Przedsiębiorczość — droga do innowacyjnej gospodarki, SOOIPP Annual 2013, Zeszyty Naukowe nr 795, Ekonomiczne Problemy Usług, no 109, Uniwersytet Szczeciński, Szczecin 2013, pp. 13–27.
16. Kamisi, Y. (2000). Industry-university linkage and the role of universities in the 21st centry. [w:] P. Conceiçao, D. Gibson, M. Heitor, & S. Shariq (Eds.), Science technology and innovation policy: Opportunities and challenge for the knowledge economy (s. 87–98). London, England: Quorum Books.
17. Książek, E., & Pruvot, J. M. (2011). Budowanie sieci współpracy i partnerstwa dla komercjalizacji wiedzy i technologii. Poznań–Lille: PARP, pp. 41–58.
18. Kuhn, R. L., Munitz, B. (1988). The emergence of intellectual institutions: Producing new knowledge in industry and academia. [w:] R. L. Kuhn (Ed.), Handbook for creative and innovative managers (pp. 569–576). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
19. Maliszewska, E. (2017). Zarządzanie ryzykiem reputacji — problem definicji i pomiaru, [w:] Zarządzanie ryzykiem instytucji finansowych. Problemy Zarządzania, 15(1), 79–91.
20. Martins-Lastres, H. M., & Cassiolato, J. E. (2005). Innovation policies in the knowledge era: A South American perspective. In: D. V. Gibson, M. V. Heitor, & A. Ibarra-Yunez (Eds.), Learning and knowledge for the network society (pp. 57–72): Purdue University Press.
21. Matusiak, K. B. (2010). Budowa powiązań nauki z biznesem w gospodarce opartej na wiedzy. Rola i miejsce uniwersytetu w procesach innowacyjnych. Warszawa, Poland: Szkoła Głowna Handlowa, pp. 87–92.
22. Nadirkhanlou, S., Pourezzat, A. Gholipour, A., & Zehtabi, M. (2013). Requirements of knowledge commercialization in universities and academy entrepreneurship. In R. J. Howlett, B. Gabrys, K. Musial-Gabrys, & J. Roach (Eds.), Innovation through Knowledge Transfer 2012 (pp. 179–194). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
23. Rustaveli, S. (2016). The knight in the Panther’s skin. Badri Sharvbadze.
24. Sijde, P., Firmansyah, D., Frederik, H., & Redondo, M. (2014). University-business cooperation: A tale of two logics. Moderne Konzepte des organisationalen Marketing: Modern Concepts of Organisational Marketing, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 145–160.doi:10.1007/978-3-658-04680-4_9
25. Silver Pagaza, G., & Coraz-Flores, E. (2005). The agency problem of R&D projects.
In D. Trzmielak, & M. Urbaniak (Eds.),Technology policy and innovation. Valueadded partnering in a changing world (p. 155). Łódź, Poland: American-Polish Offset Program University of Texas at Austin — University of Łódź.
26. Thorp, H., & Goldstein, B. (2010). Engines of innovation: The entrepreneurial university in the twenty-first century. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, pp. 22–38.
27. Trzmielak, D. M., Grzegorczyk, M., & Gregor, B. (2016). Transfer wiedzy i technologii z organizacji naukowo-badawczych do przedsiębiorstw. Łódź, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, p. 93.
28. Trzmielak, D. M., & Zehner, W. B. (2011). Metodyka i organziacja doradztwa w zakresie transferu i komercjalizacji technologii. Łódź–Austin: PARP, p. 127.
29. Wilson, R. H. (2005). Development policy and the economy: Whither the state? In D. V. Gibson, M. V. Heitor, & A. Ibarra-Yunez (Eds.), Learning and knowledge for the network society (pp. 73–97): Purdue University Press.
30. Wiśniewska, M., Głodek, P., & Trzmielak, D. (2015). Wdrażanie scoutingu wiedzy w polskiej uczelni wyższej. Aspekty praktyczne. Łódź, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, p.33.
31. Wissema, J. G. (2009). Uniwersytet Trzeciej Generacji. Uczelnia XXI wieku. Święta Katarzyna, Poland: Wydawnictwo Zante, p.35.

The present study encompasses both theoretical and practical dimensions. The main research method is the analysis of the literature on the subject and documents prepared on the basis of regional innovation strategies of 10 European Union’s regions (unpublished). The practical part also uses the results of the analyses that were produced in the Beyond EDP project. The project, which was formally entitled 'Improve the RIS3 effectiveness through the management of the entrepreneurial discovery process (Beyond EDP)’, was funded under the Interreg Europe Programme. Its implementation period was from 2016 to 2021. The project’s objectives primarily focussed on: improving EDP models in partner regions and developing recommendations for other EU regions to address the identified challenges. (Beyond EDP, 2019). Partner regions included: Centre Val de Loire (France) — project leader, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté (France), Umbria (Italy), Saxony-Anhalt (Germany), Centru (Romania), Castilla y León (Spain), Extremadura (Spain), Östergötland (Sweden), Northern Netherlands (Netherlands) and Lodzkie Region (Poland). Employees of the European Association of Development Agencies — Eurada and scientists from the Joint Research Center of the European Commission also participated in the project. The authors of this article participated in the implementation of the project as representatives of Lodzkie Region.

Innovation System and Innovation Capacity

The innovation policy activities¹ of the European Union’s (EU) regions are currently based on the concept of the Research and Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialisation (RIS3)² (Foray et al., 2012). The aim of its implementation is to increase the degree of exploitation of existing potential for achieving interregional (and even international) comparative advantage in existing and emerging economic areas (Foray, David & Hall, 2011).

Making the RIS3 concept a reality requires innovation policy interventions to be concentrated in economic areas recognised as regional smart specialisations (David et al. 2009; Kroll 2015). This is because they have a particular innovation potential based on their unique strengths (this applies in particular to their scientific potential, industry structure and the links created between stakeholders) (OECD, 2013; McCann & Ortega-Argilés, 2015; Klasik 1974). It is assumed that smart specialisations are created at the 'intersection’ of technologies and economic sectors of the regions where these technologies can be used (Foray & Goenaga, 2013).

Therefore, when identifying them, particular attention should be paid to the opportunities for the use of emerging general-purpose technology solutions (OECD, 2013).³

The knowledge necessary to raise the level of innovation in the economy (entrepreneurial knowledge)4 is not accumulated but fragmented and dispersed among representatives of the many different specialised entities that make up the regional innovation system (Foray & Goenaga, 2013).⁵ Nowakowska defines it as '(…) a system of actors, interactions and events that, as a result of synergies, arise in a specific territory and lead to an increased capacity for the creation, absorption and diffusion of innovation in the region. (…) Its functioning is embedded in a region-specific cultural context, expressed in social relations, norms, values and interactions taking place within the community (innovation environment).’ (Nowakowska, 2011). The construction and functioning principles of the regional innovation system have been the subject of continuous discussion in the literature for years (Godin and Lane 2013).⁶ The quadruple helix model (Gianelle, Kyriakou, Cohen & Przeor, 2016) has been recognised as appropriate for carrying out EDPs. In addition to local government⁷ it includes businesses, scientific and research units and representatives of civil society (Figure 1) (Arnkil, Järvensivu, Koski & Piirainen, 2010; Gianelle et al., 2016).⁸

The RIS3 concept places entrepreneurship, broadly defined, at the centre of supporting innovation processes (which are comprised of the activities of innovative enterprises, research leaders in scientific and research units and independent inventors and innovators) (Foray & Goenaga, 2013).⁹ In fact, it represents the main source of 'entrepreneurial knowledge’ applicable in two areas (Gianelle et al., 2016):

The Knowledge Status of the Caucasian Countries —
The Global Secondary Data Analysis

Based on the Global Knowledge Index (GKI) 2021 data, we see a real picture of the development of the knowledge society in the countries of the Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan), (Table 1).

(1) generating the information necessary for government representatives to make sound investment and strategic decisions to increase the level of innovation in the region; and

(2) providing directions for entrepreneurs and representatives of scientific and research institutions to develop and explore new niches and market potentials, as well as areas of scientific and technological opportunities.¹⁰

The use of such an approach provides an opportunity to balance initiatives, that have their origin in the regional authorities’ decisions to create innovation policy instruments (the top-down approach), with 'driven’ by territorial actors articulating their expectations (the bottom-up approach) (Kleibrink, Larédo & Philipp, 2017). Indeed, carrying out EDPs allows the involvement of the actors that make up the regional innovation system in the continuous construction of shared, clarified visions that lead to problem solving (and the achievement of the goals set) (bottom-up approach) (How to deal with the main challenges of the EDP. Synthesis report of the three EDP management task forces as part of Beyond EDP, 2019)11. This in turn is recognised as one of the key factors in building the innovation capacity of an economy (Bierut et al., 2016). Furthermore, over time it also contributes to the creation and development of collaborative networks of interactive learning and the shaping of the innovation environment (McCann & Ortega-Argilés, 2015) necessary for the emergence of innovative solutions and the commercialisation of knowledge (Trzmielak, Grzegorczyk & Gregor, 2016).

The Nature of Innovation Potential-from the Perspective
of a Theoretical Approach

Innovation potential can refer to countries, regions, economic sectors, enterprises or scientific and research units. In the context of our considerations, an interesting approach is that of Za Pate (2002), which considers innovation potential as a mixture of informational, technical and technological, intellectual, spatial, financial, organisational, managerial, legal and business resources that form a unified system of idea generation and development that ensures the competitiveness of final products or technologies (Stankiewicz, 2002). It should be noted that in the literature we can also find the capability approach, which refers to the competence potential that creates innovation capabilities, for example capabilities to generate ideas for new solutions, such as technological ones. Stawasz (2015) explains capabilities for innovation in traditional and dynamic terms. The first is understood as the input to the innovation process that leads to new products and technologies. The second emphasises an organisation’s ability to reconfigure its resources in the field of innovation in response to a changing innovation ecosystem. Considering the importance of competence in creating innovation potential, innovation potential should take into account the competences to create innovation, including knowledge, culture and management. Potential is the mix of resources and their availability (including both tangible and intangible assets) that can be used to create innovation (Leskovarl et al., 2013).

The importance of innovation potential, as a determinant of the wealth of nations, is emphatically demonstrated by Kozmetzky et al. (2004). Potential is one of the three elements, along with capital and creativity (Drozdowski, Zakrzewska & Puchalska, 2010), of an economy’s wealth creation.

Transferring his considerations of Kozmetzky’s wealth creation in the United States to the European context, we will emphasise the importance of potential for wealth creation in EU regions. According to the American entrepreneur and thinker, technology, know-how, R&D work and new technological enterprises are the new wealth of the world, economic and social. Taking the approach that innovation potential has both an economic and a managerial dimension, we will therefore relate it to two spheres: regional policy and enterprise policy dealing with research, development and implementation of technology. In the area of regional policy, we are talking about capacity building by adapting the organisation to the changing socio-economic environment. The competitiveness of a region and the organisations within it is defined not only in terms of the level, but also the level of technological readiness for market applications, that is to say market developments, market trends and the accepted costs of applying research results on the market. Nowakowska (2020) and Sokolowicz (2015) use the term 'territorial capital’, which is strongly influenced by science, R&D units and supporting institutions. Institutional support (referred to as the institutional environment) is directed towards the cooperation of R&D units and enterprises (within science parks, science and technology parks, business incubators, innovation and technology transfer centres) and is one of the key institutions of the knowledge economy (Deog-Seong & Byung-Joo, 2011).

The corporate, on the other hand, is concerned with adapting new technologies and R&D and R&D products to meet the needs of a diverse market. Socio-economic benefits are at the core of innovation policy (Tekin & Akyol, 2019). It is a consequence of the learning of scientific and research organisations, the integration of R&D processes and business (Nobelius, 2003) and adaptation to a changing environment.

The innovation potential of R&D units includes the resources identified above and the capacity to use them in the three areas of technology, know-how and new products produced on the basis of existing or new technologies (Validov et al. 2015; Trzmielak & Zehner, 2020). Utilising the R&D potential of scientific and research units in the process of entrepreneurial discovery fulfils the task of regional policy related to accumulation of knowledge, experience and skills in the process of building and utilising an organisation’s innovation potential (Lundvall, 2004). The lack of such knowledge, experience and skills can lead to uncompetitive regions and organisations. As a consequence, the ability to introduce new products and technologies to the market by enterprises (Sojkin, 2012) (economic and social wealth and social wealth). The concept of innovation potential of scientific and research units in EDP will be used to describe an organisation’s ability to recognise the value of the organisation’s knowledge in the region, to adapt and apply it (Ober, 2022) and to transform resources into an outcome that increases the ability to compete in the market (Stawasz, 2015).

The Role of Science and Research Units in Regional EDP Models

The identification, smart specialisation, creation and implementation of regional innovation policies using the innovation potential of R&D units, as well as the monitoring of the results achieved, require the application of an EDP (Foray & Goenaga, 2013; Gianelle et al., 2016).¹² It is defined as an inclusive and interactive bottom-up process in which participants from different backgrounds (policy, business, academia, etc.) discover and 'produce’ information about potential new activities, identifying opportunities arising from this interaction, while decision-makers evaluate the information received and select opportunities for their use (Foray, 2014). The essence of EDP departure from the approach used in the past based on traditional policy intervention which involved the implementation of top-down approach, centralised for states or regions decision-making processes.¹³

Ensuring the coordination of the continuous collaboration of diverse (in terms of interests, knowledge, origin and individual predispositions) stakeholders in the field of innovation policy requires the creation of an EDP model of the region (How to deal with the main challenges of the EDP. Synthesis report of the three tasks forces on EDP Management as part as Beyond EDP project, 2019). The design and operating principles of a network of specialised bodies set up for this purpose should be defined. The communication channels for the transfer of information between EDP participants and the dissemination of information to the regional community are also essential to its design. It is necessary to create an integrated feedback mechanism between the two levels of activity: strategic and operational. This will make it possible to involve representatives of regional authorities in the group decision-making process and thus influence the increase in the degree of adaptation of innovation policy instruments to the needs of entrepreneurs (How to deal with the main challenges of the EDP. Synthesis report of the three EDP Management Task Forces as part of Beyond EDP, 2019).

A special role in regional EDP models can be played by scientific and research units operating individually or as part of so-called intermediary bodies (clusters, science parks, regional agencies, chambers of commerce, etc.). The results of a study carried out by researchers from the European Commission — Joint Research Centre in 2021 indicate that the activity of intermediary bodies influences the possibility of achieving success factors such as the continuity of the implementation of EDPs and the creation of mechanisms and instruments used to facilitate cooperation in this regard (Perianez-Forte & Wilson, 2021). This is because the nature of their activities and the contacts they have established allow them to be positioned between the identification of individual entrepreneurs’ needs (information 'sourced’ from the market) and collective strategic processes. They can also support the implementation of innovation policies at the operational level (Perianez-Forte & Wilson, 2021; How to deal with the main challenges of the EDP. Synthesis report of the three EDP Management Task Forces as part of Beyond EDP, 2019).

Due to the multidimensional nature of EDP, representatives of research units can be positioned at three levels in the EDP model: macro, meso and micro. Activities at the macro level are aimed at assisting those in positions of authority to set the direction of innovation policy in relation to the economy of the region as a whole. Agreements at this level tend to be strategic in nature. Cooperation at the meso level is limited to the development of solutions that can be applied in the fields of individual smart specialisations. At the micro level, on the other hand, EDP takes place in the most direct way. This is because it focuses on finding ways to solve specific problems of a narrow group of stakeholders or individual organisations (e.g. by implementing a specific project) (How to deal with the main challenges of the EDP. Synthesis report of the three EDP Management Task Forces as part of Beyond EDP, 2019). A diagram of the cooperation network based on the three-level governance structure is shown in Figure 2. It should be seen as a model approach, as in practice both the forms and the intensity of activities carried out at the different levels reach different levels of sophistication and depend on a number of changing regional conditions. For this reason, the article does not present comprehensive solutions for coordinated cooperation at the three levels, but rather selected examples of the participation of science and research units in the implementation of EDP. Such an approach, according to the authors, provides greater cognitive value in the field concerned.

Examples of the use of the Innovation Potential of Scientific and Research Units in EDP in Selected EU Regions.

Macro level

At the macro level, there are various cooperation networks in the partner regions of the 'Beyond EDP’ project. These are made up of research and development units, usually represented by individuals in the most senior positions within them (e.g. rectors or relevant vice-rectors of the university). These are presented in Table 1.

Meso level

In the partner regions of the Beyond EDP project, scientific research institutions are involved in the implementation of EDP at the meso level through their activities in clusters, cooperation networks and specialised Thematic Working Groups (TWGs) dedicated to the individual regional smart specialisations. In this case, they are represented by scientists who are recognised as regional experts in the selected research areas (Detterbeck, 2018). Information on exemplary forms of cooperation at this level is provided in Table 2.

Noteworthy is the distribution of roles between the different actors in the EDP model employed in the Bourgogne-Franche-Comté region of France. At this level, the clusters (certified by the competent authority of the central administration) are the most active. They are involved in supporting technology transfer and organising various events (e.g. forums, B2B meetings, technology intelligence). They also carry out research projects in cooperation with large enterprises, SMEs and research and development units.

The role of public authorities in working with clusters incorporates the following aspects:

• providing financial support (using a variety of financial instruments), and
• stimulating, coordinating and monitoring the activities of the various players.

The approach adopted makes it possible to create the conditions for increasing the level of innovation of entrepreneurs operating in the fields of all regional smart specialisations (Bourgogne-Franche-Comté peerreview report, 2018).

The MAHREG Automotive Network was established in 1999 in the German region of Saxony-Anhalt. It comprises the MAHREG Automotive and ELISA (Electro mobility, light and intelligent — an initiative for Saxony-Anhalt) clusters as well as university and non-university scientific and research institutions. As a result of the cooperation within the network, innovative technological solutions in the field of powertrain technology,

lightweight aluminium-based components and polymers in the field of electro mobility. They are being used by more than 200 companies that supply the major original equipment manufacturers for the car brands in Germany (VW, Daimler, BMW, Opel, Porsche). Thus, there is an increase in the level of competitiveness of companies operating in the economic area of the regional smart specialisation, mobility and logistics (Detterbeck, 2018).

In order to ensure the involvement of stakeholders in a coordinated collaboration and to strengthen the relationship between them, in 2017 five TWGs were created in the Spanish region of Extremadura, dedicated to collaborating in the areas of each smart specialisation. The participants in the TWGs were selected by the General Secretariat for Science, Technology and Innovation from among representatives of the actors that make up the regional innovation system (based on the quadruple helix model) (Detterbeck, 2018).

Micro level

The involvement of science and research units in the implementation of EDP at micro level in the selected partner regions of the Beyond EDP project most often takes the form of campus-based activities. The activities of Business Advisors from the Business Innovation Centres (BICs) are also helpful for realising their potential (Detterbeck, 2018). Information on examples of cooperation at this level is provided in Table 3.

At the micro level in the German region of Saxony-Anhalt, there is the STIMULATE Research Campus, Magdeburg, coordinated by the Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg. Its activities are carried out within the framework of a project funded annually by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The main objective of the project is to improve the quality of care and to contribute to the containment of rising health care costs for patients suffering from age-related diseases (oncology, neurology and cardiovascular diseases). Specific objectives are defined on an ongoing basis by the physicians who commission specific studies from the participating scientists. In addition to research and development, STIMULATE is active in university teaching and in the professional training of doctors and medical technicians in the field related to the project.

The partners involved in this undertaking are: Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Siemens Healthcare GmbH and the STIMULATE association, and a number of leading regional and international SMEs.

The implementation of the project will increase the level of innovation in the field of intelligent specialisation, health and medicine.¹⁶

Meanwhile, in 2006, the University Medical Centre in Groningen (northern Netherlands) started work on healthy ageing. The development of this work led to the creation of the Healthy Aging Campus Netherlands. It brings together all the researchers and companies of the University Medical Center Groningen, the University of Groningen, the Hanse University of Applied Sciences and various regional, national and international partners. Their collaboration aims to conduct research in the field of healthy ageing and to commercialise the results. The specificity of the campus activity lies in its holistic approach to this common societal problem. The collaboration between scientists and entrepreneurs focuses on the following factors that influence ageing: lifestyle, dietary habits and the state of the natural environment. The results of the research must be translated into the development of improved methods for the prevention and treatment of selected diseases. This in turn leads to new medical products, diagnostic technologies and nutritional products. The campus provides entrepreneurs with insight into accessible innovation chains. This allows them to gain knowledge over what has been done in the past and the problems encountered. It also helps them to find partners for cooperation. The activities of the campus lead to an increase in the level of innovation within the specialisation, health, demography and prosperity (Detterbeck, 2018).

A different approach was taken in the Lodzkie Region. In this case, the aim was to increase the level of integration of regional stakeholders and to exploit the region’s business and economic potential, and accordingly, a business communication and advisory system was established in November 2016, which includes BICs. They are located in the structures of business environment institutions in selected districts of the Lodzkie Region. The task of the mobile business consultants working in them is to seek out entrepreneurs who feel the need to increase the level of innovation in their business activities and to provide them with support tailored to their individual needs. In this respect, the consultants present the offer of scientific and research institutions and business environment institutions operating in the Lodzkie Region and facilitate contacts with their representatives. They also provide information on the possibilities of obtaining funding for the implementation of specific projects, participation in training courses or selected business events. The data on the needs of entrepreneurs collected by the counsellors during the meetings are analysed (taking into account the protection of business secrets). The averaged results of the analyses are a valuable source of information, used in the development of the region’s innovation policy instruments (Detterbeck, 2018).

Summary

The implementation of the EDP as part of the RIS3 approach is essential in order to preserve the entrepreneurial knowledge dispersed among the different actors and to exploit the innovation potential, which has both an economic dimension (related to regional policy) and a managerial dimension (focussed on the organisations constituting the regional innovation systems). This requires the involvement of representatives of scientific and research organisations in the activities carried out at the appropriate level of the cooperation network (macro, meso or micro).

The examples presented show that activity in the EDP models can take different forms.

At the macro level, their representatives (often in high positions in the organisational structure) support the authorities in defining innovation policies for the whole regional economy. At the meso level, they participate in the development of solutions applicable to individual economic areas recognised as regional smart specialisations. In the case of the Beyond EDP partner regions, this is done through cooperation in clusters or specialised TWGs. At the micro level, they are involved in finding solutions to specific problems of a small group of stakeholders or individual organisations. In selected regions, this activity is carried out by campuses and business advisors from BICs. The presented results of using the potential of scientific and research units in conducting the EDP confirm the theoretical assumptions regarding the possibility of increasing the level of innovation (and competitiveness) of regional organisations by situating entrepreneurial knowledge at the centre of supporting innovation processes. This can be seen especially in the cooperation within clusters and campuses. However, the lack of developed methods for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of EDP in selected regions is unsatisfactory. Consequently, the possibility of assessing the degree of effectiveness of the implementation of this element of the RIS3 concept is limited. The above observation leads to the conclusion that it is necessary to carry out further research on this subject.

Endnotes

1 Based on Stawasz’s (2000) view, a region is to be understood as a conventionally delimited, relatively homogeneous area that differs from others by natural (natural-geographical) or acquired (anthropological, i.e. the result of human activity) characteristics. In 2021, there were 240 regions in the EU. See Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2021, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021. In Poland, the responsibility for the implementation of tasks falling within the scope of regional innovation policies (in line with the RIS3 concept) belongs to voivodeship governments.
2 Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) is the result of the work by the 'Knowledge for Growth’ (’K4G’) experts panel set up by Science Research Commissioner Janez Potoènik (McCann & OrtegaArgilés, 2015).
3 It is also recommended to take into account the potential for internationalisation of the economic area considered as a regional smart specialisation (Przygodzki, 2016). This is important because of the multidimensional nature of innovation processes, which are based on linkages (relationships) that go beyond the borders of the region (Foray et al., 2012).
4 The concept of 'entrepreneurial’ knowledge includes knowledge of: science, technology and engineering, market growth potential, industry, competitors, the wider business environment, human capital and economic needs. It also includes a range of information on the inputs and service required to launch new forms of activity. Refer to Gianelle et al. (2016, p. 17).
5 A general view has also been formulated that all agglomeration processes are partly caused by public investment decisions based on lacking knowledge. (McCann & Ortega-Argilés, 2011).
6 See. Kochmańska (2007), Bojar and Machnik-Słomka (2014 r) and Doloreux and Parto (2005).
7 In the case of Polish regions , the applicable provision would be the one contained in Article of the Act of June 5, 1998 on voivodeship government, Journal of Laws of 2022, item 2094. According to it, the organs of the voivodship government are: (1) provincial assembly and (2) provincial board.
8 Depending on their positioning in the innovation process, individual actors may initiate innovative activity and disseminate its effects, as well as be its recipients (Wojtowicz & Mikos, 2012).
9 It is recognised that without strong entrepreneurship, it will not be possible to realise the RIS3 concept, due to a lack of knowledge necessary to develop and implement regional innovation policies at a strategic level (Foray et al., 2012). The approach presented here appears to be in line with the 'role of the creative entrepreneur’ formulated by Schumpeter (1994) long before the RIS3 concept was conceived.
10 Two opportunities (external factors of development) are indicated for regional entrepreneurs to take advantage of opportunities (external factors of development) by using the RIS3 concept: (1) absorption of innovations resulting from doing business in an area of smart specialisation; and (2) participation in the implementation of projects implemented as part of the Regional Innovation Strategy and related to the development of smart specialisations (Ropęga, 2016).
11 As a result of the EDP, a situation is created where a balance should be sought between top-down initiatives to create regional innovation policy instruments and bottom-up initiatives-’driven’ by territorial actors articulating their expectations.
12 The use of EDP will allow for qualitative research, the results of which complement the information in the area of innovation policy obtained using quantitative methods (McCann & Ortega-Argilés, 2011).
13 This approach was considered inappropriate because the identification of regional smart specialisations was associated with existing regional biases regarding industrial priorities and technological capabilities. In addition, it excluded the entrepreneurial knowledge necessary to ensure the discovery of R&D and innovation areas in which a region can thrive (Foray & Goenaga, 2013).
14 Regional smart specialisations of the Bourgogne-Franche-Comté region during the 'Beyond EDP’ project period included: food and health, materials, biomedicine, eco-construction, mobility, energy, information and communication technology (ICT), traditional food, micro-technology and luxury products (Peer-review Report Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, 2018).
15 Regional smart specialisations of Extremadura during the 'Beyond EDP’ project period included: agri-food, clean energies, tourism healthcare and ICT (Estrategia de Investigación e Innovación para la Especialización Inteligente de Extremadura 2014–2020, 2014).
16 The project is being implemented using the institution of public-private partnership.

References

1. Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P. & Piirainen, T. (2010). Exploring Quadruple Helix Outlining user-oriented innovation models: University of Tampere Institute for Social Research Work Research Centre, Working Papers No. 85, Tampere.
2. Beyond EDP. (2019). How to deal with the main Entrepreneurial Discovery Process challenges. Synthesis report of the three taskforces on EDP Management as part as Beyond EDP project, European Union European Regional Development Fund.
3. Bierut, B., Broniatowska, P., Cichocki, S., Gradzewicz, M., Grela, M., Growiec, J., Wierus, K. (2016). Potencjał innowacyjny gospodarki: uwarunkowania, determinanty, perspektywy. Warszawa, Poland: NBP.
4. Bojar, M, & Machnik-Słomka, J, (2014). Model potrójnej i poczwórnej helisy w budowaniu współpracy sieciowej dla Rozwoju innowacyjnych projektów regionalnych. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej, Seria Organizacja i Zarządzanie, z. 76.
5. David, P., Foray, D. & Hall, B. (2009). Measuring smart specialisation: The concept and the need for indicators (pp.20–24), [in:] Knowledge for Growth Expert Group. Prospects for science, technology and innovation. Selected papers from Research Commissioner Janez Potočnik’s Expert Group.
6. Deog-Seong, O. & Byung-Joo, K. (2011). Creative model of science park development: Case on Daedeok Innopolis, Korea. [w:] J. S. Butler, D. V. Gibson (Eds.), Global perspectives on technology transfer and commercialization. Building innovative ecosystems (ss. 162–188). Northampton, England: Edward Elgar.
7. Detterbeck, K. (2018). Framework document. Appendix list of good practices in the regions, Beyond EDP Interreg Europe project (unpublished).
8. Doloreux, D, & Parto, S, (2005) Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues, „Technology in Society”, vol. 27.
9. Drozdowski, R., Zakrzewska, A. & Puchalska, K. (2010). Wspieranie postaw proinnowacyjnych przez wzmacnianie kreatywności jednostki. Warszawa, Poland: PARP, s. 45.
10. Estrategia de Investigación e Innovación para la Especialización Inteligente de Extremadura 2014–2020, Gobierno de Extremadura, 2014, s. 112–117.
11. Foray, D. (2014). Smart specialisation: Challenges and opportunities for regional innovation policies. London, England.
12. Foray, D., David, P. A. & Hall, B. (2011). Smart specialisation from academic idea to political instruments, the surprising career of a concept and the difficulties involved in its implementation, Management of Technology and Entrepreneurship Institute, Working Paper No. 001, Lausanne, Switzerland.
13. Foray, D., Goddard, J., Goenaga, B. X., Landabaso, M., McCann, P., Morgan, K., OrtegaArgilés, R. (2012). Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3). Luxembourg: European Commission.
14. Foray, D. & Goenaga, X. (2013). The goals of smart specialisation. S3 Policy Brief Series No. 01/2013. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
15. Gianelle, C., Kyriakou, D., Cohen, C. & Przeor, M. (2016). Implementing smart specialisation: A handbook. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
16. Godin, B. & Lane, J. P. (2013). Pushes and pulls: The hi(story) of the demand pull model of innovation, Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation Working Paper nr. 13.
17. How to deal with the main Entrepreneurial Discovery Process challenges. Synthesis report of the three taskforces on EDP Management as part as Beyond EDP project, (2019). Beyond EDP Interreg Europe project. niepublikowany.
18. Klasik, A. (1974). Optymalna struktura przestrzenna a rozwój regionalny. Warszawa, Poland: PWE.
19. Kleibrink, A., Larédo, P. & Philipp, S. (2017). Promoting innovation in transition countries: A trajectory for smart specialization: JRC Science for Policy Report. Publication Office of the European Union.
20. Kochmańska, M. (2007). Regionalne systemy innowacji. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Humanitas. Zarządzanie. Nr. 2.
21. Kozmetzky, G., Williams, F. & Williams, V. (2004). New wealth: Commercialization of science and technology for business and economic development (s. 13). Praeger, Westport
22. Kroll, H. (2015). Weaknesses and opportunities of RIS3-type policies. Karlsruhe, Germany: Frauenhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
23. Leskovar1, R., Baggia, A., Metlikoviè, P., Kuntaric, A., Polzer, W. & Christl, C. (March 2013). Assessment of innovation potential in small and medium enterprises. Conference papers: 30th international conference on organizational science development. 23rd to 25th March 2011,Portoro, Slovenia.
24. Lundvall, B. (2004). Innovation, growth and social cohesion: The Danish model (s. 151). Cheltenham, England: Edward Eldar Publishing.
25. McCann, P. & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2011). Smart specialisation, regional growth and applications to EU cohesion policy. Regional Studies, Document de treball de l’IEB.
26. McCann, P. & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart specialisation, regional growth and applications to EU cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 49. 10.1080/00343404.2013.799769.
27. Nobelius, B. (lipiec 2003). Towards the sixth generation of R&D management. International Journal of Project Management, 22(5), 369–375.
28. Nowakowska, A. (2011). Regionalny system innowacji. [w:] K. B Matusiak (red.), Innowacje i transfer technologii. Słownik pojęć.(s. 302–303),Warszawa, Poland: Wydawnictwo PARP.
29. Nowakowska, A. (2011). Regionalny wymiar procesów innowacji. Łódź, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
30. Nowakowska, A. (2020). Role of territorial capital in building smart regional specialization. Case study of Łódź Industrial Heritage. [w:] D. M. Trzmielak, B. Piasecki (red.), Innovation and intellectual capital-the entrepreneurial and regional perspectives (ss. 103-113). Łódź — Warszawa, Poland: Studia i Monografie, Społeczna Akademia Nauk.
31. Ober, J. (2022). Adaptacja innowacji w świetle zachowań organizacji. Wybrane aspekty (s. 48). Gliwice, Poland: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej.
32. OECD. (2013). Innovation-driven growth in regions: The role of smart specialization. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
33. Perianez-Forte, I. & Wilson J. (2021). Entrepreneurial discovery process. Luxembourg, Europe: Publications Office of the European Union.
34. Przygodzki, Z. (2016), Specjalizacje regionalne — strategie długookresowe czy polityka dostosowawcza? Korzyści i zagrożenia. No. 170. Warszawa, Poland: Studia KPZK.
35. Ropęga, J. (2016). Znaczenie wdrożenia inteligentnych specjalizacji dla rozwoju sektora MSP. Wrocław, Poland: Nauki o Zarządzaniu (3/28).
36. Schumpeter, J. A. (1994). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London, England and New York: Wyd. VI Routledge.
37. Sojkin, B. (2012). International foundation of marketing decisions in the process of product commercialization. [w:] W. Wiśniowski (red.), Marketing of scientific and research organization 3. New point of view of European marketing (ss. 213-214).
Warszawa, Poland: Transactions of the Institute of Aviation, no. 223.
38. Sokołowicz, M. E. (2015). Rozwój terytorialny w świetle dorobku ekonomii instytucjonalnej. Przestrzeń — bliskość — instytucje (s. 66). Łódź, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
39. Stankiewicz, J. (2002). Konkurencyjność przedsiębiorstwa. Budowanie konkurencyjności przedsiębiorstwa w warunkach globalizacji (s. 36). Toruń, Poland: Dom Organizatora Tonik.
40. Stawasz, D. (2020). Współczesne uwarunkowania rozwoju polskich regionów, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
41. Stawasz, E. (2015). Wybrane aspekty kształtowania zdolności MSP w zakresie innowacji i transferu wiedzy z uczelni wyższych. [w:], Budowa potencjału uczelni wyższej do współpracyz przedsiębiorstwami. Rola scoutingu wiedzy (ss. 105–122). Łódź, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
42. Tekin, Z., Akyol, A. (2019). The effects of knowledge and innovation management processes on innovation capability and new product development success. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(1), 1–23. doi:10.15295/bmij.v7i1.1024
43. Trzmielak, D., Grzegorczyk, M. & Gregor, B. (2016). Transfer wiedzy i technologii z organizacji naukowo-badawczych do przedsiębiorstw. Łódź, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
44. Trzmielak, D. M. & Zehner, W. B. (2020), Marketing nowych technologii i produktów B+R. Łódź, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, s. 8.
45. Validov, S. M. & Khakimov, A. Kh. (2015). Innovative potential as a framework of innovative strategy for enterprise development. Procedia Economics and Finance, 24, 716–721.
46. Wojtowicz, A. & Mikos, A. (2012). Wielowymiarowe funkcjonowanie systemu innowacji — zarys koncepcji, ss.. 157–179. Zeszyty Naukowe Małopolskiej Wyższej Szkoły Ekonomicznej w Tarnowie.T. 21, nr 2, Grudzień.
47. Za Pate, B. A. (2002). The effectiveness of industrial enterprise development in the innovation system: Thesis abstract, Tambov, Russia.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the elements of the innovation ecosystem in the country of Georgia, such as knowledge and
entrepreneurial skills, in relation to support for the process of new business formation. The article is both theoretical and practical in nature. The basic research method involves analysis of the subject literature, agenda-setting documents of Georgian government agencies, business support and development institutions and statistical information. The findings may be useful in the economic practice of institutions supporting science, as well as the development of knowledge-based companies.

In recent years, Georgia has made significant reforms to develop its national economic innovative ecosystem, although its impact on the economy is still negligible. The discussion on a startup ecosystem for the formation of an innovative economy in Georgia focuses on the forms of cooperation between universities and businesses, the main „drivers” for generating and promoting innovative ideas and on identifying the main obstacles and trends for these relations.

The authors of many academic studies emphasize that knowledge and entrepreneurial skill play a significant role in building different management concepts of regions and entities operating in the regional market, offering innovative ideas and knowledge and intellectual property that are mechanisms in building competitiveness of enterprise (Etzkowitz, 2000, pp. 313–330; Lundvall, 2002, pp. 147–165; Nowakowska, 2010, pp. 129–159; Ornowski, 2010, pp. 161–166). The pace and scale of regional development depend on the pace of innovation development. The latter are shaped primarily by scientific and research achievements and opportunities for their diffusion in the local environment (Markowski, 2009, pp. 97–104).

Kjellberg et al. indicate that the central role in the innovation process is played by the institutionalization of new knowledge (Kjellberg et al., 2015, pp. 4–12). Through technology transfer, universities support innovation of enterprises and thus contribute to economic growth in the region (Trzmielak et al., 2016, pp. 49–54). Nowakowska (2010, pp. 223–236), analyzing the territory as a place for building competitiveness of economic entities, indicates that the development of territories strongly highlights the relationship between the pace of change and the characteristics of the territory and interactions between the various entities (actors) occurring in the region. Gibson et al. (2012, pp. 35–50) argue that creative and innovative regions build relationships between specific actors — visionaries and leaders of innovation in the region from the three spheres of science, business and local government.

Knowledge and Entrepreneurial Skills at Universities and Ecosystem Impact

Recent literature has paid increasing attention to knowledge as a factor responsible for the socio-economic development of the most developed countries (Świadek, 2021, pp. 85–95). The innovativeness of countries and their institutions is mainly reflected in the fact that the companies systematically implement new scientific and technical solutions and introduce new technologies and products to the market and within their organizations (Szopik-Depczyńska, 2018, pp. 22–23). Nonaka (2007, pp. 162–171) argues that the innovative capacity of enterprises is directly proportional to the efficiency of knowledge creation. The knowledge and entrepreneurial skills are associated with the effectiveness of knowledge creation, which is then transformed into new technologies. These two key factors that underlie the idea of this article are created and collected in scientific (academic) centers. There are different ways of systematizing the knowledge and entrepreneurial skills impact on the start-up ecosystem. We would like to emphasize the relationship between the development of knowledge and entrepreneurial skills acquired in scientific (academic) centers and the socio-economic and cultural elements of the ecosystem (Thore & Ferrao, 2002, pp. 277–290). Knowledge and technology should be understood as a kind of wealth that influences the economic, social and cultural status of an entrepreneur, a region or a country. Technological innovation stimulates productive capacity and competence, but technology must be linked to commercial needs. Therefore, skills are needed to manage know-how, knowledge and technology transfer, and applied research in order to successfully implement a commercialization strategy. This enables rapid adaptation to market changes. When considering the implementation of R&D activities and their success, factors related to efficiency, effectiveness, productivity and profitability must also be considered (Mallak, 1999, pp. 3-37-3-44; Trzmielak, pp.79–85).

The role of universities and research centers in creating new ideas, transforming them into technologies and new solutions, is also emphasized in the theoretical and practical considerations, innovation system, and innovation culture operating in academic research centers support the links between the science and business. Albors and Hidalgo (2007, pp. 3–17) and Christensen and Eyring (2011, pp. 20–24) emphasize that universities are a key element in the ecosystem for innovative companies because their „DNA” consists not only in not only the similarity of institutions, but also in their high stability, which has evolved over hundreds of years. The replication of that „DNA” occurs continuously because each student and doctoral candidate, as a subject of the ecosystem, can be replaced by a person checked against the very same criteria that were applied to them. At the same time, the way knowledge and skills are built is not the performance of the tasks by individual preferences, but by institutional procedures written in a general code.

The innovation ecosystem may or may not motivate scientists to prepare projects of new technologies aimed at implementation in industry, obtaining funds for scientific research and creating technology companies, especially academic firms (spin-off or spin-out). The culture of innovative entrepreneurship is also shaped by legal regulations related to intellectual property (Trzmielak, 2012, pp. 54–66). The experience and skills contribute to maintaining a close relationship between the demand and supply side of new technologies. As Jolly points out (1997, p. 15), building links between the commercialization process and the entities involved in it is crucial because the entities involved in technology transfer may have different objectives. A failure to accumulate knowledge, experience and skills can lead to a distortion of the technology transfer process. It may not culminate in the introduction of a product or service to the market in such a way as to be considered a successful product or service. Knowledge must be expanded and replicated, keeping it current and accessible to an everincreasing number of users. This is a fundamental factor in the development of enterprises in the era of R&D products. Gierulski et al. (2020, pp. 16–17) point out that the practical use of knowledge in enterprise operations is linked not only to entrepreneurial skills but also to competencies. The latter are created when scientific and research centers become involved in the creation of new technological companies. Generally, the support for startups should include the transfer of knowledge and skills from academic centers to enterprises and the creation of relationships between research centers — enterprises — business support organizations for the creation of competencies in enterprises during their operations.
Kozmetzky et al., (2004, pp. 39–48) argued that the implementation of new technologies results from a high level of science, and factors such as knowledge and innovation must result from the integration of social entrepreneurship. Knowledge and technology created in scientific centers are often the basis for the creation of new products and services and provide an opportunity for sustainable economic development and enterprises. The basis of new companies (often academic) can be the results of research, know-how and technologies created in scientific centers.

However, the most important task that the ecosystem has to fulfill is to enable business formation and development. Modern universities provide many opportunities that are absent on the knowledge market, skill in terms of a multiplicity of technology and market niches, and multiplicity of emerging start-ups and their supporters (Thore, 2020, pp. 39–48).

Therefore, Kozmetsky calls knowledge and entrepreneurial skills the wealth of the organization (the future organization). The knowledge and skills built at the universities must be supported by appropriate innovation policies, entrepreneurial culture and business-related infrastructure.

Manion and Cherion (2009, pp. 71–85) indicate that „fresh opportunities”, new opportunities for entrepreneurial „actors” are the most important thing to improve the quality of life and operation of entities. New firms (start-ups) are relatively poor in resources, and in particular lack experience and understanding beyond the fields of their new technology and products (van Geenhuisen et al., 2015, pp. 145–164). For these reasons, entrepreneurial knowledge, skills and competencies, and the ability to build market competencies are important and perhaps even crucial in building an ecosystem to support start-ups.

The Startup Ecosystem in Georgia

Among the many challenges facing modern organizations, one of the most crucial is the need to increase their innovativeness (Kamińska, 2020, pp. 71–85). In the broader economic world, the European Union, and more specifically in countries such as Georgia, innovation is seen as a key factor contributing to the growth of competitiveness of organizations and economies. As indicated in the previous chapter, the DNA of innovation is knowledge and skills created and obtained from scientific centers. Various scholars argue that the key to building a knowledge-based economy in 2022 and beyond will be the sustained growth of start-ups based on knowledge transfer from research, academic centers and business support organizations.

Georgia does indeed have the basis for such development — a claim that is supported by various data. Among the ten indicators the World Bank uses to evaluate the economy, Georgia scores highest in terms of starting a business. The country has made significant progress in reviving its economy (PricewaterhouseCoopers Georgia, 2020). As a result of the reforms implemented, the Georgian economy has made significant progress in recent years (Table 1). Georgia’s ranking in the Ease of Doing Business 2020 among the 190 countries (World Bank Group, 2020. p. 5) covered by the World Bank Group annual report is 7th, with a score of 83.7 points.

According to the Global Competitiveness Index (p.18), Georgia lags slightly behind its neighbors but according to the index of economic freedom, it has a much better indicator (Georgia — 75.9 points, Azerbaijan — 65.4 points, Armenia — 67.7 points) (Miller et al.,2019, p. 18). Georgia is also ahead of its neighbors in the Global Innovation Index. According to the data for 2019, Georgia was among the 50 most innovative countries in the world and took 48th place (Global Innovation Index 2019, xxxiv). In addition, Georgia has a favorable tax system. According to the Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum 2018, Georgia ranks 8th in total taxes (16.4%) (World Economic Forum, 2018).

Despite these achievements, unemployment and poverty remain the main problem for the country’s economy. Activation and development of entrepreneurial activities requires improvement of the startup ecosystem, access to business finance, and successful cooperation between the universities and the business sector. Since 2014, Georgia has created several programs and agencies that promote the entrepreneurial
ecosystem in the country and try to create more opportunities for start-up or existing businesses to access finance and knowledge. One of the main players on that field is the Georgian Agency for Innovation and Technology (GITA), which offers start-ups different programs. These programs are focused on innovative and high-tech projects, whose aim is to stimulate the use of innovations and technologies in various fields and to commercialize innovative, high-tech products in the international market.

In 2016, GITA opened Technoparks in Tbilisi, Zugdidi and Telavi. Then in Batumi, Kaspi and Gurjaani, which are high-tech space and allow startups to access technological infrastructure. GITA’s mission is to form of an ecosystem which improves all kinds of innovations and technologies in the country, to promote a commercialization of knowledge and innovations, to stimulate using them in all fields of economy, to create an environment for the growth of innovations and high-tech products, and develop high-speed internet nationwide.

GITA currently provides the following grants for the implementation, prototyping and co-financing of innovative ideas:Small grant for organizing events. The project finances the organization of workshops to promote innovation and technology development, exchange of information, share experiences and strengthen the local innovation ecosystem (maximum amount GEL 5,000 — approx. 1,500 EUR):

• Small grant for prototyping. The project finances the creation of a prototype of an innovative product/service with commercial potential, testing, revision and/or improvement of an existing prototype (maximum amount GEL 5,000);
• Co-financing grants for startups. Their aim is to stimulate the emergence of innovations and innovative enterprises through the development-assimilation and commercialization of innovative products and services with international potential. The grant is intended for the start-ups, private and small enterprises, less than two years after registration. Funding is intended for maximum one-year projects and does not exceed 90% of the project budget or 100,000 GEL (approx. 30,000 EUR).

To date, a total of 534 start-ups applied for the program, of which only 65 applications were accepted in the competitive procedure (12.2%). In order to support the development of entrepreneurship, in June 2014 a joint program of the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia and the Ministry of Agriculture was launched — the state program known as „Produced in Georgia.” The program aims to develop and support entrepreneurship, to encourage the creation of new enterprises, and to increase export potential in the country. Its goal is to improve the business environment, develop the private sector, popularize Georgia’s investment climate, and promote exports. The „Produced in Georgia” program combines three components: local production, exports, and investments.

Since 2014, „Produced in Georgia” has supported up to 12,000 beneficiaries in starting and developing a business. To address the economic challenges posed by the spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), the agency has made changes to its program and added 6 new economic activities to its list of priority areas. These include creating computer games, hospital operations, general practice, specialized medical practice, dental practice, and purchasing and renting of film production equipment.

„Start-up Georgia”1 was established on May 11, 2016 by the Georgian Innovation and Technology Agency and the Partnership Fund, with the main goal of developing and co-financing high-tech business ideas. The amount of co-financing available from Startup Georgia is defined from 15,000 GEL to 100,000 GEL. Participation in the project is possible in cash and non-cash form; however, the applicant’s cash contribution must be at least 10% of the total project budget. Start-up Georgia remains a partner of the joint venture for a period of not more than 10 years; however, the duration is individual for each project, depending on its specifics. Since 2017, more than 100 start-ups have received co-financing under the project.

In 2020, the Georgian government received $23.5 million from the World Bank Group to develop the GENIE (Georgia National Innovation Ecosystem)2 project, which has the aim of improving the innovative activities of firms and individuals in the borrower area. Improving the innovation performance of individuals and SMEs consistently contributes to increasing business participation in the digital economy. The project should promote an integrated approach to the development of the Georgian National Innovation Ecosystem in the following components:

• Component I envisages the development of innovative infrastructure and includes: a) the development of a network of Regional Innovation Hubs (RIH) and Community Innovation Centers (CIC) in selected cities, towns and villages in Georgia; b) Broadband-for-Development (BfD) program to support the acquisition and use of large-scale Internet services and advanced information technology — by relevant
  households, micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) with a focus on rural areas; C) piloting and, if necessary, implementing the BfD program, implementing BfD payments and related training;
• Component II includes service delivery, in coordination with Innovation Centers (CICs) and Regional Innovation Centers (RIHs). It should provide training and technical assistance to develop individual digital economy skills and be tailored to project beneficiaries to support firms that receive financial assistance under various grant programs at various stages of the innovative ecosystem.
• Component III provides funding for innovation, which should support: a) providing matching grants, the selection of appropriate MSMEs to receive matching grants, and oversight; b) providing technical assistance for the preparation and implementation of authorized MSME projects; c) issuing applied research grants for selected science through the Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation (Foundation) of Georgia3; d) providing technical assistance and related costs to the Foundation for the administration of the Applied Research Grants Program, as well as to GITA and Enterprise Georgia, to support MSME;
• Component IV provides support for project implementation and aims to implement all components of the project effectively.

In close cooperation with the relevant institutions, GITA is the central institution responsible for the implementation and coordination of the project, which serves the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia (MoESD). GITA is committed to assisting aspiring entrepreneurs and providing advice on issues such as customer concerns, product (service) overview, development stages, market size and growth, target market and segmentation, go-to-market strategies, competitive environment and advantages, financial forecasts, financials, and operational capabilities. There are also many other donors and initiatives in the country which are not systemic. The most distinctive is the 500 Startups acceleration program.4 This largest accelerator was introduced in the country in partnership with the Bank of Georgia and the Innovation and Technology Agency. 500 Startups is a start-up accelerator based on „Silicon Valley”, which has already invested in more than 2,400 companies.

Its capital today exceeds $600 million. The accelerator portfolio includes companies that have been operating successfully on the world market for years and have a turnover of millions of dollars, including for instance „Credit Karma”, „Canva”, „Ipsy”, „Udemy”, „Gitlab” and others.

The 500 Startups — Georgia program started in early 2020, and now the acceleration program for the first stream has reached the final. The top 5 selected from the first stream are: „Nextsale”, „Cargon, „Cardeal”, „Phubber” and „Stack”. Before the final stage, each start-up went through different types of training and masterclasses, which helped them refine their ideas. Registration for the second stream of the program 500 Startups — Georgia has already begun.

University knowledge and Georgian perspectives

The ongoing process of start-up ecosystem development has brought the issue of creating relevant innovative infrastructure in Georgian
universities and developing the necessary entrepreneurial start-up skills and knowledge to the forefront. An important task for higher educational institutions in Georgia today is to unite teaching, research and entrepreneurial activities, generate income from such activities, and train appropriate personnel for certain high-tech sectors of the real economy. For a significant section of Georgian universities, the priority strategic goal (and not an additional advantage) is the formation of the university as a center for the creation and development of innovations, as an effective part of the country’s innovative economic system.

Business incubation and acceleration is one of the most effective tools for the development of this strategy, which, together with the internationalization process, gives every student and scientist the opportunity to acquire the necessary entrepreneurial and start-up skills and develop innovative ideas at the university. The universities of Georgia actively working in this direction are as follows:

• University of Business and Technology (BTU), a young university created in the „Tbilisi Silicon Valley” space — one of the most high-tech spaces in the region with a rapid pace of development. BTU operates an Entrepreneurship Center with the EFSE (The European Fund for
  Southeast Europe) implementing a pre-acceleration program (conducts masterclasses, hackathons, demo days). It aims to help local technology start-ups acquire the skills needed to develop and manage a business, to be able to commercialize and internationalize their own ideas;5
• Georgian Technical University, which is one of the oldest universities in Georgia with a strong school of applied research. Since 2014, the University has been developing the Commercialization Department.6 The University also operates an Innovation Center, where project proposals for innovative research and entrepreneurial work, copyright and licensing, transfer and commercialization are being developed. The Center actively cooperates with various international donor
  organizations. On May 28, 2020, the project idea of a university student team — „Contacting Agro-Cam” won the global project „Competition of Big Ideas 2020” within the framework of the Georgian-British program „Creative Spark”. (The project is supported and funded by the British Council);
• Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, which is the first national university in the Caucasus (1918). The University has a scientific support unit — the Center for Knowledge Transfer and Innovation. The center also includes a fab-lab for prototyping products7. The main goal of the center is to support the development of entrepreneurial skills and to give each scientist and student the opportunity to develop the necessary entrepreneurial and start-up skills, to help them in the implementation and development of their activities;
• In 2020, a new International University (KIU) was opened in Kutaisi, which received the first stream of students. The University aims to become an international center for education, innovation and technology in the region and to promote innovation and
  entrepreneurship in the region through a cluster hub.

The need to create an innovative infrastructure, as well as to introduce and develop targeted research and entrepreneurial (business) skills in curricula, is being actively discussed in Batumi State University, Sokhumi State University, Kutaisi State University and other private higher education institutions. The main challenges on this field are the following:

• Development and popularization of vocational training. Increasing the level of knowledge in the interaction between business and education;
• Implementation of teaching methods based on modern technologies.
  Providing laboratory research in the field of technology;
• Deepening knowledge in the field of ICT and compliance with international standards;
• Integration of entrepreneurial and startup management skills into training programs. Raising awareness of intellectual property rights;
• Formation of pre-accelerators, accelerators and incubators on the basis of universities. The organization of events and meetings with start-ups and investors;
• Transformation of educational and research activities, the process of its commercialization into an innovative model.

Universities interested in developing start-up skills and knowledge acquisition are actively developing methods for analyzing the start-up ecosystem in Georgia, generating ideas, lean startup, KPI Analytics, strategic marketing (Customer Research and Idea Validation, Sales, Advertising and Customer Success), legal and accounting matters, investor relationship, Powerful Pitching. They organize workshops, hackathons, and demo days.

Researchers and practitioners agree that the success of small and medium-sized businesses is closely correlated with the skills and abilities of the entrepreneur.

New and successful projects in the innovation ecosystem play an important role in the economic development of the country, creating new employment opportunities, improving the political and social environment, and ensuring the country’s competitiveness, sustainable and inclusive economic growth.

A strong start-up ecosystem contributes to the formation of a culture of innovation in the country and, consequently, to the innovative
development of the economy, as evidenced by the developed countries of the world: Israel (the world leader in the number of start-ups per capita; third place in the world in the number of start-ups in the field of artificial intelligence; exports of $6.5 billion worth of cybersecurity products per year); Great Britain (manages the third largest techno hub in the world and the leading techno hub in Europe; third country in the world with a perfect global ecosystem); Ireland (world-class business hubs and accelerators for Fintech, Biotech, Med tech and ICT).

Conclusions

The aim of this article was to present the relationship between the use of knowledge and entrepreneurial skills within the ecosystem for start-ups in creating support mechanisms for innovation growth on the example of one selected country in the Caucasus. We conclude that greater attention should be paid in Georgia to the still inadequate flow of scientific and technological solutions into practice, resulting from an insufficiently developed ecosystem for innovation. Today Georgia is fighting the COVID-19 coronavirus together with the rest of the world, which seriously hinders the country’s economic development. However, the process of forming a startup ecosystem in Georgia has been actively ongoing for the last 9–10 years.

The market is ready to finance innovative and digital solutions during this period, but at this stage the country is facing a number of problems that require further refinement:

• Given the existing business climate and human resources in Georgia, attracting foreign investment in innovation and research remains one of the key strategies for accelerating economic growth. This strategy will encourage the creation of a high-value workforce and will also contribute to the reform of the education system. Cooperation with globally recognized global corporations will attract other corporations to enter the Georgian market and increase the country’s competitive advantage.
• A safe environment needs to be created for investors. As a result, different types of international investors will come to the country, the methods of obtaining alternative financing will be diversified and expanded, and the country will no longer be so heavily dependent on government programs.
• There is a need for expert evaluation of the country’s key institutional framework programs and projects to support entrepreneurship
  development.
• The state should not only issue various types of grants/loans, but also create an attractive environment to achieve the goal of maximum involvement of the private sector and foreign investors. It should also ensure the relationship between entrepreneurs with insufficient capital and business „know-how” and thus ensure the development and improvement of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
• Integration and development of entrepreneurial education in the curricula and programs of universities remain relevant.
• The universities should develop human capital, provide entrepreneurial education for start-ups and provide this process with incubators and accelerators.
•  Start-up Accelerators and various programs should try not only to receive financial assistance, but also engage in active mentoring, training, coaching and improving the skills of start-ups.

In parallel with building a start-up innovative ecosystem, the Government of Georgia has also been actively seeking state subsidies in recent years to develop the business development support system.

However, it is important to identify the effectiveness and additional needs of the state for such activities. International and domestic surveys, as well as surveys of start-ups participating in various programs, confirm that one of the main challenges in Georgia is to receive the formal or non-formal education necessary for the development of knowledge and entrepreneurial skills. The lack of knowledge and entrepreneurial skills are the main reason for non-financing of start-ups by investors.

For the next stage of our research, it is also very important to analyze where start-up ideas are created, how often start-ups turn to the various means of obtaining funding available, how easy it is for them to obtain funding, what challenges they face at each stage of development and how to accelerate the development and diffusion of innovation by effectively using the knowledge accumulated in academic centers.

Endnotes

1 Start-up Georgia 2020. www.startup.gov.ge
2 The World Bank. Projects and Operations 2020. https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/projectdetail/ P152441
3 Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation of Georgia. https://rustaveli.org.ge
4 500 Georgia accelerator program. https://ecosystems.500.co/500georgia
5 Business and Technology University. https://btu.edu.ge/en
6 Georgian Technical University. https://gtu.ge/Commercialization
7 Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. https://www.tsu.ge/ge/research/institutes_centers/a15mvb0_jkq9b95jg/yruy3 qbhaitkeiyn9

References

1. Albors J., & Hidalgo A., (2007). Success factors and hindrances in international R&D cooperation programs: The case of Iberoeka. In M. H. Sherif, T. M Khalil, Management of Technology: New Directions in Technology Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
2. Christensen C. M., & Eyring H. J., (2011). The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out. Jossey-Bass.
3. Cortright, J., 2001. New Growth Theory, Technology and Learning. Reviews of Economic Development Literature and Practice.
4. Ebben, J, & Johnson A., (2006). Bootstrapping in small firms: An empirical analysis of change over time. Journal of Business Venturing 21(6).
5. Etzkowitz H., Webster A., Gebhardt C., Terra B. R. C., (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313–330.
6. Gabison, G. A., (2015). Understanding Crowdfunding and its Regulations: How can Crowdfunding help ICT Innovation? Publications Office of the European Union.
7. Gibson D. V, Mahdjoubi D., Mercer E. D., (2012). Creative regions, innovation clusters, and science parks in developed, developing, and emerging regions worldwide, In Transfer technologii, przedsiębiorczość innowacyjna w rozwoju firm, D. M. Trzmielak (Ed.), Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź.
8. Gierulski W., Santarek K., Wiśniewska J., (2020). Komercjalziacja i transfer technologii, Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne. Warszawa.
9. Global Innovation Index. (2019). Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
10. Government of Georgia. (2020). Georgia Socioeconomic Development Strategy.
11. Holcombe, R. G., (1998). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1(2), 45–62.
12. Jolly V. J., (1997). Commercializing new technologies: getting from mind to market.
    Massachusetts. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
13. Kamińska A., (2020). Regionalne przeszkody działalności innowacyjnej [Regional obstacles to innovative activity], In Innowacje i marketing we współczesnych organizacjach. Wybrane zagadanienia. SGH Oficyna Wydawnicza, Warszawa.
14. Kjellberg H., Azimont F., Reid E., (2015). Market innovation processes: Balancing stability and change. Industrial Marketing Management, 44. 10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.10.002.
15. Kollmann, T., Stoeckmann, C., Hensellek, S., Kensbock, J. (2016). European Startup Monitor 2016.
16. Korbet, R., (2018). The state of the Israeli Ecosystem in 2018. Start-Up Nation Central: Finder Insights Series.
17. Kozmetzky G., Williams F., Williams V., (2004). New Wealth. Commercialization of science and technology for business and economic development. Praeger.
18. Lundvall B., (2004). Innovation, growth and social cohesion: The Danish model. Edward Eldar Publishing, Cheltenham.
19. Markowski T. (2009), Bariery współpracy na styku nauka-praktyka a rozwój regionalny [Barriers to cooperation between science and practice and regional development], In Partnerstwo dla Innowacji, B. Piasecki, K. Kubiak (Eds.), Wydawnictwo SWSPiZ, Łódź.
20. Mallak L., (1999). The elusive measures of R&D productivity and performance, In The Technology Management Handbook, R. C. Dorf (Ed.), CRC Press. Florida.
21. Manion M. T., & Cherion J., (2009). Impact of strategies type on success measures for product development projects. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 71–85.
22. Miller T. James A. B. Roberts M. (2019). 2019 The Index of Economic Freedom. The Heritage Foundation, 25th Anniversary Edition.
23. Nonaka I., (2007). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review, July–August 2007.
24. Nowakowska A, (2010). Innowacje we współczesnych koncepcjach rozwoju regionalnego [Innovations in contemporary concepts of regional development], In Kreatywność, innowacje, przedsiębiorczość. SOOIPP Annual 2009, P. Niedzielski, J. Guliński, K. B.
    Matusiak (Eds.). Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, Ekonomiczne Problemy Usług, 47, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, Szczecin.
25. Ornowski M., (2010), Industrial mathematics jako przykład mechanizmu transferu i komercjalizacji osiągnięć naukowych [Industrial mathematics as an example of a mechanism for transfer and commercialization of scientific achievements], In: Kreatywność, innowacje, przedsiębiorczość. SOOIPP Annual 2009, P. Niedzielski, J. Guliński, K. B. Matusiak (Eds.). Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, Ekonomiczne Problemy Usług, 47, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, Szczecin.
26. PricewaterhouseCoopers Georgia. (2020). Doing Business and Investing in Georgia.
27. Shonia D. (2016). Innovation, Economic Growth, and Investment Environment in Georgia. Proceedings of the IBC 2016: Searching for Innovative and Creative Business Solutions.
28. Szopik-Depczyńska K., (2018). Koncepcja innowacji kreowanej przez użytkownika w działalności badawczo-rozwojowej przedsiębiorstw [The concept of user-created innovation in research and development activity of enterprises]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwerstytetu Szczecińskiego, Szczecin.
29. Świadek A., (2021). Krajowy system innowacji 2.0. CEDEWU, Warszawa.
30. The Heritage Foundation. (2019). Index of Economic Freedom.
31. Thore S., & Ferrao P.C., (2002). The Environmental Impact on New Products. In Technology Commercialization: DEA and Related Analytical Methods for Evaluating the Use and Implementation of Technical Innovation. S. A. Thore (Ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
32. Thore S. A. (2020). Using Frontier Analysis to Rate the R&D Projects of a Commercial Corporation. In Technology Commercialization: DEA and Related Analytical Methods for Evaluating the Use and Implementation of Technical Innovation. ed. S. A. Thore, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
33. Trzmielak D. M., (2008). Transfer technologii a nowe firmy technologiczne doświadczenia inkubatorów w Łodzi i Austin (USA) [Technology transfer and new technology companies — the experience of incubators in Łódź and Austin (USA), In Zarządzanie przedsiębiorstwem w warunkach rozwoju wysokich technologii, S.
    Lachiewicz & A. Zakrzewska-Bielawska (Eds.), Monografie Politechniki Łódzkiej, Łódź.
34. Trzmielak D. M., (2013). Komercjalizacja wiedzy i technologii — determinanty i strategie [Knowledge and technology commercialization — determinants and strategies]. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź.
35. Trzmielak D. M,. & Gibson, D. V. (2014). International Cases on Innovation, Knowledge and technology transfer. Center for Technology Transfer UL.
36. Trzmielak D. M., Grzegorczyk M., Gregor B., (2016). Integracja wiedzy — ilościowa analiza empiryczna wybranych uczelni i firm z siedmiu państw [Knowledge integration — A quantitative empirical analysis of selected universities and firms from seven countries]. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź.
37. Trzmielak D. M., & Ropęga, J. (2013). Innovations and Knowledge Commercialization.
    Cooperative Resources, Integrated Science and Business. Center for Technology Transfer UL.
38. UNDP. (2019). Human Development Report.
39. Van Geenhuisen M., Ye Q., Au-Yong Oliveira M. (2015). A Skills Approach to Growth of University Spin-off Firms: Export as an Example In Building Sustainable RDD Centers in Emerging Technology Regions, D. Gibson & J. Slovak (Eds.), Masaryk University, Brno 2015.
40. World Bank Group. (2020). Doing Business 2020: Economy Profile of Georgia.
41. World Economic Forum. (2019). Global Competitiveness Report.
42. World Economic Forum (2018). The Global Competitiveness Report.

Universities and Programs

1. Business and Technology University. https://btu.edu.ge/en
2. Georgian Innovation & Technology Agency 2020. https://grants.gov.ge
3. Georgian Technical University. https://gtu.ge/Commercialization
4. GITA — Georgia’s Innovation and Technology Agency. https://www.gita.gov.ge
5. 500 Georgia accelerator program. https://ecosystems.500.co/500georgia
6. Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. https://www.tsu.ge/ge/research/ institutes/centers
7. Kutaisi International University. https://kiu.edu.ge/geo/innovation
8. Startup Georgia 2020. www.startup.gov.ge
9. Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation of Georgia. https://rustaveli.org.ge
10. The state program „Produced in Georgia”. http://www.enterprisegeorgia.gov.ge
11. The World Bank: Projects and Operations 2020. https://projects.worldbank.org/ en/projects-operations

Tourism, as one of the world’s fastest-growing industries (Matviyenko et al., 2015) and a developmental sector reflecting increasing personal income, leisure and mobility, has become one of the most important aspects of human spatial behaviour today. Travel and tourism are conducive to the creation of jobs for both highly qualified and unskilled individuals (Korinnyi and Tsyhanok, 2020); Kvartalnov, 2002; Pohuda and Rozmetova, 2019). This sector, unlike many others, has the potential to grow without major investments, offering multiplied benefits in terms of both income generation and employment. For many countries, therefore, tourism is a key industry in both the public and private sectors.

The global tourism industry was certainly one of the first to make extensive use of new information technologies. The technical progress of the last thirty years has given rise to a highly innovative tourism sector, which can focus not only on its own organizational structure, but on relations with partner organizations, thus optimizing operating costs and increasing the ability to generate value for customers. Tourism is one of the significant fields of the economy in well-developed countries, prioritizing innovative processes that unify scientific, technical, and economic advances (Kotsan and Kyrilo, 2015).

Overall, tourism is a very broad sphere of innovative activity, constituting an intersectoral socio-economic system that includes not only accommodation but also transportation, communication, leisure, food and other aspects. Tourism not only creates new products, but also harnesses innovations introduced in other areas: such as the latest experience in the field of management, task implementation, and applications of recent scientific achievements and technologies put to use by the tourism market to improve products and services demanded by the market. Through the introduction of the latest advancements in informational technologies, the creation of tourist products, services, hotels, reservation of air tickets or other types of ticketing can all be taken to a qualitatively new level (Abbate et al., 2019).

The importance of tourism for modern economies is underpinned by the following circumstances:

1. Tourism is a complicated social-economic phenomenon, involving not only economic activity but also opportunities for regional and
   international cultural exchange and means for overcoming crisis situations.
2. Tourism is one of the most profitable and rapidly developing economic fields.
3. Tourism is characterized by a „high multiplier” effect, reflecting its extensive indirect impact on related fields of industry, e.g.
   transport, trade, etc. The World Tourism Organization, for instance estimates1 that tourism has an indirect impact on more than 32
   economic fields.

The determinants and trends in an innovation in tourism

The determinants of innovation in tourism can be classified under three broad subheadings: innovation inputs (inventions, investments or activities that SMEs undertake in new services or product development); company characteristics (their capability to undertake innovation activities) and the environment (external factors that are beyond the control of the firm, such as law, the country’s level of development, the infrastructure for transport and accommodation) (Van Nguyen et al., 2021). One of the major technological trends which is crucial for tourism development is online marketing. In many markets, online sales continue to explode. In the United States and Europe, more and more people are opting to do their shopping online rather than at brick-and-mortar stores (Kaplan, 2017; Marketo, 2017). DeMers (2017) forecasts that the trend towards cybershopping is likely to accelerate due to new technologies which are enriching the „online” shopping experience. Technologies supporting shopping, booking and social media coupled with artificial intelligence are analysing „big data” to create customer profiles which enable firms to create „market segments of one”, at the individual level. In 2014, Stanford University launched a multi-million-dollar study of Artificial Intelligence (AI), issuing its first report on AI in 2016, which forecasts the impact of AI on eight industries. The most immediate impact of AI is likely to be on transportation, „Where a few key technologies have catalysed the widespread adoption of AI with astonishing speed. […] Autonomous transportation will soon be commonplace […] …city-dwellers will own fewer cars […]” (Trzmielak and Zehner, 2018). This all has an incremental impact on the tourism sector.

Another important trend that affects the development of tourism, in terms of the quality of tourism services, is smart mobility and smart city initiatives. The report of European Parliament mapping smart cities in the EU indicates the relationship between places with high levels of innovative and entrepreneurial activity with smart environment (Parris, 2020). There are many concepts of tourism service management — one of which would be based on the service models explored by Enoch, who proposed a fourfold service model typology: interchange service, network services, destination services and substitute services (Enoch et al., 2002, Potter, et al., 2020).

Enoch’s concept is applicable to the development of innovation in the tourism sector; in practice, it emphasizes the higher frequency of plane, bus and train services (e.g. autonomous vehicle technology) and self-check-in.

Algorithms in phone applications can calculate the most efficient route for travel. One type that can now be found almost everywhere and is used in tourism involves chatbots, which can be quite helpful for any journey and can significantly facilitate tourist services. The tourism sector is characterized by a huge amount of interrelationships, services, data and information exchange. All this results in huge amounts of data being collected. With a wide variety of users, data-intensive technologies become necessary, making it possible to learn about travellers’ behaviour, habits and needs (Li et al., 2018). Destination-specific services include the airport shuttles that operate to many world airports. The replacement of conventional transport also entails less noise and vibration, making transport more comfortable for tourists (e.g. mag-lev trains) (Vuchic, Casello, 2002).

Generally, in describing the impact of new technology on the tourism sector, many studies have focused on the business functions and tourism sectors. Therefore, studies indicate a significant role for technology applications and impacts in the hospitality, airline, intermediary, distribution, attraction, and Destination Management Organization (DMOs) sectors, with fewer studies on sectors representing events/festivals, cruises and other transportation players (Sigala, 2018). Many authors indicate as well that the new technologies are giving a considerable boost to fostering „smart tourism” (Bilotta, in press). The role of innovation in „smart tourism” can be seen in means of communication, decision support tools for firms, market intelligent sources for collecting, storing, analysing, sharing, visualizing and interpreting big data, e-learning tools for selfservice, automation tools, enabling new business models, transforming
tourist experiences and co-creation platforms (Sigala, 2018). New technologies and services are critical to the long-term sustainability of tourism operators and particularly SMEs.

The introduction of innovation in modern tourism demands the following: the economic and political stability of the country, the existence of a current legislation base, an appropriate level of scientific-technical development, the existence of natural, financial and other necessary resources, and a certain level of infrastructural development. Current trends also must be well-analysed, including: demographic changes (aging population), lifestyles, the nature of the labour force, the frequency and duration of holidays, growing interest in new and unusual, non-standard experiences, etc.

Note also that in the modern tourism industry, the following trends are becoming increasingly evident as well:

• There is significant growth in trips to neighbouring countries and nearest regions as compared to more distant countries, which experts feel is connected to growth in the terrorism threat in the world, growth in the number of trips per year, growth in the distribution of holidays and a number of other factors.
• The economic benefits derived from tourism are growing increasingly clear and countries are taking an increasingly supportive attitude towards tourism, as expressed in the significant reduction of different barriers on their part. This provides for growth in the number of tourists in future and supports the current process of globalization.
• Constant growth in competition, both inside or outside the region, motivates the leading tourism companies to take broad and aggressive measures to continually stimulate their products.
• Growth in urbanization processes and densely inhabited regions has significantly encouraged the emergence of such new types of tourism as village tourism, short-term holidays, non-seasonal holidays, non-active forms of tourism, tours without living in hotels, eco-tours, hunting, etc.
• As a result of the introduction of informational technologies and the development of tourism operators’ services, the world has become more informed and tourism much better studied.
• This trend will be developing in the future, giving rise to a new trend of travelling to less-known and hard-to-access locations for the purpose of seeking unique entertainment and unforgettable experiences.

Considering these factors and trends, tourism marketing should maximize the ability to harness all the opportunities available to it: natural conditions, multiple sightseeing locales, and cultural potential, combining previously unharnessed services into a united tourist package and offering new products to the market.

Marketing of innovations in the field of tourism considers the application of these new methods and techniques, implementing measures to support the formation of attractive and positive image of the country from the point of tourism within the world community. These must be systematic efforts which have a qualitative innovation, lead to positive developments, and ensure the stable formation and development of the sector. This may entail changes in processes, organization, marketing, products and so on, but it will have the effect of bolstering socio-economic development. Innovations in tourism require substantial material and financial outlays, making state support necessary.

Another significant tendency in tourism is related to sustainable development. Trips to locations off the beaten path and away from the given country’s greatest tourist attractions, where one can enjoy peace and quiet and engage in close contact with nature are becoming more and more popular. A recently emerging trend of turning to local tourism is evident here. In recent years the fashion for trips to unusual places, such as houses floating on a lake or apartments situated in the treetops, has also been developing more and more. Websites are being created with databases of such unique accommodation, addressed to people looking for a bit more luxury and originality. Another trend that can be observed in the sustainable tourism industry (in Poland, for instance) is the organization of thematic trips, which typically involve some physical activity: this may include bicycle trips, family survival camps, culinary trips, selfdevelopment workshops, yoga weekends, sports trips and multi-day canoeing trips.

The world tourism market and the impact on the Georgian tourism industry

From the standpoint of development of innovations in the field of tourism, Georgia offers a very interesting example, where many measures have been implemented in this direction over the past 10–12 years. Georgia is among those countries of the world that derive a significant share of their income from tourism. In such countries where tourism is a priority sector of the economy, it is important to forecast what the tourism business can expect in the future, based on current changes in the country and distinctly defined trends.

Despite its small area (69,700 km2), Georgia is distinguished by rich natural and cultural resources and a unique biological diversity. Rare subtropical wetlands, semi-deserts, high alpine zones and snowy peaks can all be found in the country, just several hundred kilometres apart. There are more than 12000 historic and cultural monuments in the country and 4 of them are even listed as UNESCO World Heritage. Leisure tourists can choose from more than 100 resorts, sample mineral water from about 2400 springs, and enjoy the seaside. Nature lovers can visit the 8 national parks and 31 protected areas. The winter resorts of Gudauri, Bakuriani and Mestia promise visitors and skiers unforgettable days in winter and in summer.

In 1997, tourism revenues amounted to $75 million USD, or about 2.1% of the gross national product. At that time, this meant about 313,000 tourists and about $ 240 per person. As Fig. 1 shows, the income from tourism has increased significantly over the last 22 years. In 2019, tourism revenues accounted for 20.32% of gross national product, or $ 3.55 billion. 9.3 million international travelers have already arrived in Georgia by the end of 2019 (Georgian Journal, 2019)

The variety of reforms being implemented in Georgia in various aspects, the improvement of its economic and political stability, its gaining an image as a „country of reform” in the world and its making tourism development a priority industry in public policy have truly yielded results. Worth noting among the innovative activities implemented in Georgia are support for tourism infrastructure development, the facilitation of international travel, the improvement in service quality and awareness of the country, the implementation of marketing activities in both domestic and international markets, and development of tourism products.

International tourism expenditures by international visitors are characterized by nearly exponential growth, confirming the great import of
the tourism sector in Georgia (fFg. 2)

With the objective of widening the investment opportunities in tourism infrastructure in Georgia, three free tourism zones have been set up, in Kobuleti, Anaklia and Ganmukhuri, offering preferential terms to investors: exemption from property tax and income tax obligations as set forth in the Tax Code of Georgia for a period of 15 years, exemption from construction permit fees. The investor of the land shall be transferred to the Georgian legislation, a symbolic price — 1 lari; When a hotel is built with more than 80 rooms, the investor will obtain a casino license for free. Investments in Georgian tourism sectors can be made in collaboration with the Partners Fund of Georgia, which offers financing and co-investment. Several successful projects have already been implemented in this way: the „Roialbatoni”, „Gino Wellnes” and „Spa Rixos Borjomi” hotels, as well as the mineral-water resort Likani and a leisure complex in Sairme.²

The Georgian government has taken significant steps to boost the flow of tourists and has considerably eased visa regime. Citizens of 104 countries of the world have extended terms of visa-free entry and may stay in Georgia up to one year.. EU citizens can enter the country carrying a passport or identity card issued by the EU.

Georgia has become well-known for innovative projects implemented in tourism, not only in the region (as a leader country) but also throughout the world. In 2012 Georgia was mentioned in the report of World Tourism Organization (WTO). Its main annual publication — UNWTO Tourism Highlights — named it as one of the fastest growing tourist countries. The report estimated growth in travellers to Georgia at one of the highest rates in Europe as a whole.³

Georgia was ranked among the 50 best destinations by National Geographic Traveler (side by side with France, Italy, Portugal, Scotland, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark) and its millions of readers were advised to travel in the country⁴. Georgian cuisine, wine and culture was outlined. Georgia also ranks high as a country safe for travellers, placing among the top ten in the world. The country has hosted several international media forums, attended by journalists from many countries, who also had a chance to familiarize themselves with the country’s cultural heritage, wine tourism, and ski resorts. They visited Tbilisi and a variety of resort centres in Sighnaghi, Tsinandali, Mtskheta, Gudauri, Gori, Tskaltubo, Akhaltsikhe and Batumi. The country hosted four meetings of the World Tourism Organization’s (WTO) Silk Working Group, which was attended by delegates from 18 countries and representatives of the World Tourism Organization.

In recent years, many articles about Georgia have appeared in National Geographic, The New York Times, and The Guardian. CNN posted pictures of ancient Svaneti on its social network profile, and BBC journalists described the Svaneti villages as ranking among the legendary villages in Europe. An article was carried by the influential American edition of Bloomberg, where the writer advised readers to take a journey to Georgia, to sample Georgian wine. Many articles have also been published in the The Washington Post on Georgian wine and cuisine. Advertisements for Georgian wine are frequently run on Euronews, which has an audience of 400 million and broadcasts in 14 languages in 155 countries. Every year the country participates in approximately 25 exhibitions, where its tourism potential is promoted. The National Tourism Administration of the country carries carrying out a marketing campaign every year almost in 50 countriesand is conducting press tours.

With the aim of raising the quality of service, rigorous training is implemented for representatives of the tourism industry throughout the country. There is a hotline for tourists (0 800 800 909), and a new „Online chat” service is being added, where tourists can obtain any information they request within 24 hours. The website www.georgia.travel has been revamped in line with demand, offering an updated and well-developed control panel, including the possibility of finding information via the „Google maps” application.

Despite of all these efforts, however, Georgia still faces a lot of problems in its tourism industry, especially in the regions. First of all, this stems from the infrastructure, particularly roads and transport. Prices are high in hotels offering the all-inclusive regime. The international air transport market requires more internal liberalization. The quality of customer service also requires further improvement. Lastly, tourists still have to pay significantly for quality accomodations in Georgia.

On the positive side, we should not that in order to facilitate the infrastructure for innovations in Georgia, at the end of 2020 the first technology park (industrial park) was opened, which should provide a suitably qualified workforce training, the necessary supporting infrastructure for R&D and also promotion of full-cycle production — from idea to production.

Start-up developments in the tourism industry — A chance for a rapid return to growth in Georgia

Georgian tourism is an industry in which start-ups occupy an increasingly important place. Tourism start-ups seek to fill niches where it is difficult to succeed. Firstly, things are very competitive in the industry, with hundreds of travel agencies selling tickets and packages to any destination. Secondly, destination-oriented holiday bookings are often a one-off transaction, as few people travel to the same holiday destination each year. Moreover, most start-ups are based on IT solutions, regardless of the industry in which they operate. The key to the development and, above all, the survival of a start-up is the successful matching of the offered product or service to the appropriate target group.

The products of start-ups in the tourism industry are, in most cases, websites or applications (apps) that are dedicated to various groups of recipients, which can be grouped in terms of common features or preferences, which are key when choosing a way of traveling or spending free time. In this respect, the products of start-ups can be classified into several groups:

• Apps for people with disabilities, allowing for easier travel.
• Apps to increase travel safety by alerting tourists of potential scams and deceptions in various places, providing information on hospitals, doctors, and emergency points, and information on road assistance services in the event of an accident.
• Websites that help tourists with transport, e.g. to work or to tourist attractions.
• Apps that allow one to find travel companions — such applications can identify people traveling to the same place and using the same means of communication, who have similar travel preferences, thus helping to minimize travel costs.
• Concierge services — apps that help hotels provide additional services, such as b-Guest, or apps connecting communities that provide concierge services with travellers with payments built into the system.
• Trip planning apps and websites (by far the largest group of start-ups) — such apps offer, for example, travel planning according to a set budget.
  Users set the time, place and budget, and the system searches for specific trips. By entering further information and choices about destinations, expectations etc, we end up with personally tailored sightseeing plans.
• Connecting travellers with locales and companies — this is a very large group of apps, designed to help travellers learn about local life in a given destination country/city. These applications can be very precisely
  tailored to target groups, e.g. applications that allow one to search for local private tours led by professional guides (linguoguides), portals for photography hobbyists (fripito), specific sports (guidebase), portals for ethnic groups, national minorities, sexual orientations (gaybrhood)^5,6.

The goal of the Georgian government is to lay solid foundations for economic growth; to achieve this, Georgia, like many other countries, must focus on developing innovation. Start-up support, in turn, is one of the crucial factors of innovation policy, requiring the creation of an appropriate ecosystem to support innovators. To this aim, in 2014 the LEPL „Innovation and Technology Agency” was created under the Georgian Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development,7 meant to promote this field in the country and create an innovation ecosystem. The purpose of the agency is to bolster Georgia’s research infrastructure, to help foster innovations and new technologies, as well as to accelerate and facilitate the processes of knowledge commercialization. The agency also aims to increase the participation of private companies in the research and commercialization process, and to increase the share of venture capital in the process of investing in modern technologies. It initiates the basic directions of investment in infrastructure for innovation, supports the opening of innovation centres and industrial laboratories, technology parks (Gavtadze and Ipshiradze, 2016).

Public-private cooperation and a more well-developed technological ecosystem are making Georgia start-ups attractive to foreign investors. Due to its location, Georgia has always been a meeting place between Europe and Central Asia. Even before the creation of the ancient Silk Road, the country was a melting pot of peoples and cultures. Nowadays it is a very attractive country for new investors (Dugienko and Bondarenko, 2020). According to the World Bank, Georgia is the seventh easiest place to do business and the second easiest place to start a business. There are only six types of taxes, and for the IT sector things have recently become even easier, as international companies will have their income tax reduced to only 5%. This is undoubtedly an incentive for tech companies, which can prove useful for start-ups. Georgia also offers infrastructure supporting the development of start-ups, such as co-working spaces or new business centres. These are places where big players from the financial markets are involved in development, e.g. Tbilisi City Hall and TechPark. 500 Georgia, a regional accelerator created by Georgia’s Innovation and Technology Agency (GITA), the Bank of Georgia and 500 Start-ups with the support of the World Bank, is doing well. The program focuses on beginning start-ups from Georgia and Eastern Europe. In Georgia, business is well digitized, which is why start-ups based on high technologies are the most common. These are SaaS B2B start-ups related to various industries.

Unfortunately, however, this does not really apply to the tourism industry. Despite the fact that Georgia is an attractive tourist destination, this has unfortunately not translated into the digitization of the industry. The number of new technological solutions that are produced in Georgia ultimately for tourism is very small. This is also visible in the area of startups.⁸

Be that as it may, a few successful examples are evident in the results of the Subsidy Program of the Agency for Innovation and Technology of the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development. A total of 20 winners were selected under the program. Several of them support the tourism industry: LiveCaller,⁹ Travel Guide,¹⁰ Phubber,¹¹ and Atrion.¹²

Particularly noteworthy in this respect is Travel Guide, one of the few start-ups successively operating in the travel segment in Georgia. The Travel Guide app aims to fill the information gap for visitors to important landmarks around the world. The main goal of the company is to develop the tourism sector through the use of innovative technologies. It simplifies travel planning for customers and offers a full package of services. The platform includes audio files on landmarks, museums, points of interest and excursion routes. The platform offers audio recordings of local artists, poets and vocal groups. The offered tours can be adjusted by the user to their preferences, i.e. route length, duration, costs, topics, groups of visitors. All content is easily accessible via a state-of-the-art interface and can be equipped with GPS to deliver notifications if a user is near a featured site. The application provides audio and video content. The content is available in four languages: Georgian, English, Russian and Chinese. Thanks to this, the creators are continually expanding their audience. Travel Guide is led by an international team of „people of ideas” and programmers. Their goal is to expand the offer throughout Georgia and major European cities.

Successful Russian start-ups for the Georgian tourism market

The start-up ecosystem in Georgia is just emerging, but more and more companies are trying to create products with the global market in mind. This means it is worth looking at tourism-industry start-ups established, for example in Russia,¹³ to find models which could be successfully harnessed in the Georgian tourism industry. Several such start-ups offer excellent examples of such activities:

Chatme.ai offers ready-made and custom intelligent agents for various business functions in each industry. Chatme.ai has developed rich models of customer service, IT Service Desk, HR Helpdesk and services in BFSI, Telco, Logistics, Travel, etc. As a solution for the tourism industry, the company offers the use of artificial intelligence tools for effective communication with customers and employees of the hotel industry. For example, an AI-based travel chatbot that recognizes Russian can easily order a transfer or rent a car, check in for a flight, report the weather, and even chat with a customer about topics they choose.¹⁴

3Drimtim has created an IT solution for the museum business and socio-cultural projects. The project consists in creating a platform for the application of VR, MR and AR technologies in the field of culture with feedback through a neural interface. This solution is especially helpful for people working in museums who do not have technical knowledge and must perform activities such as archiving data, preserving exhibits, and demonstrating museum collections. In practice, this entails using virtual and augmented reality to create a virtual museum: anyone with the Internet can access the 3D gallery.¹⁵

Start-ups also offer solutions for the promotion of tourism and tourist destinations. One example is the company Neutrotrend,¹⁶ which is the largest Russian neuromarketing company with a wide range of solutions and research tools for various sectors of the economy. Neurotrend’s business rests on a scientific basis, which opens up new possibilities for its customers to use neurotechnologies in marketing. The company has presented a solution based on the use of neuromarketing techniques to model product offers and communication in the tourism sector. The idea is to select the best tourist offer through synchronized registration of the client’s psychophysiological reactions.

The start-up Republic offers intelligent solutions, namely smart tags in the form of a bracelet for tourists. The bracelet contains personal medical documentation in the cloud with a non-electronic identifier attached. Thanks to this, important information, e.g. on medications, diseases, allergies, and the attending physician, is always available to doctors in emergency situations involving a tourist. An interesting solution is the availability of data in 24 languages. In addition, the solution offers notifications about the user’s location.

The Insurion¹⁷ project offers travellers automatic insurance — for example in the event of a flight delay or loss of a connecting flight. The insurer transfers customer data to Insurion. In the event of a flight delay, the insured person receives an SMS with a link, goes through the verification process, generates an electronic claim for insurance compensation and receives it for each hour of delay at the airport.

A fishing booking system is offered by the FishTravel¹⁸ start-up, which is designed to assist in booking fishing trips through the global booking platform. The service provides a range of services from booking a fishing trip, transport, accommodation, as well as guide.

Conclusions

The tourism industry recognizes that it is indispensable nowadays to invest in innovative solutions in the field of information technology. New technologies should be implemented in all areas of the tourism sector, including museums, hotels, restaurants, gastronomy, transport, insurance, and medical services. Such efforts represent a big step towards the digitization of the tourism industry as a whole, and the emerging start-ups whose IT solutions are well tailored to support the flourishing of the industry in this respect are of particular importance.

This paper first proposed a certain framework for understanding the possibilities for harnessing technological innovations in the travel industry (particularly apps and websites). Because start-ups often make use of external sources of financing (Megha, 2017), typically derived from regional funds, their business profile must be linked to the development of the particular region or country the grant derives from, thereby determining their scope and area of operation. Hence, there is a visible trend to highlight the culture of a specific region or country.

In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, however, tourism has become a loss-making industry in all of the world’s loss-making countries. This means that the industry is all the more in need of innovative ideas that respond to the clients focusing on local and often self-organized trips. New technologies have been quickly implemented in the sector, aimed at facilitating its growth. Whether growth proves possible will depend on the duration of the pandemic, the new restrictions imposed after the quarantine periods and the use of new technologies to facilitate the development of tourism.

All this is particularly true in the case of countries like Georgia, where tourism is a priority sector of the economy. State efforts to foster technological innovation are crucial for the success of a tourism-based development strategy — and this has become particularly important in the post-pandemic realities. This paper has considered the specific example of Georgia, examining its moderate successes to date in this respect (e.g. Travel Guide). Next, the paper has examined Russian tourist-sector startups. Several such Russian-created apps and websites were presented in closer detail (Chatme.ai, 3Drimtim, Neorotrend, Republic, Insurion, FishTravel) as potential models for operation that be successfully harnessed in the Georgian tourism industry. Given that Georgia derives such a significant share of its income from tourism, its success in taking its economy towards post-pandemic recovery will hinge, in part, on its successful fostering of technological innovation in the travel sector and its harnessing of similar models to those discussed herein.

Endnotes

¹ http://www2.unwto.org/
² https://www.fund.ge/site/news/63
³ http://www2.unwto.org/publication/unwto-annual-report-2012
⁴ http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/best-trips-2014/
⁵ https://websummit.com/startups/featured-startups
⁶ http://www.magelloapp.pl/web-summit-ciekawe-startupy-turystyczne.html).
⁷ https:/gita.gov.ge/eng/static/3
⁸ https://emerging-europe.com/voices/georgias-start-ups-are-ready-for-investment-time-for-vcs-to-take-note/
⁹ A customer relations start-up that allows businesses to communicate for free with visitors to their website through internet calls, video calling, collaborative browsing, and correspondence.
¹⁰ An innovative tourism platform whose main goal is to develop the tourism sector by introducing innovative technologies.
¹¹ A ocial shopping platform — a mobile application that combines a social network and an online clothing store.
¹² A program for organizations operating in the field of international development to be able to successfully implement international aid projects with less time and costs.
¹³ https://www.atorus.ru/news/press-centre/new/44391.html
¹⁴ https://chatme.ai/
¹⁵ https://gadgets-room.ru/bs/klassifikaciya-informacionnyh-tehnologii-v-turizme-osnovnye-informacionnye/
¹⁶ https://neurotrend.ru/en/
¹⁷ https://eng.insurion.org/
¹⁸ https://fish.travel/

References

1. Abbate, T., Accordino P., Coppolino R., Tiziana La Rocca E., Rupo D., (2019). Innovative Tourism Startups: an Explorative Analysis. In: A. Jaki, T. Rojek (Eds) Knowledge — Economy — Society: Contemporary Trends and Transformations of Economies and Enterprises, Toruń: Polonia, 225–235.
2. Bilotta E., Bertacchini F., Gabriele L., Giglio S., Pantano P.S., Romita T., (in press). Industry 4.0 technologies in tourism education: Nurturing students to think with technology. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education. 1000275.
3. Chokheli E. (2020). Developmental trends for startups in Georgia, Conference paper delivered at: 5th International Scientific and Practical Conference on „Strategic Imperatives of Modern Management” in Kyiv, April 2020.
4. DeMers, J. (2016). 7 New Technologies Shaping Online Marketing for the Better (We Hope). Forbes, August 15. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaysondemers/2016/08/15/7-newtechnologiesshaping-online-marketing-for-the-better-we-hope/?sh=479e1ddb61fd
5. Dugienko N. A., Bondarenko A. G. (2020). The tourism industry as a way to growing the economy of the country (Georgia, Croatia, Ukraine). Bulletin of Zaporizhzhia National University: Economic Sciences, 2(46). https://journalsofznu.zp.ua/index.php/ economics/article/view/365
6. Enoch M., Potter S., Parkhurst G., Smith M. (2004). Internode: Innovations in Demand Responsive Transport. Manchester: Department for Transport and Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive.
7. Gavtadze G., Ipshiradze A. (2016). Some directions of scientific and innovative technological development of ATSU within the perspective of Georgia, Visnyk KNUTD, 440–447. ISSN 2413–0117;
8. Georgian Journal (2019). Number of international visitors to Georgia surge in 2019, 31 December.
9. Hansena M. Hjalagerb A. M. Fyall A. (2019). Adventure tourism innovation: Benefitting or hampering operations?. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 28, December. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2019.100253.
10. Kaplan, M. (2017). Sales Report: 2017 Thanksgiving Day, Black Friday, Cyber Monday.
    Retrieved on 1 December 2017 from https://www.practicalecommerce.com/sales-report2017-thanksgiving-day-black-friday-cyber-monday
11. Kotsan, N.N., Kurilo, O.A., (2012). Osnovnye osobennosti sovremenneogo razvitya tursma v Gruzii, Основные особенности современного развития туризма в Грузии, УДК 911.3:796.5(479.22); https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/153584726.pdf,
12. Korinnyi S. O., Tsyhanok K. (2020). Current State of Tourism Business in European Countries and Its Trends. Bulletin of Zaporizhzhia National University: Economic Sciences, 2(46), 65–70.
13. Kvartalnov V. A. (2001). Turism [Tourism], 2002; Retrieved on 01.06.2021 from https://tourlib.net/books_tourism/kvartalnov_tourism.htm
14. Matviyenko N. M., Matviyenko V. M., Denisyuk Yu. M. (2015). Rozvitok Sil’s’kogo Zelenogo Turismu v Khorvatiyi: Dosvid dla Ukrainy [Development of Rural Green Tourism in Croatia: Experience for Ukraine]. Chasopis Kartografiyi, 13, 98–109.
15. Megha J. (2017). Entrepreneurships and Startup Programmes: Opportunities in Travel and Tourism. ATNA, J. Tour. Stud., 12(2), 51–65, ISSN 0975–3281, https://doi:10.12727/ ajts.18.3.
16. Li J. Xu L. Wanmg S. Li L. (2018). Big data in tourism research. A literature review.
    Tourism Management. 68, 301–323.
17. Marketo (2017). Stark Contrasts in Technology Priorities for U.S. and International Marketers, Marketo Survey Finds. PRNewswire. Retrieved on January 12 from: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/stark-contrasts-in-technology-priorities-forusand-international-marketers-marketo-survey-finds-300390070.html and https://www.i-scoop.eu/ new-technologies-marketing-2017.
18. Parris S. (2020). Smart cities: locations for environmental entrepreneurship. In: W. J. Nuttall, D. V. Gibson, D. M. Trzmielak, A. Ibarra-Junez (Eds). Energy and Mobility in Smart Cities. London: ICE Publishing, 31–59.
19. Pohuda, N.V., Rozmetova, O.H. (2018). Sluchasnyi stan turistichnogo rynku Ukraiyiny: Ocenka ta perspektyvy rosvitku [Contemprary state of the tourist market of Ukraine: Evaluation and developmental prospects]. Efektivna Ekonomika, DOI: 10.32702/2307-2105-2018.10.57,2018, Retrieved on 01.06.2021 from: http://www.economy.nayka.com.ua/pdf/10_2018/59.pdf.
20. Potter S., Valdez A. M., Cook M. (2020). Autonomous vehicles and the urban mobility ecosystem, In: W. J. Nuttall, D. V. Gibson, D. M. Trzmielak, A. Ibarra-Junez, (Eds). Energy and Mobility in Smart Cities. ICE Publishing London, 83–98.
21. Sigala M., (2018). New technologies in tourism: From multi-disciplinary to antidisciplinary advances and trajectories. Tourism Management Perspectives, 25, 151–155.
22. Trzmielak D.M., Zehner W.B. (2018). Marketing of New Technologies and Products — Perspectives, Challenges, and Actions. Handel Wewnetrzny, 5, 289–299.
23. Van Nguyen K., Natoli R., Divisekera S., (2021). Innovation and productivity in tourism small and medium enterprises. Tourism Management Perspectives, 38, 2–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100804
24. Vuchic R., Casello J. M., (2002). An Evaluation of Maglev Technology and its Comparison with High Speed Rail. Transportation Quarterly, 56(2), 33–49.
25. http://www2.unwto.org/, 01.06.2021
26. http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/best-trips-2014/, 01.06.2021
27. http://www.magelloapp.pl/web-summit-ciekawe-startupy-turystyczne.html), 01.06.2021
28. http://www2.unwto.org/publication/unwto-annual-report-2012 , 01.06.2021
29. https://emerging-europe.com/voices/georgias-start-ups-are-ready-for-investment-timefor-vcs-to-take-note/, 01.06.2021
30. https://eng.insurion.org/, 01.06.2021
31. https://fish.travel/, 01.06.2021
32. https://gadgets-room.ru/bs/klassifikaciya-informacionnyh-tehnologii-v-turizmeosnovnye-informacionnye/, 01.06.2021
33. https://gita.gov.ge/eng/static/3, 01.06.2021https://neurotrend.ru/en/, 01.06.2021
34. https://websummit.com/startups/featured-startups, 01.06.2021
35. https://www.atorus.ru/news/press-centre/new/44391.html, 01.06.2021
36. https://www.fund.ge/site/news/63, 01.06.2021