Design of a conceptual model of open innovation for the decentralization of the science, technology, and innovation system in Colombia from an organizational ecology perspective

Abstract

Science, technology, and innovation (STI) systems are fundamental to the economic development of any nation. However, their high hierarchy and centralization create inequities for the more dispersed regions to access their benefits. Traditional approaches to STI system decentralization have been through public control and investment policies, posing a challenge for emerging economies. Given these conditions, it is necessary to explore alternative approaches such as open innovation (OI), which can facilitate bringing the STI system to the regions by breaking its hierarchical structure; and organizational ecology (OE), which can contribute to the construction of ecosystemic appropriation of STI in the regions. The objective of this research is to propose a conceptual model that addresses the need to decentralize Colombia's STI system through an alternative approach to public policy governance, utilizing OI and OE. The methodology used for this research is Design Science Research (DSR), which allows for the creation of an artifact-type model, validated through the representational validation technique, supported by a cross-impact analysis matrix completed by 67% members of the subregional STI committees in the department of Caldas. The result is a conceptual model that integrates the components of Colombia's STI system, decentralizes them through OI factors, and ensures the ecosystemic appropriation of STI in the regions through OE factors. Model criteria, such as organizational readiness, collaborative capacity, absorptive capacities, intellectual capital, technological capital, and local niche, are presented as key elements in the decentralization of the STI system and the ecosystemic appropriation in the co-creation of a mutualistic STI system in Colombia's regions. The findings of the model represent an integrated model that unfolds sequentially; the first phase develops the decentralization through OI factors, and the second phase develops the ecosystemic appropriation from OE factors. This research contributes an integrated OI and OE model as an alternative to the traditional STI system decentralization approach from public policy governance and nation-region control, overcoming the hierarchical barrier of the system and granting ecosystemic appropriation of science, technology, and innovation in the regions.

Introduction

The management of innovation within organizations has emerged as crucial for the sustainability and competitiveness of both companies and the broader economy (Maier et al., 2020; Schumpeter & Nichol, 1934; Tushman & Nadler, 1986; Zhang et al., 2019). Researchers have demonstrated an enduring interest in innovation for over a century. In the early stages of this exploration, the focus was predominantly on technological inventions, aligning with the trends in industrial innovation where science and technology played pivotal roles (López & Montalvo, 2015; Richter et al., 2018).

In contemporary times, we encounter a diverse array of innovative forms. While some approaches persist in the technological domain, addressing topics like radical or incremental innovation (Dewar & Dutton, 1986) or product and process innovation (Huang & Rice, 2012), there has been a notable expansion into non-technological realms. This includes organizational innovation (Damanpour et al., 2009; Totterdill et al., 2002), managerial innovation (Hamel, 2006), and institutional innovation (Kemp et al., 2012).

Early conceptualizations of innovation portrayed it as a closed, internal process shielded from external entities (Cainelli et al., 2004). Organizations were primarily motivated by the potential to secure a competitive advantage through patents and control of intellectual property (Chesbrough, 2003). However, this perspective has evolved, and the current landscape recognizes innovation as a multifaceted process that extends beyond the technological realm to encompass organizational structures, management practices, and institutional frameworks. This shift underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of innovation that transcends traditional boundaries and reflects its integral role in today's business and economic landscapes.

The current landscape has undergone a transformation, as evidenced by recent research highlighting the escalating significance of external sources of innovation (Schuhmacher et al., 2018). Organizations recognize that relying solely on their internal Research and Development (R&D) capabilities is no longer sufficient. Consequently, there is a growing embrace of what Chesbrough (2003) Open Innovation (OI): "the purposeful inflow and outflow of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation and expand markets for external use of innovation, respectively". This represents a shift to a more open approach to innovation, where organizations actively engage with external stakeholders to share knowledge, resources, and technology beyond their organizational boundaries (Randhawa et al., 2016).

The once well-defined boundaries of organizations have become more permeable, marking a transition in the locus of innovation from internal spaces to a relational system that encompasses external partners (Bogers & West, 2012; Chesbrough, 2006). OI enables organizations to collaborate, integrate, and commercialize resources and capabilities that complement their internal structures. This, in turn, allows them to add value and optimize the benefits derived from innovative activities (Chesbrough & Crowther, 2006; Laursen & Salter, 2004). A diverse range of actors participates in these knowledge flows, both from external to internal and internal to external: suppliers, collaborative companies, competitors, universities, technology centers and institutes, customers, and government institutions.

The field of OE contributes to the analysis of the external environment and the structures that respond to it. OE views organizations as organisms, drawing on systems theory, contingency theory, the OE approach, the complexity paradigm, and chaos theory. This approach encompasses a range of conceptual and theoretical debates focusing on organizational determinants, such as general and specific strategies, the liabilities of newness and smallness, organizational demography, competitive industrial structures, and modeling of organizational processes (Wholey & Brittain, 1986).

The OE incorporates elements from the industrial economy (Porter, 1980) and the population ecology approach (Baum & Amburgey, 2017), emphasizing adaptive capacity (Bernardes & Hanna, 2009; Reeves, 2011). Baum and Amburgey (2017) and Wholey and Brittain (1986) it examines the interplay between ecological variation and selection processes and the strategies organizations adopt to navigate them.

Postmodern ontology offers a conceptual and technical response to the postmodern era, presenting terms and concepts characteristic of postmodern organizational ecological theory. This approach challenges individual rationality, questions stability, and emphasizes the procedural constitution of organizations through communal and social construction (Campos-Rueda & Goyanes, 2023).

The direction and speed of social change in modern, dynamic organizations, and the diversity of organizational populations respond to evolving societal conditions (Hannan & Freeman, 1989). The theoretical approach to the ecology of organizational populations can be achieved by adopting the population as the unit of analysis and emphasizing adaptation in selection. From an ecological theory perspective, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, with a focus on population dynamics considering various event types, structures, services, and strategies.

The emergence of STI systems is linked to another characteristic of technological knowledge development: innovation through an interactive process. In fact, in the economic field, it has been observed that the innovation process is interactive and energized by the successive feedback from the different actors involved in it (Lopez-Valeiras et al., 2016).

Based on the argument presented by Guimón (2018), the decentralization of the science, technology, and innovation (STI) system has been studied from a public policy perspective focused on developed countries. This research makes a significant contribution to the academic community by considering the decentralization of the STI system from an OI and OE perspective, which enables overcoming the institutional decentralization barriers faced by emerging economies like Colombia. This study validates a conceptual model of OI and OE that transcends the governance approach of the STI system in regions through national-region control mechanisms. The proposed OE approach allows overcoming the national-region control barrier through the ecosystemic appropriation of science, technology, and innovation in the regions of emerging economies like Colombia.

Among the characterizations of the various STI systems, two visions stand out: Kashani and Roshani (2019) stemming from the study of Japanese and German experiences, which highlights the interference in technological development of multiple systemic factors, whose central features were determined by the peculiarities of the national context; and Lundvall (1998) developed from the fundamental role of user–producer relationships in innovations developed in Denmark.

On the other hand, the efforts of the system of science, technology and innovation in Colombia as Malaver Rodríguez and Vargas Pérez (2005) points out, the early 1990s mark a crucial period for the advancement of STI in Colombia, as it develops its legal and institutional framework. At the same time, there is a shift in STI. At a more specific level, instruments are developed to strengthen STI funding and its linkages, as well as scientific production and dissemination. To facilitate the analysis of its achievements, these policy formulations will be summarized shortly.

In Colombia, the model was put into practice with the formal launch of the National System of Innovation (NSI) in 1995 as an integral part of the STI system. This initiative led to the creation of key institutions to support innovation. These included technology development centers, which were designed to serve as bridges between the research sector and industry; technology parks and incubators, which were designed to house start-ups and spin-offs; and venture capital funds. The Colombian government, guided by the NSI concept, directed the formulation of policies and instruments, as well as the establishment and organization of the system. Essentially, it focused on creating the necessary infrastructure with the goal of fostering collaboration among various stakeholders (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2013).

However, when talking about the decentralization of Colombia's science, technology, and innovation system, it is necessary to mention terms such as governability. Addressing the challenges and uncertainties associated with innovation is crucial. In the context of the Spanish language, two terms, governability and governance, are used to explain this concept. Governability focuses mainly on the role of the state in relation to society (Lucio et al., 2013). The governability signifies the responses that public agencies formulate in response to new external demands and societal pressures (Hannan & Freeman, 1989; Kline et al., 1986); on the other hand, governance refers to a novel approach to governing, wherein governments collaborate with diverse actors in the policymaking process, suggesting a more cooperative and participatory method of managing governmental affairs (Schiederig et al., 2012).

In this context, Kuhlmann and Rip (2018) define the relevant the governance of the Colombian system STI as a hierarchical structure. The governance, borrowed from political science, is a heuristic denoting the dynamic interrelation among involved actors, their resources, interests, and power, as well as forums for debate, arenas of negotiation, rules of the game, and policy instruments applied. Clearly, governance assumes the institutional coordination of diverse independent actors (Kuhlmann et al., 2010). Variables such as legitimacy (Дзяткoвcкий, 2009), effectiveness, and social support play pivotal roles and are contingent upon specific social, institutional, and historical contexts.

The present theoretical framework facilitates the construction of the necessary factors for the decentralization of the STI system through a model composed of OI and OE. This contributes to filling the knowledge gap on decentralization by providing an alternative approach to the national-regional control governance of STI public policy as reported in the literature.

This research validates the factors driving the decentralization of the STI system. The proposed model, using OI and OE, facilitates the decentralization of the STI system as an alternative proposal to decentralization as a public state policy focused on national-region control in developed economies. For this purpose, the research uses a case study in Colombia as an emerging nation. Given this, the current study addresses the following research questions

RQ1

What are the necessary factors for a decentralization model of the STI system in Colombia from the perspective of OI and OE?

RQ2

How do the factors of OI and OE interact in the decentralization of the STI system in Colombia?

The aim of this research is to propose a conceptual model that addresses the need to decentralize Colombia's STI system through OI, ensuring ecosystemic appropriation by actors through OE, as an alternative to the traditional approach to STI system decentralization, viewed as a public policy governance issue.

First, a wide range of researchers has demonstrated that the research approaches to STI systems have evolved through five distinct phases over the past 30 years, as established by Putera et al. (2022). These phases include: science policy, innovation policy, technology and innovation strategy, science, technology and innovation policy, and finally innovation ecosystems. The research within these phases spans from 1995 to 2020, revealing a significant knowledge gap related to the decentralization of the STI system from a management perspective supported by OE and OI.

Second, Okoye et al. (2022) argued that the focus of research on STI systems is primarily on the financial capacity of the system, driven by government investment in various factors such as physical infrastructure, human talent, institutions, and the roles of key system actors. However, this research does not consider the maturity capacity of the STI system from the perspective of social appropriation by users. This gap in knowledge is what the current research aims to address to ensure a higher level of long-term government investment in Colombia's STI system through ecosystemic appropriation, especially in the most dispersed regions of the country. Traditional academic paradigms have approached the STI system as centralized and static, not correlated with the social dynamics of the twenty-first century.

This article is organized as follows. "Factors of STI systems and open innovation" presents the factors of STI systems and open innovation. "Methodology for model" shows the methodology for model. "Discussion" provides, and discussion of the results obtained, and "Conclusions and future work" presents the conclusions, limitations, and work future.

Factors of STI systems and open innovation

The following elements are presented as a conceptual contribution to the development of the proposal.

Theory of STI systems

STI systems have been a topic of discussion in various academic research worldwide, as indicated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Source: Putera et al. (2022)

Structure of the literature STI systems.

In Fig. 1, it is observed that research on STI systems started in 1995 and has continued to develop until to the present day. The research factors are related to science policy, innovation policy, science and technology strategy policy, and science, technology, and innovation policy, as well as innovation ecosystems and systems. In this context, the academic literature on STI identifies five key moments in over 30 years of research on STI systems, highlighting innovation ecosystems as a prominent research trend. It is noteworthy that while the trend focuses on innovation ecosystems or innovation hubs, it does not emphasize specific types of innovation, such as OI.

In addition, the specialized literature on STI systems focuses its contributions on regulatory changes, shifts in strategies and roles of actors within STI systems, networks and management costs of STI systems, start-up ecosystems within STI frameworks in emerging economies, research funding paradigms in STI systems, and triple, quadruple, and quintuple helix models in university–state–society relations for STI systems.

Additionally, to visualize the behavior or maturity of the STI System in Colombia compared to STI systems in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, refer to Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Source: Okoye et al. (2022)

Structure of the literature STI systems.

In Fig. 2, the abbreviations are specified as follows: AF(SSH): Sub-Saharan Africa, AS(C&S): Central and Southern Asia, AS(E&SE): Eastern and Western Asia, LA&CB: Latin America and the Caribbean, NA&EU: North America and Europe, OCN: Oceania, and WAS&NAF: Western Asia and North Africa. The left side of the Fig. 2 presents the distribution of global STI investment as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), broken down by region and year from 2015 to 2020. It is evident that North America and Europe have the highest percentage of GDP allocated to STI funding, followed by Asia, Latin America, Africa, and Oceania. This indicates that the Latin America and Caribbean region, where Colombia is located, has an underfunded STI system, reflecting its weakness in addressing science, technology, and innovation challenges, particularly in the most remote areas far from Colombia's main cities.

The right-hand side of the figure shows the distribution of global STI investment in terms of full-time equivalent researchers per million inhabitants for each region over the period 2015–2020. It shows that North America and Europe have the highest investment in researchers per million inhabitants, ensuring a robust science, technology, and innovation ecosystem. In contrast, Latin America and the Caribbean, along with Oceania and Africa, are at the lower end of this distribution. This shows that the level of training of researchers in Colombia, which is part of Latin America and the Caribbean, is very low. This situation is exacerbated by the high cost of postgraduate programs in Colombia, which are not widely funded by Latin American governments.

According to Salami and Soltanzadeh (2012), the factors influencing the performance of STI systems include: the main institutions responsible for STI policy, indicators of registered patents, physical resources, actor institutions, and human resources. These factors, viewed through the lens of new quadruple and quintuple helix innovation models, highlight a knowledge gap related to the democratization of STI. Current research approaches do not take into account the democratization and access to STI for most of Colombia's dispersed regions (those towns, cities, and municipalities that are more than 500 km away from the main cities).

Based on the above, the hypothesis of this research suggests that the decentralization of Colombian STI system can be supported by a hybrid model of OI and OE.

Based on Asheim et al. (2016), high territorial dispersion within a single nation facilitates lower STI development. This suggests that it is crucial to develop alternative STI decentralization mechanisms to the current ones focused on public policies within the framework of transfer and nation-region control. Similarly, Martin (2016) has suggested that STI system decentralization can be treated as a public policy constructed through levels of governance designed for regional sustainability. However, this approach continues to treat the decentralization of the STI system as a public policy issue where the state assumes the role of decentralized and designs it in such a way that the regions in a passive role only activate and execute it.

On the other hand, McCann and Ortega-Argilés (2018) consider that the STI system involves different theoretical constructs that are applied in the regions through a governance guided by three pyramidal levels, with national STI policies at the top of the pyramid. However, this perspective addresses a hierarchical system that extends from the regions to the nation for the design of STI policies. While this is an approach to consider regions in the theoretical discussion of science, technology, and innovation activities, it does not explicitly address the problem of hierarchy and lack of citizen participation by not facilitating mechanisms for social appropriation of knowledge in a non-hierarchical way, but rather in an open and unstructured way.

The gap in these studies is the lack of perspective on the decentralization of the STI system beyond public policy and as a problem of giving voice to the regions. In the case of Colombia, an emerging economy, there are political, governance, social, and cultural weaknesses that influence the emergence of biases. Therefore, from the perspective of overcoming the hierarchical structure and addressing the decentralization of the STI system as a pure public policy issue, a knowledge gap is created on the need to contribute with research aimed at studying the decentralization of the STI system in emerging economies through alternative non-hierarchical approaches such as OI and OE that facilitate the ecosystemic appropriation of science, technology, and innovation in the regions.

Factors of open innovation for STI systems

Regarding other types of factors, such as process innovation, OI assessment and management systems, organizational culture, government policies, and the availability and trust of external environmental agents for collaborative and open work, it should be noted that these are success factors in companies in developed countries. However, they represent an organizational challenge that needs to be improved and overcome in OI for companies in developing countries where such factors are uncommon (López Gómez et al., 2010; Lucio et al., 2013; Pilav-Velic & Jahic, 2022; Sivam et al., 2019). Table 1 shows the main factors of OI.

Table 1 Factor and description of OI

From Table 1, 12 factors are identified for the design and implementation of OI models in any organization. The description of each factor emphasizes that these different factors are not disconnected in the composition of the internal and external.

Key factors such as organizational culture not only play a crucial role in achieving the goals of an organization or system, but in the case of innovation processes, especially OI, become a facilitating or innovative feature in the process due to the impact that culture has on the behavior of individuals who are actors in the system and the use of their potential (Romero-Rodríguez et al., 2020; Sivam et al., 2019). Organizations require cultures centered on axiological principles that promote collaborative work in implementing OI (Leckel et al., 2020).

The strategy proposes to organizations and systems the need to include OI in their strategic direction and vision as their main strategy. It should become a differentiating feature in organizational activities, so that its presence is evident in all processes of the value chain (Chiaroni et al., 2010; Kuhlmann & Rip, 2018; Kuhlmann et al., 2010; Дзяткoвcкий, 2009). The challenge of good strategic direction should consolidate innovation as one of its strategies through collaborative work, supported by collective intelligence, both within organizations or systems and in interaction with various external interest groups to develop a structured and permanent process of OI.

Organizational structure is important, because organizational systems require the simplification of their hierarchy or the presentation of a horizontal organizational hierarchy in such a way that decentralization of decision-making is achieved, supported by the self-control of the organization or system (Kuhlmann & Rip, 2018; Дзяткoвcкий, 2009). In addition, organizations or systems must emphasize the development of human potential rather than functional specialization to adapt quickly and flexibly to environmental demands, discover or create new business opportunities, and facilitate the flow of relevant information both within the organization and with the environment, supported by STI. According to Chiaroni et al. (2010), the development of complementary internal networks in the organizational structure is necessary to integrate and manage knowledge acquired outside the organization, as well as to manage the transfer of knowledge obtained internally from external agents. The STI system can do support for OI includes tools focused on improving innovation outcomes (Kratzer et al., 2017; Kuhlmann et al., 2010).

The implementation of OI often depends on the type of tools used by organizations and systems (Bernal-Torres & Frost-González, 2015). OI management tools are vital for the implementation of flexible and contextualized for OI models for the organization.

Factors of STI in Colombia

Colombia's STI is expected to be open to participation. The main elements of STI governance in Colombia are: (i) the Ministry of STI; (ii) a National STI Policy Council composed of experts who advise the President on STI developments in the country; (iii) a National Scientific Council (advisory body on scientific and ethical issues of research); (iv) and an executing agency for STI programs with high capacities in financial engineering; and (v) mechanisms for the Ministry of STI to relate and coordinate with other national and regional authorities, industry, and civil society, including regional innovation systems. At the beginning of the design of the STI system in Colombia, the proposal of Freeman (1995) was used as a reference. The most important periods of the STI system in Colombia are outlined below:

• 1968: The Colciencias office is established.

• 1988–1990: The first "Mission of the Wise" is created, entitled "Colombia on the Edge of Possibilities", which lays the foundation for the first STI system in Colombia.

• 1990: The first Law on Science, Technology and Innovation is enacted, establishing a regulatory and control framework for the STI system in Colombia.

• 2002: Law 1286 on Science, Technology and Innovation is updated, focusing on the distribution of financial resources that support the STI system in Colombia.

• 2019: The Ministry of Science is created, tasked with coordinating and concentrating STI management efforts in Colombia, with a focus on centralizing STI activities in the country.

Public policies for science, technology, and innovation are formulated from thought platforms that provide a rational and practical basis for their implementation. These thought platforms are called STI policy frameworks by Schot and Steinmueller (2018), who identify three frameworks in the postwar historical context. The first framework provides the basis for the institutionalization of STI at the end of World War II, with the assumption that government support for STI contributes to economic growth and addresses market failures to incentivize private investment in R&D. The second framework emerged in the 1980s with the globalization of the economy and concerns about competitiveness; this framework was structured around national innovation systems and focused on creating linkages, clusters, and networks to stimulate learning among system components, with business and entrepreneurship as the driving axis. According to Decree 1666 of 2021, Colombia's ITS is organized, as shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Source: Own elaboration

Structure of the Colombian STI.

From Fig. 3, the hierarchical organization of the STI in Colombia is observed, which, while ensuring the participation of different actors at the regional level, has protocols and instances that limit the decentralization of the system through traditional regulatory mechanisms. In addition, there is currently no regulation, other than the report of the international mission (de Sabios, 2019), that promotes the decentralization of the STI.

Regarding the structure and governance of the STI, it is worth mentioning that with the report of the International Mission of Wise Men (2019), it was deemed necessary to modify the STI. The objective was to improve governance and achieve better coordination among the various national and international actors promoting scientific research, technological development and innovation. This modification is intended to allow Colombia to move toward a knowledge-based society, modifying objectives, components and actors, as well as aspects of operation and coordination with other national systems and territorial entities, due to institutional changes in the science, technology and innovation sector.

Based on the above, factors include the following:

Internal factor

• Institutions: Colombia's STI system consists of a network of public and private institutions responsible for the generation, transfer, and application of knowledge. These institutions include universities, research centers, businesses, governments, and social organizations.

• Resources: The STI system requires financial, human, and technological resources for its operation. These resources are necessary to fund research, development, and innovation.

• Culture: The culture of innovation is a crucial factor for the development of the STI system. A culture of innovation values knowledge and creativity, promoting collaboration among different actors.

External factors

• Public policies: Public policies can have a positive or negative impact on the development of the STI system. Policies supporting science, technology, and innovation can contribute to its strengthening.

• Economic environment: The economic environment can also influence the development of the STI system. A favorable economic environment can create opportunities for innovation.

• Internationalization: The internationalization of the STI system is important for knowledge exchange and cooperation with other countries.

Methodology for model

This study utilizes the Design Science Research (DSR) methodology proposed by Siedhoff (2019), which outlines an artifact design approach for the research process. According to this methodology, there are four types of artifacts: constructs (vocabularies and symbols), models (abstractions and representations), methods (algorithms and practices), and prototype systems and instances. Based on this framework, the resulting artifact from this research is a model artifact, as it proposes a theoretical model that demonstrates the abstract representations of an OI and OE model for the decentralization of Colombian STI system, for ecosystemic appropriation of STI.

This methodology allows for the iterative construction of a transversal model from the literature in the fields of OI, OE, and STI systems, addressing the knowledge gap in the decentralization of Colombia's STI system as an alternative research approach to classical methods. It also proposes the integration of OI and OE into an iterative artifact.

For the validation of the artifact, we propose using the validation types for artifacts designed within the DSR methodology framework as suggested by Brocke et al. (2020). This framework establishes that for conceptual models as artifacts, there are two types of techniques. The first is called internal validation, which involves the consistency of the artifact's internal components and algorithmic validation. The second technique is called representational validation, which includes pragmatic validation, contextual validation, and structural validation. According to Brocke et al. (2020), internal validation is the second most common validation method for designed artifacts, while representational validation ranks fourth among the validation methods found in the academic literature for the period from 2014 to 2017.

In line with this, the validation of the model proposed in this research will be carried out through the representational validation technique. This involves constructing a cross-impact analysis matrix with the factors of the STI system in Colombia. As proposed by Vester (2012), this method analyzes variables in a matrix that measures the impact of the relationship between variables on a scale of 1 to 3, where 1 represents a low relationship between variables, 2 represents a moderate relationship, and 3 represents a high relationship. This matrix was resolved by 46 actors who are members of the subregional STI committees of the department of Caldas in Colombia, as part of the execution of the project Juntos por la Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación.

Systemic innovation network

Carayannis et al. (2012a, 2012b) illustrate the theoretical link between systems theory and innovation networks. In this conceptual framework, the elements of systems theory correspond to the nodes within an innovation network. The relationships among these innovation nodes reflect the interactions among elements within a system. Consequently, the addition or removal of nodes in an innovation network, or changes in the relationships between nodes, can be compared to evolutionary changes over time, a fundamental aspect of systems theory (Carayannis et al., 2012a, 2012b).

Systemic thinking and the application of systems theory necessitate defining what constitutes a system (Ashby, 1970), for instance, underscores that a system is essentially a collection of variables chosen by an observer. In Carayannis et al. (2016) interpret a system as a clearly defined set of components. Foerster (1979) distinguishes between observed and observing systems and is credited with introducing the term second-order cybernetics (Krippendorff, 1979). Foerster (1979) categorizes controlled systems as first-order cybernetics and autonomous systems as second-order cybernetics (Krivý, 2018). Umpleby, in his work on systems theory and cybernetics, highlights the added conceptual depth when considering the observer's perspective.

In addition to the conceptual innovation of first-order and second-order cybernetics, the systemic concepts of self-organization and self-organizing systems have also made a lasting impact (Cummings et al., 1995; Foerster, 1979; Krippendorff, 1979; Varela, 1984). Self-organization draws from various conceptual sources: first-order/second-order cybernetics, observed/observing systems (Von Foerster, 1984), autonomy, and autopoiesis. Autopoiesis refers to a system that self-produces its components, thus serving as a viable characterization of biologically living systems, such as cells and organisms. Conversely, the term allopoiesis refers to a system that does not reproduce itself but produces something else, such as an assembly line in industrial production (Maturana, 1975; Von Foerster, 1984). Niklas Luhmann, a German-speaking scholar, incorporated the concept of autopoiesis into his systems theory design and applied it to the social sciences (Deflem, 1998; Mingers, 1991).

On the other hand, the innovation center model for universities proposed by Mejia et al. (2019) indicates that the role of the university is that of an agent that plans innovation at the territorial and regional levels. In this way, it vertically articulates innovation processes to integrate communities in innovation processes based on the needs of territories or regions.

Organizational ecology

The concept of organizational ecology refers to an organizational field in which the interrelationships among organizations form a system that serves as the object of study. The emergence of OE can be traced back to empirical studies in organizational theory that focused on institution-building tasks in complex and interdependent environments (Morin, 2020). Within OE, firms compete based on standards (David, 1985). This approach acknowledges that organizational systems influence class and economic structures, thereby regulating social and political order (Sisaye, 2021).

OE encompasses the planning, design, and management of physical environments that are influenced by and affect expectations, organizational values, and work practices (Rosenstock et al., 1988). Leadership styles that consistently perform tend to stimulate ecological innovativeness when supported by inputs of ecological knowledge, information, and competence. Without the infusion of knowledge, information, and competence, leadership styles may not foster ecological innovativeness (Bossink, 2004). Communication and understanding of social-ecological knowledge help to change values and attitudes, build trust, and facilitate conflict resolution in ecosystem management.

OE also addresses the consequences of aging on organizational functioning outcomes, although consensus on whether aging effects are positive or negative remains elusive (Berger & Hannan, 1998). Aging theories within OE distinguish between competitive perspectives, including the liability of novelty and the liability of senescence (Berger & Hannan, 1998; Stinchcombe, 1965).

Incorporating influences such as inertia, imprinting, and environmental changes and OE renders the core technologies of aging organizations obsolete (Barron et al., 1994; Stinchcombe, 1965). Over time, organizations accumulate knowledge and enhance organizational competence, aligning with theoretical perspectives on aging in OE, such as the liability of newness and the liability of senescence (Hannan & Freeman, 1989; Vargas-Hernández et al., 2022).

Furthermore, OE considers the effects of organizational age on outcomes, finding correlations between age and size (Barron et al., 1994). The relationship between organizational behavior and aging remains unresolved, but OE underscores the multifaceted influence of aging on organizational innovation (Hannan & Freeman, 1977).

OE asserts that a combination of imprinting, environmental changes, and inertia leads to the obsolescence of organizational and technological innovations in older organizations (Barron et al., 1994; Stinchcombe, 1965). Individual organizations, subject to inertial forces, are often limited in their ability to achieve radical structural and strategic change within the OE framework.

Finally, OE has implications for strategic choice, constraining organizational strategy perspectives based on environmental conditions and industry changes over time. However, it tends to overlook contextual factors of organizational change, with central organizational populations seen as more ecologically dominant in coordinating and controlling resource flows within the community (Ranger-Moore, 1997). Commercially owned technological firms that become ecologically dominant often emerge from technological interdependence and centrality within networks and exhibit positive consumption externalities, rather than being determined by ownership alone (Katz & Shapiro, 1985).

Open innovation and organizational ecosystems

Innovation ecosystems can manifest at various levels, characterized by their geographical scope or supporting infrastructure (Oh et al., 2016). Business innovation ecosystems typically include suppliers, users, and partners. Distinguished by their geographic boundaries, innovation ecosystems can span neighborhoods, cities, regions, or nations, often in the form of hubs or clusters. Digital ecosystems, facilitated by online platforms, allow actors to forge synergistic relationships, often coalescing around a central offering, such as Google's or Apple's developer ecosystems (Oh et al., 2016). While prior research has explored innovation systems (Oh et al., 2016), innovation networks (Lyytinen et al., 2016), or R&D alliances (Bradley & Botchway, 2018), these concepts often fall short in capturing the dynamic and loosely coupled nature of service ecosystems.

Several case studies will explore how companies succeed in building OI ecosystems (Bradley & Botchway, 2018; Chesbrough et al., 2014). Traitler et al. (2011) identify ten key factors, ranging from leadership to internal expertise to passion, that influence the success of OI ecosystems and provides specific recommendations for redesigning R&D within such ecosystems. In addition, the research on innovation ecosystems focuses on strategies for aligning internal innovation strategies with the broader ecosystem (Adner, 2006; Traitler et al., 2011). Gawer and Cusumano (2014) illustrate the impact of industry platforms and ecosystems on product innovation. Riedl et al. (2009) also address this concept, highlighting the role of central platforms that bring together multiple actors adhering to the OI paradigm within an ecosystem. They also propose a framework that illustrates the capabilities of individual actors in service innovation and strategies for ecosystems to leverage these capabilities to drive service innovation.

A promising contemporary approach that underscores the importance of shifting the perspective of OI from a firm-centric to an ecosystem-centric view is the concept of OI 2.0 (Curley & Salmelin, 2017). Curley and Salmelin (2013) define OI 2.0 as a new paradigm based on principles of integrated, cross-organizational innovation collaboration, based on co-created shared value and mission, fostered within ecosystems of diverse actors (quadruple helix and fivefold helix of government/public, academia, industry, citizens). As the shift from bilateral cooperation to innovation ecosystems unfolds, new approaches to understanding, designing and managing dynamic innovation within ecosystems become imperative (Chesbrough, 2017).

Model proposed

This conceptual study draws upon theoretical frameworks encompassing systems theory, fractal knowledge networks (Franceschelli et al., 2018), OI (Johanson & Vahlne, 2015), regional innovation ecosystems, triple helix models, quadruple helix models, and fivefold helix models (Chesbrough, 2017; Franceschelli et al., 2018; Johanson & Vahlne, 2015). The model envisaged comprises diverse subsystems that interact dynamically with each other.

On the other hand, the model proposed by Franceschelli et al. (2018) argues that innovation models must have a logical and systemic relationship to effectively model innovation processes. Figure 2 depicts the model proposed in this research, which incorporates a continuity component for each component of the OI model to ensure sustainability over time and to solidify it (Moreno Marín 2022) argues that innovation models must have a logical and systemic relationship to effectively model innovation processes. Figure 2 depicts the model proposed in this research, which incorporates a continuity component for each component of the OI model to ensure sustainability over time and to solidify it. Mejia et al. (2019) proposed model considers the development of an Innovation Hub for public universities in Colombia, with a focus on the University of Magdalena. This model incorporates other types of innovation such as social innovation and regional, national, and international connections but does not consider the interaction flows between the different units of the University and the interaction in the model from the teaching, research, and extension missions. In addition, it does not involve vertical or horizontal integration, unlike the present research, which focuses on horizontal integration to eliminate the hierarchical structure of the current STI system, an essential requirement to ensure decentralization. Figure 4 shows the theoretical model.

Fig. 4

Source: Own elaboration

Proposed OI model for STI decentralization from an organizational ecology perspective.

Based on Fig. 4, it can be observed that the central component is an OI model by Jansen and Cherbourg, which is modified in this research to include factors such as intellectual capital. This factor is crucial to ensure the decentralization of Colombian STI and to guarantee the generation of knowledge that supports STI operations at regional and local levels. In addition, the present research model incorporates technological capital, which facilitates the use of tools and computer platforms to grant access to STI for localities and regions, thus responding to territorial demands.

As an output of the OI model, factors such as new markets and external variables are incorporated. While the Chesbrough (2017) as a result, the proposed model also includes the new factor of STI decentralization, which allows measuring local and regional access to STI not only in terms of system access, but also in terms of participation and ownership of science, technology, and innovation in daily activities, regulated by mechanisms such as municipal agreements and development plans.

On the other hand, Gonzalez-Millan et al. (2019) theoretical systemic model establishes the relationship between knowledge management and OI as a critical model compared to the traditional model (Chesbrough, 2010), which focuses on profit-driven innovation processes involving universities, the state, and society. However, Gonzalez-Millan et al. (2019) proposed model does not highlight the role of intellectual capital in knowledge generation for innovation processes. Another model by Du Chatenier et al. (2009) incorporates elements of intellectual capital into OI processes, but operates as a unidirectional process in parallel, making it ineffective if one stage of the process cannot be completed.

The proposed research incorporates factors of intellectual capital and technological capital based on developments in models such as Skandia's Navigator (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997) which suggests three types of capital. Human capital includes the experience, innovation, and skills of employees for day-to-day tasks, as well as organizational culture, values, and philosophy. Structural capital supports human capital and includes organizational infrastructure, physical system factors, quality and scope of information systems, corporate image, information storage, and organizational concepts, including intellectual property. Customer capital includes the value of the company's relationships with its business partners.

Furthermore, the Intellectus model (Ramirez-Corcoles & Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015) is based on a hierarchical structure that breaks down the relationships among the intangible aspects of the organization into components, elements, variables, and indicators. These elements, which are homogeneous groups of intangibles from each component of intellectual capital, explain different classes of intellectual capital.

The proposed model aims to determine the decentralization of Colombia's STI system by incorporating new factors into the traditional OI model. However, decentralization for regions and localities in Colombia requires continuity over time through the design of strategies, organizational structure, new markets, and the decentralization of STI, as well as ecosystem changes the continues components or factors in proposed model (Sánchez, 2019). This approach allows the flexibility of the different factors that make up the proposed model, making the decentralization model resilient to the dynamics of science, technology, and innovation.

The third part of the model is based on Maryanski et al. (2015) of OE theory, which views organizations as creatures in an ecosystem where they can either be prey or predators. Organizational management is subject to Darwin's natural selection process, which ensures the constant changes that the ecosystem imposes on organizations. This approach is proposed in this research as the final stage of STI decentralization in Colombia. While the intermediate role of OI leads to STI decentralization for regions, the system behaves like an organization in localities, subject to political, social, economic, and cultural changes, and dynamically adapts to the needs and demands of regions. Thus, the proposed model contributes to a critical stance on Colombia's current hierarchical and normative STI structure and allows the population throughout Colombia to adapt, use, and appropriate STI activities in different localities in response to different territorial needs and demands.

Model validation

The validation of the model was conducted through the representational validation approach proposed by Brocke et al. (2020), who assert that conceptual artifacts produced by the Design Science Research (DSR) methodology can be validated through the structural representation of the model's factors or components. To this end, the Vester's Matrix of Cross-Impact Factors Vester (2012) was used, which identified six factors proposed in the conceptual model and rated their impact on a scale of 1–3, where 1 is low impact, 2 is medium impact, and 3 is high impact. Table 2 shows the matrix of cross-impact factors. This methodological approach ensures a thorough examination of the interdependencies and potential influences of each factor within the model, providing a robust framework for assessing the conceptual integrity and applicability of the proposed model in practical settings.

Table 2 Cross-impact factors matrix

From Table 2, the cross-impact matrix was applied to the 46 members, which represents 67% of the total membership of the subregional committees of the department of Caldas: Alto Occidente Subregion, Prosperous West Subregion, Alto Oriente Subregion, Magdalena Caldense Subregion, North Subregion, and Centro-Sur Subregion. Each member was provided with a survey instrument consisting of 7 sections of 5 questions each, for a total of 45 questions in Spanish, which took approximately 15 min per person to complete. Each subregional committee consists of between 7 and 22 members representing various sectors: academia, including research faculty and secondary and vocational education teachers; civic watch groups; individuals interested in STI; municipal government representatives; and business association representatives. The age range of the members of the STI Subregional Committee varies from 35 to 68 years. This diverse composition ensures a broad perspective in assessing the impact factors related to STI initiatives in different subregions.

In the validation section of our study on the decentralization of Colombia's STI system, we use the Cross-Impact Factors Matrix to systematically assess the influence of six key decentralization factors. This methodological approach allows us to understand the interdependencies and potential impacts of these factors on each other, providing a robust framework for evaluating the conceptual integrity and practical implications of the proposed decentralization model.

Hierarchical Structure of Colombia's STI System The hierarchical structure plays a key role in setting the operational framework for all other factors. Its impact is critical because it defines the authority and procedural pathways through which decentralization policies are implemented. A thorough analysis reveals how structural rigidity or flexibility influences the pace and scope of decentralization efforts.

Intellectual Capital, Organizational Strategy, and Technological Capital Tools These elements are critical to fostering an environment conducive to innovation. Their high impact score underscores their role in equipping regional entities with the necessary tools and strategies to drive local innovation initiatives, highlighting the need for strategic alignment with broader decentralization goals.

Government Policies for STI Government policies form the backbone of support for decentralization through funding, regulatory support, and strategic direction. Assessing this factor indicates the extent to which current policies facilitate or hinder the decentralization process, and suggests areas where policy adjustments could improve decentralization outcomes. STI system actors at the national and departmental levels: collaboration among various stakeholders, including academia, industry, and government agencies, is essential for a holistic STI approach. The matrix analysis illustrates how stakeholder involvement affects the implementation and success of decentralized initiatives and points to the need to foster strong networks and partnerships.

Decentralization of STI Activities Across Territories and Regions This factor directly examines the distribution and implementation of STI activities across different regions. The impact analysis here provides insights into how geographic dispersion supports or limits the reach and effectiveness of STI initiatives, highlighting the importance of tailored regional strategies. Ecosystemic Appropriation of STI in regions: Reflecting how well regions can adapt and integrate STI into their local development agendas, the high impact of this factor underscores the importance of regional capabilities in leveraging STI for local innovation and growth.

The comprehensive assessment of the matrix not only validates the interrelated nature of these factors, but also highlights critical insights for policymakers and organizational leaders seeking to improve Colombia's STI landscape through effective decentralization. The findings suggest that while certain factors strongly support decentralization, others may require strategic reinforcement to fully realize the potential benefits of a decentralized STI system.

Discussion

By developing a conceptual model that integrates Colombia's STI system with OI and OE theory, with the aim of using OI to facilitate the decentralization process of the system as an alternative to Colombia's traditional hierarchical STI model, and ensuring that this decentralization is embraced by communities and regions from the perspective of organizational ecology to provide viability and sustainability to STI in Colombia, this research contributes to proposing a two-way decentralization conceptual model. The first one establishes a decentralized model by dismantling the hierarchical structure of the traditional Colombian STI system, using the funnel system formulated in the OI process. The second one establishes the need to sustain the decentralization process over time through the appropriation and participation of citizens in decentralized STI processes, through the organizational ecology process, which stands out for its level of horizontal integration and alternative to traditional hierarchical structures, thereby eliminating barriers to access to STI in Colombia by citizens and regions. The conceptual model developed includes factors of OI, Colombia's STI system, and the integration process under the ecological niche concept, which places the civilian population at the center of the discussion not only as active players in the decentralized system, but also as builders of STI processes in Colombia from an organizational ecology perspective.

In addition to the above, considering organizational ecology as a fundamental element of the ecosystem sustainability of the decentralized STI system in regions and localities, a triangle model was included in ecological niches to ensure the continuous construction of STI processes and activities in the regions. This is shown by the inclusion of a triangle symbol in the OI phase of the proposed conceptual model. This triangle corresponds to the representation of the continuous factor in the proposed model, which is generated by two algorithms. The first algorithm contributes to the iteration of initial functions of an equilateral triangle characterized by the fact that all its sides are equal. The second algorithm takes the result of the first to generate geometric transformations such as rotation and translation to create more equilateral triangles. In this way, the triangles ensure the creation of a figure of equality for the participation of the actors and guarantee the ecosystemic appropriation of the decentralized STI system in the regions. This helps to understand the action of the STI system in Colombia not as a fixed process with a hierarchical structure, but as a model in constant dynamism and construction from the regions of the country.

On the other hand, the proposed conceptual model establishes necessary modifications, so that, through the OI model, the fixed and hierarchical structure of Colombia's STI system can be decentralized. For this purpose, it was required that the traditional OI model by Chesbrough (2017) be adjusted to the decentralization needs and enable the elimination of hierarchical barriers in Colombia's traditional STI system by incorporating components such as:

Strategy: this element helps define the decentralization strategy of the STI system for the regions. Organizational structure: While part of the traditional OI model, it must overcome hierarchical limitations and be structured to support regions in the appropriation and construction of STI. Competence: while part of the traditional OI model, it needs to be incorporated to define that the STI system is not unique and is not the same for the territorial needs and demands of the country. Intellectual and technological capital within the OI funnel: these components have been incorporated to ensure the adequate allocation of human talent management and technological tools in the regions for the construction of STI processes and activities, thus guaranteeing the active participation of citizens in the decentralized alternative STI model. Internal and external variables: already incorporated in the traditional OI, their function is related to the external and internal dynamic changes that territories and regions undergo for the construction of STI processes and activities as an option to meet territorial demands. New markets: a component existing in the traditional OI model, it functions in this alternative OI model by enabling the economic growth of regions through decentralized STI processes and activities tailored to territorial needs.

The last component corresponds to the decentralization of the STI system, ensuring the function of the alternative OI model constructed here in the constant decentralization of the STI system by transforming the governmental or public policy component of the system. The regulatory and normative process reflected in municipal and departmental development plans must ensure flexibility in the regulatory construction of regions for STI processes and activities. In light of the above, it is evident that the proposed alternative OI model incorporates six new components and focuses traditional components to strengthen the necessary activities for decentralizing Colombia's traditional STI system by citizens in the regions.

In the conceptual model, the triangle is incorporated into various components of the OI model as an alternative proposal to the traditional OI model proposed by Chesbrough and Crowther (2006). Specifically, the triangle is placed in the strategy, organizational structure, competence profiling, public policy, intellectual capital, technological capital and resources, internal variables, external variables, new markets, and regional decentralization within the OI model. This ensures that each stage of the OI model is not a fixed process, but requires construction by regions, going beyond the current hierarchical scheme of the Colombian STI system. The goal is to guarantee a level playing field, co-creation, and construction of STI processes and activities.

From the perspective of organizational ecology theory, the proposed model highlights three key factors that are related as a triangle formed by the following components. Diversity: this component is related to the variety of STI activities and processes developed in each region of the country. In addition, diversity, as a factor of organizational ecology, facilitates the incorporation of different thoughts, attitudes, and cultures of actors in the process of constructing STI activities and processes in the regions. Organizational morality: this component implies that for the ecosystemic appropriation of STI in the regions to occur, it is necessary to incorporate axiological and ethical principles in the construction of STI processes and activities aimed at addressing the needs of the regions of the country. Ecosystemic change: this component represents the dynamic capacity existing in the regions, which the traditional hierarchical structure of the STI system does not address. Ecosystemic change is crucial to understanding that the decentralization of the STI system is evidenced and realized through the societal ecosystemic appropriation in the regions. Based on the dynamics of the context, ecosystemic appropriation must be constantly evaluated.

The aforementioned components of the alternative STI model proposed for the ecosystemic appropriation of society from a decentralized system through an alternative STI model must be governed by the triangle principle, as evidenced in the proposed model. It is imperative that the model ensures the continuity over time of the ecosystemic appropriation of the STI system and guarantees a process of construction of society and regions of STI that responds timely and unbureaucratically to the needs of the territory. The organizational ecology component ensures that the ecosystemic appropriation promotes the transition from a decentralized STI system to a model that adapts to the needs of the territory over time, referred to as mutualistic.

The previous model was proposed in a unidirectional way, so that the decentralization of the STI system is carried out supported by an alternative model of OI, and that such decentralization is ecologically appropriated by the regions and the population through the lens of organizational ecology. This ensures a co-construction process of STI as an evolutionary, concerted and territorially adapted process, sustained over time, considering the mutualistic component in response to social dynamics.

The proposed model in Fig. 4 is a systemic model that incorporates an alternative OI proposal aimed at achieving the decentralization of the current centralized and hierarchical STI system. It integrates an OE approach, which aims to ensure the ecosystemic appropriation of the population in the regions for the collective and evolutionary construction of STI processes and activities focused on addressing territorial needs.

The validation of the proposed model was carried out using the cross-impact factor matrix, which highlighted the strength of the six factors proposed in the conceptual model for the decentralization of the STI system in Colombia. This type of validation, known for the artifacts produced by the DSR methodology, is called representational validation. It emphasizes the importance of each proposed factor within the conceptual model developed for this research. Figure 5 illustrates the matrix Vester, and these factors positioned within the quadrants of active factors, inactive factors, critical factors, and reactive factors, providing a visual representation of their influence and interactions within the STI decentralization framework.

Fig. 5

Source: Own elaboration

Vester matrix from OI and OE in the proposed model.

In Fig. 5, the active quadrant highlights factor 3, which corresponds to government policies. This suggests that for the decentralization of the STI system through OI and OE by communities, the members of the Caldas Subregional Committees on Science, Technology and Innovation consider that central government policies, which currently define the hierarchical structure of Colombia's STI system, should be oriented toward facilitating decentralization and regional ecosystemic appropriation of STI actions and processes.

The inactive and reactive quadrants do not represent any factors from the proposed STI decentralization model, indicating that the members of the Caldas subregional committees do not perceive any of the six factors outlined in the proposed conceptual model as isolated; all factors are interrelated and influenced by the presence of others. This observation underscores that all factors influence each other and the proposed model. If there were factors located in these quadrants, it would suggest that some do not validate the representational aspect of the model. Therefore, the proposed model, composed of six interactive factors for STI decentralization through OI and ecosystemic STI appropriation based on organizational ecology, is perceived by the subregional committees as consistent and representative, contributing significantly to address STI decentralization in Colombia.

In the critical quadrant, factors 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6—representing the hierarchical structure of the STI system of Colombia, intellectual capital, organizational strategy and technological capital tools, government policies for STI, actors of the STI system at the national and departmental levels, decentralization of STI activities across regions, and ecosystemic appropriation of STI in the regions—are identified. These factors are highly influential and sensitive to external disturbances affecting the proposed model, suggesting that the interaction of these factors, influenced by external forces, facilitates the decentralization of STI in Colombia through OI and OE, as perceived by the members of the subregional committees of Caldas. The validation carried out confirms the representation of the six decentralization factors in the proposed model, mediated by OI and supported by OE for the ecosystemic appropriation of STI in regions, as asserted by the members of the STI subregional committees in Caldas, Colombia. This validation underscores the contribution of this research to a conceptual model that facilitates the decentralization of STI in Colombia through OI and grounded in organizational ecology for the regional appropriation of STI.

Conclusions and future work

The model proposed in this research is a conceptual model from a descriptive approach that modifies the traditional OI model for the decentralization of the STI system in Colombia, ensuring an ecosystemic approach from the perspective of OE. First, the definition of the STI system in Colombia was established, along with the theoretical concept of OI and OE theory. The factors of the STI system and OE were identified, allowing the development of an alternative OI model that would facilitate the decentralization of the STI system in Colombia. Second, the components of the OE theory were identified to facilitate the decentralization established over time through the ecosystemic appropriation of STI in the regions, facilitating the co-creation of STI processes and activities to address regional needs. Third, the triangle continuous is proposed from systems theory in the different components of the alternative OI model and in the proposed OE model, facilitating continuous ecosystemic appropriation over time in response to the dynamics of Colombian regions and facilitating the continuous decentralization of the current hierarchical structure of the STI system through the generation of public policies in the regions in a flexible manner. Fourth, the proposed model integrates alternative OI and OE models, so that, in a directional and unidirectional way, it supports the decentralization of the STI system and the ecosystemic appropriation of STI.

The answer to the first research question proposed in this article is addressed through the proposal of OI factors and organizational ecology, validated with a case study of decentralization in Caldas-Colombia of the STI system. The OI factors play the role of facilitating decentralization as an alternative to the traditional STI decentralization approaches as public policy, and the organizational ecology factors facilitate the ecosystemic appropriation of activities in science, technology, and innovation in the regions of Colombia. The answer to the second research question proposed in this paper is evidenced in the structure of the proposed model and validated by the cross-impact matrix, which allows validating the structure of the proposed decentralization model by phases. The first phase consists of decentralization from the factors of OI, and the second phase includes ecosystemic appropriation from organizational ecology. This represents an alternative contribution to the decentralization of the STI system in emerging economies such as Colombia.

In terms of the academic value of this research, the proposed conceptual model contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field of OI and organizational theory applied to different areas. First, factors from the traditional STI system of Colombia and OI are constructed, leading to the design of an alternative conceptual model of OI that incorporates other elements to achieve the decentralization of the Colombian STI system to the regions. Second, each new and existing component introduced in the proposed conceptual model of OI is related to the triangle, especially to ensure continuity and adaptation to the specific decentralization needs demanded by the country's regions.

Third, the triangle is applied to ensure equitable generation without hierarchy of each of the components in the proposed alternative conceptual models of OI and OE. Fourth, an alternative model is developed based on the framework of organizational ecology theory to consider the concept of local niche to promote the ecosystemic appropriation of a decentralized STI system where inhabitants of regions build and address the needs of the territory from the perspective of STI.

In addition, this facilitates the design of a mutualistic and dynamic STI system tailored to the dynamics of the territories and regions of the country. Fifth, the proposed alternative conceptual models for OI and OE in phases in a one-way process that begins with the decentralization of Colombia's traditional STI system, is decentralized through the alternative model of OI, is ecologically appropriated by the regions under the perspective of OE, and is sustainable over time given its continuity in the face of territorial dynamics supported by the triangle approach in each of the integrated model components.

Finally, this model is an alternative for academic communities to incorporate an integrated model based on the adaptation of proposed alternative conceptual models, thus conceptually representing the factors and components integrated for the decentralization and ecosystemic appropriation of the Colombian STI system.

The results of the proposed integrated conceptual model provide practical contributions for the actors within the STI system, encouraging reflection on the need to decentralize the bureaucratic and hierarchical structure of the current system. For the inhabitants in the regions of the country to participate in and take ownership of STI processes and activities in building their regions from an STI perspective. It can help to open up the need to conceive structured STI processes not only from a central institutional and normative level, but as a process of construction and co-creation focused on the needs of the regions.

The proposed model is developed as an artifact within the framework of DSR, The validation process conducted for the proposed model was termed "representational validation," as introduced by Brocke et al. (2020). This method involves the validation of each of the factors and components of the artifact developed as a product of the DSR methodology. In the case of this study, the artifact in question is the proposed conceptual model, which aims to facilitate the decentralization of the STI system through OI and OE for the ecosystemic appropriation of STI in Colombia's regions. For this validation, a cross-impact factor matrix was constructed as an instrument applied to the members of the Subregional Committees of Science, Technology and Innovation in Caldas, Colombia.

The present research has limitations in that it does not validate the factors by formulating hypotheses that are validated in selected case studies and modeled by structural equations or by longitudinal studies. For this reason, it is suggested that future research develop hypotheses related to the components of the integrated conceptual model and validate them in one or more case studies in different regions of the country.

Other future research could focus on presenting an alternative model to the proposed conceptual model, since this model proposes the incorporation of two alternative models of OI and OE, which approach a new solution to the decentralization problem of the traditional STI system in Colombia. Could explore different alternatives to continuous ecosystemic appropriation, as proposed by the conceptual model of OE. Further research could focus on validating the unidirectional approach integrated in the proposed conceptual model, which starts from the traditional STI system of Colombia, then decentralizes to the regions through the use of an OI model that eliminates hierarchy, and then appropriates this decentralization for the regions to use STI processes and activities. Finally, it is proposed to conduct a longitudinal and cross-sectional study of STI systems in Latin America, to be compared with the European Union and the United States, which would facilitate the adoption of the model proposed in this research in more generalized contexts.