The topic of my speech is the experience of Polish innovators from cooperation with the business and

science environment. The speech was prepared on the basis of qualitative research in the form of an
in-depth interviews conducted with 24 innovators from the city of Bialystok.

In the study, an innovator was defined as a person who has developed and implemented at least one
new product or service in the last five years, independently or in a team, in cooperation with an
institution of the innovation system (e.g. in the form of internship, scholarship, employment, or
doctoral school)1. Additional sampling criteria used to ensure a diverse group of participants with a
range of perspectives included: males and females, from diverse institutions in the innovation system
(university, private company, start-up), and with varied experience length. In total, 24 face-to-face
interviews were conducted with 13 men and 7 women.

Innovators I met
• Ewelina Brzozowska
• Phd in biomedical engineering/engineering and technology
• Constructor of the creeper: creeper is used for mobility. The structure is set on four swivel
wheels, which together are capable of supporting a weight of 160 kg in motion. It was created
out of a desire to help children
• Krzysztof Toczydłowski
• In addition to our significant presence in the domestic market since 1993 in the areas of
optoelectronic and inductive systems for direct electronic measurement of linear and angular
displacement and training CNC machine tools and robotics, since 2016 we have been a
manufacturer of our own design of tool-education CNC turning and milling centers and the
innovative EXPERT CNC-FMS training system. In this area, we cooperate with Siemens as an
official certified training partner in Poland. We conduct and co-organize CNC training
courses in the operation and programming of Sinumerik 828D/840D sl CNC controllers.
• https://www.tock.pl/o-firmie
• Krzysztof Matul , Imago 3D
• The company's founder, Technical University Researcher, certified Oracle programmer,
scholar of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, winner of prestigious awards and author of
numerous scientific publications. In Imago he is responsible for coordination of key projects
and company development.
• The digital model of sculpture
• 3D Visualization: the model of the sculpture "Masks" - a small piece of architecture of
Bialystok. The model was constructed using three programs - each of them was used for
processing the object in its own way. After taking a series of images around the sculpture and
obtaining the point cloud, the object was recreated in a digital form.
CUSTOS

1 This definition of innovator is adopted from the OECD textbook for measuring innovation – Oslo Manual
2018:
Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition.

1
 • An invisible guide for people with visual impairments
• The system is designed to allow the user to intuitively perceive their surroundings without
having to engage their hearing while avoiding the sensory overload characteristic of other
“Haptic Suit” solutions.
• A battery powers the kit
• The glasses observe the environment
• A neural network processes the image
The haptic garment transmits information
• Marcin Joka
• Programmer, co-creator of the Photon interactive robot for teaching programming to children.
By day, Managing Director and Product Manager at Photon Entertainment sp. z o.o.. As a
student, winner of, among others, the largest technology competition in Poland - Microsoft
Imagine Cup. Laureate of the “NewEurope 100″ ranking - a ranking of the most rapidly
developing innovators in Central and Eastern Europe, developed by Google and ResPublica,
the Ministry of Science and Higher Education's ‘Generation of the Future’ program or the
‘Przystanek Młodzi’ - a plebiscite for the most inspiring people under the age of 30.
• Photon Entertainment is one of the fastest growing start-ups in Central and Eastern Europe.
We create educational robots and comprehensive kits for teachers to introduce new
technologies into lessons and modernize outdated teaching methods. We work with Partners
on 6 continents and our products have already reached over 70 countries.
The Biggest Social Challenges for Creativity – Innovators Perspective
Nepotism, hierarchy, misunderstood connections, lack of trust
Nepotism

recurrent theme, mentioned mainly by academics, was nepotism, which has a significant impact on
access to public funds for innovation [#2, #9, # 10, #11, #12, #15]. The majority of academics
described this problem as connected with the lack of transparency in the allocation of financial
resources and the attitude of favoritism towards colleagues and family members.

“Everywhere projects go to the people that are supposed to get them. Not the ones who... I think the
construction of science and technology parks or industry parks is kind of establishing artificial
relationships between industry and academia. These things are necessary, but unfortunately, as usual,
they are done the Polish way. Friends and family are hired first, and only then, specialists, if there are
still jobs to offer. And there are some parks, companies and other institutions with a number of really
good specialists who are doing a good job. But if there were only specialists, those institutions would
work much more effectively. So the direction is good, but as I say, it’s usually done the Polish way”
[#9].

A common sentiment expressed by the interviewees is the presence of numerous public

institutions in the NIS that offer professional services to innovators, especially in the initial stages
of the innovation process. The interviews also highlighted a positive atmosphere of openness and
willingness to assist, particularly in terms of knowledge and administrative support. However,

2
concerns were raised regarding the transparency of resource allocation if financial resources were
available in the NIS.

One interviewee, an academic innovator, shared a disheartening experience regarding the

allocation of grants, noting that they often go to individuals with close connections within
the academic hierarchy. This pattern was further emphasized when winners of a recent
contest for grants were predominantly deans and rectors. The general consensus among
the study group was that the entrenched hierarchy within academia negatively impacts
innovation activities.

Furthermore, there is a prevailing frustration among innovators as they feel that despite
discussions on the importance of innovation, the traditional academic elite still hold the power.
These individuals, who prioritize publishing without necessarily implementing innovations,
hinder the progress of those working on practical implementations. Consequently, many
professionals involved in implementation within universities are leaving for industry due to the
lack of support and recognition within the academic structure. Ultimately, the influence of
individuals who have not been directly involved in implementation on decision-making processes
within universities remains a significant issue.

All grants go to the kith and kin. It’s sad but it’s typical here. The big fish take it all.
Recently, there was a contest, more than ten grants to finance, and the peculiar thing is
that all the winners were deans, rectors, and so on.

• A lot is being spoken [about innovativeness], but the old guard still have the power. They
are people who publish for the sake of publishing, so they’re not going to allow anyone
to stop appreciating them and start appreciating those who implement things. And how
does it end? People who work in implementation at universities more and more often quit
their jobs and go to industry. The old guard want new ones to replace them, but they
prefer their followers, who have been educated by themselves and work the same way. So
in fact, the implementations, other things, and scoring at universities are determined by
people who have never worked in implementation

Although innovators appreciated the number and diversity of public institutions established within the
NIS, they negatively commented on their structure. In all cases, the interviewees described the
hierarchy of the NIS as the most hurdling factor in their innovative activity. This was shared by all the
participants, regardless of their age, gender, experience, or workplace. Actually, the youngest
innovator (approximately 20 years old) and the most experienced one (in their 60s) reported similar
observations. The majority of critical opinions were addressed at public universities; fewer referred to
science and technology parks and spin-off companies. In the case of academia, there was a dominant
overwhelming expression among the innovators that hierarchical relations prevailed there, often
compared to the feudal pattern of governance. Innovators working at universities underlined that such
relations influenced their professional development since obtaining research grants was highly
dependent on having personal relationships with individuals of a higher rank. As one innovator
employed at a technical university put it:

3
 I think about 15-20% applications actually end up in financing. As I see it, and I’ve been
working at university for a few years, it’s a vicious circle, because to get a project, you
need to have some documented output. To have the output, you need money for research.
And to have money for research, it’s best to get a grant. So if you don’t have anybody to
support you, a supervisor with huge accomplishments who’d act as the project manager,
it’s really, really hard to get the project individually if you’re just beginning the journey.

A common view amongst the interviewees was that the hierarchy of academia was manifested not
only by its organisational structure and professional dependency relationships established on its basis,
but also through informal patterns of interactions involving e.g. a friend, a friend’s acquaintance, or
family kins. As another academic explained:

It must be one of us. That’s it. It doesn’t have to be a family member, but it must be one
of us, whatever that means. … It doesn’t matter what you do. Someone else, who has
better relations with authorities, may get more money. Nobody says in publicly, but
unofficially we know more or less how much some people earn.

Indeed, mentality is the keyword when reporting on the difficulties experienced by innovators since
the interviewees expressed many concerns about the contradictory cultural attitudes of actors of the
innovation system. Depending on their workplace, each group of innovators indicated different actors
as the ones who did not comprehend innovation properly. Academics claimed businesspeople to be
selfishly focused on profits, while entrepreneurs alleged university researchers to be unaware of the
market reality and to have stuck in an ivory tower, without any time pressure to work effectively. Both
groups expressed negative comments about public administration as the representatives of a
hierarchical form of governance. The feeling of disappointment pervading the interviewees’ accounts
of relations between actors of the NIS is overwhelming. The deep mental differences between
entrepreneurs and the academia are illustrated by the accounts below. From the perspective of a
company owner:

An entrepreneur has the binary approach: either we sell more, or we have a higher
margin. A scientist’s approach is more processual: things should be done as slowly and as
carefully as possible. … I believe scientists are afraid that the entrepreneurs will say
something like: “But we did the same thing 15 years ago and it didn’t have any good
effects, so we’re not interested in it at all.

The inventor of an orthopaedic device, in turn, expressed his view as follows:

They [local entrepreneurs] are rather focused on their activity. They are bound to develop
their own business instead of supporting the young ones who don’t have enough money
or knowledge. Podlasie [region in the East of Poland] is not ready to support such new,
young, innovative individuals. We still tend to think “For myself, only for myself, I’m the
most important, and those young guys... I don’t care about them. I care about my area.
That’s it.

Among the attitudes experienced by most interviewees was also the feeling of distrust towards other
individuals and institutions involved in the innovation process. Academics do not trust businesspeople,

4
entrepreneurs are suspicious towards university researchers, and neither group trusts state officials.
According to the interviewees, overwhelming omnipresent suspicion is the dominant pattern of
relations among innovators. Apart from individual experiences though, on the macro scale, the attitude
of distrust towards the potential partner within the NIS significantly discouraged the interviewees from
engaging in cooperation. The most successive innovators have decided to work as freelancers running
their own businesses, hardly ever having any established form of cooperation with institutions of the
NIS. It can be claimed though that these innovators function outside the NIS since they do not form
any regular relations with academic or spin-off institutions and only occasionally take up short-term
collaborations which usually do not survive longer than the duration of one project. Clearly, these
initiatives do not result in any networks. Consequently, the innovators do not feel they belong to the
NIS, as the experience they describe is rather a form of dropping in and out of the system without the
willingness to establish any stable relations within it.

One engineer said:

The greatest barrier I experience is the mutual distrust. Why don’t I trust others? Cause
some of my projects have been stolen. Yes, stolen. Just like that. For example, once I had
an idea and told others about it too soon. They told me it was impossible to implement,
and then I learnt from social media that this very idea had received more than a million
zloty financing. It was almost unchanged and presented by a person related to the one I’d
talked to. Actually, by their spouse. It’s just one of a few examples. I’ve been robbed of
ideas and that’s why I don’t trust others.

reflexivity

Par excellence, innovators are defined as people who act, and the aspect of creativity is an inherent
component of their attitude. Therefore, reflexivity is certainly an immanent feature of innovators’
personality, as the creation of anything new is impossible without taking into consideration prior
development and current structural and cultural emerging powers.

Although the interviewees do report many individual concerted initiatives to re-shape or retain the
social dig, none of them mentioned participation in any established organisation representing
innovators’ interests. Quite the opposite, the participants on the whole demonstrated the attitude of
being highly unrelated to institutions of the innovation system as they had experienced a number of
negative situations in such interactions. Since nepotism and hierarchical, even feudal, relations are the
constraints innovators must have overcome, the feeling of discouragement from any forms of
cooperation increased among them.

The interviewees’ responses demonstrate a strong career vision and a sense of strategic readiness
towards opportunities available in their professional context. The attitude of being ready to grasp the
opportunity is illustrated by the following quote from a company owner:

• I was allowed to create a team in Biazet and I employed people I needed to work with. I was
the one to buy the first Heidenhain CNC machine in Poland. It was my contract. I simply went
to the manager of Avia in Warsaw, introduced myself, explained who I was and what I was
working on. After 25 minutes, I was told they would make the machine for me. The first
machine sold in Poland. So these interpersonal skills help me in contacts with people. And

5
 this is what an innovator should be like. He can’t be constrained by the four walls around him.
The walls should have many doors through which he could go in and out. It’s something like a
transitory model but you still need to stay in the same environment. Let’s say I moved these
walls around me farther and farther, beyond some boundaries. There were more and more
doors, but I was still in the same room, within the same walls, the same solutions. … And I
think this is the key to effective innovative action.

• The cost of the vehicle was half a million. I’m still paying back my loan, because I took the
credit for all that innovativeness. But generally, it’s probably something that nobody in Europe
has done before. As a young boy with loan money I made the biggest and most expensive
device that’s ever been constructed. So if I, a boy from Bialystok, was able to make something
like this, someone who has money can do so much more! … But I have to run my business,
because otherwise I would have no time to do what I like. I can’t work operationally, make
money, and be innovative at the same time, because I have to waste lots of time just to make a
living, so this is what’s killing us.

Although the interviewees do report many individual concerted initiatives to re-shape or retain the
structural and cultural features in question , none of them mentioned participation in any established
organisation representing innovators’ interests. Quite the opposite, the participants on the whole
demonstrated the attitude of being highly unrelated to institutions of the NIS as they had experienced a
number of negative situations in such interactions.

In all cases, innovators illustrated their actions as individual performances given on the edge of
cultural and structural emergent powers. The attitude of ‘doing one’s stuff’ demands a high level of
reflexivity, but as some of the interviewees reported, it is also emotionally exhausting. Indeed, the
majority of academics try to follow the norms of academia and at the same time struggle for autonomy
in their innovative actions.

On the other hand, entrepreneur innovators do not want to make any compromises in contacts with
academia institutions and treat all forms of this cooperation as a necessary evil, which they want to
end as quickly as possible. For businesspeople, doing business with universities is too time-consuming
and unclear, considering the cultural (mainly hierarchical) rules of communication. Obviously,
innovators cannot function completely independently and need to cooperate with other private and
public institutions. With regard to the latter, however, they are reluctant and sceptical about the
effectiveness of cooperation. Indeed, the most acknowledged innovators have created their own
systems of innovation established on the basis of personal networking. This attitude can be
characterised as the ‘bubble’ mentality, where innovators feel sheltered from the negative impact of
the external world. Although these are informal groups, some concrete research and development
activities are taken on their basis. This strategy may be a form of resistance to the constraining norms
of ‘the old guard’, as academics describe university authorities. A similar attitude of ‘bubble’
mentality is observed among young freelancer innovators who blame the established local business
people for not supporting innovators and being focused on profits only.

Individualism and the focus on achieving one’s goal appear to play a role in maintaining innovators’
modus vivendi but also constrain people’s choices to pursue collective action. Focusing on oneself
appears to be linked to a long-standing cultural belief in the Polish society that individuals are
responsible for themselves since a large part of the society live in the culture of distrust. Many Poles

6
believe the rule: ‘What others tell us doesn’t mean anything. Let’s look at what we really have.’