The regional innovation systems (RIS) concept has become popular among academics, political decision-makers and regional stakeholders of innovation. Understanding the competitive dynamics of RIS and their impact on regional competitiveness today has thus become a priority. This paper provides researchers, academics, political decision-makers and other interested parties with a map of the different approaches to RIS, aiding in the definition of new territorial innovation policies. With a co-citation resource approach, an extensive search of the Web of Science database was carried out and it encountered four clusters in the literature on RIS: regional knowledge systems; regional institutional systems; regional research and development systems; and regional network systems. This correspondingly sets out new theoretical perspectives based on bibliometric analysis techniques and new paths for scientific reflection and research.

The recent change in the regional development strategy of the European Union (EU) results in an important need to study the terms of change and their respective implications. This study seeks, through a bibliometric analysis, to ascertain the developments taking place in studies on research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3) to identify shortcomings and opportunities for future research. This bibliometric review drew upon the Scopus database with the sample selected containing all the articles containing the keywords “Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation” or “RIS3.” This correspondingly reports how some authors maintain that the path the EU should take involves imitative innovation. Meanwhile, others propose that each region should specialise in those industries that are already established there and thus avoid targeting any areas they do not already know/specialise in. Our findings detail six clusters in RIS3 research, which help in contextualising the literature review: (a) business discovery; (b) smart specialisation; (c) innovation; (d) specialisation; (e) regional policies; and (f) regional development. This study furthermore sets out perspectives for future lines of research and correspondingly seeks to convey a vast theoretical basis that may serve as the point of departure for future studies.

Purpose: Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have become increasingly important in national and international markets because they contribute to the development of local and national economies. SMEs often face serious challenges when competing with multinational companies. The purpose of this paper is to develop a method for assessing SMEs’ competitiveness.Design/methodology/approach: Based on a constructivist epistemology, this study makes an integrated use of cognitive mapping and the measuring attractiveness by a categorical-based evaluation technique (MACBETH). To this end, face-to-face sessions were conducted with a panel of entrepreneurs and senior managers who deal with the challenges of maintaining SME competitiveness every day. The proposed assessment system was tested and validated by the panel members.Findings: The methodological processes adopted in this study provide promising results for decision makers seeking to identify the most competitive SMEs. Specifically, the results emphasize, among other points, the importance of innovation and the human dimension to gaining competitive advantages.Research limitations/implications: The evaluation system developed in this study is extremely versatile and confirms the usefulness of integrating cognitive mapping and MACBETH to facilitate evaluations of SME competitiveness. However, due to its idiosyncratic and process-oriented nature, generalizations need to be done with caution.Practical implications: The proposed method can be valuable to researchers seeking to develop mechanisms for evaluating SMEs’ entrepreneurial performance and include specialized know-how and sensemaking in organizational decision-making processes.Originality/value: The integrated use of cognitive maps and MACBETH contributes to a better understanding of how to assess SMEs’ competitiveness. No prior work reporting the use of this dual methodology in this study context has been found.