Skip to main content

A. Innovation Ecosystems & Entrepreneurial Dynamics

  1. Auerswald, P. E. (2012). The Coming Prosperity: How Entrepreneurs Are Transforming the Global Economy. Oxford University Press.
    An analysis of how entrepreneurial dynamics reshape global economic development, emphasizing distributed innovation and adaptive institutional structures.
    Source: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Coming_Prosperity.html?id=uGtSepfLjR0C

  2. Isenberg, D. (2011). The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Strategy as a New Paradigm for Economic Policy: Principles for Cultivating Entrepreneurship. Babson College.
    A foundational paper that formalized the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems as policy frameworks rather than isolated programs.
    Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1081154

  3. Spigel, B. (2017). “The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72.
    Provides a relational definition of entrepreneurial ecosystems, focusing on cultural, social, and material attributes that enable startup formation.
    Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/etap.12167

  4. Mazzucato, M. (2015). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. Anthem Press.
    Argues that governments play essential entrepreneurial roles in high-risk innovation, challenging traditional assumptions about public–private boundaries.
    Source: https://books.google.com/books/about/Entrepreneurial_State.html?id=Wro1DgAAQBAJ

  5. Feld, B. (2012). Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Your City. Wiley.
    A practical framework for bottom-up, founder-led ecosystem development, emphasizing long-term community building over short-term programs.
    Source: https://books.google.com/books/about/Startup_Communities.html?id=lyTVswEACAAJ

  6. World Economic Forum (various years). Global Competitiveness Report.
    Global benchmarking of national competitiveness, including innovation capacity, institutional quality, and entrepreneurial environment.
    Series Home:
    https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-competitiveness-report-2019/

  7. Stam, E., & van de Ven, A. (2021). “Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Elements.” Small Business Economics, 56, 809–832.
    Defines the core elements of an entrepreneurial ecosystem through an evidence-based, systems-level framework.
    Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6

B. Public Sector Innovation & Governance

  1. OECD (2015). The Innovation Imperative: Contributing to Productivity, Growth and Well-Being. OECD Publishing.
    A comprehensive analysis of why public-sector innovation is essential for national competitiveness, productivity, and citizen well-being, framing innovation as a systemic requirement across government institutions.
    Source: https://www.oecd.org/publications/the-innovation-imperative-9789264239814-en.htm

  2. OECD (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Public Service Leadership and Capability.
    Defines principles for modern public administration, including agility, evidence-based policymaking, strategic foresight, and mission-oriented governance.
    Source: https://www.oecd.org/governance/public-governance-review/

  3. OECD (various years). Government at a Glance.
    A flagship benchmarking series comparing public administration performance worldwide, covering trust in government, service delivery, digital capability, and institutional effectiveness.
    Series Home: https://www.oecd.org/governance/government-at-a-glance-22214399.htm

  4. Kattel, R., & Mazzucato, M. (2018). “Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy and Dynamic Capabilities in the Public Sector.” Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 787–801.
    Foundational work establishing how governments can design and execute mission-oriented innovation programs, emphasizing the role of dynamic capabilities and institutional learning.
    Source: https://academic.oup.com/icc/article/27/5/787/4995627

  5. World Bank (2021). GovTech Maturity Index: The State of Public Sector Digital Transformation.
    A global diagnostic of government digital transformation, covering core areas such as digital public infrastructure, service delivery, and internal government platforms.
    Source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/governance/brief/govtech-maturity-index

  6. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). UN E-Government Survey (various years).
    A biennial global assessment of digital government maturity, focusing on service delivery, participation, data governance, and institutional capacity.
    Series Home: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports

  7. Kattel, R., Drechsler, W., & Karo, E. (2019). Innovation Bureaucracies. Oxford University Press.
    A systemic examination of how public institutions can be structured to support experimentation, long-term missions, and national innovation portfolios.
    Source: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/innovation-bureaucracies-9780198848370

  8. European Commission (various years). European Innovation Scoreboard.
    Compares innovation performance across EU member states and selected global peers; widely used for benchmarking innovation policy outcomes.
    Series Home:
    https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/statistics/performance-indicators/european-innovation-scoreboard_en

C. Incubation, Acceleration & Entrepreneurial Support

  1. Cohen, S., & Hochberg, Y. (2014). “Accelerating Startups: The Seed Accelerator Phenomenon.” SSRN Working Paper.
    The definitive empirical analysis of the accelerator model, documenting program structures, selection dynamics, and measurable performance outcomes for accelerated startups.
    Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2418000

  2. Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van Hove, J. (2016). “Understanding a New Generation Incubator Model.” Technovation, 50–51, 13–24.
    A taxonomy of modern incubator models, distinguishing between ecosystem builders, corporate incubators, and open innovation structures.
    Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016649721500125X

  3. Miller, P., & Bound, K. (2011). The Startup Factories: The Rise of Accelerator Programmes. Nesta.
    An influential report tracing the emergence of accelerators globally, identifying common program elements and economic rationale.
    Source: https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/the-startup-factories/

  4. Dee, N., Livesey, F., Gill, D., & Minshall, T. (2012). What Matters in Business Incubation? A Review of the Evidence. Nesta.
    A global evidence review identifying the critical determinants of effective incubation, including governance models, mentor networks, and selection processes.
    Source: https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/what-matters-in-business-incubation/

  5. Isenberg, D. (2013). Worthless, Impossible and Stupid: How Contrarian Entrepreneurs Create and Capture Extraordinary Value. Harvard Business Review Press.
    A study of entrepreneurial strategy under uncertainty, emphasizing contrarian thinking and value creation in undeveloped markets.
    Source:
    https://store.hbr.org/product/worthless-impossible-and-stupid-how-contrarian-entrepreneurs-create-and-capture-extraordinary-value/11143

  6. International Business Innovation Association (InBIA). Global Resources and Best Practices for Incubators and Accelerators.
    A leading global repository of tools, benchmarks, and operational practices for innovation centers, incubators, and accelerators.
    Source: https://inbia.org

  7. World Economic Forum (2015–2018). Digital Transformation Initiative.
    A series of reports analysing how digital technologies reshape industries, with significant implications for accelerator program design and startup readiness.
    Series Home: https://www.weforum.org/projects/digital-transformation

D. Investment & Funding Architecture

  1. Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (1999). The Venture Capital Cycle. MIT Press.
    A foundational work explaining how venture capital markets function, covering fund structures, deal selection, governance mechanisms, and systemic incentives.
    Source:
    https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262571230/the-venture-capital-cycle/

  2. MaRS Discovery District. “Venture Capital & Impact Investment Resources.”
    A comprehensive practical resource for startups and policymakers, detailing funding instruments, venture readiness, and impact investment models.
    Source:
    https://www.marsdd.com/our-insights/venture-capital-and-impact-investing/

  3. National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). NVCA Yearbook (annual).
    The most authoritative annual dataset on U.S. venture capital activity, including fundraising, deal flow, exits, and investor trends.
    Series Home:
    https://nvca.org/research/nvca-yearbook/

  4. Y Combinator. “SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) — Founder & Investor Resources.”
    Defines the SAFE instrument widely used in early-stage startup financing and provides legal templates for founders and investors.
    Source:
    https://www.ycombinator.com/documents

  5. OECD (various years). Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs: An OECD Scoreboard.
    A comparative global analysis of funding mechanisms for small and medium-sized enterprises, with insights relevant to early-stage innovation financing.
    Series Home:
    https://www.oecd.org/industry/financing-smes-and-entrepreneurs-23065265.htm

  6. Lerner, J. (2009). Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Why Public Efforts to Boost Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Have Failed—and What to Do About It. Princeton University Press.
    Analyzes the successes and failures of government intervention in entrepreneurship, providing guidance on designing effective public–private investment programs.
    Source:
    https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691140001/boulevard-of-broken-dreams

E. Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning (MEL)

  1. OECD (2019). The Evaluation of Innovation Policy: Methods and Directions. OECD Publishing.
    A comprehensive methodological guide for evaluating public-sector innovation policy, covering theory-based evaluation, systems approaches, and longitudinal impact measurement.
    Source:
    https://www.oecd.org/publications/the-evaluation-of-innovation-policy-9789264305434-en.htm

  2. Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. Guilford Press.
    The foundational text on developmental evaluation, providing tools for evaluating innovation under complexity, uncertainty, and continuous adaptation—highly relevant for incubators and public innovation labs.
    Source:
    https://us.guilford.com/books/developmental-evaluation/Michael-Quinn-Patton/9781606238721

  3. Kusek, J. Z., & Rist, R. C. (2004). Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System: A Handbook for Development Practitioners. World Bank.
    A practical, widely adopted M&E framework for designing and implementing results-based systems within public institutions and development programs.
    Source:
    https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/14926

  4. Mayne, J. (2008). “Contribution Analysis: An Approach to Exploring Cause and Effect.” ILAC Institutional Learning and Change Initiative Brief 16.
    A rigorous evaluation method used to determine the plausible contribution of a program or intervention within complex systems where attribution is not possible.
    Source:
    https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/handle/10625/37787

  5. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2009). Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results.
    A comprehensive guide for planning, monitoring, and evaluating complex development initiatives, commonly used by governments and multilaterals.
    Source:
    https://www.undp.org/publications/handbook-planning-monitoring-and-evaluating-development-results

F. Strategic Foresight & Futures Studies

  1. OECD (2018). Strategic Foresight for Better Policies: A Toolkit for Public Sector Innovation. OECD Strategic Foresight Unit.
    A practical framework for embedding anticipatory governance and foresight capabilities across government, including tools for scenario building, systems mapping, and long-term policy design.
    Source:
    https://www.oecd.org/strategic-foresight/

  2. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2018). Foresight Manual: Empowered Futures for the 2030 Agenda.
    A globally adopted reference for futures thinking, providing structured foresight methods aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals, including horizon scanning, trend analysis, and scenario development.
    Source:
    https://www.undp.org/publications/foresight-manual-empowered-futures-2030-agenda

  3. Voros, J. (2003). “A General Foresight Process Framework.” Foresight, 5(3), 10–21.
    One of the most widely used conceptual models for foresight processes, introducing a generic yet comprehensive framework for scanning, analysis, and scenario generation.
    Source:
    https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14636680310698379/full/html

  4. Bishop, P., & Hines, A. (2012). Teaching about the Future. Palgrave Macmillan.
    A pedagogical guide for designing and teaching futures thinking programs, grounded in practical tools used by foresight practitioners.
    Source:
    https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9781137003534

  5. Ramos, J. (2014). “Foresight in Government: Practices and Challenges.” Journal of Futures Studies, 18(4), 1–20.
    An analysis of how governments incorporate foresight into institutional structures, highlighting barriers, best practices, and real-world case studies.
    Source:
    https://jfsdigital.org/articles-and-essays/vol-18-no-4-june-2014/

G. Data Governance, Security & AI Risk

  1. OECD (2019). The Path to Becoming a Data-Driven Public Sector. OECD Digital Government Studies.
    A foundational framework describing how governments can transition toward data-driven decision-making, including governance models, capability building, and ethical safeguards for public-sector data use.
    Source:
    https://www.oecd.org/publications/the-path-to-becoming-a-data-driven-public-sector-059814a7-en.htm

  2. OECD (2020). The OECD Digital Government Policy Framework (DGPF): Six Dimensions of a Digital Government.
    Defines the six global principles of digital government maturity: digital-by-design, data-driven public sector, government as a platform, open-by-default, user-driven, and proactiveness.
    Source:
    https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/the-oecd-digital-government-policy-framework.pdf

  3. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO/IEC 27001 — Information Security Management Systems.
    The global standard for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving information security management systems (ISMS), widely used in public and private sectors.
    Source:
    https://www.iso.org/isoiec-27001-information-security.html

  4. European Union (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
    The most influential global regulatory framework for data protection and privacy, defining principles of lawful data processing, consent, individual rights, and cross-border transfer requirements.
    Source:
    https://gdpr.eu

  5. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2020). NIST Privacy Framework: A Tool for Improving Privacy through Enterprise Risk Management.
    A voluntary framework that integrates privacy risk management into organizational governance, complementing cybersecurity frameworks and supporting responsible data practices.
    Source:
    https://www.nist.gov/privacy-framework

  6. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2023). AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0).
    A comprehensive framework defining responsible AI development, deployment, and governance, covering trustworthiness, transparency, robustness, accountability, and risk mitigation.
    Source:
    https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework

H. Public Value, Trust & State Capacity

  1. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Harvard University Press.
    A seminal work defining how public institutions generate value, proposing a strategic triangle of legitimacy, operational capacity, and public value creation—now foundational for modern public-sector innovation frameworks.
    Source:
    https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/cri/publications/creating-public-value

  2. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press.
    Explores how social trust and informal institutions shape economic development and innovation potential, highlighting cultural underpinnings of national competitiveness.
    Source:
    https://books.google.com/books/about/Trust.html?id=Kv0rAQAAMAAJ

  3. Evans, P. (1995). Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton University Press.
    A landmark book describing how capable states balance autonomy with embeddedness in society—crucial for understanding how innovation policy succeeds in emerging economies.
    Source:
    https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691037363/embedded-autonomy

I. Latin America & the Caribbean – Digital Economy & Innovation

  1. CAF – Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina y el Caribe (2015). El Ecosistema y la Economía Digital en América Latina.
    A regional analysis of digital transformation trends, infrastructure gaps, and innovation ecosystem challenges across Latin American economies. Provides benchmarks and insights highly relevant for VIF’s regional scaling strategy.
    Source:
    https://scioteca.caf.com/handle/123456789/768

  2. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) (2009). La Sociedad de la Información en América Latina y el Caribe: Desarrollo de Tecnologías y Políticas Públicas.
    A comprehensive overview of ICT development, public digital policies, and the structural challenges shaping innovation and competitiveness in the region.
    Source:
    https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/2537-la-sociedad-la-informacion-america-latina-caribe-desarrollo-tecnologias

  3. BID Lab / Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. “GET Forum (formerly BID Lab Forum) — Knowledge and Connections in Digital Transformation, Inclusion, and Entrepreneurship.”
    A key regional platform for innovation programs, impact entrepreneurship, digital economy initiatives, and experimentation models for development.
    Source:
    https://bidlab.org/en/products/knowledge-and-connections/get-forum

  4. Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA). Gobierno Digital e Innovación Pública — Recursos y Marco de Referencia.
    A repository of regional initiatives, toolkits, and policy frameworks supporting digital transformation, cybersecurity, and innovation capacity in the public sector.
    Source:
    https://www.oas.org/es/sap/dgpe/escuelagob/OIGIP.asp

J. Global Indicators & Benchmarking

  1. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), INSEAD, Cornell University (annual). Global Innovation Index (GII).
    The leading international benchmark of national innovation performance, covering inputs, outputs, institutions, human capital, knowledge creation, and technology outputs. Used globally by governments for policy design and competitiveness analysis.
    Series Home:
    https://www.wipo.int/global_innovation_index/en/

  2. World Economic Forum (WEF) (annual). Global Competitiveness Report.
    Assesses the competitiveness landscape of economies worldwide, including innovation ecosystems, institutional quality, labor markets, and technological adoption.
    Series Home:
    https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-competitiveness-report-2019/

  3. International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Measuring Digital Development / ICT Development Index (IDI).
    A long-running ITU indicator series tracking global progress in ICT access, usage, and skills—highly relevant for national digitalization and innovation strategies.
    Series Home:
    https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/statistics/idi2024/

  4. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2015). UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030.
    Analyzes science, technology, and innovation systems globally, with emphasis on emerging economies and long-term capacity-building requirements.
    Source:
    https://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/books/9789210059053

K. Emerging Practices – Public–Private Innovation & Incubation

  1. CORFO – Gobierno de Chile. Start-Up Chile: Global Accelerator Programme.
    One of the world’s first government-backed accelerators, recognized for its international founder attraction model and as a benchmark for mission-driven public entrepreneurship programs.
    Source:
    https://startupchile.org/en/

  2. Ruta N Medellín (Colombia). Centro de Innovación y Negocios de Medellín.
    A flagship urban innovation district and public–private platform that integrates R&D, entrepreneurship, investment attraction, and talent development to accelerate regional competitiveness.
    Source:
    https://rutanmedellin.org/

  3. Israel Innovation Authority. National Innovation & Technology Policy Agency.
    A global leader in state-led innovation governance, with programs supporting deep tech, commercialization, venture creation, and multinational R&D integration.
    Source:
    https://innovationisrael.org.il/en/

  4. SGInnovate (Singapore). Deep Tech Innovation & Investment Platform.
    A government-backed initiative focused on deep tech ventures, commercializing scientific research, and building scalable public–private innovation ecosystems.
    Source:
    https://www.sginnovate.com/

  5. InovAtiva Brasil (Brasil). Programa Nacional de Aceleração de Startups.
    Brazil’s flagship national acceleration program, combining mentoring networks, bootcamps, open innovation challenges, and government-supported non-equity startup development.
    Source:
    https://www.gov.br/mdic/pt-br/assuntos/inovacao-e-novos-negocios/inovativa-brasil

L. Foundational Doulab Frameworks

  1. Santiago Arias, L. (2025). MicroCanvas® Framework 2.1. Doulab.
    The MicroCanvas® Framework is a structured methodology for designing, validating, and scaling innovation initiatives. Version 2.1 formalizes the evidence-based problem analysis, customer insights, solution design, and feasibility architecture used across public and private-sector innovation programs.
    Official Source:
    https://www.themicrocanvas.com

  2. Santiago Arias, L. (2025). Innovation Maturity Model Program (IMM-P®). Doulab.
    IMM-P® provides a staged diagnostic and capability-building model to assess innovation readiness across teams, startups, and public-sector organizations. It integrates maturity scoring, structured analysis, and targeted interventions aligned with MicroCanvas® processes.
    Official Source:
    https://www.doulab.net/services/innovation-maturity

  3. Santiago Arias, L. (2025). Vigía Futura — Innovation & Strategic Foresight Observatory. Doulab.
    Vigía Futura is a continental observatory for monitoring innovation ecosystems, strategic foresight trends, and national innovation maturity. It provides indicators, research outputs, scenario analyses, and methodologies for governments and institutions across Latin America and beyond.
    Official Source:
    https://www.doulab.net/vigia-futura

M. Licensing

  1. Vigía Incubation Framework (VIF) — Licensing Notice.
    The Vigía Incubation Framework (VIF) is an integrated methodology developed by Luis A. Santiago Arias. It is provided for institutional use, strategic planning, innovation system development, and public–private incubation networks. Redistribution or derivative work is permitted only under the terms specified in the project’s licensing file.
    Official Site:
    https://vif.doulab.net
    License File:
    ../vif/LICENSE.md

  2. MicroCanvas®, IMM-P®, and VIF — Trademark and Methodology Protection.
    MicroCanvas®, IMM-P®, and the Vigía Incubation Framework (VIF) are proprietary methodologies developed by Doulab®. These names, structures, diagrams, and analytical processes are protected intellectual property. Any reuse, implementation, or adaptation must include proper attribution and comply with Doulab’s licensing and methodological integrity requirements.
    Official Source:
    https://www.doulab.net

Vigía Incubation Framework © 2025 by Luis A. Santiago Arias.
Licensed under CC BY 4.0 as specified in:
../vif/LICENSE.md

MicroCanvas®, IMM-P® and VIF are proprietary methodologies of Doulab®.