Internship report

Étudier les écosystèmes d’innovation mondiaux

(Dont le cluster Paris-Saclay)

study global innovation ecosystems

(including the Paris-Saclay cluster)

Davoud SHALFOROUSHAN

Supervisors:
Professor Didier Lebert
Professor Richard Le-Goff

Institut Polytechnique de Paris- UEA (Unité d'Economie Appliquée)

April-Septembre 2023

1
Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………….3

Motivation…………………………………………………………….4

Objectives…………………………………………………………….5

Methodology………………………………………………………….6

Results…………………………………………………………….…28

Conclusion……………………………………………………………64

Appendix………………………………………………………………66

References…………………………………………………………......70

2
Introduction
In today's rapidly evolving global landscape, innovation plays a pivotal role in shaping economies and societies. The pursuit of novel
ideas, technological advancements, and creative solutions has led to the emergence of dynamic innovation ecosystems around the
world. These ecosystems serve as hubs for collaboration, knowledge exchange, and the development of groundbreaking innovations
that drive economic growth and societal progress.

Recognizing the significance of innovation ecosystems, the Applied Economics Unit (UEA) at the Ecole Nationale Supérieure de
Techniques Avancées (ENSTA Paris) is embarking on a compelling endeavor. This initiative seeks to delve into the intricate realm of
global innovation ecosystems, with a particular focus on the renowned Paris-Saclay cluster. The objective is clear: to formulate
comprehensive metrics that facilitate cross-ecosystem comparisons, enabling the identification of best practices that can be adapted
locally to foster innovation.

In the following sections, we will delve into the motivations behind this undertaking, the key objectives driving the research, the
methodologies employed to achieve them, the anticipated results, and the implications that these findings could have for policymakers
and the broader innovation landscape. By exploring the nuances of innovation ecosystems, analyzing existing literature and metrics,
and applying quantitative methodologies, this internship promises a journey into the heart of modern innovation dynamics.

Intrigued by the opportunity to contribute to this groundbreaking exploration, interns are invited to collaborate with seasoned
researchers and immerse themselves in the fascinating world of network theory. With a strong foundation in economic and management
sciences, interns will assist in the development, testing, and refinement of metrics that promise to shed light on the intricate mechanisms
underlying successful innovation ecosystems.

As we embark on this journey, we invite you to explore the following sections that will uncover the motivations, objectives,
methodologies, results, and implications of this internship opportunity. The convergence of academic rigor and real-world applicability
awaits, as we unravel the complexities of innovation ecosystems on a global scale.

3
Motivation
The Paris-Saclay cluster stands as a paramount symbol of global innovation and academic excellence. As one of the eight most
significant clusters worldwide, its significance cannot be overstated. At the heart of this cluster lies the IP Paris University, a beacon of
research and intellectual advancement. This cluster's rapid expansion and growth have garnered the attention of the international
community, positioning it as a hub of innovation, entrepreneurship, and collaboration.

The meteoric rise of both IP Paris and the Paris-Saclay University in global rankings further underscores the cluster's ascent. This
remarkable trajectory signifies the acknowledgment of its academic and research prowess on a global scale. The Paris-Saclay cluster's
presence resonates beyond national borders, impacting not only the French innovation landscape but also serving as a benchmark for
institutions aspiring to achieve international recognition.

Comprising renowned educational institutions, startups, and industries, the Paris-Saclay cluster is transforming into a vibrant and
dynamic ecosystem. Anchored by a diverse array of institutions, including universities, grande écoles, and major public research entities
like CNRS, CEA, INRA, and INRIA, this "hyper university" aspires to rival the reputation of illustrious names like Harvard, Cambridge,
or MIT. Such ambition drives the creation of an environment where knowledge flourishes, innovation thrives, and interdisciplinary
collaborations flourish.

Furthermore, the Paris-Saclay cluster's allure extends beyond academia. A host to prestigious corporations including EDF, Renault,
Peugeot-Citroën, Nokia, Alcatel, Sanofi, and Danone, it becomes clear that the cluster's influence spans diverse sectors. Its strategic
role in aeronautics, defense, information and communication technologies (ICT), healthcare, energy management, and mobility
underscore its versatility and potential for societal impact. This confluence of academia and industry elevates the cluster as a trailblazer
in multiple strategic domains, poised to shape the future of innovation.

In conclusion, the Paris-Saclay cluster's significance is multifaceted, encompassing its global stature, academic prominence, rapid
growth trajectory, and strategic influence across industries. As a nexus of innovation and collaboration, it embodies the essence of
modern progress, poised to make lasting contributions to both the French and international innovation landscapes.

4
Objectives
This report is fueled by a set of ambitious objectives that collectively strive to illuminate the intricacies of the Paris-Saclay cluster and
its role in the global innovation landscape. The following goals guide our exploration:

1. Identifying the Paris-Saclay Cluster's Dynamics:

The primary objective of this study is to unravel the multifaceted dimensions of the Paris-Saclay cluster. By comprehensively
assessing its capacities, abilities, and limitations, we aim to construct a nuanced understanding of the cluster's composition, its
inherent strengths, and the potential areas for development. This exploration serves as the foundation for informed decision-making
and strategic planning.

2. Establishing a Robust Measurement Tool:

Central to our objectives is the quest for an effective measurement tool that can encapsulate the magnitude of the Paris-Saclay
cluster's impact. This entails identifying the key indicators and variables that define its vibrancy and relevance within the global
innovation ecosystem. By devising a quantifiable framework, we endeavor to provide a clear and comprehensive representation of
the cluster's significance.

3. Mapping Interconnections and Relationships:

One of the pivotal facets of any thriving innovation ecosystem is the intricate web of relationships and connections among its
stakeholders. This objective seeks to uncover and map the intricate network that binds the various actors within the Paris-Saclay
cluster. By discerning these relationships, we aim to shed light on collaboration patterns, knowledge flows, and the synergistic
interactions that propel innovation.

5
 4. Constructing a Comprehensive Growth Analysis:

A substantial aspect of our exploration involves tracking the growth trajectory of the Paris-Saclay cluster over a specific time frame.
This includes the analysis of registered patents and published articles spanning from 2010 to 2021. By meticulously compiling and
analyzing this data, we aim to create a comprehensive and analytical map that portrays the cluster's evolution, identifies pivotal
moments, and discerns trends that have shaped its advancement.

In essence, our objectives converge to create a holistic portrait of the Paris-Saclay cluster, encompassing its dynamics, impact
measurement, interconnectivity, and growth trajectory. By achieving these objectives, we seek to not only contribute to the academic
understanding of innovation ecosystems but also to provide actionable insights that can guide policy decisions and industry
collaborations within and beyond the borders of this dynamic cluster.

Methodology

The methodology employed in this study is designed to systematically unravel the intricate dynamics of the Paris-Saclay cluster and
provide a robust framework for achieving our stated objectives. The following steps outline the approach we undertook to conduct this
analysis:

1. Data Collection:
The first step involved gathering comprehensive and relevant data to construct a holistic understanding of the Paris-Saclay cluster.
This included information on institutions, research entities, industries, and individual stakeholders within the cluster. We collected data
on registered patents, published articles, collaboration agreements, and affiliations to map out the cluster's ecosystem. Here is the
explanation of the base sources of my data centers:

6
1. OECD Website (Patents):
• The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) provides valuable data on patents through its website.
This source was used to access statistics and reports related to patents filed within the Paris-Saclay cluster. One of the two
final data set used in patents, was based on OECD data set.

2. Lens.org (Patents):
• As a powerful platform for accessing patent information. It provides a user-friendly interface to search and retrieve patent data.

• You can perform searches on Lens.org using keywords, assignee names (e.g., universities, companies within the Paris-Saclay
cluster), or other relevant criteria. “Lens” was the second final patents’ data base. It was merged with OECD data set to gain
final data set. There were a common number in between, who acts as a nexus to connect these two data sets. Because there
was not source which give patents based on territory or cluster. So, it took more time and effort to find a way to find the patents
based on territory not the country. Although data obtained from Lens.org includes detailed patent information such as titles,
inventors, publication dates, and patent classifications, the are different branches ramified from a union institute, like CNRS.
But we needed those originated from Paris-Saclay cluster and not the others. This was another problem that was hidden in first
glance and we solved it by comparing with other data set.

• “Lens” can be used for scholary works as well, but because of limitation it had, I preferred to ignore this website for this goal.

3. Google Patent (Patents):

• Another widely accessible platform for patent searches. It allows you to search for patents globally and refine your search to
focus on the Paris-Saclay cluster. Data available on Google Patent includes patent titles, inventors, publication dates, and
patent documents.

• It was not used because “Lens” and “OECD” was more suitable for the work.

4. Google Scholar:
• Google Scholar is a valuable resource for academic publications. It provides access to a vast collection of scholarly articles,
conference papers, and other academic content.

7
 • In order to do preliminary research and get to know more about the subject, I used specific keywords or search terms related
to the topic. Especially to learn more about the basic definitions of innovation, system and ecosystem innovation and the
difference in between, borders of a cluster, Life Cycle, etc.

• Data collected from Google Scholar includes publication titles, authors, publication dates, and publication sources.

5. CNRS Library (https://bib.cnrs.fr/):

• The CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) library website was my second source to find articles I am looking
for. Thanks to the membership I had, I had access to the website, so the article couldn’t be read through Google scholar, was
read within CNRS library.

6. ScienceDirect (Elsevier):
• The last one, was used rarely for my advanced search features and citation tracking within its comprehensive collection.

8. Paris-Saclay Cluster Website (http://www.paris-saclay.com/):

• The official website of the Paris-Saclay cluster provided me valuable information about its member institutions, collaborative
projects, and strategic goals. In other words, I used it as my main resource of information about specific situation of this cluster.

• I gathered data on cluster members, research initiatives, and partnership agreements from the website.

2. Literature Review:
A thorough literature review was conducted to gain insights into existing methodologies for analyzing innovation ecosystems. This
review helped us identify key indicators, measurement tools, and network analysis techniques commonly used in similar studies. By
building upon existing knowledge, we ensured the robustness and comprehensiveness of our methodology.

One source of insights was a presentation by my supervisor, Didier LEBERT, which emphasized the unique journey of a social scientist
transitioning into a deeptech entrepreneur. This presentation illuminated the strengths and limitations inherent in the French academic
innovation ecosystem, providing a practical perspective on the dynamics of the Paris-Saclay cluster. The experience shared

8
underscored the intricate interplay between academia and entrepreneurship, highlighting the multifaceted nature of innovation
ecosystems.

In addition, we explored the examination of innovation ecosystems by Deog-Seong Oh, Fred Phillips, Sehee Park, and Eunghyun
Lee. Their work critically questioned the distinction between 'innovation ecosystems' and 'innovation systems.' At present, these terms
are often used interchangeably, with 'innovation ecosystem' becoming more systemic, emphasizing digitalization, open innovation,
differentiated roles, and market forces. The authors also presented various types of innovation ecosystems, including open innovation,
regional and national, digital city-based, and university-based models, each with its unique success factors and metrics. This
perspective challenged conventional linear thinking about innovation ecosystems and highlighted the complex interplay of public and
private interests.

Then, in our quest to understand the nuances of innovation ecosystems, we explored key publications that provided deeper insights
into the differentiation between innovation ecosystems and innovation systems.

In our quest to understand the nuances of innovation ecosystems, we explored key publications that provided deeper insights into the
differentiation between innovation ecosystems and innovation systems.

The OECD's Oslo Manual 2018 presented a clear distinction between the two concepts. Notably, an innovation ecosystem is
characterized by its scope and complexity. It extends beyond the confines of a single sector or location, acknowledging the dynamic
interplay of factors that influence innovation across various sectors, regions, and even countries. This broader perspective recognizes
the multifaceted nature of innovation, involving a diverse array of actors, including entrepreneurs, investors, consumers, and
policymakers. This holistic view underscores the collaborative and cross-sectoral nature of innovation ecosystems, distinguishing them
from more traditional innovation systems.

Moreover, Ove Granstrand and Marcus Holgersson's conceptual review scrutinized 120 publications on innovation ecosystems to
formulate a synthesized definition. Their analysis revealed that the common thread across all definitions of innovation ecosystems is
the presence of actors, followed closely by collaboration/complements and activities. However, components such as

9
competitors/substitutes and artifacts (products, technologies, etc.) were often absent in many definitions. Their synthesized definition
elucidates that an innovation ecosystem encompasses an evolving ensemble of actors, activities, artifacts, institutions, and relations.
Crucially, it encompasses complementary and substitute relations, recognizing the intricate web of interactions that influence innovative
performance. This synthesized definition provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the multifaceted nature of innovation
ecosystems.

Additionally, empirical examples underscored the real-world implications of innovation ecosystems. In the case of VCRs and mobile
telecommunications, ecosystems played a pivotal role in shaping the competitive landscape. Sony's reluctance to collaborate in the
Betamax ecosystem allowed JVC to build a network of collaborators in the VHS ecosystem, ultimately driving lower prices and greater
value for VHS offerings. This example highlights the significance of interorganizational coordination and timing in the context of
innovation ecosystems. Furthermore, the rise of Apple's innovation ecosystem, particularly with the iPhone, showcased the power of
balance between collaboration and competition. Apple's ability to integrate content providers within its ecosystem, while maintaining
competition, led to its success. This emphasizes the role of system integrators in fostering innovation ecosystems.

Comparing Innovation Systems and Innovation Ecosystems:

In our exploration of the literature surrounding innovation, a fundamental distinction emerged between innovation systems and the
more recent concept of innovation ecosystems. These distinctions shed light on their respective characteristics, revealing a shift in the
paradigm of innovation.

Both innovation systems and innovation ecosystems embody the essence of systems thinking, where each component within the
system relies on at least one other component. This interconnectedness signifies that these systems are more than the sum of their
parts, and it's the feedback or interaction among these components that infuses them with dynamism, setting them apart from static
entities.

10
The core function of an innovation system is to efficiently generate, diffuse, and utilize technology. This involves cultivating selective or
strategic capabilities, organizational prowess, technical proficiency, and learning mechanisms, all of which collectively create business
opportunities. This focus on generating and deploying technology is a hallmark of innovation systems.

Crucially, both innovation systems and ecosystems are dynamic. Their dynamism is a product of the intricate feedback loops and
multidirectional linkages among their components. This dynamism implies that these systems evolve and adapt over time, responding
to shifting needs and external circumstances.

Moreover, these systems often transcend national borders, challenging the notion that they are confined within geographical
constraints. Instead, it is the network of problem-solving interactions that truly defines the nature and boundaries of the system, making
them more global and interconnected than previously believed.

Additionally, the system approach can be applied at various levels of analysis, encompassing a technology as a knowledge field, a
product or artifact, or even an array of related products and artifacts aimed at fulfilling a specific function. This flexibility in levels of
analysis underscores the adaptability and versatility of these concepts.

References:

• "Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues." (2002). Bo Carlsson et al.

• "National Systems of Innovation." (2010). Lundvall, B.-Å.

• "Value Creation in Innovation Ecosystems." (2010). Adner, R., & Kapoor, R.

Differences:

The transition from innovation systems to innovation ecosystems represents a significant evolution in our understanding of innovation.
Innovation ecosystems are characterized by their breadth and complexity. They embrace collaboration as a central theme,
complementing competition with a more open and fluid set of interactions among actors. Moreover, these ecosystems tend to be
decentralized, allowing for greater flexibility and adaptability, mirroring the fast-paced nature of contemporary innovation.

11
Examples:

• Innovation System Example - Danish Wind Energy System: This system is marked by structured relationships and competition.
Multiple entities, including universities, research institutions, government agencies, and private firms, collaborate within a
framework led by the Danish government.

• Innovation Ecosystem Example - Silicon Valley: Silicon Valley exemplifies the innovation ecosystem, characterized by dynamic
interactions among organizations that both collaborate and compete. It thrives on a high density of skilled workers, abundant
capital, and extensive knowledge resources.

Incorporating these distinctions into our review provides a comprehensive understanding of innovation dynamics, where innovation
ecosystems represent a shift toward greater collaboration, adaptability, and diversity in interactions among actors. This contemporary
perspective underscores the evolving landscape of innovation.

Clusters and the New Economics of Competition:

In Michael E. Porter's exploration of clusters and their role in the evolving landscape of competition, a paradox emerges: despite the
era of open global markets and rapid transportation and communication, location remains a pivotal factor in competitive advantage.
Clusters, geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions within specific fields, lie at the heart of this paradox.
These clusters encompass a web of linked industries, specialized inputs, infrastructure providers, and supportive institutions like
universities and trade associations. This interconnected ecosystem, exemplified by iconic clusters like Silicon Valley and Hollywood,
thrives on the local attributes of knowledge, relationships, and motivation. These attributes are elusive for distant rivals to replicate.
The role of location in today's economy differs markedly from the past, where comparative advantage often stemmed from factors like
natural harbors or cheap labor. In today's dynamic business environment, companies can mitigate input-cost disadvantages through
global sourcing, shifting the competitive landscape towards innovation and productivity.

Porter's insights untangle the paradox of location's significance in a global economy, revealing that while internal company dynamics
are crucial, the immediate external business environment plays an equally vital role. Clusters showcase that competitive advantage

12
isn't solely about what happens within a company's walls; it's also about how companies leverage their location and the synergistic
relationships they foster within their clusters. These insights challenge conventional wisdom on company configurations, the role of
educational institutions in fostering competitiveness, and how governments can promote economic development. Clusters, as dynamic
hubs of competition and cooperation, represent a new spatial organizational form that thrives between arm's-length markets and
hierarchical structures, offering a fresh perspective on the economics of competition in the modern world.

Importance of Geography and Clusters:

In understanding the significance of proximity in today's globalized world, Michael E. Porter's work, "Clusters and the New Economics
of Competition" (1998), offers valuable insights. Porter highlights how companies benefit from being close together in a cluster, even
in the era of globalization. One key reason is the concept of "knowledge spillovers" within clusters, where firms and actors readily share
knowledge and ideas, fostering innovation and productivity. This phenomenon is especially pronounced in knowledge-intensive
industries like high-tech and pharmaceuticals.

Additionally, the importance of "access to specialized inputs" within clusters is evident. Clusters often concentrate specialized
resources, such as skilled labor and infrastructure, which firms require for success. Proximity enables firms to efficiently access and
utilize these critical inputs. Furthermore, clusters offer "economies of scale," enabling cost reduction and improved efficiency through
shared services and infrastructure. Lastly, the "network effects" that clusters provide are invaluable. Companies within clusters have
access to broader networks of contacts and opportunities, which is particularly beneficial for startups and small firms with limited
resources to establish their own networks.

Economics of Proximity and Borders:

The concept of the "economics of proximity" is deeply intertwined with the idea of clusters and geographic organization. As AnnaLee
Saxenian explores in "Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128" (1994), clusters serve as
organized forms of proximity in economic geography. These clusters effectively act as incubators of innovation, fostering collaboration,
knowledge-sharing, and resource pooling among firms.

13
 Fig1. Paris Region’s Clusters.

• Reference: The Paris Region Territories. https://www.chooseparisregion.org/why-paris-region/the-paris-region-territories

The economics of proximity encompasses three essential dimensions: geography, organization, and cognition. Geography deals with
the physical distance between economic actors, with clusters serving as prime examples of organized proximity. Organization refers to
how economic actors are structured in relation to one another, encompassing networks, clusters, and regulatory environments.

14
Cognition, on the other hand, focuses on how actors perceive and interpret their environment, encompassing shared values, beliefs,
mental models, and knowledge.

Clusters also play a pivotal role in defining borders, both physical and social, between regions and economies. Borders within clusters
delineate the geographic scope of the cluster as well as the social and economic boundaries among different actors. To outline the
borders of an innovation ecosystem, key measures including startup creation rate, investment capital, patent filings, talent attraction
and retention, and industry output are indispensable.

Life Cycle of a Cluster of Proximity:

Finally, the life cycle of a cluster of proximity mirrors the stages of development a cluster undergoes. This concept, akin to the life cycle
of innovation ecosystems, encompasses stages such as emergence, growth, maturity, decline, and transformation. Understanding this
life cycle is crucial for comprehending how clusters evolve over time, adapt to changing economic landscapes, and continue to foster
innovation and competitiveness.

Integrating these concepts and sources into your report will provide a comprehensive understanding of the importance of geography,
clusters, and the dynamics of proximity in the context of innovation ecosystems.

Metrics for Evaluating Innovation Ecosystems:

In the evaluation and delineation of innovation ecosystems, the adoption of robust metrics is paramount. Drawing from David B.
Audretsch and Maryann P. Feldman's research in "R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production" (1996), metrics
play a crucial role in understanding the geography of innovation and its impact on economic growth. These metrics provide insights
into how knowledge flows across regions and how it contributes to innovation and production.

Moreover, Erik Autio and Zoltan J. Acs, in "Intellectual Property Protection and the Formation of Entrepreneurial Growth Aspirations"
(2010), emphasize the importance of intellectual property protection. Metrics related to intellectual property, such as patent filings and
IP registrations, are pivotal in assessing the strength of an innovation ecosystem's innovation capacity and the extent to which it
safeguards intellectual assets.

15
David B. Audretsch, Eric E. Lehmann, and Seppo Warning, in "University Spillovers and New Firm Location" (2005), highlight the role
of research institutions in fostering innovation. Metrics encompassing the number of research institutions within the ecosystem provide
valuable insights into the ecosystem's knowledge base and its potential to drive innovation.

Richard Florida's seminal work, "The Rise of the Creative Class," delves into the significance of talent attraction and retention. Metrics
like the talent retention rate are critical for gauging the ecosystem's ability to retain highly skilled workers, which, as Florida contends,
is a hallmark of creative and innovative regions.

Laurent Simon and Carolyn Hatch's recent work (2022) explores the concept of innovation commons and their role in sustainable
mobility ecosystems. Metrics tied to funding availability, the size of the skilled labor force, research and development (R&D)
expenditures, and intellectual property registrations are pivotal in assessing the health and vitality of these ecosystems.

To demarcate the borders of an innovation ecosystem effectively, it is imperative to identify the key actors, resources, and activities
that constitute the ecosystem. Key actors may encompass the number of startups, investors, research institutions, and large companies
within the ecosystem. Resources could encompass funding availability, the presence of a skilled labor force, R&D expenditure levels,
and the extent of intellectual property protections. Additionally, the ecosystem's support infrastructure, such as incubator and
accelerator programs, should not be overlooked.

Incorporating these metrics and insights into the assessment of innovation ecosystems ensures a comprehensive evaluation of their
strengths, weaknesses, and growth potential. It provides a framework for policymakers, entrepreneurs, and stakeholders to make
informed decisions and cultivate thriving innovation ecosystems.

3. Network Analysis:
Network theory provided a pivotal framework for our analysis. Utilizing network analysis tools, we visually represented the
interconnections and relationships among various actors within the Paris-Saclay cluster. By mapping collaboration networks,
knowledge flows, and co-authorship patterns, we uncovered hidden synergies and collaborative trends that drive innovation. In this

16
part, I tried to know more about paris-saclay cluster. First of all, about its borders, gaining the right metrics to find the most important
key actors and so on.

4. Quantitative Analysis and Data Visualization

To gauge the cluster's growth and impact, a quantitative analysis was performed on registered patents and published articles spanning
from 2010 to 2021. We also tracked the number of collaborations in between and mentioned it as an indicator and showed it as a map.
This involved tracking the evolution of these metrics over time, identifying peaks, trends, and patterns. Comparative analyses were
conducted to identify the collaboration between different actors, the number of their patents and scholar works.

Effective data visualization was employed to translate complex insights into comprehensible visuals. Graphs, charts, and network
diagrams were used to portray the interconnections, growth trajectories, and collaborative patterns uncovered through the analysis.
These visual representations not only enhance understanding but also facilitate the communication of findings.

To do this, following steps was done respectively:

The primary method of Collaborations:

The primary method or the first graph of Paris-Saclay actors, is a manual work, in other word a set of nodes and edges, which was
mainly based on Paris-Saclay cluster website1, the main actors was fined and collaboration inside was drawn.VThe graph represents
collaborations between various organizations and institutions in different strategic fields. There are five general fields which consist
main activities in Paris-Saclay. They are:

I. Aeronautics, Defense and Security

II. Information and communication Technology (ICT)
III. Healthcare
IV. Energy and energy management
V. Mobility

1
https://www.paris-saclay.com/

17
 Fig2. General map of the area.

Reference: https://epa-paris-saclay.fr/comprendre-loperation-dinteret-urbain/

It begins by defining these collaborations within a dictionary structure, with each field having a list of collaboration tuples. The code
then adds nodes and edges to the graph, where nodes represent organizations, and edges represent collaborations. Additionally, it
assigns a field attribute to each edge to indicate the area of collaboration.

18
Then, I tried to find the actors with most connections and Based on the number of collaborations, I selected the top five key actors.
Then I tried to have a subgraph which shows the top five actors and relations in between. After that, I started counting of collaboration
for each actor and also for each field.

Disadvantages:
This works can be considered as a good prototype. But the possibility of error is high. Because all the members are not considered in
it, and the only measure of the size and importance of each member is the number of its relationships with other sets. While this is an
incomplete criterion and other parameters should be considered.

Search to find all members of the collection

After noticing the flaw in the previous search, I did a more detailed search on the Paris- Saclay cluster and found 5 related maps that
list all members by field of activity. In “results”, you can find the basic maps and brief description of each field.

With finding these actors, searching their patents has been started in Lens.org, one by one. It was listed and sorted. But we found
that this method is facing some problem that will be listed:

Disadvantages:
This method, through Lens.org, can list all patents including organization name in one “Country”, not one “City”, i.e., we cannot exclude
the cities in France which are not in Paris-Saclay cluster. For example, “CNRS” has a lot of branches in France and this data set will
contain all of them, but our goal is to find those that are just inside the cluster. So, we have to delve to in another method.

Patents with New method, merging “OECD” with “Lens” data

Because of previous method’s disadvantages, we needed to add another data set to provide the city of the patent’s organization. So,
we used The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; French: Organisation de coopération et
développement économiques, OCDE) and its library2. So, I had access to postal code of the organizations’ places. But it was missing

2
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/

19
the application name. By merging with Lens data, this problem was solved (because both of the data set cotain “PCT Number”) and I
had access to whatever I need. In other word, for each patent I could know:

I. pct_nbr
II. internat_appln_nr
III. appln_id
IV. app_name
V. address
VI. city
VII. postal_code
VIII. reg_code
IX. ctry_code
X. Year
So, I filtered all the patents which contain 12 postal codes that are inside Paris-Saclay cluster, they are:
Palaiseau, Saclay, Orsay, Étampes, Saint-Chéron, Saint-Cyr-sous-Dourdan, Gif-sur-Yvette, Dourdan,Villiers-le-Bâcle, Les Ulis, Villeb
on-sur-Yvette and Courtabœuf. We save all the data in a csv.file called “final_patent”.
To have a better view, we separated and listed the total patents of the region year by year and displayed them. Then, we tried to see
the applicant and the number of applications they made, Year over year. To explain as what we did in python, the goal of this code is
to perform a comprehensive analysis of patent filings in France, with a focus on categorizing them by different application types
represented by the 'app_name' column and understanding how the number of patents filed in each category has evolved over time.
The methodology involves reading a dataset of patent information from a CSV file and filtering it to isolate patent
filings associated with France ('ctry_code' is "FR"). The code then extracts the year from the 'pct_nbr' column to enable year-wise an
alysis. It proceeds to group the data by both 'app_name' and 'Year,’ counting the number of patents in each group. Finally, it iterates
through each unique 'app_name,' creating separate tables for each category, and converts the patent count data into a dictionary for
mat for clear and structured presentation. This approach allows for a detailed examination of patent filing trends in France, providing

20
insights into the distribution of patent applications across various categories over time.
Now, we want to reach to a final table, which shows the cumulative number of patents for each member per year and the total of year
s 2010 to 2021. So, we gain the most important actors in term of patents.
The methodology starts with reading the patent data from the "final_patent.csv" file and standardizing the 'app_name' column by
mapping various name variants to their corresponding standardized names using the 'name_mapping' dictionary. This ensures
consistent and uniform representation of patent applicants.
After standardization, the code filters the data to isolate patent filings associated with France ('ctry_code' is "FR") and extracts the
year from the 'pct_nbr' column. Because postal codes similar to the cities we are searching for may be found in other countries by
chance and bias our results. As we have come across the data from America, Israel and Ireland. It then further filters the data to
include only records from the specified year range, which is from 2010 to 2021.
The core analysis involves grouping the data by 'app_name' and 'Year' to calculate the count of patents for each group, resulting in
the 'patents_per_app_per_year' DataFrame. It also calculates the total number of patents for each 'app_name' over the specified
years, resulting in the 'patents_per_app_total' DataFrame.
To present the patent filing statistics effectively, the code creates a pivot table that displays the patent counts for each 'app_name' for
each year, filling any missing values with zeros. It also adds a row for the total number of patents for each 'app_name.' Finally, the
table is sorted based on the total count of patents, from highest to lowest, and printed to provide insights into the distribution of
patent filings across different applicants and years. This methodology allows for a structured and organized presentation of patent
data, facilitating further analysis and reporting.
Collaboration, is another important issue we are facing with. In fact, the links we were drawing in our primary graph, was based on the
data which was listed in famous labs, universities or companies of Paris-Saclay cluster. It should be proved by real data. Most likely,
we have missed some links and probably added a few too. That's why we have to try to fix it. In next part of our code, we tried to do
these four steps:
This code snippet conducts a year-by-year analysis of patent collaborations within the Paris-Saclay region. Here's how the
methodology works:

21
 1. Yearly Filtering: The code iterates through each year from 2010 to 2021. For each year, it tries to extract data specific to that
particular year.
2. Excluding Specific Collaboration Here again, we are faced with the issue of similar but unrelated zip codes, which we
must leave aside to avoid causing problems. to focus on other collaborations within the region.
3. Grouping and Identifying Collaborations: The code groups the data by 'pct_nbr' (patent numbers) and collects unique
collaboration partners ('app_name') for each patent. It then filters this data to retain only those collaborations involving more
than one 'app_name.' This step identifies true collaborative efforts.
4. Displaying Collaborations: For each year, the code displays the identified collaborations. It lists the collaborating partners
('app_names') for each patent ('pct_nbr') along with the total number of collaborations. In cases where there are multiple
collaborators for a patent, it indents the subsequent collaborators to ensure clear presentation.
This methodology allows for a detailed examination of patent collaborations year by year within the Paris-Saclay region. It helps
reveal the evolving landscape of collaborative efforts in patent filings, highlighting partnerships between various entities and potential
ly shedding light on the dynamics of innovation and research in the region over time.
Mapping:
For Visualization the patents and collaboration in between, the following actions in the next part of my code was done:
This code analyzes and visualizes patent collaboration networks within the Paris-Saclay region for the years 2010 to 2021. It starts
by reading patent data, standardizing applicant names, and creating an empty collaboration graph. For each year, it identifies top
applicants based on the number of patents and constructs a network by adding nodes for each applicant (sized by patent count) and
edges to represent collaborations. NetworkX and Matplotlib are used for visualization, positioning nodes based on patent counts, and
customizing node colors, sizes, and labels. This iterative approach yields yearly collaboration network visualizations, shedding light
on key collaborators and the evolving structure of patent collaborations in the region.
At the end of patent’s part, we want to have a combined map which shows all member during 2010-2021 in one graph. To do this, the
code identifies top collaborators annually, adds nodes representing applicants with patent counts as attributes, and connects
collaborators with edges. To reduce clutter, nodes with a minimum patent count are filtered, and node sizes are scaled accordingly.
Finally, it generates a combined network visualization using Matplotlib, offering insights into long-term collaboration patterns and

22
highlighting key contributors in the Paris-Saclay patent ecosystem. Finally, This Python code reads patent data from an Excel file and
performs an analysis to identify and visualize the top entities with the most patents in a specified year, such as 2020. It first calculates
the total number of patents for each entity by summing patent counts across different months. Next, it groups the data by entity and
aggregates the total patents. The code then sorts the entities in descending order based on their patent counts. If focusing on a
specific year, it filters the data accordingly. Finally, it creates a horizontal bar chart to represent the top 10 entities with the highest
patent counts in the chosen year, providing a visual snapshot of the most prolific patent holders.

Scholar works
Now, we go the next part of our work to find the papers published by institutions inside Paris-Saclay cluster. As we explained in Data
collection, first part of methodology, our data set for this part relies on “Scopus”. It is more efficient than other sources for searching
about articles. Although compared to the Patents section and the Lens site, it is more difficult to work and the dispersion and volume
of data is much higher and it is more difficult to separate the information in it, but still, this is the best available source for us.
For this, we selected the city-based search in this source and collected all the required data one by one. The volume of some of them
was so high that it could not be downloaded in the form of a single file, and we had to do these two or three times separately and
finally join them all together. In total, 17 files were downloaded that can be put together to form this puzzle. This Python script
performs a series of data processing tasks for multiple CSV files located in different folders. The primary goal is to merge, filter, and
sort the data and then save the processed results into a single CSV file. It starts by initializing an empty list to store the results. Then,
it iterates through each folder specified in the folder_paths dictionary, reads the CSV files within each folder, merges them, selects
specific columns (in this case, "Year" and "Affiliations"), filters the data based on a specified year range (from 2010 to 2021),
and sorts it by year. Additionally, it splits the "Affiliations" column, which contains multiple affiliations separated by semicolons,
into separate columns. The processed data from each folder is concatenated and stored in the result_list. Finally, all the results are
concatenated into a single DataFrame, and the script saves this final result as a CSV file called ('google1.csv'). This is just a name and
has not any relationship with google. The script is designed to handle data from multiple folders, making it flexible and adaptable for
different datasets.
Now, that each affiliation is separated from its colleague in order to produce a scholary work, we are faced with a big number of
affiliations which are nor in Paris-Saclay cluster neither our case of study. So, we should remove them or again filter those we are

23
looking for. These four methos was run to activate to re-filtering in paper works:

1.Easiest and most common: general search

This search model is possible for low amount of data.
This Python script performs a search for specific affiliation names in a CSV file ('google1.csv') and counts how many times each
name appears, considering only affiliations ending with 'France.' It uses the csv module to read the CSV file and the collections
module to create a defaultdict to store the counts of each specified name.
Here's an explanation of how the script works:
1. names_to_search: This list contains the affiliation names you want to search for, in this case, "société technique pour
l'energie atomique."

Fig3. A part of Easiest and most common: general search

24
 2. name_counts: This defaultdict will store the counts of each specified name.
3. full_names_list: This list will store the full affiliation names that match the search criteria.
4. For each affiliation, it splits it by commas and checks if the last term (presumably the country) is 'France.' If both conditions
are met and the affiliation contains one of the specified names, it increments the count for that name and adds the full name
to the full_names_list.
5. After processing all rows, the script creates a Pandas DataFrame (df) to display the counts of each specified name in tabular
format.
6. Finally, it prints the list of full names that match the criteria and displays the counts in a table.
The output will show us how many times the specified affiliation names appear in affiliations ending with 'France' in the CSV file.
2. Search year over year with Save
For big affiliation with big number of scholar work, it is not possible to implement previous method. So, we should divide it to each
year and then count the total number. Here is it:
The provided Python script conducts a year-by-year search (for example from 2010 to 2014) within a CSV file ('google1.csv') for
specific affiliation names ending with 'France' (e.g., "orsay," "ORSAY," "Orsay": we should consider all type of a same affiliation). It
tallies the occurrences of these names in affiliations for each year, and the results, including the year and matching affiliations, are
saved in a CSV file.
In comparison to the previous script, the key difference is the temporal scope of the search. While the previous script processed data
spanning multiple years (2010-2021) and considered a broader range of affiliations, the current script narrows its focus to a specific
time period (2010-2014) and targets affiliations ending with 'France.' Both scripts share similarities in terms of CSV file handling,
data manipulation, and result presentation, but they serve different analytical purposes based on their specified time frames and
search criteria. all the files are saved during this method, has “full_names.csv” as a part of their names.
3. City by city search
Sometimes, the capacity of a usual PC is not enough to save and show the data. Even for the year over year search. So, we have to
do this kind of searches for the data which was produced and saved through last method, part by part, and show it sorted based in

25
the 12 cities of Paris saclay cluster. For larger institutions, this or the next method will have less error and automatically avoid outliers
. For example, for “CEA” affiliation, we used this method.
Comparing this script to the previous two, the primary difference lies in the search criteria. While the previous two scripts searched fo
r specific names ending with 'France' within a specified time frame (e.g., "orsay," "Orsay" between 2010 and 2014), the current script
conducts a case-insensitive search for "CEA" within affiliations ending with 'France,' without restricting the search to a particular time
frame.
4. City by city search for big number of scholar work (more than 10 000)
If the previous method is not suitable, we will go to this method that separates the data into ten thousand parts so that it is possible to
collect it. For example, to collect all the data regarding “CEA” it took two days for the computer to run it, the fourth method will avoid
the huge time spending and possible crash in data.
It counts the occurrences of these names in affiliations ending with 'France' and generates a tabular representation of the name
counts using the Pandas library. Unlike the previous scripts, this script processes data in batches, controlling the output rate to
prevent memory issues for large datasets. It also includes a sleep timer to regulate the output frequency, ensuring manageable
console display.
Comparing this script to the previous three, the primary difference lies in its batch processing approach and output rate control. While
the previous scripts processed data row by row and displayed results at the end, this script operates on batches of data and provides
intermediate output for each batch. This batch processing mechanism is beneficial for handling large datasets without running into
memory constraints. The script's search criteria and scope are similar to the previous one, focusing on a city-specific search for
"Cea" within affiliations ending with 'France.' The choice of batch size and output rate control depends on the specific requirements fo
r managing large datasets.

Anyway, in one of the four mentioned ways, in the mentioned geographical area, the institutions will be identified with the number of
small, medium or large printed articles, and then all of them will be collected and sorted from large to small.

26
collaborations
To find collaboration between articles, the process was a bit more complicated and time-consuming. In this way, because a single
name (such as Telecom Paris) could appear with many similar names and forms, and also the initial file did not separate the
constituent members of an article, the reverse engineering method for this the work was adopted. We do not claim that it is the best
method, but at the time it was done, with a low error rate. The way I chose was to select the twenty most frequent members from
each of the 4 data selection methods, which we explained above, and first make sure that there is at least one collaboration between
them. Then, for the rest of the members, we extracted the names of the members who had at least 54 articles from the primary file
(to be above 0.01% importance). And we checked their cooperation. It should be noted that only colleagues who have more than 54
articles and are also available in the Paris region are mentioned.

Merging patents and paper works

Now, after all the patents and articles have been published and the number has been determined for each member in this branch,
since the total number of articles is not equal to the total number of published articles, a ratio must be established to calculate these
numbers. bring to balance. For this purpose, for each of these two parts, a number between zero and one should be considered. One
is equivalent to the total number of articles or registered patents, and the number of that member is the proportion of patents or regist
ered articles to the total number. (We have taken the total number equal to one). So, each of the members will have two numbers in
front of them, and the average of these two will give the final number of each actor. The larger the number, the larger the node will
be in the final map. Here we should note that we have given up on very small shares, i.e., below 0.0001 which is equivalent to
0.01%.
The last part of my code, consists two main parts:
Network Visualization of Collaborations in the Research Ecosystem
In order to gain a deeper understanding of the collaborative relationships within the research ecosystem, we have constructed a
network visualization using the NetworkX library in Python. This visualization highlights the connections between various entities,
such as research institutions, companies, and individuals, based on their collaborative efforts. We have also incorporated the size of
each

27
entity into the visualization, representing its significance within the network.
Data Representation
Our dataset contains information about various entities involved in research, with their respective weights or significance levels.
These weights are used to determine the size of nodes in the network, emphasizing the importance of certain entities over others.
The data includes organizations such as universities, research laboratories, and companies, along with individual researcher.

Results

The Territory of Paris-Saclay, a hub of innovation, owes a significant portion of its success to its unique territorial context. This context,
delineated by its geographic boundaries, has a profound impact on the ecosystem's potential for growth and innovation. Although it
may not be a direct metric, it encompasses several key metrics like ecosystem size and connectivity that offer valuable insights into
performance. A larger ecosystem provides a richer pool of resources and opportunities, while high connectivity fosters collaboration.
While not a primary actor within the ecosystem, the territorial context is a critical factor to consider when evaluating growth and
innovation potential. Understanding local economic and social conditions is essential for identifying opportunities and challenges within
the ecosystem. Thus, territorial context plays a vital role in the success of innovation ecosystems and should be thoughtfully assessed
in performance evaluations.

Metrics
In evaluating the performance and potential of innovation ecosystems, five critical metrics related to the territory can provide
invaluable insights:

Geographic Scope: This resource metric gauges the extent of the geographic area covered by the innovation ecosystem. A larger
geographic scope often implies a broader reach, potentially encompassing a more extensive pool of resources and opportunities.
Understanding the ecosystem's size within its territorial boundaries is essential for assessing its capacity for growth and impact.

28
Connectivity with Other Ecosystems: An activity metric, this measure assesses the level of connectivity and interaction between the
innovation ecosystem under study and other neighboring ecosystems. A high level of connectivity can facilitate knowledge exchange,
collaboration, and the flow of resources, contributing to a vibrant innovation network.

Economic Indicators: This resource metric encompasses various economic factors within the ecosystem's territorial context, including
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Gross Value Added (GVA), employment rate, unemployment rate, and industry output. These
indicators offer critical insights into the economic health and performance of the ecosystem, providing a basis for understanding its
contribution to the regional and national economy.

Social Indicators: Another resource metric, social indicators assess the socio-demographic aspects within the innovation ecosystem's
territorial context. Metrics such as population density, education level, diversity, social capital, and quality of life shed light on the social
dynamics that influence the ecosystem's growth and innovation potential. A well-educated and diverse population, for example, can
enhance the innovation ecosystem's capacity to attract talent and foster creativity.

Infrastructure: This resource metric evaluates the quality and availability of key infrastructure elements within the territorial context of
the ecosystem. It encompasses aspects like transportation infrastructure, communication infrastructure, research facilities, housing
infrastructure, and green infrastructure. A robust infrastructure network can significantly impact the ease of doing business,
collaboration, and research within the ecosystem, making it an essential metric for evaluating its overall readiness for innovation-driven
activities.

Incorporating these metrics into performance evaluations and assessments of innovation ecosystems like Paris-Saclay can provide a
comprehensive understanding of their strengths, weaknesses, and potential areas for improvement, ultimately guiding strategic
decisions and investments in fostering innovation and growth.

29
Borders
Defining the borders of an innovation ecosystem is a multifaceted process that requires careful consideration of various factors to
provide a comprehensive understanding of its scope and boundaries. Here are some general steps and an example of how metrics
can be used to delineate these borders:

Identify the Key Actors: Start by identifying the primary actors within the ecosystem, including startups, established companies,
research institutions, and government entities. Understanding who plays a crucial role in driving innovation is essential.

Identify the Resources: Determine the resources available within the ecosystem. This includes financial resources, research facilities,
educational institutions, and any other assets that contribute to innovation.

Identify the Activities: Explore the various activities taking place within the ecosystem. This may involve innovation-related events,
research initiatives, entrepreneurial activities, and more.

Identify the Geographic Scope: Define the geographic boundaries of the ecosystem. This can encompass a city, region, or even a
larger area, depending on the ecosystem's scale and reach.

Consider the Social and Economic Boundaries: Take into account the social and economic dynamics of the ecosystem. Analyze
factors like population demographics, education levels, social capital, and economic indicators to understand the broader context.

Example Using Metrics to Define Borders:

In the context of a city-based innovation ecosystem, metrics can be instrumental in delineating its borders:

Startup Creation Rate: By measuring the number of new startups established within the city, you can identify key actors actively
contributing to innovation. A high startup creation rate suggests a thriving ecosystem.

Investment Capital: Assessing the amount of investment capital flowing into startups and innovation-related activities provides insights
into available resources. Robust investment indicates a well-supported ecosystem.

30
Patent Filings: Examining the number of patents filed by local companies and individuals indicates the intensity of innovation activities.
A high rate of patent filings signifies a culture of innovation.

Talent Attraction and Retention: Measuring the attraction and retention of highly skilled individuals, such as those with advanced
degrees, reflects the human resources within the ecosystem. A city that attracts and retains talent is likely to have a strong innovation
ecosystem.

Geographic Scope: Evaluate the size and connectivity of the city to define the geographic scope of the ecosystem. A larger and well-
connected city may have a broader reach and influence on innovation.

Incorporating these metrics allows stakeholders to not only understand the ecosystem's boundaries but also to gauge its vitality,
strengths, and areas for improvement. This information is valuable for policymakers, investors, and entrepreneurs seeking to support
and nurture innovation ecosystems effectively.

31
 Fig4. Three borders in south-west of Paris. Paris-Saclay Cluster and its main actors could be seen at right.

Reference: http://www.paris-saclay.com/

32
Territory of Paris-Saclay
The Paris-Saclay cluster, located in France, stands as the country's primary research and development hub, playing a pivotal role in
fostering innovation, education, and collaboration. This cluster represents a dynamic ecosystem that brings together leading
educational institutions, burgeoning startups, and established industries to drive progress and innovation.

Fig5. big clusters in the world.

Reference : Un des 8 pôles mondiaux de l'innovation.3

3 https://scientipolecapital.fr/en/home-2/a-territory/

33
This cluster, stays in one of the 8 biggest clusters in the world. Beside “Sillicon Valley”, “Boston”, “Tech City London” and “Pekin”. The
Paris-Saclay cluster is characterized by its impressive academic component. It boasts two universities, nine grande écoles (higher
education institutions), and significant public research institutions such as CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research), CEA (French
Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission), INRA (National Institute for Agricultural Research), and INRIA (National Institute
for Research in Computer Science and Automation). This amalgamation forms what is often referred to as a "hyper university" with an
ambitious goal of attaining international visibility and reputation on par with renowned institutions like Harvard, Cambridge, or MIT.

For example, École Polytechnique stands as a prominent cornerstone within the Paris-Saclay cluster, solidifying its reputation as the
finest engineering school in all of France. With a student body of 3,700 individuals, it is a diverse hub of learning, with 40% of its
students hailing from international backgrounds. Its influence extends far and wide, with 23 cutting-edge laboratories and 40% of its
academic and research staff being of international origin. The institution is a veritable powerhouse of knowledge production, having
generated 2,600 scientific articles of Rank A. Beyond academia, École Polytechnique fosters innovation, birthing 770 startups since
2010, and maintains 34 active chairs. Its reach is extended through its impressive alumni network, boasting 30,000 members. This
impressive standing is validated by Le Figaro, which has awarded it outstanding scores, with a general note of 19.4/20, employability
rating of 19.5/20, international influence at 19.1/20, and academic excellence achieving a remarkable 19.4/20. École Polytechnique is
undeniably a shining beacon in the Paris-Saclay cluster, a testament to its unwavering commitment to excellence in education,
research, and global impact.

Furthermore, the Paris-Saclay cluster has successfully attracted major companies such as EDF, Renault, Peugeot-Citroën, Nokia,
Alcatel, Sanofi, and Danone. These industry giants have chosen to establish their research centers within the cluster, capitalizing on
its rich talent pool and innovative atmosphere.

The strategic importance of the Paris-Saclay cluster is evident in its identification as a key player in five critical sectors: aeronautics,
defense, and security; information and communication technologies (ICT); healthcare; energy management; and mobility. This
recognition underscores its significant contributions to research, technological advancement, and economic development in these
domains.

34
 Fig6. Paris-Saclay actors in term of Information & Communication technologies

Reference: https://paris-saclay.business/paris-saclay-feel-disruptive/paris-innovation-lab/information-communication-technologies/

Since the aftermath of World War II, when the first scientific institutions were established on the Saclay plateau, Paris-Saclay has
consistently been at the forefront of advancements in the field of information and communication technologies. Thanks to the early
establishment of prominent research organizations, it has assumed a pioneering role in an industry that has become essential to the
economy, given its extensive influence on various other industrial sectors. INRIA, CNRS, and the CEA have played a significant part
in shaping developments in information technology, telecommunications, and electronic systems since the 1960s.

35
Consequently, Paris-Saclay has evolved into a hub for information and communication technology (ICT) in both France and Europe.
This sector boasts over 550 companies, providing employment to 32,000 individuals, and it exerts a substantial market presence in
diverse areas including hardware, software, B2B digital services, telecommunications, and electronics. In terms of workforce, the
number of enterprises, and revenue generated, it stands as the largest industrial sector in the region. (You can find in appendix the
map of active actors in ICT)

Over 130 companies and a workforce of 15,000 individuals are actively engaged in health research and development within the region.
This cluster encompasses a diverse range of entities, including large corporations, innovative small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs), and burgeoning start-ups. Its primary focus centers on areas poised for substantial growth in the coming years, particularly in
response to the challenges of biopharmacy and biomedical engineering. Notably, it specializes in the exploration of the brain and
genome, alongside advancements in cancer and diabetes treatments. (You can find in appendix the map of active actors in “health”)

A prominent trend within this sector is the increasing integration of digital technologies, with information and communication technology
(ICT) playing a pivotal role. This digitization is especially prevalent in the realm of medical imaging, encompassing technologies like
MRI and scanners. Additionally, an emerging field closely intertwined with the health sector is nutrition, which is becoming more
intertwined with healthcare through the development of "nutricaments."

A long-standing strategic area and driver for nuclear energy, Paris-Saclay now has sufficient technological clout to position itself as an
intelligent energy management cluster with a view to becoming one of the most innovative regions in France and Europe in terms of
the energy transition. When it comes to energy, Paris-Saclay forms part of a technological continuum that encompasses major energy
companies, application projects and the construction of districts that can act as living energy laboratories. The region hosts leading
energy producers together with a dense, dynamic network of innovative SMEs that play the role of technology providers. (You can find
in appendix the map of active actors in energy sector)

Three institutes for energy transition (ITEs) have recently been recognized: the Île-de-France Photovoltaic Institute (IPVF), the Paris-
Saclay Energy Efficiency Institute (PS2E) and the Védécom Institute for carbon-free communicating vehicles. In addition, one of the

36
research areas selected by the SystemX Institute for Technological Research, which specializes in digital engineering, is the
development of the digital interfaces needed to manage an increasing number of energy sources and uses.

From the very first attempts at flight made by Clément Ader at the Satory parade ground in 1897 to the manufacture of onboard
equipment for the Curiosity rover exploring Mars, the aerospace sector, with strong links to the defense and security industry, has a
long-term presence in the region. (You can find in appendix the map of active actors in Defense and Security).

In Paris Region, more than 200,000 direct and indirect jobs in aerospace, defense and security make the region the top base for the
French aerospace sector. Paris-Saclay is a driving force in this field. It brings together not only the research and development
establishments of most major industrial players in the sector, including Safran, UTC Aerospace, Sagem, Airbus Group, Thales, Dassault
Aviation and Nexter, but also specialist public research centers such as ONERA. It also houses unique large facilities such as the
CEPR engine test center.

Within the Paris-Saclay region, a thriving community of over 28,000 employees is dedicated to the advancement of secure, intelligent,
and environmentally friendly transportation solutions through a network of more than 130 specialized companies. (You can find in
appendix the map of active actors in Mobility).

Nonetheless, significant challenges persist. As the demand for energy-efficient yet high-performing vehicles continues to rise, ongoing
research and development efforts are focused on pioneering alternative methods of propulsion, such as electricity and hydrogen.
Furthermore, there is a growing integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in safety systems and a noticeable
surge in the development of autonomous vehicles, reflecting the current trends in the transportation sector.

37
Archetypal

Fig7. First Graph of Paris-Saclay actors

38
 Fig8. Second Graph of Paris-Saclay actors

39
 CNRS : 21 connections
INRIA : 21 connections
CEA : 8 connections
Institut Polytechnique de Paris : 7 connections
University of Paris-Saclay: 6 connections
Safran: 3 connections
Total: 3 connections
EDF: 3 connections
CentraleSupélec: 3 connections
Paris-Saclay urban community: 3 connections
INRAE: 3 connections
Airbus: 2 connections
Boeing: 2 connections
Thales: 2 connections
Defense Organizations: 2 connections
Google: 2 connections
Microsoft: 2 connections
Orange: 2 connections
Sony: 2 connections
Dassault : 1 connections
University Versailles Saint-Quentin : 1 connections
local authorities: 1 connections
Dassault: 1 connections
Fujitsu: 1 connections
PSA: 1 connections
Renault: 1 connections
Inserm: 1 connections
Hospitals: 1 connections
Transportation Engineering Departments: 1 connections
Public Transportation: 1 connections

Table1. Number of connections for each node. Based on Second Graph.

40
Patents

2010 79
2011 65
2012 74
2013 95
2014 88
2015 94
2016 98
2017 91
2018 114
2019 96
2020 121
2021 108

Table2. Total number of patents in Paris Saclay cluster, between 2010-2021

41
 NAME 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Université Paris Sud 20 19 14 24 20 22 21 17 24 18 18 23
ecole polytechnique 22 12 16 18 14 13 11 15 18 18 9 10
Université Paris-Saclay 4 2 5 7 5 9 10 16 19 26 35 10
Laboratoire français du fractionnement et des
biotechnologies 13 12 10 6 14 10 15 13 17 14 5 1
OFFICE NATIONAL D'ETUDES ET DE RECHERCHES
AEROSPAT 0 0 2 3 1 0 2 3 12 7 11 29
lynred 1 0 1 2 1 4 2 3 3 3 9 4
ONERA 0 1 3 4 4 7 7 1 0 1 1 2
Société technique pour l'energie atomique 0 0 0 1 3 5 0 6 2 3 0 1
mipsology sas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3
Société technique pour l'energie atomique
technicatome 0 1 0 6 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
erca 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 0 0
horiba france sas 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 3 1
institut d'optique graduate school 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 4 2 1 0
centralesupélec 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 0 0
CEA 0 1 4 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
LFB 3 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
synchrotron soleil 0 0 0 2 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 0
imagine optic 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 0
kalray 0 0 1 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Institut d'optique théorique et appliquée 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1
biosynthis 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0
Supelec 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 3
immutep s.a.s. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
imagine eyes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
stereolabs 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0
IPVF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
true spirit 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
alderys 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0
ereie - energy research innovation engineering 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
École nationale supérieure de techniques avancées 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
institut d'optique 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

42
 infovista sa 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Société française de détecteurs infrarouges - sofradir 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
win ms 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
hekyom 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
ermes 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
kopadia 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
école supérieure d'électricité 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
chekroun, claude 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ecole normale superieure paris-saclay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
art-fi 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
kelenn technology 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
veto-pharma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
byo networks 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
uint 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
sourcelab 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
sophysa 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
mirsense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
nimal, didier 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
citypassenger 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
pegastech 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Institut de recherche technologique systemx 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
laurent, olivier 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
dhatim sarl 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
adetel transportation solution 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
wandercraft 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
École normale supérieure paris-saclay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
ecomesure 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
egidium technologies 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
solsia 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
razel 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

43
 rey, felix a. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
chekroun, gilles 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
robotile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
carbomimetics 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
robotswim 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
concept scientifique instruments 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
silltec 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
sas sws 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
seipia 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ennesys 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
aubineau, vincent 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
air serenity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
xanchem 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
anamnèse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
voox 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
arnault, thibaud 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
aveni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
braunwald, pierre 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
bilberry sas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
bioadhesive ophthalmics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
université paris sud 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
qiagen marseille s.a.s. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ramblier, yves 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
pillet, jean-damien 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
qiagen marseille 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
desplanches, hervé 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ecole Nationale Superieure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
ivalua sas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
it's brain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
invivis sas 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

44
 institute de biologie integrative de la cellule (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
institut optique theorique appliquee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
dazzi, a. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
innov plus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
projetti, maxime 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
eddyfi europe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
hofferer, eric 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
hillo ai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
hephaistos-pharma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Groupe des ecoles nationales d'economie et statistique 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
gironac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
gangloff, laurent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
da fact 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cyclopus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
krono-safe 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
kyrdyn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
pontet, silvère 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
plense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
finx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
phonoptics 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
perrot, matthieu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
pen o'tick 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
osseomatrix 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
oksenhendler, thomas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
naox technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
connected physics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
covarians 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
lord ingenierie 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lesturgie, marc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
le moteur moderne 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

45
 laure, frederic 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
laboratoires protec 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
culture top 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
ivea 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 3. Number of patents in Paris Saclay cluster,YoY, between 2010-2021

Fig9. Total number of patents in Paris Saclay cluster, between 2010-2021

46
 Organization Number Rational
Number
Université Paris Sud 240 0.209059
ecole polytechnique 161 0.140244
Université Paris-Saclay 148 0.12892
Laboratoire français du fractionnement et des bio 127 0.110627
OFFICE NATIONAL D'ETUDES ET DE RECHERCHES
AEROSPAT 49 0.042683
Société technique pour l'energie atomique 35 0.030488
lynred 33 0.028746
ONERA 31 0.027003
institut d'optique 20 0.017422
centralesupélec 17 0.014808
mipsology sas 14 0.012195
erca 14 0.012195
école nationale supérieure 13 0.011324
horiba france sas 13 0.011324
imagine optic 11 0.009582
CEA 10 0.008711
LFB 9 0.00784
synchrotron soleil 8 0.006969
kalray 8 0.006969
biosynthis 7 0.006098
immutep sas 6 0.005226
imagine eyes 5 0.004355

47
 stereolabs 5 0.004355
IPVF 4 0.003484
true spirit 4 0.003484
alderys 4 0.003484
ereie - energy research innovation engineering 4 0.003484
infovista sa 3 0.002613
Société française de détecteurs infrarouges 3 0.002613
win ms 3 0.002613
hekyom 3 0.002613
ermes 3 0.002613
kopadia 3 0.002613
école supérieure d'électricité 3 0.002613
chekroun, claude 3 0.002613
art-fi 3 0.002613
kelenn technology 3 0.002613
veto-pharma 3 0.002613
byo networks 3 0.002613
uint 3 0.002613
sourcelab 3 0.002613
sophysa 3 0.002613
mirsense 2 0.001742
nimal, didier 2 0.001742
citypassenger 2 0.001742
pegastech 2 0.001742
Institut de recherche technologique systemx 2 0.001742
laurent, olivier 2 0.001742
dhatim sarl 2 0.001742
adetel transportation solution 2 0.001742
wandercraft 2 0.001742
ecomesure 2 0.001742
egidium technologies 2 0.001742

48
 solsia 2 0.001742
razel 2 0.001742
rey, felix a. 2 0.001742
chekroun, gilles 2 0.001742
robotile 2 0.001742
carbomimetics 2 0.001742
robotswim 2 0.001742
concept scientifique instruments 2 0.001742
silltec 1 0.000871
sas sws 1 0.000871
seipia 1 0.000871
ennesys 1 0.000871
aubineau, vincent 1 0.000871
air serenity 1 0.000871
xanchem 1 0.000871
anamnèse 1 0.000871
voox 1 0.000871
arnault, thibaud 1 0.000871
aveni 1 0.000871
braunwald, pierre 1 0.000871
bilberry sas 1 0.000871
bioadhesive ophthalmics 1 0.000871
qiagen marseille s.a.s. 1 0.000871
ramblier, yves 1 0.000871
pillet, jean-damien 1 0.000871
qiagen marseille 1 0.000871
desplanches, hervé 1 0.000871
ivalua sas 1 0.000871
it's brain 1 0.000871
invivis sas 1 0.000871
institute de biologie integrative de la cellule 1 0.000871

49
 dazzi, a. 1 0.000871
innov plus 1 0.000871
projetti, maxime 1 0.000871
eddyfi europe 1 0.000871
hofferer, eric 1 0.000871

Table 4. ranking of all orgaizations with Patent(s) in Paris-Saclay Cluster. Along with mentioning their share in the total production patents of the
region. During 2010-2021

Collaboration in Patents
Year Organization (or person) 1 Organization (or person) Organization Pct_Number
2 (or person) 3
2010 Chekroun, Claude Chekroun, Gilles WO2010122046
2012 KAHR Medical Ltd Hadasit Medical Research WO2012042480
Services and Developmen
t Ltd

2012 Bio-Marcare Technologies Ltd Hadasit Medical Research WO2012077105

Services And Developme
nt

2012 Office National d'Etudes et de LYNRED WO2012140389

Recherches Aérospatiales

2013 Chekroun, Claude Ecole Polytechnique WO2013004924

2013 SYNCHROTRON SOLEIL Université Paris-Sud WO2013045670

50
 2014 CEA Université Paris Sud WO2014020070

2014 Institut d'Optique Université Paris Sud WO2014083041

2014 Supelec Université Paris Sud WO2014162104

2015 CEA Université Paris Sud WO2015040063

2015 CEA Université Paris Sud WO2015049371

2015 Université Paris Sud Institut d'Optique WO2015177169

2015 Laboratoire Français du Fracti Université Paris Sud WO2015181504

onnement et des Biotechnolo
gies

2016 Xanchem Ecole Polytechnique WO2016020297

2016 Supelec Université Paris-Saclay WO2016055739

2016 École Nationale Supérieure Ecole Polytechnique WO2016071413

2016 SYNCHROTRON SOLEIL Université Paris Sud WO2016071453

2016 Institut d'Optique Université Paris Sud WO2016124757

2017 Université Paris-Saclay Ecole Polytechnique WO2017042486

2017 Ecole Polytechnique École Nationale WO2017097998

Supérieure

2017 Pontet, Silvère Kyrdyn WO2017198911

2019 Ecole Polytechnique IPVF WO2019158868

51
 2019 Université Paris-Saclay Institut d'Optique Ecole WO2019202145
Polytechnique

2020 Ecole Polytechnique École Nationale Supérieur WO2020094292

e

2020 Université Paris-Saclay LYNRED WO2020094292

2020 IPVF Ecole Polytechnique WO2020127030

2020 UNIVERSITÉ PARIS-SACLA Supelec WO2020260513

Y

2020 UNIVERSITÉ PARIS-SACLA Supelec WO2020260519

Y

2021 IT'S BRAIN Université Paris Sud WO2021009470

2021 Université Paris Sud Mirsense WO2021116060

2021 Ecole Polytechnique PILLET, Jean-Damien WO2021154351

2021 Institut d'Optique Université Paris Sud WO2021191221

2021 Supelec OFFICE NATIONAL D'ET WO2021233843

UDES ET DE RECHERC
HES AEROSPAT

Table 5. Collaboration in patents, in Paris Saclay cluster. Years 2010-2021

52
Scholar works

Fig10. Year over Year total number of outputs.

53
 Organization Number Rational
Number
CNRS 81626 0.319279
Université Paris Sud 46199 0.180707
CEA 41190 0.161114
Université Paris-Saclay 37631 0.147193
École Polytechnique 20726 0.08107
INRA 5599 0.0219
École Normale Supérieure 4337 0.016964
INSERM 2572 0.01006
ONERA 2418 0.009458
Institut d'Optique 2142 0.008378
ENSTA 2142 0.008378
LIMSI 1847 0.007225
LRI 1342 0.005249
Thales 1216 0.004756
EDF 924 0.003614
GE 772 0.00302
Hospitals 636 0.002488
ARIA 568 0.002222
IPVF 304 0.001189
Nokia 241 0.000943
Laboratoire Charles Fabry de l'Institut d'Optique 232 0.000907
I2BC 196 0.000767
LABORATOIRE FRANÇAIS DU FRACTIONNEMENT ET DES
BIOT 141 0.000552
Ipsen 115 0.00045
UMS 60 0.000235
Microsoft 57 0.000223
NeuroSpin 54 0.000211

54
 Systematic 39 0.000153
ERCA 34 0.000133
Dura 34 0.000133
Mirsense 32 0.000125
Imagine Eyes 22 8.61E-05
Quantel 21 8.21E-05
Synchrotron Soleil 19 7.43E-05
Safran 19 7.43E-05
Total 16 6.26E-05
Ingen 10 3.91E-05
Waters 10 3.91E-05
Arvalis 9 3.52E-05
Serma 8 3.13E-05
CEPR 8 3.13E-05
Air Liquide 8 3.13E-05
Zodiac 7 2.74E-05
PSA 7 2.74E-05
Lear 5 1.96E-05
Lynred 5 1.96E-05
University Versailles Saint-Quentin 4 1.56E-05
Ansaldo STS 4 1.56E-05
Hermes 4 1.56E-05
III-V Lab 3 1.17E-05
SAGEM 3 1.17E-05
Thermo Fisher 3 1.17E-05
Le Moteur Modern 3 1.17E-05
WIN 3 1.17E-05
Dassault 2 7.82E-06
Electron Devices 2 7.82E-06
Hitachi 2 7.82E-06
Bertin 2 7.82E-06

55
 Renault 1 3.91E-06
Airbus 1 3.91E-06
Bull 1 3.91E-06
SFR 1 3.91E-06
Onco Design 1 3.91E-06
Veritas 1 3.91E-06
Solems 1 3.91E-06
Bertrand 1 3.91E-06
Valeo 1 3.91E-06
Sofradir 1 3.91E-06

Table 6. The list of Organizations Who Published Paper work,

with their share in total amount of Scolar work in Paris-Saclay
Cluster. During 2010-2021

56
 Merging Patents and Scholar works

Name Number
Université Paris Sud 0.1957
CNRS 0.1610
Université Paris-Saclay 0.1387
École Polytechnique 0.111
CEA 0.0856
Laboratoire Français du Fractionnement et des Bio 0.0553
OFFICE NATIONAL D'ETUDES ET DE RECHERCHES
AEROSPAT 0.0214
ONERA 0.0183
LABORATOIRE FRANCAIS DU FRACTIONNEMENT ET DES
BIOT 0.0161
Société Technique pour l'Energie Atomique 0.0153
Lynred 0.0144
École Nationale Supérieure 0.0142
Institut d'Optique 0.0134
INRA 0.0111
Centralesupélec 0.0074
ERCA 0.0062
Mipsology SAS 0.0061
Horiba France SAS 0.0057
INSERM 0.0051
Imagine Optic 0.0048
ENSTA 0.0042
LFB 0.0039
Synchrotron Soleil 0.0035
Kalray 0.0035
Biosynthis 0.0031

57
 Immutep SAS 0.0026
Imagine Eyes 0.0023
Stéreolabs 0.0022
True Spirit 0.0018
Alderys 0.0018
Ereie - Energy Research Innovation Engineering 0.0018
IPVF 0.0016
Infovista SA 0.0013
Société Française de Détecteurs Infrarouges 0.0013
Win MS 0.0013
Hekyom 0.0013
Ermes 0.0013
Kopadia 0.0013
École Supérieure d'Électricité 0.0013
Chekroun, Claude 0.0013
Art-Fi 0.0013
Kelenn Technology 0.0013
Veto-Pharma 0.0013
Byo Networks 0.0013
Uint 0.0013
Sourcelab 0.0013
Sophysa 0.0013
Mirsense 0.0009
Nimal, Didier 0.0009
Citypassenger 0.0009
Pegastech 0.0009
Institut de Recherche Technologique SystemX 0.0009
Laurent, Olivier 0.0009
Dhatim SARL 0.0009
Adetel Transportation Solution 0.0009
Wandercraft 0.0009

58
 Ecomesure 0.0009
Egidium Technologies 0.0009
Solsia 0.0009
Razel 0.0009
Rey, Felix A. 0.0009
Chekroun, Gilles 0.0009
Robotile 0.0009
Carbomimetics 0.0009
Robotswim 0.0009
Concept Scientifique Instruments 0.0009
Silltec 0.0005
SAS SWS 0.0005
Seipia 0.0005
Ennesys 0.0005
Aubineau, Vincent 0.0005
Air Serenity 0.0005
Xanchem 0.0005
Anamnèse 0.0005
Voox 0.0005
Arnault, Thibaud 0.0005
Aveni 0.0005
Braunwald, Pierre 0.0005
Bilberry SAS 0.0005
Bioadhesive Ophthalmics 0.0005
Qiagen Marseille S.A.S. 0.0005
Ramblier, Yves 0.0005
Pillet, Jean-Damien 0.0005
Qiagen Marseille 0.0005
Desplanches, Hervé 0.0005
Ivalua SAS 0.0005
It's Brain 0.0005

59
 Invivis SAS 0.0005
Institute de Biologie Integrative de la Cellule 0.0005
Dazzi, A. 0.0005
Innov Plus 0.0005
Projetti, Maxime 0.0005
Eddyfi Europe 0.0005
Hofferer, Eric 0.0005

Table 7. The final share of each member in the total production

of patents and scholar works. 2010-2021

60
 Organization Number of
collaborations
CNRS 46
CEA 37
Université Paris Sud 33
Universite paris Saclay 32
École Polytechnique 30
ENSTA 26
ONERA 26
INRA 26
INSERM 26
Institut Optique 25
Nationale Superieure 24
Central Supelec 24
Synchrotron Soleil 24
Mispology SAS 21
ERCA 21
Lynred 21
Horbia France SAS 21
Imagine Optic 21
Société Technique pour l'Energie 21
Atomique
LABORATOIRE FRANCAIS DU 21
FRACTIONNEMENT ET DES BIOT
LFB 21
EDF 12
IPVF 9
Total 8
UMS 7
Systematic 6
Sourcelab 6
Misense 6
Imagine Eyes 6

61
 Quantel 5
Institut SystemX 5
Ermes 5
Microsoft 5
Razel 5
Dhatim SARL 4
Carbometics 4
Neurospin 4
Art-fi 3
Silltec 3
Immutep SAS 2
Pegastech 2
Kelenn Technology 2
Aldreys 2
Safran 2
Heykom 1
Win MS 1
Kalray 1
Biosynthis 1

Table8. The Number of connections inside Paris-Saclay cluster.

2010-2021

62
 Fig11. Customized Graph Visualization with Intelligent Node Placement

• Photo guide:
• University and educational institution: Green color, Laboratory: Purple color, Famous Companies: Blue color.

63
Conclusion

In conclusion, the Territory of Paris-Saclay's innovation ecosystem is intricately tied to its territorial context. This context shapes
the ecosystem's ability to thrive and innovate, serving as a backdrop for key metrics that drive performance. While not a primary player,
it is a crucial factor in assessing growth and innovation potential. Recognizing the importance of local economic and social conditions
within this context is essential for identifying opportunities and challenges. Therefore, it is imperative to consider the territorial context
when evaluating the success of innovation ecosystems, such as Paris-Saclay, in their quest for continued growth and innovation.

In summary, the Paris-Saclay cluster represents a vibrant and multidimensional innovation ecosystem, uniting academia, startups, and
industry leaders in the pursuit of research, development, and technological excellence across several strategic sectors. Its growing
prominence is a testament to its pivotal role in shaping France's innovation landscape and its aspirations to compete on a global scale.

Before relying on the results, one thing to keep in mind is that in examining the importance or lack of importance of an actor,
we only considered three factors: patent, scholarly paper, and connection. There may be other issues that are important and we did
not consider them. According to the conversation I had with the supervisor of this work, it was decided that we should consider the
three factors mentioned due to the time limit and the importance of them. Another point is that in the context of using the source, after
examining the strengths and weaknesses of the databases, we finally relied on one or two of them, whose numbers may be different
from the numbers of other sources. Of course, it can be said that there is no "contradiction" in this, because after the weekly meetings
with the supervisor of this internship or related PhD students, the main and general bugs were fixed and the standardization and use
of different methods for data collection. Solved the problems to a large extent.

As seen in the results, large and famous companies did not necessarily play a prominent role in our study area or still do not,
and the most important actors here are universities and laboratories. In the production and registration of patents, cooperation between
members is very rare, while in the production of articles, there is the opposite. In addition, there is a constant set of collaborations
during the production of articles between the members of Paris Saclay. It means that if there is cooperation, it is not limited to one or
two times.

64
 In the field of patent production, the trend is growing, but its fluctuation is very high. This means that the conditions are not such
that there is a steady upward trend and it has been accompanied by constant ups and downs during these eleven years.

In the field of paper works, the trend has been different. It can be said that from 2010 to 2021, the number of articles produced
in each year has been almost constant and the only year that is considered as a bias here is 2018. which was accompanied by an
increase of almost 40%.

And finally, the difference between the final form and the prototypes is that the size or smallness of the companies was not
clear, and all of them were points with the same radius, and their superiority meant a greater number of connections.

Although it can be said that almost three or four main actors are the same in both examples, but in the next ranks, this issue is
completely different. Because first of all, there are a lot of more unfamiliar name companies here, which make the graph more
complicated, the communication more, the production more and the result more accurate, and on the other hand, as mentioned, it can
be seen that the Big Companies like Google and Microsoft, or even huge French companies like Total or Renault, currently do not have
a very big impact in this area, maybe for other parts of France or here, but in the coming years, the situation will be different.

65
Appendix

Fig12. Paris-Saclay actors in term of Health.

Reference: https://paris-saclay.business/paris-saclay-feel-disruptive/paris-innovation-lab/health/

66
 Fig13. Paris-Saclay actors in term of Energy

Reference: https://paris-saclay.business/paris-saclay-feel-disruptive/paris-innovation-lab/energy-efficiency/

67
 Fig14. Paris-Saclay actors in term of Aeronautics, Defense and Security

Reference: https://paris-saclay.business/paris-saclay-feel-disruptive/paris-innovation-lab/aerospace-defense-security/

68
 Fig15. Paris-Saclay actors in term of Mobility

Reference: https://paris-saclay.business/paris-saclay-feel-disruptive/paris-innovation-lab/mobilities-of-the-future/

69
References:
1. Delgado, M., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2014). Clusters, convergence, and economic performance. Research Policy.
2. OECD. (2018). OECD Regional Outlook 2018: Regions and Cities: Where Policies and People Meet. OECD Publishing.
3. Storper, M. (2006). Regional worlds of production: Learning and innovation in the technology districts of France, Italy, and the USA.
4. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74.
5. Who we are. https://paris-saclay.business/who-we-are/
6. The Paris region innovation lab. https://paris-saclay.business/
7. Paris-Saclay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris-Saclay
8. CLAIRE BACH (2022). Planning an academic cluster to achieve social inclusion – is it possible? KTH Royal Institute of Technology
9. CLUSTER PARIS-SACLAY. http://www.paris-saclay.com/l-agglo/grands-projets/cluster-paris-saclay-270.html
10. Paris-Saclay en pleine emulsion. (2016). https://www.alliancy.fr/paris-saclay-en-pleine-emulsion
11. The Paris Region Territories. https://www.chooseparisregion.org/why-paris-region/the-paris-region-territories
12. Paris Saclay. https://www.chooseparisregion.org/why-paris-region/the-paris-region-territories/paris-
saclay#:~:text=Paris%2DSaclay%20is%20not%20only,Thales%2C%20to%20name%20a%20few.
13. https://www.polytechnique.edu/en/school/presentation-ecole-polytechnique
14. Le Figaro. https://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/etudes/ecoles-ingenieurs/classement/
15. Le Figaro. https://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/etudes/ecoles-ingenieurs/classement/ecole-polytechnique/
16. Walter Leal Filho et al. (2022). Towards symbiotic approaches between universities, sustainable development, and cities.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-15717-2
17. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. By Henry
Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff. (2000).
18. The Geographic Sources of Innovation: Technological Infrastructure and Product Innovation in the United States. Maryann P. Feldman and
Richard Florida. (1994)
19. The Cluster-Based Economic Development Approach. By Michael Porter. (1998)
20. Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard business review, 76(6), 77-90
21. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press.
22. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review,
86(3), 630-640.
23. Autio, E., & Acs, Z. J. (2010). Intellectual property protection and the formation of entrepreneurial growth aspirations. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(3), 234-251.

70
 24. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113-1122.
25. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How it's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life
26. Sawicki, David. American Planning Association. Journal of the American Planning Association.
27. Laurent SIMON, Carolyn HATCH (2022). Accélérer la mobilité durable au Canada par les « communs d’innovation » : les hubs de
transport comme lieux d’écosystèmes d’innovation. à parties-prenantes multiples.
28. https://www.1min30.com/logo/logo-cnrs-1864
29. https://www.cnrs.fr/
30. https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/
31. https://www.inrae.fr/nous-connaitre
32. http://www.universite-paris-saclay.fr/en
33. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/18/09/icerr-france.pdf
34. https://www.cea.fr/english/Pages/cea/the-cea-a-key-player-in-technological-research.aspx
35. https://www.inria.fr/en/inria-ecosystem
36. https://www.inria.fr/en/partnerships-universities-strategy-territorial-inria
37. https://www.inria.fr/en/institut-polytechnique-de-paris-and-inria-strengthen-their-leadership-digital-science-and-ai
38. https://www.inria.fr/fr/centre-inria-de-saclay
39. https://www.slideshare.net/importerss/bibliography-15660544
40. https://www.inria.fr/en/inria-and-universite-paris-saclay-confirm-their-strategic-partnership-and-announce-creation-inria
41. "The Startup Community Way: Evolving an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem" by Brad Feld and Ian Hathaway. (2020)
42. "Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles" by Peter F. Drucker.(1985)
43. Un des 8 pôles mondiaux de l'innovation. Source carte : MIT Technology Review, juin 2021.
44. https://scientipolecapital.fr/en/home-2/a-territory/
45. www.Lens.org
46. www.scopus.com
47. https://bib.cnrs.fr/
48. https://www.oecd.org/france/
49. https://patents.google.com/
50. https://scholar.google.com/

71