Mirjam van Praag: ‘Innovation requires a systemic approach’

You are the chair of the Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (AWTI). What exactly does this council do?
‘We advise the government and parliament, both upon request and on our own initiative, on issues at the intersection of science, technology, and innovation. These three elements are closely intertwined. Without sound science, you ultimately cannot have strong innovation. Sound technology is also often the foundation of innovation – though social innovation is equally important. To give a few examples: we issue advice on how to leverage innovation for the energy transition, or how the government can effectively organize innovation policy. For instance, we recently advised on how the government can structurally stimulate investments in innovation with the aim of creating a resilient and prosperous society.’

The council also issues unsolicited advice. What might that be about?
This can cover topics that we identify as urgent or as not yet sufficiently on the political agenda. We then choose to issue advice on our own initiative. For example, the AWTI’s work program outlines several themes each year. We gather input through discussions with stakeholders, such as secretaries-general in the government, corporate executives, knowledge institutions, planning agencies, fellow advisory councils, and civil society organizations like NWO and others. So, it is very broad. At the moment, we are working on, among other things, an unsolicited advisory report on practorates. While professors at universities conduct fundamental research and lecturers at universities of applied sciences conduct applied research, vocational education institutions have so-called practorates, or practice-oriented research. This is less well known. After all, innovation is not just about developing knowledge, but also about applying and implementing it. For example, knowledge about installing solar panels or the knowledge needed to design new products that make healthcare more comfortable for care givers and patients. Practorates can be an addition to the innovation chain and bridge the gap between research, education, and practice, so that innovation can actually be put into practice.’

You were part of the sounding board group that collaborated with Peter Wennink on his report The Route to Future Prosperity. What did that role entail in concrete terms?
‘As a sounding board group, we had a reflective, advisory role. We received draft versions of the report in several rounds and provided feedback on them, both in writing and during meetings. We are not co-authors of the final report. We provided input based on our expertise, but it is up to the authors what they do with it. My experience is that our input was certainly taken into account, although naturally not always exactly how individual members might have wanted it. But that is inherent to such a process.’

What do you think of the Wennink Report?
‘I consider it an important and necessary report. It is good that thought is being given at this level regarding the investment agenda and the future of Dutch innovation and technology policy. The urgency is very clearly articulated. As a country, we really need to invest heavily to remain economically and strategically relevant. So, I am positive about that. At the same time, I think that the report could have gone a step further on a few points.’

What exactly are you missing?
‘What I am missing is sufficient attention to the systemic nature of innovation. In the past, innovation was supply-driven. Something great was conceived, and then it was explored whether and how it could potentially be marketed. That no longer works. Today, we face major, complex societal challenges – think of the energy transition, healthcare, or the food transition. This reality requires innovation that must be organized based on these needs, from the demand side. We will need to involve all relevant parties from the very beginning: scientists, companies, financiers, governments, and end-users. A systemic approach also means that you do not approach the development of innovations solely from a technological perspective, but also fully incorporate non-technological aspects such as behavioral insights, new market organization models, and regulations. In other words, technological and social innovation and institutional changes go hand in hand. Incidentally, this systemic approach can still be chosen. That is now up to the cabinet. Many recommendations from the Wennink report are reflected in the coalition agreement.’

Why is a systemic approach important?
‘Because otherwise, you fail to account for important changes necessary for a transition. Take the energy transition. In a relatively short time, we have achieved many innovations to generate renewable energy from solar and wind. That is a tremendous achievement. But the surrounding system – the grid, storage, user behavior, regulations – has not been adequately addressed. As a result, we are now running into limitations, such as grid congestion. We could have partially prevented that by thinking more systemically from the start.’

The report identifies four technological clusters. Is this the right approach?
‘Yes, focus is important. As a country, you cannot excel at everything. I would, however, prefer – as is done in the coalition agreement – to speak of four societal challenges rather than four technologies. Many major innovations arise by chance, not because they were planned in advance. What works is building strong ecosystems or innovation clusters around specific domains, where scientists, entrepreneurs, financiers, and other parties collaborate structurally. In such ecosystems, knowledge is more quickly converted into applications and businesses. And that is precisely where the Netherlands often falls short. This is known as the innovation paradox: we have strong universities and excellent researchers, but the step toward commercialization lags behind.
A successful example of such an innovation cluster is Biotech Booster. I am not entirely impartial, as I founded it myself together with Annemiek Verkamman of Holland Bio. The initiative focuses on converting smart scientific results in biotech into practical applications that entrepreneurs bring to market. From the very beginning, this innovation cluster brings together scientists, entrepreneurs, financiers, and users. These meetings are very inspiring. All actors in the chain ensure that promising and scalable ideas that are socially and economically valuable to the country are brought to market through successful entrepreneurship. This way, knowledge is applied effectively more quickly, with startups and scale-ups.’

What does Wennink’s plan mean for entrepreneurs in the Netherlands? For startups, scale-ups, SMEs and large companies alike?
‘Entrepreneurs will benefit, provided it is implemented properly. First, through the intention to streamline cumbersome rules and procedures more quickly and effectively. Second, the link between science and application through regional innovation clusters – discussed in the coalition agreement – can help entrepreneurs innovate. Additionally, the Dutch Agency for Disruptive Innovation (NADI) could create a sort of playground for entrepreneurs. Here, they can test and develop high-tech and breakthrough innovations in a safe environment.
Finally, if we succeed in bridging the funding gap, I expect that we will be able to retain more scale-ups in the Netherlands – and perhaps even attract new scale-ups to the Netherlands. For fast-growing, innovative companies, it is often difficult to attract sufficient capital; there is too little patient, high-risk financing to expand production, reach new markets, or grow internationally.’

How decisive is regulation in driving innovation?
‘Regulation is often an overlooked but crucial part of innovation. For example, rules are needed to protect intellectual property. Regulations can stimulate innovation, just as emission standards have contributed to increasingly fuel-efficient and electric cars. But regulations can also be a hindrance, especially if they do not align with new technologies. That calls for constant adaptation and, sometimes, a bit of daring.’

What role should the government play?
‘The government must provide guidance in a smart way and create the right conditions. And also: bring parties together and ensure that ecosystems emerge and function. If done well, the government can play an enormous catalytic role. People are quick to speak dismissively of ‘industrial policy’ when the government takes on a steering role. I understand that negative association with industrial policy because wrong choices were made in the past. The point is that we invest in areas where a lot of innovation is needed, where we have a strong competitive edge, or where it is simply important for the Netherlands to invest. In this way, the government can set the right direction, but the market determines how that is implemented. Entrepreneurs make their own assessments and decide where to focus their efforts. For example, companies can start developing and producing crucial components that align with the energy transition. Entrepreneurs’ first thought is not necessarily: what is best for the country? That is why some guidance is useful. This can be done through pricing and standards, helping to build attractive innovation clusters, or by making investments in certain areas more attractive.’

You work a lot with entrepreneurs. Would a clearer explanation of societal goals also provide intrinsic motivation?
‘Certainly, but there is already a lot of intrinsic motivation. Perhaps even more than we often think. This is particularly strong among younger generations of entrepreneurs and those with a scientific background. They often do not start with the idea of ‘​I want to make money.’ They primarily have a mission: they want to solve a problem with their business. That could be about health, sustainability, mental health – you name it. Of course, there ultimately needs to be a revenue model, but the motivation is often substantive. The classic image of the entrepreneur who is purely profit-driven is truly outdated – certainly in this context.’

How does the Netherlands relate to Europe when it comes to innovation and strategic choices?
‘That is an important question. Wennink emphasizes that the Netherlands must be strategically relevant in Europe, and that is a good point. But we still have a major puzzle to solve together. What are we going to do in the Netherlands, taking into account our strengths and scarce resources? What can be organized at the European level, and what do we source from elsewhere?
Many entrepreneurs should also think beyond the Netherlands. Studies show that Dutch entrepreneurs often think too small and lack ambition, even though the European market offers many opportunities. Risky investments in new technologies require scale, so the European market and European capital are crucial. At the same time, regulations and collaboration must be well aligned so that companies can scale up more easily across Europe.’

Finally, do you have suggestions on how we can improve collaboration between academia, entrepreneurs, and government?
‘Steps are being taken at universities, though recognition and appreciation for academics’ efforts to increase the value of research by moving towards practical application are still insufficient. It is not just about researchers publishing, but also about their research leading to new companies or to collaboration with entrepreneurs who bring their ideas to the market.
What is often underestimated is the cultural difference between groups, such as scientists and entrepreneurs. I have personally given workshops on this topic. How do you actually work well together when you are so different? In practice, you see that there are quite a few prejudices. And to be honest: some of them are accurate. Entrepreneurs are often fast and pragmatic, quick and dirty. Scientists are often more cautious and want to see everything thoroughly proven first. It is precisely when you acknowledge those traits - sometimes with a bit of humor - that it leads to rapprochement. Then people think, oh yes, that is how you roll. Ultimately, it is about attitude. That you understand each other’s way of working and recognize that those differences are complementary. Then you see that collaboration suddenly starts to work.’

You also conduct research on entrepreneurship and leadership. Which traits are relevant to our future innovation challenge?
‘It is very interesting that entrepreneurs differ significantly from managers or executives in a number of ways. Entrepreneurs are more curious, more optimistic, more intuitive, and less risk averse. At some point, it dawned on me that many of those traits resemble those of children. Playfulness, a desire to experiment, and not being afraid to fail; these are all ‘childlike’ qualities that can stimulate innovation. I advocate giving these qualities more room, including in large organizations and government bodies.’

How do you do that in practice? And what can companies learn from this?
‘By creating space for experimentation, by not immediately punishing failure, and by stimulating creativity. We are also currently conducting research into this, for example with interventions such as improvisational theater in organizations. The idea is simple: if people dare to play and experiment more, they become more creative and innovative. That is exactly what we need to implement the innovation challenge.’

This interview was published in Management Scope 04 2026.