Skills Ecosystem Misalignment in Emerging Technology Sectors
Abstract
Purpose: This research investigates the misalignment between educational supply and industrial demand across emerging technology sectors in five European moderate innovator countries, aiming to understand why universities and firms struggle to co-produce the hybrid talent required for the digital transition.
Methodology/Approach: A mixed-methods comparative case study design was employed, combining desk research, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews across 35 country-sector cases in five countries and seven technology domains.
Findings: The analysis reveals a Coordination Failure Equilibrium where widespread awareness of gaps coexists with systemic inaction, highlighting severe deficits in soft skills and a critical theory-practice divide driven by a temporal mismatch between agile technology and rigid academic cycles.
Research Limitation/Implication: The findings imply that traditional degree structures are insufficient for the digital transition, necessitating a paradigm shift toward knowledge co-creation through Regional Centres of Vocational Excellence (CoVEs) and industry-validated micro-credentials.
Originality/Value of paper: This paper contributes a unique comparative analysis challenging linear human capital models by applying the Quintuple Innovation Helix framework to identify structural coordination failures rather than simple quantitative shortages.
Full text article
References
Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. (2011). Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. In D. Card & O. Ashenfelter (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (Vol. 4, pp. 1043–1171). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Breque, M., De Nul, L., & Petridis, A. (2021). Industry 5.0: Towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/308407
Buchanan, J., Anderson, P., & Power, G. (2017). Skills ecosystems. In C. Warhurst, K. Mayhew, & D. Finegold (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of skills and training (pp. 444–465). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199655366.013.21
Capsada-Munsech, Q., & Valiente, O. (2020). Sub-national variation of skill formation regimes: a comparative analysis of skill mismatch across 18 European regions. European Education, 52(2), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2020.1723421
Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
Finegold, D. (1999). Creating self-sustaining, high-skill ecosystems. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 15(1), 60–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/15.1.60
Finegold, D., & Soskice, D. (1988). The failure of training in Britain: analysis and prescription. Oxford review of economic policy, 4(3), 21–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/4.3.21
Flick, U. (2018). Triangulation in data collection. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 527–544). London, England: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070.n34
Harvey, W. S. (2011). Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111404329
INVESTech Project. (2025). Report on the identified skill gaps in advanced technologies in industry (Deliverable 4.1). Erasmus+ Centres of Vocational Excellence. Retrieved from https://investech-cove.eu.
Klasová, S., Korobaničová, I., & Hudec, O. (2019). University-industry links in Slovakia: What are the factors underlying the number of interactions with industry? Quality Innovation Prosperity, 23(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.12776/qip.v23i1.1137
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mikecz, R. (2012). Interviewing elites: Addressing methodological issues. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(6), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412442818
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
OECD. (2021). Micro-credential innovations in higher education: Who, what and why? (OECD Education Policy Perspectives No. 39). Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f14ef041-en
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Rehák, Š., Hudec, O., & Buček, M. (2013). Path dependency and path plasticity in emerging industries: Two cases from Slovakia. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 57(1-2), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw.2013.0005
Šebová, M., & Hudec, O. (2012). The ICT sector evolution in an industrial region of Slovakia. Journal of Economics, 60(1), 65–82.
Uyarra, E. (2010). Conceptualizing the regional roles of universities, implications and contradictions. European Planning Studies, 18(8), 1227–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654311003791275
Uyarra, E., Flanagan, K., Magro, E., Wilson, J. R., & Sotarauta, M. (2017). Understanding regional innovation policy dynamics: Actors, agency and learning. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(4), 559–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417705914
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Authors
Copyright (c) 2026 Iveta Orbánová, Natasa Urbancikova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
Authors who publish with the Quality Innovation Prosperity agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.