The Architecture of Sustainability in Innovation Project Ecosystems.

Introduction. In the context of accelerating technological dynamics and institutional turbulence, the formation of sustainable eco-systems of innovation projects has become a strategic priority for actors of innovation-driven development. The ecosystem approach makes it possible to view innovation as the result of interaction among multiple stakeholders – from research centers to investors and technological startups. Understanding the architecture of ecosystem sustainability provides opportunities to enhance the efficiency of innovation reproduction and to reduce systemic risks in its design under conditions of uncertainty. Goal. The study aims to substantiate a model of the architecture of sustainability in innovation project ecosystems based on the interrelated mechanisms of institutional maturity, resource diversification, and the density of horizontal interactions. Materials and methods. The study is based on an interdisciplinary analysis of scientific sources and empirical data on Russian and international innovation ecosystems. Methods of systemic and comparative analysis, case study, structural-functional and content analysis, as well as conceptual modeling were applied to develop the sustainability model. Results and discussion. It is demonstrated that the sustainability of innovation project ecosystems should be understood not as a static state, but as a process of coordinated functioning between structural and procedural components. The key elements of sustainability were identified, and their coherence determines the ecosystem’s ability to reproduce innovation activity under conditions of uncertainty and systemic transformation. A comparative analysis of existing concepts of innovation development revealed their fragmentation and confirmed the necessity of an integrated architectural approach. Conclusion. The proposed model of the architecture of sustainability in innovation project ecosystems makes it possible to integrate institutional, resource, and network factors into a unified analytical framework. Its practical significance lies in the potential application of the proposed mechanisms for designing innovation infrastructures, diagnosing ecosystem maturity, and shaping public and corporate policies for science and technology development

1. Ushvitsky LI, Ter-Grigoryants AA, Den’shchik MN. Formation of the conceptual basis of the ecosystem approach to the development of socio-economic systems. Newsletter of North-Caucasus Federal University. 2021;3(84):142-154. (In Russ.).

2. Kanter RM. Evolve!: Succeeding in the Digital Culture of Tomorrow. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 2001. 352 p.

3. North DC. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990. 153 p.

4. Powell WW. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior. 1990;(12):295-336.

5. Maksimenko LS, Godina OV, Popovichenko MA. Management of innovative projects in the context of digital and ESG transformation. National Interests: Priorities and Security. 2024;20(11):2119-2136. (In Russ.).

6. Business Finland. Impact Study of Economic Growth: Global Networks and Fast-Growth Companies. Final Report 1/2022. Helsinki: Business Finland; 2022. Available from: https://www.businessfinland.fi/4a55f9/globalassets/julkaisut/business-finland/vaikuttavuus/impact-study-of-economic-growth_global-networks-and-fast-growth-companies_final-report_1_2022.pdf [Accessed 01 October 2025].

7. The Yozma Group. Available from: https://www.yozmagroup.com. [Accessed 01 October 2025].

8. Auzan AA, Komissarov AG, Bakhtigaraeva AI. Socio-cultural constraints on the commercialization of innovations in Russia. Economic Policy. 2019;(4):76-95. (In Russ.).

9. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation. 41 Russian universities launched “Tochka Kipeniya” innovation hubs. Available from: https://minobrnauki.gov.ru/press-center/news/novosti-ministerstva/21801/[Accessed 01 October 2025].

10. MaRS Discovery District. Available from: https://www.marsdd.com [Accessed 01 October 2025].

11. EIT Digital Ecosystem. Available from: https://www.eitdigital.eu/ecosystem/ [Accessed 01 October 2025].

12. Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H. Emergence of a Triple Helix of university–industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy. 1996;23(5):279-286.

13. Piqué JM, Berbegal-Mirabent J, Etzkowitz H. Triple Helix and the evolution of ecosystems of innovation: the case of Silicon Valley. Triple Helix. 2018;5(11). Available from: https://triplehelixjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40604-018-0060-x [Accessed 01 October 2025].

14. Hess C., Ostrom E. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. London: MIT Press; 2007. 37 p.

15. Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society. 2004;9(2). Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/ [Accessed 01 October 2025].

16. Castells M. A network theory of power. International Journal of Communication. 2011;(5):773-787.

17.