University of Ciego de Ávila Máximo Gómez Báez
|
ISSN: 2309-8333
|
RNPS: 2411
|14|2026|
This is an Open Access article under the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria EGU
Scientific and technological
research article
How to cite:
Mayrena-Bellorín, M. U., &
del Carmen Obregón, N. (2026). Territorial
innovation management model: a strategy
for university teaching, research, and
extension.
Estrategia y Gestión
Universitaria
, 14, e9128.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22832729
Received: 31/03/2026
Accepted: 10/09/2026
Published: 25/09/2026
Corresponding author:
milton.mayrena@yahoo.es
Conflict of interest:
the authors declare
that they have no conflict of interest,
which may have influenced the results
obtained or the proposed interpretations
.
Territorial innovation management
model: a strategy for university
teaching, research, and extension
Modelo de gestión de innovación
territorial: estrategia para la formación,
investigación y extensión universitaria
Modelo de gestão da inovação
territorial: estratégia para o ensino, a
pesquisa e a extensão universitária
Abstract
Introduction: this article presents a proposed model for
territorial innovation management, taking into account
actions and initiatives carried out at the University.
Objective: to design a territorial innovation management
model as a strategy to articulate the processes of education,
research, and outreach. Method: qualitative,
descriptive‑propositional study grounded in the interpretative
paradigm. Institutional documents related to the key
processes were reviewed to obtain information. In addition,
15 managers and 52 faculty members were consulted;
participants were purposively selected for their experience in
these processes. Results: needs were identified regarding
coordination among areas, territorial partnerships, knowledge
management, incorporation of territorial needs, and
monitoring of results. The model was designed with six
components: territorial diagnosis; knowledge management;
territorial innovation ecosystems; articulation of education,
research, and outreach; governance, partnerships, and
participation; and monitoring, feedback, and evaluation.
Conclusion: the proposal provides an organized roadmap to
articulate key processes while aligning them with territorial
needs. Its implementation will help systematize the planning,
execution, and evaluation of university initiatives.
Keywords: university management, territorial innovation,
university-territory engagement, knowledge management,
university extension
Resumen
Introducción: el articulo presenta propuesta de modelo de
gestión de innovación territorial, tomando en cuenta acciones
e iniciativas que se realizan en la Universidad.
Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín
1
Universidad Nacional Francisco Luis
Espinoza Pineda – UNFLEP
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8931-570X
milton.mayrena@yahoo.es
Nicaragua
Noemí del Carmen Obregón
2
Universidad Nacional Francisco Luis
Espinoza Pineda – UNFLEP
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4758-7182
noheobregon21@gmail.com
Nicaragua
Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria
|
ISSN
: 2309-8333
|
RNPS:
2411
| Vol. 14|2026|
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
Objetivo:
diseñar modelo de gestión de innovación territorial como estrategia de
articulación de los procesos de formación, investigación y extensión.
Método:
estudio cualitativo, descriptivo-propositivo y sustentado en paradigma
interpretativo; para obtener información se revisaron documentos institucionales
relacionados con los procesos clave. Asimismo, se consultó a 15 directivos y 52
docentes seleccionados intencionalmente por la experiencia que poseen en estos
procesos.
Resultados:
se identificaron necesidades sobre la coordinación entre
áreas, alianzas territoriales, gestión del conocimiento, incorporación de
necesidades territoriales y seguimiento de resultados. El modelo se diseñó en seis
componentes: diagnostico territorial; gestión del conocimiento; ecosistemas de
innovación territorial; articulación de la formación, investigación y extensión;
gobernanza, alianzas y participación; y seguimiento, retroalimentación y
evaluación.
Conclusión:
la propuesta desarrolla una ruta organizada para
articular procesos clave y a la vez con las necesidades territoriales; la
implementación del mismo ayudará a ordenar la planificación, ejecución y
evaluación de iniciativas universitarias.
Palabras clave:
gestión universitaria, innovación territorial, vinculación
universidad-territorio, gestión del conocimiento, extensión universitaria
Resumo
Introdução: o artigo apresenta uma proposta de modelo de gestão da inovação
territorial, considerando ações e iniciativas realizadas na Universidade. Objetivo:
projetar um modelo de gestão da inovação territorial como estratégia de
articulação dos processos de formação, pesquisa e extensão. Método: estudo
qualitativo, descritivo‑propositivo, sustentado no paradigma interpretativo. Para
obtenção de informações foram revisados documentos institucionais relacionados
aos processos-chave. Ademais, foram consultados 15 gestores e 52 docentes
selecionados intencionalmente pela experiência que possuem nesses processos.
Resultados: foram identificadas necessidades quanto à coordenação entre áreas,
parcerias territoriais, gestão do conhecimento, incorporação das demandas
territoriais e acompanhamento de resultados. O modelo foi concebido em seis
componentes: diagnóstico territorial; gestão do conhecimento; ecossistemas de
inovação territorial; articulação da formação, pesquisa e extensão; governança,
parcerias e participação; e acompanhamento, retroalimentação e avaliação.
Conclusão: a proposta desenvolve um roteiro organizado para articular processos-
chave e, ao mesmo tempo, atender às necessidades territoriais; sua
implementação contribuirá para ordenar o planejamento, a execução e a
avaliação das iniciativas universitárias.
Palavras-chave:
gestão universitária, inovação territorial, articulação
universidade-território, gestão do conhecimento, extensão universitária
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
Introduction
The Universidad Nacional Francisco Luis Espinoza Pineda (UNFLEP) carries
out a wide range of activities in teaching, research, and outreach that reach the
different sectors of the territory in which the university operates. UNFLEP is an
institution committed to the needs that emerge within its surrounding communities,
which raises the question of how best to design mechanisms that connect these
territorial demands to the university's core processes. It is likewise necessary to
coordinate and strengthen the learning generated through these activities, as well
as to determine how the resulting evidence should feed into institutional planning.
Territorial innovation is not confined to the incorporation of technological
measures into productive processes; it also encompasses cooperative relationships,
collective learning, and the capacity of different stakeholders to draw on available
resources and knowledge to address community problems (Caravaca et al., 2005).
From this standpoint, the contribution universities can make hinges on their ability
to work alongside a range of institutions, public bodies, social and productive
organizations, and territorial actors alike. Garrido Rubiano et al. (2016) underscore
the importance of this articulation for strengthening territorial capacities, while
Jacho Rodríguez (2025) identifies citizen participation, collaborative governance,
and sustainability as the conditions underpinning the consolidation of innovation
ecosystems.
For the purposes of this study, a territorial innovation management model is
understood as a system of relationships, responsibilities, and procedures through
which the university incorporates territorial needs into its planning, knowledge
generation, and evaluation of outreach outcomes. This conception brings together a
range of organizational and operational elements; beyond simply identifying
stakeholders and resources, it defines how needs are prioritized, how the university's
core processes are coordinated, and how institutional decisions are ultimately fed
back into the system. The model is intended to move beyond isolated interventions
toward an evidence-based approach (Picado Vanegas, 2015; Guevara Medina, 2023).
The university engages with its surrounding territories by channeling the
problems that arise there into its teaching processes, generating research from those
problems, and subsequently addressing them in the communities through outreach
initiatives. The relationships that emerge from this dynamic broaden the traditional
role of universities, positioning knowledge production and application squarely
within the context of social, economic, cultural, and environmental needs.
Velázquez-Rodríguez (2022) and Salgado Téllez et al. (2025) link this dynamic to
academic relevance and applied research. Within this context, UNFLEP is positioned
as an actor capable of taking part in processes of territorial innovation and
transformation (Mayrena Bellorín & Obregón, 2025).
A management model oriented toward territorial innovation must specify
how territorial stakeholders will relate to one another, what resources each
contributes, and what procedures will be used to translate needs into institutional
responses. Córdova Rosario (2026) notes that this type of management requires
integrating capacities and knowledge around shared objectives. Within the
university setting, such integration calls for a genuine connection among teaching,
research, and outreach, so that the experiences developed together with territorial
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
actors can yield academic learning, applicable knowledge, and socially relevant
solutions (Mayrena Bellorín & Obregón, 2026).
Territorial innovation models can facilitate coordination among the various
territorial actors and help identify development opportunities (Pinell Tórrez &
Chavarría Zeledón, 2024; Giusto Largaespada et al., 2025; Guido Chávez, 2025).
Other studies, in turn, link such models to the strengthening of applied research,
knowledge management, and university-society engagement (López, 2015; Cassells
Martínez, 2022; Martínez Centeno et al., 2025). None of these contributions,
however, go far enough toward integrating academic, research, and outreach
decisions within a single management structure, a gap that this study sets out to
address.
This study is relevant insofar as it offers criteria for organizing initiatives
around clearly defined objectives, actors, and monitoring mechanisms within the
university. The proposal is built on the premise that every institutional decision
should stem from previously prioritized problems and that the resulting experiences
should be documented, evaluated, and drawn upon in the future. This approach
responds to the call, raised by Herrera Castrillo (2025), to strengthen evidence-based
planning, and links it to the specific academic and territorial characteristics of
UNFLEP.
Accordingly, when intercultural considerations and rural development with
a territorial focus are taken into account, research can offer more comprehensive
approaches that strengthen the university-community relationship (Solís Chavarría,
2024); prior studies likewise show how academic research contributes to territorial
development (Arcia Ramírez et al., 2018).
This gap justifies the need for research aimed at strengthening university
management through models that integrate teaching, research, and outreach with
territorial demands. Accordingly, the present study aims to design a territorial
innovation management model capable of articulating the institutional processes of
the Universidad Nacional Francisco Luis Espinoza Pineda. The intention is to put
forward an evidence-based model that strengthens the link between the university
and its territory, providing a conceptual and methodological foundation for future
territorial innovation strategies and for reinforcing university engagement more
broadly.
Methods and materials
This study was carried out at the Universidad Nacional Francisco Luis
Espinoza Pineda (UNFLEP), located in the community of Santa Adelaida, at kilometer
166½ of the North Pan-American Highway in the city of Estelí, Nicaragua. It follows
a qualitative approach, which made it possible to explore in depth the meanings,
experiences, and perspectives of participants within their natural settings. As
Noreña-Peña (2024) points out, qualitative research allows for a deeper
understanding of the dimensions that shape the phenomenon under study.
The study followed a descriptive-propositional design at UNFLEP, aimed at
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
characterizing the institutional conditions surrounding the articulation of teaching,
research, and university outreach, and at designing a territorial innovation
management model. The descriptive component made it possible to systematize the
perceptions of university stakeholders together with institutional information, while
the propositional component guided the construction of the model intended to
strengthen the university-territory relationship.
The unit of analysis comprised the teaching, research, and outreach
processes, along with administrators' and faculty members' perceptions of how these
processes relate to territorial needs. A total of 67 participants took part in the study,
15 administrators and 52 faculty members, selected purposively for their experience
in academic management, research, outreach, program coordination, or
engagement with territorial actors. Participants with knowledge of innovation and
university processes were included, while those who declined to participate or could
not provide relevant information were excluded.
Data were gathered through qualitative techniques, including document
review, interviews, and a focus group. Piza Burgos et al. (2019) note that qualitative
techniques facilitate the exploration of participants' experiences, perceptions, and
meanings, while Duarte Sánchez and Guerrero Barreto (2024) point out that
document review complements these techniques by providing the background and
context that enrich qualitative analysis. Combined, these techniques contribute to
a deeper and more contextualized understanding of the reality under study.
The document review covered the Institutional Educational Model, the
Annual Operating Plan, curriculum macro-planning documents, research and
outreach programs, and national policies and strategies related to higher education,
innovation, and territorial development. Each document was examined for guidance
concerning the university's core processes, the actors involved, and the mechanisms
envisaged for engaging with the territory.
Consultations with administrators and faculty members yielded information
on the relationship among teaching, research, and outreach, the institutional
capacities available, existing collaborative networks, and the conditions required to
implement the model. Responses were organized through thematic analysis, grouped
accordingly, and finally cross-checked against the findings of the document review
to determine their correspondence with the model's components.
The study unfolded across four interrelated stages. The first involved the
review of institutional documents; the second consisted of collecting and organizing
the contributions of the 15 administrators and 52 faculty members consulted; and
the third brought both sources together to identify needs, capacities, and
institutional relationships. In the fourth stage, the model itself was designed, with
its inputs, management processes, expected outcomes, and feedback mechanisms
clearly defined.
The preliminary version of the territorial innovation management model was
validated by a focus group of experts, drawing on four criteria: coherence,
relevance, clarity, and applicability within the university. The observations gathered
were then used to refine the relationships among the model's components.
The model establishes mechanisms for coordinating the university's core
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
processes, organizing the knowledge generated, and engaging territorial actors in
identifying and addressing the problems that arise.
Results and discussion
The findings presented here were organized around the university's
identified needs and the design of the territorial innovation management model.
This process brought three central issues to light: the absence of a common structure
for coordinating the university's core processes, the potential for incorporating
territorial problems into the institution's day-to-day work, and the lack of
mechanisms for systematizing and evaluating outcomes.
Diagnostic assessment of the need to articulate the model's elements
The information gathered showed that the university already has experience
in territorial engagement through agricultural, livestock, veterinary, medical,
dental, and mental health outreach days; these activities have provided a solid
foundation for building meaningful relationships with the community, producers, and
other institutions. Among the difficulties identified were the coordination of the
different academic areas, the systematization of experiences, and the ability to
connect research projects with the dissemination of their findings.
Territorial engagement should not be limited to the execution of outreach
activities; these activities also need to be incorporated into the planning process,
channeled into research projects, and fed back into the territories they originated
from. Such relationships, moreover, call for a structure capable of supporting the
implementation and evaluation of the resulting actions. These connections are what
justify treating the articulation of teaching, research, and outreach as a specific,
distinct element of the management model.
The need to organize the relationship between the university and its
surrounding environment echoes the argument made by Isaksen et al. (2022), who
link regional innovation systems to the resolution of social and territorial challenges;
similarly, Trippl et al. (2024) note that such systems become more relevant when
they are oriented toward concrete problems, while Jeannerat and Crevoisier (2022)
add the role played by knowledge and sustainability. Together, these contributions
point to the need to move from isolated initiatives toward coordinated processes
genuinely connected to territorial needs.
The territorial innovation management model proposes coordination spaces
in which the university and territorial actors can jointly prioritize the problems to
be addressed; it is expected to help connect decisions on teaching, research, and
outreach that are currently made in isolation from one another. The model also
promotes closer institutional integration and a sustainable contribution to territorial
development.
The qualitative techniques applied made it possible to gather information
and clarify the university's role within its territories, a role that ultimately depends
on its academic capacities and on the conditions in place for coordinating with the
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
different participants involved. Putting the territorial innovation management model
into practice will therefore require several complementary components, including
communication strategies capable of disseminating results.
The territorial innovation management model will make it possible to align
the university's processes with the needs that arise across its territories. This is
consistent with Thomas and Pugh (2020), who argue that universities contribute to
territorial development through teaching, applied research, and social engagement,
and with Tödtling et al. (2021), who maintain that regional innovation systems must
adapt to new social challenges. Compagnuccia and Spigarelli (2020), for their part,
hold that universities contribute to territorial development through teaching and
knowledge-generation processes, while Rudskaya et al. (2022) contend that
territorial innovation is strengthened when research and economic development are
brought together. Finally, Theeranattapong et al. (2021) emphasize that the
university-territory relationship is central to the management of regional innovation.
Implementing the model is expected to strengthen coordination with the
National Consumption and Trade System (SNCC), facilitating the involvement of
strategic actors throughout the different phases of implementation; it is also
expected to strengthen coordination with regulatory bodies, so as to ensure
compliance with the current legal framework and keep the proposal aligned with
national education policy.
Foundations of the territorial innovation management model
• Knowledge management
Knowledge management is a key factor that not only drives innovation within
the university but also strengthens the university-territory relationship, since it
facilitates the creation and transfer of knowledge both within academic institutions
and across organizations (García Rodríguez et al., 2020). Regional innovation systems
likewise show that knowledge management is an integral part of the processes that
connect ecosystem actors and promote entrepreneurship and territorial growth
(López-Rubio et al., 2020). Finally, the transfer of knowledge from the university to
other sectors helps to strengthen innovation that is contextualized to the demands
of the digital and organizational environment (Aguayo Saltos & Lozano Jaramillo,
2025).
• Inclusion and gender equity
Integrating a gender perspective strengthens the university's contribution to
territorial development by promoting a more equitable distribution of the benefits
derived from innovation and by advancing principles of diversity, inclusion, and
sustainability at the regional level. Territorial innovation approached through a lens
of inclusion and gender equity encourages the equitable participation of women and
underrepresented groups within the university, strengthening creativity and
collaboration throughout the innovation process (Restrepo et al., 2021).
Mainstreaming a gender perspective across teaching and outreach, moreover,
improves the university's capacity to respond to territorial challenges (Vila Merino &
Álvarez Jiménez, 2025), while a pluralistic approach to gender in research
contributes to innovation that is more responsible and better contextualized (Latorre
Ruiz et al., 2025).
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
Cultural and creative approach
This approach allows the knowledge, cultural practices, and creative
capacities generated by the university to be translated into innovative solutions that
enhance sustainability, strengthen collaboration among local actors, and support the
territory's economic, social, and cultural development. A cultural and creative
approach to territorial innovation enhances universities' ability to design projects
that drive local development through creative and cultural industries (Badilla
Agüero, 2025), to use creative processes as a driver of sustainable innovation in
regions (Faraone, 2022), and to integrate creative dynamics into territorial
innovation systems in ways that strengthen social and economic cohesion (Solis
Navarrete, 2015).
• Climate change adaptation and territorial resilience
As one of the model's strategic axes, this dimension makes it possible to align
teaching, research, and outreach with the socio-environmental needs of the
territory. Segura Guerrero et al. (2022) argue that adapting to climate change
strengthens the resilience of territorial systems by integrating local strategies
oriented toward the region as a whole. Along similar lines, Valverde Blanco et al.
(2022) indicate that teaching and research in climate management contribute to
building the competencies key actors need for socio-environmental resilience.
Finally, Cedeño Frías and Camarena (2025) suggest that environmental education
driven by the university strengthens both institutional and community capacity to
confront the effects of climate change in a sustainable manner.
• Participatory and civic approach
This approach aligns the teaching, research, and outreach processes with the
territory's actual needs, strengthening collaboration with local actors and
communities. A participatory, citizen-centered approach reinforces local
governance and brings the community into the planning and implementation of
territorial innovation strategies (Vílchez-Vargas, 2023); it also helps to improve the
effectiveness of public policy and to foster shared social responsibility between the
university and the citizenry (Aquije Loayza et al., 2021). In doing so, it promotes
transparency, inclusion, and sustainability in both university and territorial
management (Mariñez Navarro, 2022).
• Ethical and humanistic approach
An ethical and humanistic approach orients the model's decisions toward
respect for people, inclusion, and shared responsibility for territorial problems; in
practice, this means that the priorities selected, the knowledge produced, and the
results evaluated must all involve broad participation and transparent criteria.
Hernández Cruz and Hütt Herrera (2024) establish a connection between community
participation and the strengthening of local governance, while the co-production of
knowledge between citizens and universities drives collaborative solutions for
complex territorial development contexts (Leguia-Cruz et al., 2024).
The territorial innovation management model matters for the university
because it aligns learning processes with the real needs faced by communities,
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
helping to strengthen the university's social relevance. Through the model, teaching
can be integrated with research and outreach activities capable of responding to
territorial problems, generating innovative solutions with a greater economic, social,
and environmental impact.
Implementing the model will contribute to training professionals with
contextualized competencies, sharper critical thinking, and a stronger ethical
commitment to the processes associated with sustainable development. It can also
promote collaboration between the university and the different sectors of society
(productive, governmental, and community-based) while consolidating the
institution's role as a strategic actor in territorial transformation, one that favors
knowledge transfer, innovation, and the building of local capacities.
UNFLEP has already undertaken a number of actions in support of community
development, including the organization and delivery of agricultural, veterinary,
medical, mental health, and dental outreach days across various territories, carried
out through close interinstitutional coordination with producers and state
institutions.
Cross-cutting axes of the territorial innovation management model
• Institutional strategic vision
This dimension is highly relevant to the model's implementation: the
university needs a strategic vision capable of guiding it toward a transformation that
systemically integrates teaching, research, and outreach with the dynamics and
needs of the territory. Higher education institutions must be able to generate
relevant knowledge, drive innovation with greater social impact, and strengthen
alliances with public, private, and community actors.
Institutional strategic vision guides action and safeguards sustainability,
given that strategic planning is a tool capable of helping any organization sustain its
productivity, educational institutions included (Núñez Esqueda, 2023); strategy,
structure, and culture, in turn, are cross-cutting elements of strategic management
that shape institutional continuity (Mejía Zambrano et al., 2022).
The university's strategic vision provides the framework that allows the
management model's actions to remain consistent over time rather than depend
solely on individual initiatives. Its central function is to embed territorial innovation
within the planning process, assign responsibilities, and connect objectives with
outcomes, all of which point toward an organizational culture grounded in quality,
social responsibility, ethics, and participation.
• Territorial innovation ecosystems
Within the management model, the territorial innovation ecosystem
constitutes a space of relationships among the university, institutions, the
productive sector, and communities; each of these actors contributes knowledge,
resources, or capacities that can be applied to the problems identified. The
university plays a particularly important role in facilitating connections between
territorial contributions and the teaching, research, and outreach processes; the
ecosystem is thus conceived as a mechanism for agreeing on courses of action,
producing knowledge, and following up on the resulting commitments.
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
Territorial innovation ecosystems are dynamic, collaborative environments
that bring together knowledge, actors, and institutions to strengthen sustainable
local development. Reina-Rozo (2022) frames community-based innovation
ecosystems as a setting for socio-technical co-production grounded in collaboration
and co-creation among actors, a view consistent with Figueroa-Egurrola and Wong-
González (2023), who emphasize that regional innovation systems rest on the
interaction between territory, knowledge, and actors. These systems are also shaped
by key factors such as policy, education, and technology, which drive the
relationships among participants in innovative activities (Arce-Medina et al., 2019).
Figure 1 below presents the proposed territorial innovation management
model, together with its underlying foundations and the articulation of teaching,
research, and outreach, which together bring all institutional processes into play and
support the desired outcomes in students' comprehensive formation.
Figure 1
Proposed territorial innovation management model
Source: Authors' own elaboration.
• Monitoring, co-feedback, incorporation, and continuous evaluation of
territorial innovation
Territorial innovation ecosystems are dynamic structures in which diverse
actors interact to generate sustainable local development (Contreras Varas, 2024).
Co-feedback among participants facilitates the transfer of knowledge and the
generation of solutions tailored to territorial demands (Forlani & Picciani, 2026).
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
Bustillo López et al. (2025), for their part, note that knowledge management fosters
cooperation among institutions, businesses, and communities. Building on these
contributions, the model incorporates the systematization of experience and the
return of results to stakeholders as ongoing working practices.
Within the model, monitoring, feedback, and evaluation are each assigned a
distinct function: monitoring makes it possible to compare the activities carried out
against the goals originally planned; feedback gathers stakeholders' assessments and
supports decision-making; and evaluation examines outcomes across the university's
different areas of work. All the information generated through this process is meant
to feed back into future planning, with the model occupying a central place in the
resulting learning cycle.
• Contributions to teaching, research, and outreach
Bringing teaching, research, and outreach together allows territorial needs
to be addressed through the university's different capacities. In teaching, identified
problems can be turned into learning experiences and practicums grounded in each
territory; in research, they translate into applicable questions and projects; and in
outreach, they can be addressed through joint action with local actors. This is
consistent with Mayrena Bellorín and Obregón (2025), who describe the university as
an agent of social transformation, and with Campo Sarria (2023), who links university
articulation to participation and the joint production of knowledge.
The management model will help organize the relationship among the
university's three core processes by establishing which territorial needs have been
identified and prioritizing them together with the relevant actors; this sequence, in
turn, will contribute to strengthening both institutional and territorial capacities.
Components of the proposed model
Triangulating the document review with the consultations carried out among
faculty made it possible to link the identified needs to a specific operational function
of the model: the difficulties encountered served to prioritize problems and gave
rise to the territorial diagnostic component; the need to record and transfer learning
underpinned the knowledge management component; and the need to coordinate
with other actors was incorporated through the innovation ecosystems component.
The articulation of teaching, research, and outreach was likewise built into the
model, so that all of its components could work together effectively.
Table 1
Components of the territorial innovation management model
Component
Operational
purpose
Expected products Suggested indicators
Territorial
diagnosis and
prioritization
Identify problems,
assets, and
opportunities
together with local
actors.
Stakeholder map;
portfolio of
prioritized
problems;
opportunity matrix.
problems; actor
participation; annual
update of the
Knowledge
Capture, organize,
Project repository;
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
Component
Operational
purpose
Expected products Suggested indicators
management
and transfer
learning and
results.
best-practice
records; feedback
reports.
results in research and
Innovation
ecosystems
Bring together the
university, the
state, the
productive sector,
the community,
and other
organizations.
Territorial
networks;
collaboration
agenda;
agreements.
partnerships; co-
created actions;
continuity of
participation.
Teaching,
research, and
outreach
Turn territorial
problems into
learning
experiences,
research projects,
and outreach
actions.
Interdisciplinary
projects;
contextualized
practicums; applied
solutions.
applied projects;
participating students
and communities.
Governance
and
participation
Define those
responsible,
coordination rules,
inclusion
mechanisms, and
accountability.
Management
committee;
protocols;
communication
plan.
inclusive
participation;
commitments
fulfilled.
Continuous
evaluation
Measure progress,
results, and
needed
adjustments.
Indicator
dashboard; periodic
reports;
improvement plan.
satisfaction of
territorial actors;
relevant social,
economic, or
environmental
Source: Authors' own elaboration.
Model implementation strategy
Implementation of the model was organized into three stages. The first
consists of a technical review of the proposal, during which experts examine the
indicators and conditions required for its application. The second involves a pilot
phase built around the prioritized problems, with responsibilities, resources, goals,
and timelines assigned accordingly. The third stage covers evaluation of the pilot,
documentation of lessons learned, and gradual scaling to other areas of the
university. This sequence helps reduce the risk of adopting a merely declarative
model and supports evidence-based decision-making.
Table 2
Stages in the implementation strategy of the Territorial Innovation Management
Model
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
Stage
Main activities
Those responsible
Evidence of completion
Validation
Expert review,
stakeholder feedback,
and adjustment of the
operational matrix.
Academic Affairs,
Research and
Innovation, Outreach,
and territorial
representatives.
Validation minutes;
adjusted version of the
model; indicator matrix.
Pilot phase
Application to a
prioritized problem;
articulation of courses,
projects, and outreach
actions.
Interdisciplinary team
and territorial
partners.
Work plan; activity
records; knowledge
products.
Evaluation
and scaling
Analysis of results,
feedback to
stakeholders,
improvement, and
decision on expansion.
Model management
committee.
Evaluation report;
improvement plan; scaling
decision.
Source: Authors' own elaboration.
Conclusions
The results obtained throughout this study show that the territorial
innovation management model will contribute to the articulation of teaching,
research, and outreach. When these processes are integrated systemically and
oriented toward community needs, the university is able to increase its social
relevance and its capacity to respond to the various problems facing its territories.
The study also makes it possible to design a territorial innovation
management model oriented toward aligning teaching, research, and outreach with
the needs of the territory. The proposal draws on categories derived from the
document review and from consultations with administrators and faculty,
particularly around cross-functional coordination, knowledge management,
partnerships, participation, and evaluation.
The model provides an operational pathway built around territorial
diagnosis, the innovation ecosystem, the articulation of core processes, governance,
and continuous monitoring. Its main contribution lies in offering mechanisms,
expected products, and suggested indicators for connecting university initiatives to
problems and opportunities prioritized jointly with territorial actors.
Implementing the territorial innovation management model will support the
formulation of interdisciplinary projects, the creation of spaces involving strategic
actors, and the incorporation of different learning methodologies grounded in
territorial needs. Teaching must respond to the productive and social demands of
local residents, research must generate applicable solutions, and outreach, in turn,
must consolidate the processes through which knowledge is transferred.
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
References
Aguayo Saltos, A. P., & Lozano Jaramillo, G. A. (2025). La transferencia de
conocimiento para la innovación en la empresa ecuatoriana. Revista
Uniandes Episteme, 12(3), 347-361.
https://doi.org/10.61154/rue.v12i3.3778
Aquije Loayza, M. L., Lopez Malpartida, H. J., & Garay Peña, L. E. (2021).
Participación ciudadana en los gobiernos locales: una revisión
latinoamericana. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 5(5), 1-
22. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v5i5.1054
Arce-Medina, J. A., Morales-Urrutia, D. C., & Rivera-Badillo, P. L. (2019). Los
factores de los ecosistemas de innovación y sus implicaciones en las
incubadoras empresariales. Revista Polo del Conocimiento, 4(3), 78-102.
https://doi.org/10.23857/pc.v4i3.926
Arcia Ramírez, M., Sandino Montes, M., & Molina Membreño, A. (2018). Contribución
de investigaciones realizadas en la Facultad de Ciencias y Tecnologías UNAN-
León, al desarrollo territorial. Revista Universitas (León), 9(1), 1-7.
https://revistas.unanleon.edu.ni/index.php/revistauniversita/article/view
/847/1385
Badilla Agüero, A. (2025). Industrias creativas y culturales: innovación y desarrollo
territorial. Káñina, Revista Artes y Letras, Universidad de Costa Rica, 49(1),
1-40. https://doi.org/10.15517/rk.v49i1.64074
Bustillo López, O. F., Euceda Carbajal, K. Z., & Carranza Espinal, E. O. (2025).
Gestión del conocimiento y ecosistemas locales de innovación en el sector
lácteo hondureño. Revista Multi-Ensayos, 11(21), 3-13.
https://doi.org/10.5377/multiensayos.v11i21.20076
Campo Sarria, D. (2023). Articulación entre formación, investigación y extensión
desde la IAP. Praxis, Educación y Pedagogía, (11), 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.25100/praxis_educacion.v0i11.14742
Caravaca, I., González, G., & Silva, R. (2005). Innovación, redes, recursos
patrimoniales y desarrollo territorial. Revista EURE (Santiago), 31(94), 5-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0250-71612005009400001
Cassells Martínez, R. A. (2022). La innovación educativa y organizacional de las
universidades en Nicaragua: ¿Publicatización y/o comunitarización? Revista
Wani, 38(76), 22-35. https://doi.org/10.5377/wani.v38i76.14333
Cedeño Frías, E. J., & Camarena, F. (2025). La Educación Ambiental en entornos
virtuales para promover la sostenibilidad y resi-liencia ante el cambio
climático en UDELAS Azuero. Revista Semilla del Este, 5(2), 160–184.
https://doi.org/10.48204/semillaeste.v5n2.7091
Compagnuccia, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2020). The third mission of the university: A
systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 1-30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284
Contreras Varas, J. C. (2024). Desarrollo territorial sostenible: Conocimientos
puestos en valor bajo enfoque de ecosistema de innovación. Revista IECOS,
25(1), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.21754/iecos.v25i1.2156
Córdova Rosario, I. M. (2026). Innovación, territorio y universidad: el papel de la
educación superior en el desarrollo local sostenible en Ecuador. South
Florida Journal of Development, Miami, 7(2), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.46932/sfjdv7n2-013
Duarte Sánchez, D. D., & Guerrero Barreto, R. (2024). Métodos y técnicas en
investigación cualitativa: una revisión integral en ciencias sociales. Revista
de la Sociedad Científica del Paraguay, 29(2), 90-102.
https://doi.org/10.32480/rscp.2024.29.2.90102
Faraone, C. (2022). Desafíos territoriales para la contribución de las industrias
culturales y creativas a la innovación sostenible: evidencia del proyecto
Interreg Ita-Slo DIVA. Revista Sostenibilidad, 14(18).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811271
Figueroa-Egurrola, D., & Wong-González, P. (2023). Proximidades regionales y su
relación con los sistemas regionales de innovación en el contexto de la
economía basada en el conocimiento. Estudios Sociales. Revista de
Alimentación Contemporánea y Desarrollo Regional, 33(62), 1-25.
https://doi.org/10.24836/es.v33i62.1470
Forlani, N., & Picciani, A. L. (2026). Las agtech en Río Cuarto: una perspectiva
territorial sobre el ecosistema de innovación en Argentin. Eutopía. Revista
de Desarrollo Económico Territorial(28), 61–80.
https://doi.org/10.17141/eutopia.28.2026.6574
García Rodríguez, J. F., Shriner Sierra, G. G., Martínez Luis, D., & Caamal Cauich, I.
(2020). Gestión del conocimiento como determinante de la capacidad de
innovaciónen instituciones de educación superior. Revista Iberoamericana
para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo, 11(21), 1-27.
https://doi.org/10.23913/ride.v11i21.807
Garrido Rubiano, M. F., Martínez Medrano, J. C., Rendón Medel, R., & Granados
Carvajal, R. E. (2016). Los sistemas de innovación y su impacto en el
desarrollo territorial. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, 17(15), 3143-
3152.
https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2007-
09342016001103143
Giusto Largaespada, M. A., Pastora Reyes, R. I., Bonilla López, H. A., & Rivera Flores,
F. A. (2025). Innovación en Nicaragua: análisis de la participación estudiantil
de la Universidad Nacional Politécnica en el Rally Nacional de Innovación
2024. Revista Wani(82), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.5377/wani.v1i82.20614
Guevara Medina, I. (2023). La innovación como proceso articulador institucional.
Revista Compromiso Social, 9(9), 105-111.
https://doi.org/10.5377/recoso.v9i9.18583
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
Guido Chávez, J. D. (2025). Diagnóstico del ecosistema de innovación y
emprendimiento en el Centro Universitario Regional de Carazo (CUR-Carazo)
de la UNAN-Managua. Revista Torreón Universitario, 14(40).
https://doi.org/10.5377/rtu.v14i40.21156
Hernández Cruz, O., & Hütt Herrera, H. (2024). Participación ciudadana: un nuevo
paradigma en la gestión pública. Estudios de la Gestión: Revista
Internacional de Administración(15), 79-99.
https://doi.org/10.32719/25506641.2024.15.4
Herrera Castrillo, C. J. (2025). Fortalecimiento de la Innovación en Nicaragua a
través de los Centros de Apoyo a la Tecnología e Innovación (CATI). Revista
Multi-Ensayos, 11(22),. 97-106.
https://doi.org/10.5377/multiensayos.v11i22.20869
Isaksen, A., Tripplb, M., & Mayer, H. (2022). Regional innovation systems in an era
of grand societal challenges: Reorientation versus transformation. European
Planning Studies, 30(11), 2125-2138.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2084226
Jacho Rodríguez, P. F. (2025). Innovación en proyectos territoriales: participación
ciudadana y sostenibilidad. Revista en Ciencias de la Educación y Ciencias
Jurídicas, 5(12), 208-228.
http://doi.org/10.59659/revistatribunal.v5i12.204
Jeannerat, H., & Crevoisier, O. (2022). From competitiveness to territorial value:
Transformative territorial innovation policies. European Planning Studies,
30(11), 2157-2177. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2042208
Jollya, S., Grillitsch, M., & Hansen, T. (2020). Agency and actors in regional industrial
path development: A framework and longitudinal analysis. Geoforum, 111,
176–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.02.013
Latorre Ruiz, E., Fernández Jimeno, N., & Pérez Sedeño, E. (2025). Género,
pluralismo e innovación epistémicamente responsable. Revista
Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad – CTS, 20(60), 149-175.
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-968
Leguia-Cruz, M., Cerda, C., Ortiz-Cubillo, N., Mansilla-Quiones, P., & Moreira-Muñoz,
A. (2024). Mejorar la gobernanza participativa en las reservas de biosfera
mediante la cocreación de conocimientos transdisciplinarios e
intergeneracionales. Revista Fronteras en Ciencias Ambientales, 12.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1266440
López, M. R. (2015). Estudios de Innovación en las Universidades Públicas de
Nicaragua. REICE: Revista Electrónica de Investigación en Ciencias
Económicas, 3(6), 122-147. https://doi.org/10.5377/reice.v3i6.2418
López-Rubio, P., Roig-Tierno, N., & Mas-Tur, A. (2020). Tendencias de investigación
en sistemas regionales de innovación: hacia la gestión del conocimiento y los
ecosistemas emprendedores. Revista Internacional de Innovación en
Calidad, 6, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40887-020-00038-x
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
Mariñez Navarro, F. (2022). Participación ciudadana colaborativa y los valores de la
administración pública. Revista de Gestión Pública, 11(2), 185-203.
https://doi.org/10.22370/rgp.2022.11.2.3715
Martínez Centeno, M. A., García Hernández, M. R., & Salgado Téllez, Y. I. (2025).
Nicaragua creativa: un modelo de desarrollo innovador y sostenible. Revista
Multi-Ensayos, 11(21), 34-41.
https://doi.org/10.5377/multiensayos.v11i21.20080
Mayrena Bellorín, M. U., & Obregón, N. D. (2025). La Universidad como agente de
transformación. Articulación de la formación, investigación y extensión en
la innovación territorial. Revista Ciencia y Tecnología El Higo, 15(2), 103-
129. https://doi.org/10.5377/elhigo.v15i2.21831
Mayrena Bellorín, M. U., & Obregón, N. D. (2026). Factores que influyen en la gestión
de la innovación universitaria como estrategia de desarrollo territorial.
Revista de Ciencia y Tecnología El Higo, 16(1), 2-16.
https://doi.org/10.5377/elhigo.v16i1.22984
Mejía Zambrano, F., Reinoso, J. F., & Pinzón, J. V. (2022). Relaciónde la estrategia,
estructura y cultura en la sostenibilidad de las Instituciones de Educación
Superior(IES): un estudio bibliométrico de las implicaciones para la gestión
universitaria. Revista Escuela de Administración de Negocios(93).
https://doi.org/10.21158/01208160.n93.2022.3631
Noreña-Peña, A. (2024). La investigación cualitativa como enfoque metodológico
fundamental en la investigación en ciencias de la salud. MedUNAB - Revista
de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, 27(2), 126-130.
https://doi.org/10.29375/01237047.5318
Núñez Esqueda, C. V. (2023). La planeación estratégica en instituciones educativas,
instrumento útil para asegurar su continuidad. Revista Rastros Rostros,
25(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.16925/2382-4921.2023.02.04
Picado Vanegas, A. (2015). Innovación: la importancia de identificarla y medirla la
dinámica del subsector papa (solanum tuberosum) en el nortede Nicaragua.
Revista Iberoamericana de Bioeconomía y Cambio Climático, 1(2), 101-109.
https://doi.org/10.5377/ribcc.v1i2.2479
Pinell Tórrez, J. M., & Chavarría Zeledón, M. E. (2024). Gestión de la investigación,
el conocimiento y emprendimiento desde la articulación de los subsistemas
educativos. Revista Wani(81), 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.5377/wani.v1i81.19205
Piza Burgos, N. D., Amaiquema Marquez, F. A., & Beltrán Baquerizo, G. E. (2019).
Métodos y técnicas en la investigación cualitativa. Algunas precisiones
necesarias. Revista Conrado, 15(70), 455-459.
https://conrado.ucf.edu.cu/index.php/conrado/article/view/1162/1167
Reina-Rozo, J. D. (2022). Ecosistemas de innovación de base comunitaria:
Colaboración y co-creación en sistemas socio-técnicos. Redes. Revista de
Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología, 28(55), 1-31.
https://doi.org/10.48160/18517072re55.137
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
Restrepo, N., Unceta, A., & Barandiarán, X. (2021). Diversidad de género en
proyectos de investigación e innovación: la proporción de mujeres en el
contexto de la educación superior. Revista Sostenibilidad, 13(9).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095111
Rudskaya, I., Kryzhko, D., Shvediani, A., & Missler-Behr, M. (2022). Regional open
innovation systems in a transition economy: A two-stage DEA model to
estimate effectiveness. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market,
and Complexity, 8(41), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010041
Salgado Téllez, Y. I., García Hernández, M. R., & Martínez Centeno, M. A. (2025).
Agendas de investigación, gestión del conocimiento e innovación territorial
en Nicaragua: estrategias para el cumplimiento de las políticas públicas.
Revista Wani(82), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.5377/wani.v41i82.20260
Segura Guerrero, E., López Bernal, O., & Figueroa Casas, A. (2022). Desafíos de la
gestión territorial integral, para la implementación de estrategias de
adaptación al cambio climático. Revista Cuadernos de Vivienda y Urbanismo,
15(35), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.cvu15.dgti
Solís Chavarría, B. A. (2024). La Interculturalidad y el Desarrollo Rural con Enfoque
Territorial en Nicaragua. Revista Compromiso Social, 7(11), 75-80.
https://doi.org/10.5377/recoso.v7i11.18423
Solis Navarrete, J. A. (2015). Experiencias de desarrollo territorial basadas en la
articulación de sistemas regionales de innovación: instituciones, creatividad
y transferencia de conocimientos. Revista Entreciencias: Diálogos en la
Sociedad del Conocimiento, 3(8), 329-343.
https://doi.org/10.21933/J.EDSC.2015.08.098
Theeranattapong, T., Pickernell, D., & Simms, C. (2021). The regional innovation
system–university–science park nexus: A systematic review. The Journal of
Technology Transfer, 46, 2017–2050.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-
09837-y
Thomas, E., & Pugh, R. (2020). From ‘entrepreneurial’ to ‘engaged’ universities:
Social innovation for regional development in the Global South. Regional
Studies, 54(12), 1631-1643.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1749586
Tödtling, F., Trippl, M., & Desch, V. (2021). New directions for regional innovation
systems in the face of societal challenges. European Planning Studies,
30(11), 2139–2156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1951177
Trippl, M., Baumgartinger-Seiringer, S., & Kastrup, J. (2024). Challenge-oriented
regional innovation systems: Towards a research agenda. Investigaciones
Regionales – Journal of Regional Research, 60, 105-116.
https://www.redalyc.org/journal/289/28980984008/html/
Valverde Blanco, A., Almeida Ferri, A., & Chassot, O. (2022). Gestión del cambio
climático parala resiliencia socio-ambiental en América Latina: hacia el
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
e9128
fortalecimiento de competencias para actores clave. Revista Regeneratio,
1(1), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.55924/ucireg.v1i1.9
Velázquez-Rodríguez, K. (2022). La gestión de la innovación territorial en el entorno
socioeconómico cubano. Revista Transdisciplinaria de Estudios Sociales y
Tecnológicos, 2(3), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.58594/rtest.v2i3.50
Vila Merino, E. S., & Álvarez Jiménez, V. E. (2025). La igualdad de género como
competencia transversal en la docencia universitaria de posgrado: análisis y
experiencias. iQual. Revista de Género e Igualdad(8), 128–140.
https://doi.org/10.6018/iqual.605831
Vílchez-Vargas, N. (2023). Participación ciudadana y gobernabilidad democrática en
gobiernos locales. Revista Amazónica de Ciencias Económicas, 2(1), 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.51252/race.v2i1.434
| Milton Ulises Mayrena-Bellorín | Noemí del Carmen Obregón |
Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria EGU
About the main author
Milton Ulises Mayrena
-Bellorín:
Doctoral student in Territorial Management and
Development; holds a Master’s degree in Curriculum, Research, and Educational
Projects, as well as Bachelor’s degrees in Banking and Finance and in Public
Accounting and Finance. He currently serves as Director of the Academic Directorate
and as a faculty researcher at the Francisco Luis Espinoza Pineda National University
(UNFLEP).
Declaration of author responsibility
Milton Ulises Mayrena
-Bellorín 1:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision,
Validation/Verification, Visualization, Writing
– original draft, and Writing.
Noemí del Carmen Obregón 2:
Data curation, Visualization, Writing –
original draft,
and Writing.
Financing:
Own resources
Special Acknowledgments: