A systematic literature review of partnership development at the university–industry–government nexus

The increasingly entrepreneurial intent of universities implies the commercialization of knowledge and innovation through the triple helix of interactions between universities, industry and government. However, there remains a lack of clarity concerning best practice partnerships for innovation. This systematic literature review (SLR) provides insights onto the development of partnerships at the university–industry–government nexus and builds on the existing top-down/bottom-up approach for the creation of intermediaries of innovation. The SLR describes the evolution of these intermediaries, which is driven both by criteria set by partners and the globalization of the knowledge economy. This SLR reveals that the partnership structure most likely to further economic and broader societal goals is the living lab with the inherent focus on open innovation and co-creation. This SLR reveals that the living lab structure (and including sustainability labs and urban living labs) is the partnership structure utilized for innovation that addresses economic, social and environmental goals. Two areas are recommended for further research. One concerns the development of a deeper understanding of the relationship between the evolution in the structures of partnerships for innovation and how it is influenced by the globalization of the economy, society and environment, and changing modes of knowledge production. The other is to better understand why the living lab approach to partnership creation is best suited to the delivery of sustainable development objectives and how this learning can be applied to other models of partnership development at the university–industry–government nexus

The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, . . ., and an N-tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-based Economy?

Using the Triple Helix model of university-industry-government relations, one can measure the extent to which innovation has become systemic instead of assuming the existence of national (or regional) systems of innovations on a priori grounds. Systemness of innovation patterns, however, can be expected to remain in transition because of integrating and differentiating forces. Integration among the functions of wealth creation, knowledge production, and normative control takes place at the interfaces in organizations, while exchanges on the market, scholarly communication in knowledge production, and political discourse tend to differentiate globally. The neo-institutional and the neo-evolutionary versions of the Triple Helix model enable us to capture this tension reflexively. Empirical studies inform us whether more than three helices are needed for the explanation. The Triple Helix indicator can be extended algorithmically, for example, with local-global as a fourth dimension or, more generally, to an N-tuple of helices

Czech machinery cluster and its role in sustainable development of Moravian-Silesian enterprises during the post-transformation era

The paper intends to contribute to the field of geographical economics by an extensive questionnaire survey carried out in Moravian-Silesian region, which represents one of territories of traditional industry in the Czech Republic. The purpose of this paper is to analyse and assess the co-operation among enterprises, educational institutions, and public administration from the perspective of sustainability in the Moravian-Silesian region during its post-transformation era. The article deals specifically with the Czech machinery cluster. The research question that lies behind the survey is as follows: Is the co-operation of entities present in the Czech machinery cluster beneficial to the parties involved? The contribution of the paper is in uncovering the role of this cluster in the sustainable development of Moravian-Silesian enterprises during post-transformation period. Since the Moravian-Silesian region is a typical old industrial region, which moreover underwent a difficult transformation process, there are numerous peculiarities in functioning of its enterprises. Machinery was traditionally one of the supportive pillars of regional industry and it is not surprising that the machinery cluster was created as the first one. Yet, regional characteristics lie behind specific trajectories towards economic sustainability. The above ways toward economic sustainability differ markedly from the concepts that are in vogue in developed western territories.Web of Science102art. no. 23

Can processes make relationships work? The Triple Helix between structure and action

This contribution seeks to explore how complex adaptive theory can be applied at the conceptual level to unpack Triple Helix models. We use two cases to examine this issue – the Finnish Strategic Centres for Science, Technology & Innovation (SHOKs) and the Canadian Business-led Networks of Centres of Excellence (BL-NCE). Both types of centres are organisational structures that aspire to be business-led, with a considerable portion of their activities driven by (industrial) users’ interests and requirements. Reflecting on the centres’ activities along three dimensions – knowledge generation, consensus building and innovation – we contend that conceptualising the Triple Helix from a process perspective will improve the dialogue between stakeholders and shareholders

Entrepreneurship, innovation and the triple helix model: evidence from Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire

This paper focuses on how regions become entrepreneurial and the extent to which the actors in the triple helix model are dominant at particular stages in development. It uses the case studies of Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire in the UK to explore this theme. Both can now be described as ‘regional triple helix spaces’ (Etzkowitz 2008), and form two points of the Golden Triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London universities. As entrepreneurial regions, however, they differ in a number of respects. This is not surprising given their differing geo-historical contexts. However, by comparing the two similar counties but which have their own distinctive features we are able to explore different dynamics which lead to the inception, implementation, consolidation and renewal (Etzkowitz and Klofsten 2005) of regions characterised by very high levels of technology-based entrepreneurship

Universities, knowledge networks and regional policy

As knowledge becomes an increasingly important part of regional innovation and development processes, the role of universities has come to the fore of regional innovation and economic development policy The objective of this paper is to critically review and assess the structure and function of knowledge networks and modes of engagement between universities and the business community in regional settings and contexts. It is argued that while regional knowledge networks and modes of engagement between universities and the business community are becoming increasingly prevalent, it is often difficult to ascribe investments in knowledge-based infrastructure to improved regional competitiveness. It is concluded that in a globalised knowledge environment the engagement between universities and regional business communities must be based on a mutual understanding of the role of both network and market-based knowledge interactions

Knowledge exchange and the third mission of universities : Introduction: the triple helix and the third mission – Schumpeter revisited

Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950) is well known as an economist, among other things, for his seminal contribution explaining long-term economic growth in terms of innovation and technological progress. He identified innovation at the heart of upswings in the so-called ‘Kondratiev waves’ that profile socioeconomic development trends over long periods. He saw innovation as a dynamic process of ‘creative destruction’ in which new orders arise with the obliteration of the old. This process he attributed to the entrepreneur – the innovator who, in the Schumpeterian paradigm, would in effect count as a history maker. For all its significance as a landmark in the literature of innovation and economic development, Schumpeter’s contribution falls short of providing a theory of innovation. However, he has left behind a long-standing tradition of innovation studies to grapple with this shortfall. The quest continues in the form of innovation systems and evolutionary theory, in which the Triple Helix features as a strand