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

Linking the double helix of learning and work to the triple helix of university – industry – government in the Europe of knowledge

The present paper presents results of research in progress. Its purpose is to highlight the relevance of the helix logic for the understanding and speeding up of the processes of innovation and learning in the knowledge based society with a particular emphasis on the European higher education and research area, more specifically Romania. Two representative models are presented and considered promising for their applications in education and research strategizing: the „Double Helix” of Learning and Work and, respectively, the „Triple Helix” of University-Industry-Government. The paper is based on (1) the authors' experience in Romanian higher education, from various university management positions to government positions related to higher education and (2) the author’s experience of dealing with the business environment during the transition, experience encompassing areas from policy generation and implementation to evaluation of projects and research. This experience is captured by a critical exploration of the realities addressed in the paper and turned into an academic piece of qualitative research by using the conceptual artefacts approach. The specific difference the paper presents consists of providing a common framework for analysis for the two models which are based on the same logic, but were developed in different contexts both from a conceptual and an operational point of view. The paper also puts forward the hypothesis of the convergence of the two models with arguments that contribute to including the issues presented on the research agenda of the sociology of science and the theory of the policies fostering learning and innovation. The conceptual limits of the Triple Helix model are underlined, as well as the distortions that might appear during the implementation under real conditions of the partnership for innovation among universities, industry and government. Some elements of qualitative diagnosis of the degree of Romania’s readiness for the adoption of the Triple Helix model are also presented. The paper puts forward the proposition for the convergence of the two models for further international research and study with the very practical view of finding means to render this proposal operational at both institutional and strategic levels.double helix of learning and work; the triple helix of university – industry – government; emerging economies; university governance; higher education quality; triple helix of university – industry – government.

The Triple Helix Perspective of Innovation Systems

Alongside the neo-institutional model of networked relations among universities, industries, and governments, the Triple Helix can be provided with a neo-evolutionary interpretation as three selection environments operating upon one another: markets, organizations, and technological opportunities. How are technological innovation systems different from national ones? The three selection environments fulfill social functions: wealth creation, organization control, and organized knowledge production. The main carriers of this system-industry, government, and academia-provide the variation both recursively and by interacting among them under the pressure of competition. Empirical case studies enable us to understand how these evolutionary mechanisms can be expected to operate in historical instance. The model is needed for distinguishing, for example, between trajectories and regimes

The role of the user and the society in new product development

Within the knowledge-based economy several institutions are involved in product innovation processes. Literature study has shown that the most researched and cited are the industry-universitygovernment relations, presented in the Triple Helix model of institutional relations within new product development (NPD). Based on a case study of the Academic Virtual Enterprise, we have put the sole input of these institutions in NPD into question. We have tested and supported the claim that the user and the society are equal partners in the product innovation process. We have put forward the Fourfold Helix model that features a new formation of institutional relations where special focus is placed on the involvement of the user and the society in NPD

Reflections on the triple-helix as a vehicle to stimulate innovation in technology and security : a Belgian case study

In this contribution the main argument is that a triple helix collaboration between industry, government and knowledge institutes can be a vehicle to stimulate innovation and technology in the field of safety and security. To underpin this argument the significance of the evolution from a state model to a triple-helix model is described as well as the paradigm of open innovation that is a necessary condition for the triple-helix model. Relying on experiences since 2014 with the Belgian Innovation Centre for Security reflections are made on the dynamics of the triple-helix collaboration taking into account its creation, objectives, ambition, methodology, partners and funding. Some of the (perceived) barriers encountered and logics used by government, as one of the ‘hesitating’ participants in the triple-helix collaboration, are further discussed

THE TRIPLE HELIX IN CLUSTERS - A METROPOLIS SHAPING FACTOR

A formal status of being a metropolitan area opens up vast opportunities for economic and social development for the whole region and a metropolitan area itself. However, literally only few big urban areas in Poland, including Lublin, are capable to meet all applicable statutory qualitative and quantitative requirements. Lublin with its geographical location, population, established Special Economic Zone and Regional Science and Technology Park, numerous organizations and institutions, including local and regional business supporting agencies as well as many successful research-and-development units, has a solid base to become a ‘metropolis of knowledge’. Intensified co-operation between all three spheres within the framework of so called ‘triple helix’ could largely strengthen this process. The very concept of a ‘triple helix’ is based on interactions between three types of organizations – scientific centres, public institutions, including self-government authorities, and business. Lublin has all the assets to become ‘a cluster of knowledge’. Co-operation between scientific institutions, science and technological parks, business incubators as well as properly designed policies based on the economy of knowledge and therefore providing significant preference to high added-value projects are crucial for Lublin to be considered a metropolis of knowledge.clusters, networks, triple helix, metropolization, regional development

The Triple Helix model for innovation: A holistic exploration of barriers and enablers

© 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd. The Triple Helix model of innovation has attracted considerable attention in both developed and developing economies as an integral policy making tool to enhance innovation and promote economic development (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1997). Specifically it advocates the strengthening of the collaborative relationships between academia, industry and government to improve innovation. However, no studies have holistically examined the overall barriers and enablers in implementing, and attempting to operationalise, the Triple Helix model. This paper aims to contribute to the study of the Triple Helix model by investigating the main factors that influence the implementation and operationalisation of this model. The discussion begins with a description of the model, highlighting its emphasis on an evolutionary process towards developing the type of interactive collaboration that leads to all three actors achieving long term strategic goals. Following this a discussion of the enablers and barriers in implementing the model is presented

Estándares territoriales de innovación : análisis de las regiones de Portugal

Competitiveness among regions and innovation dynamics are intimately related and depend on a solid and effective innovation system. This study aims to measure innovativeness in different Portuguese regions and to evaluate the nature of the innovation process and the relationship between innovativeness and its region of origin. To characterize the territorial innovation processes and to identify innovation patterns by regions, it analyzes their main distinctive factors, based on the Community Innovation Survey results for each region. Thus, it compares the Portuguese regions by verifying the existence of subjacent clusters and finding out the characteristics that distinguish the different groups of regions. The results point to the existence of four groups of regions, and the factors identified are related to the innovation process, namely objectives of innovation, sources of innovation, collaborative networks, triple helix performance, and obstacles to innovation.RESUMEN: La competitividad entre las regiones y la dinámica de la innovación están íntimamente relacionadas y dependen de un sistema de innovación sólida y eficaz. Este estudio tiene como objetivo medir la capacidad de innovación en diferentes regiones portuguesas y evaluar la naturaleza del proceso de innovación y la relación entre la capacidad de innovación y su región de origen. Para la caracterización de los procesos de innovación territoriales y identificar estándares de innovación en las regiones, este artículo analiza sus factores distintivos principales, con base en los resultados de las encuestas comunitarias sobre innovación para cada región. Por lo tanto, se comparan las regiones portuguesas mediante la verificación de la existencia de agrupaciones subyacentes y descubrir las características que distinguen a los diferentes grupos de regiones. Los resultados apuntan a la existencia de cuatro grupos de regiones, y los factores identificados están relacionados con el proceso de innovación, es decir, los objetivos de la innovación, las fuentes de innovación, redes de colaboración, el funcionamiento de la triple hélice, y los obstáculos a la innovación.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Dynamics of innovation in European regions

There is interest in both academic literature and regional governments about the innovativeness of regions and the drivers of that competitiveness, especially if considering the impact on economic development and social progress. Innovation is the base for the global competitiveness. Innovative capacity enables regions to increase their productivity and attract investments, thereby sustaining continuous progress in the quality and standard of living. This study aims to measure regions’ innovativeness in different European regions and to evaluate the nature of the innovation process and the relationship existing between its innovativeness’ and its region of origin. It proceeds from the assumption that the competitiveness of a region is reflected in its innovation capacity or innovation dynamic. The literature review regarding regions’ innovativeness produces some insights regarding to the effect of contextual elements on regions performance. Thus, the objective is to compare the European regions to verify the existence of subjacent clusters and find out the characteristics that distinguish the different group of regions. The innovative capacity is considered in terms of innovative output and several factors are analysed to identify and differentiate the dynamics of innovations of the regions. The results point to the existence of five groups of regions, and the factors identified are related to innovation process, namely forms of innovation, factors and objectives of innovation and with aspects related to the innovation framework such as tertiary education and life-long learning, business and public R&D expenses, and level of collaboration for innovating.