The Role of Proximity in Developing an Inter-Regional Innovation System

While most innovation collaboration projects consist of partners who are located at close proximity, recent literature has explored the development of innovation collaboration in the context of non-spatial proximity. Using a longitudinal mixed methods design, this article explores the inter-regional collaboration of triple helix partners from four non-contiguous European regions (Bucharest-Ilfov, Romania; Central Hungary, Hungary; Castilla-La Mancha, Spain; and South East, Ireland) which worked together to develop an inter-regional innovation system. The results from the study identified three non-spatial forms of proximity (social, cognitive and organisational) that were key determinants for developing the successful inter- regional innovation collaboration studied in this research. Based on the findings derived from this research, an inter-regional innovation system framework was developed to facilitate collaboration between stakeholders based in non-contiguous regions without them having to depend on geographical proximity. The major contributions of this research to theory and practice are the development of a novel framework for inter-regional innovation systems (iRIS) which can be applied by stakeholders in regions that want to collaborate from a distance. Furthermore, the research suggests that the substitution mechanism of geographical proximity consists of not just one non-spatial form, but it consists of the three non-spatial forms identified in this research.

The Role of Government Measures in University-Industry Collaboration for Economic Growth: A Comparative Study across Levels of Economic Development

Nowadays, countries across the world aspire to increase their innovation for the common good. In this scope, and among others, the Triple Helix thesis emphasizes the role of collaboration between stakeholders from academia, industry and government to bring about effective innovation. Despite efforts to encourage university-industry (U-I) collaboration, bridging U-I barriers remains among the relevant economic and policy challenges. Among other aspects, it has been argued that the tendency to transfer tools from developed to underdeveloped countries hinders the capacity to obtain the full potential of U-I collaboration. As no empirical study validating such hypothesis has been identified, our study tests i/ whether U-I collaboration has a different impact on growth depending on the level of economic development, ii/ whether the impacts of specific governmental measures on U-I collaboration differ at different levels of economic development. Our findings suggest that up till now the potential of U-I collaboration remains underutilized across all levels of development. Our results show that diversified policy measures are relevant at different development levels. Furthermore, their relevance may also evolve over time. However, such factors as quality of research institutions and private R&D investments are critical across development levels and time.

Does Productive Mean Active? The Behavior of Occasional and Serial Academic Inventors in Patenting Processes

Previous literature has attributed differences in individuals’ inventive productivity to a range of environmental, organizational and individual traits. However, the behavior of individuals with different inventive productivity has not been empirically explored in detail. Based on interviews with twenty Swedish academic inventors of diverse patenting experience, this paper analyses how serial and occasional inventors acted in patent initiation, patent application and subsequent patent management for specific inventions. Two modes of behavior are identified: passive and active. Individuals’ inventive productivity was not aligned with behavioral mode, with both modes of behavior exhibited by occasional as well as serial academic inventors. Individual academic inventors also varied in mode of behavior across different patent processes. These findings suggest that commonly used volume-based classifications of academic inventors obscure potentially relevant behavioral differences. This insight has implications for contemporary policy and organizational practice. It also highlights the need for further investigation of when academic inventors assume an active or passive mode of behavior in processes of academic commercialization.

What Constitutes Failure? The Influence of Public Interests in Securing Accountability in Triple Helix Initiatives

The focus of this article is to examine a specific case of a failing regional innovation system (RIS). Our study focuses on a specific project that was conducted in a triple helix constellation where public actors occupy the centre of the triple helix constellation. By examining and interpreting this single case, we aim to illustrate the consequences that result from uncertainty over who the triple helix constellation is accountable to as well as the consequences that has for the overall assessment of the outcome of the triple helix. We show how the overall initiative constituted a failure, but when one considers the activities that were organized and implemented by the RIS, then it is problematic to define it as a failure. This leads us to the conclusion that we should evaluate RIS from different perspectives and on different levels, and we need to consider the time dimension in our evaluation.

Kairos in Innovation Policy

A kairos constellation designates a temporarily existing opportunity for a group of actors to take advantage of a coincidence of favourable circumstances in order to realise a shared target. Starting from the observation that kairos constellations are ubiquitous in human individual and social life, the research question of this paper is how the Triple Helix and the wider innovation policy research literature deals with such constellations. The authors develop a conceptual framework for kairos constellations and discuss empirical evidence that kairos constellations have been scrutinized in innovation research literature. Then, the concept is applied to an example from the Triple Helix – based cluster policy. The key message of this paper is that Triple Helix researchers should systematically study kairos constellations because they are a critical force in the evolution of innovations systems as well as business firms, which has not yet been systematically examined.

Networks of Innovation: Measuring Structure and Dynamics between and within Helices, Regions and Spatial Levels. Empirical Evidence from the Baltic Sea Region

In the quantitative, macro-oriented triple helix literature, synergy is measured indirectly, through patent data, firm data and other secondary statistical sources. These macro-level quantitative studies do not open up for understanding how different processes of cooperation create different outcomes, in terms of synergies. This article presents an alternative method of measuring quantitatively how different networks of innovation in a variety of ways create different types of complex synergies. This opens up for an empirical analysis of variations of synergy formation, seen as innovation networks with different structures, formed within and between helices, regions and geographical levels. Data was collected through a snapshot survey in 10 regional cases in the Baltic Sea Region. The analysis presents how different networks of innovation within and between helices are formed by different combinations of expectations, experiences and gaps.

The Role of Performance Measurement in University–Industry Collaboration Projects as a Part of Managing Triple Helix Operations

As part of contemporary Triple Helix operations, universities are more and more frequently asked to collaborate with other social actors to generate knowledge that supports their innovation and development activities and to foster economic growth. In addition to research and education tasks, universities are developing formal and informal collaborations with industrial organizations to fulfill the third mission of societal effectiveness and to receive funding from research grants. These university-industry research and development projects, at the societal level and from the viewpoints of policymakers and financiers, aim to create economic growth and to support the innovation and learning capabilities of the organizations, among other benefits. One key challenge to managing these collaborative activities between universities and other societal organizations is related to measuring and evaluating them. Therefore, this study focuses on supporting the future development of evaluation and performance measurement for the operational-level activities of university–industry–government relationships. The study explores the performance measurement practices currently used by universities and financiers and intends to increase the understanding of both current performance measurement practices and the challenges regarding university–industry (UI) collaboration projects. The empirical data for this study were gathered from UI research projects in Finland. As part of the management of university–industry–government relations and Triple Helix operations, the results of this study reveal some challenges in the evaluation and measurement of the collaborative projects in the three phases explored: before the project, during the project, and after the project. The study’s results indicate that UI collaboration projects’ performance evaluation practices are based mainly on the tasks promised in the projects’ applications. Furthermore, measurements are mainly used for external-reporting purposes. To support the future development of the evaluation and performance measurement of university–industry–government relations, some propositions for overcoming these challenges are presented, and the potential implications of the findings for scholars, university members, financier representatives, and policy makers are discussed.