Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Networks of Innovation and Competitiveness: A Triple Helix Case Study

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to study the knowledge and technology transfer processes taking place in cooperation between academia and industry cooperation through an EU-funded R & D project. We follow a qualitative research methodology through a case study, incorporating interviews with the institutional actors involved (university, industry and government) in the cooperation project. While this study is limited to a case study, it does, however, highlight the importance of Triple Helix networks in order to develop research, development and innovation (RDI) initiatives and their commercialization and correspondingly enabling the identification of both potential opportunities and constraints in the process. Through the practical perspective of a successful Triple Helix cooperation case study, we were able to develop an innovative and continuous olive harvesting machine in order to satisfy a real need in the Mediterranean market. Inserted within the context of the triangulation of the Triple Helix model, this paper demonstrates the importance of RDI cooperation networks and the consequent commercialization of new tradable products with positive consequences to regional competitiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University–industry collaboration in Italy: a bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29(6–7), 498–507. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguirre, I. D. P., Parellada, F. S., & Campos, H. M. (2006). University spin-off programmes: how can they support the NTBF creation? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(2), 157–172. doi:10.1007/s11365-006-8682-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aloysius, J. a. (2002). Research joint ventures: a cooperative game for competitors. European Journal of Operational Research, 136(3), 591–602. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00064-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arranz, N., & Fdez de Arroyabe, J. C. (2008). The choice of partners in R&D cooperation: an empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Technovation, 28(1-2), 88–100. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (2004). Sustaining innovation and growth: public policy support for entrepreneurship. Industry & Innovation, 11(3), 167–191. doi:10.1080/1366271042000265366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Hülsbeck, M., & Lehmann, E. E. (2012). Regional competitiveness, university spillovers, and entrepreneurial activity. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 587–601. doi:10.1007/s11187-011-9332-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awazu, Y. (2006). Managing technology alliances: the case for knowledge management. International Journal of Information Management, 26(6), 484–493. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2006.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y., & Li, M. (2011). Qualitative case studies in operations management: trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 329–342. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J., & Chua, W. F. (2003). Alternative management accounting research—whence and whither. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 97–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, R., Muhlemann, A. P., Price, D. H. R., Paterson, A., & Sharp, J. A. (2001). The role of qualitative methods in production management research. International Journal of Production Economics, 74(1-3), 201–212. doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(01)00127-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernasconi, A. (2005). University entrepreneurship in a developing country: the case of the P. Universidad Católica de Chile, 1985–2000. Higher Education, 50(2), 247–274. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6353-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in convergence: micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration. Technovation, 30(2), 100–108. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budd, L., & Hirmisf, K. (2004). Conceptual framework for regional competitiveness. Regional Studies, 38(9), 1015–1028. doi:10.1080/tl034340042000292).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). The quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 2. doi:10.1186/2192-5372-1-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B., & Mudambi, R. (2003). Globalization, entrepreneurship, and public policy: a systems view. Industry & Innovation, 10(1), 103–116. doi:10.1080/1366271032000068122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: it’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), 12–17. doi:10.1108/10878570710833714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crespo, M., & Dridi, H. (2006). Intensification of university–industry relationships and its impact on academic research. Higher Education, 54(1), 61–84. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9046-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayasindhu, N. (2002). Embeddedness, knowledge transfer, industry clusters and global competitiveness : a case study of the Indian software industry. Technovation, 22, 551–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doganova, L., & Eyquem-renault, M. (2009). What do business models do ? Innovation devices in technology entrepreneurship, 38, 1559–1570. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.08.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003a). Research groups as ““quasi-firms””: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003b). Innovation in innovation: the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337. doi:10.1177/05390184030423002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Dzisah, J. (2008). Rethinking development: circulation in the triple helix. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(6), 653–666. doi:10.1080/09537320802426309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ““Mode 2”” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Science And Technology, 109–123.

  • Farinha, L., & Ferreira, J. (2012). Triangulation of the Triple Helix: a conceptual framework for regional competitiveness focused on innovation and local entrepreneurship. In Triple Helix 10th Internacional Conference 2012 (Ed.), Emerging Triple Helix Models for Developing Countries (pp. 487–501). Bandung, Indonesia: Penerbit ITB.

  • Giuliani, E., & Arza, V. (2009). What drives the formation of “valuable” university–industry linkages? Research Policy, 38(6), 906–921. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Discovery of substantive theory: a basic strategy underlying qualitative research. American Behavioral Scientist, 8(6), 5–12. doi:10.1177/000276426500800602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, C. (2013). Ideas in public management reform for the 2010s. Digitalization, value creation and involvement. Public Organization Review. doi:10.1007/s11115-013-0253-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz Gassol, J. (2007). The effect of university culture and stakeholders’ perceptions on university–business linking activities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(5), 489–507. doi:10.1007/s10961-007-9035-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. (2008). Roles, resources and benefits of intermediate organizations supporting triple helix collaborative R&D: the case of Precarn. Technovation, 28(8), 495–505. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, D., Bosma, N., & Amorós, J. E. (2010). The global competitiveness report 2010-2011. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (p. 85). Geneva. Retrieved from www.gemconsortium.org

  • Ketels, C. H. M. (2006). Michael Porter’s competitiveness framework—recent learnings and new research priorities. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 6(2), 115–136. doi:10.1007/s10842-006-9474-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klofsten, M., & Jones-evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—the case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14, 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35(10), 1599–1615. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton Smith, H., & Bagchi-Sen, S. (2010). Triple helix and regional development: a perspective from Oxfordshire in the UK. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(7), 805–818. doi:10.1080/09537325.2010.511143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2011). The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, and an N-Tuple of Helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy. doi:10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2006). Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems—introduction to the special issue. Research Policy, 35(10), 1441–1449. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, H., & Andresen, E. (2012). Cooperation among companies, universities and local government in a Swedish context. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(3), 429–437. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen, T. (1998). The difficulties in assessing the impact of EU framework programmes. Research Policy, 27(6), 599–610. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00058-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmström, M. (2014). Typologies of bootstrap financing behavior in small ventures. Venture Capital, 16(1), 27–50. doi:10.1080/13691066.2013.863064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marques, J. P. C., Caraça, J. M. G., & Diz, H. (2006). How can university–industry–government interactions change the innovation scenario in Portugal?—the case of the University of Coimbra. Technovation, 26(4), 534–542. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. S., & Tang, P. (2007). Exploring the “value” of academic patents: IP management practices in UK universities and their implications for third-stream indicators. Scientometrics, 70(2), 415–440. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0210-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: how entrepreneurship and university–industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy, 35(10), 1499–1508. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijkamp, P. (2003). Entrepreneurship in a modern network economy. Regional Studies, 37(4), 395–405. doi:10.1080/0034340032000074424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2009). Transfer of academic research: uncovering the grey zone. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 617–636. doi:10.1007/s10961-009-9124-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishimura, J., & Okamuro, H. (2011). Subsidy and networking: the effects of direct and indirect support programs of the cluster policy. Research Policy, 40(5), 714–727. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nissan, E., Galindo Martín, M.-Á., & Méndez Picazo, M.-T. (2011). Relationship between organizations, institutions, entrepreneurship and economic growth process. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 311–324. doi:10.1007/s11365-011-0191-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordqvist, M., & Melin, L. (2010). Entrepreneurial families and family firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(3–4), 211–239. doi:10.1080/08985621003726119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ojewale, B. A., Ilori, M. O., Oyebisi, T. O., & Akinwumi, I. O. (2001). Industry–academic relation: utilization of idle capacities in polytechnics, universities and research organizations by entrepreneurs in Nigeria. Technovation, 21, 695–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2001). Innovation: location matters. Management.

  • Ranga, L. M., Debackere, K., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: a case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58(2), 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvador, E. (2010). Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for spin-offs? The case study of Turin. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(2), 203–232. doi:10.1007/s10961-010-9152-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S., & Costa, A. (2008). Dynamics of open innovation in the food industry. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(11), 574–580. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2008.09.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, K. (2011). The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012. (G. E. Monitor, Ed.)World Economic Forum (pp. 1–554). Geneva: World Economic Forum.

  • Semlinger, K. (2008). Cooperation and competition in network governance: regional networks in a globalised economy. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 20(6), 547–560. doi:10.1080/08985620802462157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharabati-Shahin, M. H. N., & Thiruchelvam, K. (2013). The role of Diaspora in university–industry relationships in globalised knowledge economy: the case of Palestine. Higher Education, 65, 613–629. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9566-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soete, B., & Stephan, A. (2004). Introduction: entrepreneurship, innovation and growth. Industry & Innovation, 11(3), 161–165. doi:10.1080/1366271042000265357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solleiro, J. L., & Castañón, R. (2005). Competitiveness and innovation systems: the challenges for Mexico’s insertion in the global context. Technovation, 25(9), 1059–1070. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2004.02.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2011). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 31(1), 10–21. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spithoven, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Roijakkers, N. (2013). Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises. Small Business Economics, 41, 537–562. doi:10.1007/s11187-012-9453-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storbacka, K. (2011). Industrial marketing management a solution business model: capabilities and management practices for integrated solutions. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(5), 699–711. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strand, Ø., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Where is synergy indicated in the Norwegian innovation system? Triple-Helix relations among technology, organization, and geography. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 471–484. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.08.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tee, N. P. (2005). Innovation and enterprise in Singapore schools. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(3), 183–198. doi:10.1007/s10671-004-8240-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tödtling, F., Prud, P., & Reine, V. (2011). Open innovation and regional culture—findings from different industrial and regional settings. European Planning Studies, 19(11), 1885–1907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turok, I. (2004). Cities, regions and competitiveness. Regional Studies, 38(9), 1069–1083. doi:10.1080/0034340042000292647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessner, C. W. (2002). Entrepreneurial finance and the new economy. Venture Capital, 4(4), 349–355. doi:10.1080/1369106022000024987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, C.-Y., & Goh, K.-L. (2012). The sustainability of functionality development of science and technology: papers and patents of emerging economies. Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 55–65. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350. doi:10.1007/s11187-005-2000-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, P.-K., Ho, Y.-P., & Singh, A. (2007). Towards an “entrepreneurial university” model to support knowledge-based economic development: the case of the National University of Singapore. World Development, 35(6), 941–958. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.05.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181–194. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerbinati, S. (2012). Multi-level governance and EU structural funds: an entrepreneurial local government perspective. Local Government Studies, 38(5), 577–597. doi:10.1080/03003930.2011.649914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J. (2013). Digitalization and intelligentization of manufacturing industry. Advances in Manufacturing, 1(1), 1–7. doi:10.1007/s40436-013-0006-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: an activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 216–226. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the valuable collaboration of the following University of Évora MCCA_II project working group members: Professors Oliveira Peça, António Dias and Anacleto Pinheiro. We would also like to express our sincere thanks to Mr. Falcão, entrepreneur and owner of the farm “Torre das Figueiras,” the site of product testing, as well as to Mr. Miguel Ferreira and Mr. Vitor Cardoso, managers of Vicort Company. Lastly, but in the same sense of recognition, our thanks also go to Professor Carlos Zorrinho, interviewed on behalf of policy decision makers in Portugal.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Economics, University of Beira Interior (UBI), Covilhã, Portugal

    Luís Farinha

  2. Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, Castelo Branco, Portugal

    Luís Farinha

  3. Department of Management and Economics and Research Centre in Business Sciences (NECE), University of Beira Interior (UBI), Covilhã, Portugal

    João Ferreira

  4. Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Borges Gouveia

Authors
  1. Luís Farinha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. João Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Borges Gouveia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luís Farinha.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farinha, L., Ferreira, J. & Gouveia, B. Networks of Innovation and Competitiveness: A Triple Helix Case Study. J Knowl Econ 7, 259–275 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0218-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0218-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation