Quadruple Helix Systems and Symmetry: a Step Towards Helix Innovation System Classification

Situated regional university incubation: A multi-level stakeholder perspective

“…As such, the peripheral region was considered to be in a constant stage of government (stakeholder) power (Frooman, 1999;Mitchell et al, 1997) as seen in Figure 1, due to the provisions of state funding needed for incubation within both universities. These empirical findings provide new insights as to the influence high salience stakeholders on incubation models (Hackett and Dilts, 2004;Alsos et al, 2011) and questions regional policy which dictates that incubation should involve co-creational models where government, industry, end users and universities interact interdependently (Ivanova, 2014;Carayannis and Rakhmatullin 2014;RIS, 2014). Prior research identifies that power relationships will always exist when stakeholders are engaged in resource relationships (Frooman, 1999;Mitchell et al, 1997;McAdam et al, 2012;Miller et al, 2014).…”

“…In addition, recent emphasis on innovation strategies at the regional level (Rasmussen et al, 2013) and in particular Smart Specialisation-based regional innovation (Garcilazo et al, 2010;Camagni and Capello, 2013;McCann and Ortega-Argiles, 2013), have signalled a move away from universalist best practice approaches to incubation (Cooke et al, 2000;Asheim and Coenen, 2005). Indeed, business incubator models are increasingly seen as evolutionary, non-linear and interactive processes between various stakeholders in a regional context (Todtling and Trippl, 2005;Afonso et al, 2012;Carayannis and Rakhmatullin, 2014;Ivanova, 2014) where the model adopted is reflective of contextual factors. In seeking to define the relevant stakeholder groupings, we adopt and interpret the quadruple helix model from a stakeholder perspective consistent with Carayannis and Rakhmatullin (2014).…”

Understanding Quadruple Helix relationships of university technology commercialisation: a micro-level approach

“…Accordingly, Universities are being set performance targets and measurements based on an accountable Quadruple Helix stakeholder framework, with such a focus aligning with localised regional policies aimed at enhancing stakeholder collaboration in order to build an innovation ecosystem (MacGregor, Marques-Gou, and Simon-Villar 2010;Ivanova 2014). Indeed, inherent within university technology commercialisation studies discourse, is the assumption that the influence of Quadruple Helix stakeholders is primarily strategic (Leydesdorff 2011;Ranga and Etzkowitz 2013), with this influence diminished at micro levels where operational practices take precedence (Urbano and Guerrero 2013).…”

“…Extant research to date, albeit limited (Mate-Sanchez-Val and Harris 2014; Zahra, Wright, and Abdelgawad 2014) has focused on the influence of Quadruple Helix stakeholders at a macro regional context (MacGregor, Marques-Gou, and Simon-Villar 2010;Ivanova 2014) and acknowledges that regional and contextual variations are likely to cause variances in university technology commercialisation mechanisms, processes and outcomes within regions. However, little is known about the impact of Quadruple Helix stakeholder interactions on micro level activities and processes in general and technology commercialisation process in particular.…”

“Open innovation” and “triple helix” models of innovation: can synergy in innovation systems be measured?

“…One can easily assume more than three dimensions to be relevant (Bunders et al 1999;Carayannis and Campbell 2010;Ivanova 2014;Leydesdorff 2012;Leydesdorff, Park, & Lengyel, 2014). However, before we move to modeling an n-dimensional system, a threedimensional one is worth further investigation: a TH can be expected to behave very differently from the sum of three double helices because the relations in a TH can loop forward or backward and thus generate fruition of or lock-in into an innovation eco-system (Ulanowicz 2009).…”