Advertisement

Introduction to Industry, University, and Government Partnerships: Theoretical Model

  • Waqas NawazEmail author
  • Muammer Koç
Chapter
Part of the Management and Industrial Engineering book series (MINEN)

Abstract

The world has recognized the role and significance of innovation for the economic and social development and national prosperity. The primary players involved in synergizing the innovative capabilities and outcomes for establishing a knowledge-based ecosystem are industries, universities, and government. The partnerships between industry, university and government create opportunities to translate the fundamental research into value-driven products and services. The mechanism of these partnerships has evolved over time—from statist and Laissez faire to the modern triple helix model, where the roles of industries, universities and government are balanced but interdependent and supportive of each other. The key drivers of knowledge-intensive development include institutional and cultural settings, legislations or regulations, support programs, and the promotional structures and mechanisms. Besides introducing the triple helix model and the drivers of knowledge ecosystem, this chapter will present the objectives, motivations, and the organization of chapters in this book.

References

  1. Abduljawad, H. (2015). Challenges in cultivating knowledge in university-industry-government partnerships—Qatar as a case study. The Muslim World, 105(1), 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities—A survey and statistical analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1–2), 199–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). The triple helix of university-industry-government: Implications for policy and evaluation. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=The+Triple+Helix+of+University+-+Industry+-+Government+Implications+for+Policy+and+Evaluation&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5.
  4. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government innovation in action. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Etzkowitz, H., Gulbrandsen, M., & Levitt, J. (2000). Public venture capital: Government funding sources for technology entrepreneurs. New York: Harcourt-Brace.Google Scholar
  6. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Larédo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy, 20, 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Manley, K. (2002). The systems approach to innovation studies. AJIS, 9(2), 95–102.Google Scholar
  9. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mansfield, E., & Lee, J.-Y. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25, 1047–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mohtar, R. H. (2015). Opportunities and challenges for innovations in Qatar. The Muslim World, 105(1), 46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1/2), 115–127.Google Scholar
  13. OECD. (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  14. OECD. (2002). Benchmarking science-industry relationships. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Polt, W., Gassler, H., Schibany, A., Rammer, C., & Schartinger, D. (2001). Benchmarking industry-science relations: The role of framework conditions. Science Public Policy, 28(4), 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ranga, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple Helix systems: An analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Industry & Higher Education, 27(3), 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M. (2014). Articulating the ‘three-missions’ in Spanish universities. Research Policy, 43, 1760–1773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Siegel, D. L., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sleuwaegen, L., & Boiardi, P. (2014). Creativity and regional innovation: Evidence from EU regions. Research Policy, 43, 1508–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tijssen, R. J. W. (2006). Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation. Research Policy, 35, 1569–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sustainable Development DivisionHamad Bin Khalifa UniversityDohaQatar

Personalised recommendations