Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Measure Triple Helix Performance? A Fresh Approach

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the II International Triple Helix Summit (THS 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering ((LNCE,volume 43))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Global and local success of a country is largely dependent on the level of collaboration between the three main pillars: Government, Industry, and Academia. Successful management of this collaboration requires development and observation of performance measures. In the past few years, a steep rise of interest in composite indices is detected. They measure different aspects of national performance: innovativeness, entrepreneurial activities, sustainability, etc. Approaches to measuring the Triple Helix synergy have been introduced before. In particular, applications of Shannon’s equation grasped the attention of various researches. Still, a single measure for comparing countries has yet to be introduced. This paper aims at establishing the performance measure of industry-university-government relations. As a case study, OECD countries are compared based on the indicators from the official OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators, classified according to the Triple Helix actors. The authors apply the two-step Composite I-distance method for creating composite measures of multivariate problems. The results imply that it is possible to measure the Triple Helix performance at the national level. These measures provide valuable data for more effective management within and among main Triple Helix actors. The policy-makers may use the results to determine further development directions and corrective measures.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Aiginger K, Falk M (2005) Explaining differences in economic growth among OECD countries. Empirica 32(1):19–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baudry M, Dumont B (2006) Comparing firms’ triadic patent applications across countries: is there a gap in terms of R&D effort or a gap in terms of performances. Res Policy 35(2):324–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Coccia M (2007) A new taxonomy of country performance and risk based on economic and technological indicators. J Appl Econ 10(1):29–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Coccia M (2008) Science, funding and economic growth: analysis and science policy implications. World Rev Sci Technol Sustain Dev 5(1):1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. de la Potterie BV (2008) Europe’s R&D: missing the wrong targets? Intereconomics 43(4):220–225

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dernis H, Khan M (2004) Triadic patent families methodology, OECD science, technology and industry working papers, no. 2004/02. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dobrota M, Bulajić M, Bornmann L, Jeremić V (2015) A new approach to QS university ranking using composite I-distance indicator: uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 67(1):200–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dobrota M, Martić M, Bulajić M, Jeremić V (2015) Two-phased composite I-distance indicator approach for evaluation of countries’ information development. Telecommun Policy 39(5):406–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dosi G, Llerena P, Labini MS (2006) The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: an illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Res Policy 35(10):1450–1464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Drucker P (2004) Technology, Management, and Society. Butterworth-Heinemann

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ðurović I, Jeremić V, Bulajić M, Dobrota M (2017) A two-step multivariate composite i-distance indicator approach for the evaluation of active ageing index. J Populat Ageing 10(1):73–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12062-016-9169-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Edquist C, Mckelvey M (1998) High R&D intensity without high tech products: a swedish paradox? In: Neilsen K, Johnson B (eds) Institutions and economic change: new perspectives on markets, firms and technology. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 131–149

    Google Scholar 

  13. Etzkovitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy 29(2):109–123

    Google Scholar 

  14. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (1995) The triple helix—university-industry-government: a laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Rev 14:14–19

    Google Scholar 

  15. Falk M (2006) What drives business Research and Development (R&D) intensity across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries? Appl Econ 38(5):533–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Falk M (2007) R&D spending in the high-tech sector and economic growth. Res Econ 61(3):140–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Filippetti A, Peyrache A (2011) The patterns of technological capabilities of countries: a dual approach using composite indicators and data envelopment analysis. World Dev 39(7):1108–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fred YY (2007) A quantitative relationship between per capita GDP and scientometric criteria. Scientometrics 71(3):407–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guellec D, de la Potterie BV (2001) The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data. Res Policy 30(8):1253–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Havas A (2010) Diversity in firms innovation strategies and activities: main findings of interviews and implications in the context of the Hungarian National Innovation System. MICRO-DYN working paper no. 16/10. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2435464

  21. Havas A (2015) Types of knowledge and diversity of business-academia collaborations: implications for measurement and policy. Triple Helix 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-015-0023-4

  22. Huggins R, Thompson P (2017) Handbook of regions and competitiveness: contemporary theories and perspectives on economic development. Edward Elgar Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ivanova IA, Leydesdorff L (2004) A simulation model of the Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations and the decomposition of the redundancy. Scientometrics 99(3):927–948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1241-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ivanović B (1973) A method of establishing a list of development indicators. United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ivanović B (1977) Classification theory. Institute for Industrial Economics, Belgrade

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jacobs R, Smith P, Goddard M (2004) Measuring performance: an examination of composite performance indicators. Retrieved from University of York. https://www.york.ac.uk/che/pdf/tp29.pdf

  27. Jeremić V, Radojičić Z (2010) A new approach in the evaluation of team chess championships rankings. J Quantitat Anal Sports 6(3):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jeremić V, Bulajić M, Martić M, Radojičić Z (2011) A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities. Scientometrics 87(3):587–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jones‐Evans D, Klofsten M, Andersson E, Pandya D (1999) Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: the role of the Industrial Liaison Office. R&D Management 29(1):47–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-93https://doi.org/10.00116

  30. Jovanović M, Jeremić V, Savić G, Bulajić M, Martić M (2012) How does the normalization of data Affect ARWU ranking? Scientometrics 93(2):319–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0674-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jovanović M, Rakićević J, Levi Jakšić M, Petković J, Marinković S (2017) Composite indices in technology management—a critical approach. In: Jeremić V, Radojičić Z, Dobrota M, Emerging trends in the development and application of composite indicators. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp 38–71. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0714-7.ch003

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lee WS, Han EJ, Sohn SY (2015) Predicting the pattern of technology convergence using big-data technology on large-scale triadic patents. Technol Forecasting Soc Change 100:317–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee H, Park Y (2005) An international comparison of R&D efficiency: DEA approach. Asian J Technol Innov 13(2):207–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Levi Jakšić M, Jovanović M, Petković J (2015) Technology entrepreneurship in the changing business environment—a triple helix performance model. Amfiteatru Econ 17(38):422–440

    Google Scholar 

  35. Levi Jakšić M, Marinković S, Petković J (2011) From knowledge based to knowledge entrepreneurship economy and society—the Serbian paradox. In: Proceedings of the 30th international conference on organizational science development, future organization. Portorož, Slovenia

    Google Scholar 

  36. Leydesdorff L (2008) Configurational information as potentially negative entropy: the triple helix model. Entropy 12:391–410. https://doi.org/10.3390/e10040391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Leydesdorff L (2018) Synergy in knowledge-based innovation systems at national and regional levels: the triple-helix model and the fourth industrial revolution. J Open Innov Technol Market Complexity 4(2):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc4020016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H (2001) The transformation of university-industry-government relations. Electron J Sociol. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10150/106531

  39. Leydesdorff L, Meyer M (2006) Triple Helix indicators of knowledge based innovation systems. Res Policy 35(10):1441–1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Leydesdorff L, Perevodchikov E, Uvarov A (2014) Measuring triple-helix synergy in the Russian innovation systems at regional, provincial, and national levels. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 66(6):1229–1238. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Linton J (2018) DNA of the Triple Helix: introduction to the special issue. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mahroum S (2007) Assessing human resources for science and technology: the 3Ds framework. Sci Pub Policy 34(7):489–499. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234207X244838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Maričić M, Kostić Stanković M (2016) Towards an impartial Responsible Competitiveness Index: a twofold multivariate I-distance approach. Qual Quantity 50(1):103–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0139-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Marinković S, Rakićević J, Levi Jakšić M (2016) Technology and innovation management indicators and assessment based on government performance. Manag J Sustain Bus Manag Solut Emerg Econ 21(78):1–10. https://doi.org/10.7595/management.fon.2016.0001

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mazziota M, Pareto A (2013) Methods For Constructing Composite Indices: One For All Or All For one? RIEDS-Rivista Italiana di Economia, Demografia e Statistica-Italian Rev Econ Demogr Statist 67(2):67–80

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mêgnigbêto E (2018) Modelling the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relationships with game theory: core, shapley value and nucleolus as indicators of synergy within an innovation system. J Inform 12(4):1118–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mendi P (2007) Trade in disembodied technology and total factor productivity in OECD countries. Res Policy 36(1):121–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Meyer M, Grant K, Morlacchi P, Weckowska D (2014) Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective. Scientometrics 99(1):151–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1103-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Meyer M, Sinilainen T, Utecht JT (2003) Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators: a study of university-related patents and a survey of academic inventors. Scientometrics 58(2):321–350. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026240727851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Murashova E, Loginova V (2017) University-industry interaction trends in the baltic sea region: a bibliometric analysis. Baltic J Eur Stud 7(2):28–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2017-0009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. National Research Council (1987) Management of technology: the hidden competitive advantage. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  52. OECD (2000) Science, technology and innovation in the new economy. Retrieved from OECD. https://www.oecd.org/science/sci-tech/1918259.pdf

  53. OECD (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD

    Google Scholar 

  54. OECD (2018) Main science and technology indicators. Retrieved from OECD. http://www.oecd.org/sti/msti.htm

  55. Pessoa A (2010) R&D and economic growth: How strong is the link? Econ Lett 107(2):152–154

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  56. Radojičić M, Savić G, Jeremić V (2018) Measuring the efficiency of banks: the bootstrapped I-distance GAR DEA approach. Technol Econ Dev Econ 24(4):1581–1605. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2018.3699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Saltelli A (2007) Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Soc Indic Res 81(1):65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-0024-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sandu S, Ciocanel B (2014) Impact of R&D and innovation on high-tech export. Proc Econ Finan 15:80–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Santiago P, Tremblay K, Basri E, Arnal E (2008) Tertiary education for the knowledge society, vol 1. OECD, Paris. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2672573

  60. Serbanica C (2011) Knowledge circulation between universities, public research organizations and business in the EU 27. Drivers, barriers, actions to be put forward. Eur J Interdiscip Stud 3(2):43–54

    Google Scholar 

  61. Singer S, Oberman Peterka S (2012) Triple Helix evaluation: how to test a new concept with old indicators? Ekonomski pregled 63(11):608–626

    Google Scholar 

  62. Tarnawska K, Mavroeidis V (2015) Efficiency of the knowledge triangle policy in the EU member states: DEA approach. Triple Helix, 2(17). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-015-0028-z

  63. Xu H-Y, Zeng R-Q, Fang S, Yue Z-H, Han Z-B (2017) Measurement methods and application research of triple helix model in collaborative innovation management. Qual Quant Methods Libr 4(2):463–482

    Google Scholar 

  64. Zabala-Iturriagagoitia J, Jiménez-Sáez F, Castro-Martínez E, Gutiérrez-Gracia A (2007) What indicators do (or do not) tell us about regional innovation systems. Scientometrics 70(1):85–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhou P, Fan LW, Zhou DQ (2010) Data aggregation in constructing composite indicators: a perspective of information loss. Expert Syst Appl 37(1):360–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Jove Ilića 154, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia

    Milica M. Jovanović, Jovana Đ. Rakićević, Veljko M. Jeremić & Maja I. Levi Jakšić

Authors
  1. Milica M. Jovanović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jovana Đ. Rakićević
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Veljko M. Jeremić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maja I. Levi Jakšić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Milica M. Jovanović .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Abid Abu-Tair

  2. The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Abdelmounaim Lahrech

  3. The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Khalid Al Marri

  4. The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Bassam Abu-Hijleh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Jovanović, M.M., Rakićević, J.Đ., Jeremić, V.M., Levi Jakšić, M.I. (2020). How to Measure Triple Helix Performance? A Fresh Approach. In: Abu-Tair, A., Lahrech, A., Al Marri, K., Abu-Hijleh, B. (eds) Proceedings of the II International Triple Helix Summit. THS 2018. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 43. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23898-8_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23898-8_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23897-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23898-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation