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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aiginger K, Falk M (2005) Explaining differences in economic growth among OECD countries. Empirica 32(1):19–43
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
Coccia M (2007) A new taxonomy of country performance and risk based on economic and technological indicators. J Appl Econ 10(1):29–42
Coccia M (2008) Science, funding and economic growth: analysis and science policy implications. World Rev Sci Technol Sustain Dev 5(1):1–27
de la Potterie BV (2008) Europe’s R&D: missing the wrong targets? Intereconomics 43(4):220–225
Dernis H, Khan M (2004) Triadic patent families methodology, OECD science, technology and industry working papers, no. 2004/02. OECD Publishing, Paris
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
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
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
Drucker P (2004) Technology, Management, and Society. Butterworth-Heinemann
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
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
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
Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (1995) The triple helix—university-industry-government: a laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Rev 14:14–19
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
Falk M (2007) R&D spending in the high-tech sector and economic growth. Res Econ 61(3):140–147
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
Fred YY (2007) A quantitative relationship between per capita GDP and scientometric criteria. Scientometrics 71(3):407–413
Guellec D, de la Potterie BV (2001) The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data. Res Policy 30(8):1253–1266
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
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
Huggins R, Thompson P (2017) Handbook of regions and competitiveness: contemporary theories and perspectives on economic development. Edward Elgar Publishing
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
Ivanović B (1973) A method of establishing a list of development indicators. United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization, Paris
Ivanović B (1977) Classification theory. Institute for Industrial Economics, Belgrade
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
Jeremić V, Radojičić Z (2010) A new approach in the evaluation of team chess championships rankings. J Quantitat Anal Sports 6(3):1–11
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
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
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
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
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
Lee H, Park Y (2005) An international comparison of R&D efficiency: DEA approach. Asian J Technol Innov 13(2):207–222
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
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
Leydesdorff L (2008) Configurational information as potentially negative entropy: the triple helix model. Entropy 12:391–410. https://doi.org/10.3390/e10040391
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
Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H (2001) The transformation of university-industry-government relations. Electron J Sociol. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10150/106531
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
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
Linton J (2018) DNA of the Triple Helix: introduction to the special issue. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.07.002
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
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
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
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
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
Mendi P (2007) Trade in disembodied technology and total factor productivity in OECD countries. Res Policy 36(1):121–133
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
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
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
National Research Council (1987) Management of technology: the hidden competitive advantage. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
OECD (2000) Science, technology and innovation in the new economy. Retrieved from OECD. https://www.oecd.org/science/sci-tech/1918259.pdf
OECD (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD
OECD (2018) Main science and technology indicators. Retrieved from OECD. http://www.oecd.org/sti/msti.htm
Pessoa A (2010) R&D and economic growth: How strong is the link? Econ Lett 107(2):152–154
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
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
Sandu S, Ciocanel B (2014) Impact of R&D and innovation on high-tech export. Proc Econ Finan 15:80–90
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
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
Singer S, Oberman Peterka S (2012) Triple Helix evaluation: how to test a new concept with old indicators? Ekonomski pregled 63(11):608–626
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
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
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
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)