Advertisement

Journal of the Knowledge Economy

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 402–423 | Cite as

Measuring the Performance of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Networks

  • João Nuno Morais Lopes
  • Luís FarinhaEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study proposes a performance measurement adjusted to the conceptual model “multiple helix ecosystem for sustainable competitiveness” (Peris-Ortiz et al., 2016), supported in innovation and entrepreneurship networks, in order to contribute to the improvement of sustainable competitiveness of territories. A systematic literature review was carried out between the years 1900 and 2016, based on the study keywords. The proposed performance measurement model was conceived from the “Multiple Helix Ecosystem” concept, allowing its empirical verification applied to national and regional economies.

Keywords

Balanced scorecard Entrepreneurship Regional development Collaborative networks Regional innovation ecosystems 

References

  1. Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84, 98–107.Google Scholar
  2. Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects Firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333. doi: 10.1002/smj.821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Afuah, A. (2000). How much do your co-opetitors capabilities mater in the face of technological change. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agrawal, S., Singh, R. K., & Murtaza, Q. (2016). Outsourcing decisions in reverse logistics: sustainable balanced scorecard and graph theoretic approach. [article]. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 108, 41–53. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Ashaab, A., Flores, M., Doultsinou, A., & Magyar, A. (2011). A balanced scorecard for measuring the impact of industry-university collaboration. [article]. Production Planning & Control, 22(5–6), 554–570. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2010.536626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Al-Ashaab, A., Golob, M., Urrutia, U. A., Gourdin, M., Petritsch, C., Summers, M., et al. (2016). Development and application of lean product development performance measurement tool. [article]. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 29(3), 342–354. doi: 10.1080/0951192x.2015.1066858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alfaro, J. J., Rodriguez-Rodriguez, R., Verdecho, M. J., & Ortiz, A. (2009). Business process interoperability and collaborative performance measurement. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 22(9), 877–889. doi: 10.1080/09511920902866112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance. Regional Studies, 38(8), 949–959. doi: 10.1080/0034340042000280956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Resolving the knowledge paradox: knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth. Research Policy, 37, 1697–1705. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191–1202. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Audretsch, D. B., & Pena-Legazkue, I. (2012). Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: an introduction to the special issue. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 531–537. doi: 10.1007/s11187-011-9328-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Audretsch, D. B., Hulsbeck, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhattacharya, A., Mohapatra, P., Kumar, V., Dey, P. K., Brady, M., Tiwari, M. K., et al. (2014). Green supply chain performance measurement using fuzzy ANP-based balanced scorecard: a collaborative decision-making approach. [article]. Production Planning & Control, 25(8), 698–714. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2013.798088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Budd, L., & Hirmis, A. K. (2004). Conceptual framework for regional competitiveness. Regional Studies, 38(9), 1015–1028. doi: 10.1080/0034340042000292610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Camagni, R. (2002). On the concept of territorial competitiveness: sound or misleading? Urban Studies, 39(13), 2395–2411. doi: 10.1080/0042098022000027022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carayannis, E. G., Provance, M., & Grigoroudis, E. (2016). Entrepreneurship ecosystems: an agentbased simulation approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 631–653.Google Scholar
  18. Chytas, P., Glykas, M., & Valiris, G. (2011). A proactive balanced scorecard. International Journal of Information Management, 31(5), 460–468. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cobbold, I., & Lawrie, G. (2002). Classification of Balanced Scorecards based on their intended use. In 2GC, (Vol. 44).Google Scholar
  20. Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 945–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooke, P., & Morgan, K. (1998). The associational economy: firms, regions and innovation. Oxford University Press, 247.Google Scholar
  22. Dicken, P. (1976). The multiplant business enterprise and geographical space: some issues in the study of external control and regional development. Regional Studies, 10(4), 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dicken, P. (2007). Dicken - the Multiplant business Enterprise and geographical space - some issues in the study o.Pdf. Regional Studies, 41, S37–S48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Doloreux, D. (2003). Regional innovation systems in the periphery: the case of the Beauce in QuÉbec (Canada). International Journal of Innovation Management, 07(01), 67–94. doi: 10.1142/s1363919603000738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dror, S. (2008). The balanced scorecard versus quality award models as strategic frameworks. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 19, 583–593. doi: 10.1080/14783360802024366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dunford, M. (2006). Industrial districts, magic circles, and the restructuring of the Italian textiles and clothing chain. Economic Geography, 82(1), 27–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Studies of science etudes sur la science innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university - industry - government relations. Social Science Information, 42, 293–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, 109–123. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Farinha, L. (2016). Measuring innovative and entrepreneurial dynamics: the Regional Helix Scoreboard. In: Jornadas Luso-Espanholas de Gestão Científica, Idanha-a-Nova.Google Scholar
  30. Farinha, L., & Ferreira, J. J. (2016). Measuring innovative and entrepreneurial networks performance. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 10(8), 2765–2774.Google Scholar
  31. Fischer, M. M. (2001). Innovation, knowledge creation and systems of innovation. Annals of Regional Science, 35(2), 199–216. doi: 10.1007/s001680000034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Francis, J., & Schipper, K. (1999). Have financial statements lost their relevance? Journal of Accounting Research, 37(2), 319–352. doi: 10.2307/2491412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ghio, N., Guerini, M., Lehmann, E. E., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2015). The emergence of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s11187-014-9588-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hadjimichalis, C., & Hudson, R. (2006). Networks, regional development and democratic control. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30, 858–872. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2006.00687.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hahn, J. (2013). Política de coesão 2014–2020. In: d.-G. d. P. R. Comissão Europeia (Ed.), (Vol. 48, pp. 1–48). Bruxelas.Google Scholar
  36. Hansen, E. G., Sextl, M., & Reichwald, R. (2010). Managing strategic alliances through a community-enabled balanced scorecard: the case of Merck ltd, Thailand. [article]. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(6), 387–399. doi: 10.1002/bse.689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hirschman, A. (1958). The Strategy of Economic Development.Google Scholar
  38. Huggins, R., & Williams, N. (2011). Entrepreneurship and regional competitiveness: the role and progression of policy. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(9–10), 907–932. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2011.577818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ikeda, S. (2008). The meaning of “social capital” as it relates to the market process. The Review of Austrian Economics, 21(2–3), 167–182. doi: 10.1007/s11138-007-0037-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ioppolo, G., Saija, G., & Salomone, R. (2012). Developing a territory balanced scorecard approach to manage projects for local development: two case studies. Land Use Policy, 29(3), 629–640. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Meyer, M. W. (2003a). Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: evidence from a balanced scorecard. Accounting Review, 78(3), 725–758. doi: 10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Randall, T. (2003b). Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial services firms. Accounting Organizations and Society, 28(7–8), 715–741. doi: 10.1016/s0361-3682(03)00033-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256. doi: 10.2307/3857812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jiang, Y., & Shen, J. (2010). Measuring the urban competitiveness of Chinese cities in 2000. Cities, 27(5), 307–314. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2010.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kanji, G. K., & Sa, P. M. E. (2002). Kanji's business scorecard. Total Quality Management, 13(1), 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard - measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.Google Scholar
  47. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1993). Putting the balanced scorecard to work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 134–142.Google Scholar
  48. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy (reprinted from the balanced scorecard). California Management Review, 39(1), 53–79. doi: 10.2307/41165876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2000). Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 167–176.Google Scholar
  50. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the BSC from performance measurement to strategic management: part I. Accounting Horizons, 15, 87–104. doi: 10.2308/acch.2001.15.1.87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2007). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 85(7–8), 150.Google Scholar
  52. Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P., & Rugelsjoen, B. (2010). Managing alliances with the balanced scorecard. [Article]. Harvard Business Review, 88(1–2), 114–120.Google Scholar
  53. Kenis, P., & Schneiider, V. (1991). Policy networks and policy analysis: scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox. Policy Networks. Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, 25–59.Google Scholar
  54. Kim, Y., Kim, W., & Yang, T. (2012). The effect of the triple helix system and habitat on regional entrepreneurship: empirical evidence from the U.S. Research Policy, 41(1), 154–166. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kostiainen, J. (2002). Urban Economic Development Policy in the Network Society. Finland: Tekniikan akateemisten liitto.Google Scholar
  56. Lagendijk, A. (2001). Scaling knowledge production: how significant is the region? Knowledge, Complexity and Innovation Systems (pp. 79–100): Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  57. Lazzarotti, V., Manzini, R., & Mari, L. (2011). A model for R&D performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics, 134(1), 212–223. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.06.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lipe, M. G., & Salterio, S. E. (2000). The balanced scorecard: judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures. Accounting Review, 75(3), 283–298. doi: 10.2308/accr.2000.75.3.283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Marcovich, A., & Shinn, T. (2011). From the triple helix to a quadruple helix? The case of dip-pen nanolithography. Minerva, 49(2), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Markkula, M., & Kune, H. (2015). Making smart regions smarter : smart specialization and the role of universities in regional innovation ecosystems. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Maskell, P., & Malmberg, A. (1999). Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 167–185. doi: 10.1093/cje/23.2.167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Maskell, P., Eskelinen, H., Hannibalsson, I., Malmberg, A., & Vatne, E. (1998). Competitiveness, localised learning and regional development.Google Scholar
  63. Massey, D. (1979). In what sense a regional problem? Regional Studies, 13(2), 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Massey, D. (2007). In what sense a regional problem? Regional Studies, 41(S1), S49–S59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mendes, P., Santos, A. C., Perna, F., & Teixeira, M. R. (2012). The balanced scorecard as an integrated model applied to the Portuguese public service: a case study in the waste sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24, 20–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Moore, J. (1993). Predators and prey - a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 81, 1339–1350. doi: 10.1177/017084068800900203.Google Scholar
  67. Moore, J. (1996). The death of competition: leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. Leadership, 297. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
  68. Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2013). Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: entrepreneurs’self-regulatory processes and their implications for new venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1071–1097. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00519.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Overholm, H. (2015). Collectively created opportunities in emerging ecosystems: the case of solar service ventures. Technovation, 39-40, 14–25. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Peris-Ortiz, M., Ferreira, J. J., Farinha, L., & Fernandes, O. (2016). Introduction to Multiple Helix Ecosystems for Sustainable Competitiveness. In: Multiple Helix Ecosystems for Sustainable Competitiveness. Innovation - Technology Management.Google Scholar
  71. Perkmann, M., Neely, A., & Walsh, K. (2011). How should firms evaluate success in university-industry alliances? A performance measurement system. [article]. R&D Management, 41(2), 202–216. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00637.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Philbin, S. (2008). Process model for university-industry research collaboration. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(4), 488–521. doi: 10.1108/14601060810911138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14, 15–34. doi: 10.1177/089124240001400105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145. doi: 10.2307/2393988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rennings, K. (2000). Redefining innovation—eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 32(2), 319–332. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00112-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rigby, D. (2001). Management tools and techniques: a survey. California Management Review, 43(2), 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological-change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102. doi: 10.1086/261725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Roos, G., & Roos, J. (1997). Measuring your company's intellectual performance. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 413–426. doi: 10.1016/s0024-6301(97)90260-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sadeghi, M., Razavi, S. H., & Saberi, N. (2013). Application of Grey TOPSIS in preference ordering of action plans in balanced scorecard and strategy map. Informatica, 24(4), 619–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (Vol. 55): Transaction publishers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Scott, A. J., & Storper, M. (2003). Regions, globalization, development. Regional Studies, 37(6–7), 579–593. doi: 10.1080/0034340032000108697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Singhal, S., McGreal, S., & Berry, J. (2013). An evaluative model for city competitiveness: application to UK cities. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 214–222. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Solano, J., De Ovalles, M. P., Rojas, T., Padua, A. G., & Morales, L. M. (2003). Integration of systemic quality and the balanced scorecard. [article]. Information Systems Management, 20(1), 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sotarauta, M. (2010). Regional development and regional networks: the role of regional development officers in Finland. European Urban and Regional Studies, 17, 387–400. doi: 10.1177/0969776409352581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Souza, R. G. d., & Cordeiro, J. S. (2010). Mapeamento cognitivo e Balanced Scorecard na gestão estratégica de resíduos sólidos urbanos. [research-article]. Gestão & Produção, 17(3), 483–496. doi: 10.1590/s0104-530x2010000300004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value: a framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 2–18. doi: 10.2307/1251799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stas, D., Lenort, R., Wicher, P., & Holman, D. (2015). Green transport balanced scorecard model with analytic network process support. Sustainability, 7(11), 15243–15261. doi: 10.3390/su71115243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sundin, H., Granlund, M., & Brown, D. A. (2010). Balancing multiple competing objectives with a balanced scorecard. European Accounting Review, 19(2), 203–246. doi: 10.1080/09638180903118736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Taylor, J., & Baines, C. (2012). Performance management in UK universities: implementing the balanced scorecard. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(2), 111–124. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2012.662737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Theriou, N. G., Demitriades, E., & Chatzoglou, P. (2004). A proposed framework for integrating the balanced scorecard into the strategic management process. [journal article]. Operational Research, 4(2), 147–165. doi: 10.1007/bf02943607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tjader, Y. X., May, J. H., Shang, J., Vargas, L. G., & Gao, N. (2014). Firm-level outsourcing decision making: a balanced scorecard-based analytic network process model. [article]. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 614–623. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.04.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tseng, M. L. (2010). Implementation and performance evaluation using the fuzzy network balanced scorecard. Computers & Education, 55(1), 188–201. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Van Looy, B., Debackere, K., & Andries, P. (2003). Policies to stimulate regional innovation capabilities via university-industry collaboration: an analysis and an assessment. R & D Management, 33(2), 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Verdecho, M.-J., Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J., & Rodriguez-Rodriguez, R. (2012a). Prioritization and management of inter-enterprise collaborative performance. Decision Support Systems, 53(1), 142–153. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2011.12.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Verdecho, M.-J., Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J., Rodriguez-Rodriguez, R., & Ortiz-Bas, A. (2012b). A multi-criteria approach for managing inter-enterprise collaborative relationships. Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 40(3), 249–263. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2011.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wang, Y., Li, Y., Jan, C., & Chang, K. (2013). Evaluating Firm performance with balanced scorecard and data envelopment analysis. Wseas.Org, 10, 24–39.Google Scholar
  97. Wanzenböck, I., Scherngell, T., & Brenner, T. (2014). Embeddedness of regions in European knowledge networks: a comparative analysis of inter-regional R&D collaborations, co-patents and co-publications. The Annals of Regional Science, 53(2), 337–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–55. doi: 10.1023/A:1008063200484.
  99. Wu, I.-L., & Chang, C.-H. (2012). Using the balanced scorecard in assessing the performance of eSCM diffusion: a multi-stage perspective. Decision Support Systems, 52, 474–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Yeung, H. W. C. (2009). Regional development and the competitive dynamics of global production networks: an east Asian perspective. Regional Studies, 43(3), 325–351. doi: 10.1080/00343400902777059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management and Economics (DGE)University of Beira InteriorCovilhãPortugal
  2. 2.Instituto Politécnico de Castelo BrancoCastelo BrancoPortugal
  3. 3.NECE - Research Centre in Business SciencesUniversidade da Beira InteriorCovilhãPortugal

Personalised recommendations