How to Measure Triple Helix Performance? A Fresh Approach

  • Milica M. JovanovićEmail author
  • Jovana Đ. Rakićević
  • Veljko M. Jeremić
  • Maja I. Levi Jakšić
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 43)


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.


Triple helix measures Performance management Composite indicator Two-step Composite I-distance OECD 


  1. 1.
    Aiginger K, Falk M (2005) Explaining differences in economic growth among OECD countries. Empirica 32(1):19–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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):324–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coccia M (2007) A new taxonomy of country performance and risk based on economic and technological indicators. J Appl Econ 10(1):29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coccia M (2008) Science, funding and economic growth: analysis and science policy implications. World Rev Sci Technol Sustain Dev 5(1):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de la Potterie BV (2008) Europe’s R&D: missing the wrong targets? Intereconomics 43(4):220–225Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dernis H, Khan M (2004) Triadic patent families methodology, OECD science, technology and industry working papers, no. 2004/02. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. Scholar
  8. 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. Scholar
  9. 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):1450–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drucker P (2004) Technology, Management, and Society. Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. Scholar
  12. 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 131–149Google Scholar
  13. 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):109–123Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (1995) The triple helix—university-industry-government: a laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Rev 14:14–19Google Scholar
  15. 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):533–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Falk M (2007) R&D spending in the high-tech sector and economic growth. Res Econ 61(3):140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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):1108–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fred YY (2007) A quantitative relationship between per capita GDP and scientometric criteria. Scientometrics 71(3):407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guellec D, de la Potterie BV (2001) The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data. Res Policy 30(8):1253–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.
  21. 21.
    Havas A (2015) Types of knowledge and diversity of business-academia collaborations: implications for measurement and policy. Triple Helix 2(1).
  22. 22.
    Huggins R, Thompson P (2017) Handbook of regions and competitiveness: contemporary theories and perspectives on economic development. Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ivanović B (1973) A method of establishing a list of development indicators. United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ivanović B (1977) Classification theory. Institute for Industrial Economics, BelgradeGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jacobs R, Smith P, Goddard M (2004) Measuring performance: an examination of composite performance indicators. Retrieved from University of York.
  27. 27.
    Jeremić V, Radojičić Z (2010) A new approach in the evaluation of team chess championships rankings. J Quantitat Anal Sports 6(3):1–11Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jeremić V, Bulajić M, Martić M, Radojičić Z (2011) A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities. Scientometrics 87(3):587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.
  30. 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. Scholar
  31. 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. Scholar
  32. 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 100:317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee H, Park Y (2005) An international comparison of R&D efficiency: DEA approach. Asian J Technol Innov 13(2):207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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):422–440Google Scholar
  35. 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, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Leydesdorff L (2008) Configurational information as potentially negative entropy: the triple helix model. Entropy 12:391–410. Scholar
  37. 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. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H (2001) The transformation of university-industry-government relations. Electron J Sociol. Retrieved from
  39. 39.
    Leydesdorff L, Meyer M (2006) Triple Helix indicators of knowledge based innovation systems. Res Policy 35(10):1441–1449. Scholar
  40. 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. Scholar
  41. 41.
    Linton J (2018) DNA of the Triple Helix: introduction to the special issue. Technovation. Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mahroum S (2007) Assessing human resources for science and technology: the 3Ds framework. Sci Pub Policy 34(7):489–499. Scholar
  43. 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. Scholar
  44. 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. Scholar
  45. 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):67–80Google Scholar
  46. 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. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mendi P (2007) Trade in disembodied technology and total factor productivity in OECD countries. Res Policy 36(1):121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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. Scholar
  49. 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. Scholar
  50. 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. Scholar
  51. 51.
    National Research Council (1987) Management of technology: the hidden competitive advantage. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    OECD (2000) Science, technology and innovation in the new economy. Retrieved from OECD.
  53. 53.
    OECD (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECDGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    OECD (2018) Main science and technology indicators. Retrieved from OECD.
  55. 55.
    Pessoa A (2010) R&D and economic growth: How strong is the link? Econ Lett 107(2):152–154MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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. Scholar
  57. 57.
    Saltelli A (2007) Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Soc Indic Res 81(1):65–77. Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sandu S, Ciocanel B (2014) Impact of R&D and innovation on high-tech export. Proc Econ Finan 15:80–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Santiago P, Tremblay K, Basri E, Arnal E (2008) Tertiary education for the knowledge society, vol 1. OECD, Paris. Retrieved from
  60. 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):43–54Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Singer S, Oberman Peterka S (2012) Triple Helix evaluation: how to test a new concept with old indicators? Ekonomski pregled 63(11):608–626Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tarnawska K, Mavroeidis V (2015) Efficiency of the knowledge triangle policy in the EU member states: DEA approach. Triple Helix, 2(17).
  63. 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):463–482Google Scholar
  64. 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):85–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zhou P, Fan LW, Zhou DQ (2010) Data aggregation in constructing composite indicators: a perspective of information loss. Expert Syst Appl 37(1):360–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milica M. Jovanović
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jovana Đ. Rakićević
    • 1
  • Veljko M. Jeremić
    • 1
  • Maja I. Levi Jakšić
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Organizational SciencesUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations