Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mode 3: A Proposed Classification Scheme for the Knowledge Economy and Society

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to develop a classification scheme for the knowledge economy and society. By using Mode 3 and the quadruple helix theories, this paper models enterprise instances of networking among academia, government, industry, and civil society, all of whom are actors in the quadruple helix. The networking factors are found in the dynamics among the actors, ranging from regional to global levels. In particular, the emphasis of this paper is to understand the attributes of Mode 3 and its frontiers in order to later develop a predictive model of innovation success. We researched three regions, Maryland and the European Union countries of Portugal and Greece along with two support models, incubators, and a science park, as these areas exhibit Mode 3 regional innovation factors and allowed us to develop and test the proposed classification scheme. Our findings are that most companies operating within a regional innovation network are functioning at the Mode 2 level. This is significant as it assisted us with soundly classifying firms who were operating in the realm of Mode 2 and helped us understand the frontiers of Mode 3. Additionally, we discovered three instances of Mode 3 that engaged the traditional triple helix actors with the addition of a virtual civil society, which is the foundation for the quadruple helix.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Human capital is educational attainment, e.g., Bachelor’s degree and above [47].

  2. The creative class is defined as individual who engage in complex problem solving that involves a great deal of independent judgment and requires high levels of education [16].

  3. A combination of global, national, regional, and local forces working together [8].

  4. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection is caused by a strain of staph bacteria that’s become resistant to the antibiotics commonly used to treat ordinary staph infections (Mayo Clinic, 2010).

  5. Greece’s GDP is USD 329.9 billion [51].

  6. Maryland’s GDP is $258 billion [6]

  7. Portugal’s GDP is $243.5 billion [50].

References

  1. 4 International Colleges & Universities (2010). Universities in Portugal. Retrieved on June 17, 2010 from http://www.4icu.org/pt/

  2. 4 International Colleges & Universities (2010). Universities in Greece. Retrieved on June 1, 2011 from http://www.4icu.org/gr/

  3. Association of University Technology Managers (2010). About tech transfer—Bayh-Dole Act. Retrieved on June 15, 2010 from http://www.autm.net/Bayh_Dole_Act/4490.htm

  4. Association of University Research Parks (2010). What is a research park? Retrieved on June 15, 2010 from http://www.aurp.net/mc/page.do?sitePageId=113584&orgId=aurp

  5. Bergek A, Norrman C (2007) Incubator best practice: a framework. Technovation 28:20–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2010). Gross domestic product by state. Retrieved on June 15, 2010 from http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm#gsp

  7. Carayannis E, Campbell D (2006). ‘Mode 3’: meaning and implications from a knowledge systems perspective. Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters.

  8. Carayannis E, Campbell D (2009) ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J Technol Manag 46(3–4):201–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carayannis E, Campbell D (2010) Triple helix, quadruple helix, and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation, and the environment related to each other: a proposed framework for trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. Int J Soc Ecol Sustain Dev 1(1):41–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carayannis E, Popescu D (2007). The knowledge of culture and the culture of knowledge from low tech to high tech: The global intangible heritage and consultation on peer consultation across cultures and disciplines. Leading and Managing Creators, Inventors, and Innovators. Westport, CT: Praeger.

  11. Christ J (2009). The geography and co-location of European technology- specific co-inventor networks. IDEAS. Retrieved on May 5, 2010 from http://ideas.repec.org/p/old/wpaper/y2010i31p1-40.html

  12. Cooke P (2003) Economic globalization and its future challenges for regional development. Int J Technol Manag 26(2–4):401–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Corona L, Doutriaux J, Mian S (2006) Building knowledge regions in North America: emerging technology innovation poles. Edward Elgar, Northampton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Etzkowitz 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 29:109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Feller I, Ailes CP, Roessner JD (2002) Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from engineering research centers. Res Policy 31:457–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Florida R, Mellander C, Stolarick K (2008) Inside the black box of regional development—human capital, the creative class and tolerance. J Econ Geogr 8:615–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hackett S, Dilts D (2004) A systematic review of business incubation research. J Technol Transf 29(1):55–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. ICIS (2008). Global chemical industry is well despite declining research intensity. Retrieved on June 15, 2010 from http://www.icis.com/Articles/2008/10/13/9162812/global-chemical-industry-r.html

  19. IEEE (2008). R&D expenditure tables. Retrieved on June 15, 2010 from http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/images/nov08/images/nov08_rnd_table.pdf

  20. Komninos N (2004) Regional intelligence: distributed localized information systems for innovation and development. Int J Technol Manag 28(3–6):483–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Komninos N (2005). Regional innovation in Europe. 2nd National Innovation Forum.

  22. Krugman P (1991). Geography and trade. Leuven, Belgium and Cambridge, MA: Leuven University Press and The MIT Press

  23. Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H (1998) The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Sci Publ Pol 25(3):195–203

    Google Scholar 

  24. Link AN, Siegel DS, Bozeman B (2007) An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Ind Corp Chang 16(4):641–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. London School of Economics-Centre for Civil Society (2009). What is civil society? http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/introduction/what_is_civil_society.htm

  26. Malerba F, Vonortas NS (2009) Innovation networks in industries. Edward Elgar, North Hampton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Marshall A (1920) Principles of economics. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  28. Maryland - Department of Economic Development (2009). Major employers. Retrieved on June 17, 2010 from http://www.choosemaryland.org/factsstats/pages/majoremployers.aspx

  29. Maryland–Higher Education Commission (2010a). Higher education in Maryland. Retrieved on June 15, 2010 from http://www.mhec.state.md.us/highered/colleges_universities/index.asp

  30. Maryland-Department of Economic Development (2010b). Health & life sciences. Retrieved on June 15, 2010 from http://www.choosemaryland.org/industry/Health/default.aspx

  31. Mergent (2010a). Chemicals: Europe. Retrieved on June 3, 2010 from http://www.mergentonline.com

  32. Mergent (2010b). Biotechnology: North America. Retrieved on June 3, 2010 from http://www.mergentonline.com

  33. Mergent (2010c). IT & technology: Europe. Retrieved on June 3, 2010 from http://www.mergentonline.com

  34. Mergent (2010d). IT & technology: North America. Retrieved on June 3, 2010 from http://www.mergentonline.com

  35. Mian S (1996) Assessing value-added contribution of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. Res Policy 25:325–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Milberg W (2004) Labor and the Globalization of Production Causes and Consequences of Industrial Upgrading. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillian

  37. National Business Incubator Association of the United States (2010). What is business incubation? Retrieved on May 5, 2010 from http://www.nbia.org/resource_library/what_is/index.php

  38. National Science Foundation (2010). National patterns of R&D resources: 2008 data update. Retrieved on June 15, 2010 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10314/pdf/nsf10314.pdf

  39. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009). Biotechnology statistics—United States. Retrieved on June 15, 2010 from http://www.oecd.org/document/36/0,3343,en_2649_34537_2674020_1_1_1_1,00.html

  40. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2010). Country statistical profile: Greece 2010. Retrieved on June 7, 2011 from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/20752288-2010-table-grc/index.html;jsessionid=3t8vembujrnjp.delta?contentType=/ns/StatisticalPublication,/ns/KeyTable&itemId=/content/table/20752288-table-grc&containerItemId=/content/tablecollection/20752288&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

  41. Porter MD (1998) On competition. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  42. Schoonmaker M, Carayannis E (2010) Assessing the value-add of regional innovation networks. J Knowl Econ 1:48–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Siegel DS, Wessner C, Binks M, Lockett A (2003) Policies promoting innovation in small firms: evidence from the U.S. and U.K. Small Bus Econ 20:121–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Technology Development Corporation (2010). TEDCO programs—business incubation. Retrieved on June 15, 2010 from http://www.marylandtedco.org/tedcoprograms/businessincubation.cfm

  45. Transnationale (2009). Greece—20 largest companies. Retrieved on June 7, 2011 from http://www.transnationale.org/countries/grcs.php

  46. Transnationale (2009). Portugal—20 largest companies. Retrieved on June 3, 2010 from http://www.transnationale.org/countries/prts.php

  47. U.S. Census Bureau (2000). U.S. Census 2000. Retrieved on May 5, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

  48. Van den Berg L, Braun E, van Winden W (2001) Growth clusters in European cities: an integral approach. Urban Stud 38(10):186–206

    Google Scholar 

  49. Wessner CW (2005) Driving innovation across the valley of death. Res Technol Manag 48(1):9–12

    Google Scholar 

  50. World Bank (2008). Portugal. Retrieved on June 15, 2010 from http://data.worldbank.org/country/portugal

  51. World Bank (2009). Greece. Retrieved on June 4, 2011 from http://data.worldbank.org/country/greece

  52. World Bank (2010). Defining civil society. Retrieved on June 15, 2010 from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/CSO/0,,contentMDK:20101499~menuPK:244752~pagePK:220503~piPK:220476~theSitePK:228717,00.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

    Mary G. Schoonmaker & Elias G. Carayannis

Authors
  1. Mary G. Schoonmaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elias G. Carayannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary G. Schoonmaker.

Appendix A, interview questions

Appendix A, interview questions

  1. 1.

    Please tell us about the origin of your company and a little bit about your background.

  2. 2.

    How would you describe your firm’s value proposition and business model?

  3. 3.

    What did your organizational structure, meaning number of employees and skill sets, look like at start-up launch time and how has this changed over time?

  4. 4.

    How has your entrepreneurial team evolved to date (team size, composition, nature of contractual agreements (cash vs. equity)?

  5. 5.

    What types, if any, of synergies exist between your firm and other firms (competitive, collaborative and co-opetitive relationships)?

  6. 6.

    Describe how your firm manages R&D (intramural research, off-shoring, outsourcing, and percentage breakdown) and why?

  7. 7.

    What is the relationship between firm R&D, sources of invention and agents of innovation:

    1. a.

      What types, if any, of research collaborations occur through firm networks or clusters (research joint ventures, off-shoring, outsourcing, other)?

    2. b.

      What are the objectives, outputs, outcomes, and impacts (short, medium, and long term) of such research collaborations?

    3. c.

      In your experience, do such collaborations improve the productivity of the research? When, how and why?

  8. 8.

    What are your firm’s key performance indicators from a technology and market perspective?

  9. 9.

    What are the most important success and failure factors for a knowledge intensive company in your opinion?

  10. 10.

    What types of successes (or failures) have you experienced in this firm and what were the lessons learned?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schoonmaker, M.G., Carayannis, E.G. Mode 3: A Proposed Classification Scheme for the Knowledge Economy and Society. J Knowl Econ 4, 556–577 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0097-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0097-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation