Periodo: 2018
URL: The Quadruple Helix Innovation Index to Emphasise the Role of Interaction in Regional Innovation Performance”
Descrizione:
Innovation and knowledge have been given different roles and weights in the growth economic theories of the last century. This report investigates the theory and the operationalization of the so called ‘helices models’ where the main protagonists of innovation-generating processes (industry, university, government, and, at a later stage, civil society) interact for accelerating the transfer of research and innovation results to regional growth. The analysis is principally carried out from the perspective of local and regional authorities (LRAs) and in the light of the potential impact that the operationalization at the regional level of such models may have on growth, in particular as reference for the development of Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3). A thorough review of literature in Part 1 frames the Triple Helix (TH) concept and the Quadruple Helix (QH) approach into an historic perspective. The review highlights the main roles of the spheres and of their actors involved in knowledge and innovation creation and exchange, the changing of focus of these roles, or functions, over time, and the relationships among the key operational elements of the models. In a regional development perspective, the TH model provides an analytical framework for understanding the role of each helix in generating innovation in a territory and offers policymakers an operational tool on the basis of which growth strategies and paths are set according to the adaptation of the model to the contextual conditions (i.e. statist, laissez faire, or balanced regimes). The TH relies on technological paradigms and their cyclical renewal which, nevertheless, is rarely observed at the territorial level. To overcome this limitation and the absence of sensitivity to ‘democratic additionality’, improved innovation approaches are introduced which widen the TH concept with a societal perspective. This is done through the consideration of a ‘fourth’ helix. Against the several definitions of the fourth helix developed by the latest scholarly research (e.g. Arnkil et al., 2010; Carayannis and Campbell, 2012), this study outlines a working definition which focuses on civil society. It also clearly defines the elements built into the operationalization of the QH approach which have regional development and growth as the innovation objective. By referring to these definitions, Part 2 of the study first determines a classification of European regions into ‘innovator types’ (ADV – advanced, MED – medium and MOD – modest). This is done with the computation of a ‘QH innovation index’ (QHII) and five sub-indexes, calculated on the basis of eighteen indicators which reflect the four spheres of the QH approach and a cross-cutting ‘innovation interaction’ category. Second, ten European regions are selected and compared in terms of innovation performance and according to both quantitative and qualitative information. For each region, this information is structured into a 3-page ‘regional profile’ focusing, among other aspects, on the narrative overview of innovation polices and governance, strengths and weaknesses towards the operationalisation of the TH/QH approaches, structural interactions among helices, and references to bottom-up civic participation initiatives. The characterisation analysis of the three innovator types across the whole population of European regions shows that the best pullers of innovation in ADV are Industry (IND), Civil Society (CIV) and innovation interaction (INT), while the structural performance of University (UNI) and Government (GOV) seem to be limited, although this finding possibly suffers from the poor representativeness of the indicators available for measuring the innovation performance of these two helices. Furthermore, ADV seem to be characterised by the reaching of a certain ‘critical mass’ of each of the spheres. Within the four selected ADV (Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, Stockholm, Praha, and Utrecht), different types of innovation-generation are reflected in radar charts which have clearly marked peaks, a circumstance which points to a ‘pulling’ effect of one or more of the spheres and which is affected by the type of regime of the helix model in force (i.e. statist, laissez faire, or balanced), by the structural conditions of the territory, and by its development paths. Through the assessment of the qualitative information of the four selected regions, ADV seem to have certain prevailing conditions in common, including governance conducive to innovation, science and knowledge excellence and/or assets, business concentration and/or hosting of world-leading businesses/companies, technology and/or knowledge intensive industries, relevant ICT-based industry, and the presence of hybrid organisations allowing a structural interaction among the various helices. MED regions have the same pullers of innovation as ADV with an even more limited role of GOV and UNI. In fact, the University sphere appears as the weak link of the innovation performance in this type, with the strongest role apparently being played by IND, in line with traditional models where innovation is a prerogative of the business community. According to the qualitative information gathered in the regional profiles of Stuttgart, LänsiSuomi, and Lazio, MED share less common features than ADV but they are all characterised by IND-related features such as the presence of business concentration, business networking, co-operation, and/or connection, and presence of hybrid organisations. In MOD, the traditional spheres of the TH model seem to have lost the leading position in innovation performance in favour of CIV. Notwithstanding the maturity of the civil society, MOD regions have a limited innovation capacity in the three other helices (UNI, IND and GOV) and are not expected to experience improvements unless at least one of the ‘traditional’ helices starts playing a pulling role. In addition, the three selected MOD (Extremadura, Lubuskie, and Sud-Est) do not show commonalities according to the qualitative information gathered in the regional profiles, a fact which reflects the lack of a structured strategic approach (e.g. by helices) for transferring research and innovation results to regional growth. Finally, the comparison across the sample of ten regions in terms of structural conditions, such as area, population and GDP, points to a positive relation between a good innovation performance at the territorial level with a small physical size of the territory, high population density, high regional GDP and GERD, and high levels of broadband access. Prevailing trends and challenges show that although LRAs seem to be increasingly aware of the strategic role played by the four spheres in the innovation process, policies and strategies applying the TH/QH models, including the involvement of civil society through well-defined mechanisms able to emphasise creativity and non-traditional innovation opportunities, are less common. The potential of S3 to concentrate TH/QH efforts on specific sectors in order to maximize the benefits to other sectors by means of spill-overs and side-effects is also insufficiently explored. The third part (Part 3) of the study goes in depth on some specific themes connected to objective-based collaboration and functional substitution between spheres to achieve innovation. In particular, UNI is discussed with respect to its changing role and engagement with industry and society at large. Within the GOV sphere the emphasis is on eGovernment as a driver of innovation in the public sector which is leading, in turn, to enhanced information sharing and engagement of end-users. At the IND level, the focus is on the interactive innovation processes implied by entrepreneurial discovery. Finally, CIV is mostly discussed as one source of social innovation and experimentation with respect to some specific demographic challenges such as ageing and migration. Discussion and analysis are supported throughout by the collection of successful examples and initiatives. These good practices add evidence to the analysis conducted in Part 2 and are then used to draw recommendations on the applicability and possible use of the QH by LRAs. On the theory of the helix models, this study highlights the need to better focus efforts on operationalisation aspects at the territorial level rather than on theoretical or academic reasoning. There is a need for populating the sciencepolicy interface with easy-to-use instruments (e.g. the proposed QHII and its visual approach) which would facilitate both the understanding as well as the integration of these approaches into strategic regional development. There is an urgent need to fill data gaps and, possibly, to define new indicators for a more accurate measurement of the innovation performance of the spheres. Other recommendations provided in Part 4 are specific to the three innovator types and built upon the success factors of experiences concretely implemented in several regions across the EU.
Academic Proceedings of the 2018 University-Industry Interaction Conference: Challenges and Solutions for Fostering Entrepreneurial Universities and Collaborative Innovation, London, 20-22 giugno 2018.