Abstract
If innovation is the engine of economies, the partnerships in the Triple Helix model of innovation are the fuel that makes this engine work. Although each member of this model has its defined role, the present study sought to gain a new perspective on these partnerships, including the role of governments. Based on interviews with representatives of universities, companies, and governments in two countries (i.e., Portugal and Spain), this research focused on how innovation partnerships are formed as well as what obstacles to cooperation can arise. The results show that governments can play the role not only of a financier and legislator but also of a direct participant in innovation by entering into partnerships with the other Triple Helix actors. In addition, this study revealed that, irrespective of which partners and needs are in question, these networks operate mostly with public funds.
The overwhelmingly rapid rhythm of technological change and related needs has contributed to a thirst for innovation, thereby increasing firms’ dependence on external knowledge. This demand for new knowledge is, in turn, strongly dependent on cooperation between the entities involved in cocreation processes. The triad responsible for the development and diffusion of knowledge and thus for economic growth is made up of universities, companies, and government agencies that work together (Etzkowitz 2016; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000). Since innovation is an interactive process in which the creation and flow of knowledge is crucial, universities are particularly important as the main sources of knowledge (Chen and Lin 2017; Giuri et al. 2019; Thompson, Ziedonis, and Mowery 2018).
The strategic links between Triple Helix entities and the networks created between them produce, in most cases, competitive business advantages through the cocreation of knowledge and/or technology. These are generated through cooperation or collaboration between universities, industries, and governments. However, most previous studies have focused on companies’ needs in this context (Arundel and Geuna 2004; Cohen, Nelson, and Walsh 2002; Fontana, Geuna, and Matt 2006; Mohnen and Hoareau 2003; Laursen and Salter 2004; Swann 2002) or in the universities’ point of view (Clark 1998; Etzkowitz 1983, 2013; Guerrero, Cunningham, and Urbano 2015; Guerrero and Urbano 2012; Jacob, Lundqvist, and Hellsmark 2003; Leih and Teece 2016; Schmitz et al. 2017; Slaughter and Leslie 1997; Wright, Birley, and Mosey 2004).
Nonetheless, the ways Triple Helix actors perform, collaborate, identify benefits, or transform their roles constitute an interesting area of research (Cunningham and Link 2015; Cunningham et al. 2016; Guerrero and Urbano 2017). The existing literature includes studies that have examined the cooperation between the three Triple Helix actors simultaneously. Other researchers have concentrated on governments’ function as a source of subsidies (Abreu and Grinevich 2013; Klofsten and Jones-Evans 2000) or policies that support innovation (Charles 2003; Etzkowitz et al. 2000; Giuliani and Arza 2009; Park and Leydesdorff 2010; Perkmann et al. 2013; Tuunainen and Knuuttila 2009). These studies have not examined the relationship between cooperation and collaboration in the cocreation of knowledge, having all the actors of the Triple Helix.
In addition, a review of the literature revealed that no qualitative studies have presented all three Triple Helix actors’ perceptions of their cooperation and/or collaboration in knowledge cocreation. Given that the Triple Helix model comprises a network of strategic partnerships, the present study sought to understand the dynamics of the relationships within these partnerships, especially when governments have a more active role in knowledge creation and innovation.
Thus, this study aims to answer the following research questions:
To answer these research questions, semistructured interviews were applied to the different stakeholders of Triple Helix.
The results offer a new vision of the links—whether collaborative or cooperative—between universities, companies, and governments in the cocreation of knowledge. This research aimed to contribute to the further development of theory by analyzing Triple Helix interactions and constraints on these connections. The findings show that governments can make more active contributions to innovation processes as an effective partner in the knowledge creation networks created in the Triple Helix under study. The results also have practical implications, offering clearer guidelines for all participants interested in cocreating knowledge and innovation and thereby contributing to regional development.
The rest of this article is divided into four sections. A review of the relevant literature is followed by the method, results, and discussion, and conclusions, which include the study’s limitations and suggestions for future lines of research.
Theoretical Background
Triple Helix
Etzkowitz and Klofsten's (2005) Triple Helix model first appeared in the mid-1990s, when universities and industries were encouraged by policy makers to work together to produce knowledge beneficial to society (Lawton, and Leydesdorff 2012). Subsequently, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) and Etzkowitz et al. (2000) used this model to explain innovation and university–industry links. In the cited authors’ work, university–industry–government relationships were compared to alternative models that seek to explain the current research system and its social contexts. The Triple Helix model succeeds in representing not only the connections between universities, industries, and governments but also the internal transformations within each of these spheres.
In the current context of knowledge-based innovation and the associated role played by knowledge-based networks, the university-centered model in which these institutions are vehicles for technology transfer has become organizationally and institutionally more complex. Universities serve as a channel through which knowledge exchange and exploitation become more effective (Secundo et al. 2017). However, each institution’s area of specialization is needed to fill existing gaps, so consortia seeking to develop new technologies should also include research and development (R&D) units and government laboratories. These knowledge and innovation creation networks are often supported by funding programs, which serve as a lever for innovation and its transfer to the business world, ultimately contributing to countries or regions’ economic development (Bercovitz and Feldman 2006; Etzkowitz and Klofsten 2005; Guan and Zhao 2013).
Strategic Partnerships
More than just acquiring or creating new technologies is at the heart of business concerns today. Environmental and social concerns mean that growing numbers of companies are looking to innovative technology to meet ecological challenges and find socially responsible solutions (Adams et al. 2016; Audretsch and Link 2012; Jones and Zubielqui 2017). When companies lack the capacity to generate the technological knowledge that allows them to meet the aforementioned needs, these firms have to seek for this knowledge externally (Benedetti, Neely, and Swink 2015). According to Cohen and Levinthal (1990, 128), “the ability to exploit external knowledge is therefore a critical component of innovative capabilities.” The cited authors use the term “absorption capacity” to refer to this ability and companies’ capacity to recognize external knowledge as important, incorporate it into the firms’ operations and thus obtain financial benefits.
The search for innovation and its incorporation into businesses have become even more important than they were in the 1990s, given the current era of digital transformation, so the smallest “distraction in innovation” can cost a company its chance for survival. Innovative companies, therefore, need to integrate themselves into networks of strategic alliances, which allow these firms to obtain competitive advantages through continuous scientific and technical interactions (Owen-Smith and Powell 2004).
Companies find the knowledge they need for these interactions in universities. By collaborating with higher education institutions, firms form strategic partnerships that increase their efficiency and effectiveness and allow them to occupy the required strategic positions (Cunningham and Link 2015; D’Este, Guy, and Iammarino 2012). These alliances facilitate open innovation and the flow of knowledge between partners, thereby favoring businesses’ technological development (Chesbrough 2003) and bringing financial benefits and scientific recognition to universities (Campbell and Carayannis 2012; Carayannis and Campbell 2012; Cohen, Nelson, and Walsh 2002; Perkmann et al. 2013; Perkmann and Walsh 2009).
Collaboration and Cooperation in Cocreation
Although collaboration and cooperation are often confused, they are not synonymous. This is particularly clear in Polenske’s (2004) work, which highlights their differences. The cited author states that, while collaboration is “the direct participation of two or more actors in the design, production and/or commercialization of a product (process),” cooperation “is a formal or informal agreement for information sharing, technical training, and supply of capital or market information.” Given that cooperative activities are, therefore, nonexclusive while collaboration is exclusive (Scott and Storper 2005), these are two ways companies can seek to foster innovation. Collaboration is a form of mutual learning between partners that leads to the cocreation of knowledge (Hong, Easterby-Smith, and Snell 2006). Cooperation, in turn, is “a response to a need for exchange based on the principle of reciprocity” (Xu et al. 2017, pp. 242-251).
Partnerships or networks, as they are presented in the current study, involve knowledge cocreation and refer to the joint production of new knowledge either by companies or by universities (Garner and Ternouth 2011; Perkmann and Salter 2012), with the goal of generating innovation to meet business needs. Individually, these Triple Helix actors would not be able to produce new knowledge since problems can only be resolved by sharing know-how and information (Bruneel, Yli-Renko, and Clarysse 2010; Laursen and Salter 2004; March 1991). The strategic partnerships created within the Triple Helix approach are based on collaboration and cooperation mechanisms that lead to innovation (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000; Lundberg 2013). As one of the entrepreneurial universities’ functions is to generate innovations to be applied in companies and society, these institutions continue to be firms’ main partners in the cocreation of knowledge mainly due to universities’ unique ability to push the frontiers of scientific research (De Silva and Rossi 2018; Etzkowitz 2016). Thus, universities play a preponderant role in the joint creation of innovations not only with companies but also with local or central governments. Some examples of this are smart cities, living labs, or social projects (Audretsch and Link 2012; Brem and Radziwon 2017; Etzkowitz 2017), which contribute to regional development.
Therefore, the creation of networks between universities, companies, and governmental entities provides the mechanisms to support innovation, business development, and, in turn, regional growth. In network theory, connections have their functions, but these depend on the intentions, needs, resources, and, above all, strategies of all the actors involved (Van Waarden 1992). In the Triple Helix model, cooperation or collaboration between network actors—regardless of the degree of formalization or vertical or horizontal relationship patterns—is an effective response to complex situations and widespread uncertainty. This promotes opportunities for knowledge exchange and cooperation between the relevant stakeholders (Etzkowitz and Zhou 2006).
The conceptual model developed for the present study is based on the strategic networking assumptions that support the cocreation of knowledge needed for technological or nontechnological innovation (see Figure 1). This model’s purpose is to clarify how Triple Helix entities are related to each other and how partnerships between them produce knowledge and innovation.
Conceptual model.
Method
In order to study cooperation and possible cocreation of knowledge among the three type of Triple Helix actors, we chose to interview researchers, businessmen, and directors of governmental agencies who represent each entity in two regions of two countries. These were the Norte region in Portugal and the Castile and Leon region in Spain. The qualitative approach selected allowed the actors interviewed to express freely their thoughts about the topic presented, thus making this research exploratory (Ang 2014; Yin 2017).
The intersubjective relationships between the interviewer and interviewee is a central feature of qualitative interviews, which allows a combination of different perspectives on reality that is the result of dynamic interactions between participants. This method was considered an appropriate and effective way to develop a fuller understanding of the “hows” and “whys” of the existing links between governments, universities, and industries contributing to the generation of innovation. Thus, an in-depth qualitative interview approach was adopted to clarify more fully the joint performance of the three entities under study (Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 1989).
The present study sought to ensure that the selected methods met—whether with positive or negative results—at least four empirical research requirements: construct validity, external validity, internal validity, and confidence in the results (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2015; Yin 2015). This approach presupposes an understanding of the research process as shaped by the challenge of doing original research and pursuing three important objectives: transparency, method, and adherence to evidence (Yin 2017).
To collect the relevant information, twelve interviews were conducted with individuals from the three types of Triple Helix entities (see Table 1). The objective was to understand how they collaborate with each other and how this collaboration generates cocreation of knowledge and innovation.
Respondents’ Demographics.
The interviews were conducted during October 2018, with an average duration of thirty to forty-five minutes. To test the convergence of the information obtained in response to the interview questions (Carter et al. 2014; Denzin 1978; Patton 1999), data triangulation was carried out by reading documents and research presented on websites run mainly by Portuguese and Spanish universities and government organizations.
Information Processing
The primary data were collected in individual, semistructured, and script-driven interviews about issues considered important within the topic under study. This method facilitated a more complete and spontaneous collection of responses through interactions between the interviewer and interviewee, thereby avoiding the problems related to question interpretation mentioned by Creswell (2003).
The current research sought to explore empirically the relationships between the three types of Triple Helix actors. More specifically, descriptive and exploratory approaches were applied to explain the “hows” and “whys” of collaboration between these entities as well as the criteria for and obstacles to these partnerships. The data were subjected to content analysis (Patton 1990; Weber 1990) after the interviews were transcribed to make possible the reproduction and reanalysis of the data collected.
Results and Discussion
The results, with comments and illustrative interview excerpts, are described below. Each interviewee was identified with a code. Thus, PU1 and PU2 are Portuguese researchers, and SU3 and SP4 are Spanish researchers. PC1 and PC2 are Portuguese entrepreneurs, while SC3 and SC4 are Spanish entrepreneurs. Finally, PG1 and PG2 are Portuguese government officials, and SG3 and SG4 are Spanish government officials. In order to understand more fully the relationships between the Triple Helix actors, we divided the results into subcategories, which are presented below.
Cooperation or Collaboration for Innovation: Importance of Networks and Partnerships in Knowledge Cocreation
The Triple Helix model clarifies the interrelationships between universities, governments, and businesses and explores how environments conducive to innovation, cocreation, and knowledge diffusion can be created. Because these outcomes are ultimately necessary for society’s ongoing development, this model (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000) has been most often used in discussions of innovation or different agents in innovation processes. According to the cited authors, “each helix can be related to the other two, [through] an emerging superposition of communications, networks and organisations between the helixes” (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000, 112).
Tightening research budgets have undoubtedly been the strongest driver behind the creation of cooperation or collaboration networks between researchers and companies (Agrawal and Henderson 2002; Bruneel, Yli-Renko, and Clarysse 2010; Heinze et al. 2009; Lee 1996, 2000; Link and Wessner 2011; Perkmann and Walsh 2009; Sánchez-Barrioluengo and Benneworth 2019; Siegel, Waldman, and Link 2003; van Looy, Callaert, and Debackere 2006). A statement made by one Spanish researcher interviewed in the present study confirms that universities need external investors’ funds: The government funds that universities receive are hardly enough to meet teaching-related needs. They [the government] ask us to be competitive, to produce scientific publications, to register patents, [and] to transfer technology, but without any [extra] funds. We have to go looking for funding. Although much of this comes from government-funded projects, much of it comes from our collaboration with companies. (SU3) I have not competed for Science and Technology Foundation projects for more than 10 years. The entire amount of my research costs comes from projects with companies or from consulting and developing new technological solutions tailored to suit companies, for example. We do not have an R&D unit. We do not have the intellectual or financial capital for this, so, whenever necessary, we compete to get government funds that enable us to overcome this shortcoming. In Spain, the amount of public aid for research with universities is higher because it assumes that the risk is greater, and it is. Thus, we have participated in several projects with universities of Castile and Leon to conduct research into products that we hope to introduce to the market soon. (SC4) All our production is aimed at the export market. Our biggest market is the German market. About 6 years ago, we had a problem with our product, and customers returned 1/3 of our production. The loss was enormous. Although we had a quality laboratory, we did not have—nor do we have—the knowledge and financial support to solve this problem. We contacted the nearest university to apply for funds that would allow us to resolve the problem. We obtained the necessary funds, the problem was solved and, at this time, we are engaged in another project in partnership with the same university. (PC1)
Evidence for academic entrepreneurship can be found in the following interviewees’ statements. A university researcher said: In the last 10 years, we have become more dynamic [and] more open to collaboration with companies. I recognise that about 30 years ago when I started working at the university, neither I nor my colleagues had strong ties to industries. There were some groups more closely connected to medicine that were working with companies, but they [university researchers] were few. (SU3) Universities are now less closed. It is easier to reach the researchers and convince them to work with us. This does not mean that it is easy to collaborate with all universities. There are some groups in some universities with which it is difficult to work. There is still a lot of bureaucracy [and] a lot of formalities to get through. A lot of time is lost that we cannot spare. (PC1) My company, as a technology-based spin-off in the area of health and only three years old, is still very dependent on both [European] Community funds, for which we are always competing, and our partnership with the university who watched our firm being formed. Without the support of these entities, I think it would be impossible to have the products we already have on the market, such as the ones we are currently improving. (PC2)
Based on the interview results, this type of strategic partnership can be said to be extremely important to all the entities under study, as attested by the following statements. A Spanish government official said: Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, in 1995, presented the well-known Triple Helix collaborative model of] governments, universities, and productive sectors. The European Commission has published a number of communications over the past 10 years on the role of universities in the Europe of Knowledge. Thus, the partnership between entities in these three areas is something that we have been paying attention to in Castile and Leon beginning with the University-Company Strategy. (SG3) The projects that have been developed, especially in the areas of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial internationalisation, have been, from our point of view, extremely important for the region’s business community—I would go so far as to say, for the country. We have set up regional and cross-border cooperation networks, facilitating companies’ closer links to other companies, but mainly [relationships] between universities. (PG2)
R&D partnerships are based on knowledge sharing (Carayannis and Alexander 1999), a process that involves a journey from total ignorance to routine, embedded, and transparent or tacit organizational knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Since tacit knowledge is personal, context-dependent, geographical proximity facilitates its transmission (Morgan 2004), encouraging more informal and suitable collaborations with companies in the universities’ region. This proximity was mentioned by one of the entrepreneurs interviewed for the present study, who said, “we work with the universities of Castile and Leon. Proximity is undoubtedly an important factor in our choice of university. We have been able to accompany the research’s progress more easily” (SC3).
Trust is an important factor in any partnership. If innovation partners are previously unknown, this trust is based on the researchers’ reputation for expertise in a particular area (Hemmert, Bstieler, and Okamuro 2014; McKnight, Cummings, and Chervany 1998; Meyerson, Weick, and Kramer 1996). The following interview excerpts provide further proof of this. A company representative stated: Our projects have been, as I said, with the same university. What made us choose this university was the prestige of the researcher with whom we have worked. We knew that he had worked with companies in the area and that he had done well. We are closer to a polytechnic institute, but we prefer to go to Vila Real precisely because of the researcher’s previous work. (PC1)
Barriers to Collaboration with Universities
According to Ranga and Etzkowitz (2013, 238), “Triple Helix systems accommodate institutional and individual roles in innovation and explain variations in innovative performance in relation to the development and articulation of knowledge, innovation and consensus spaces.” Innovation is the ultimate goal of these systems, but various barriers can arise to block these collaborations. One obstacle is distance, as is made clear by SC3’s statements: My company is part of the Sivi Cluster, which allows me to be closer to the region’s universities. When I need something from any of the universities, whether it is from Valladolid or Burgos, I just have to get in touch with the Sivi people. Otherwise, it would be complicated. I would not know how to reach those [researchers] who could solve the problem. There are many doors to knock on. Even within universities, they do not always know how to answer my questions. (SC3)
Universities’ new economic function has contributed to making the demand for valorization of knowledge to be the source of conflicts between these institutions and companies (Shane and Somaya 2007). Overvalued intellectual property, as well as its ownership, is seen as one of the main barriers to company–university collaboration (Bruneel, D’este, and Salter 2010; Clarysse et al. 2007; Hall, Link, and Scott 2001; Valentin and Jensen 2007). One of the Portuguese researchers stated: Generally, in projects with companies in which there is the possibility of registering patents, our TTO [Technology Transfer Office] prepares a protocol that stipulates, from the start, the ownership of the patent, type of exclusivity and royalties to be paid. We already had a company that refused to work in this way. We gave up doing the project as a partnership and opted for a service contract. (PU2) One of the great obstacles to working with researchers is undoubtedly the time it takes to get the final results. The projects financed are always 3 years long, when they could be 2. When we ask the researchers to move up the deadlines, we are told that it is impossible, that the tests are time consuming, that it is advisable to do various tests and so on. (PC1) I think companies have a somewhat distorted notion of what research is. It is not possible to get results within the time they want. Science is meticulous; it takes time to bear fruit. And companies do not understand this reality. We are not only researchers, we are teachers, managers [and] science promoters. Our position as a teacher forces us to be all of these [things]. (SU4) Most researchers are still unable to get down to the realities of the [outside] world and business. Companies cannot afford to wait for 1, 2 or 3 years for research results. Markets run at cruising speed. When the product is ready to enter the market, there may already be half a dozen similar offers, and the opportunity has passed us by. (PG2)
The interviewees’ perceptions of this issue are made clear by the transcribed statements. For example, a Portuguese government representative suggested that: Most researchers, when the project ends, will no longer support the business. I realise that, once the funding is finished, it becomes difficult to carry out certain types of activities that are a burden to the institution, but I think it would add value to these partnerships if there was a period in which support [is provided] in one or another situation. (PG1) Collaboration with one of the investigators from the first project continues today and resulted in a new project because, whenever we needed help, we got it. Of the other members of the research team, I cannot say the same. In fact, in this new project, one of the requirements was precisely that some of the members of the previous team would not be part of this team. (PC1)
Conclusions and Implications
The Triple Helix model’s ultimate goal is to achieve innovative spaces based on tripartite initiatives that foster economic development through knowledge spillovers and strategic alliances between industries, academia, and governments (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorf 2000). Universities’ new entrepreneurial mission, as well as companies’ growing need for innovation, has led governments to provide financial mechanisms (McAdam et al. 2012), regulations, programs, and initiatives that stimulate university–industry collaboration (Audretsch 2014; Guerrero, Cunningham, and Urbano 2015; Guerrero and Urbano 2017; Kenney and Goe 2004; Padilla-Pérez and Gaudin 2014; Urbano and Guerrero 2013; Wang and Altinay 2012).
The present research sought to make explicit, through a critical analysis, the partnerships that exist between companies, governments, and universities and the obstacles that arise during Triple Helix innovation processes. Grounded on the analysis of the interviews, it was possible to answer the research questions postured in this study. Regarding the first research question (What are the dynamics of the existing relationships in the Triple Helix partnerships?), the results show that governments participate actively in the cocreation of knowledge. This supports the assumption that governments should play a role closer to that of the other actors in the Triple Helix model in the generation of knowledge, in addition to governments’ existing, previously mentioned functions. To this end, the current study also sought to elucidate what kind of cooperation actually exists within this triad. In fact, the results showed that universities, industry, and government could, and indeed, play an important role in cocreation of knowledge, acting together in a dynamic way. When talking about innovation, it must be borne in mind that it resides in the ability to identify relationships, find opportunities, and take advantage of them (Bessant and Tidd 2007). The process is not exclusively about technological innovation but also about identifying new ways of offering goods and services to existing and mature markets, nontechnological innovation. This is here that the big difference arises between the existing partnerships in Triple Helix. If, on the one side, we have partnerships for technological innovation when university and company are located, on the other, we have nontechnological innovation when these partnerships are joined by the government.
One of the determinants for innovation is, with no doubt, funding. The results answered the second research question (Are public funding vital in the relationship between Triple Helix stakeholders?)
Given that we wanted to study the Triple Helix’s key elements in two different regions—one in Spain and one in Portugal—qualitative research was considered the most appropriate methodology to achieve the proposed objectives. We needed to confirm which determinants and barriers exist in the constitution of innovation partnerships between universities and companies in similar countries that are moderately innovative (Innovation ScoreBoard 2014). Therefore, interviews were carried out with university researchers and representatives of companies and government agencies.
The same needs emerged during the interviews with company managers and researchers. Essentially, these interviewees are unanimous in confirming that external investment is necessary for them to continue their innovation activities. High R&D costs, as well as the risks associated with these activities, prevent companies from innovating, even with the help of external funds, so universities play a key role in this context. The collaboration between these partners uses government aid more effectively and facilitates the sharing of costs and risks, thereby benefiting both partners (Beck, Lopes-Bento, and Schenker-Wicki 2016; Kang and Park 2012; Veugelers and Cassiman 2005).
Eurostat (2017) statistics for R&D expenditures by sector of activity show quite clear patterns. In terms of the business sector, Portugal (0.67) and Spain (0.66) are far below the European average (1.36) in percentage of gross domestic product, revealing the weak propensity of companies in these two countries to innovate. This tendency is not unusual for moderately innovative countries in which companies wishing to innovate must resort, almost exclusively, to government funds.
In contrast, Portugal (0.56) is slightly above the European Union 28 (EU28) average (0.46), as is Spain (0.33), regarding university R&D, as these institutions function as centers of knowledge and innovation. These figures are indicative of the importance of European Community funds made available by each country’s government through the opening up of grant applications to research teams. This could indicate that Portugal and Spain are committed to innovation and thus to technological development, which promotes stronger economic development.
In terms of government R&D, while Spain (0.21) is close to the EU28 (0.23) average, Portugal (0.07) occupies a lower position indicative perhaps of governmental agencies’ minimal collaboration as a Triple Helix actor. Although the present study’s interviewees considered the government’s role to be important, government entities participate in few initiatives in which partnerships with universities and companies benefit regional economies. Evidence for this can be found in the research mentioned on various government agencies’ websites for the two regions under study.
Measures are thus needed to foster partnerships between universities, governments, and entrepreneurial businesses and to facilitate the creation of networks focused on innovation. Universities are centers of knowledge and the Triple Helix’s central axis. Governments function as financiers and regulators. However, officials’ awareness of their country’s economic reality can give governments the additional role of promoting the transfer of knowledge generated in universities and nontechnological innovations of extreme importance to regional companies but which are difficult to access. An example of this added value for corporations and society in general are ongoing projects that support small- and medium-sized enterprises in countries’ interior regions in the areas of entrepreneurship, internationalization, and innovation promotion.
The Government of Castile and Leon, for example, has developed the Plan de Transferencia de Conocimiento Universidad-Empresa 2015-2017. This plan’s purpose is to “revitalise, within the scope of RIS3 [research and innovation strategies for smart specialization], university-company collaboration and to reinforce even more the link between higher education and the business world.” The plan also seeks to promote “joint strategies between universities and companies.”
Regarding the criteria applied when choosing partners in collaborations between companies and universities, the present results are in agreement with the extensive literature on this subject (Acs, Anselin, and Varga 2002; Acs and Audretsch 1991; D’Este et al. 2013; Feldman and Florida 1994; Fritsch 2002; Greunz 2002; Maietta 2015; Rajalo and Vadi 2017; Varga 2000). Proximity and researchers’ reputation are considered the most important criteria in the search for university partners in innovation processes. Spatial proximity, which the interviewees consider a critical factor, means that partners can follow the research more closely.
The respondents also favor an evaluation of academic partners’ effectiveness and their ability to promote the exchange of knowledge and thus inspire trust (Capello and Faggian 2005; Storper and Venables 2004; Wood and Parr 2005). Regarding researchers’ reputation, Johnston and Huggins’s (2018) study found that most small businesses choose their university partners for the individual academic staff members and not for the university itself. The research previously conducted reveals faculty members’ areas of specialization, which signals which researcher has the appropriate knowledge about the type of innovation companies need. At the government level, a particular researcher’s reputation is also the focal point when choosing academic partners, for the same reasons as those of companies. This confirms that previous work demonstrates researchers’ competencies in given areas, thus making projects more likely to succeed.
As mentioned previously, the three main obstacles to collaboration with universities are: (1) different perspectives on intellectual property, (2) the time required to do research, and (3) a lack of follow-up after the research is finished. Since a patent gives exclusive rights to an invention, companies’ concerns are understandable with regard to the ownership of these rights. However, in most cases, project contracts stipulate both the co-ownership of intellectual property and its licensing (Bengtsson 2017; Link and Scott 2005; Perkmann and West 2014; Tekic and Kelvin 2019). Companies, nonetheless, prefer to be the sole owners as well as to have exclusive control over marketing new products.
The present study’s finding include that universities’ entrepreneurial activities cannot be ignored since these motivate these institutions to compete for both rights and licenses. The interviewees stated that most collaborative innovation is carried out based on government funds, so universities also have a right to ownership. Notably, European guidelines do not allow research based on public funds to be transferred without payment to companies as this would mean that, at the government’s expense, one company would profit rather than all firms. Thus, a potentially less conflict-prone approach is to draw up contracts before research starts, in which all rights are clearly stipulated for the actors involved.
However, the costs and risks associated with R&D make companies reluctant to invest their own funds in these projects (Chen et al. 2018; Bustinza et al. 2019). Despite public funding and cost and risk sharing between companies and universities, the entrepreneurs interviewed feel that time remains a problem to be resolved. From the examples provided by both these entrepreneurs and the researchers, the expected solutions, regardless of any marketing plans, need to implement basic research strategies in which researchers have three years to ensure the results are ready to be marketed (Amsden and Tschang 2003; Beck, Lopes-Bento, and Schenker-Wicki 2016; Chen and Hung 2016; Sun, Wang, and Li 2016; Tijssen 2006). This type of research seeks to develop an extensive knowledge base for future work (Tsang, Yip, and Toh 2008; Grigoriou and Rothaermel 2017).
Therefore, the current research supports the conclusion that companies “want the best of both worlds,” so firms do not spend time or money on R&D and do not have laboratories for this purpose. Instead, companies’ university partners give these firms the desired results, namely, something previously unknown, in record time. Policies that seek to support business innovation could perhaps support companies by “creating” R&D laboratories in universities or by making funds available for temporary, rented laboratories, including hiring junior researchers or purchasing equipment.
Another impediment the interviewees have encountered in collaboration between Triple Helix entities is the lack of follow-up by researchers after the project ends. This failure is considered by both companies and governments to show researchers’ lack of interest, thereby contributing to the breach of trust between Triple Helix partners and preventing future collaboration.
In summary, this study’s results support the conclusion that knowledge cocreation actually occurs in one of two ways, depending on the partners involved in generating innovations: – collaboration with exclusive information sharing, in which all stakeholders participate directly, as in the case of networks created between companies and universities, and – cooperation by means of a formal or informal agreement, as in the case of networks created between companies, universities, and governments, with the latter playing the role of partner in innovation and not just financier and/or regulator.
However, these innovation partnerships are of the utmost importance to all three Triple Helix players, so they remain heavily dependent on government funds. Even the networks created between companies, universities, and governments depend on these funds, either through cross-border cooperation projects or funding by each country’s regional programs.
Thus, it is expected that study deepen the knowledge about the dynamics existing in the Triple Helix, having the government a fundamental role in the cocreation of knowledge. The results expand the previous literature by showing that it is possible for the government propeller to have a more active role in the cocreation of knowledge and wealth generation in any country.
From a practical perspective, this research contributes to the study of the dynamics of relations within the Triple Helix in three main aspects: (1) the results allow to deepen the academic knowledge, regarding the performance of the various stakeholders in the innovation processes, as well as the process of cocreation of knowledge; (2) the results have practical implications for innovation decision-making, including innovation networks and strategies, which will allow companies and regions to foster cooperation/collaboration for innovation; (3) finally, policy initiatives should be differentiated according to the different needs and strategies of innovation, whether technological or nontechnological.
All research has its limitations. In the present study, the first is that the results are based on qualitative research using interviews to collect data and are thus subjective because of a dependence on interviewees’ perceptions. Another limitation is that researchers from all universities and government agencies in the regions under study were not interviewed. In addition, the university rectors’ perspectives were not included. These limitations may represent opportunities for new lines of research, which could involve studying the performance of the selected universities and companies. An equally important task would be to study the results of both governments and industries’ innovation projects.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is supported by national funds, through the FCT – Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology under the project UID/SOC/04011/2019 and the project UID/GES/04630/2019.
