Why Triple Helix governance is useful to dual apprenticeship systems

The TH model

The TH model acknowledges the role of higher education as an innovation engine in knowledge-based societies. Fostering new firm creation, entrepreneurial scientists working in universities and research centres are increasingly involved in collaboration with industry and economic development (Etzkowitz and Leyersdorff, 2000). Academic institutions have been pushed to capitalize their knowledge, using it for economic purposes, and to move towards interdependence, because an ‘entrepreneurial university’ interacts closely with industry and government (Colapinto and Porlezza, 2012). These three spheres – industry, higher education and government – simultaneously compete and collaborate, and the locus of innovation is situated in their arrangements and networking. The TH is a platform for the formation of new institutional and organizational formats. The spheres are rarely equal, so that there is almost always one actor taking the initiative – the so-called ‘innovation organizer’ (Etzkowitz, 2003). Acknowledging that TH systems can be very diverse, Ranga and Etzkowitz (2013) propose three environments for knowledge-based economic development: the Knowledge Space, where knowledge is generated and diffused; the Innovation Space, where economic value is created; and the Consensus Space, where government and non-governmental actors interact to exchange resources and negotiate shared purposes. In the Consensus Space, government does not occupy a privileged position, though it can take an initiating role.

Trust is necessary for interaction, while participants should agree on rules of collaboration. In a Consensus Space, participating organizations are interdependent and begin to perceive themselves as part of a larger system. To explain how a TH system works, Scalia et al. (2018) introduce an analogy with physics: every act of motion is helical and subject to the joint action of two forces: an impulsive force provided by the decision makers and a field force emerging from the involved actors and communities; they share a sense of collective belonging and are driven by common objectives. However, the TH model has been called into question as being too broad and ambiguous for direct application to a real case. Most research has dealt with the macro level of the framework, neglecting the micro-foundations and the actions and situated practices that help in the implementation of the model. Sarpong et al. (2017) state that there are no recipes for how to make the transition towards the TH. Specific processes that address various dimensions of the model need to be found, in particular regarding the interrelations between the members of the system (Villarreal and Calvo, 2014). Moreover, Rodrigues and Melo (2012) emphasize the need to adjust the framework to environments where innovation is mostly non-research and development (R&D) based and firms are predominantly small. Therefore, new case studies will be necessary to add evidence and detail regarding the application of TH model.

Apprenticeship governance as a TH system

In various forms, apprenticeship schemes have been around for centuries. Epstein (1998) argued that the primary purpose of the medieval craft guilds was to provide adequate skills training through formal apprenticeship. Institutionalized apprenticeship triggered a technological edge that contributed to the rise of Europe (De la Croix et al., 2018). These skilled craftsmen played a crucial role in initiating the Industrial Revolution (Meisenzahl and Mokyr, 2011). Today, the apprenticeship system should be considered as an element of the innovation system and a factor of competitiveness (Audretsch and Lehmann, 2016). The recent revival of interest in apprenticeship is attributable to a variety of factors: apprenticeship is an alternative educational pathway to the labour market, as it offers practical training to those who otherwise might not obtain other substantial educational or academic credentials. It facilitates the transition from school to work and, since it involves a salary, it may be attractive to those who cannot afford the tuition fees of tertiary education (Gunderson and Krashinky, 2015). Apprenticeships alleviate skill shortages because they prepare workers with competences more directly linked to industry’s needs (Galletti and Gualdi, 2017). Apprenticeship is also helpful in reducing the numbers of young people who are not in employment, education or training (NEETs) – NEETs account for more than 15% of young people in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries (Moon, 2018).

There are three main forms of apprenticeship: vocational and technical schools; formal apprenticeships; and dual systems, which combine school training with work in a company. In Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland, dual VET accommodates between 40% (Austria) and 80% (Switzerland) of all school leavers and youth unemployment is much lower than in countries where apprenticeship is not so widespread (Eichhorst et al., 2015). In Germany, 3.7% of the labour force is involved in apprenticeship compared to the 0.3% of the US labour force (Smith and Kemmis, 2013). However, the US Department of Labor is committed to expanding apprenticeship into fields such as advanced manufacturing, energy, health and information technology (Kuehn and Jones, 2018). Dual systems are based on the principle that apprenticeship has both on-the-job and off-the-job components. Their combination of employment and education develops competences related to a given trade rather than to a specific workplace (Deissinger and Hellwig, 2005). To design courses and programmes relevant to the business sector, both public authorities and employers should be involved. Even in countries where vocational education is employer-led, as in Denmark, the role of public institutions is crucial (Albæk, 2009). As an example, a successful apprenticeship system, such as the German one, involves employers’ associations, trade unions, educators and government representatives (Ryan, 2000). Often, these stakeholders have different, diverging interests, and so a careful distribution of costs and benefits for apprenticeship schemes is essential if they are to be successful.

Apprenticeship systems require attentive governance, which is often the result of complex political processes (Lange, 2012). Apprenticeship systems evolve over time: in Germany, the traditional state-driven steering-by-law approach has been replaced by a wider governance. More decision-making power and broader scope were granted to schools to make training more driven by the requirements of the labour market, with an increasing focus on individual enterprises and their specific work profiles. On the other hand, this decentralization of power creates a loss of relevance for stakeholders such as the unions (Kuhlee, 2015).

Apprenticeship in Italy

Apprenticeship also has a long tradition in Italy. During the Renaissance, artists’ workshops like that of Andrea del Verrocchio, where Leonardo da Vinci improved his painting skills, were rather common. Apprenticeship has been regulated in Italy since 1938, with comprehensive legislation introduced in 1955. The Biagi Law, enacted by a Legislative Decree in 2003, introduced new apprenticeship contracts: educational training apprenticeships, providing training and access to the labour market for school leavers; vocational training apprenticeships, combining on-the-job training with a technical or vocational qualification; and higher-level apprenticeships, with advanced technical training leading to a high-school diploma or university-level qualification. With these contracts, the employee receives training at the employer’s expense in addition to remuneration (Tiraboschi, 2005). The Single Act of 2011 was meant to create an organic apprenticeship legislation (Pastore, 2015), but it was replaced by the Jobs Act in 2015 (Assolombarda, 2016a). These were the three levels of apprenticeship established:

Apprenticeship for an educational qualification and a professional diploma: the diploma of upper secondary education and the certificate of superior technical specialization.

The second level of apprenticeship is historically the predominant one in terms of the number of apprentices. The first and third levels bring Italian legislation closer to the dual system strongly developed in its northern neighbour countries and increase the relevance and profile of Italian education and training institutions in the apprenticeship system.

Research question and methodology

The literature review helped to identify theory gaps and a scarcity of empirical cases for the TH framework. It is also useful to test the transferability/generalizability (Leung, 2015) of the TH model to circumstances in which the educational sphere interacts with public administration and business, which are increasingly frequent in local and regional development policies (Cooke, 2012). To study how the TH framework is relevant to apprenticeship systems, this article will answer the following research questions:

Is the TH model applicable to a case of temporary interaction between the three spheres?

This article is based on documents that were not collected primarily for scientific purposes. They are part of the deliverables of a publicly funded project (the EU Erasmus+ programme, Key Action 3: Support for Policy Reform) that ran for 24 months from late 2016 to late 2018. The title of the project was FAIR – Fostering Apprenticeship sharing Ideas and Resources. Its scope was to raise awareness of the benefits of apprenticeship for companies and young people and to promote its diffusion. ¹ The project was carried out in three areas: Milan in Italy, Giurgiu in Romania and Valencia in Spain. Only the Italian case is examined here because of more direct access to information. Therefore, it is an individual case study with an instrumental orientation. Instrumental case studies provide insights or help to refine a theoretical explanation (Berg, 2001).

A multiple methods approach is used, combining direct observation and documentary analysis, complemented by interviews. Multiple methods approaches help in the gathering of credible, reliable and relevant information and the building of useful knowledge for the advancement of a cause or project and the improvement of the immediate circumstances (Oultram, 2012). The documents analysed in this case include pieces of legislation, project reports, official statistics and publications from trade associations. Direct observation occurred through the active participation of the author in the FAIR project in several stages. First, the author was an advisor for a local public administration dealing with economic and social development and the monitoring of new labour contracts. Therefore, people knew that he was watching them (though not for research purposes) and could interact with him. This is reactive observation (Russell Bernard, 2013). Second, he facilitated the four events that are examined here and carried out additional interviews to write the best practice cases. All the events but the last were essentially focus groups, with a clearly defined topic and the aim of enabling and recording discussion among participants (see Appendix 1 for the structure of the focus groups). The events were summarized and discussed in the Innovation Report, an official project deliverable written by the author. Direct personal involvement may reduce objectivity but enables a more complete view and a deeper knowledge of the facts and may therefore allow for more accurate interpretation (Saunders et al., 2008).

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with dual system apprenticeship stakeholders to learn about their experience of both the new legislation and the Think Tank (see Appendix 2 for a list of questions). The respondents were selected from those with the most innovative cases. Questions were sent in advance and interviews were recorded, transcribed and then revised by the respondents. Informal and formal conversations were held with policymakers at national, regional and metropolitan levels. Businesses were represented through the two main employer associations in Italy. One of the project partners was the training branch of Italy’s largest employers’ association, while the small business association regularly participated in the meetings. In terms of research purpose, this work can be considered a descripto-explanatory study; that is, it describes a certain phenomenon as a precursor to explanation. In other words, the description is useful in understanding the relationship between variables. The unit of analysis is the Think Tank and its meetings, and the pattern matching procedure has an explanation building purpose. Explanation building is designed to test a theoretical proposition iteratively (Saunders et al., 2008). The research strategy is based on archival data. Indeed, as already noted, the documents (transcriptions of Think Tank activities and individual interviews) were originally written for other purposes (project deliverables). However, the material is recorded and available and the Innovation Report is a public document (Berg, 2001). The events were interpreted through a pattern matching strategy (Yin, 2014).

The FAIR project

The FAIR project confirmed a growing interest in WBL experiences which, in addition to apprenticeships, include paid and unpaid internships, work placement and job shadowing. These instruments are designed to improve the competences of students and to make them ready for work, although the quality of WBL programmes depends on the connection between schools and firms (Onstenk and Blockhuis, 2007). Project beneficiaries were companies, public bodies, universities and training institutions, professional service providers for businesses, chambers of commerce and young people who would be potentially involved in WBL and apprenticeships. WBL can help to reduce early school leaving and increase the employment rate if there is coordination between the educational and labour settings (Horn, 2016). The relevance of the FAIR project for Italy, Spain and Romania, the three countries involved, was that they all experienced high youth unemployment. One of the project partners was the Metropolitan City of Milan (MCM) in the Lombardy region of Italy. This government body replaced the former Province of Milan in 2015, although there was substantial continuity in terms of resources and functions. The MCM covers 134 municipalities, including Lombardy’s main city of Milan. In the FAIR project, the MCM was a work package leader and had a number of tasks, including the organization of a Think Tank – that is, a series of meetings with the stakeholders of the apprenticeship system in the metropolitan area of Milan and more generally in the region of Lombardy. Similar meetings were organized by other partners in Romania and Spain but, given the specificities of the legislation in each country, there was no coordination between them. Their objective was to discuss the apprenticeship situation in the region concerned, to identify barriers to diffusion and to provide input for the Innovation Report, a position paper to be submitted to the relevant policymakers in order to improve public programmes, legislation and its implementation.

These expert groups were set up by inviting local key players involved in activities related to apprenticeships. Specifically, the MCM, with the support of an external expert (the author of this article) and the FAIR project Lead Partner (Formaper, the training and entrepreneurship support agency of the Chamber of Commerce of Milan), organized and managed the Italian Think Tank. It was decided to hold a preparatory meeting, followed by one meeting for each of the new apprenticeship instruments (i.e. the first and third levels). All meetings were attended by a representative of the Office of the Education, Training and Labour Department of the Lombardy Region. In addition, one or more representatives of the provincial and regional branches of the Ministry of Education actively contributed to the panel of public administration bodies. Representatives of employers’ associations, payroll consultants, training agencies and universities completed the panel. These stakeholders represented the TH academic, business and government spheres. The Think Tank output was officially presented at a public conference. The four events occurred between September 2017 and May 2018.

The Think Tank meetings

Attendance at the first three meetings was by invitation only, while the fourth event was open to local stakeholders involved in apprenticeship and WBL programmes. A first meeting with a core group of stakeholders was held in September 2017 at the MCM premises. Its purpose was to meet knowledgeable parties and obtain an overview of the state of apprenticeship in the metropolitan area. Moreover, their willingness to participate in the Think Tank was checked. Also, thanks to good personal and institutional relations, these key stakeholders attended despite short notice. In addition to MCM people and the project leader, the meeting was attended by the head of the office dealing with apprenticeship in the Lombardy Region, a representative of the association of small and medium-sized enterprises, the apprenticeship manager of a vocational training school and a manager from a consortium of local municipalities delivering services related to work and training. The presence of the Lombardy Region at the Think Tank was crucial for various reasons. In Italy, regional governments are in charge of transposing and adapting national legislation to their territory. Moreover, through periodic calls, they fund apprenticeship programmes. This gives them knowledge and power in relation to what happens on the ground and, of course, employers and training agencies are keen on nurturing close contact with policymakers.

At this meeting, we learnt that the dual apprenticeship system represented about 5% of the total apprenticeship contracts, the vast majority being professionalizing apprenticeships. In the previous year, approximately 2000 first-level and more than 200 third-level apprenticeships were signed, putting Lombardy among the Italian regions with the highest number of dual system contracts (Corno, 2018). We learnt also that the second-level (professionalizing) apprenticeship is popular with employers due to its limited training content and relative simplicity. On the other hand, the dual system requires coordination between school and workplace, and priority conflicts often arise between them. Moreover, business service professionals tend to recommend traditional contracts because they are better known and easier to implement. Universities have also been experimenting with the dual system.

The representatives of both training agencies and employer associations lauded the work of the regional government because of its strong support for the apprenticeship system over the years. According to the participants, the size and resources of companies employing apprentices were success factors. Indeed, under-resourced firms could not effectively transfer competencies. Moreover, apprentices should be hired for organizational purposes rather than economic benefits, because they should be a long-term investment. However, the business representatives insisted on the need to limit labour costs and bureaucratic constraints. In this regard, there was consensus on the cumbersome nature of national legislation and a need for its simplification but also an awareness of the consultative role of the Think Tank.

Focused on first-level apprenticeships, the second meeting was held in October 2017 with the most relevant local stakeholders. In addition to the previous participants, this time representatives were present from the Municipality of Milan, the regional office of the Italian Ministry of Education, a large trade and retail association, a foundation involved in youth employment, a member of the national association of payroll consultants and the main public and private agencies of the metropolitan area. Participants were divided in two groups, one with members from the economic world and the other from the educational sector. The first group was unanimous in its appreciation of the opportunities and potential offered by the new forms of apprenticeship. To make them better known, the association of regional training institutions published a guide. On the other hand, again there was a call for the simplification of procedures and standardization of forms. Other issues that emerged during the discussion were the transferability of acquired skills and the criteria for grant assignment. According to the participants, organizing apprentice training was difficult because of the cultural distance between the education and business sectors, but continuous interaction could reduce it. Vocational schools were considered generally better than traditional higher education institutions at adapting their courses to companies’ needs, but all schools and training institutions would benefit from closer business ties.

The second working group expressed similar comments: the dual system was consistent with the interests of companies and apprentices. Apprentices receive a real education, combining theoretical study at school with the technical and soft skills learned at work. Not surprisingly, the demand for apprenticeship is growing – so much so that concerns about the future availability of funds were raised. This group confirmed the value of collaboration between stakeholders as a lever for encouraging the dissemination of new apprenticeship contracts. Moreover, it appears that apprenticeship governance is a highly complex problem because of the number of stakeholders involved and their different agendas. For example, the representatives of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education, the two national institutions involved in apprenticeship, expressed different views at the meeting. Communication was also thought to be difficult between national and regional government, and sometimes even between different regional governments. Again, a more precise professional profile and greater alignment between the theoretical and practical competences of apprentices were urged and the limited knowledge about this instrument among professional operators was criticized. Other missing elements were a software program for managing the dual apprenticeships system and training for teachers. However, participants said that other options, such as unpaid internships, should remain available.

The third meeting took place in November 2017 and covered the third-level apprenticeship. Most of the previous participants attended, and there was additional representation from a university and a couple of higher technical institutes – Istituti Tecnici Superiori (ITS) – that were already using this instrument. The presence of the ITS representatives was particularly interesting: ITSs deliver tertiary education and their students can be hired as apprentices to carry out R&D activities. The introduction of ITSs in Italy was relatively recent, though similar institutions have been around for decades in other countries (Bertagna, 2014): one example for all is the German Fachoschule (Kuczera, 2017). Created to provide higher education with a strong vocational orientation to strategic sectors, the schools provide degrees equivalent to the fifth level of the European Qualification Framework. By law, they are non-profit public–private partnerships. Typical founding partners are local governments, universities and high school institutes, large and small private companies, unions and training agencies (Assolombarda, 2016b). In other words, each ITS is a TH institution in itself. Currently, only few third-level apprentices come from university programmes: apparently, academic institutions struggle to put in place programmes that include apprenticeship. Noteworthy exceptions are a joint programme of apprenticeship between a private university and a German bank, and the collaboration between a public university and an employer association on a bachelor’s programme in computer sciences with dual system characteristics. It was underscored at the meeting that, with third-level apprenticeships, young researchers can find a job more easily in industry and R&D is more affordable for companies. Many comments were similar to those at the previous events: appreciation for the new legislation, limited knowledge about the new forms of apprenticeship, the need to reduce the administrative complexity. Requests to the policymakers were to integrate apprenticeships with other instruments, such as the regional inventory of professions, to involve the stakeholders even more in the design of policies and programmes and to fix bugs in the public information system as well as incongruities in the portal website. It was also proposed that apprenticeships could be used for retraining older people and, at the same time, fears were voiced about the exploitation of young workers through WBL schemes.

The Think Tank cycle ended at the MCM premises in May with a conference entitled ‘The Italian way to apprenticeship: Collaboration between training and businesses in the dual system’. Several dozen stakeholders attended the event. Notably, regional and metropolitan politicians confirmed their commitment to supporting apprenticeships. The centrepiece at the conference was the presentation and signature of the Apprenticeship Statement, a declaration of intent on what apprenticeship should aim for and how apprentices should be trained. Because of the wide endorsement from parties of all three TH spheres, the Think Tank was a success and probably one of the main achievements of the FAIR project.

Discussion and findings

This study is based on two assumptions. First, it includes in the academic sphere not only universities but also higher education institutions such as the ITSs. Second, it considers the Think Tank of the FAIR project as a TH system despite its temporary nature and its indirect relationship to innovation. Although no major decisions were taken during the FAIR Think Tanks, the most important stakeholders participated, exchanging experiences and points of view.

A consensus was reached on how apprenticeship should be enacted. Collaboration is often the outcome of an engineered process and requires a triggering entity that creates the conditions needed for it to happen. The active presence of regional policymakers added purpose, while the MCM was both the ‘innovation organizer’ (Etzkowitz, 2003) and the honest broker providing a neutral ground for discussion (Ring et al., 2005). The well-received new legislation and the presence of qualified stakeholders made the process smoother and more constructive. Everyone understood that trade-offs were unavoidable and certain problems needed to be solved at another institutional level, so the discussion converged on practical issues. As a proof of the success of the Think Tank, the Innovation Report, containing remarks and recommendations for the improvement of apprenticeships based on the inputs of the stakeholders, was written for the purposes of the project, but it was not submitted to the policymakers. Indeed, the interactions between them and the other participants helped to clarify issues and solve pending problems, making the report redundant – the Statement of Apprenticeship, agreed by all the major stakeholders, superseded it.

This case is an example of fruitful collaboration between all the components of the TH and, although innovation was not the primary aim of the Think Tank, it will help participants to become more innovative (McEvily and Zaheer, 1999). A recurring factor related to governance is the trend of the apprenticeship system towards decentralization. The focus of policies and initiatives shifts from national to regional and then to local government, from national employer associations to local branches and then to individual firms, from the Ministry of Education to individual universities and to new higher education institutions. The TH spheres of the TH keep the same names, but the level and the players are no longer the same. Moreover, because of the multilevel governance, each sphere may contain several layers of representatives, each with its own set of interactors (Trivellato et al., 2017). New actors such as the ITSs arrive, while others, like the unions, lose relevance. The scope of the TH spheres also evolves: entrepreneurial universities contribute to economic development through the creation of firms (Etzkowitz, 2003). However, because apprenticeships increase youth employment and economic inclusion (not to mention the impact on innovation and competitiveness), universities engaging in dual system programmes contribute to social development, which is equally important. On the other hand, the different levels of adoption of the new instrument suggest that not all higher education institutions are equally entrepreneurial, though the differences may be attributable in part to the relative novelty of the legislation. Concerning the rate of adoption, companies that have had experience in countries with a strong dual system seem to be the pioneers with this instrument.

The boundaries of the TH spheres are rather fuzzy, and other stakeholders may be included in the TH apprenticeship system. In our case study, apprentices, their families (in the case of under-aged students) and the general public are direct and indirect beneficiaries to take into account. Moreover, professional service organizations such as payroll consultants, software houses and temporary work agencies may seem secondary, but they play a role in the success of the apprenticeships. Another key factor is the availability of financial resources. In our case, it was clear that government money was necessary. Of course, companies can cover the training costs of apprentices (though the business associations were clear about the need to keep the costs down). In practice, however, leaving the burden to companies may favour those with most resources and reduce the overall impact of apprenticeship (Freeman and Soete, 1997). If apprenticeships need public funding, the TH system that governs it also needs resources to sustain the interaction (in this case, the resources came from the European Commission, which funded the FAIR project), and this is not an explicit factor in the TH model.

Inside each TH system, there are persistent factors that can make it more or less successful. Personal and institutional bonds may be useful in mobilizing people across different administrations and organizations. Regional social capital matters, as do the forms of trust that foster it (Malecki, 2012), and the origins of trust often lie in previous transactions (Coletti et al., 2018). Although the Think Tank was a temporary endeavour, we learnt during the meetings that, directly or indirectly, the stakeholders already knew each other. In other words, the TH apprenticeship system (and the bonds among its members) already existed in Lombardy, at least embryonically, and the Think Tank was a stage in an ongoing dialogue that, over time, created a sense of collective belonging (Scalia et al., 2018). This is not to diminish the relevance of the Think Tank but rather to explain the willingness of the stakeholders to participate in such a public platform. Providing the motivating force, the FAIR project and its Think Tank were an opportunity for the TH apprenticeship system to regather, and this supports the assumption that Think Tank was a TH system. It helped that the objectives of the Think Tank were clear, practical and relevant to participants, the timing was favourable and there was the opportunity to access several levels of government. Despite their different political orientations, the public authorities shared the commitment to apprenticeships and were fully engaged in the process.

Because our case involves a range of stakeholders beyond the original three spheres, it may be suggested that the TH of our case actually is not made of only three helices. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) show the evolutionary nature of the TH model and explain why it cannot be deterministic. Therefore, attempts to add one or two helices may fall short in such a complex world (Carayannis et al., 2012). The strength of the TH model is perhaps not in its precision, but in the intuition that there is no longer one sphere of society that is superior to the others and that the spheres cannot work in isolation. They must act together and, in doing so, each sphere will have an impact on the others. Besides teaching and research, an entrepreneurial university should have a strong third mission, with a positive impact on society. Companies are increasingly expected to deliver value not only in terms of products, services and profit but also for society and the environment (Porter and Kramer, 2011). Moreover, the government is no longer the ‘boss’, but a partner whose function is to facilitate processes related to the creation and diffusion of knowledge, the development and valorization of innovation and the achievement of a consensus on public priorities and actions (Borrás and Edquist, 2013). To collaborate more effectively, the spheres need to take something from each other, with the helices intersecting and turning in a continuous state of flux. To use a biological metaphor similar to the business ecosystem concept (Adner, 2017), it is about replacing the Darwinian paradigm of linear evolution with the tangled tree paradigm (Woese and Fox, 1977). In the former, the limbs of a tree grow into increasingly differentiated branches and leaves, while in the latter boundaries of individuals and species are blurred, and the system looks like a mesh rather than a tree.

As the case presented here shows, the value of dual apprenticeship systems goes beyond the area of traditional crafts and can be successfully governed using a TH approach. However, they require multilevel governance, sometimes involving institutions that are TH systems in themselves. The TH framework is an effective and inclusive form of governance (Snow et al., 2016). Moreover, it is flexible enough to accommodate specific circumstances and stakeholders’ evolution. The overlapping and juxtaposition of competences and functions helps to explain how collaboration may start, though this is not a spontaneous process: in our case, it was promoted and organized by an institutional partner within a publicly funded project. Other factors sustain the collaborative process: a shared vision and aligned objectives, a sense of belonging, trust among partners and capable impartial leadership are key elements of every collaboration (Coletti and Landoni, 2017). However, a TH-based governance works only if there are sufficient financial resources to support it.

In terms of academic contribution, this study extends the TH theory to take into account social issues previously neglected in favour of a narrower economic view of innovation. A policy implication is that dual apprenticeship systems require a continuous dialogue between the TH spheres and their stakeholders, and this implies a culture of collaboration and engagement that is both a prerequisite and an outcome. The main limitation of this work is that it is based on only one case: but while this may limit its generalizability, it also provides scope for further research.

Conclusions

Starting from a case study of institutional collaboration, the study shows that the TH approach is at the core of successful dual apprenticeship systems. TH interactions are processes that need to be supported and governed. They are characteristic of free and democratic societies (Etzkowitz, 2003), and it is to be hoped that they will become the standard governance form for complex systems. The collaboration involved is not a spontaneous phenomenon but requires resources and practice. In addition, pre-existing conditions will enhance or limit the potential achievements, and TH initiatives have a better chance of success where there is already a collaborative culture. An effective TH system will self-reinforce more easily than a weak one, because tangible and intangible factors are already in place. Of primary importance are the overall benefits for society, which cannot be measured simply by economic and financial indicators.

Dual apprenticeship systems have societal and competiveness impacts. Educational institutions, policymakers and businesses should engage in shared platforms and commit to developing the best schemes for apprentices and firms. Furthermore, modern societies evolve rapidly, and the TH spheres will need to adjust accordingly. Adding further helices to the TH model may lead to an illusory theoretical completeness, but it is nevertheless time for the TH framework to take into account the multiple aspects of societal development and to make explicit the pursuit of objectives for the common good.