Results of the quadruple helix
| Authors | Results from the quadruple helix |
|---|---|
| Schoonmaker and Carayannis (2013) | Based on two methods for mapping the quadruple helix and knowledge generation modes, authors noticed, in four Maryland firms, the ability to operate within an innovation network that adopts the Mode 3 of knowledge generation. These operate on the border of the quadruple helix, and one of them works in partnership to seek R&D |
| Mulyaningsih (2015) | In the case of CCA, the fourth helix (association) has a huge contribution in fostering the strengthening and improvement of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the region; in supporting local government for economic growth; and in providing ICT innovation for the public service. As for CDC, the fourth helix (community center) plays an essential role in creating community-based programs to boost ICT users and strengthen the innovation ecosystem through technology, considering the community both as beneficiary and market, creating needs and receiving demands for community’s goods and services |
| Pascoal and Cabrita (2016) | The authors proposed three distinct roles for the new generation of STPs: ecosystem for innovation pilots; key-actor of the quadruple helix model; and connectivity and external appearance |
| McAdam et al. (2016) | It was evident that the differences in the incubation processes at the two universities were caused by their culture, internal mechanisms and engagement with partners of the quadruple helix. Case 1 adopted a traditional model of incubator, whereas Case 2 chose a model of virtual incubator that meets the requirements and allows more interaction among the actors. The situation of the incubators is in contrast to the recent policy that identifies the need for the quadruple helix partners to work in collaboration, to reach a stage of high interdependence and help co-creating innovative ecosystems, thus improving regional development. In the cases studied, there is dependency among the actors, with a strong influence from the university |
| Campanella et al. (2017) | In STPs, “the Quadruple Helix” (user) has an important role in classifying firms with the highest performance. The empirical analysis highlighted that a high return on investment for firms in STPs happens with: companies that give great importance to collaboration with users, consumers and citizens for creating their innovation; companies that attach great importance to collaboration with private financial institutions to fund innovation; and companies that provide product innovation |
| Machado et al. (2018) | Relevance of STPs’ role for the success of innovation models that have integrating functions with the community and the natural environment. It should be considered that interaction between agents and STPs is established through collaboration mechanisms and moderation of conflicts |
| Authors | Results from the quadruple helix |
|---|---|
| Based on two methods for mapping the quadruple helix and knowledge generation modes, authors noticed, in four Maryland firms, the ability to operate within an innovation network that adopts the Mode 3 of knowledge generation. These operate on the border of the quadruple helix, and one of them works in partnership to seek R&D | |
| In the case of CCA, the fourth helix (association) has a huge contribution in fostering the strengthening and improvement of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the region; in supporting local government for economic growth; and in providing ICT innovation for the public service. As for CDC, the fourth helix (community center) plays an essential role in creating community-based programs to boost ICT users and strengthen the innovation ecosystem through technology, considering the community both as beneficiary and market, creating needs and receiving demands for community’s goods and services | |
| The authors proposed three distinct roles for the new generation of STPs: ecosystem for innovation pilots; key-actor of the quadruple helix model; and connectivity and external appearance | |
| It was evident that the differences in the incubation processes at the two universities were caused by their culture, internal mechanisms and engagement with partners of the quadruple helix. Case 1 adopted a traditional model of incubator, whereas Case 2 chose a model of virtual incubator that meets the requirements and allows more interaction among the actors. The situation of the incubators is in contrast to the recent policy that identifies the need for the quadruple helix partners to work in collaboration, to reach a stage of high interdependence and help co-creating innovative ecosystems, thus improving regional development. In the cases studied, there is dependency among the actors, with a strong influence from the university | |
| In STPs, “the Quadruple Helix” (user) has an important role in classifying firms with the highest performance. The empirical analysis highlighted that a high return on investment for firms in STPs happens with: companies that give great importance to collaboration with users, consumers and citizens for creating their innovation; companies that attach great importance to collaboration with private financial institutions to fund innovation; and companies that provide product innovation | |
| Relevance of STPs’ role for the success of innovation models that have integrating functions with the community and the natural environment. It should be considered that interaction between agents and STPs is established through collaboration mechanisms and moderation of conflicts |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.