Intermediates in triple helix collaboration: the roles of 4th pillar organisations in public to private technology transfer

Managing triple helix projects is difficult due to differences in culture, incentive mechanisms and overall objectives of the various actors involved. A case study of Precarn, a 4th Pillar or intermediate organisation is used to illustrate how intermediates can help mitigate these difficulties. It is shown that such 4th Pillar organisations are useful, and indeed may be necessary, for successful multi-actor R&D initiatives in the triple helix. The potential benefits of 4th Pillar organisations in supporting triple helix R&D projects are illustrated through the roles Precarn has played in managing it own projects and the successes it has had.

[1]  H. Etzkowitz,et al.  The Innovating Region: Toward a Theory of Knowledge-Based Regional Development , 2005 .

[2]  Elias G. Carayannis,et al.  Revisiting Sematech: Profiling Public- and Private-Sector Cooperation , 2000 .

[3]  Mark Dodgson,et al.  Technological Collaboration in Industry: Strategy, Policy, and Internationalization in Innovation , 1993 .

[4]  Albert N. Link,et al.  Universities as Research Partners , 2003 .

[5]  Sally Davenport,et al.  Collaboration and organisational learning: a study of a New Zealand collaborative research program , 1999 .

[6]  Philippe Mustar,et al.  Partnerships, Configurations and Dynamics in the Creation and Development of SMEs by Researchers , 1998 .

[7]  Mariko Sakakibara,et al.  Evaluating government-sponsored R&D consortia in Japan: who benefits and how? , 1997 .

[8]  Judy C. Shetler,et al.  Building Cooperation in a Competitive Industry: Sematech and the Semiconductor Industry , 1995 .

[9]  Herbert I. Fusfeld,et al.  Collaborative industrial research in the U.S. , 1987 .

[10]  Alexander Gerybadze,et al.  Globalization of R&D: recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations , 1999 .

[11]  Simon Collinson,et al.  Knowledge Networks for New Technology-Based Firms: An International Comparison of Local Entrepreneurship Promotion , 2003 .

[12]  M. C. Jensen,et al.  THEORY OF THE FIRM: MANAGERIAL BEHAVIOR, AGENCY COSTS AND OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE , 1976 .

[13]  O. Granstrand,et al.  Multi-Technology Corporations: Why They Have “Distributed” Rather Than “Distinctive Core” Competencies , 1997 .

[14]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[15]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[16]  Adrian Demaid,et al.  Trans-organizational innovation: a framework for research , 1997 .

[17]  R. Blais,et al.  The innovation galore, from classroom to the shop floor , 1982 .

[18]  L. Leydesdorff.  The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations , 2000 .

[19]  M. Meyer.  Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? research–based ventures and public support mechanisms , 2003 .

[20]  Giuseppe Medda,et al.  University R&D and Firm Productivity: Evidence from Italy , 2004 .

[21]  O. Gassmann,et al.  Organization of industrial R&D on a global scale , 1998 .

[22]  Jiang Wen,et al.  Exploring collaborative R&D network:: some new evidence in Japan , 2001 .

[23]  Doris Schartinger,et al.  Interactive Relations Between Universities and Firms: Empirical Evidence for Austria , 2001 .

[24]  K. Eisenhardt.  Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review , 1989 .

[25]  Sally Davenport,et al.  Collaborative research programmes: building trust from difference , 1998 .

[26]  Rachel Cooper,et al.  The influence of government science and technology policies on new product development in the USA, UK, South Korea and Taiwan , 1998 .

[27]  Richard T. Harrison,et al.  Maximising the Potential of University Spin-Outs: The Development of Second-Order Commercialisation Activities , 2005 .

[28]  Mika P. Nieminen,et al.  Modeling the Triple Helix from a Small Country Perspective: The Case of Finland , 1999 .

[29]  The Spanish innovative firm and the ESPRIT, RACE and EUREKA programmes: An organizational approach , 1995 .

[30]  Ulf Sandström,et al.  Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system , 2000 .

[31]  George E. Brown,et al.  University-industry links: Government as blacksmith☆ , 1981 .

[32]  Lung-Tan Lu,et al.  International Joint Ventures , 2010 .

[33]  Ken Guy,et al.  Collaborative, pre-competitive R&D and the firm , 1995 .

[34]  M. Schultz,et al.  Informal Collaboration in R & D. The formation of Networks Across Organizations , 1993 .

[35]  Carlos Rodrigues,et al.  The triple helix model as a motor for the creative use of telematics , 2000 .