• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Marina Ranga
 

Marina Ranga

on

  • 1,277 views

The ‘Grand Challenges’ of the Triple Helix

The ‘Grand Challenges’ of the Triple Helix

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,277
Views on SlideShare
692
Embed Views
585

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0

1 Embed 585

http://triplehelix.stanford.edu 585

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Marina Ranga Marina Ranga Presentation Transcript

    • The ‘Grand Challenges’ of the Triple Helix Marina RangaTriple Helix Research Group, H-STAR Institute, Stanford University Triple Helix Workshop ‘Building the Entrepreneurial University’ Stanford, 12 November 2012
    • The ‘Grand Challenges’ concept• Defined by the 2009 Lisbon Treaty and formalized in the Europe 2020Strategy, referring to: • global warming • energy supply and security • poverty • water scarcity and quality • food supply and quality • ageing society • public health • international terrorism • changes in the world economy • significant social, economic and environmental implications.• Wide consensus on the key role that STI play in addressing the grandchallenges, and on the need for an integrated approach, going beyondspecific sectors, institutions, technologies or policy domains.
    • The ‘Grand Challenges’ of the Triple Helix1. Provide a systemic approach of innovation – ‘Triple Helix Systems’2. Enhance visibility at the regional innovation policy-making and practicelevel – ‘smart specialization’ of regions3. Provide new education methods and business models - innovation inHigher Education - Technology as a disruptive enabler of new education business models - New distribution channels and new providers of knowledge and education - Global demand for education and internationalisation4. Enhance visibility at the higher level of innovation policy-making, e.g. EU(Horizon 2020),OECD, etc. – Triple Helix Ambassadors
    • 1. Provide a systemic approach of innovation – ‘Triple Helix Systems’• TH moving away from being a more or less sophisticated academic conceptto being a ‘building brick’ of everyday’s innovation policy & practice - shift from mono-disciplinary  multi/interdisciplinary research - shift from single  hybrid occupations and institutions, esp. at U-I interface - shift from linear non-linear professional development, career flexibility• TH innovation moving beyond innovation primarily as a firm-centred processto innovation involving multiple stakeholders - Consolidation of the Entrepreneurial University - Shift to open innovation systems, networks, clusters; - Co-existence of top-down and bottom-up strategies and partnerships - Increasing recognition of non-R&D innovation and public sector innovation• TH innovation outcomes no longer limited to products, processes andtechnologies, but having broad social and cultural implications: - higher education: social models of entrepreneurs - labour market and employment: create more and better jobs - competitiveness and sustainable economic growth, especially in thecontext of the economic crisis: innovation largely absent from reform strategies ofdebt-stricken countries•
    • From Triple Helix ‘spheres’ to ‘spaces’ Consensus Space StateIndustry Academia Knowledge Space Innovation in innovation Innovation Space timeEtzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) Ranga and Etzkowitz (2012)
    • Triple Helix Systems: components, relationships, functions1. Components: U-I-G institutional spheres and specific actorsa) R&D and non-R&D innovatorsb) “Single-sphere” and “multi-sphere” (hybrid) institutions - High specialization and work centralization, limited mobility of workers, rigid and inertial institutional boundaries, low interaction with entities of another institutional sphere -Smaller-scale hierarchies, fewer layers and more decentralized decision- making, increased flexibility and responsiveness to changing market demand, permeability of institutional boundariesa) Distinction between individuals and institutions -Individuals: the ‘Innovation Organizer’, the Entrepreneurial Scientist
    • Triple Helix Systems: components, relationships, functions2. Relationships:a.Collaboration and conflict moderation, turning tension and conflict ofinterest into convergence of interest and ‘win-win’ situations.b.Collaborative leadership: ensures the success of a heterogeneousteam to accomplish a shared purpose. Essential role of ‘InnovationOrganizer” + mix of top-down and bottom-up processes to buildagreement, generate support for new ideas.c.Substitution: institutional spheres fill gaps that emerge when anothersphere is weak, e.g. government and public venture capital, universities,and technology transfer and firm formation, industry developing trainingand research.d. Networking into formal and informal structures at national, regional andinternational level
    • Triple Helix Systems: components, relationships, functions3. Functions: Knowledge, Innovation and Consensus , realised through: • Knowledge Space: knowledge generation, diffusion and use from R&D and non-R&D activities • Innovation Space: formation and functioning of hybrid organizations that promote innovation. •Consensus Space: formal and informal governance activities that bring together the U-I-G actors to brainstorm, discuss, evaluate advancement towards a knowledge-based regime.•TH Spaces consider time as the 4th dimension (four-dimensionalspaces), diachronic interaction among U-I-G in constructing innovationsystems:• Triple Helix Spaces do not replace the ‘spheres’, they work in tandem toprovide an engine for regional renewal  a new paradigm for regionaldevelopment policy and practice.
    • TH Systems improvements compared to the NIS• Fine-grained description of system actors, relationships andfunctioning through a diachronic transition between the Knowledge,Innovation and Consensus Spaces.• Inclusion of both institutional and individual actors: the formerthrough the ‘single-sphere’ and ‘multi-sphere’ (hybrid) organizationalformats, and the latter, with concepts like the ‘innovation organizer’and ‘entrepreneurial scientist•TH Systems supersede sectoral and technology boundaries circulation across UIG boundaries, to allow combination of regionaland local resources for realising joint objectives and new institutionalformats in any of the Knowledge, Innovation and Consensus spaces.
    • 2. Enhance visibility at the regional innovation policy-making and practice level - ‘smart specialization’ of regionsIncreasing role of regions as the critical nexus for innovation: • Widening disparities across and within countries after the crisis  a regional approach of innovation needed for maintaining national growth • Top 10% performing regions of OECD countries account for around 40% of OECD GDP, employment and population growth in the past 15 years • Narrowing gap between urban and rural areas in some countries slower growth rate in many large metropolitan regions, faster in rural regions • Around 10% of OECD regions account for 1/3 of total OECD R&D expenditure and 50%+ of patent applications (JP, DE, US + DK, ES, ROK) • Several regions catching up with national leaders in high-tech manufacturing employment and knowledge-intensive sectors (OECD Regions at a Glance, 2011)
    • 2. Enhance visibility at the regional innovation policy- making and practice level - ‘smart specialization’ of regions‘Smart specialization’• See Foray, D., P. A. David and B. Hall (2009), Smart Specialisation – The Concept, Knowledge EconomistsPolicy Brief n° 9, June 2009 at http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/kfg_policy_brief_no9.pdf• EU Smart Specialisation Platform http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home• No top-down industrial policy in accord with a pre-conceived “grand plan”, nor aforesight exercise, but a process of developing a vision, identifying competitiveadvantage, setting strategic priorities and making use of smart policies to maximisethe knowledge-based development potential of any region, strong or weak, high-techor low-tech.• Leader regions invest in the invention of a General Purpose technology (GPT) or thecombination of different GPTs (bioinformatics)• Follower regions invest in the « co-invention of applications » - i.e. development ofthe applications of a GPT in one or several important domains of the regionaleconomy (e.g. biotechnology applications to exploitation of maritime resources;nanotechnology applied to wine quality control, fishing, cheese and olive oil industries;IT to the maintenance of archaeological and historical patrimony).
    • 2. Enhance visibility at the regional innovation policy- making and practice level - ‘smart specialization’ of regionsAdvantages:• Follower regions become part of a realistic and practicable competitiveenvironment, players more symmetrically endowed• Creation of viable market niches, less exposure to larger externalcompetitors• Retaining regional human capacities and resources formed in particularthrough regional higher education, professional training and researchprogrammes as «co-specialised assets »• Shift from competing regions (zero-sum game) to collaborating regions(win-win, value creation game), creation of regional consortia to combineand amplify strengths, identifying ‘local champions’ and leaders topromote and manage the change;• Shift from a traditional exogenous development strategy, attractingMNCs subsidiaries to the region to boost development, to an endogenousone, based on local capacity-building and investment in local talent andinfrastructure
    • 3. Provide new education methods - innovation in Higher Education-Technology as a disruptive enabler of new education business models •Technology seen as a means to break down geographic, ethnic/racial, economic barriers to education, increase HE access to more students, alleviate capacity constraints, capitalize on emerging market opportunities. • Universities offering online/distance education are perceived as modern and technologically] competent, thus creating a competitive advantage.- New distribution channels and new providers of knowledge andeducation • Knowledge-intensive enterprises develop more and more own proprietary education and training solutions (GoogleEDU, Pixar University, Intel Academy, Cisco Academy, Apple University) • By 2015, 25 mil postsecondary students in the US will take classes online, and students taking classes exclusively on physical campuses falling from 14.4 mil in 2010 to just 4.1 mil in 2015 (Ambient Insight, 2012). •7% growth rate per year of U.S. market for distance learning-related products in HE education  6.1 billion by 2015 (ibid). •US Department of Education estimates the total U.S. market for postsecondary education is more than $386 billion (Apollo Group, 2010)
    • 3. Provide new education methods - innovation in Higher Education- Global demand for education and internationalisation • Need to provide HE access to a student population with changing demographics, increasing mobility and knowledge of new technologies, expecting widely available customized learning everywhere in the world. • Massification of HE and availability of financial aid for students • Growth in tuition prices- New HE business models and new policies that sustain rather than stiflenew providers and products are necessary.- Multiple challenges in implementing such new models and policies, asthey touch upon the basic cost structure, delivery system and organizationof traditional HE.
    • 4. Enhance visibility at the higher level of innovation policy-making,e.g. EU (Europe 2020),OECD, etc. – Triple Helix AmbassadorsEurope 2020Priorities Flagship initiativesSmart growth: • ‘Innovation Union’ (Innovation)developing an economy based on • ‘Youth on the move’ (Education)knowledge and innovation • ‘Digital agenda for Europe’ (Digital Society)Sustainable growth: • ‘Resource-efficient Europe’ (Climate,promoting a more resource-efficient, energy and mobility)greener and more competitive economy. • ‘An industrial policy for the globalisation era’ (Competitiveness)Inclusive growth: • ‘An agenda for new skills and jobs’fostering a high-employment economy (Employment and skills)delivering social and territorial cohesion • ‘European platform against poverty’ (Fighting poverty)
    • Action lines derived from the Flagship Initiatives (1)Innovation Union- Foster excellence and smart specialisation, reinforce cooperation betweenuniversities, research and business, implement joint programmes and enhance cross-border co-operation in areas with value added, adjust national funding procedures toensure technology diffusion;– Ensure a sufficient supply of STEM graduates and focus school curricula oncreativity, innovation and entrepreneurship;– Prioritise knowledge expenditure, including by using tax incentives and otherfinancial instruments to promote greater private R&D investments.Youth on the Move- Ensure efficient investment in education and training systems at all levels;- Improve educational outcomes, addressing each segment within an integratedapproach, encompassing key competences and reducing early school leaving;- Enhance the openness and relevance of education systems by building nationalqualification frameworks and better gearing learning towards labour market needs.
    • Action lines derived from the Flagship Initiatives (2)An industrial policy for the globalisation era- Improve business environment especially for innovative SMEs, including throughpublic procurement;- Enforcing intellectual property;- Reduce administrative burden on companies, and improve business legislationAn Agenda for new skills and jobs- Reduce labour market segmentation, facilitate transitions;– Review and monitor tax benefit systems, with particular focus on the low skilled,whilst removing measures that discourage self-employment;– Promote new forms of work-life balance and increase gender equality;– Promote and monitor effective implementation of social dialogue;– Ensure acquisition and recognition of competences for further learning and thelabour market throughout general, vocational, higher and adult education, includingnon formal and informal learning;
    • Triple Helix Ambassadors – Nominations welcome! See http://www.triplehelixassociation.orgDesignated by the Triple Helix Association for increasing public awareness, visibility andunderstanding of Triple Helix issues, as well as for inspiring broad, positive andcommitted action in support of these issues.Triple Helix Ambassadors:• Have national and international professional recognition in the scientific, business and/orgovernment fields, particularly in the innovation, scientific research, technologicaldevelopment, technology transfer, entrepreneurship, venture capital and other Triple Helix-relevant policy and practice areas. Other fields with significant social and cultural impact (e.g.science diplomacy, media, particularly innovation journalism, etc.) may also be considered;•Are persons of integrity who demonstrate strong desire and capacity to help mobilize publicinterest in, and support for, the purposes and principles of TH interactions, and whodemonstrate the commitment and proven potential to reach out to significant audiences;•Possess the personality and authority required for such high-level representative capacity;• Are influential beyond their national borders and can promote the TH values internationally;• Are knowledgeable about TH theoretical and practical goals and activities and are able toarticulate them.
    • THANK YOU!marina.ranga@stanford.edu