At the end of the day it's incentives. It's all about setting the right incentives.

If e.g you want your university students/researchers/professors to go out with their business ideas and found companies that will bring in money and create jobs, you have to give them the right incentives, such as e.g.

1.) encourage them (by e.g. funding them with some seed money) to expose themselves to the market so that their business idea will be tested in the most brutal and realistic way (and make them stop writing endless reports/business plans/white papers on their oh-so-great-idea-the-world-has-waited-for)

2.) a "plan B" for the case the venture won't work out - so that they know they can e.g. return to the university if the business fails

3.) Make it easy to transfer the IP (that was created by the scientists but usually belongs to the univesrity) into the start-up's balance sheet in exchange for a stake in the company. If and only if the IP belongs to the company, the company can eventually be sold. If the IP is merely leased/licensed/borrowed from the university no one is going to buy the start-up (when it grows big enough).

THIS AGAIN means that legislation might have to be adjusted. It is not a given that a university is allowed to hold stakes in companies.

Which leads us to the other stakeholders you mentioned - they have their agendas too and it's up to you to set the right incentives so they gonna change them the way you'd like.

Businesses e.g. love to use universities as their extended workbench or brush up their cash flow statements, in case the government is giving away some subsidies related to that (the keyword here would be "tech-transfer") - here both the university and the government would (maybe) be better off if they adjusted the incentive system.

Many universities e.g. love to file patents - the more the better. Makes a good impression for the image brochures ("Ohhhh, look at us, we are such an innnovative university..."). Such universities have absolutely no incentives to build up coherent patent startegies. Because that would mean that only highly selected and sophisticated inventions are going to get filed. And that's bad for the stats.

The result is that easily fileable crap gets filed (esp. if the state administration or someone else is paying for it) and true, focused innovation does not take place.

And the list goes on andon and on - it's an interesting & complex field.

It would be nice to learn from you what you actually are trying to achieve at your place.

Collaboration between university and business or industry is always good and possible but government involvement always dangerous, as we have to expose our all business.

Business or industries can give lot of research work to universities, by this students will get a good research work and university could get some financial support.

Hi Giselle,

In industrial clusters literature you can find some references that analyze this question. For example in this paper:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09654310802079452#.Up73EsTuJGw

By Molina-Morales & Mas-Verdu. Or this one:

http://eur.sagepub.com/content/9/4/315.full.pdf

Best regards

Hi Giselle,

There's currently a lot of work being done on the Triple Helix concept.

If this is an area you are interested in there's a current call for papers in Technovation.

More information available at https://www.triplehelixassociation.org

In some countries, the Western approach network management does not work. Implementation strategy often prevents local culture. Look at the experience of Russia. It is very difficult to open a small innovative business venture. Universities simply discarded. First, the network system will work better when you create a new legislative framework. Second, network management need to explain and promote the public through the education system.

An interesting lecture would be: Review of Business–University Collaboration

Professor Sir Tim Wilson DL.

The three organisation groups have very different objectives and cultures, so you need to have a common language and clear objectives. Putting together a shared tool which links the science case to the business case, and links the business case to the socio-economic benefit (e.g. jobs created), will help allow each organisation to measure the collaboration success against their own KPI's.

In a sense, i think there is a common KPI that links the three groups, that's profit. A profit/cosy function can be calculated for each institute, whether private, public or educational. If you managed to highlight the potential impact of any networked collaboration (between one or two groups with the third group) on the short to long terms, you will solve any potential obstacle. After all, every institution is governed with the aim of increasing value and profit, even governmental institutions.

We have to be aware that of course this premise only holds for institutions in the same ecosystem. You cannot expect an education institute in the field of agriculture to establish connections with the car manufacturers for example.

At the end of the day it's incentives. It's all about setting the right incentives.

If e.g you want your university students/researchers/professors to go out with their business ideas and found companies that will bring in money and create jobs, you have to give them the right incentives, such as e.g.

1.) encourage them (by e.g. funding them with some seed money) to expose themselves to the market so that their business idea will be tested in the most brutal and realistic way (and make them stop writing endless reports/business plans/white papers on their oh-so-great-idea-the-world-has-waited-for)

2.) a "plan B" for the case the venture won't work out - so that they know they can e.g. return to the university if the business fails

3.) Make it easy to transfer the IP (that was created by the scientists but usually belongs to the univesrity) into the start-up's balance sheet in exchange for a stake in the company. If and only if the IP belongs to the company, the company can eventually be sold. If the IP is merely leased/licensed/borrowed from the university no one is going to buy the start-up (when it grows big enough).

THIS AGAIN means that legislation might have to be adjusted. It is not a given that a university is allowed to hold stakes in companies.

Which leads us to the other stakeholders you mentioned - they have their agendas too and it's up to you to set the right incentives so they gonna change them the way you'd like.

Businesses e.g. love to use universities as their extended workbench or brush up their cash flow statements, in case the government is giving away some subsidies related to that (the keyword here would be "tech-transfer") - here both the university and the government would (maybe) be better off if they adjusted the incentive system.

Many universities e.g. love to file patents - the more the better. Makes a good impression for the image brochures ("Ohhhh, look at us, we are such an innnovative university..."). Such universities have absolutely no incentives to build up coherent patent startegies. Because that would mean that only highly selected and sophisticated inventions are going to get filed. And that's bad for the stats.

The result is that easily fileable crap gets filed (esp. if the state administration or someone else is paying for it) and true, focused innovation does not take place.

And the list goes on andon and on - it's an interesting & complex field.

It would be nice to learn from you what you actually are trying to achieve at your place.

Giselle,

Similar to Marty's suggestion, I refer to the literature on triple helix and open innovation. Regarding the state of the art of "smart regions" that draw on well-organized triple helix principles, you may want to review one of my prezi's providing an assessment of how the Dutch region around Eindhoven has developed its triple helix of industry, higher education and local government:

http://prezi.com/7wmquzhp2var/open-innovation-in-eindhoven-brainport-ecosystem/

In addition, I suggest you look at the website of ICF, which provides information about an interesting set of regions and communities, including their governance approach:

http://www.intelligentcommunity.org

You can also refer to the literature regarding open source software project implemented by US universities with collaboration with profit and non-profit organisations. This project is called Kuali.

The coordination between the three so called identities can be effective, only when all of them realize the functioning and problems of each other and work together. Here academia and industry can take the initiative and take up the small industrial problems through projects of academic students. This will not only give solutions to the industrial world at reasonable cost, simultaneously students can get the industrial exposure and inculcate the out of box thinking. This can be encouraged by government and supported from infrastructure and economical point of view.

It's important to translate the language of the different cultures of academia, government and industry to highlight what's in it for each perspective, and to start with common points of interest. A useful guide for researchers seeking to increase industrial collaborations is here:

http://www.industry.gatech.edu/files/UIDP-Researcher-Guidebook.pdf

@Georges Romme's prezi,

very interesting. I participated to an European team building a pilot experience based on a triple helix model applied to heritage tourism sector, bringing together ACADs, HEIs, Industries and government bodies. I attach the link to the description paper [e.Passport Plus (map : http://goo.gl/ifgJSB)]. In a deeper theory, the same model could growth to a full eco-systematic hypothesis, full adopted everywhere [Æeurosphere Hypotesis : http://goo.gl/I4WmBp].

Nonetheless, a vulnus faced in the exploitation phase is in the tightness degree of the relations, which depends directly from the strength of every subject involved. So that, a triple helixed model works better between subjects who have a low degree of autonomy, that among subjects more skilled/autonomous. And this is for a bit', a paradox of the model, not easy to overcome.

—g

Article e.PASSPORT+, Pan-European Educational and Entrepreneurial Po...

Govt and industry should come forward to fund the university in solving the industrial problems.

"

The valorisation of research results is considered an important topic for innovation and competitiveness; in Western Balkans, the awareness on the commercialisation potential of scientific findings needs to be further increased in the scientific community and a closer cooperation between research institutions, business support structures and industry is required. As researchers are not always familiar with issues such as Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), standardisation, technology-transfer matters, business plan writing and marketing, support mechanisms are important to guide them on their way to bringing products to market. Furthermore, the education system in this region does not encourage entrepreneurial culture and creativity among pupils and students at satisfactory level. Specific direct and indirect measures would help to foster also the entrepreneurial culture in WBC at earlier stages, improve the perspective of young generations and subsequently contribute to long-term knowledge-based economic growth in the region as suggested by SEE2020 (South East European 2020 Strategy).

One of the best ways to transform the research into innovations on the market, when ideas come from university staff, researchers and students is to incubate them in Business Incubators (BI) or Science and Technology Parks (STP). The development of BIs and STPs is at the same time one of the most efficient instruments for boosting the local economic development. In Western Balkan countries, there are a number of BI that are active and successful in providing the support to young innovative companies and a number of STPs in the establishing phase..."

http://wbc-rti.info/in_focus

Sponsoring and funding researchers

Is it good practice to make our university business place & business community against the holy place of the community .

This is my personal opinion

On example of my university I can see effective such activities:

- cooperation within the group of regional stakeholders, such as: provincial office, offices of neighboring cities and communes, Regional Chamber of Commerce, Agency of Entrepreneurship Development and other;

- a membership of Business Council – the institution cooperating with the City President. Its main objective is connected with giving opinion on crucial issues of the city functioning and development;

- agreements with the regional companies that confirm the cooperation in the scope of common didactic, scientific, research and development ventures. Agreements include mutual use of achievements and experience for research purposes, preparation of new economic solutions, organization of internships and trainings for students, application of managers’ practical knowledge in the implementation of a didactic process. University is making efforts to activate the cooperation with business practice in the scope of common organizational undertakings as well as scientific and implementation projects.

- a membership of Chamber of Commerce of Advanced Technologies, Union of Private Employers of Education associated with Confederation of Private Employers LEWIATAN – the biggest organization representing interests of Polish entrepreneurs;

- cooperation with external partners, with the biggest Polish scientific and research centers as well as scientific societies i.e. Scientific Society of Organization and Management, Institute of Theoretical and Applied Informatics of Polish Academy of Science, Polish Information Processing Society;

- activity in structures that unite the biggest Polish higher education institutions, Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland. The KRASP members undertake actions leading to creating the effective and integrated system of national education. They represent common interests as well as promote the development of higher education, science and culture.

This is a complex problem and is dependent of several factors:

1. Your university's current culture and operational interest/commitment of it's leadership.

2. The R&D needs and history of regional (within a ~200 km radius) SMEs and corporations.

3. The positive-reinforcing constraints of your federal and provincial/state granting agencies.

4. The political proactive engagement of municipal leaders.

5. And most importantly the existence of a concerting leader within your ecology.

If all of these are there then lift off and sustainable innovation capacity growth can be achieved (e.g. Lund in Sweden, Barcelona, Singapore). If only some are in place then then is becomes much more difficult.