Problem Solving with the Private Sector by Unknown

Author:Unknown
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Routledge

Boundary Spanning and Intermediary Roles

Triple helix collaboration among governmental, university, and industry actors can be hindered by differences in values, norms, organizational structures, and operating missions in the three sectors. For example, government’s inclination to regulate may run counter to a firm’s plans to bring a new product to market. A university’s core educational mission may not readily lend itself to the creation of new business enterprises. The tendency toward bureaucracy in government and many university structures may not necessarily be conducive to promoting the innovation that firms and industries desire. At least one study has found that differences in communication, capabilities, and habits between universities and firms are the top barrier to university–industry collaboration (Ranga et al., 2013). This potential dissonance among institutional actors across the three helices can be mitigated when an individual or entity serves in a boundary-spanning role to help reconcile the differences and potential conflicts.

The literature suggests that boundary spanners are an essential component in a triple helix system of innovation (Etzkowitz, 2012; Lundberg, 2013). In her detailed case study of the attempt to implement a triple helix approach in a Swedish region, Lundberg (2013) found that boundary spanners bridged cultural differences, built networks, and helped increase interaction, which led to “new interfaces and new forms of cooperation” across boundaries (p. 222). The case study identified several specific dimensions of boundary spanning, including information brokerage, semantic translation of domain-specific technical knowledge, sense-making, knowledge creation, resource pooling, and activation of interpersonal relationships.

Boundary spanning is made easier when organizational boundaries are permeable, enabling freer movement between sectors and entities. Etzkowitz (2012) found evidence of this sort of “boundary permeability” in his analysis of four prominent high-tech regions. In two of the cases, Boston–MIT and Silicon Valley–Stanford, the boundary permeability between academia and industry was found to be a driving force for innovation-based regional economic development that encompassed significant entrepreneurial spin-off activity from the universities. The boundaries between universities and industry were found to be less permeable, resulting in much less business spin-off activity, in the other two cases, North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park and Northeast UK–Newcastle University.

Boundary spanning can be done by intermediary organizations that “operate in the spaces between institutions of higher education, industrial firms, and government agencies” (Metcalfe, 2010, p. 504), such as nonprofits, trade associations, industry consortia, and the like. These boundary-spanning intermediaries bring together the government, business, and higher education sectors in a fashion that is analagous to the interwoven strands of DNA shown in Figure 6.1. Boundary spanning will often involve a brokering function that attempts to make connections between previously disconnected actors (Fleming & Waguespack, 2007). Oettinger and Henton (2013) argue that such “innovation brokers” or intermediaries are an important “fourth strand” of the triple helix model. These brokers are individuals or organizations that accelerate, facilitate, and make connections among the innovation activities in a triple helix system. The term cooperative research center has been proposed as a way to define a specific type of innovation-oriented intermediary (Gray, Boardman, & Rivers, 2013).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.