Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia

World Association for Triple Helix and Future Strategy Studies (세계트리플헬릭스미래전략학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Triple Helix and the Circle of Innovation

  • Phillips, Fred (Department of Technology and Society, College of Engineering and Applied Science, Stony Brook University)
  • Published : 2014.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper positions the triple-Helix as a meso-level notion, an epicycle in a grander circle of technological change, institutional change, and psychological change. Because of the differing speeds of these several kinds of change, speed is proposed as a high-level system metric. This implies that what we commonly call bridging agencies or facilitators - lawyers, venture capitalists, incubators, etc. - are better called buffering agencies, as they help to engage entities changing at different speeds. They use human judgment as well as information technologies to choose feasible timing for these engagements. The paper highlights implications for thinking about innovation diffusion: The grand cycle of socio-technical change means we should, rather, think in terms of innovation reinforcement, or a circle of innovation.

Keywords

References

  1. H. Aldrich, Organizations Evolving, SAGE Publications, 1999.
  2. Jose Alberto Sampaio Aranha, "Arrangement of Actors in the Triple Helix Innovation" In D.S. Oh & F. Phillips (Eds), Technopolis: Best Practices for Science and Technology Cities (Springer, 2014)
  3. Jonathan Bard, Boaz Golany and Fred Phillips, "Bubble Planning and the Mathematics of Con-sortia." Third International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation, Austin, Texas, September, 1999.
  4. Frank Bass (1969). "A new product growth model for consumer durables." Management Science 15 (5): p215-227. doi:10.1287/mnsc.15.5.215
  5. A. Charnes, S. Littlechild and S. Sorensen, "Core-stem Solutions of N-person Essential Games." Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. Vol. I, pp. 649-660 (1973).
  6. W.W. Cooper, D.V. Gibson, F. Phillips, S. Thore and A. Whinston (eds), IMPACT: How $IC^2$ Research Affects Public Policy and Business Markets. Kluwer, 1996.
  7. Wilfred Dolfsma, Loet Leydesdorff "Lock-in and break-out from technological trajectories: Modeling and policy implications," Technological Forecasting & Social Change 76 (7), Sept. 2009, 932-941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.02.004
  8. Larry Downes and Paul Nunes, The Faster a New Technology Takes Off, the Harder It Falls. WIRED. 01.03.14. http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/01/why-its-time-to-ditch-the-bell-curve/
  9. Raghu K. Ganti, Fan Ye, and Hui Lei, Mobile Crowdsensing: Current State and Future Chal-lenges. IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, NY (undated). https://wiki.engr.illinois.edu/download/attachments/180846616/paper_fanye.pdf?version=1
  10. Dion Hinchcliffe, "Does technology improve employee engagement?" Enterprise Web 2.0, Nov. 5, 2013. http://www.zdnet.com/does-technology-improve-employee-engagement-7000021695/
  11. Inga A. Ivanova, Loet Leydesdorff "Rotational symmetry and the transformation of innovation systems in a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Technological Fore-casting & Social Change In Press, Corrected Proof. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.022
  12. Loet Leydesdorff & Henry Etzkowitz, Emergence of a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, Science and Public Policy 23 (1996) 279-86.
  13. H. Linstone and F. Phillips, "The Simultaneous Localization-Globalization Impact ofInfor-mation/Communication Technology." Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80(2013), 1438-1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.04.011
  14. F. Phillips, On S-curves and Tipping Points. Tech. Forecasting & Social Change, 74(6), July 2007, 715-730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.11.006
  15. F. Phillips, The state of technological and social change: Impressions. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 78(6), July 2011, 1072-1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.020
  16. F. Phillips, S. Alarakhia and P. Limprayoon,"The Triple Helix: International Cases and Critical Summary" In D.S. Oh & F. Phillips (Eds), Technopolis: Best Practices for Science and Technology Cities (Springer, 2014)
  17. K. Prager, H. Posthumus, Socio-economic factors influencing farmers' adoption of soil conservation practices in Europe. In: Napier TL. Human dimensions of Soil and Water Conservation. Nova Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1-61728-957-6, 2010.
  18. David Sasaki , Beyond Technology for Transparency, Jan 11, 2013 Omidyar Network, Open Government, http://davidsasaki.name/2013/01/beyond-technology-for-transparency/
  19. Alan M. Turing, The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B 327, 37-72 (1952)
  20. David Watson, The University. Routledge, 2013.

Cited by

  1. Measuring the dynamics of an innovation system using patent data: a case study of South Korea, 2001–2010 vol.49, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0045-4
  2. Quantifying the Triple Helix relationship in scientific research: statistical analyses on the dividing pattern between developed and developing countries vol.49, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0052-5
  3. A strategic management approach for Korean public research institutes based on bibliometric investigation vol.49, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0091-y
  4. Energy policy participation through networks transcending cleavage: an analysis of Japanese and German renewable energy promotion policies vol.49, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0093-9
  5. Non-R&D-based innovation activities and performance in Chinese SMEs: the role of absorptive capacity vol.25, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2017.1302548
  6. A semantic annotation framework for scientific publications vol.51, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0369-3
  7. Research evaluation of Asian countries using altmetrics: comparing South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and China vol.117, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2884-6
  8. Living Labs as boundary-spanners between Triple Helix actors vol.15, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.17477/jcea.2016.15.1.078
  9. Structural efficiency to manipulate public research institution networks vol.110, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.12.012
  10. Collaborative innovation efficiency: From within cities to between cities—Empirical analysis based on innovative cities in China vol.52, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12504
  11. Network Arrangements Underlying Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Findings from Globalized Cyberspace and Lessons for Asian Regions vol.20, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.17477/jcea.2021.20.2.019