The Quadruple Helix Model in Sweden: A Recipe for Innovation?
The Quadruple Helix model of innovation developed from the Triple Helix model, founded by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, which postulated the relationship between university, industry, and government. Although the literature is not consistent in its definition, the main difference is the addition of civil society to the interaction between universities, the public sector, and the business sector activities.
.png)
The quadruple helix focuses on co-innovation and co-creation between university/academia, industry, government, and society, in which systematic innovation occurs as a result of the participation of several government, business, university, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Innovation ecosystems are complex innovation landscapes that connect people, companies, universities, and organizations to share information and knowledge, with the aim of fostering new forms of innovation.
As in political systems, the relationship within the ecosystem is considered as a bilateral exchange, which means the two partners in the innovation ecosystems are considered as linked elements.
Stakeholders within the ecosystem are seen as profoundly interdependent, with a deep commitment to shared success. They use the ecosystem, both individually and collectively, to influence and drive systemic innovation, with the goal of being more competitive.
A joint innovation ecosystem determines the collaboration in the process and is required to support the growth of the innovation system area. A joint innovation ecosystem will eventually help reduce the risk and uncertainty faced by the innovation project.
Historical Development and Adoption in Sweden
The journey started back in the 1970s with a sourcing of inspiration from pacemakers and the work in the KT and SKIitech programs in the north of Sweden. The idea that innovative environments are co-localized with regional and local communities has been experimented with as policy in the two Swedish programs.
The Oresund region in Southern Sweden/Denmark and the development of Ideon Science Park in Lund can also provide some inspiration for the trajectory for the work on TRIPLEHELIX-X in Swedish innovation systems.
The Lulea and Lund cases have been presented at national and international conferences and underlined by policymakers as "live cases", aiming at experimenting with the realization of the QUADRUPLEHELIX characteristics as presented in this book.
The development and the operationalizations of the models have been directed towards solving grand societal challenges. At the national policy level, it was also taken one (giant) step forward as the model, by the government, was referred in the state of the union address, after learning from and getting inspired by the TRIPLEHELIX mode in the regional work in Lulea and Lund.
Fact4, when the QUADRUPLE-HELIX model was recommended by the committee on innovation systems to be a core principle in an innovation policy bill in 1999, but was not operationalized in practical policy before the revision of the innovative ecosystem to a national innovation strategy beginning in 2008.
In the third policy turn, regional experimentation and LEITing would solve main societal challenges like innovation (that in turn can solve climate change, health and transport problems). The evolution of the model and the changes in its operationalizations over time give a good indication of the discourses on innovation systems in general and reveal what kinds of innovations that have been prioritized in the exceptive contexts.
Case Studies and Success Stories
In this part of our book, we offer you the opportunity to read about case studies and success stories in the field of Quadruple Helix partnerships in Sweden. In the form of concrete examples, we describe different attempts to implement and realize the Quadruple Helix concept.
Our hope is that the case studies will present a practical picture of the different ways that the QHM has been interpreted and developed in different contexts of innovative partnerships. The intention is to show some of the variations and how the Quadruple Helix partnerships can concretize or develop. We also believe that with these examples we can inspire and motivate new collaborations.
For our case studies, we invited researchers, business developers, and business stakeholders as well as civil society actors - and they have in turn invited other partners and focus groups to their information workshops.
This way, we hope that the content is really formed by the people involved in their respective partnerships. We are fully aware that there are many others who deserve a space in this part of the book. There are innovative partnerships all over the country with great knowledge and high ambitions.
We only hope that we can present a few interesting and inspiring examples of what can be achieved and developed by truly successful Quadruple Helix partnerships in Sweden.
Each case presentation contains a description of the focus and aim of the project/innovations partnership/network, the stakeholders involved, the results, processes, and how Quadruple Helix thinking has been applied.
The cases are few and only provide a brief snapshot of the large overall picture of innovative partnerships in Sweden, but we hope that they will inspire further efforts.
Challenges and Criticisms
Despite progress made, the implementation of the Quadruple Helix model in a Swedish or Innovationsrådet context does not, however, go without saying. There are many aspects to take into account, and possible implications and implementations of the model need to be duly considered.
The following chapter will attend to some challenges and some criticisms that have been presented when it comes to the Swedish innovation system, and the adoption of the Quadruple Helix model as a recipe for innovation.
In many instances, limitations and disadvantages are given a good deal of attention or are at least emphasized. This goes for instance for studies on venture capital, entrepreneurship, and education policies as well. In this chapter, some criticisms and challenges that concern the Quadruple Helix Model in relation to central Swedish innovation and innovation policies will be discussed.
The approach of the Triple Helix model from an 'ideal type' perspective has given some neglected limitations to the model more prominence. Often evoked collaborations are more a multiplication of the dilemmas of academic social values of what freely chosen business and, especially patents appreciated companies, than a quality improvement in knowledge and interaction value.
It is suggested that academic entrepreneurship has detrimental effects on academic quality and research systems. As academic capitalism strengthens, it shall—because the property-based breakthroughs. In this case, creativity is side-tracked or lost as the concentration is on formal, official bets for a commercial product/process. Public vs. private partnering turmoil creates the necessity to select new business ideas already at an embryonic stage competitive to more accepted, mass-influencing ideas.
Future Directions and Implications
The Quadruple Helix Model in Sweden: A Recipe for Innovation?
Future Directions and Implications
At first glance, the QH seems to be quickly taking hold and making inroads in how policy-setting and policy implementation are performed in Sweden. It has gained acceptance as a point of reference among decision makers, politicians, entrepreneurs, managers, and academics.
This can be taken as an invitation to further study what is suggested to be a genuinely new kind of way of relating to processes, outcomes, and institutions related to economic, social, and constitutional innovation, and perhaps to call for a bit of healthy skepticism.
In order for the QH to make good on its promises in the Swedish context, a number of things have to happen. First, QH must be aligned with current trends within PSI, namely the regulation of science and the co-evolution of science and society as an inter-institutional process.
Second, QH also has to come to terms with trends in national and European STI policy such as the rise of the technoscientific mode of governance, includivation efforts, strategic planning, the welfare state regime, and FENIN initiatives regarding stakeholder participation, regionalization, interregionalization, and cooperation among academia, industry, and the public sector.
At present, the most immediate indications of the reception of QH in the Swedish context are: Proposal to replace the National Agency for University and Social Affairs with a new public agency with responsibility for out-of-university policy-making; Move the responsibility for empirical conceptualization of third mission from SEF to be operated by another well-established research Council; The to-be formed Swiss National Funding Council for Research (SNFC), which is responsible for promoting scientific research; the Swiss Space Office, which draws up lists of research priorities, and SWISSMEDIC, which is responsible for licensing new drugs and monitoring their safety, have had their founding committee staffed with a view to having a small number of primarily outstanding, independent, and neutral persons of either sex, from academia, the private sector, and the public sector use innovation direction of third system functions be used as one turning point for staffing.