How Necessary are Intermediary Organizations in the Commercialization of Research?

Abstract

As universities around the world are under pressure to produce commercial outputs of their research results, it is surprising how a few studies have been conducted about intermediary organizations and their role in this matter. The intermediaries' basic roles to diminish market and system failures in innovation processes are targeted to respond to the challenges that may emerge in innovation processes, in general, especially in the commercialization of academic research. In this article, we analyse the roles of, and needs for, different kinds of intermediary organizations in two Finnish technology agglomerations from the perspective of the commercialization of new knowledge. We use the Triple Helix concept as a theoretical starting point for our empirical analysis. As many challenges in Triple Helix linkages prove that policy interventions to support the activities of intermediary organizations are justified up to certain point. However, the role of these "go-between" actors may also be irrelevant if networks between university -firm-government helices function well. In addition, many of the challenges in the commercialization of new knowledge originated from the failures of policy implementation concerning the public or semi-public intermediaries.

Hidden mediator roles of university spin-offs in Triple Helix networks

“…This would include picturing the mediator activity itself and the precise actions of the spinoffs, finding valid indicators for structuring processes of collective learning and network change, like suggested some years ago for biotechnology (Shan et al 1994;Rothaermel 2001). Measuring activities and impacts of any intermediary organization in a systematic way, however, remains a challenge as many of them work mainly indirectly and not always on purpose (Howells, 2006;Sapsed et al, 2007;Suvinen et al 2015). Indeed, there is a whole research field ahead of us.…”

Mapping the network structure of science parks

“…However, although the collaborative process to establish and develop knowledge-based firms leads to a better integration than service-oriented firms, the private sector still occupies a peripheral position. This may be caused by the lack of private investments in the region (Nottingham BioCity, 2010) and the lack of linkages among firms located in SPs (Quintas et al, 1992;Suvinen, Konttinen, & Nieminen, 2010), as well as the inaccuracy of direct links to detect commercial ties (Stuart & Thelwall, 2006;Vaughan & You, 2006). Nevertheless, we should be aware that the proportion of collaboration among firms engaging in innovation activities is only of 23%, and the three less frequent partners as well as sources of innovation information are furthermore consultants and private R&D institutes, Universities, and Government or public research institutes, respectively (BIS, 2009).…”

Intermediation in intermediation: triple helix innovation and intermediary legal organisation

“…Similarly, Metcalfe (2010: 504) has found the fully-integrated trilateral networks of the triple helix to be 'understudied, ' prompting her to critically explore and model 'the role of external organizations in the formation of AIG ties.' Notwithstanding the relatively small sample of directly applicable scholarship, more developed literatures tackling intermediation and intermediary organisation exist within many disciplines (Landry et al 2013;Todeva 2013)-in particular, for current purposes, in the related research fields of innovation and technology transfer intermediation (Boon et al 2011;Dalziel 2010;Dalziel and Parjanen 2012;Gassmann et al 2011;Håkanson et al 2011;Hoppe and Ozdenoren 2005;Howells 2006;Kivimaa 2014;Klerkx and Leeuwis 2008;Kodama 2008;Lichtenthaler and Ernst 2008;Pollard 2006;Sieg et al 2010;Shohet and Prevezer 1996;Stewart and Hyysalo 2008;Suvinen et al 2010;van der Meulen et al 2005;van Lente et al 2003;Villani et al 2016) and knowledge intermediation (Cantù et al 2015;Parker and Hine 2014;Schlierf and Meyer 2013;Wright et al 2008;Yusuf 2008). Even here, however, authors have pointed out that '[d]espite their obvious presence, … innovation intermediaries have received little attention in the theoretical intermediation literature' (Hoppe and Ozdenoren 2005: 484) so that 'relatively few systematic analyses of their functions' (Suvinen et al 2010(Suvinen et al : 1366 are available today (see also van der Meulen et al (2005: 2)).…”

“…This article, therefore, further posits that the functional and, in particular, advance legal design of 'intermediating organizations' (Metcalfe 2010) critically matters for purposes of optimising triple helix processes and their innovation productivity, thus, for achieving 'the optimal rate of R&D investment to maximize productivity growth' (Galindo et al 2011: 10; see also Garrett-Jones et al (2013: 81)). Thus, in an effort to support and inform the evolution of sui-generis supra-helical best practices for 'innovation in innovation' (Etzkowitz 2003a) triple helix projects, this article focuses on two interrelated aspects of triple helix hybridity which are less developed, if not, neglected (Suvinen et al 2010;Howells 2006;van der Meulen et al 2005) within the current triple helix literature as well as the larger knowledge intermediation and innovation intermediation literatures. First, based on a well-documented case study of a failed research group-firm hybrid within the University of Helsinki (Tuunainen 2001(Tuunainen , 2002(Tuunainen , 2004(Tuunainen , 2005a, an organisational model aimed at institutionalising supra-helical, fourth-party (i.e.…”

“…In other words, triple helix intermediation, in current application, remains both under-planned and under-institutionalised. Similarly, the intermediation of triple helix trilateral networks remains significantly understudied (Metcalfe 2010;Suvinen et al 2010). Given the 'previously buffered … space between firms and campuses' (Metcalfe 2010: 504) and the continued institutional isolation of each of the university-industry-government helices, it further appears that the design and provision of efficient legal intermediation practices and organisations should be of paramount importance for purposes of transcending the long-standing and pervasively practised institutional separateness and resistance to innovate and transform (see Tuunainen (2002)) among the helices, as well as for developing the institutional foundations of a sustainable intra-, inter-and, in particular, supra-helical intermediation infrastructure.…”