New indicators and indexes for benchmarking university–industry–government innovation in medical and life science clusters: results from the European FP7 Regions of Knowledge HealthTIES project

Abstract

BackgroundWhile the European Union is striving to become the ‘Innovation Union’, there remains a lack of quantifiable indicators to compare and benchmark regional innovation clusters. To address this issue, a HealthTIES (Healthcare, Technology and Innovation for Economic Success) consortium was funded by the European Union’s Regions of Knowledge initiative, research and innovation funding programme FP7. HealthTIES examined whether the health technology innovation cycle was functioning differently in five European regional innovation clusters and proposed regional and joint actions to improve their performance. The clusters included BioCat (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain), Medical Delta (Leiden, Rotterdam and Delft, South Holland, Netherlands), Oxford and Thames Valley (United Kingdom), Life Science Zürich (Switzerland), and Innova Észak-Alföld (Debrecen, Hungary).MethodsAppreciation of the ‘triple helix’ of university–industry–government innovation provided the impetus for the development of two quantifiable innovation indexes and related indicators. The HealthTIES H-index is calculated for disease and technology platforms based on the h-index proposed by Hirsch. The HealthTIES Innovation Index is calculated for regions based on 32 relevant quantitative and discriminative indicators grouped into 12 categories and 3 innovation phases, namely ‘Input’ (n = 12), ‘Innovation System’ (n = 9) and ‘Output’ (n = 11).ResultsThe HealthTIES regions had developed relatively similar disease and technology platform profiles, yet with distinctive strengths and weaknesses. The regional profiles of the innovation cycle in each of the three phases were surprisingly divergent. Comparative assessments based on the indicators and indexes helped identify and share best practice and inform regional and joint action plans to strengthen the competitiveness of the HealthTIES regions.ConclusionThe HealthTIES indicators and indexes provide useful practical tools for the measurement and benchmarking of university–industry–government innovation in European medical and life science clusters. They are validated internally within the HealthTIES consortium and appear to have a degree of external prima facie validity. Potentially, the tools and accompanying analyses can be used beyond the HealthTIES consortium to inform other regional governments, researchers and, possibly, large companies searching for their next location, analyse and benchmark ‘triple helix’ dynamics within their own networks over time, and to develop integrated public–private and cross-regional research and innovation strategies in Europe and beyond.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-019-0414-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effective search for potentially innovative scientific results in medicine

“…Количество цитирований может рассматриваться как одна из характеристик исследовательского процесса, ведущего к инновациям [12]. Достаточно давно оценивается интенсивность инновационных процессов в вузах [13]. В основу последней оценки положена как изобретательская активность, которую оценивают, опираясь на число созданных результатов интеллектуальной деятельности, так и предпринимательская, которую оценивают, подсчитывая число проданных лицензий или ноу-хау.…”

Tissue and Cell Donation: Recommendations From an International Consensus Forum

“…59 Organizations must therefore explore alternatives to the traditional management and development innovative model through public-private collaborations. [60][61][62] This could be done by fostering an active exchange of knowledge and collaboration between organizations. Organizations should also prioritize an investment in innovation (incorporating state-of-the-art processes and equipment) as a crucial part of the financial sustainability plan.…”

“…59 Organizations must therefore explore alternatives to the traditional management and development innovative model through public-private collaborations. 60-62…”

A Quantitative Framework to Identify and Prioritize Opportunities in Biomedical Product Innovation

“…Few studies have analyzed comprehensive health data from diverse domains to identify gaps in focused areas such as research and innovation. 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 Rees et al 6 evaluated mortality, disability-adjusted life-years (DALY), and health care use for pediatric medical conditions and reported a positive correlation between National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for pediatric research and only some, but not all, metrics of pediatric disease burden. Research evaluating funding allocation by cancer type found that funding was moderately proportional to the incidence of the cancer type and was poorly correlated with deaths and potential years of life lost (PYLL).…”