Increasingly research and development is created in
innovation ecosystems, collaborating in a triple
helix consisting of public and private sector organizations, and research and
education institutes. The fourth dimension of societal actors is alas not
always included, but in some regions this is promoted.
This type of triple helix collaboration in knowledge
development can be seen on the local, national and international level where
individual actors persuade diverse big parties to invest in joint development.
Resources in the network can be identified, for example, facilities such as laboratories.
On the level of a facility there can be joint ownership by some partners, or
for a project or event there can be collaboration by a larger number of actors,
or on the higher level of transnational networks collaboration can be created
either in new legal entities or by working in a more loosely coupled network
where the partners each devote time of their personnel, and other resources.
On the one hand, this is a positive way and flexibly open to
initiatives, on the other hand, this may occur rather outside of other e.g.
political structures and there may be a dominance of big investors. All these
networks open opportunities for innovation, and at the same time form their own
societal order, a world within this world.
In the area of security (there will be similar developments
in other areas) networks are formed, for example, at the level of Safety & Security Clusters that
bring together a large group of related but diverse local and regional actors
such as rescue organisations. The clusters -in general- intend to stimulate the
local economy and work as a motor for employment and quality improvement. They
can be very large and comprise thousands of security-related organizations, combining
efforts of large corporations, SMEs, governments, and -of course- also research
and education institutions, focusing on for example rescue and (cyber)security.
The regional clusters collaborate with other clusters in the
same country but also across borders to create an international Knowledge Innovation
Community. There is no national actor as a go-between and the activities of any
cluster depend on the activity of its local members. There are some funds that
facilitate exchange of insights or travel, but largely the work in networks is
divided by those that form the network. One region may focus on different
sectors than another, but this may not be an official policy but rather an
outcome of local activities. The sectors may have very different ways of
organizing themselves, for example, the way in which health care innovation is
facilitated by networks may be very different. Depending on the spearheads of a university it will need to monitor and
interact in many different networks.
In such clusters the partners invest by time of personnel.
If the university wants to be part of such clusters and follow developments, in
turn it also needs to support such participation. Nowadays, universities need to participate in many different kinds of innovation
ecosystems, networks that may have different legal structures. One might
argue, that it is not so much the university but rather individual scholars
that together co-create such triple helix collaboration networks and thus
making the spearheads a result rather than a starting point.
Is the university
aware of the importance of monitoring such sector-specific networks by their
personnel and ensuring that such activities are facilitated and linked to the
choice of its spearheads? It seems impossible to ‘manage’ such activities
top to bottom, and thus there should be space for this also bottom up. Monitoring and being open for exchange are keywords, whereas institutionalizing such collaboration in a fixed format is hardly effective, as the networks by definition are dynamic.
