9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          While 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).

          Methods

          Appreciation 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).

          Results

          The 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.

          Conclusion

          The 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 material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-019-0414-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy

          M E Porter (2000)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Closing the gender leadership gap: a multi-centre cross-country comparison of women in management and leadership in academic health centres in the European Union

              Background Women’s participation in medicine and the need for gender equality in healthcare are increasingly recognised, yet little attention is paid to leadership and management positions in large publicly funded academic health centres. This study illustrates such a need, taking the case of four large European centres: Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Germany), Karolinska Institutet (Sweden), Medizinische Universität Wien (Austria), and Oxford Academic Health Science Centre (United Kingdom). Case The percentage of female medical students and doctors in all four countries is now well within the 40–60% gender balance zone. Women are less well represented among specialists and remain significantly under-represented among senior doctors and full professors. All four centres have made progress in closing the gender leadership gap on boards and other top-level decision-making bodies, but a gender leadership gap remains relevant. The level of achieved gender balance varies significantly between the centres and largely mirrors country-specific welfare state models, with more equal gender relations in Sweden than in the other countries. Notably, there are also similar trends across countries and centres: gender inequality is stronger within academic enterprises than within hospital enterprises and stronger in middle management than at the top level. These novel findings reveal fissures in the ‘glass ceiling’ effects at top-level management, while the barriers for women shift to middle-level management and remain strong in academic positions. The uneven shifts in the leadership gap are highly relevant and have policy implications. Conclusion Setting gender balance objectives exclusively for top-level decision-making bodies may not effectively promote a wider goal of gender equality. Academic health centres should pay greater attention to gender equality as an issue of organisational performance and good leadership at all levels of management, with particular attention to academic enterprises and newly created management structures. Developing comprehensive gender-sensitive health workforce monitoring systems and comparing progress across academic health centres in Europe could help to identify the gender leadership gap and utilise health human resources more effectively.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                laurel.edmunds@rdm.ox.ac.uk
                s.gluderer@bluewin.ch
                pavel.ovseiko@rdm.ox.ac.uk
                r.kamerling@tudelft.nl
                j.ton@lumc.nl
                lh.vis@pzh.nl
                mario.jenni@bio-technopark.ch
                gregory.tutton@clovertongroup.com
                ubtm188@mail.bbk.ac.uk
                marta.nadaban@gmail.com
                rab.mate@gmail.com
                jon.rees@jonreesassociates.com
                john.anson@ogt.com
                alexander.rushforth@phc.ox.ac.uk
                maxine.allen@medsci.ox.ac.uk
                alastair.buchan@medsci.ox.ac.uk
                mvendrell@biocat.cat
                gabor.mehes@med.unideb.hu
                p.c.w.hogendoorn@lumc.nl
                ehafen@imsb.biol.ethz.ch
                bass.hassan@path.ox.ac.uk
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                28 January 2019
                28 January 2019
                2019
                : 17
                : 10
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, GRID grid.4991.5, Sir William Dunn School, , University of Oxford, ; Oxford, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Astellas Pharma, Zürich, Switzerland
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2097 4740, GRID grid.5292.c, Medical Delta, , Delft University of Technology, ; Delft, The Netherlands
                [4 ]ISNI 0000000089452978, GRID grid.10419.3d, Leiden University Medical Center, ; Leiden, The Netherlands
                [5 ]Province of South Holland, The Hague, The Netherlands
                [6 ]Bio-Technopark Schlieren-Zürich, Zurich,, Switzerland
                [7 ]Cloverton Holdings, Basel, Switzerland
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2324 0507, GRID grid.88379.3d, Department of Management, , Birkbeck, University of London, ; London, United Kingdom
                [9 ]Independent Consultant, Debrecen, Hungary
                [10 ]Innonic Group, Debrecen, Hungary
                [11 ]Jon Rees Associates Ltd, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [12 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0614 5737, GRID grid.423319.e, Oxford Gene Technology, ; Oxford, United Kingdom
                [13 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, GRID grid.4991.5, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, , University of Oxford, ; Oxford, United Kingdom
                [14 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, GRID grid.4991.5, Business Development Team, Medical Sciences Division, , University of Oxford, ; Oxford, United Kingdom
                [15 ]GRID grid.434615.1, BioCat, Bioregion of Catalonia, ; Barcelona, Spain
                [16 ]ISNI 0000 0001 1088 8582, GRID grid.7122.6, Faculty of Public Health, , University of Debrecen, ; Debrecen, Hungary
                [17 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2156 2780, GRID grid.5801.c, Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, , ETH Zürich, ; Zurich, Switzerland
                Article
                414
                10.1186/s12961-019-0414-5
                6350323
                30691504
                a75b1012-d81d-4582-a05d-7059ed69afec
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 25 July 2018
                : 7 January 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100011102, Seventh Framework Programme;
                Award ID: 265550
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000811, European Institute of Innovation and Technology;
                Award ID: EIT Health-Rare Cancer KIC Stage 1
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001923, Health Services Research Programme;
                Award ID: Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Health & Social care
                regional innovation cluster,innovation index,triple helix,university–industry–government innovation,regions of knowledge,life sciences,medical sciences,biotechnology,public policy,european union

                Comments

                Comment on this article