4 Helix Innovation Strategies

The Quadruple Helix Model for innovation was introduced earlier this century [1] , adding to the previous (triple helix) models a bottom-up approach provided by the fourth actor: civil society, “media-based and culture-based public” [2]. The interactions in the quadruple model result in the production of knowledge and, from there, innovation.

This meant an huge evolution from the old “closed lab, lone (and mad) scientist” approach to the current strategies of open innovation, where businesses increase innovation with the involvement of knowledge producers (universities), policy producers (government) and the potential users of the future innovation (civil society).

This corresponds with the popular concept of open innovation [3], in which businesses first reach out to the society for help to solve a problem or execute an innovation idea and then (after a selection process) adopt the inputs received and develop it into a final solution. The creation of innovation ecosystems then becomes a strategic necessity for businesses, including the extra advantage of sharing the costs of knowledge production with the entire ecosystem, while upgrading the firm’s capabilities [4-6]. 

This open innovation concept may have started with large businesses in mind but has since been demonstrated to work equally for SMEs [7-8].

The European Union and particularly the Committee of the Regions clearly adopted this 4 helix approach in its S3 Regional development strategies [9-10], also because it reveals itself to be much more prone to create social innovation [11].

The Interreg MED 4helix+ Project

The Interreg Med 4helix+ is a pilot project that took place between early 2018 and late 2020. It was meant to prove the validity of using small and short vouchers in the Blue Growth sector to increase innovation. For that purpose, a pilot was setup to help 48 startups from the eight Mediterranean regions (Lisboa in Portugal, Seville and Barcelona in Spain, Marseille in France, Ancona in Italy, Tirana in Albania, Zadar in Croatia and Thessaloniki in Greece) implement simple innovation projects with the help of actors from the culture and creative industries, from the university and research institutions, from “modern” innovation actors (FabLabs, makers spaces, incubators, accelerators) and from entrepreneurship support organizations. It thus implemented an innovation strategy calling inputs from all 4 helices, namely Blue.

Figure 1: Blue Growth Subsectors Represented in the Sample

• SMEs and startups looking for ways innovate their business, applied for the vouchers

• Research institutions, formal and informal, provided knowledge (KPs) to innovate the products, processes or marketing the SMEs needed

• Government intervened with the project itself, setting up the online platform that facilitated the call for vouchers and financing the vouchers

• The society helix provided some KPs (whom were not research facilities, like consultancy firms, designers, etc) and provided another fundamental input, the Local Innovation Committees (LIC) of external experts who selected and accompanied the execution of the vouchers. These experts were selected from local civil societies as experts in innovation or experts in the Blue Growth sector

The LICs had a dual importance in this pilot project. On the one hand they were the major actors from the 4^th helix (society), conveying its concerns. On the other hand, they were the ones who need to worry about the (environmental, social and economic) sustainability of the businesses and of the innovations being developed. Both these concerns were incorporated in the scoring tables used in the application phase, and in the monitoring of the execution phase.

The voucher awarded SMEs then had a six-month period to implement the project with their partners. 

These were small (€10k) and fast (6 months) vouchers applied to SMEs in the Blue growth sector of 8 nut2 regions in 7 countries, 6 belonging to the UE and 1 pre-adhesion country (Albania).

The 48 projects came from a wide range of subsectors and contracted a very diverse list of services from the KPs. However, there was larger number of SMEs from the coastal and maritime tourism subsector (Figure1).

Data was gathered by administering two online surveys to all 48 voucher winners. The first survey was administered when the vouchers were starting, between June and August 2019. The second survey immediately after the voucher execution period closed, between December 2019 and February 2020, barely escaping the pandemic. Forty-five valid answers were obtained for both surveys.

The startups participating in the project were mostly SMEs, with a low number of employees. In fact 74% had less than 9 employees (Figure 2).

Only one of the voucher awarded SMEs had ever received support from venture capital companies or business angels and only a very small part had received awards from entrepreneurship competitions. Financial support from other EU programs was more common, mostly among the SMEs in the Maritime and Coastal Tourism subsector (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Vouchees Dimension

Figure 3: Previous Support Received

The initial survey pretended to characterize the voucher winner SMEs and the submitted projects, while assessing the challenges that worried them and their expectations about the voucher results. The second survey was meant to assess the levels of satisfaction the SMEs got from their participation and the contribution the whole project made to the introduction of innovations. It also collected information about the satisfaction with specific parts of the project (from the online application process to the administrative burden) which is not considered relevant and is kept out of this paper.

Initial Survey

Although there was a clear prevalence of Maritime and Coastal Tourism SMEs, which should not be a surprise considering the participating regions, that prevalence was higher in Zadar, Lisboa and Thessaloniki (Figure 4).

Market research was the challenged considered more important, followed by new product development and web site and mobile (Figure 5).

The environmental and social sustainability were expressed in the challenges related to certification and building distribution channels, and both scored low in the level of importance. The economic sustainability was expressed in the challenges related to feasibility studies and business plan development and both scored as highly important.

The SMEs were also asked about their expectations for this pilot vouchers. And those expectations were high (Figur 6).

The expectations were high everywhere but, nevertheless, lower in Tirana and Marseille. And lower among companies resorting to Business services and consulting KP services (Figure 7).

Finally, expectations were also lower among companies previously supported with entrepreneurship competition awards (Figure 8).

KP services more frequently included in the awarded vouchers covered a reasonably wide range of areas, but a few were more frequent: 

•      Product development/design

•      Web/Mobile development

•      Market research 

•      Knowledge transfer

In fact, KP services included in the vouchers were different in different regions, but these four were the most frequent (Figur 9).

Some of the vouchers were clearly used to build innovations that reinforced the businesses’ sustainability, namely the certification, mentoring services and business plan development. These were, however, a minority.

After Project Survey

Overall, the participants were pretty much happy with the voucher scheme, only one chose “not happy” in the survey (Figur 10).

The main reason for that happiness came from the fact they considered the objectives set out in the beginning were completely of mostly achieved (Figur 11).

Looking by subsector, it seems clear that maritime transport had by far the largest difficulty in achieving the objectives set at the beginning (Error! Reference source not found.12).

From the point of view of the 4helix+ project management it was satisfying to find out the vouchers had positively contributed for the launching of the products/services (Figur 13).

Finally, the data from both surveys has combined to realize whether those with higher level of expectations in the beginning had achieved the voucher’s objectives more. They did not (Figure 14). 

In fact, there was only a small difference among the ones who started with lower expectations, for whom the objectives were very slightly less realized.

These results show that the concerns these companies had with the challenges they were facing, were greater in the product development area.

The vouchers included a wide range of KP services, but there is some concentration on the services that focus on the challenges being cited by the SMEs in the first survey.

Initial expectations among participants in this voucher scheme were quite high and the afterwards satisfaction levels also proved to be quite high.

The variability in the services acquired with the vouchers indicated a large range of knowledge providers, some from the cultural and creative industries, some from research institutions, some from the marketing services sector. 

Figure 4: Subsectors by Region

Figure 5: Pre-Voucher Challenges

Figure 6: Pre Voucher Expectations

All in all, the 4^th helix actors (particularly the LICs) contributed with the main concerns of the society and that included particular concerns with the environmental, social and economic sustainability of the innovations developed with the support of this pilot project.

Figure 7: Expectations by Subsector and By Region

Figure 8: Expectations by Previous Support Received

Figure 9: Voucher Contents (Services Acquired) By Region

Figure 10: Statisfaction Levels By Region

Figure 11: Objectives Achieved By Region

Figure 12: Objectives Achieved By Subsector

Figure 13: Voucher Contribution to New Products

Figure 14: Objectives Achieved By Level of Initial Expectations

The 4helix+ project promoted innovation in the Blue Growth sector and was considered a positive experience by all actors.

Data from the surveys shows the voucher scheme in the 4helix+ project was effective in promoting innovation and new product development in the blue growth sector.

It involved agents from all 4 helices in an open innovation strategy that started with SMEs looking for solutions for their challenges. They found those solutions in some Knowledge Provider, either from the cultural and creative industries, from the research institutions (traditional or “modern”) or from the marketing services sector and applied for a voucher.

After an 8-region wide (online) selection process, with the help of a custom online platform, 48 vouchers were awarded and executed.

In the end, new products were offered in the market, innovations were introduced in the Blue Growth sector and the involved SMEs were happy about the whole process, making the 4helix+ project a positive promotion for European cooperation projects. It was also good to note that the level of final satisfaction with the participation did not seem to be related with the initial level of expectations. Levels of satisfaction varied only slightly among SMEs with different levels of initial expectations.

Other sectors or other regions willing to use vouchers to increase innovation should consider this pilot project and the resulting conclusions. Some of the most common comments from participants were:

• The call for voucher applications used a very good instrument. It presented a table with scoring criteria. This allowed SMEs to learn how to build winning proposals, according to the criteria previously set up. These criteria were established by the LICs (4th helix) beforehand, embodying the very aims of the proposal. They meant proposals were not compulsorily international (SME and KP from different regions), but they would achieve higher scores if they were. Proposals were not compulsory cross sectorial (Blue Growth sector and Cultural and Creative Industries) but would be scored higher if they were

• Both as a policy implementation instrument, a contribution from all 4 helices and a proposal building instrument, this table was highly rated by participants

• Spreading the word about this project and attracting good voucher applications was the hardest part of the project

• Infodays and, particularly, Blue Bootcamps (thematic workshops for SMEs and KPs) proved to be the best instruments for building partnerships and attracting good voucher applications

• (transnational) brokerage events proved to be an important part of the project, resulting in much more than voucher applications. Not only the partnerships for the vouchers, also several business partnerships (including between KPs) are still operating after the end of the project

• Small and short vouchers are limited in the scope of innovations that can be produced but are easier to control and can be applied on incremental innovation processes

• Setting up application calls wide in both the sectors applicable and in the services that can be covered proved to be a good strategy. Letting the actors from all 4 helices choose what best fits their interests and building applications with a clear scoring table was a fine strategy to have good applications and also to monitor their execution

Disclaimer: the 4helix+ project was partially funded by the Interreg MED program.

1. Carayannis, E.G. et al. “Mode 3: meaning and implications from a knowledge systems perspective, in knowledge creation.” Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters, 2006, pp. 1–25.

2. Carayannis, E.G. et al. “‘Mode 3’ and ‘quadruple helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem.” International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 46, no. 3–4, 2009, pp. 201–234.

3. Chesbrough, H.W. and M.M. Appleyard. “Open innovation and strategy.” California Management Review, vol. 50, no. 1, 2007, pp. 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1002 /smll.201000755.

4. Guo, Y. and G. Zheng. “How do firms upgrade capabilities for systemic catch-up in the open innovation context? A multiple-case study of three leading home appliance companies in China.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 144, 2019, pp. 36–48. https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.techfore.2019.04.001.

5. Lyu, Y. et al. “Network embeddedness and inbound open innovation practice: the moderating role of technology cluster.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 144, no. 2, 2019, pp. 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.techfore.2019.03.018.

6. Mei, L. et al. “Exploring the effects of inter-firm linkages on SMEs’ open innovation from an ecosystem perspective: an empirical study of Chinese manufacturing SMEs.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 144, 2019, pp. 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.t echfore.2019.04.010.

7. Bertello, A. et al. “Challenges to open innovation in traditional SMEs: an analysis of pre-competitive projects in university-industry-government collaboration.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00727-1.

8. Kraus, S. et al. “Open innovation in (young) SMEs.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, vol. 21, no. 1, 2020, pp. 47–59. https://doi.org/1 0.1177/1465750319840778.

9. Cavallini et al. Using the quadruple helix approach to accelerate the transfer of research and innovation results to regional growth. 2016, https://doi.org/10.2863/408040.

10. Švarc, J. et al. “A new innovation paradigm: European cohesion policy and the retreat of public science in countries in Europe’s scientific periphery.” Thunderbird International Business Review, vol. 62, no. 5, 2020, pp. 531–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22166.

11. Carayannis, E.G. et al. “Social business model innovation: a quadruple/quintuple helix-based social innovation ecosystem.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 68, no. 1, 2021, pp. 235–248. https://doi. org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2914408.