The DNA of Tourism Service Innovation: A Quadruple Helix Approach
- PDF / 430,976 Bytes
- 22 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 101 Downloads / 206 Views
The DNA of Tourism Service Innovation: A Quadruple Helix Approach Peter Björk
Received: 16 August 2013 / Accepted: 6 January 2014 / Published online: 28 January 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This paper adds to the emerging discussion of the Quadruple Helix framework by arguing for a clear distinction between the intermediators (“consortia”) that coordinate public, academic, industrial, and civil society resources and those actors that belong to the Civil Society Helix. The resources for innovations to be positioned in this, the fourth, helix are mostly unclear. Furthermore, the governance aspects of the helix framework have received little academic research attention despite their decisive role in service innovation systems. The case-based research findings presented in this study give reason to develop the helix framework into a DNA model for tourism innovation systems, thus emphasizing the dynamic nature of innovation processes. An action research approach was applied, and the Finnish Travel and Relax project scrutinized for data. Based on field notes, desk research, observations, and personal interviews, we conclude that innovation systems for tourism development work well with a mixture of governance structures. We find that actors from different helixes participate in different processes with different intentions and objectives throughout the process, but they are seldom present at the same time. Further, the findings prove that service concept development progressed as best in unplanned pop-up networks in the Industry Helix. Keywords Quadruple Helix . Innovation systems . Tourism development
Introduction Innovations, namely new products, services, systems, and processes, are argued to play a crucial role in society by driving economic growth and societal development, and these created in creative knowledge environments characterized as collaborative networks (Lindberg et al. 2012b). The issue of networking for innovations is not new. In policymaking, innovation systems have changed structure several times, starting from models that emphasize cooperation between universities and companies in a Double Helix mode and followed by the Triple Helix structure introduced by Etzkowitz and P. Björk (*) Department of Marketing, Hanken School of Economics, Vaasa, Finland e-mail: [email protected]
182
J Knowl Econ (2014) 5:181–202
Leydesdorff (2000) that includes the government as a third party to the innovation system. This model has been criticized for consolidating old structures (Lindberg et al. 2012b) and for working less successfully in weaker regions (Jensen and Trädgårdh 2004) owing to “simplistic solutions, ill-defined problems and blurred actor roles” (Lindberg et al. 2012a, p. 5). Brännback et al. (2008) add to this by noting that the Triple Helix model does not favor entrepreneurial ventures. Therefore, a further broadening of the innovation system is emphasized to also include civil society. The Quadruple Helix approach has since been proposed by Carayannis and Campbel
Data Loading...