Thematic workshops

1. The Entrepreneurial University: (R)Evolutionary Transformation or Heresy?

The emergence of the entrepreneurial university as a key driver of transition to a Knowledge Economy is a significant departure from previous academic models that has often been contested, on the grounds of a gloomy scenario fraught with irresolvable conflicts of interest, degradation of the traditional mission and freedom of the university, subordination of the university to business, ‘commodification‘of scientific results, etc. This is why some believe that strong boundaries must be maintained between academia and industry, as the latter’s commercial values will inevitably subsume the former’s intellectual independence. We revisit this debate in the light of new evidence from both proponents and opponents of the Entrepreneurial University concept.

- Prof. Denis O. Gray, Alumni Distinguished Graduate Professor in Psychology in the Public Interest Program, Psychology Department, North Carolina State University
- Dr. Norman Kaderlan, President of Technology Innovation Group, Inc., Austin


  • Dr. Tracey Wilen-Daugenti, President of the University of Phoenix Research Institute and Visiting Scholar at Stanford University’s Media X program for research on the impact of information and technology on society.
  • Prof. Slavica Singer, UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, J.J. Strossmayer University in Osijek, Croatia. Member of Croatian Competitiveness Council and Club of Rome, Croatian Chapter, and leader of CEPOR, SMEs Think Tank.
  • Prof. Steven P. Nichols, Director of the Masters in Engineering Management Program at the Cockrell School of Engineering, University of Texas at Austin.
  • Prof. Branca Terra, Professor of Innovation Management, Rio de Janeiro State University, Brazil.

2. From “Boulevard of Broken Dreams” to “Government as an Entrepreneur”: The Role of Public Venture Capital

Between Josh Lerner’s Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Why Public Efforts to Boost Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Have Failed — and What to Do About It and Al and Jamie Link’s Government as Entrepreneur lies a world of pros and cons of government interventions to support innovation, entrepreneurship and strategic research partnerships from public funds. Is ‘Government as Venture Capitalist’ an oxymoron or a counter-cyclical imperative?


  • Dan Hanson, Founder of Technology Innovation Group, Dallas, Texas  USA
  • Irina Anghel, Secretary General of the South Eastern European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association, Bucharest, Romania


3. Economic Crisis, Innovation and the Philosopher’s Stone

The “stagnation of the West and emergence of the rest” that marked the recent years is likely to continue over the coming years, at the slow pace of recovery in a large part of the world, still suffering by high unemployment, low productivity growth and the ambiguous effects of stimulus vs. austerity measures. How can innovation speed up economic recovery, what are the ‘dynamos of the new economy’ and how can they be supported?


  • Alain-Marc Rieu, Professor, Department of philosophy, University of Lyon – Jean Moulin, Senior research fellow, Institute of East Asian Studies (CNRS), Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, France


  • Sverker Alänge, Associate Professor, Department of Technology Management and Economics at Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  • Nicklas Lundblad, Senior Policy Counsel & Head of Public Policy at Google, non-residential fellow at Stanford Centre for Internet and Society, US.
  • Annika Steiber, PhD student, Department of Technology Management and Economics at Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  • Dr. Nataliya Smorodinskaya, Head of Centre for Growth Poles and SEZ, Institute of Economy, Russian Academy of Sciences

4. “The Shape of Things to Come in the Research Triangle” (organized by North Carolina State University, US)

The Research Triangle region capitalized on and amplified the foresight and decisions made over 50 years ago when North Carolina established the Research Triangle Park.  During that half-century the partnerships and collaboration of three of the nations’ top research universities, clusters of networked high technology private firms, and state and local leaders with a pro-business orientation, engineered a region of innovation and economic growth.

This thematic workshop will address how the leadership and policies of local and state governments transformed and continued to shape the economic future of the region, how the universities and their research, education and engagement accelerate innovation and job creation, and how the regional vision is being implemented in private sector decisions about location and growth.  What organizational structures support the regional vision? Why is the region growing even during the recession? What has been accomplished over the last ten years using industry cluster models? How will the Research Triangle change in the next 5-10 years?  Speakers from government, university and private sector will present their perspective.

Chair: James J. Zuiches, Vice Chancellor, North Carolina State University,
Theme: “University Partnerships Foster Economic Competitiveness”


  • Charles Hayes, President and CEO, Research Triangle Regional Partnership. Theme: “The Shape of Things to Come: Designing and Implementing a Successful Development Plan”.
  • John Hardin, Executive Director, North Carolina Board of Science and Technology. Theme: “Innovation and Competitiveness: the role of government”.
  • Denis Gray, Professor, North Carolina State University. Theme: “Accelerators of Innovation in complex organizations”.
  • Liz Rooks, Interim President and CEO, Research Triangle Park. Theme:“Reinventing RTP as a Mature Enterprise”
  • Joe Novak, RTP Site Executive, Cisco Systems Inc. Theme: “The Perspective of the Corporate Partner: What Works for Cisco”

5. The ‘End of Bayh-Dole’ and The Second Coming of the Triple Helix: The Hidden Impact of Universities and the Emergence of Hybrid Research Environments (organized by Sussex University, UK)

The Triple Helix is now well into its second decade – a strong and vibrant community of researchers interested in university-industry-government relations. At its heart lies the assumption that the spheres of academia, industry and government are moving closer to each other and boundaries are getting blurred. Loet Leydesdorff (2003) developed a more formal model that allows us to test the overlay of the various strands of the Triple Helix. One of the salient features of his model is that allows for ‘negative overlay’, or more specifically, a decrease in the overlap between the three different strands. More recently, research has shown that university patenting – arguably a key indicator in the Triple Helix context – is not growing anymore in the US and elsewhere (Leydesdorff & Meyer, 2006, 2010). In relative terms, a decline can be observed. Some analysts feel this observation could have considerable implications beyond the mundane question of whether the Bayh-Dole effect has come to an end. In particular, one could argue that the relative decline is a first sign that the Triple Helix link between strands is loosening.

Comparing the Triple Helix with other, related models, such as Mode 2 (Gibbons et al., 1994) or systems of innovation (e.g., Edquist, Lundvall) one could argue that the emergence of the entrepreneurial university has played the most prominent role. For instance, Etzkowitz and colleagues (2000) described the university as a potential regional innovation organizer and emphasized the academic revolutions that saw an extension of the University from teaching to research and entrepreneurship. One could argue that this focus on the university in the Triple Helix model means that a stagnation or relative decline in the University’s third stream activities questions the overall model. However, this would do not justice to the other two helices that generate the system.

Recent case studies have pointed to the emergence of new, hybrid research environments, mostly positioned in ‘Pasteur’s quadrant’ of strategic, or needs-driven, basic research, where often the ‘coordination function’ is incorporated as a company with Triple-Helix shareholders at the heart of boundary crossing research. Another trend that is important here is ‘loose coupling’, which is closely related to firms’ concentrating on core competencies (Brusoni et al., 2001). This means that companies have an increased need to source ‘non-core’ components and services from suppliers (from outside the group); they need to rely now more on an external network that they may have needed to in earlier times. In the context of the knowledge based economy this also means an increased reliance on work with academic/public research partners to assess technological or commercial options and developments.

All of this implies that the corporate strand of the Triple Helix may have an increasing interest in maintaining or extending their overlay, or that in some instance the company as a legal entity has become the preferable form for conducting research. Before this background one could argue that the corporate strand of the Helix is now the ‘more active’ one in generating the ‘overlay’. Universities, one could add, have contributed to the success by generating start-up and spin-off companies, most of which tend to be active in terms of IP protection. This would show in start-up and USO patenting and hence ‘assigned’ to the corporate sector – not the University/academy strand. In that sense there may be a shift in Triple Helix relations with the corporate assuming a comparatively more active role. This is amply supported by the government strand of the Helix, which is creating ‘markets’ for research through generous innovation support measures. With the sluggish economy, companies recognize the state as a source of revenue (increase in public procurement, etc.). In some instances, analysts may even argue the State is actively engaged in building new institutions for research. So rather than the end we may witness a second coming of the Triple Helix. The proposed workshop seeks to explore these issues in more detail and bring together research on various aspects of newly emergent hybrid research organizations.

Chair: Prof. Martin Meyer, Head of Business and Management, School of Business, Management and Economics University of Sussex, United Kingdom

Discussant: Dr Dirk Libaers, Assistant Professor in Entrepreneurship & Innovation, Henry W. Bloch School of Business and Public Administration, University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Workshop Programme

K Debackere, W. Glänzel, J. Callaert, M. du Plessis, et al. – Universities as IP generators and multipliers

Koenraad Debackere and colleagues present research on universities as IP generators and multipliers. Starting from the Bayh-Dole Act and its impact on university patenting and more recent observations of a declining share of universities in patenting, the authors find in a more detailed analysis that this relative decline hides an increase in the IP estates created by spin-offs from those same universities. In absolute numbers, university patent portfolios have still been growing, despite their relative decline. As a consequence, a new situation occurs where universities maintain a high level of absolute patent output, while their spin-offs contribute to a further increase in IP output. The authors will illustrate this phenomenon using recent empirical material from the field of translational medicine.

J Kuusisto et al. – Creating User Driven Research and Innovation Environments: A Review of Emergent Approaches

Jari Kuusisto and colleagues will present findings from a study of user-driven competence centres. User-driven competence centres can be seen as prime examples of hybrid research organisations as they seek to facilitate needs-driven basic research in what has become known as ‘Pasteur’s quadrant’. Increasingly this type of research is performed in a context that reaches beyond typical academic or industrial labs but can best be characterised as hybrid environments. The authors will share insights and experiences from a study of user-driven competence centres that reviewed business-led research networks of excellence across a wide range of countries.

R Gustafsson and S Järvenpää – Strategic Science and Technology Centres: the Case of the Finnish Metals and Engineering Competence Cluster

Robin Gustafsson’s work is closely linked to the aforementioned paper as he will analyse the changing practices of conducting and coordinating innovation and research on a case basis. His contribution will focus on the example of the Finnish Metals and Engineering Competence Cluster (FIMECC), which is one of the recently established Strategic Science and Technology Centres. These centres, generously funded by the National Technology Agency, are tasked to lead the industrial renewal of their respective sectors by developing radical, break-through innovations. FIMECC, as all other centres, is organised as a non-profit limited company with shareholders from industry, academe and other organisations. The shareholders prepare a strategic research agenda for the centre which is implemented through large research programmes that are also open to parties who are not shareholders. The paper offers a comprehensive snapshot of the field of actors around the centre and their relations. Attention is paid to emergent change in the field, particularly regarding changing interactions, practices, memberships and relational positions, as well as emergent conflicts, contradictions and their causes.

J Readman, D Twigg and J Bessant – Transforming research-technology organisations: Insights from the UK

Jeff Readman, David Twigg and John Bessant offer insights from case studies of intermediaries, more specifically research-technology organisations in the UK. These organisations, many of which are incorporated as not-for-profit companies, can be seen as hybrid research environments between basic science and applied, industrial research. This contribution will illustrate how once public research institutes have undergone a process of transformation which has proven quite radical become at times.

J Park, J Moultrie – Interdisciplinary Knowledge Exchange in Korean Design: Results from a large scale survey and case studies

Jae Hwan Park and James Moultrie investigate knowledge exchange processes between university and industry in a hitherto under-researched yet particularly user-driven area – design. Based on large-scale survey data covering more than 15% of whole design academics, the authors explore the heterogeneity of design nature and design knowledge interaction channels with industry. The authors will also explore in case studies how Korean design academics support innovation in the country’s manufacturing and service industries.


Koenraad Debackere, Professor of Managerial Economics, Strategy & Innovation and General Manager, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.

Robin Gustafsson, Head of the International Business Group, CEMS Academic Director, Acting Professor, Aalto University School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland.

Jari Kuusisto, Director, SC-Research, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland,  and Visiting Scholar, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

Dirk Libaers, Assistant Professor in Entrepreneurship & Innovation, Henry W. Bloch School of Business and Public Administration, University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Martin Meyer, Professor of Business & Innovation and Head of Business & Management, University of Sussex, UK.

Jae Hwan Park, doctoral candidate, Institute for Manufacturing (IFM), Cambridge University, UK.

David Twigg, Senior Lecturer in Business & Innovation, School of Business, Management and Economics, University of Sussex, UK.

6. Converting Resources into Innovation Development: The Russian Challenge? (organized by TUSUR University Tomsk, Russia)

The Russian government has undertaken various efforts to stimulate innovation over the last 10 years, but the success so far is modest. Russian science is mostly government-owned and controlled, as it was during the Soviet times, universities are not among major players in R&D, innovation activity in business sector is low, and the impact of small innovative companies on the economy is not sufficient on country-scale. One of the important problems is that government was not able to assist networking of various actors in innovation system. As a result, Russia today represents a sort of “quadruple helix” instead of a “triple helix”: science, universities, business, and government, in which linkages are mostly dyads of science-government, universities-government and business-government. During the last two years, the government has initiated a number of new measures aimed to foster innovation development and to get away from the “resource-extracting economy” curse. Some measures may have high potential to change the situation for the better. The workshop will discuss the following questions:

  1. Is Russia moving towards the Triple Helix model and by what means?
  2. What was successful in the past experience in terms of stimulating innovations and what were the biggest mistakes?
  3. How the roles of government, universities, and business should be changed?
  4. In which directions should the government policy be modified or even radically changed?
  5. What should be the role of local governments in the process of innovation development?

Chair: Irina G. Dezhina, Head of Economics of Science Division at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow


  • Alexey Stukanov, Head of the Department for International and Regional Cooperation of Tomsk Region Administration (Russia). Theme: Tomsk Region: Promoting Innovations”.
  • Nataliya Vadimovna Smorodinskaya, Head  of Center for growth poles and special  economic  zones,  Institute  of  Economy,  Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow. Theme: Triple Helix as an Instituional Matrix of Innovation-led Growth
  • Andrey Kunov, Associate Director of the Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, Stanford University.
  • Alexander Uvarov, Vice-Rector for Innovations of Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics (TUSUR). He is the leader of spin-off cluster, currently comprising 120 enterprises. Theme: Practice for Triple Helix Interaction of University, Regional Government and Business.

7.     Silicon Valley Insights: Openness, the Quadruple Helix and Knowledge Federation (organized by the Knowledge Federation and the Tech Museum in San Jose, California, US)

Wisdom enough to leech us of our ill
Is daily spun; but there exists no loom
To weave it into fabric” (Edna St. Vincent Millay).

Doug Engelbart, one of Silicon Valley’s greatest innovators, saw the need for this loom and a way to create it in the early 1950s. The technology developed in his laboratory—personal and networked computing, graphical user interface with windows, on-screen conferencing and a number of others—set the development of computing for a half-century. Yet what has been accomplished is only part of his project. What remains is to combine those components into socio-technical systems capable of weaving our personal wisdom and ideas into the fabric of shared insights and answers to the increasingly complex questions that humanity will be facing.

What we call “knowledge federation” is a variant of Engelbart’s loom, creating shared meaning even in a world of disputed issues. It is an ecosystem of people, tools and practices to describe knowledge, weigh its authority, search it, mark it iconically, share it legally, tend it and garden it—an ecosystem where differing views are allowed to coexist in a dynamic relationship, cross-fertilizing each other. Through openness and sharing it democratizes knowledge by allowing a broader constituency to contribute. Knowledge federation is in effect a quadruple helix of universities, companies and states plus individuals.

The Knowledge Federation is an international community to promote innovation at a new level through the integration of tools and best practices into a system for knowledge work. The Knowledge Federation is itself organized as a knowledge federation, and practices Engelbart’s innovation strategy called ‘bootstrapping,’ where a community develops socio-technical solutions by using itself as a sandbox. The Knowledge Federation consists of IT researchers, system developers, journalists, entrepreneurs and collective intelligence mavens—a diverse mix of backgrounds and talents as necessary for system design on this large scale.

Issues this workshop will discuss:

  • How to support democracy by weaving together new ways of understanding issues, and new paths to solutions.
  • How to federate education, so that learning resources are co-created by international researchers and learners, and offered to students worldwide.
  • How to federate science, so that key ideas from academic articles are combined with related ideas and then turned into insights and made available to other disciplines, to journalists and to the general public.
  • How knowledge federation cross-fertilizes with the Triple Helix approach.

Chair: John Wilbanks, VP of Science, Creative Commons.

Previously founded Incellico, a bioinformatics company that built semantic graph networks for use in pharmaceutical research & development. Also previously Assistant Director, Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School and legislative aide to U.S. Representative Pete Stark.


  • Dino Karabeg, Associate Professor at Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo. He modeled his career on the question: what could academics do, if they allowed themselves to re-create the very way in which they practice their profession? His interests extend to general methodology, education, healthcare, corporate business organization and communication. Dino is one of the lead architects of Knowledge Federation and, together with Jack Park, a co-organizer of Knowledge Federation workshops.
  • Jack Park, Silicon Valley researcher and innovator, presently developing knowledge gardens and deploying them in South Korea, Kuwait, and Malaysia under the auspices of the Millennium Project. As a Ph.D. student with The Open University, UK, Park works on federation of hypermedia discourse about topics that matter.  He is co-author of XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web. Formerly Research Scientist, SRI Inc. where he worked with the team that created the IRIS Semantic Desktop application for the Cognitive Assistant That Learns and Organizes (CALO) DARPA-funded project.
  • Ramon Sangüesa, Professor, Knowledge Engineering and Machine Learning Group, Dept. of Software, Technical University of Catalonia.  Co-founder, CoCreating Cultures a platform for collaborative social innovation. Founder and Director of Innovation at Citilab, an open citizen lab in Barcelona Spain. He is partner of Abiquo and JustInMind, two startups on cloud computing and automated web development recently located in Silicon Valley.
  • Robert Stephenson, Director of the Tech Virtual at The Tech Museum in San Jose, California. An MIT-trained neuroscientist and former Professor of Biology at Wayne State University, e-learning designer and architect of virtual open source and open content collaborations, he founded the Harvey Project, an international collaboration to build free learning objects for physiology and, a foundry for open courseware.
  • Stian Danenbarger, information architect and technical concept developer at the Norwegian IT consultancy Bouvet ASA. He initiated the development of (ISO13250) Topic Maps driven web sites and content management systems in Norway in 2001, and his focus during over the past ten years or so has been on the application of semantic technology and web oriented architecture in the public sector, particularly in the educational area (e.g. the normative representation of the national curriculum for lower education in Norway is now a Topic Map) (to be confirmed)

8. Snapshots, Movies and Interactive Tools: Analyzing and Communicating the Power of Relationships in the Triple Helix (organized by Media X, Stanford University)

We are at an unprecedented time in history – when analytical tools allow us to visualize the invisible. Similar to the cascade of medical and biotech inventions that the microscope enabled, access to visualization tools (e.g., network analysis) that are driven by open access and socially constructed (online and available) data allows breakthrough opportunities. Scholars and analysts of Triple Helix innovation can actually see the entities, relationships and forces they’re studying! With images of these analyses, they can visually share the current realities and desired transformations with program managers and change makers.

In this workshop, we are going to describe visualization-driven methods of social network analysis and discuss how these methods may be applied in the context of Triple Helix research. More specifically, we will walk through the basics of social network analysis and discuss advanced themes such as analysis of co-creation, mobility (geographical and inter-organizational) and network creation; we will also describe best practices for the curation of federated data.

We’ll start with a review of some of the openly available and easy-to-use tools for visual network analysis: network analysis tools such as NodeXL and Gephi, as well as other visualisation tools such as Protovis and Worlde that can be used to complement network analysis. We’ll illustrate these tools in the context of analysis conducted for regional innovation programs.

Co-chairs: Dr. Neil Rubens, Assistant Professor at the Knowledge Systems Laboratory, University of Electro-Communications, Japan, and Mr. Jukka Huhtamäki, Researcher, Hypermedia Laboratory at Tampere University of Technology, Finland.


  • Dr. Neil Rubens, Assistant Professor at the Knowledge Systems
    Laboratory, University of Electro-Communications, Japan
    Theme: Methods and tools of social network analysis for innovation ecosystems
  • Jukka Huhtamäki, Researcher, Hypermedia Laboratory at Tampere University of Technology, Finland.
    Theme: Data collecting and curating; streamlining the process from data to visualizations
  • Dr. Kaisa Still, Researcher, VTT Technical Research Centre, Finland
    Theme: Regional case studies related to Finland
  • Camilla Yu, Media X, Stanford University, USA
    Theme: Regional case studies related to France
  • Dr. Martha G. Russell, Associate Director, Media X, and Senior Researcher, H-STAR Institute, Stanford University
    Theme: How to use the visualizations to build vision and help people to work together?

9. Using Innovation Games® Online  Reach Consensus In Distributed Triple Helix Teams (organized by The Innovation Games® Company)

The enduring lesson of the Triple Helix is that the core of knowledge-based economic and social development is the collaboration between university-industry-government actors. These collaborations can be quite challenging, especially when the actors are geographically distributed. This workshop provides an introduction to Innovation Games® Online, a powerful platform that provides both visual collaboration and virtual market serious games that enable distributed actors to collaborate on complex problems. By exploring how these games have been used by large companies such as Cisco, VeriSign, Reed Elsevier and Emerson Climate Technologies, large cities such as San Jose, CA, as well as small startups, participants will have concrete examples of how serious games can solve complex problems. Bring your laptop, as we hope to demonstrate these games in real time.

Presenter: Luke Hohmann, Founder and CEO, The Innovation Games® Company, a leading provider of online and in-person serious gaming solutions. Luke is the author of three books: Innovation Games®: Creating Breakthrough Products Through Collaborative Play; Beyond Software Architecture: Creating and Sustaining Winning Solutions, and Journey of the Software Professional: A Sociology of Software Development. Luke graduated magna cum laude with a B.S.E. in Computer Engineering and an M.S.E in Computer Science and Engineering from the University of Michigan. While at Michigan he studied cognitive psychology and organizational behavior in addition to data structures and artificial intelligence. He is a former 1985 United States National Junior Pairs Figure Skating Champion and former American College of Sports Medicine certified aerobics instructor. A member of the PDMA, ACM, IEEE, QRCA, and Agile Alliance, in his spare time he enjoys rough housing with his four kids, his wife’s cooking, and long runs in the Santa Cruz mountains (because he really does enjoy his wife’s cooking).

10. Implementing Triple Helix innovation strategies in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE): a bridge too far?

Science and R&D, although with a significant potential, are typically isolated from industry in the CEE region, creating an important obstacle to effective Triple Helix interactions. Therefore, effective innovation policies need to focus on bridging the gap between industry and research. To effectively integrate Science and R&D activities with the innovative efforts of the private sector, two crucial problems of institutional design must be addressed: (1) aligning the R&D activities performed in universities and research institutes to the technological demands of existing business enterprises; and (2) facilitating two-way flows of information and knowledge at the public-private interface. Hence, transforming existing knowledge into commercial applications that create added value and contribute to the socio-economic development of a country is a central issue regularly addressed when discussing the economic capabilities of the CEE region. But how can innovative capacities be enhanced and economic diversity be achieved? What are possible strategies and measures that appropriately address each country’s specific problems and obstacles in its development? And which experiences with diverse policies have been made so far?

The workshop will address the following key policy issues:

  1. Incentives and obstacles in the cooperation with the private sector;
  2. University reforms and their impact on TH cooperation (incentive schemes, contract research, university spin-off formation);
  3. R&D and technology transfer infrastructure and management;
  4. Structural reasons for low R&D intensity and innovation output, potential role of FDI and MNCs;
  5. Design of policy programmes (fiscal restrictions, priorities, funding criteria, programme evaluation).

Chair: Mathias RAUCH, Deputy Director, Fraunhofer Center for Central and Eastern Europe MOEZ, Leipzig (DE); Lecturer in Innovation Management and Innovation Economics, University of Leipzig (DE).


  1. Marina RANGA, Senior Researcher, H-STAR Institute, Stanford University (US); Visiting Fellow, Sussex University, School of Business, Management and Economics (UK)
  2. Annamaria INZELT, Director, IKU Innovation Research Centre, Budapest (HU); Professor, University of Szeged (HU)
  3. Andrzej H. JASINSKI, Professor, Head of Unit for Innovation and Logistics, School of Management, University of Warsaw (PL)
  4. Laszlo CSONKA, Researcher, IKU Innovation Research Centre, Budapest (HU); Lecturer on Innovation Policy, University of Szeged (HU)

11. Health as a Team Sport – Can “Games” invigorate US Health?

Triple Helix collaboration in a complex space is emerging within the Federal Health Futures Group. Initiated by the US Air Force Medical Services, the group has brought together the Surgeon Generals of the Army, Navy and Air Force, and the Deputy Surgeon General of the United States, the Veteran’s Administration and departments within the Health and Human Services Agency. Academic participants have been connected to Harvard, Stanford, MIT, University of Texas at San Antonio, and others. In exploring the idea of Health as a team sport, members of the Health Futures Group come together with game designers to discuss whether GAMES can help improve public health and create the environment within which individuals can thrive in good times and bad.

  1. At the individual level: Getting more exercise, improving diet, dealing with illness, preventing disease, recovering from trauma and illness
  2. At the team level: Coaching groups of health professionals to work together amongst themselves to increase health, recovery, thriving
  3. In the community: In improving teamwork and collaboration between the formal healthcare and the informal family and friend networks
  4. At the government level: to improve the impact and effectiveness of policy, research and regulation

Chair: Mei Lin Fung, MS MIT, Chairman of the Institute for Service Organization Excellence, Board Member National University of Singapore America Foundation. Founding member of the Federal Health Futures Group. Pioneer in the field of Customer Relationship Management, worked at Intel and Oracle.


  • Ahmed Calvo, M.D., M.P.H., FAAF, Chief Medical Officer of the Federally funded Health Clinics at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Agency. Chief of Division of Clinical Quality, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Clinical Quality Improvement.
  • Michael Dinneen, M.D. Ph.D. Director, Office of Strategy Management for the Military Health System within the U.S. Department of Defense. He served as Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry, then Director of Medical Services for the National Naval Medical Center.
  • John Hiles, Research Professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, specialty: Autonomous Software Agents. At Maxis Corporation, the creator of Sim City, he successfully transferred characteristics of Sim City to games for education and training, such as running factories and refineries, health care, legislation and elections, project management, and transportation.
  • Luke Hohmann, CEO and author of “Innovation Games”, MS Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan. Former National Junior Pairs Figure Skating Champion. Successful serial entrepreneur, recognized pioneer in the design and production of Serious Games to change the world.

12. Accelerating Trust Through Telepresence: Relationship Resources and Triple Helix Dependencies for Co-creating Innovation (organized by Media X and Cisco)

Strategic value creation networks have become critically important factors in technology development and social change. Trust building activities are critical in developing the relationship infrastructure of people, organizations and policies. Trust builds on personal familiarity and shared context, which is facilitated by personal presence. Witness the contribution of high definition video conferencing to presence and building trust.

In this workshop, we use the concept of innovation ecosystems to employment and investment relationships, as indicators of the broad system of value co-creation. Case studies of regional development programs will be described by program leaders participating in-person and through Cisco’s telepresence technology. The in-depth discussion will focus on co-creation of synergistic relationships, with special focus on infrastructure initiatives and programs to accelerate the development of trust. Each region will be described in terms of its relationship resources – the human network, its dependencies on multi-sector collaboration to stimulate technology-based regional economic development, infrastructure programs, and the techno-cultural factors guiding the deployment of those insights. Discussions in this panel will describe the network dynamics of Triple Helix factors, using social network analysis to provide insights on success factors and inspiration for Triple Helix insights.

This workshop will take place across six locations, using telepresence communication. The workshop will be held at two physical Cisco locations in San Jose and four virtual locations: Birmingham Science Park Aston, UK; Barcelona, Spain; Skolkovo, Russia; and Espoo, Finland. Bus transportation will be provided from Stanford to San Jose for 17 TH9 attendees to participate at the Cisco headquarters. The bus will depart at 7:30 am and return to Stanford at 11:00am. Space is available on a first come first serve basis. Please contact Kaisa Still ( for space availability.

Chair: Martha Russell, PhD, Senior Research Scholar, Human Sciences Technology Advanced Institute, Associate Director, Media X at Stanford University, USA


  • Kaisa Still, Kaisa Still, VTT Technical Research Centre, FINLAND, based Beijing, CHINA
  • Gordon Feller, Director of Urban Innovation, Cisco Systems, USA
  • Josep Pique, Managing Director of 22@Barcelona, SPAIN
  • David Hardman, Managing Director, Birmingham Science Park Aston, UK
  • Jukka Huhtamäki, M.Sc, Hypermedia Laboratory (HLab) at Tampere University of Technology, FINLAND
  • Neil Rubens, PhD, Assistant Professor, Active Intelligence Group, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, University of Electro-Communications, JAPAN
  • Camilla Yu, Project Assistant, Media X at Stanford University, Shanghai, CHINA

Remote Participants:

  • FROM MOSCOW, RUSSIA: Alexei Beltyukov, Vice-President, Chief Development Officer, Skolkovo Foundation
  • FROM ESPOO, FINLAND: Marko Turpinen, Director of Helsinki Node at EIT ICT Labs. Visiting Professor in Media Technology at The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). Principal Scientist of the Network Society research programme, Leader of the Digital Content Communities research group at Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (HIIT).
  • FROM LONDON, UK: Hugo Russell, Project Manager & Technologist, Birmingham Science Park Aston
Triple Helix Conference I Amsterdam, 1996 II New York, 1998 III Rio de Janeiro, 2000 IV Copenhagen, 2002 V Turin, 2005 VI Singapore, 2007 VII Glasgow, 2009 VIII Madrid, 2010 IX Stanford, 2011 X Indonesia, 2012 XI London, 2013
Powered by WordPress
Development by Techbridge WordPress Developers Toronto