@article {1283,
	title = {Design Rules for {\textquoteleft}Triple Helix{\textquoteright} Organizations},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {11/2019},
	pages = {54-63},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {54},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The image of the triple helix with three forces spiraling around each other has proven to be a powerful and inspiring image of the collaboration between government, business, and academia. The partners in such collaborative arrangements no doubt share an interest in making the collaboration successful. However, they also have specific interests and goals of their own. Too many triple helix arrangements have failed, because they did not consider this basic fact. Achieving their own goals is not necessarily the intention with which partners enter the collaborative effort, but they may well end up following this strategy. We start this paper with a brief description of what can be considered a typical case of \&lsquo;successful failure\&rsquo; in a triple helix organization. We then review the literature regarding reasons for success or failure of triple helix organizations. We find that transparency and credible sanctions for self-interested behaviour are important requirements for successful triple helix arrangements. We then use notions from cybernetics and organizational design to develop basic rules for the design of triple helix arrangements. Basically, these rules and arrangements aim to ensure that self-interest and common purpose will concur.},
	keywords = {design rules, leadership, motivation, sanctions, triple helix},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1283},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1283},
	author = {Ben Dankbaar}
}
@article {854,
	title = {Does Social Innovation Require Social Entrepreneurship?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {12/2014},
	pages = {17-26},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Social innovation is now considered an important element in the search for solutions to pressing social problems. Inspired by Schumpeter{\textquoteright}s conceptualization of innovation, "social" entrepreneurship is thought to contribute to "social" innovation in more or less the same way that "normal" entrepreneurship consists of the introduction of "normal" innovations. In the literature as well as in practice, the definition of concepts such as social innovation and social entrepreneurship has led to considerable confusion. We aim to bring clarity to the debate, arguing that every entrepreneurial action results in some measure of intended or unintended social innovation, regardless of whether the entrepreneurs in question are considered or consider themselves "social" or not. We test our insights in an investigation of 20 social enterprises that have a commercial business model.},
	keywords = {entrepreneurship, institutional change, Schumpeter, social change, social entrepreneurship, social innovation, sustainability},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/854},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/854},
	author = {Asceline Groot and Ben Dankbaar}
}
