University–industry (U–I) interactions are increasingly seen as critical components of national innovation systems and for building knowledge economies in developed and developing countries alike. Considering the Triple Helix (TH) model of innovation and the university–business cooperation framework, we report the results of a study on the current state of and barriers to U–I interactions in Oman. The study is based on a qualitative review of published higher education institute (HEI) quality audit reports and questionnaire surveys of HEIs and industry. It is suggested that Oman’s innovation system is currently based on the ‘statist’ model with some initiatives taking place to transition it towards the ‘integrated’ TH model. The results show that U–I interactions are mainly education-related, with limited emphasis on research and valorisation activities. Barriers identified include initiation and awareness constraints, limited funding, internal organisational culture and structure and industry’s limited absorptive capacity.
BartelsFLKoriaRVitaliE (2016) Barriers to innovation: the case of Ghana and implications for developing countries. Triple Helix3(1): 12.
2.
BercovitzJFeldmanM (2006) Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The Journal of Technology Transfer31(1): 175–188.
3.
BoyerCMLewisDR (1984) Faculty consulting: Responsibility or promiscuity?The Journal of Higher Education55(5): 637–659.
4.
BrundeniusCLundvallBASutzJ (2009) The role of universities in innovation systems in developing countries: developmental university systems – empirical, analytical and normative perspectives. In: Bengt-ÅkeLJosephKJChaminadeCVangJan (eds) Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries, Chapter 11. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 331–336.
5.
BruneelJD’ EstePSalterA (2010) Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy39(7): 858–868.
6.
CaiY (2014) Implementing the Triple Helix model in a non-Western context: an institutional logics perspective. Triple Helix1: 1.
7.
CarayolN (2003) Objectives, agreements and matching in science–industry collaborations: reassembling the pieces of the puzzle. Research Policy32(6): 887–908.
8.
ChesbroughHW (2006) Open Innovation the New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
9.
CohenWMLevinthalDA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly35(1): 128–152.
CowanRVan de PaalG (2000) Innovations Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy. Innovations Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy. Luxembourg: EUR-OP.
12.
D’ EstePPerkmannM (2010) Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer36(3): 316–339.
13.
DuttaSLanvinBWunsch-VincentS (eds) (2018) Global Innovation Index Report: Energizing the World with Innovation. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva. Report, Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO.
14.
EshamM (2008) Strategies to Develop University-Industry Linkages in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka: National Education Commission.
15.
EtzkowitzH (2003) Innovation in innovation: the Triple-Helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information42(3): 293–337.
16.
EtzkowitzHLeydesdorffL (1995) The Triple-Helix – university-industry-government relations: a laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review14(1): 14–19.
17.
EtzkowitzHWebsterAGebhardtC, et al. (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy29(2): 313–330.
18.
FontanaRGeunaAMattM (2006) Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: the importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research Policy35(2): 309–323.
19.
FreitasIMBMarquesRADe Paula E SilvaEM (2013) University–industry collaboration and innovation in emergent and mature industries in new industrialized countries. Research Policy42(2): 443–453.
20.
Galan-MurosVDaveyT (2017) The UBC ecosystem: putting together a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation. The Journal of Technology Transfer44(4): 1311–1346.
21.
GuimonJ (2013) Promoting university-industry collaboration in developing countries. Technical Report, The Innovation Policy Platform (OECD and The World Bank).
22.
HagedoornJLinkANVonortasNS (2000) Research partnerships. Research Policy29(4-5): 567–586.
23.
HalibasASSibayanROMaataRL (2017) The Penta Helix model of innovation in Oman: an HEI perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management12: 159–174.
24.
HsiehHFShannonSE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research15(9): 1277–1288.
25.
JensenMBJohnsonBLorenzE, et al. (2007) Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy36(5): 680–693.
26.
KaufmannATödtlingF (2001) Science–industry interaction in the process of innovation: the importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy30(5): 791–804.
27.
LazzerettiLTavolettiE (2005) Higher education excellence and local economic development: the case of the entrepreneurial university of Twente. European Planning Studies13(3): 475–493.
28.
LinkANReesJ (1990) Firm size, university based research, and the returns to R&D. Small Business Economics2(1): 25–31.
29.
LohinBN (2014) Innovative Asia: Advancing the Knowledge-Based Economy - The Next Policy Agenda. Mandaluyong: Asian Development Bank.
30.
LundvallBA (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers.
31.
MalikKWickramasingheV (2015) Initiating university-industry collaborations in developing countries. In: 5th International Conference on Innovation & Entrepreneurship, Singapore, 14–15 December 2015.
32.
MamuduAHymoreFK (2016) Enhancing university-industry (UI) collaboration in Ghana for improved skilled labour. In: Proceedings of INCEDI Conference, Accra, Ghana, 29–31 August 2016.
33.
MarquesJCaraçaJDizH (2006) How can university–industry–government interactions change the innovation scenario in Portugal? —the case of the university of Coimbra. Technovation26(4): 534–542.
34.
MartinM (2000) Managing University-Industry Relations: A Study of Institutional Practices From 12 Different Countries. Managing University-Industry Relations: a Study of Institutional Practices From 12 Different Countries. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.
35.
MedlinCPlewaC (2009) A study of trust, commitment and satisfaction across research-industry relationships. In: AurifeilleJMMedlinCJTisdellC (eds) Trust, Globalisation and Market Expansion. New York: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 119–132.
36.
MittonCAdairCEMckenzieE, et al. (2007) Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Quarterly85(4): 729–768.
37.
OECD (1996) The Knowledge Based Economy. Paris.
38.
OECD (2001) Knowledge, Work Organisation and Economic Growth. Paris.
Oman Statistical Yearbook (2018) National Centre for Statistics & Information. Muscat, Oman.
41.
OzolsAOzolaEEglitisJ (2012) Introduction of Triple-Helix model in Latvia based on experience of Sweden, Singapore, and South Korea. Problems of Education in the 21st Century43: 58–68.
42.
ParkerLE (1992) Industry-University Collaboration in Developed and Developing Countries. Washington: The World Bank.
43.
PerkmannMWalshK (2007) University-industry relationships and open innovation: towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews9(4): 259–280.
44.
PerkmannMWalshK (2009) The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change18(6): 1033–1065.
45.
PlewaCKorffNJohnsonC, et al. (2013) The evolution of university–industry linkages—a framework. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management30(1): 21–44.
46.
RazakAAWhiteGR (2015) The Triple Helix model for innovation: a holistic exploration of barriers and enablers. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling7(3): 278–291.
47.
SantonenTKaivo-OjaJSuomalaJ (2014) The next steps in developing the Triple-Helix model: a brief introduction to national open innovation system (NOIS) paradigm. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics12(7): 74–82.
48.
ShaneSSomayaD (2007) The effects of patent litigation on university licensing efforts. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization63(4): 739–755.
49.
SiegelDSWaldmanDAAtwaterLE, et al. (2004) Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management21(1-2): 115–142.
50.
SiegelDSWrightMLockettA (2007) The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change16(4): 489–504.
51.
UNCTAD (2014) Science, Technology and Innovation Review Report – Oman. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
52.
VerspagenB (2005) Innovation and economic growth. In: FagerbergJMoweryDCNelsonRR (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 487–513.
53.
WIPO (2007) Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property and Effective University-Industry Partnerships: the Experience of China, India, Japan, Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.
54.
YeohPL (2009) Realized and potential absorptive capacity: understanding their antecedents and performance in the sourcing context. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice17(1): 21–36.
