Evaluation and Program Planning 95 (2022) 102170

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Evaluation and Program Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan

Assessing university-business collaborations for moderate innovators:

Implications for university-led innovation policy evaluation
Mita Marra a, *, Vincenzo Alfano b, Roberto Michele Celentano c
a
University of Naples “Federico II”, Italy
b
University of Messina, Italy
c
Independent Researcher, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The growing literature on University-Industry Collaborations (UICs) highlights how learning processes get un­
University-Industry Collaborations (UICs) evenly located in space, within centers of innovative activity, where the local presence of research-oriented
University-led innovation policy universities plays a crucial role. Through a mixed-methods approach, this article explores the firm-level
University’s societal impact
drivers of innovation and the interactions between a sample of companies and the local university in a mod­
Knowledge ecosystem
Innovation ecosystems
erate innovation EU region. Findings highlight that firms’ size, sector, leadership’s commitment to digitalization,
Innovative start-ups and collaborations with the university explain companies’ innovative performance. The article contributes to the
university’s societal impact assessment and discusses the implications for university-led innovation for Smart
Specialization.

1. Introduction
Recent studies on innovation highlight that besides research and
development (R&D), intangible factors, such as the quality of the
regional innovation system (Parrilli & Radicic, 2021), collaboration and
networking, both at the firm and institutional level, matter for the
diffusion of knowledge across small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
Innovation occurs in collaborative relationships firms entertain with
science and technology agents, but also through learning-by-doing,
using, and interacting (Jensen et al., 2007; Hervás-Oliver et al., 2021).
According to regional studies, in innovative regions, businesses are more
likely to benefit from R&D activities (Rodríguez-Pose & Wilkie, 2019;
Parrilli et al., 2020; Rodríguez-Pose & Ganau, 2021). In less innovative
regions, innovation may rely on less intensive interactions with science
and technology agents, with a lower influence by universities and labs
on SMEs’ performance than in core areas (Chen et al., 2011; Parrilli
et al., 2020; Hervás-Oliver et al., 2021).
Although the Regional Innovation System (RIS) provides the policy
level for developing innovative entrepreneurship, a significant variety of
regional innovation system types persist with different performances. As
the tacit nature of knowledge makes geography play a critical role in the
emergence and evolution of technology (Balland & Rigby, 2017),
considerable variation also remains among firms, and universities
(Fritsch & Slavtchev, 2007; Camagni & Capello, 2013; Parrilli & Dahl
Fitjar, & Rodriguez-Pose, 2016). While the University-Industry Collab­
orations (UICs) and the RIS literature consider either
regional/industry-level variables or university performance (Atta-O­
wusu et al., 2021; Zollo et al., 2011), what is missing is a clear focus on
the interactions between universities and companies alongside the
analysis of firm- and territory-level variables.
Through the lens of knowledge ecosystems, business studies have
examined knowledge-based value creation processes leading to inven­
tion and commercialization (Valkokari, 2015; Clarysse et al., 2014; Järvi
et al., 2018). The main findings show that, even in a moderate innova­
tion region, start-ups may get an advantage by localizing their produc­
tion around leading universities and public research organizations
drawing on the flow of scientific and tacit knowledge that companies
share, also because of the mobility of personnel (Clarysse et al., 2014).
Companies taking part in knowledge ecosystems can get exposed to the
knowledge available in the region and create the conditions for future
exploitation and the appropriation of the value associated with that
knowledge (Clarysse et al., 2014). Here, the assumption is that the ca­
pacity of firms to innovate depends not only on their characteristics but
also on their talent to establish links with other actors within and outside
their principal place of operations (Fitjar & Rodríguez-Pose, 2013;
Antonioli et al., 2013). This firm-level and territorial focus target

* Correspondence to: University of Naples "Federico II" - Dept. of Social Science.

E-mail address: mita.marra@unina.it (M. Marra).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102170
Received 9 July 2022; Received in revised form 22 September 2022; Accepted 22 September 2022
Available online 24 September 2022
0149-7189/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Marra et al.
individual companies without losing sight of actors and organizations —
from customers, competitors, and suppliers to research centers, uni­
versities, and consultants — that take part in knowledge co-creation and
sharing (McCann & Ortega-Argilés, 2013; Hervás-Oliver et al., 2021).
Building upon these accounts, this article explores UICs that can
accelerate firm digital transformation in a less advanced region, deci­
phering the drivers for digital innovation at the company- and territorial
levels. We delve into the productive interactions between the university
and regional companies to uncover their effects on digitalization,
drawing some reflections on the university’s role in less developed re­
gions (Muhonen et al., 2019; Uyarra, 2010; Marra, 2022). The analysis
addresses the following guiding question:
− What collaborations do businesses establish with universities to
enhance digital entrepreneurship in a moderately innovative region?
To answer this question, we designed a mixed-methods study based
on in-depth interviews with researchers and innovators operating with
(a) the University of Naples and (b) 54 firms that agreed to participate in
the study from a comprehensive database of almost 300 companies
identified through the official business register and innovation advisors.
We explored firms’ digital entrepreneurship and the collaborations these
companies have entertained with the technology hub of Naples Uni­
versity because of its scaled-up digital training and R&D partnerships
launched in 2016 within the Campania Region in South Italy. As
examined elsewhere Marra, (2022), hosting over 40 organizations, the
university has created applied research labs and supported innovative
start-ups. Likewise, the university has established digital training
academies in collaboration with global technology and advanced
manufacturing companies — such as Apple, Cisco, Deloitte, Accenture,
Leonardo, and Nokia, to name the most important (Marra, 2022). Thus,
we have reconstructed firm-level innovation patterns and
knowledge-based collaborations with the university.
We intend to contribute to assessing the university’s societal impact
and to the regional development policy debate (Muhonenm 2019;
Audrescht & Belitski, 2021; Marra, 2022). Examining the mechanisms
by which universities and companies collaborate, we uncover firm- and
territory-level variables that may enhance digital transformation. These
topics are particularly relevant from a policy perspective: especially in
lagging regions, the aim is to promote the emergence of innovative
clusters of firms around so-called knowledge hubs within the framework
of Smart Specialization policies (OECD, 2020; European Commission,
2017; Engel and del-Palacio, 2011; Rodriguez-Pose, 2021). Yet, the
presence of a science park or a technology hub with innovation schools,
incubators, and researchers does not guarantee regional development
and digital entrepreneurship. In this respect, this article critically as­
sesses some of the assumptions underlying Smart Specialization policies
and the university’s role in less innovative regions.
We structure the present article into five sections. Section one re­
views UICs theories, focusing on the logic of the knowledge ecosystems
as mechanisms for cooperation in generating innovation. Section two
describes the study design that nests a mixed methods approach in the
analysis of firm-level innovation factors and UICs. In section three,
interview findings integrate the cluster and network analyses alongside
the regression model to understand whether and how university-
business collaborations matter for firm-level digitalization. We then
discuss the implications for digital entrepreneurship and university-led
innovation in section four and offer, in section five, some concluding
remarks.
2. Critical perspectives on collaborations between businesses
and universities
Several studies examine the relationships between universities and
businesses. We can group the principal schools of thought around the
following three literature strands, that is:
2
Evaluation and Program Planning 95 (2022) 102170
- innovation policy studies refer to triple or multiple helix configura­
tions, including universities and R&D actors, in collaboration with
firms to develop new products, organizations, and governance
settings;
- regional studies examine how and why companies, which operate in
more innovative regions, are likely to adopt a scientific approach to
knowledge through universities and research labs; and
- business studies explore the interdependencies between firms and
R&D agents in co-innovation processes through entrepreneurial and
knowledge ecosystem theories.
Table 1 presents these different theoretical frameworks (including
the principal authors), their focus on the relationship between univer­
sities and companies, their weaknesses and limitations, and the role of
HEIs. Despite their clear connections and overlaps, these theoretical
perspectives have unfolded along separate lines of thinking and
research. Thus, in the rest of this section, we set to integrate them to
address our guiding research question.
The well-known Triple Helix model by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff
(2000) articulates the development of regional hi-tech industry clusters
as a networked combination of university, industry, and government
organizations collaborating in the promotion of innovation. In these
configurations, universities act as intermediaries to transform knowl­
edge into networks of multiple agents (Clarysse et al., 2014; van Der
Borgh et al., 2012) — that is, companies, institutions, research centers,
foundations, banks, and international organizations. Carayannis et al.
(2018) stress the endogenous role of universities as a new type of or­
ganization capable of higher-order learning — an open, highly complex,
and non-linear knowledge production process that draws on historical
trajectories of spatially localized learning. As the focus is on policy and
governance structures and relations, these innovation models do not
uncover the organizational and cognitive factors underpinning cooper­
ation. Nor do these studies explain the drives of innovative perfor­
mances of diversified regional production systems.
In analyzing innovation patterns at the territorial level, regional
development theories underline the importance of agglomeration
economies: firms cluster within a territory where they share knowledge,
production inputs, labor market regulations, and production processes.
Regions in Europe differ in their innovative capacity because of their
distinct resource endowments, which depend, among other factors, on
their levels of development. Variations in outcomes affect the innova­
tion capacity of SMEs across territories. Many studies converge on the
idea that regional economies move along place-based technological
trajectories, where processes of search and exploration follow existing
knowledge capabilities and well-established routines (Balland et al.,
2019). Yet, Regional Innovation Systems (RIS) have taken a top-down
approach, leaving aside the research from bottom-up perspectives that
explore patterns of local learning (Quintero et al., 2017). In addition, the
linear approach to innovation has downplayed the context-specificities
of regions, the uneven distribution of entrepreneurship across terri­
tories, and the complex dynamics that characterize the interactive
learning processes (Cooke, 2001; Becattini et al., 2009; Quintero et al.,
2013). Only recently have mapping studies adopted multi-layered
network techniques to detect the connections among firms and other
relevant agents — such as universities and research centers — at
different levels and according to multiple features of interest (Xu et al.,
2020; Vasilyeva et al., 2021).
A growing concern in regional innovation studies revolves around
UICs and, specifically, the efficacy of universities, the size, research in­
tensity, or quality of R&D institutes, which interact with companies
(Fritsch & Slavtchev, 2007; D’Este & Patel, 2007; Pereira & Franco,
2022). In partnerships for research or service provision, D’Este and Patel
(2007) classify cooperation into five types: (1) meetings and confer­
ences, which consist of researchers participating in events sponsored by
the firm, and firms participating in initiatives promoted by the univer­
sity; (2) consultancy and research contracts, where the university takes
M. Marra et al.
Table 1
Integrating literature strands on firms’ innovation and the role of the university.
Literature Key theoretical Issues of interest
strands constructs
Innovation Triple Helix Models Governance relations and structures
policy
Regional UICs/regional Networks of science- and technology
innovation innovation systems actors and their relationships with
(RIS) firms
Proximity relations
University Third Mission
Business Innovation Interdependencies between actors in
innovation ecosystem innovation processes
consultancy to the firm, which hires university research to develop so­
lutions to specific problems; (3) the creation of physical facilities
through research laboratories sponsored by the firm, the firm’s access to
the university’s facilities and the university’s access to the firm’s
know-how; (4) training, carried out in-company by the university to
satisfy a specific demand and joint co-orientation of work done in the
university with practical application and development in the firm and
finally, (5) joint research, in the form of research agreements involving
both parties.
A key issue concerns knowledge generation and exploitation within
the proximity context (Lendel, 2010; Caragliu & Nijkamp, 2016; von
Graevenitz et al., 2021). Available studies point to productivity gains
from UICs and stress the place factor: advantages get localized, with
companies near universities introducing innovations more rapidly than
rivals located elsewhere (Tödtling & Trippl, 2005; Barca et al., 2012;
Isaksen & Trippl, 2016; Hervás-Oliver et al., 2019; Parrilli et al., 2020).
Yet, recent empirical evidence shows that the university mission over­
load may hinder the ability of local firms to cooperate or force them to
look beyond the region for other suitable universities with which they
can interact (Uyarra, 2010; Atta-Owusu et al., 2021).
Another crucial aspect is firm heterogeneity. Considering innovation
strategies by a large sample of Italian firms, for instance, Antonioli et al.
(2013) show that firm’s size and industry capture significant business
heterogeneity and innovative reaction to a crisis. Other firm-level
characteristics associated with innovation performance are public and
private expenditure for R&D and favorable and unfavorable working
conditions (Antonioli et al., 2013). Interestingly, Hervás-Oliver et al.
(2021) also explore innovation in SMEs collaborating with other com­
panies or science and technology institutions. The authors note that
SMEs have a far lower tendency and capacity than larger firms to
develop in-house R&D and collaborate with universities and other sci­
ence and technology agents. SMEs are more market-driven than
research-driven and follow non-R&D-based innovation processes
(Hervás-Oliver et al., 2021). In-house R&D activities may challenge
most SMEs because of high-risk exposure, high fixed costs, high mini­
mum investment requirements, and severe financial constraints. Espe­
cially within lagging innovation systems, SMEs prefer investing in
Evaluation and Program Planning 95 (2022) 102170
Critical issues Principal authors
Focus on macro-level relations that can miss firms’ heterogeneity and Etzkowitz,
specificities of territories and regions Leydesdorff (2000)
Becattini et. al.
(2009)
Carayannis et al.
(2018)
Focus on the innovation based on R&D activities and not on other Hervás-Oliver et al.
modes of innovation based on learning by doing, networking, and (2021)
supply-chain-based collaborations Pereira & Franco
Focus on bibliometrics and technology transfer overlooking other (2022)
modes of knowledge diffusion and co-creation Isaksen & Trippl
(2016)
Fritsch & Slavtchev
(2007)
Atta-Owusu et al.
(2021
Lendel (2010)
Andersson et al.
(2009)
Caragliu & Nijkamp
(2016)
Balland et al. (2019)
Focus on complementarities and less on competitive relations Adner, 2019
Focus on invention to commercialization rather than on pre- Clarysse et al. (2014)
competitive knowledge co-creation Robertson, 2020
Järvi et al. (2018)
Rybnicek &
Königsgruber (2018)
non-R&D activities such as managerial innovation (i.e., marketing and
organizational innovation), drawing from suppliers, customers, or
competitors (Hervás-Oliver et al., 2021). However, these studies do not
explain whether and how collaborative interactions with universities
and other R&D agents may accelerate digital transformation even within
less innovative territories.
In brief, the three literature strands we have examined highlight the
relevance of localized network dynamics. While innovation policy the­
ories have focused on governance structures and relationships, regional
innovation and business studies have analyzed universities and com­
panies, seeking to reconstruct their interactions across different pro­
ductive contexts. Cross-cuttingly critical dimensions remain the firm
heterogeneity, the territorial specificities, the university performance
variation, and the uneven regional development levels and innovation
capacity. Considering these issues is crucial to understand how scientific
collaborations occur and influence digitalization within a moderately
innovative region, as examined by our study. The following section
presents the study design and methods of data gathering and analysis.
3. The method and data
3.1. The research context
We have conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of a
purposeful sample of firms to understand their interactions with the San
Giovanni Hub of the University of Naples localized in the Eastern part of
the city of Naples. Since 2016, the University of Naples has developed a
digital training program for a broad audience of participants — e.g.,
undergraduates, graduates, career professionals, and people with no
university degree. Academies are schools of digital innovation aimed at
filling the regional digital skills gap through an active labor market
initiative for hi-tech job creation. Between 2016 and 2019, the univer­
sity has developed several scientific cooperation agreements with such
Big Tech as Apple, Cisco, Deloitte, Capgemini, and Nokia — to name the
most important — and some advanced industrial manufacturing com­
panies. University-business partnerships have scaled up and mobilized
both a growing pool of participants and an increasing number of
3
M. Marra et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 95 (2022) 102170

international companies because of localization advantages in the area In this case, we aimed to investigate their dense interconnections with
surrounding the university campus (Addie et al., 2018; Marra, 2022). the university, as reported by some leading faculty of digital academies.
Until the early 80s of the past century, this peripheral area involved Finally, we sampled 26 micro and small businesses located in the sur­
mechanics, shipbuilding, and food and leather processing companies. roundings of the university hub, working in manufacturing and logistics,
Yet, the de-industrialization of the 90s has dismantled the industrial site environmental, and public utility services. In this case, we aimed to
and forced companies to move elsewhere. capture the knowledge spillovers based on physical proximity to the
This formerly industrial area belongs to the Campania region with university.
the largest population and GPD in South Italy, a high density of Based on field visits and in-depth interviews with CEOs, we con­
manufacturing firms, and a sustained export capacity (Istat, 2021). The structed a unique hand-collected database that included our assessment
Italian Statistics Institute characterizes the regional production system of firm-level digital readiness alongside firm-level characteristics (see
as highly heterogeneous, including well-established medium/large interview questions in Annex). The interview coding drew on the the­
businesses rooted within Naples metropolitan area and micro and small ories of innovation, regional innovation, and the entrepreneurial
enterprises with a weaker organizational capacity and productivity, ecosystem but particularly relevant dimensions and sources of innova­
spread out within the broader territory (Istat, 2018). tion stemmed from the information gathered on the firm size, industry,
Since 2013, the region has seen a significant increase in newly sales, CEO education, gender, collaborations (or the willingness to
created innovative SMEs and digital start-ups (Istat, 2019). Campania collaborate) with the hub of Naples University or other R&D agents, and
ranks third nationally and first in the South of Italy for the number of the contextual constraints that firms face in digital transformation.
innovative start-ups, with a growth rate of 261% between 2015 and Focusing on their digital maturity, first, we distinguished companies
2020 (Camera di Commercio, 2021; Ambrosetti, 2021). The region is between the user and producer innovation (von Hippel, 2016). Then, we
also the first in the South and the seventh in Italy for R&D investments: assessed firm technology level through digital readiness indices. Thus,
the latter amount to 1.44 billion euros with almost 15 thousand re­ each company in the sample received an analytical and synthetic score
searchers employed (Ministry of University, 2021). The increasing R&D according to the five scales/levels/items, as reported in Table 3. We used
investments have stemmed from the contribution of public institutions these indices not as firm innovation performance measures but as
and multinationals based in the region (Ambrosetti, 2021). The inten­ evaluative tools, which helped us capture multiple dimensions and
sive digital education launched by Naples University — later extended to levels of the firm digitalization . In association with interview data, we
the other universities in the region — has attracted global technology
and advanced manufacturing corporations with additional investments
in digital up-skilling (Marra, 2022). Yet, the capacity for innovation is Table 3
medium-low, as highlighted by the Regional Innovation Scoreboard Digital technology maturity indices, their characteristics, scales, and levels.
(RIS) 2021 (scoring 95.67), which classifies this region as a moderate Indices Scales/Levels/Items
innovator. Thus, a territorial and firm-level lens is appropriate to un­ Italy’s Ministry of Economic Advanced Manufacturing Solutions
derstand what constraints knowledge diffusion between industry and Development (MISE) Horizontal Integration
university. The following analysis sets out to explore this issue. Enabling technologies Additive Manufacturing
Vertical Integration
Augmented Reality
3.2. In-depth interviewing Cloud Computing
Simulation
Big data/Analytics
To examine digital entrepreneurship and university-business col­
Smart technology/materials
laborations, we conducted 83 semi-structured interviews (see Table 2). Cyber Security
Between June 2019 and March 2021, we probed the attitudes, be­ Industrial Internet of Things
liefs, and motivations of the multiple players in the university hub and ACATECH Stage 1 – Computerization
understand the firm-level innovation sources, practices, and perfor­ Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index Stage 2 – Connectivity
Stage 3 – Visibility
mance. At the company level, we interviewed 54 CEOs or business
Stage 4 – Transparency
owners (see interview protocol in the annex) within a purposeful sample Stage 5 – Predictive capacity
of representative companies operating in the region. In association with Stage 6 – Adaptability
the regional industrial association, first, we selected 12 advanced DIGITAL READINESS Level 0, technical skills for manual processes
ASSESSMENT Level 1, digital skills for digitalization
manufacturing companies in the aerospace, mechanics, chemistry,
Information system, skills, Level 2, management skills, planned processes,
agriculture, and food transformation industries that represent strategic and business model and exchanges of information within the firm
specializations of the regional economy at the frontier of digital trans­ Level 3, skills
formation. We aimed to understand how these companies had initiated a Level 4, in which the processes are almost all
digital transition, facing regional constraints in the relationships with digitalized and the use of technologies is
significant.
science and technology agents. Second, we singled out 16 digital start-
Level 5: in which the firm is completely digitalized
ups operating in software development, management, and consulting with a great exchange of information.
for archiving and networking systems. Some firms are rooted in the IMPULS Latecomers
regional territory, while others depend on their consociates elsewhere. The Readiness Model Apprentices
Leaders
SELFI 4.0 Level 1 – Novice: firms that manage and archive
Table 2 Digitalization their data still use traditional systems.
Interviewee Profile. Level 2 – Apprentices: firms that only use basic
information technology (email,…).
Profile of interviewees no.
Level 3 – Specialized firms that digitalized the
University leadership 3 greater part of their processes.
Academy managers 5 Level 4 – Experts: firms that digitalized all their
University mentors and enterprise tutors 5 processes and apply with success all the principles
Partners’ company managers 3 of Industry 4.0.
Trainees 10 Level 5 – Champions: firms that were born digital,
University administrative staff 3 or managed to transform, and use the technologies
CEOs or executive leaders of firms based in the region 54 most innovative in the management of all the
Total 83 phases.

4
M. Marra et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 95 (2022) 102170

used the five indices together because they offered complementary in­ Table 5
formation on the digital transition of our sampled firms. Then, we Mixed methods research main steps, advantages, and limitations.
assigned a score to each company based on our assessment of (i) the Mixed methods research Advantages Limitations
internal production process, (ii) the entrepreneurial capacity to gain and steps
implement enabling digital technologies, (iii) the firm’s more relevant Sampling Purposeful sampling to explore Limited
professional skills, and (iv) the business model adopted. different modes and patterns of generalizability
innovation
In-depth interviewing Identification of specific spatially-
3.3. Explorative statistical analysis bounded dimensions of
innovation especially through
For the quantitative analysis, we proceeded along the following three collaborations;
Participants’ reflection on (i) the
steps. First, we conducted a cluster analysis to identify groups of firms innovation they have created and
with similar features.1 The clustering algorithm identified five clusters experienced, (ii) what
in the data according to the variables listed in Table 4. collaborations they have
Following Antonioli et al. (2013), the variables we considered established or would like to
establish with R&D actors, and
included the firm’s size, and sector, some corporate governance features
(iii) what needs and challenges
— namely, the legal status, and presence of a woman on the executive they face in pursuing innovation.
board or as a CEO or owner, and their education level — and the re­ Assessing innovation Comparing innovation maturity
ported collaborations with science and technology agents — or the maturity through levels across sampled firms.
intention to invest for R&D in collaboration with the university — in line innovation indices
Building the quali- Translating qualitative Measurement
with Hervás-Oliver et al. (2021). Based on the variables just mentioned,
quantitative database information into quantitative error
while two clusters featured residual cases, including just a single com­ variables.
pany, the remaining three clusters involved a significant number of Clusters analysis Grouping firms with similar
businesses that reproduced the three groups of sampled firms by sector features concerning previously
identified variables.
and size. Second, we run a network analysis to examine the degree of
Network analysis Characterization and
relatedness among firms and clusters, including the cluster of Naples measurement of relatedness
University with its digital training partners (Marra, 2022). Finally, we Regression analysis Identification of statistically
regressed all digital readiness indices to firm-level variables and terri­ significant innovation
torial factors, namely, the collaborations with the university, to determinants
Data analysis and Integration of different units of Data findings
approximate the impact of R&D on the innovative performance of
interpretation analysis and research findings inconsistencies
locally selected businesses.
We have, therefore, nested mixed methods within a case study,
merging qualitative and quantitative data to yield insight into the extent the firm’s size and sector (see table A2 in the Annex; Pavitt, 1984).
to which the two types of information confirm, contradict, or relate to Technology companies and large manufacturing firms show the highest
one another (Guetterman & Fetter, 2018). Table 5 summarizes the key digital readiness unlike manufacturing SMEs. Interviews confirm that a
steps in study design and conduct alongside their advantages and high level of digitalization is associated with qualified human resources,
limitations. especially in technology and advanced manufacturing companies of
medium and large sizes. Manufacturing micro-enterprises are at the
4. Results lower end of the innovation scales, which also corresponds to severe skill
set gaps.
4.1. Technology maturity and digital innovation in selected companies Cluster analysis findings suggest that service innovation — that is,
cluster #1 — is process-oriented and rarely based on collaborations with
As expected, the digital readiness of sampled companies depends on the university. Nor are these firms particularly willing to establish
collaborative relationships with R&D agents in the future. Given the
Table 4 small size of sampled firms and their limited organizational and R&D
Variables included in cluster analysis.21 funding capacity, innovation occurs through imitation or the adoption
of novel technologies considered essential to maintain or gain a market
Variables Descriptions
position. Digitalization involves the Internet of Things (IoT) and other
Fem a dichotomous dummy variable equal to one if the firm has a woman as mobile services like an interface with customers and suppliers. Thus,
its CEO or owner
Big a dichotomous dummy variable equal to one if the firm is of large sizer
user innovation is more widespread than producer innovation through
Degree a dichotomous dummy variable equal to one if the owner has a registered patents and trademarks (see Von Hippel, 2017). Introducing
university degree novel technologies responds to cost-efficiency or time reduction needs
Coll a dichotomous dummy variable equal to one if the firm collaborates with and often forces reorganization, up-skilling, or new staffing. Interviews
the University
point out that entrepreneurs face challenges in recruiting a skilled
IntColl a dichotomous dummy variable equal to one if the firm has manifested in
the interview the intention to collaborate with the University workforce and gaining qualified technology advice for supporting in­
Mani a dichotomous dummy variable equal to one if the firm is in the ternal transformative processes.
manufacturing sector Cluster #2 includes most manufacturing companies, where innova­
IT a dichotomous dummy variable equal to one if the firm is in the IT sector tion is aimed to improve products, the production process, and the
Services a dichotomous dummy variable equal to one if the firm is in the services
sector
overall organizational capacity of the firm, especially in mechanics,
In.MISE the MISE innovation index that is already presented above. pharmaceutics, and food processing. For advanced manufacturing
companies in the cluster, findings support that innovation aims to gain
efficiency and keep up with the high-quality standards for aircraft
components and precision mechanics, for instance. Despite variation in
size and technology level characterizing firms in this cluster, most
companies are transitioning to their fourth industrial revolution with a
1
A principal component analysis was then performed to reduce multiple significant production scale; a well-established presence in the global
factors’ variability to two components; see Annex Fig. A

5
M. Marra et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 95 (2022) 102170

market; a STEM-intensive skilled workforce; a well-established capacity
to fill skill-sets gaps at the international level, being the corporate
leadership geared towards global competitiveness.
Machine learning, automation, and artificial intelligence with Big
data collection and analysis, remote monitoring through sensors, and
digitization are crucial elements of their innovation profile, compatible
with maintaining or expanding their competitive advantage. These
companies do not face financial constraints or human capital shortages
to introduce new technology they can easily access globally. However,
the challenges these companies encounter relate to the lack of enabling
technologies and digital skills throughout the region. Training on the job
and imported technology tailored to production needs are, therefore,
strategic investments to ensure internationally certified quality
standards.
Companies in this cluster present a hybrid form of user and producer
innovation (von Hippel, 2017). The case of the family-owned company
that produced generators is emblematic. In experimenting with charging
stations for electric batteries, the digital innovation sought out by the
owner consisted of an app to secure payments — a problem of both user
and producer innovation. The case of the fourth largest manufacturer in
the world of aircraft not for commercial aviation is an example — among
our sampled companies — of long-lasting research on materials and
aerodynamics since the 1920s. Aircraft are requested by NASA and
American and Asian airlines for regional transport and flight schooling.
Here the digitalization of piloting systems leverages expert knowledge
that is rooted inside the firm and also acquired on the market. In the
other aerospace companies selected in the study, the digital applications
used in testing and measuring specific components are available on the
market and adjusted to production needs.
Large manufacturing firms in this cluster privately fund R&D activ­
ities or have developed their R&D departments over the past decade or
longer. Actual collaborations, or their willingness to collaborate with the
University of Naples, are oriented towards continuous education,
applied research initiatives, and joint R&D labs. The most dynamic
companies aim to enhance the regional entrepreneurship system to
reduce the costs of enabling technologies and increase the hi-tech skilled
workforce supporting digitalization.
Cluster #3 includes the most innovative SMEs and digital start-ups
that develop systems architectures, digitalization projects, digital ser­
vices, or secondary activities such as software management and main­
tenance for their customers. Interview findings identify medium-sized
technology companies as digital innovation hubs, where innovation is
both a product and/ora service offered to their customers — mostly
large companies or public sector organizations. The regional market for
large and medium-sized firms included in this cluster is relatively stable,
protected, and segmented: local and multinational companies specialize
in specific digital products and services and rely on business-to-business,
innovation, usually developed in the R&D departments of the corpora­
tions on which they depend. Thus, open innovation investments and the
involvement in training initiatives with the university contribute to up-
skilling or re-skilling their workforce. According to interviews, start-ups
and innovative SMEs fund their activities through private funds, but
they also seek collaborations with the university for open innovation or
networking .
4.2. Collaborations with the university
To strengthen our quantitative analysis, we investigated the de­
terminants of digital innovation in our sample via regression analysis.
Through an Ordinary Least Square (OLS) model, with robust standard
error, we estimated the impact of some firm characteristics on digital
technology maturity indices. Yet, because of the small size of the dataset,
much caution applies in reporting causal inference findings. Focusing on
the most relevant variables, to avoid the well-known collinearity and
variance inflation problems, given the small N sample, we modeled the
impact of firm characteristics on digital innovation through the
following equation:
Inn = α + β1 Fem + β2 Big + β3 Degree + β4 Mani + β5 Coll + ε (1)
Where Inn is one of the five technology maturity indexes, that is, a
proxy of digital innovation already discussed, and so are the indepen­
dent variables used in cluster analysis.3
As shown in Table 6, for four out of five different operationalizations
of digital transformation (as presented in Table 3), collaboration with
the university represents a statistically significant factor for digital
innovation. Despite the small sample size, this finding is interesting as it
shows a statistically significant association with the variables of female
leadership, and large companies.
In addition, the analysis shows that the level of education of the
owner or the CEO is not influential in fostering innovation. This finding
suggests that education, already high on average in second or third-
generation family businesses, does not affect innovation strategies as
much as female leadership in corporate governance. Finally, the analysis
confirms that manufacturing companies are less innovative than service
and technology firms.
Table 6
- OLS Regression: Digital technology maturity indices over determinants.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
In.MISE In.ACATECH In.DRA In.IMPULS In.Selfi40

multi-year procurement contracts. These companies face a hi-tech labor Fem 1.054 **
1.644 ***
1.532 ***
1.218 ***
0.964***
shortage in the region and pay higher salaries to retain an increasingly (2.35) (3.14) (3.13) (3.89) (2.87)
Big 1.362*** 0.992** 0.967** 0.507** 0.463
mobile workforce. Hi-tech labor mobility is a growing trend. According
(3.87) (2.41) (2.52) (2.06) (1.76)
to interviews, the availability of qualified personnel has increased but it Degree 0.204 0.615 0.608 0.216 0.548*
remains critical for technology companies, even more than seeking (0.62) (1.59) (1.69) (0.94) (2.21)
Mani -1.075*** -1.486*** -1.555*** -0.913*** -1.629***
(− 3.50) (− 4.14) (− 4.64) (− 4.25) (− 7.08)
Coll 1.179*** 1.143** 0.685* 0.575** 0.379
(3.37) (2.79) (1.80) (2.35) (1.44)
2
Figure A1 in the appendix shows that the level of innovation maturity and Constant 1.320*** 2.740*** 3.589*** 2.325*** 3.906***
the qualification of the owner or CEO do not have an impact on the former (3.88) (6.89) (9.68) (9.79) (15.33)
component; having a woman as an owner or being a manufacturing company Observations 54 54 54 54 54
are conditions that generate a negative impact on this component. Otherwise, R2 0.588 0.585 0.573 0.539 0.687
being a large company, in particular, in the ICT sector, and collaborating or t statistics in parentheses, robust standard errors * p < 0.1, **
p < 0.05, ***
willing to collaborate with the university are variables associated with a posi­ p < 0.01
tive coefficient for the second component. All variables have a positive coeffi­
cient for the second main component, except for being a service company and
willing to collaborate with the university. The variance associated with the
second component is high for two variables: the innovation index and the
dummy that discriminates against the owner’s high level of education. See
3
figure A3 in the appendix. We present summary statistics about the variables in Annex 2.

6
M. Marra et al.
4.3. Proximity to university
Another finding strongly supported by the literature concerns the
role of physical proximity to university in fostering innovation. We also
aimed to test if this hypothesis was confirmed in our case, notwith­
standing the limited external validity of our empirical analysis. To do so,
we slightly adjusted Eq. (1), making Coll interact with a variable
measuring the distance (by kilometers) from the hub. More precisely, we
estimated through an OLS the following model:
Inn = α + β1 Fem + β2 Big + β3 Degree + β4 Mani + β5 Coll + β6 Dist + β7 Coll
∗ Dist + ε
(2)
Computing the marginal effects of Coll on In.MISE per different dis­
tances, the emerging trend shows a shrinking digital innovation impact
as the distance from the hub increases. Considering the point estimates
and the trend in the relationship, we can conclude that the effects of
university collaborations decline the further the firm is from the campus
(see Fig. 1).
Yet, since 90% confidence intervals expectedly overlap in our small
sample (with high standard error), this statistically significant result
fades out once the firm is 15 kilometers away from the hub. Indeed,
while interviews confirm this finding for more advanced companies, it is
not relevant for micro-enterprises that, despite their proximity to the
campus, lack the technology and know-how to establish collaborative
relationships with the university, as discussed later.
4.4. Relatedness among firms and with the university
Fig. 2 represents the network that includes all sampled companies
and their relationships with Naples University. While the degree of
relatedness among the 54 firms is modest, the links with the university
feature bilateral alliances rather than a multilateral configuration of a
knowledge ecosystem.
This finding suggests that competitive pressures at the territorial
level persist because of the limited experiences of cooperation among
the firms located in the region (Marra, 2022).
4.5. Types of collaborations
Iinterview findings support that collaborations between regional
companies and the university occur through multiple channels, namely,
Fig. 1. Marginal Effects of Coll on In.Mise per difference distances.
7
Evaluation and Program Planning 95 (2022) 102170
- recruiting trainees that completed their digital training;
- taking part in the yearly initiatives (such as business fairs, hack­
athons, boot camps, and roadshows) associated with digital
instruction;
- partnering with the university to deliver digital training offerings
outside traditional university courses; and
- co-financing joint labs for measurement, quality assessment, certifi­
cation, and concept-proofing.
For each type of collaboration mentioned above, table 7 epitomizes
the learning mechanisms at the firm level, including the costs, risks,
benefits, and the enabling conditions of the territorial context.
Hiring, networking, co-training, co-teaching, and partnering for R&D
are the ways for regional companies to identify their knowledge and
technology gaps to enhance digital transformation. For well-established
technology companies included in the sample, collaborations aim for
open innovation in the events organized by the university in the digital
training offerings. In hackathons and business fairs, for instance, in­
terviews report that technology firms seek information about competi­
tors and aim to form alliances with other businesses and clients while
hiring young graduates or developing human capital with R&D agents.
Thus, the training and networking initiatives organized by the university
allow companies to get together and gain greater autonomy in planning
and delivering digital services designed and funded in the R&D de­
partments of headquarters. Costs range from sponsoring networking
events to scouting young talents, from contributing to lifelong learning
initiatives to the co-creation of new training pathways for early and mid-
career professionals (e.g., Accenture, Tim, or FS) up to the co-financing
of joint labs for applied research (e.g., Cisco DTLab). Like most advanced
manufacturing companies, well-established technology firms experience
decreasing costs of cooperation when positive outcomes emerge from
previously successful experiences. This finding confirms that scientific
collaborations take time to get established and require an extended time
horizon to reap the rewards of digital investments (SIAMPSI, 2011).
The demand for collaboration with the university by SMEs in the
manufacturing sector arises as they become aware of the complexity of
R&D activities, requiring skills and resources not readily available in the
region. The search for scientific collaborations responds to their need to
increase product quality and business profitability. For instance, a
company that produced thermal-acoustic insulation created an internal
R&D division to experiment with automotive-applied nanotechnology.
The innovation involved recombining existing materials or using
M. Marra et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 95 (2022) 102170

Fig. 2. Representation of clusters* .

Table 7
Collaborations, learning mechanisms, costs, benefits, and enabling conditions.
Types of collaborations Innovation Costs and risks of collaborations Benefits of collaborations Context-based enabling conditions
mechanisms

Hiring trainees during and at the end of learning by On-the-job training New knowledge infused Available tech skills in the company
university digital academies (e.g., Graded) hiring into the production Hi-tech labor mobility
process Efficient regional labor marketplace
Participation in corporate fairs, boot camps, learning by Sponsorships Open innovation Degree and effectiveness of coordination at
and roadshows organized by the university networking Externalization of tacit knowledge New solutions to the territorial level by trade associations,
by digital start-ups and innovative SMEs (e. Co-production of knowledge that production and local government institutions, and/or
g., Accenture). is inadequate to production needs organization gaps digital platforms
Training employees in university academies learning by Training costs Applying new knowledge Awareness of training needs for the
dedicated to professionals (e.g., Citel Group) training to the production process workforce
Co-production of open and continuing training learning by Investment costs and current Co-production of human Degree and intensity of complementarities
courses outside traditional degree programs co-teaching expenditure for developing capital according to between companies and universities
(eg CyberHackAcademy by Accenture). didactic materials and managing firms’ needs Previous experiences of cooperation
life-long training Trust
Creation of joint laboratories for applied learning by Investment costs and current Launching new products Embedded ecosystems
research projects for measurement, quality partnering expenditure for R&D or experimenting with A high degree of interdependence
certification, and concept proofing (e.g., Axa infrastructure, equipment, human new technologies
Matrix). resource, and activities

existing materials for different purposes, such as, for instance, a nano­
tech insulating aerogel put inside the car digitally controlled in­
struments. Another company designed and manufactured low-water
consumption mobile toilets. Here, innovation involved waste collection
and maintenance systems. The company funded R&D activities
internally, thanks to available technical and scientific skills. Yet, the
owner reported seeking a collaboration with the university to apply
digital solutions to perform chemical purification in remote mode. In
both cases, companies had already developed internal R&D capacity and
were pursuing the university’s digital competence or technology-based

8
M. Marra et al.
solutions to improve their products.
Yet, seeking a collaboration with the university has a cost. Aside
from the financial endowments and human resources involved, to
develop a joint lab with the university, a local business needs to have
access to science and technology networks that are often fragmented or
selective, open only to elites of entrepreneurs. Interviewees report that
the barrier in the accessibility of academic circles increases the
perceived cost of R&D collaborations. According to interviews, trade
associations, regional government agencies, and higher education in­
stitutions have not adequately brought entrepreneurs, managers, and
researchers together to create opportunities for cooperation And the lack
of coordination further contributes to an already dispersed system of
small and micro enterprises, which do not have the entrepreneurial
capacities to face global competition.
To recap: the drivers for digital entrepreneurship and scientific col­
laborations, as explored in our study, are:
- at the firm level: the firm’s size, sector, and committed leadership as
well as the know-how and capacity to carry out digital innovation.
- At the firm and territorial levels: the proximity to the university,
regional coordination, previous experiences of cooperation with
R&D agents, and digital knowledge circulation through human
capital development, networking, and knowledge co-creation pro­
vided that the perceived benefits of scientific collaborations
outweigh their costs and risks (see Table 6).
The next section discusses these findings by considering regional
development and entrepreneurship theories.
5. Discussion
In this article, we have explored the drivers of digital entrepre­
neurship and the motives underlying the collaborations between the
University of Naples, specifically the technology hub of San Giovanni,
and a selected sample of companies operating in a moderately innova­
tive region of South Italy. We have examined the learning mechanisms
associated with scientific collaborations that can accelerate firm-level
digitalization. Our discussing points revolve around how digital entre­
preneurship and university-business collaborations can morph out
within a moderately innovative region.
First, our study confirms that considering the firm as a unit of
analysis is crucial to identifying the drivers of digital transformation.
Firms are complex actors whose digital capacity depends to a large
extent on the characteristics and working of their local technology and
institutional settings (Cooke, 2001; Rodríguez-Pose & Crescenzi, 2008;
Isaksen & Trippl, 2016; Parrilli & Alcalde, 2016). Our findings also
confirm the conclusions widely shared by the literature on entrepre­
neurship, whereby entrepreneurial skills are decisive for a company to
engage in innovative activities within its organizational boundaries.
Digital entrepreneurship stems from both internal and external knowl­
edge creation and diffusion dynamics. External knowledge flows involve
the capacity for firms to recognize and follow the opportunities in the
environment. Internal knowledge flows affect how companies create
and manage their learning processes to grasp external opportunities, and
co-create new knowledge (Audretsch & Belitski, 2021).
Our study highlights that most entrepreneurial companies seek and
seize the best innovation opportunities offered by the global market —
not yet fully available within the region — and have developed their
R&D departments and know-how internally. These companies also
search for publicly funded R&D opportunities, expressing their will­
ingness to collaborate with the university if they have not done so yet.
This propensity to innovation has a clear policy implication: a
university-led innovation policy should target willing to cooperate
companies to speed up their expectedly innovative performance.
Yet, R&D collaborations become viable only to companies with a
higher technology maturity and a well-developed capacity to generate
9
Evaluation and Program Planning 95 (2022) 102170
and strengthen internal knowledge through exploring and processing
information gained externally. According to Audretsch et al. (2021),
once an adequate internal knowledge base gets developed, companies
can integrate their know-how with external knowledge by developing
collaborations with science and technology agents, hiring and
up-skilling human resources, or financing R&D investments. Further­
more, R&D collaborations become attractive if companies perceive the
university as a partner capable of reducing digital design and imple­
mentation costs (Abreu & Grinevich, 2013). Yet, managing knowledge
co-creation and cost-sharing is neither linear nor predictable: a company
may have to pursue a plurality of collaborative practices with various
external actors to modernize its know-how. This effort can lead to
increased transaction costs and the risk of revealing business secrets
(Audretsch & Belitski, 2020). Thus, supporting the costs and risks of
scientific collaborations involves not only intellectual property rights
but also assimilating knowledge from external collaborators and the
costs of managing and exploiting internal and external expertise (West &
Bogers, 2014; Audretsch & Belitski, 2021). This conclusion also involves
sharing the power and the company’s priorities beyond the close family
circle.
Another discussion point concerns the influence of the local uni­
versity on digital transformation through R&D and non-R&D activities.
In our study, the proximity to the university assured local firms of being
part of a knowledge-based value creation network that has benefited
from international connections with hi-tech and industrial corporations
gravitating around the campus (see Marra, 2022; Pereira & Franco,
2022). Yet, the links and intensity of relationships among sampled firms
and between these companies and the university varied significantly.
Our findings do not support the existence of a knowledge ecosystem
working as an “[.] organization that includes several actors linked by a
joint search for knowledge […]” (Järvi et al., 2018: 1524). By contrast,
highly competitive pressures persist and can lead to knowledge exploi­
tation at the expense of long-term sustainability (Stam, 2015; Adner,
2019).
This conclusion is relevant for the final discussion issue that revolves
around whether a university-led innovation policy that predominantly
relies on R&D — and especially on public R&D — is adequate to deal
with the digital innovation challenges faced by regional SMEs in less
developed and innovative regions. Our study suggests that a knowledge-
intensive investment in a peripheral urban area of a middle-income re­
gion can leverage collaborations with R&D agents to trigger learning
mechanisms for digital entrepreneurship. Through labor mobility within
the region, networking, training, and applied research, productive in­
teractions between the university and local businesses can be conducive
to regional development outcomes (see Marra, 2022; OECD, 2020;
Rodriguez-Pose, 2018; Iammarino et al., 2019).
Yet, our study highlights the need to target advanced technology and
manufacturing companies, but also less entrepreneurial businesses and
weaker SMEs. As previously pointed out, companies need a knowledge
base to co-create with the university in the region. Thus, facilitating the
ability of companies to draw on external knowledge, the university can
help strengthen their internal know-how. As Audretsch & Belitski (2021)
point out, the university can support knowledge-intensive investments
that bring at least two types of benefits: first, the university can promote
firms’ ability to recognize tacit knowledge shared with partners in the
supply chain, for instance; second, the university can support firms’
ability to assimilate external knowledge to develop entrepreneurship
within the organization. For example, through training tailored towards
Industry 4.0 transformation, university faculty and business managers
can experiment with applying digital twin tools to analyze the life cycle
of products, and services for local companies, as suggested by our key
informants.
Promoting internal and external knowledge is not a complementary
strategy (Audretsch & Belitski, 2021). Combining internal and external
sources of knowledge is expensive and risky and may take time. Thus,
the need exists to develop a risk propensity for innovation among
M. Marra et al.
companies but also within universities to modulate the nature of col­
laborations and the intensity of relationships — specifically if coopera­
tion occurs between companies (organizational level) and managers and
researchers (individual level) (Mazzucato, 2019). In line with Iammar­
ino et al. (2019), to combat the underutilization of people and resources
and distribute development more widely, a university-led innovation
policy approach should support universities’ greater autonomy in
interacting with different companies in size and sectors. But the
assumption that universities in all regions can fulfill the role of anchor in
the ecosystem for R&D and non-R&D activities underestimates the
multiple functions of academic institutions (Uyarra, 2010).
6. Conclusions
This article has explored the societal impact of university research
and education. Focusing on the evaluation of digital training partner­
ships the University of Naples had established with global technology
and advanced manufacturing companies, this article has delved into the
scientific collaborations local companies have developed with the uni­
versity to enhance their digital entrepreneurship. The evidence gathered
through a mixed methods inquiry has highlighted firm-level drivers of
digital innovation and territorial features, including the influence of
university-business collaborations developed in a moderately innovative
region, where the experience of cooperation among firms is limited.
Our study shows that knowledge-based exchange of resources takes
place in network relationships, but it also depends on the relative ca­
pacity of companies to absorb flows of techno-scientific knowledge
produced by the university (McCann & Ortega-Argilés, 2015;
Hervás-Oliver, 2021). The first policy and evaluation implication is that
as the ability of companies to innovate often relies on their talent to
establish links with other players in the area, assessing the regional
context remains crucial to understand how firms assimilate that external
knowledge contributing to innovation. Since the territorial features
affect collaborative relationships with universities, competitive pres­
sures can induce actors to focus on the costs of collaborations and
short-term benefits rather than on the sustainability of the value created
through scientific cooperation. From a policy and management
perspective, this conclusion highlights the need for a lengthier time and
the ability to invest for purposes that are not immediately commercial to
develop collaborative interactions based on trust.
Another policy and evaluation implication is to differentiate firms
and large industrial and technology corporations, as well as companies
and regions that receive financial support for innovation and other
active labor market and welfare policies (Audretsch et al., 2021). This
strategy entails conducting cross-cutting investigations at the company,
and territorial levels, to observe how external and internal knowledge
gets integrated into traditional and newly emerging industries. With a
meso-level analysis broadening the boundaries of innovation processes
beyond the absorption capacities of individual companies, this article
contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the role and nature of
university research and education. Our study has offered an alternative
approach to the binary analyses that separate micro-level tech­
no-scientific collaborations from macro-level R&D public and private
investments. Yet, the phenomena under evaluation are complex and
fast-changing. Future research across national and regional innovation
systems and firm- and territorial levels can advance the assessment of
the societal impact of university and knowledge use in planning and
management.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mita Marra: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing
– original draft, Writing – review & editing. Vincenzo Alfano: Formal
analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Roberto Michele
Celentano: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation.
10
Evaluation and Program Planning 95 (2022) 102170
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102170.
References
Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the U.K.:
Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408–422.
Addie, J.-P. D., Angrisani, M., & De Falco, S. (2018). University-led innovation in and for
peripheral urban areas: new approaches in Naples, Italy and Newark, NJ, US.
European Planning Studies, 26(6), 1181–1201.
Adner, R. (2019). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of
Management, 43(1), 39–58.
Ambrosetti. (2021). La Campania che innova: Verso un futuro sostenibile. Technology
Forum Campania. 〈https://www.ambrosetti.eu/technology-forum-campania/〉.
Antonioli, D., Bianchi, A., Mazzanti, M., Montresor, S., & Pini, P. (2013). Innovation
strategies and economic crisis: Evidence from firm-level italian data. Economia
politica Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, 1, 33–68. https://doi.org/
10.1428/73099
Atta-Owusu, K., Dahl, F., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2021). What drives university-industry
collaboration: Research excellence or firm collaboration strategy? Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121084
Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2020). The role of R&D and knowledge spillovers in
innovation and productivity. European Economic Review, 123, Article 103391.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103391
Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2021). Towards an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Typology
for Regional Economic Development: The Role of Creative Class and
Entrepreneurship. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00343404.2020.1854711
Balland, P.-A., & Rigby, D. (2017). The Geography of Complex Knowledge. Economic
Geography, 93(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2016.1205947
Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R., Crespo, J., & Rigby, D. L. (2019). Smart specialization policy
in the European Union: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional
diversification. Regional Studies, 53(9), 1252–1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00343404.2018.1437900
Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012). The case for regional development
intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional
Science, 52(1), 134–152.
Becattini, G., Bellandi, M., & Propris, L. D. (2009). A Handbook of Industrial Districts.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2013). Regional Competitiveness and Territorial Capital: A
Conceptual Approach and Empirical Evidence from the European Union. Regional
Studies, 47(9), 1383–1402. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.681640
Camera di Commercio (2021) Data on companies in Region Campania, https://www.
unioncamere.campania.it/content/la-camera-di-commercio-di.
Caragliu, A., & Nijkamp, P. (2016). Space and knowledge spillovers in European regions:
The impact of different forms of proximity on spatial knowledge diffusion. Journal of
Economic Geography, 16(3), 749–774. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbv042
Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Campbell, D. F., Meissner, D., & Stamati, D. (2018).
The ecosystem as helix: An exploratory theory-building study of regional
competitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as quadruple/quintuple helix innovation
models. R&D Management, 48(1), 148–162.
Chen, J., Chen, Y., & Venhaverbeke, W. (2011). The influence of scope, depth, and
orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese
firms. Technovation, 31, 363–372.
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in ecosystems:
Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy,
43, 1164–1176.
Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters and the knowledge economy Ind.
Corp Change, 10, 945–974.
D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors
underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36, 1295–1313.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.05.002
van der Borgh, M., Cloodt, M., & Romme, A. G. L. (2012). Value creation by knowledge-
based ecosystems: Evidence from a field study. R&D Management, 42, 150–169.
Etzkowitz, H. e, & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national
systems and "mode 2" to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations.
Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
European Commission (2017) Strengthening Innovation in Europe’s Regions: Strategies
for resilient, inclusive and sustainable growth, Brussels, 18.7.2017 COM (2017) 376
final, available at 〈https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/portlet_file_en
try/20125/com_2017_376_2_en.pdf/3e58fbca-d9f9–04ba-bf94-dd431ef27537〉.
Fitjar, R., & Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2013). Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in
Norway. Research Policy, 42(1), 128–138.
Fritsch, M., & Slavtchev, V. (2007). Universities and innovation in space. Industry and
Innovation, 14(2), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662710701253466
Guetterman, T. C., & Fetter, M. D. (2018). Two methodological approaches to the
integration of mixed methods and case study designs: A systematic review. in
American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7). https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218772641
Hervás-Oliver, J.-L., Parrilli, M. D., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Sempere-Ripoll, F. (2021). The
drivers of SME innovation in the regions of the EU. Research Policy, 50(9). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104316
M. Marra et al.
Iammarino, S., Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2019). Regional inequality in Europe:
Evidence, theory and policy implications. Journal of Economic Geography, 19,
273–298.
Isaksen, A., & Trippl, M. (2016). Path development in different regional innovation
systems, a conceptual analysis. In M. D. Parrilli, R. D. Fitjar, & A. Rodríguez-Pose
(Eds.), Innovation drivers and regional innovation strategies (pp. 66–84). New York:
Routledge.
Istat (2018) Rapporto annuale 2018. La situazione del paese, https://www.istat.it/
storage/rapporto-annuale/2018/Rapportoannuale2018.pdf.
Istat (2021) Rapporto annuale 2021. La situazione del paese, https://www.istat.it/it/
archivio/259418.
Järvi, K., Almpanopoulou, A., & Ritala, P. (2018). Organization of knowledge
ecosystems: Prefigurative and partial forms. Research Policy, 47(8), 1523–1537.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.007
Jensen, M., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. A. (2007). Forms of knowledge and
modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36, 680–693.
Lendel, I. (2010). The impact of research universities on regional economies: The concept
of university products. Economic Development Quarterly, 24(3), 210–230. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0891242410366561
Marra, M. (2022). Productive Interactions in Digital Training Partnerships: Lessons
Learned for Regional Development and University Societal Impact Assessment.
Evaluation and Program Planning. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
evalprogplan.2022.102173. In press.
Mazzucato, M. (2019). The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy.
Penguin.
McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart Specialization, Regional Growth And
Applications To European Union Cohesion Policy. Regional Studies, 49(8),
1291–1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.799769
Ministry of University (2021) Portale dei dati sull’istruzione superiore, http://ustat.miur.
it/dati/didattica/campania/atenei.
Muhonen, R., Benneworth, P., & Olmos-Peñuela, J. (2019). From productive interactions
to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research
societal impact. Research Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz003
OECD. (2020). Evaluation of the academy for smart specialization. The Geography of
Higher Education. 〈https://www.oecd.org/cfe/smes/Evaluation_Academy_Smart
_Specialisation.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0n5qfZhw_btf5ExQ4mN8XNPWhoLztDTIUHHv
_pCaHDunSWuJ6M853lgFk〉.
Parrilli, M. D., & Alcalde, H. (2016). STI and DUI innovation modes: Scientific/
technological and context-specific nuances. Research Policy, 45, 747–756.
Parrilli, M. D., & Radicic, D. (2021). STI and DUI Innovation Modes in Micro-, small-,
Medium- and Large-sized Firms: Distinctive Patterns across Europe and the U.S.
European Planning Studies, 29(2), 346–368.
Parrilli, M. D., Dahl Fitjar, R. e, & Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2016). Innovation drivers and
regional innovation strategies (p. 2016). London: Routledge.
Parrilli, M. D., Balavac, M., & Radicic, D. (2020). Business innovation modes and their
impact on innovation outputs: Regional variations and the nature of innovation
across EU regions. Research Policy, 49(8), Article 104047.
Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change. Research Policy, 13, 343–373.
Pereira, R., & Franco, M. (2022). University-firm cooperation and regional development:
proposal of a model of analysis. Journal of Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13132-022-00947-6
Quintero, S., Ruiz Castaneda, W. L., & Robledo Velasquez, J. (2017). Learning in the
regional innovation systems. An Agent Based Model, 33(57), 7–20. https://doi.org/
10.25100/cdea.v33i57.4535
Robertson, J. (2020). Competition in knowledge ecosystems: A theory elaboration
approach using a case study. Sustainability, 12(18), 7372. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12187372
Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do
about it. Cambridge. Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11, 189–209.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Crescenzi, R. (2008). Research and development, spillovers,
regional innovation systems and the genesis of regional growth in Europe. Regional
Studies, 42(1), 51–67.
11
Evaluation and Program Planning 95 (2022) 102170
Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Wilkie, C. (2019). Innovating in less developed regions: What
drives patenting in the lagging regions of Europe and North America. Growth and
Change, 50(1), 4–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12280
Rodríguez-Pose, A., Ganau, R. (2021), Institutions and the Productivity Challenge for
European Regions. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP15870, Available at SSRN: 〈htt
ps://ssrn.com/abstract=3805285〉.
Rybnicek, R., & Königsgruber, R. (2018). What makes industry–university collaboration
succeed? A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Business Economics. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0916-6
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique.
European Planning Studies, 23(9). https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484
Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated innovation
policy approach. Research Policy, 34, 1203–1219.
Uyarra, E. (2010). Conceptualizing the regional roles of universities, implications, and
contradictions. European Planning Studies, 18(8), 1227–1246. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09654311003791275
Valkokari, K. (2015). Business, innovation, and knowledge ecosystems: How they differ
and how to survive and thrive within them. Technology Innovation Management
Review, 5(8), 17–24.
Vasilyeva, E., Kozlov, A., Alfaro-Bittner, K., et al. (2021). Multilayer representation of
collaboration networks with higher-order interactions. Scientific Reports, 11, 5666.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-021-85133-5.
von Graevenitz, G., Graham, S. J. H., & Myers, A. F. (2021). Distance (still) hampers
diffusion of innovations. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00343404.2021.1918334
Von Hippel, E. (2017). Free innovation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2013). Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of
Research on Open Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4),
814–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12125
Xu, G., Hu, W., Qiao, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2020). Mapping an innovation ecosystem using
network clustering and community identifcation: a multi"layered framework.
Scientometrics, 124, 2057–2081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03543-0
Zollo, G., Autorino, G., Crescenzo, Ed, Iandoli, L., Imperiale, E., Liguori, V. y, &
Ponsiglione, C. (2011). A gap analysis of Regional Innovation Systems (RIS) with
medium-low innovative capabilities: the case of Campania Region (Italy). En 8th ESU
Conference on Entrepreneurship (pp. 1–21). Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.
Mita Marra is an Associate Professor of Political Economy at the University of Naples
Federico II in Italy and Visiting Professor of Comparative Public Policy at the Trachtenberg
School of Public Policy and Public Administration of the George Washington University in
Washington DC. She also taught in The World Bank’s International Program in Develop­
ment Evaluation Training (IPDET) at Carleton University (Canada) (2014–2016), and at
Maastricht University (2006). Her current research interests revolve around the evaluation
of performance-based governance systems, specifically regarding university’s third
mission, innovation ecosystems, and cultural heritage. Her researches also concerns the
assessment of human and social development policies for gender equality.
Dr. Vincenzo Alfano holds currently the position of Assistant Professor in Applied Eco­
nomics at University of Messina. He is also associate to Institute for the Mediterranean of
the Italian National Research Council, to the Center for Economic Studies – CESifo, and is
research fellow for Global Labour Organization – GLO. Dr. Alfano has broad research in­
terests, going from health economics and public health to the economic impact of religion.
He has published in several top scientific journals, including Journal of Policy Modeling;
Health policy; Journal of Sports Economics; and Political Studies Review.
Dr. Roberto Michele Celentano is an independent researcher in the fields of economic and
social research, policy evaluation and local development. He has collaborated with Italy’s
Agency for Cohesion, the International Colorni-Hirschmn Institute, and the Department of
Social Science of the University of Naples. He has contributed to writing several evaluation
reports and published a number of articles and book chapters. He holds a PhD in Eco­
nomics from the University of Rome 3.