IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/loceco/v30y2015i8p925-943.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The triple helix in action in the fitness sector: A case study of Chi & Co

Author

Listed:
  • Julie C Thomson
  • Lon Kilgore
  • Thea Ni Lionnà in

Abstract

Glasgow, like many cosmopolitan cities, is in search of new ways to promote economic activity. Today’s local government schemes are expected to fulfill an entrepreneurial role in the economic development of our cities and towns. However, to succeed in such an endeavor requires a formula that marshals collaborative effort into goal achievement. An example of such a multidisciplinary project can be found in the case of Chi & Co, a Glasgow-based yoga studio and instructor school and which is presented in this paper. The source and nature of enterprise supporting initiatives vary in intent, requirement, resources available and are often transient in availability. These limitations require that there be a strategic fit between the company need, academic expertise and drive as well as an enterprise agent, what we have labelled a formula for success. Meanwhile, success in commercialising fitness-related activities is the primary focus here, towards the goal of continued regeneration with an underlying socioeconomic agenda. Government support initiatives vary considerably, with the Princess Scottish Youth Business Trust awarding its innovation award in 2010 to a new start-up company selling golf experiences in Scotland, heralding the start of a focus on supporting innovations in sport and exercise as a commercial product. In addition, over the last three years, The Sporting Chance Initiative has helped more than 500 small businesses and innovators in Scotland to develop new products and services for sports markets, which include growth areas in fitness, leisure, adventure tourism and health/wellness by leveraging the expertise in our Higher Education Institutes, but this has not been easy. Meanwhile, Scottish Enterprise has started initiatives to promote innovations in mountain biking, leading to a more recent rapid rise in incremental innovations in the cycling market. Empirical consideration of fitness-related products developed through public–private body partnerships in a so-called triple helix partnership, is lacking. This paper discusses mechanisms of Open Innovation, which appear valuable in the context of the fitness industry and are illustrated within the Chi & Co. case study, as we develop a three-step framework as a formula for success.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie C Thomson & Lon Kilgore & Thea Ni Lionnà in, 2015. "The triple helix in action in the fitness sector: A case study of Chi & Co," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 30(8), pages 925-943, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:30:y:2015:i:8:p:925-943
    DOI: 10.1177/0269094215604573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269094215604573
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0269094215604573?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Sungjoo & Park, Gwangman & Yoon, Byungun & Park, Jinwoo, 2010. "Open innovation in SMEs--An intermediated network model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 290-300, March.
    2. Siegel, Donald S. & Waldman, David & Link, Albert, 2003. "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 27-48, January.
    3. Gautam Ahuja, 2000. "The duality of collaboration: inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 317-343, March.
    4. Christensen, Jens Froslev & Olesen, Michael Holm & Kjaer, Jonas Sorth, 2005. "The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation--Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1533-1549, December.
    5. Charlene L. Nicholls‐Nixon & Carolyn Y. Woo, 2003. "Technology sourcing and output of established firms in a regime of encompassing technological change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(7), pages 651-666, July.
    6. 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, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1295-1313, November.
    7. Benner, Mats & Sandstrom, Ulf, 2000. "Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 291-301, February.
    8. Bill McEvily & Vincenzo Perrone & Akbar Zaheer, 2003. "Trust as an Organizing Principle," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 91-103, February.
    9. Cornwall, Andrea & Jewkes, Rachel, 1995. "What is participatory research?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(12), pages 1667-1676, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Munari, Federico & Sobrero, Maurizio & Toschi, Laura, 2018. "The university as a venture capitalist? Gap funding instruments for technology transfer," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 70-84.
    2. Ryan, Paul & Geoghegan, Will & Hilliard, Rachel, 2018. "The microfoundations of firms’ explorative innovation capabilities within the triple helix framework," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 15-27.
    3. Bruneel, Johan & D'Este, Pablo & Salter, Ammon, 2010. "Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 858-868, September.
    4. Robert Huggins & Daniel Prokop & Piers Thompson, 2020. "Universities and open innovation: the determinants of network centrality," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 718-757, June.
    5. Michele O’Dwyer & Raffaele Filieri & Lisa O’Malley, 2023. "Establishing successful university–industry collaborations: barriers and enablers deconstructed," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 900-931, June.
    6. Ricardo Moutinho & Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira & Arnaldo Coelho & José Pires Manso, 2016. "Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 171-197, March.
    7. Thorgren, Sara & Wincent, Joakim & Eriksson, Jessica, 2011. "Too small or too large to trust your partners in multipartner alliances? The role of effort in initiating generalized exchanges," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 99-112, March.
    8. Emilio Bellini & Giuseppe Piroli & Luca Pennacchio, 2019. "Collaborative know-how and trust in university–industry collaborations: empirical evidence from ICT firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1939-1963, December.
    9. Manuela Gussoni, 2009. "The determinants of inter-firms R&D cooperation and partner selection. A literature overview," Discussion Papers 2009/86, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    10. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    11. Lingyan Meng & Md Qamruzzaman & Anass Hamad Elneel Adow, 2021. "Technological Adaption and Open Innovation in SMEs: An Strategic Assessment for Women-Owned SMEs Sustainability in Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    12. Federica Rossi, 2014. "The efficiency of universities’ knowledge transfer activities: A multi-output approach beyond patenting and licensing," Working Papers 16, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Feb 2014.
    13. Thomas Wolfgang Thurner, 2017. "TRANSFER REVENUES OF RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS (RTOs) IN TIMES OF ECONOMIC CRISIS," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(02), pages 1-24, February.
    14. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    15. Hanna Hottenrott & Cornelia Lawson, 2014. "Research grants, sources of ideas and the effects on academic research," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 109-133, March.
    16. Victoria Galán-Muros & Peter Sijde & Peter Groenewegen & Thomas Baaken, 2017. "Nurture over nature: How do European universities support their collaboration with business?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 184-205, February.
    17. Toth, Jozsef & Dries, Liesbeth & Pascucci, Stefano, 2013. "Open or Not Open? (Open Innovation in the Hungarian Wine Industry)," 87th Annual Conference, April 8-10, 2013, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 158850, Agricultural Economics Society.
    18. Seo, Hangyeol & Chung, Yanghon & Yoon, Hyungseok (David), 2017. "R&D cooperation and unintended innovation performance: Role of appropriability regimes and sectoral characteristics," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 66, pages 28-42.
    19. Zhiyan Zhao & Anders Broström & Jianfeng Cai, 2020. "Promoting academic engagement: university context and individual characteristics," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 304-337, February.
    20. Alan Hughes & Michael Kitson, 2012. "Pathways to Impact and the Strategic Role of Universities," Working Papers wp435, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:30:y:2015:i:8:p:925-943. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/index.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.