Main Article Content
Abstract
Typically, Triple Helix relations, between, Higher Education Institutions, Governments and Industry(s) are inferred from patents and research output. Systemic determination of the relationship is because of observations over a period. It is, however, possible to analyze this relation from a system present from the word-go. This then allows for the interaction to be analyzed on the basis of performance and logically gains for participation by all the agents. Several models have been proposed to deduce the Triple Helix Relation and these hold. This paper has however introduced a new dimension to the analysis, by viewing participation from an investor point of view with decision making being of a complex and deductive nature based on the performance of higher education systems or institutions. The TOPSIS supported performance deductions helps synthesis decision solutions that facilitates value determination of performance and its resultant impact on investment gains. Possible future implications for this, are also provided
Keywords
Article Details
Copyright and licensing
Copyright © 2020 Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Reuse is governed by the linked license.
How to Cite
References
Abramo, G., & D'Angelo, C. A. (2016a). A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 646-651. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.006
Abramo, G., & D'Angelo, C. A. (2016b). A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators: Rejoinder. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 679-683. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.011
Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Viel, F. (2013). The suitability of H and G Indexes for measuring the research performance of institutions. Scientometrics, 3(97), 555-570.
Aziz, N. A. A., Janor, R. M., & Mahadi, R. (2013). Comparative Departmental Efficiency Analysis within a University: A DEA Approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 540-548. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.124
Cabrera-Paniagua, D., Cubillos, C., Vicari, R., & Urra, E. (2015). Decision-making system for stock exchange market using artificial emotions. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(20), 7070-7083. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.05.004
Devi, K., Yadav, S. P., & Kumar, S. (2009). Extension of fuzzy TOPSIS method based on vague sets. Computational Cognition, 7, 58-62.
Erdem, T., & Keane, M. P. (1996). Decision-making under uncertainty: Capturing dynamic brand choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets. Marketing science, 15(1), 1-20.
Etzkowitz, H., de Mello, J. M. C., & Almeida, M. (2005). Towards “meta-innovation†in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix. Research Policy, 34(4), 411-424. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.011
Holligan, C., & Sirkeci, I. (2011). Measuring academic research performance through audit at the expense of trust: Exploring the 21st Century University. Border Crossing: Transnational Working Papers(1104).
Hwang, C. L., and K. Yoon. 1981. 186 Multiple Attribute Decision Making-Methods and Applications a State-of-the-Art Survey: Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Irawati, D. (2007). Strengthening Cluster Building in Developing Country alongside the Triple Helix: Challenge for Indonesian Clusters - A Case Study of the Java Region. Munich Personal RePEc Archive(5831).
Karami, A., & Johansson, R. (2014). Utilization of Multi Attribute Decision Making Techniques. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 30
Khramov, M. V., & Lee, M. J. R. (2013). The Economic Performance Index (EPI): an Intuitive Indicator for Assessing a Country's Economic Performance Dynamics in an Historical Perspective: International Monetary Fund.
Larivière, V., & Costas, R. (2015). How many is too many? On the relationship between out put and impact in research. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference - (ISSI-2015).
Letsholo, R., & Pretorius, M. (2016). Investigating managerial practices for data and information overload in decision making. Journal of Contemporary Management, 13(1), 767-792.
Paternoster, R., & Pogarsky, G. (2009). Rational choice, agency and thoughtfully reflective decision making: The short and long-term consequences of making good choices. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(2), 103-127.
Pavel, A.-P. (2015). Global University Rankings - A Comparative Analysis. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 54-63. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00838-2
Tang, H., Shi, Y., & Dong, P. (2019). Public blockchain evaluation using entropy and TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 117, 204-210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.09.048
Vaivode, I. (2015). Triple Helix Model of University-Industry-Government Cooperation in the Context of Uncertainties. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 1063-1067. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.526
Wang, C.-S., Yang, H.-L., & Lin, S.-L. (2015). To Make Good Decision: A Group DSS for Multiple Criteria Alternative Rank and Selection. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/186970
Welford, R. (2016). Corporate Environmental Management 2: Culture and Organization: Routledge.
Zhuo, Z., Zan, X., Qunhui, L., & Mi, C. (2008, 12-15 Oct. 2008). A grey model for evaluating research performance of university researchers in China. Paper presented at the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.