Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Analysis of Triple Helix Network Collaboration among University-
Industry-Government for IT Outsourcing
Dr. Bobby Swar SolBridge International School of Business, South Korea
Dr. Gohar Feroz KhanYeungNam University, South Korea
8th June 2012
EMCIS 2012European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems
Contents
Rationale and Approach
Research Method
Social Network Analysis
Triple Helix Analysis
Results
Discussion and Conclusion
Rational and Approach
IT outsourcing - widely accepted management practice
Effective management of IT outsourcing is a challenge
Wide variety of research resulting in greater knowledge production
Useful in understanding the common facts
Rational and Approach
Does not reveal the hidden structures and properties
Lacks Social Network Analysis and Triple Helix Perspective
Investigate IT outsourcing knowledge infrastructure from a network point of view
Scientometrics analysis – knowledge and insights about the quantitative features of IT outsourcing
Rational and Approach - Research Questions
What are the network structures of collaboration among institutions, country and region for IT outsourcing knowledge production?
What is the status of academia-industry-government relationships in the network of IT outsourcing knowledge production? and
Who are the key players (i.e. institutions, countries and regions) contributing to the network of IT outsourcing knowledge production?
Social Network Analysis
Helps in revealing hidden structures & characteristics
Key players & their collaboration of networks are investigated
SNA techniques are based on graph theory
For analysis & visualization NetDraw 2.117, UCINT and NetMiner 3.3.0 softwares are used
Triple Helix Analysis
Investigates the bilateral and trilateral relationship among University-Industry-Government (UIG)
A triple helix regime typically begins as university, industry and government enter into a reciprocal relationship in which each attempts to enhance the performance of others (Etzkowitz 2007)
Fig: A Triple Helix Model
Triple Helix Analysis
Authors' affiliated institutions are categories as “university” (U), “industry” (I), and “government” (G).
The collaboration among UIG is measured by mutual information (i.e. transmission T) derived from the Shannon’s formulas (1948)
The transmission (T) are measured in “mbits” of information
TH indicators were calculated using the mutual information derived through T values using a TH software available at http://www.leydesdorff.net/th2/index.htm.
Data Collection and Analysis The bibliometric data of publications
Data are collected from Web of Science using the keywords for IT outsourcing
Paper published since 1995 to 2011 were collected
Results- Descriptive Statistics
Country N %
USA 127 44.09
UK 52 18.05
South Korea 21 7.29
Germany 18 6.25
Canada 15 5.2
China 12 4.16
Netherlands 9 3.12
Australia/ Norway/ Singapore 8 2.77
Taiwan 7 2.43
India/ Spain 5 1.73
France 4 1.38
Turkey 3 1.04
Italy/ Sweden 2 0.69
Articles published by year
Articles published by country
Results- Bilateral and Trilateral UIG Relationships
Number of solo and co-authored publications by UIG
Results- Bilateral and Trilateral UIG Relationships
Longitudinal trends in the bilateral and trilateral UIG relationships in the IT outsourcing research domain
Results- Network Analysis
Country level collaboration for co-authorship
Results- Network AnalysisCountry Degree
Betweenness Centrality
Eigenvector
USA 16 256.667 0.132
UK 12 194.667 0.112
Germany 6 3.333 0.082
China 5 44.000 0.045
Spain 4 0.000 0.065
Italy 4 0.000 0.065
Netherlands 4 8.667 0.059
Canada 4 17.000 0.055
Singapore 3 5.667 0.047
Taiwan 3 2.000 0.038
Greece 3 0.000 0.054
South Korea 3 0.000 0.039
Sweden 2 42.000 0.003
India 2 0.000 0.041
France 2 0.000 0.029
Australia 2 80.000 0.019
Thailand 1 0.000 0.022
Portugal 1 0.000 0.019
UAE 1 0.000 0.008
Japan 1 0.000 0.022
Israel 1 0.000 0.022
Ireland 1 0.000 0.001
Norway 1 0.000 0.000
Finland 1 0.000 0.000
Countries in terms of network centrality
No. of link
No. of nodes
Density Clustering coefficient
Average degree
Average Geodesic Distance
84 34 0.07 0.30 3.1 2.2
Network level properties of co-authorship at the country level
Results- Network Analysis
Institution level collaboration network
Results- Network AnalysisInstitute Betweenness Degree Eigenvector
Georgia State University 892.000 5 0.003
University of Pittsburgh 862.000 10 0.134
Nanyang Technological University
848.000 3 0.009
University of Minnesota 828.000 4 0.044
Florida Atlantic University 476.000 4 0.033
University of Nevada 420.000 5 0.047
MIT 360.000 7 0.005
Concordia University 298.000 6 0.001
New York State University, Suny Buffalo
228.000 7 0.015
Salisbury University 228.000 6 0.016
McGill University 156.000 4 0.001
University of Missouri 88.333 8 0.000
Korea University 84.000 7 0.000
Sogang University 72.000 5 0.014
University of Arizona 72.000 4 0.015
Erasmus University 67.667 7 0.000
Kookmin University 56.000 3 0.000
University of Nebraska 48.000 3 0.000 Institutes in terms of network centrality
Network level properties at the institution level
No. of link
No. of nodes
Density Clustering coefficient
Average degree
Average Geodesic Distance
364 115 0.028 0.784 3.1 3.6
Results- Network Analysis
Regional level collaboration network
Burst DetectionWord Weight Length Start End
role 1.5 3 2009
vendor 1.8 3 2009
risk 1.6 1 2009 2009
empirical 2.9 3 2009
firm 1.9 2 2008 2009
learn 2.1 4 2008
level 2.0 2 2008 2009
agreement 1.6 4 2008
trust 2.8 1 2008 2008
commitment 1.7 1 2008 2008
control 2.1 1 2008 2008
develop 1.7 2 2007 2008
offshore 3.8 2 2007 2008
process 1.6 2 2007 2008
impact 1.5 3 2007 2009
business 1.5 6 2006
market 2.0 2 2006 2007
culture 2.1 3 2006 2008
versus 2.2 2 2005 2006
understand 1.7 4 2005 2008
Word Weight Length Start End
application 1.6 5 2004 2008
contract 2.0 2 2004 2005
perspective 2.1 2 2002 2003
success 2.0 4 2001 2004
provider 2.1 4 2001 2004
healthcare 1.5 4 2001 2004
explore 2.4 4 2000 2003
decision 1.9 2 1999 2000
relationship 1.6 5 1999 2003
analyze 2.6 2 1999 2000
risk 2.4 2 1998 1999
mitigate 1.8 2 1998 1999
supplier 2.3 6 1998 2003
source 3.0 7 1997 2003
case 2.3 3 1997 1999
system 3.8 3 1995 1997
practice 1.9 6 1995 2000
framework 1.8 6 1995 2000
strategies 2.5 8 1995 2002
Discussion and Conclusion
Increasing trend of IT outsourcing publications indicating the importance in academia
USA is playing a central role in terms of collaboration of IT outsourcing research
There is a strongest tie between USA and UK followed by USA and South Korea
Lack of co-authorship collaboration between the developing and developed countries
Discussion and Conclusion
Lots of potentials for the co-authorship at the country level
In terms of institution level collaboration several region and country based clusters are identified
At the regional level South America is isolated
Countries/region with lack of studies/research often refer the finding from the other alternatives that may lead to the failure of IT outsourcing
