Vol. 2 No. 9 (2025), Articles
Vol. 2 No. 9 (2025)

INNOVATION MANAGEMENT MODELS IN FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES: INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS OF THEORIES AND PRACTICES

Articles
Published 2025-05-26
Marina Abdurashidova
Tashkent State University of Economics, m.abdurashidova
Kadyrov T.U
Ph.D. in Economics, Associate Professor, Higher School of Business and Entrepreneurship
PDF

Keywords

innovations in universities; innovation management; triple helix; open innovations; dynamic capabilities; entrepreneurial university; technology transfer; ecosystems; innovation maturity index; international practices; digitalization of education; sustainable development.

Abstract

The article examines modern models of innovation management in foreign universities in the context of global transformations of education, economy and digitalization. The theoretical basis of the study is formed by three key concepts: the triple helix theory, the concept of open innovation and the theory of dynamic capabilities. Based on the analysis of 20 cases of leading universities in the USA, EU, Asia and Scandinavia, effective practices of research commercialization, integration into innovation ecosystems and construction of hybrid management structures are identified. An integrative model combining institutional, instrumental and adaptive components of innovation management is proposed. For the first time, an index of innovation maturity of universities has been developed, allowing to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of innovation strategies. Particular attention is paid to ethical and managerial dilemmas and regional characteristics. The results can be used to develop management transformation strategies in universities of Uzbekistan and the CIS countries.

PDF

References

1. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education . University of Chicago Press.

2. Brem, A., & Radziwon, A. (2023). Ecosystem-driven innovation: Lessons from ETH Zurich. Technovation , 117, 102543.

3. Brem, A., Maier, M., & Wimschneider, C. (2021). Agile methods in university technology transfer: A case study. Journal of Business Research , 128, 823–832.

4. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development , 1(1), 41–69.

5. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology . Harvard Business Press.

6. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation . IAU Press.

7. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review , 48(2), 147–160.

8. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation in Action . Routledge.

9. Etzkowitz, H., & 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.

10. Geuna, A. (2015). Global mobility of research scientists: The economics of who goes where and why. Academic Press .

11. Marginson, S. (2023). Higher Education and the Common Good . Melbourne University Publishing.

12. Markham, S. K. (2020). The Role of Universities in the Innovation Ecosystem. Research Policy , 49(8), 104025.

13. Markham, S. K., Ward, S. J., Aiman-Smith, L., & Kingon, A. I. (2020). The Valley of Death as context for role theory in product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 37(1), 26–48.

14. Mowery, D. C. (2015). Universities and national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 227–245). Oxford University Press.

15. Nordic Innovation Report. (2023). Sustainable Universities . Nordic Council of Ministers.

16. OECD. (2022). Innovation in Higher Education: Global Trends . OECD Publishing.

17. OECD. (2023). Innovation Policy Outlook . OECD Publishing.

18. O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior , 28, 185–206.

19. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy . Johns Hopkins University Press.

20. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal , 28(13), 1319–1350.

21. UNESCO. (2022). Global Education Monitoring Report: Technology in Education . UNESCO Publishing.

22. Muhammad Eid BALBAA and Marina Sagatovna ABDURASHIDOVA, 2023. Digitalization processes in the energy complex of Uzbekistan. EPRA International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Studies (EBMS). Vol 10, Issue 3, p 91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36713/epra12767

23. Abdurashidova, M. S., Balbaa, M. E. (2023). The Impact of the Digital Economy on the Development of Higher Education. In: Koucheryavy, Y., Aziz, A. (eds) Internet of Things, Smart Spaces, and Next Generation Networks and Systems. NEW2AN 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13772. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30258-9_36

24. Nasser El-Kanj, Chadi El Nar, Marina Abdurashidova (2025). Leveraging Cloud Computing for Digital Education: Implications for Student Achievement. Journal of Intelligent Systems and Internet of Things Vol. 16, No. 02, PP. 325-344, 2025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54216/JISIoT.160223

25. Marina Abdurashidova, 2025.Modeling the development of the Innovative environment of higher educational institutions of Uzbekistan based on the principles of network interaction. EPRA International Journal of Environmental Economics, Commerce and Educational Management Journal. Volume: 12 , Issue 5 , p 97 . DOI: 10.36713/epra0414