1 s2.0 S2444569X23001269 Main

Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 8 (2023) 100430
Journal of Innovation
& Knowledge
ht t p s: // w w w . j our na ls .e l se vi e r .c om /j ou r na l -o f - in no va t i on -a n d- kn owl e dg e
Challenges of the collaborative innovation system in public higher

education in the era of industry 4.0 using an integrated framework
Xiaohua Li1, Weibing Chen2,*, Melfi Alrasheedi3
1
College of Marxism, Jilin Institute of Chemical Technology, Jilin 132000, China
2
School of Chinese Language and Literature, Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, Guiyang, Guizhou 550025, China
3
Department of Quantitative Methods, School of Business, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article History: Collaborative innovation systems comprise certain functions created by integrating a number of intercon-
Received 14 October 2022 nected items in a certain order. These systems essentially create a connection between different elements for
Accepted 21 August 2023 the achievement of a certain goal. To properly develop or transform a system, the relationships among the
Available online 7 September 2023
elements of the system must be well understood. Numerous structural models have been designed to be
applied to collaborative innovation systems in higher education. Thus, the current paper deals with this gap
Keywords:
by comprehensively analyzing the challenges that may arise for collaborative innovation systems in public
Collaborative innovation system
higher education (PHE) in the era of industry 4.0, specifically in the context of developing countries. This
industry 4.0
public higher education
study developed an integrated framework to identify and evaluate the main challenges of the collaborative
innovation innovation system in public higher education. This framework is applied to determine the subjective and
decision making objective weights of the main challenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE in the era of industry
4.0. In addition, the framework is used to assess the preferences of PHE organizations over different main
JEL code: challenges of the collaborative innovation system in the era of industry 4.0. Finally, an empirical case study is
O3 taken to evaluate the main challenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE in the era of industry
O31 4.0. The results of this study found that; the holistic acceptance of the innovation with a weight value of
O36
0.0614 has come out to be the most important challenge of the collaborative innovation system in PHE; in
L8
addition, the lack of technical infrastructure with a weight value of 0.0594 is the second most important chal-
I23
C44 lenge of the collaborative innovation system in the PHE, and educational policy has third with significance
value 0.0588.
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Introduction sectoral collaboration (Hartley et al. 2013; Adel et al. 2021; Wang et
al. 2022), and companies show great enthusiasm for promoting more
To pursue innovation, many stakeholders need to collaborate collaborative activities with more and more partners.
(Papa et al. 2020), which include private companies, public organiza- A number of scholars have attempted to show some contingencies
tions (e.g., higher education), and nonprofit organizations (also that could be well addressed only through collaboration, and this
known as the third sector); (Miller 2016; Walsh et al. 2016; Demi- way, they have attempted to unveil the gaps that exist in this regard
rcioglu and Audretsch 2019; Adomako and Tran 2022; Li et al. 2022). (Wong et al. 2021; Hetemi et al. 2022). For example, Galbraith (1974)
Such cross-sectoral collaboration has become increasingly vital in investigated how private companies could select a certain gover-
recent decades in both norm and practice because it is needed to nance form by considering the factors related to the innovation prob-
address magnificent challenges in modern life (Waardenburg et al. lem. Hartley et al. (2013) made a comparison among the innovation
2020; Blanken et al. 2022). Moreover, a great deal of existing evi- strategies implemented in companies of the public sector. They also
dence confirms that higher degrees of innovation are achievable showed the conditions causing collaborative innovation to be supe-
through cross-sectoral collaborations (Torfing and Triantafillou rior to “in-house” innovation. In another study, O’Toole Jr (1997)
2016). As a result, a major innovation strategy for innovation is cross- highlighted the significance of determining and assessing the inter-
agency collaboration cost since collaboration can burden govern-
ments with substantial costs. In the same way, Fallis (2006)
* Corresponding author. examined various approaches taken by different scholars in different
E-mail address: chenweibing985@163.com (W. Chen).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100430
2444-569X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
X. Li, W. Chen and M. Alrasheedi Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 8 (2023) 100430
fields for the analysis of collaboration and also attempted to under- tremendously not only the economy but also people’s social and pri-
stand the reason for such differences. The findings of that study vate lives with the ways they commune with each other. For exam-
determined the academic research characteristics that could result in ple, some technology innovations and smart devices, which are
successful collaboration. particularly applied to social media, could considerably decrease indi-
Public organizations tend to adopt innovation and collaboration as viduals’ face-to-face interactions (Saini and Abraham 2019) and neg-
two key strategies for improving common crises management (Elston atively influence the attainment of related soft skills, e.g., emotional
et al. 2018; Nohrstedt et al. 2018; Lopes and Farias 2020; Wong et al. intelligence, interpersonal skills, and communication, particularly
2021) and optimizing existing resources (Diamond and Vangen amongst the younger population.
2017; Lewis et al. 2017) and responding to both social and technolog- The research on the private sector (Terjesen and Patel 2015;
ical developments (Seo et al. 2018). On the other hand, integrating Audretsch and Belitski 2020; Evan and Holy 2021; Jiemin and Chen
both into one concept as ‘collaborative innovation’ could be more 2022) is primarily concentrated on industrial, commercial, and scien-
advantageous than other innovation strategies. This is because col- tific innovations, wherein the key objective is the creation of value
laboration has at least two capacities: benefitting all steps along the through increased profits or market share. On the other hand, the
innovation path and making the stage ready for sharing benefits, research on the public and third sectors is focused on social and pub-
risks, and costs (Torfing 2019). Numerous scholars have argued that lic innovation with the aim of creating social and public value (Torf-
the management, leadership, and governance models used by public ing and Triantafillou 2016). The current study addresses such
organizations management arise many complications and challenges limitations by taking a sector-neutral perspective on innovation to
in the course of adopting innovative practices (Andersen and Jakob- analyze cross-sectoral collaborations. Note that the majority of stud-
sen 2018; Boon and Verhoest 2018). In addition, a number of scholars ies carried out in this domain have attempted to determine the con-
in this field have concentrated on collaborative innovation in the ditions favoring collaboration, and the literature still lacks systematic
public sector from the perspective of the organizations’ internal analyses on the challenges that may arise in the collaborative innova-
dynamics (Bernier et al. 2015; Mu and Wang 2022). They have tion systems in public higher education (PHE) in the era of Industry
highlighted the drawbacks enforced by conventional bureaucratic 4.0.
practices and also attempted to suggest some solutions to such prob- In order to identify, evaluate, and analyze the main challenges for
lems (Wegrich 2019). The research conducted on this form of innova- collaborative innovation systems in the era of industry 4.0, we
tion has covered the concept inherent to the innovation process selected for empirical study for public higher education in China. This
itself, as well as the interconnections amongst public companies and study adopts rigorous and approved management methods to collect
between the public sector and society (Bekkers and Tummers 2018). empirical data. First, we have conducted a survey approach using cur-
A number of studies have also been conducted on the influence of rent literature on innovation systems as well as an interview with
educational institutions and knowledge on innovation systems and experts. Second, we have done a comprehensive literature survey to
processes (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000; Morawska-Jancelewicz, identify the main challenges for collaborative innovation systems in
2022). Overall, to achieve a deep insight into collaborative innovation the era of industry 4.0 for higher education. In this regard, we have
and its influence, it is necessary to investigate all sectors, and the identified 37 challenges to evaluating collaborative innovation sys-
way collaboration develops amongst them is crucial. The ‘collabora- tems in the era of industry 4.0. Thus, in this study, we have developed
tive education’ concept was pioneered by an American scholar called a framework for the assessment of the main challenges of the collab-
Grow, who believed that collaborative innovation could be developed orative innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0. The main
by a group of people or organizations with the same goals. They nor- contributions of this study are presented as
mally employ exchange tools for the purpose of exchanging their
ideas in a way to finally achieve common goals. To develop the col- & Based on a comprehensive survey and online questionnaire, we
laborative education concept, Chinese academics have attempted to classify the key challenges of the collaborative innovation system
redefine this concept based on the basic national conditions of their in PHE in the era of industry 4.0.
own country (Klara et al., 2013). They believed that such innovation & We evaluate and analyze the related challenges of the collabora-
is primarily based on multiple organizations and directed by the tive innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0 using an
common goals and paths for the obtainment of a mutually-comple- integrated decision-support approach.
mentary complementary and innovation model at both ideological & We develop a new framework to obtain the weight value of the
and technical levels. To construct faculty in higher colleges, collabora- main challenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE.
tive innovation principally takes scientific research institutions, voca- & The developed framework is used for the ranking of PHE organiza-
tional colleges, enterprises, and society as the main body, where tions to assess the main challenges of the collaborative innovation
faculty construction is taken into account as the common goal. The system in PHE.
innovation model is constructed, and the faculty is optimized by
sharing the available technologies and resources. As a result, the The remaining paper is prepared as follows. A literature review on
most important characteristics of collaborative innovation in the con- the main challenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE in
text of higher education are interaction, diversity, and integrity. the era of industry 4.0 is given in Section 2. In Section 3, the prelimi-
Industry 4.0 is in its infancy stage and is immature in most sec- naries and the developed IF-Entropy-SWARA-MARCOS method are
tors; however, it is gaining increasing attention from scholars, practi- discussed. Section 4 gives experimental findings and comparative
tioners, and policymakers across various sectors (Kanski and Pizon and sensitivity analysis results. Section 5 concludes the study.
2023). Industry 4.0 is widely recognized as a synthesis of numerous
technologies (Forum 2018). Since the 1980s, robots have been Background of study for collaborative innovation
applied to education, especially in teaching different subjects of sci-
ence, mathematics, engineering, and technology (Tymon 2013). Nev- Innovation refers to developing and implementing novel ideas
ertheless, the implementation of digital technologies that underpin that habitual upset practices and the common wisdom dominating
Industry 4.0 cannot be limited to the utilization of computers and e- the solution context (Hartley et al. 2013). Thus, innovation is some-
materials; rather, this needs to be well adapted to the learner-ori- thing beyond the constant enhancement of current practices and ide-
ented approaches of teaching so that it could effectively improve ational mindsets (Hartley 2013). It essentially causes the
their learning experiences. With such an exponential rate at which transformation of the way things are normally imagined and per-
Industry 4.0 is currently dispersing across all sectors, it will affect formed. In general, the quest for innovation is supported by the idea
2
that innovative solutions perform better than the old ones and result Private and public actors mainly unfold collaborative innovation.
in desired endings, though innovation, in many cases, fails to realize However, it tends to engage a diverse group of private and public
its promises, and even it can lead to unpredicted adverse outcomes. actors when there is a need to solve a problem creatively. Through the
For that reason, innovation cannot be introduced as an undoubted process of exchanging varied ideas, experiences, and opinions, conven-
‘normative good’ (Osborne and Brown 2011). Despite the fact over tional practices and their cognitive and normative foundations may be
one century, scholars have introduced innovation as the most impor- disturbed. This triggers transformative learning processes and, at the
tant factor. Two factors have been assumed to cause overwhelming same time, builds joint ownership over novel and conventional solu-
barriers to innovation in the higher education sector; those are the tions. Such a formula could not be easily beaten in comparison with
“lack of competition and economic incentives” and the “predominance competitive and hierarchical innovation strategies that cannot take
of hierarchical control and red tape” (Mazzucato 2011). The prevalent advantage of the creative potential that arises from continuous negoti-
idea that the higher education sector possesses higher degrees of ation with exterior actors (Powell and Grodal 2005).
dynamicity and innovation compared to its reputation and that pro- Moreover, collaborative innovation could be well benefitted from
fessional and political goals could be realized more effectively hierarchical leadership authorizing members of various companies to
through the stimulation of innovation has caused practitioners and work together; collaborative innovation can give them a ‘license to
scholars to pay a growing attention to innovation in higher educa- innovate’ (Crosby and Bryson 2010). Findings of many qualitative
tion. Innovation is expanding towards the top agenda of the higher case studies have confirmed that multi-actor collaboration can posi-
education sector since it provides an intellectual, economical alterna- tively influence public innovation (Torfing and Ansell 2014). Roberts
tive to visionless, across the-board cuts in times of calamitous eco- and King (1996) demonstrated the way multi-actor collaboration
nomic restraints. strengthens innovation in public schools. According to Newman et al.
Collaboration is described as “the process through which two or (2001), local governments that hold feeble interagency and stake-
more actors engage in a constructive management of differences in holder networks typically offer extremely-confined innovation pat-
order to define common problems and develop joint solutions based terns. Dente et al. (2005) compared the cutting-edge urban planning
on provisional agreements that may coexist with disagreement and of Turin, Italy, with the less inventive development in Milan, consid-
dissent” (Hartley 2013). It is different from coordination, which is the ering the advanced density and diversity of collaborative networks in
“orderly arrangement of the group effort to provide unity of action in the former. Steelman (2010) explained how a diversified group,
the pursuit of a common purpose” (Mooney 1954), and from cooper- including both political and social actors, was able to foster an inno-
ation, which is the “joint pursuit of an agreed-on goal(s) in a manner vative plan to protect land in an extremely-politicized setting. In
corresponding to a shared understanding about contributions and another study, Hale (2011) analyzed the way horizontal and vertical
payoffs” (Gulati et al. 2012). Collaboration can be seen as merging collaborations between state offices, professional associations, and
cooperation with coordination (Gulati et al. 2012). In general, an local administrations allow for establishing and diffusing drug courts
organization gets involved in collaboration with other organizations offering a novel alternative to incarceration.
in order to attain more resources and, at the same time, achieve its The articles on organizational innovation were subjected to some
own objectives and interests (Tseng et al. 2020; Dias and Selan 2022). meta-analyses whose results showed that if the involved actors, the
Such collaboration with common interests causes the involved dispersion of power, and the nature of external and internal commu-
organizations to become more innovative since, through this proce- nication are well diversified, it can positively influence the private
dure, they will be able to learn from each other (Martínez-Costa et al. and public firms’ capacity for innovation (Damanpour 1991). In an
2019; Demircioglu and Audretsch 2020; Tseng et al. 2020). As a attempt to collect more irrefutable facts regarding the influence of
result, collaboration has a close relation with innovation, especially collaboration on public innovation and its capacity for generating
in cases where the organizations hold common interests, goals, and desired outcomes, a study produced a criteria-based evaluation tool
values (van der Voet and Steijn 2021). capable of measuring the degree of innovation, collaboration, and
The term ‘collaborative innovation’ was first introduced by preventive crime impacts in a total of 24 local projects carried out in
researchers who integrated the findings of some recent studies into Copenhagen, Denmark (Torfing et al. 2017). The results were exposed
collaborative governance (Emerson et al. 2011); (Hartley et al. 2013). to multiple regression analysis, which showed that if various private
Furthermore, collaborative innovation may occur across sectors in and public actors collaborate with each other, it spreads innovation,
various forms, contexts, and partnerships. For example, it may occur which could ultimately cause the enhancement of the crime-preven-
in the Triple Helix model (university-industry-government), postu- tive impacts of local projects. Collaboration is in fact the only innova-
lating the dynamism through continuous reorganization of the inno- tion strategy wherein the existence of organizational and
vation collaboration because of the technological and cultural institutional boundaries does not determine the parties that can be
evolution (Audretsch and Belitski 2022), or in the Quadruple Helix engaged in generating innovative solutions; rather, the important
model adding culture-based and media-based public relations to this factor in this sense isto hold several relevant innovation assets such
dynamism (Miller et al. 2018). From a traditional perspective, collab- as creativity, experience, implementation capacity, financial means,
orative innovation has progressed within the private sector as the and courage (Bommert 2010). One of the problems is that the public
“creation of innovations across firm (and perhaps industry) bound- sector has been grouped bureaucratically, each of which has concen-
aries through the sharing of ideas, knowledge, expertise, and oppor- trated on definite policy programs and public services they are
tunities” (Ketchen Jr et al. 2007). Then, it has been effectively expected to deliver as well as the budget frames and the number of
extended to other sectors. To realize collaborative innovation, inno- employees at their disposal (Downs 1967).
vation and production of new knowledge must be encouraged along As asserted by the World Economy Forum (Forum 2020), the tech-
with collaboration and communication between organizations with nology revolution induced by Industry 4.0 has blurred the borders
high degrees of dynamicity and effectiveness. In other words, it is among the digital, physical, and biological scopes. With the complete
necessary to explore novel methods to develop expertise and innova- maturity of innovation, especially in the education sector, it can
tion in the current knowledge processes by providing the opportu- improve individuals’ skills through data analytics, artificial intelli-
nity for more and better cooperation among the private, public, and gence, and algorithms and helps decrease struggles on complicated,
education sectors (particularly higher education) (Lamprini and time-consuming assignments through modeling and simulation. The
Brochler 2018). This response to this necessity should be integrated former three industrial revolutions mainly affected society and its
and comprehensive, and it must involve all stakeholders, from the economy; on the other hand, Industry 4.0 shows more relevancy to
private and public sectors to academia and civil society. people’s daily lives, which includes the way people learn and work
3
(Brown 2015). Furthermore, the former industrial revolutions “indeterminacy function (IF)” of an object ti 2 T to S is defined as pS ðti
resulted in the mass production of education services by preparing Þ ¼ 1 mS ðti Þ nS ðti Þ and 0pS ðti Þ1; 8 ti 2 T: Also, Xu (2007) con-
the stage ready for innovative curricular developments and online sidered the “intuitionistic fuzzy number (IFN)” z ¼ ðmz ; nz Þ with the
teaching by establishing countless academic institutions across the constraint mz ; nz 2 ½0; 1 and 0 mz þ nz 1:
globe (Chang and Wills 2013).
Definition 2. (Xu, 2015). Consider zj ¼ ðmj ; nj Þ;j ¼ 1ð1Þn; be the IFNs.
In the 21st century, the knowledge economy developed in socie-
Then
ties, which caused higher education to face many demands for the
improvement of collaborations to boost this sector’s capacities for 1
S zj ¼ m j nj þ 1 ; H z j ¼ m j þ nj ; ð2Þ
the establishment and distribution of knowledge and also to maxi- 2
mize impact upon practice (Katz and Martin 1997). Accordingly, are called the score and accuracy values, respectively.
higher education institutions (HEIs) needed to establish networks
with stakeholders and other HEIs as well as inside their own institu-
Assume that z1 ¼ ðm1 ; n1 Þ and z2 ¼ ðm2 ; n2 Þ are two IFNs. Then,
tions (Jongbloed et al. 2008). The establishment of such collaboration
the ordering scheme is given by
and networking practices in this sector contributed to both the
knowledge & research theme and the institutional management
If Sðz1 Þ > Sðz2 Þ; then z1 \succz2 ;
theme of research in higher education (Tight 2014). The literature
If Sðz1 Þ ¼ Sðz2 Þ; then
consists of evidence indicating the benefits of collaboration in higher
if Hðz1 Þ > Hðz2 Þ; then z1 \succz2 ;
education (Lewis et al. 2012); however, it still lacks research into
if Hðz1 Þ ¼ Hðz2 Þ; then z1 ¼ z2 :
how higher education management can enable and improve collabo-
ration. According to (Kezar 2005), higher education managers require
to shift from supporting individual work to smoothing collaboration. Definition 3. (Xu (2007)). Let zj ¼ ðmj ; nj Þ;j ¼ 1ð1Þn be the IFNs. Then
She also asserted that the literature comprises “virtually no research the “intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (IFWA)” and “intuitionis-
on how to enable higher education institutions to conduct collabora- tic fuzzy weighted geometric (IFWG)” operators are defined as
tive work” (p. 831). In more recent years, (Cooke and Hilton 2015) 2 3
n
Y wj Y
n
carried out a consensus study into research collaboration and n
IFWAw ðz1 ; z2 ; :::; zn Þ ¼ wj zj ¼ 41 nj 5;
w
1 mj ; j
ð3Þ
reported the shortage of literature on how to improve research col- j¼1
j¼1 j¼1
laborations in higher education. Their study had to rely greatly upon
the inferences extracted from the literature on group dynamics in 2 3
n Yn Y
n wj
IFWGw ðz1 ; z2 ; :::; zn Þ ¼ wj zj ¼ 4 mj ; 1 1 nj 5;
other circumstances. To address an important gap in the higher edu- wj
ð4Þ
cation literature, the current study attempts to find out the way j¼1
j¼1 j¼1
higher education managers can improve collaborative work, predom-
where wj ¼ ðw1 ; w2 ; :::; wn ÞT is a weight vector of zj ; j ¼ 1; 2; :::; n;
inantly research collaboration, in an institution. Collaboration among P
scholars inside an institution improves the institution’s research with nj¼1 wj ¼ 1 and wj 2 ½0; 1:
capacity at an interpersonal level (Huang 2014). This capacity, for
instance, in the context of innovation and collaboration amongst
enterprises, has been shown to enhance an enterprise’s capability to Introduced IF-Entropy-SWARA-MARCOS approach
prosper in external collaborations (Bougrain and Haudeville 2002).
According to Tight (2014), the import of theories from different disci- This section proposes an extended MADA methodology called the
plines to apply to higher education research is a significant approach IF-Entropy-SWARA-MARCOS. The MARCOS framework considers the
that can improve higher education as a rising field of research. advantages of diverse “reference points (RPs)” and “utility degrees
Therefore, in this study, to identify the main challenges including (UDs)” in a suitable manner. The “combined utility function (CUF)” of
C1: Negative attitudes, C2: Adopt the innovation mindset, C3: Lack of the MARCOS approach widely considers the utility values and the ref-
addressable communities, C4: Adopt the pedagogical mindset, C5: Lack of erence points, and thus, the final ranking result has high reliability.
technical infrastructure, C6: Lack of e-learning tools, C7: Bureaucracy, The process of the IF-Entropy-SWARA-MARCOS approach is dis-
C8: Competence of the teachers, C9: Motivation in using ICT, C10: Lack of cussed as follows (Flowchart 1):
skills, C11: Cultural differences, C12: Resistance to change, C13: Lack of
leading and support strategies, C14: Educational policy, C15: Holistic Step 1: Form a “linguistic decision matrix (LDM)”.
acceptance of the innovation, C16: Lack of technical support, C17: Lack of
learning resources, C18: Complex technologies, C19: Lack of time to use In the MCDM procedure, consider a set of m options P ¼ fp1 ; p2 ; :::;
the technology in classrooms and C20: Language barriers to the collabo- pm g over a criterion set Q ¼ fq1 ; q2 ; :::; qn g: Form a committee of
ðkÞ
rative innovation system in public higher education in the era of experts D ¼ fd1 ; d2 ; :::; dl g to find the best choice(s). Let T ¼ ðcij Þmn
industry 4.0, a survey approach is conducted using the literature be the “linguistic decision matrix (LDM)” expressed by “decision
ðkÞ
review and interview with experts. experts (DEs)”, where cij denotes the linguistic assessment value of
pi by means of the criterion qj offered by kth DE. Based on the linguis-
tic rating table, the LDM is converted into IF-DM.
Proposed Intuitionistic Fuzzy-based MADA method
Step 2: Find the DEs’ weights.
Preliminaries
To find the weight of the DE, firstly, the assessment rating of DEs is
Here, we present some concepts about the IFSs. taken as “linguistic variables (LVs)” and then articulated by IFNs. If dk
Definition 1. (Atanassov (1986)). An IFS S on T ¼ ft1 ; t2 ; :::; tn g is ¼ ðmk ; nk Þ be the assessment rating of kth DE, then the weight-deter-
defined as mining formula is given as
S ¼ fðti ; mS ðti Þ; nS ðti ÞÞ : ti 2 T g; ð1Þ mk ð2 mk nk Þ

fk ¼ : ð5Þ
P
l
where mS : Z ! ½0; 1 and nS : Z ! ½0; 1 show the MF and NF of ti to S ½mk ð2 mk nk Þ
k¼1
in T; with the condition 0mS ðti Þ þ nS ðti Þ1; 8 ti 2 T: An
4
Flowchart 1. Challenges of the collaborative innovation system in public higher education in the era of Industry 4.0
P
l
Clearly, fk 0 and fk ¼ 1:
k¼1
dij ¼ mij ; nij
Step 3: Aggregate the individual decision matrices.

ð1Þ ð2 Þ ðlÞ ð1 Þ ð2Þ ðl Þ
¼ IFWAfk cij ; cij ; :::; cij or IFWGfk cij ; cij ; :::; cij ð6Þ
To aggregate the individual decision matrices into a combined

form, the IFWA (or IFWG) operator is used and formed the aggre-
gated matrix Z ¼ ðdij Þm n;where Step 4: Proposed subjective and objective weighting approach.
5
Suppose w ¼ ðw1 ; w2 ; :::; wn ÞT is the weight vector of criterion set

P
n 8
with wj ¼ 1 and wj 2 ½0; 1. Now, we find the criteria weight by < ξ ij ¼ mij ; nij ; j 2 qb ;
j¼1 & ij ¼ mij ; nij ¼ c ð14Þ
: ξ ¼ nij ; mij ; j 2 qn :
combining the objective and subjective weights as follows: ij
Case I. Entropy method for objective weights.

To find the criteria weights, the entropy model is extended under Step 6: Estimate the reference points.
the PFS environment as
m
P We compute the “intuitionistic fuzzy-ideal solution (IF-IS)” and
1 H dij
i¼1 “intuitionistic fuzzy anti-ideal solution (IF-AIS)” with the use of the
wjo ¼ ! ð7Þ
P
n m
P following expressions:
1 H dij
j¼1 i¼1 ð maxi mij ; mini nij Þ; for benefit criterion qb
aþj ¼
ð mini mij ; maxi nij Þ; for cost criterion qn for j ¼ 1; 2; :::; n;
where,
ð15Þ
H dij ¼ H dij = maxi¼1;:::;m H dij ; j ¼ 1; 2; :::; n; ð8Þ

ð mini mij ; maxi nij Þ; for benefit criterion qb
n h i aj ¼
1 X ð maxi mij ; mini nij Þ; for cost criterion qn for j ¼ 1; 2; :::; n:
H dij ¼ 1 mij nij I½mij nij þ nij mij I½mij < nij ; ð9Þ
n i ¼1 ð16Þ
signifies the entropy measure (taken from Mishra and Rani, 2019).
Case II. Determine the subjective weights by the SWARA method.
Step 7: Calculate the weighted normalized A-IF-DM (NA-IF-DM)
Step 4a: Determine the crisp degrees. Score degrees Sðdkj Þ of IFNs are
computed by Eq. (2). Here, the weighted NA-IF-DM Nw ¼ ð&ij_ Þm nis calculated,
Step 4b: Prioritize the criteria. The criteria are prioritized based on wherein
the DE’s preferences from the most significant to the least signifi- wj
cant attribute. & ij_ ¼ mij_ ; nij_ ¼ wj & ij ¼ 1 1 mij nij wj ; j
Step 4c: Evaluate the comparative significance of the average value.
¼ 1; 2; :::; n: ð17Þ
The significance degree is estimated from the criterion ordered in
the second position, and the comparative significance is derived
by making a comparison between the criteria sj and sj1 :
Step 4d: Evaluate the comparative coefficient kj as follows: Step 8: Evaluate the scare values of the weighted sum of each option

1; j¼1 X
n
kj ¼ ð10Þ
Si ¼ S & ij_ ; i ¼ 1; 2; :::; m; ð18Þ
s j þ 1; j > 1:
j¼1
Step 4e: Compute the weights. The recalculated weight rj is given by
8 where Sð& ij_ Þrepresents the score values of each element of the
< 1; j¼1
rj ¼ rj1 ; j > 1: ð11Þ weighted NA-IF-DM.
:
kj
Step 9: Evaluate the “utility degree (UD)” of option
Si Si
Step 4f: The normalized weight is computed as u
i ¼ and uþ
i ¼ ; ð19Þ
Sais Sis
rj
wjs ¼ Pq : ð12Þ
j¼1 rj where Sis and Sais signify the sum of score values of weighted values
of aþ
jw and ajw , respectively.
Case III. Calculation of integrated weight of indicator using “IF- Step 10: Identify the “combined utility function (CUF)” of each
Entropy-SWARA”. alternative.
To find the integrated weight indicator, DEs need to utilize the
both subjective and objective weights of indicators. The expression
for the integrated weight is given by The CUF is the compromise solution of alternatives associated
with the IF-IS and IF-AIS. Thus, the CUF of alternatives is defined by
wj ¼ g wjo þ ð1 g Þwjs ; j ¼ 1; 2; :::; n; ð13Þ
uþi þ u
where g 2 ½0; 1 is a precision coefficient. f ðui Þ ¼ i
; where f uþ
1f ðuþ
i Þ
1f ðu
i Þ
i
1þ f ðuþ
þ
i Þ
f ðu
i Þ
Step 5: Obtain the normalized A-IF-DM (NA-IF-DM). u uþ

¼ i þ and f u
i ¼ i þ ; i ¼ 1; 2; :::; m: ð20Þ
ui þ ui ui þ ui
The normalization is utilized to assess the values of the A-IF-DM Z

¼ ðdÞm n and create the NA-IF-DM N ¼ ð& ij Þm n: Let qb and qn signi-
fies the benefit and cost-type criteria, then the expression for normal- Step 11: Rank the alternatives based on the CUFs. The appropriate
ization is given by option has the maximum CUF value.
6
Results and discussion Table 1

Linguistic rating scale
Case study
LVs IFNs
To identify, evaluate, and analyze the main challenges for collabo- Extremely good (EG) (0.95, 0.05)
Very very good (VVG) (0.85, 0.10)
rative innovation systems in the era of industry 4.0, we selected public Very good (VG) (0.80, 0.15)
higher education in China for empirical study. This study adopts rigor- Good (G) (0.70, 0.20)
ous and approved management methods to collect empirical data. Slightly good (MG) (0.60, 0.30)
First, a survey was carried out using the existing literature on innova- Moderate (M) (0.50, 0.40)
Slightly bad (MB) (0.40, 0.50)
tion systems and holding some interviews with a number of selected
Bad (B) (0.30,0.60)
experts. Then, the literature was comprehensively reviewed for the Very bad (VB) (0.20, 0.70)
purpose of identifying the most important challenges that may arise Very very bad (VVB) (0.10, 0.80)
for collaborative innovation systems in the Industry 4.0 era, particu- Extremely bad (EB) (0.05, 0.95)
larly in the higher education context. The review resulted in the identi-
fication of 37 challenges. Third, a questionnaire was provided
considering the identified challenges to be distributed among invited
participants, who had expertise in the areas of Industry 4.0, innovation, Table 2
and higher education. In the following round, 16 related experts from The DEs’ weights for challenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE in the
the higher education sector were invited to assess the questionnaires era of industry 4.0
via online platforms such as WeChat and email. Each questionnaire DEs d1 d2 d3 d4
was associated with an invitation letter explaining the objectives and
LVs G (0.70, 0.20) VG (0.80, 0.15) VVG (0.85, 0.10) EG (0.95, 0.05)
values of the current study. All of the invited experts indicated great Score degree 0.770 0.840 0.8925 0.950
interest and readiness to provide their ideas in regard to the selected Weight 0.2230 0.2433 0.2585 0.2752
challenges. In the meantime, the experts asked us to provide them
with feedback after reaching a conclusion in order to identify their
shortcomings in collaborative innovation. Eight interview groups were Step 4: With the use of Eqs (7)-(9), the IF-entropy-based proce-
created; each group employed two professionals to help us to gather dure is applied to determine the objective weights for the main chal-
the data needed for the next round of data collection. For the experts lenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE in the era of
who agreed to cooperate, the advice offered by Jiang and Li (2009) was industry 4.0, shown in Table 5.
used to revise the evaluation challenges and experts (for instance, the wjo ¼ (0.0238, 0.0351, 0.0624, 0.0410, 0.0759, 0.0558, 0.0255,
executive directors). The questionnaire asked the participants to pro- 0.0532, 0.0683, 0.0559, 0.0445, 0.0505, 0.0403, 0.0670, 0.0710,
vide their advice on the challenges arising for higher education when 0.0490, 0.0290, 0.0622, 0.0426, 0.0468).
analyzing the collaborative innovation system in the Industry 4.0 era. From Eq. (10)-Eq. (12), the IF-SWARA procedure is utilized to
Moreover, the experts were invited to directly determine the chal- derive the subjective weights for the main challenges of the collabo-
lenges that may arise within the higher education sector when using rative innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0 that shown
collaborative innovation systems in order to make up for the weak- in Table 6.
nesses of the existing theoretical research scale in reflecting reality. wjs = (0.0531, 0.0522, 0.0499, 0.0504, 0.0429, 0.0538, 0.0496,
The experts’ feedback was considered to evaluate the questionnaires’ 0.0501, 0.0487, 0.0526, 0.0450, 0.0476, 0.0507, 0.0507, 0.0517,
content and accuracy level. The data were collected in a 3-month 0.0515, 0.0520, 0.0478, 0.0495, 0.0504).
period (from December, April to June 2021). According to the results of Based on objective and subjective weights, the final weights of cri-
this round of data collection, we have identified 20 main challenges teria are computed as (t ¼ 0:5Þ
for evaluating and analyzing the collaborative innovation system in wj= (0.0385, 0.0437, 0.0562, 0.0457, 0.0594, 0.0548, 0.0376,
the era of industry 4.0 for higher education. 0.0517, 0.0585, 0.0543, 0.0448, 0.0490, 0.0455, 0.0588, 0.0614,
In the next stage, to evaluate and analyze these 20 challenges using 0.0503, 0.0405, 0.0550, 0.0461, 0.0486).
the integrated framework, we conducted the second round of data col- Here, Fig. 1 shows the weight values of the different main chal-
lection with four decision-makers in five PHE sectors in China. These lenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE in the era of
four decision-makers have several years of experience in the PHE sec- industry 4.0 with respect to the goal. The holistic acceptance of the
tor. This study is proposed an integrated framework to identify and innovation (q15) with a weight value of 0.0614 has come out to be the
evaluate the main challenges of the collaborative innovation systems most important challenge of the collaborative innovation system in
in PHE. This framework is applied to calculate the subjective and PHE. Lack of technical infrastructure (q5) with a weight value of
objective weights of the main challenges of the collaborative innova- 0.0594 is the second most important challenge of the collaborative
tion systems in PHE in the era of industry 4.0. In addition, the frame- innovation system in the PHE. Educational policy (q14) has third with
work is used to assess the preferences of PHE organizations over a significance value of 0.0588, motivation in using ICT (q9) has fourth
different main challenges of the collaborative innovation systems in with a weight value of 0.0585, lack of addressable communities (q3)
PHE in the era of industry 4.0. The implementation of the IF-Entropy- with a significance value of 0.0562 has the fifth most important chal-
SWARA-MARCOS methodology is discussed as lenge, and others are considered crucial the main challenges of the
Steps 1-3: Table 1 presents the linguistic ratings and their corre- collaborative innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0.
sponding IFNs for the assessment of DEs, alternatives, and criteria. Step 5: Since all criteria are beneficial-type criteria, thus, there is
Based on Table 1 and Eq. (5), the weights of four DEs are computed in no need for Eq. (14) in order to transform A-IF-DM into NA-IF-DM.
Table 2. On the basis of DEs’ opinions, the linguistic assessment rat- Step 6: From Eq. (15)-Eq. (16) and Table 4, the IF-IS and the IF-AIS
ings of PHE organizations have presented each challenge of the col- for the main challenges of the collaborative innovation system in pub-
laborative innovation system in public higher education in the era of lic higher education in the era of industry 4.0 are obtained as follows:
Industry 4.0. As a result, the LDM is constructed in Table 3. aþj = {(0.564, 0.331, 0.105), (0.620, 0.290, 0.090), (0.680, 0.232,
From Eq. (6) and Table 3, the A-IF-DM is constructed to identify 0.088), (0.643, 0.269, 0.088), (0.734, 0.193, 0.074), (0.661, 0.251,
the main challenges of the collaborative innovation system in public 0.088), (0.567, 0.328, 0.105), (0.706, 0.222, 0.073), (0.681, 0.230,
higher education in the era of industry 4.0 and in Table 4. 0.088), (0.670, 0.243, 0.086), (0.634, 0.263, 0.103), (0.664, 0.249,
7
Table 3
The LDM of each option by DEs to challenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE in the era of
industry 4.0
p1 p2 p3 p4 p5
q1 (MG,MB,G,M) (M,M,MB,MG) (M,VB,MB,G) (VB,MB,MG,B) (G,M,VB,VB)

q2 (MB,G,B,MG) (MG,B,MB,M) (VVG,MG,MB,M) (MG,B,G,B) (G,MG,B,MB)
q3 (M,B,M,G) (G,MB,VG,G) (G,MG,B,MB) (VG,G,M,MB) (VG,G,M,MG)
q4 (M,MG,G,M) (VG,M,G,M) (MB,MB,MG,G) (MB,MG,M,MB) (G,MB,VB,M)
q5 (MG,MG,G,M) (MB,G,G,MG) (MG,MB,M,G) (MB,M,VG,G) (VVG,G,VG,M)
q6 (VG,MG,M,MG) (M,VB,MB,M) (VG,G,M,MG) (G,M,MG,MB) (G,MG,MB,MG)
q7 (M,MG,B,M) (B,MB,B,M) (MB,MG,M,M) (MG,M,MB,G) (G,VB,MB,M)
q8 (MG,VG,VG,M) (M,VVG,VG,M) (MB,M,MG,MB) (M,MG,MB,MG) (G,B,VB,MG)
q9 (MG,MG,G,M) (M,VG,G,MG) (M,MB,G,MB) (MB,VG,MG,M) (VVG,G,MG,M)
q10 (M,VG,G,MG) (B,MG,G,M) (M,MG,MB,G) (MG,MB,MG,G) (VG,M,VB,M)
q11 (MB,MB, B,M) (MG,MB,B,MB) (MG,VG,M,MG) (G,M,MG,G) (MG,MG,M,M)
q12 (M,B,MB,M) (MB,MG,MB,M) (G,VG,M,MG) (VG,M,MG,M) (G,M,MG,G)
q13 (MG,M,G,MG) (M,MG,G,MG) (M,MG,MB,M) (MG,MB,M,MG) (G,M,VB,MB)
q14 (MG,M,MG,M) (M,MG,MG,M) (MB,VG,MG,M) (VG,MG,M,G) (VVG,G,MB,G)
q15 (VG,MG,M,M) (MB,VVG,G,MG) (M,MB,VVG,G) (MB,VG,MG,MG) (G,M,M,MB)
q16 (M,B,B,MB) (M,MB,VB,M) (MG,MG,VG,M) (M,VG,G,MG) (M,MB,B,B)
q17 (B,MB,M,MG) (B,B,MB,M) (MG,MB,M,G) (MB,M,MG,G) (G,M,VB,VB)
q18 (G,VG,G,MG) (MG,VG,G,M) (M,VB,MB,M) (VB,MB,MB,M) (VVG,G,MB,M)
q19 (VG,MG,B,MB) (MG,B,MB,G) (G,G,B,MB) (MG,B,G,G) (MG,B,VB,MB)
q20 (MG,MG,VB,G) (G,VB,MB,MG) (VG,G,MB,MB) (VG,MB,G,MG) (G,B,VB,B)
0.086), (0.610, 0.288, 0.102), (0.693, 0.217, 0.090), (0.680, 0.232, choice with maximum CUF for the main challenges of the collabora-
0.088), (0.670, 0.243, 0.086), (0.573, 0.323, 0.105), (0.706, 0.208, tive innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0.
0.086), (0.607, 0.286, 0.107), (0.649, 0.262, 0.089)}
aþj = {(0.399, 0.497, 0.104), (0.459, 0.439, 0.103), (0.515, 0.377, Sensitivity investigation
0.107), (0.473, 0.418, 0.109), (0.568, 0.327, 0.105), (0.412, 0.486,
0.102), (0.385, 0.513, 0.101), (0.483, 0.415, 0.102), (0.518, 0.375, This study also involves a sensitivity investigation with respect to
0.106), (0.540, 0.371, 0.089), (0.406, 0.493, 0.101), (0.431, 0.468, different values of parameter g : The deviation of g helps to assess the
0.101), (0.470, 0.421, 0.109), (0.551, 0.348, 0.101), (0.531, 0.364, approach’s sensitivity level, changing from objective weighting to
0.105), (0.375, 0.524, 0.101), (0.387, 0.512, 0.101), (0.392, 0.507, subjective weighting procedures.
0.102), (0.387, 0.509, 0.104), (0.400, 0.489, 0.111)}. Table 10 and Fig. 2 present the results of the sensitivity investiga-
Step 7: According to Eq. (17) and Table 4, the weighted NA-IF-DM tion. The evaluation results provide the preferences of PHE organiza-
for the main challenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE tions for the main challenges of the collaborative innovation system in
in the era of industry 4.0 is created and given in Table 7. PHE in the era of industry 4.0 as p4 \succp3 \succp1 \succp2 \succp5 when
Step 8: Using Eq. (18) and Table 7, the score values of each alter- g ¼ 0:0 using the IF-SWARA weighting procedure, p4 \succp3 \succp1
native, IF-IS, and IF-AIS, for the main challenges of the collaborative \succp5 \succp2 when g ¼ 0:5 using the integrated IF-Entropy-SWARA
innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0 are determined weighting procedure and p4 \succp1 \succp3 \succp2 \succp5 when g ¼
and given in Table 8. 1:0 using the IF-Entropy-based weighting procedure, which implies
Steps 9-11: From Eq. (19) and Eq. (20), we estimate the utility PHE-IV (p4) is at the top of the ranking for each value of g : As a result,
degrees, CUFs, and ranking order of PHE alternatives which are given the developed method was observed to have enough stability with
in Table 9. Hence, the prioritization of options is p4 \succp3 \succp1 respect to diverse values of the parameter. Table 10 shows that the IF-
\succp2 \succp5 , and the higher education option-IV (p4) is the best Entropy-SWARA-MARCOS method successfully produced preference
Table 4
The A-IF-DM for challenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0
p1 p2 p3 p4 p5
q1 (0.564, 0.331, 0.105) (0.507, 0.391, 0.101) (0.489, 0.401, 0.109) (0.399, 0.497, 0.104) (0.427, 0.462, 0.111)
q2 (0.528, 0.364, 0.107) (0.459, 0.439, 0.103) (0.620, 0.290, 0.090) (0.575, 0.387, 0.039) (0.515, 0.377, 0.107)
q3 (0.529, 0.365, 0.107) (0.680, 0.232, 0.088) (0.515, 0.377, 0.107) (0.622, 0.289, 0.090) (0.661, 0.251, 0.088)
q4 (0.585, 0.312, 0.103) (0.643, 0.269, 0.088) (0.554, 0.340, 0.106) (0.481, 0.417, 0.102) (0.473, 0.418, 0.109)
q5 (0.605, 0.292, 0.102) (0.621, 0.274, 0.105) (0.568, 0.327, 0.105) (0.643, 0.270, 0.087) (0.734, 0.193, 0.074)
q6 (0.637, 0.277, 0.086) (0.412, 0.486, 0.102) (0.661, 0.251, 0.088) (0.557, 0.338, 0.105) (0.583, 0.313, 0.104)
q7 (0.483, 0.414, 0.102) (0.385, 0.513, 0.101) (0.507, 0.392, 0.101) (0.567, 0.328, 0.105) (0.476, 0.416, 0.108)
q8 (0.700, 0.229, 0.071) (0.706, 0.222, 0.073) (0.483, 0.415, 0.102) (0.533, 0.365, 0.102) (0.486, 0.404, 0.110)
q9 (0.605, 0.292, 0.102) (0.670, 0.243, 0.086) (0.518, 0.375, 0.106) (0.607, 0.307, 0.086) (0.681, 0.230, 0.088)
q10 (0.670, 0.243, 0.086) (0.553, 0.341, 0.106) (0.569, 0.326, 0.105) (0.592, 0.304, 0.104) (0.540, 0.371, 0.089)
q11 (0.406, 0.493, 0.101) (0.430, 0.468, 0.103) (0.642, 0.273, 0.085) (0.634, 0.263, 0.103) (0.549, 0.350, 0.101)
q12 (0.431, 0.468, 0.101) (0.483, 0.415, 0.102) (0.664, 0.249, 0.086) (0.615, 0.298, 0.086) (0.634, 0.263, 0.103)
q13 (0.608, 0.290, 0.102) (0.610, 0.288, 0.102) (0.504, 0.395, 0.101) (0.532, 0.366, 0.102) (0.470, 0.421, 0.109)
q14 (0.551, 0.348, 0.101) (0.553, 0.346, 0.101) (0.607, 0.307, 0.086) (0.665, 0.248, 0.088) (0.693, 0.217, 0.090)
q15 (0.614, 0.300, 0.086) (0.680, 0.232, 0.088) (0.667, 0.244, 0.089) (0.630, 0.284, 0.086) (0.531, 0.364, 0.105)
q16 (0.378, 0.521, 0.101) (0.410, 0.488, 0.102) (0.644, 0.271, 0.084) (0.670, 0.243, 0.086) (0.375, 0.524, 0.101)
q17 (0.470, 0.427, 0.103) (0.387, 0.512, 0.101) (0.568, 0.327, 0.105) (0.573, 0.323, 0.105) (0.427, 0.462, 0.111)
q18 (0.706, 0.208, 0.086) (0.666, 0.247, 0.087) (0.412, 0.486, 0.102) (0.392, 0.507, 0.102) (0.646, 0.263, 0.091)
q19 (0.557, 0.354, 0.089) (0.530, 0.362, 0.108) (0.548, 0.342, 0.110) (0.607, 0.286, 0.107) (0.387, 0.509, 0.104)
q20 (0.558, 0.334, 0.108) (0.507, 0.384, 0.109) (0.603, 0.306, 0.091) (0.649, 0.262, 0.089) (0.400, 0.489, 0.111)
8
Table 5
Significance degree of challenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE in ð1Þ n
the era of industry 4.0 Ci ¼ wj & ij : ð21Þ
j¼1
Challenges d1 d2 d3 d4 A-IF-DM Crisp values

ð2Þ n w
q1 G G M B (0.568, 0.324, 0.109) 0.622 Ci ¼ &ij j : ð22Þ
j¼1
q2 M MG M MG (0.555, 0.345, 0.101) 0.605
q3 M MB B G (0.505, 0.388, 0.108) 0.559
Step 7: Compute the measure of “weighted aggregated sum prod-
q4 G B M M (0.516, 0.378, 0.106) 0.569
q5 B MB B MB (0.354, 0.546, 0.100) 0.404
uct assessment (WASPAS)” using
q6 M G MG M (0.583, 0.314, 0.103) 0.635 ð1Þ ð2Þ
q7 MB M G B (0.499, 0.393, 0.108) 0.553
Ci ¼ λ Ci þ ð1 λÞ Ci ; λ 2 ½0; 1: ð23Þ
q8 MG M B MG (0.512, 0.385, 0.103) 0.564
Step 8: Rank the options according to the values of WASPAS mea-
q9 MB M MG MB (0.483, 0.415, 0.102) 0.534
q10 G MG MB MG (0.560, 0.335, 0.104) 0.612 sure.
q11 M MB M G (0.400, 0.495, 0.104) 0.453 With the use of Eqs (21)-(23), the steps of IF-WASPAS model are
q12 MB M MG B (0.461, 0.436, 0.103) 0.512 computed and presented in Table 11. Based on IF-WASPAS model,
q13 G MB B MG (0.522, 0.371, 0.107) 0.575
the priority order of the options is p4 \succ p3 \succ p1 \succ p2 \succp5 :
q14 G B MB MG (0.523, 0.370, 0.107) 0.576
q15 MG G B M (0.542, 0.352, 0.106) 0.595
q16 MB G M M (0.540, 0.355, 0.105) 0.592
q17 MG M MG M (0.551, 0.348, 0.101) 0.601 IF-TOPSIS
q18 B M MG MB (0.465, 0.432, 0.103) 0.516 The IF-TOPSIS model involves the following procedural steps:
q19 M MB G B (0.498, 0.395, 0.108) 0.551
Steps 1-5: Follow the previous method.
q20 MB G M B (0.516, 0.378, 0.108) 0.569
Step 6: Compute the degree of distances from IF-IS and IFA-IS.
With the use of Mishra (2016), we calculate the degree-weighted
results of high stability and flexibility in different utility parameters. distance Sðpi ; aþ
j Þ between the options pi ði ¼ 1ð1ÞmÞ and the IF-IS aj .
þ
This characteristic plays an important role in MCDM procedures. 1X

n
S pi ; aþ
j ¼ wj m&ij maþ j þ jn&ij naþ j þ jp&ij paþ ; ð24Þ
2 i¼1 j j j
Comparative study and the degree of distances Sðpi ; a j Þ among the options pi ði ¼ 1ð1ÞmÞ
and the IFA-IS aj is given as follows:
This study also compared the results obtained by IF-Entropy- 1X
n
SWARA-MARCOS and other approaches. To evaluate the efficiency
S pi ; aj ¼ wj m&ij ma j þ jn&ij naj j þ jp&ij paj j : ð25Þ
2 i¼1 j
level and show the unique qualities of the proposed method, we
have chosen some methods, such as the IF-WASPAS (Rani and Mis- Step 7: Determine the relative closeness coefficient (CC).
hra, 2020) and IF-TOPSIS (Mishra, 2016), which have good efficiency The relative CC of each option with respect to the IF ideal solutions
in terms of solving MCDM problems. is given as

S pi ; a
j
Cðhi Þ ¼ ; i ¼ 1; 2; :::; m: ð26Þ
IF-WASPAS S pi ; aþ
j þ S pi ; a
j
This method involves the following steps:
Steps 1-5: Same as the aforementioned model. Step 8: Choose the maximum value Cðpk Þ among the values Cðpi Þ;
Step 6: Find the measures of the “weighted sum model (WSM)” i ¼ 1; 2; :::; m: Hence, pk is the optimal choice.
and “weighted product model (WPM)” using Eq. (21) and Eq. (22), From Eq. (24)-Eq. (26), the overall results of the IF-TOPSIS method
respectively. are given in Table 12.
Table 6
The weight of different challenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0 using the IF-SWARA method
Challenges Crisp degrees Comparative importance of attributes Coefficient Recalculated weight Final weight ðwsj Þ
q6 0.635 - 1.000 1.0000 0.0538

q1 0.622 0.013 0.013 0.9872 0.0531
q10 0.612 0.010 1.010 0.9774 0.0526
q2 0.605 0.007 1.007 0.9706 0.0522
q17 0.601 0.004 1.004 0.9667 0.0520
q15 0.595 0.006 1.006 0.9609 0.0517
q16 0.592 0.003 1.003 0.9580 0.0515
q14 0.576 0.016 1.016 0.9429 0.0507
q13 0.575 0.001 1.001 0.9420 0.0507
q4 0.569 0.006 1.006 0.9364 0.0504
q20 0.569 0.000 1.000 0.9364 0.0504
q8 0.564 0.005 1.005 0.9317 0.0501
q3 0.559 0.005 1.005 0.9271 0.0499
q7 0.553 0.006 1.006 0.9216 0.0496
q19 0.551 0.002 1.002 0.9198 0.0495
q9 0.534 0.017 1.017 0.9044 0.0487
q18 0.516 0.018 1.018 0.8884 0.0478
q12 0.512 0.004 1.004 0.8849 0.0476
q11 0.453 0.059 1.059 0.8356 0.0450
q5 0.404 0.049 1.049 0.7966 0.0429
9
Fig. 1. Weights of challenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0
From Table 12, p4 is the best PHE alternative and prioritization of strategies to acquire a compromise solution. The MARCOS tool
PHE organizations for assessing the main challenges of the collabora- comprises as (i) considering “intuitionistic fuzzy ideal solution
tive innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0 is p4 \succp3 (IF-IS)” and “intuitionistic fuzzy anti-ideal solution (IF-AIS)” as ref-
\succp1 \succ p5 \succp2 : erence points, (ii) establishing the relationship with options and
Next, the prioritization of options obtained by the IF-Entropy- IF-IS/IF-AISs, (iii) describing the “utility degree (UD)” of each
SWARA-MARCOS framework is similar to the IF-WASPAS (Mishra et option in association to IF-IS and IF-AISs. Hence, the proposed
al., 2020) and IF-TOPSIS (Mishra, 2016). Tables 9 and 11-12 show the methodology is a superior structure, precisely estimating the ref-
prioritizations of five PHE organizations of the main challenges of the erence values for selecting the best option.
collaborative innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0. In the IF-WASPAS and IF-TOPSIS models, the only objective
From Table 9 and Tables 11-12, option PHE-IV (p4) has secured the weight of criteria is computed. While in the proposed framework,
first rank in PHE in the era of industry 4.0. Also, the CUFs/UDs of PHE the IF-Entropy-based tool has been used to compute the objective
organizations of the main challenges of the collaborative innovation weight, and IF-SWARA has been employed to achieve the subjec-
system are depicted in Fig. 3. In comparison with these methods, the tive weight of the criteria. In order to utilize the benefits of objec-
main merits of the proposed methodology are presented as tive and subjective weighting procedures, we presented an
integrated weighting model to determine the criteria weights.
In the proposed IF-Entropy-SWARA-MARCOS framework, we use Thus, the proposed model has higher practicality, reliability, and
the aggregated compromise algorithm with different aggregation efficiency in order to deal with MCDM problems.
Table 7
The weighted NA-IF-DM of each option
p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 aþjw ajw
q1 (0.031, 0.958, 0.010) (0.027, 0.965, 0.009) (0.026, 0.965, 0.009) (0.019, 0.973, 0.007) (0.021, 0.971, 0.008) (0.031, 0.958, 0.010) (0.019, 0.973, 0.007)
q2 (0.032, 0.957, 0.011) (0.026, 0.965, 0.009) (0.041, 0.947, 0.011) (0.037, 0.959, 0.004) (0.031, 0.958, 0.011) (0.041, 0.947, 0.011) (0.026, 0.965, 0.009)
q3 (0.041, 0.945, 0.014) (0.062, 0.921, 0.017) (0.040, 0.947, 0.013) (0.053, 0.933, 0.014) (0.059, 0.925, 0.016) (0.062, 0.921, 0.017) (0.040, 0.947, 0.013)
q4 (0.039, 0.948, 0.012) (0.046, 0.942, 0.012) (0.036, 0.952, 0.012) (0.030, 0.961, 0.010) (0.029, 0.961, 0.010) (0.046, 0.942, 0.012) (0.029, 0.961, 0.010)
q5 (0.054, 0.930, 0.017) (0.056, 0.926, 0.018) (0.049, 0.936, 0.016) (0.059, 0.925, 0.016) (0.076, 0.907, 0.018) (0.076, 0.907, 0.017) (0.049, 0.936, 0.016)
q6 (0.054, 0.932, 0.014) (0.029, 0.961, 0.010) (0.058, 0.927, 0.015) (0.044, 0.942, 0.014) (0.047, 0.938, 0.015) (0.058, 0.927, 0.015) (0.029, 0.961, 0.010)
q7 (0.024, 0.967, 0.008) (0.018, 0.975, 0.007) (0.026, 0.965, 0.008) (0.031, 0.959, 0.010) (0.024, 0.968, 0.008) (0.031, 0.959, 0.010) (0.018, 0.975, 0.007)
q8 (0.060, 0.927, 0.013) (0.061, 0.925, 0.014) (0.034, 0.956, 0.011) (0.039, 0.949, 0.012) (0.034, 0.954, 0.012) (0.061, 0.925, 0.014) (0.034, 0.956, 0.011)
q9 (0.053, 0.931, 0.016) (0.063, 0.921, 0.017) (0.042, 0.944, 0.014) (0.053, 0.933, 0.014) (0.065, 0.918, 0.018) (0.065, 0.918, 0.018) (0.042, 0.944, 0.014)
q10 (0.058, 0.926, 0.015) (0.043, 0.943, 0.014) (0.045, 0.941, 0.014) (0.047, 0.937, 0.015) (0.041, 0.948, 0.011) (0.058, 0.926, 0.016) (0.041, 0.948, 0.011)
q11 (0.023, 0.969, 0.008) (0.025, 0.967, 0.009) (0.045, 0.944, 0.012) (0.044, 0.942, 0.014) (0.035, 0.954, 0.011) (0.044, 0.942, 0.014) (0.023, 0.969, 0.008)
q12 (0.027, 0.963, 0.009) (0.032, 0.958, 0.010) (0.052, 0.934, 0.014) (0.046, 0.942, 0.012) (0.048, 0.937, 0.015) (0.052, 0.934, 0.014) (0.027, 0.963, 0.009)
q13 (0.042, 0.945, 0.013) (0.042, 0.945, 0.013) (0.031, 0.959, 0.010) (0.034, 0.955, 0.011) (0.028, 0.961, 0.010) (0.042, 0.945, 0.013) (0.028, 0.961, 0.010)
q14 (0.046, 0.940, 0.014) (0.046, 0.940, 0.014) (0.053, 0.933, 0.014) (0.062, 0.921, 0.017) (0.067, 0.914, 0.019) (0.067, 0.914, 0.019) (0.046, 0.940, 0.014)
q15 (0.057, 0.929, 0.015) (0.067, 0.914, 0.018) (0.065, 0.917, 0.018) (0.059, 0.926, 0.015) (0.045, 0.940, 0.015) (0.068, 0.914, 0.018) (0.045, 0.940, 0.015)
q16 (0.024, 0.968, 0.009) (0.026, 0.965, 0.009) (0.051, 0.937, 0.013) (0.054, 0.931, 0.014) (0.023, 0.968, 0.009) (0.054, 0.931, 0.014) (0.023, 0.968, 0.009)
q17 (0.025, 0.966, 0.008) (0.020, 0.973, 0.007) (0.033, 0.956, 0.011) (0.034, 0.955, 0.011) (0.022, 0.969, 0.009) (0.034, 0.955, 0.011) (0.020, 0.973, 0.007)
q18 (0.065, 0.917, 0.018) (0.059, 0.926, 0.015) (0.029, 0.961, 0.010) (0.027, 0.963, 0.010) (0.056, 0.929, 0.015) (0.065, 0.917, 0.018) (0.027, 0.963, 0.010)
q19 (0.037, 0.953, 0.010) (0.034, 0.954, 0.012) (0.036, 0.952, 0.012) (0.042, 0.944, 0.014) (0.022, 0.969, 0.008) (0.042, 0.944, 0.014) (0.022, 0.969, 0.008)
q20 (0.039, 0.948, 0.013) (0.034, 0.955, 0.012) (0.044, 0.944, 0.012) (0.050, 0.937, 0.013) (0.025, 0.966, 0.010) (0.050, 0.937, 0.013) (0.025, 0.966, 0.010)
10
Table 8 mate to each other. This is especially true in the developing innova-
Score values weighted NA-IF-DM of each option tion systems of countries when they are to move from middle- to
high-income levels. Since the knowledge economy commenced in
p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 aþjw ajw
the current century, the higher education sector has faced many
q1 0.037 0.031 0.030 0.023 0.025 0.037 0.023 demands for the improvement of collaborations with boosting its
q2 0.038 0.031 0.047 0.039 0.036 0.047 0.031
q3 0.048 0.070 0.047 0.060 0.067 0.070 0.047
capacity for creating and disseminating knowledge and also for maxi-
q4 0.046 0.052 0.042 0.034 0.034 0.052 0.034 mizing the impact on practice. Because of such demands, higher edu-
q5 0.062 0.065 0.056 0.067 0.084 0.084 0.056 cation institutes (HEIs) must create a network with all their
q6 0.061 0.034 0.065 0.051 0.054 0.065 0.034 stakeholders, other HEIs, and other parties inside their institutions.
q7 0.029 0.021 0.030 0.036 0.028 0.036 0.021
Creating collaboration and networks in this sector can contribute to
q8 0.067 0.068 0.039 0.045 0.040 0.068 0.039
q9 0.061 0.071 0.049 0.060 0.074 0.074 0.049 both the institutional management theme and the knowledge and
q10 0.066 0.050 0.052 0.055 0.047 0.066 0.047 research theme of research in higher education. The current higher
q11 0.027 0.029 0.051 0.051 0.040 0.051 0.027 education-related literature is rich in research into the benefits of col-
q12 0.032 0.037 0.059 0.052 0.056 0.059 0.032 laboration, but it lacks research on how higher education managers
q13 0.048 0.048 0.036 0.039 0.034 0.049 0.034
can effectively promote collaboration in this sector. Numerous struc-
q14 0.053 0.053 0.060 0.071 0.076 0.077 0.053
q15 0.064 0.077 0.074 0.067 0.053 0.077 0.053 tural models have been developed in recent decades regarding the
q16 0.028 0.031 0.057 0.061 0.028 0.061 0.028 theme of the collaborative innovation system in higher education.
q17 0.030 0.023 0.039 0.039 0.027 0.039 0.023 Accordingly, the present paper addresses this gap by comprehen-
q18 0.074 0.066 0.034 0.032 0.063 0.074 0.032
sively analyzing the challenges of the collaborative innovation sys-
q19 0.042 0.040 0.042 0.049 0.026 0.049 0.026
q20 0.045 0.040 0.050 0.056 0.029 0.056 0.029 tem in the PHE sector in the Industry 4.0 era in the emergent
Si 0.957 0.938 0.959 0.987 0.922 1.191 0.717 innovation systems recently implemented in developing countries. In
order to analyze, rank and evaluate the main challenges of the collab-
orative innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0, this study
Table 9 introduced an integrated decision-making method using IFSs. For
The utility degrees and CUF of each option for prioritizing BESS this purpose, an innovative decision support system is introduced to
evaluate the main challenges of the collaborative innovation system
PHE organizations uþ
i u
i f ðui Þ Ranks
in PHE in the era of industry 4.0. To rank the main challenges of the
p1 0.803 1.333 0.6549 3 collaborative innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0, the
p2 0.788 1.307 0.6422 4
p3 0.806 1.337 0.6568 2
IF-Entropy-SWARA method is utilized, and to compute the prefer-
p4 0.829 1.375 0.6756 1 ence order of different PHE organizations of the main challenges of
p5 0.774 1.285 0.6309 5 the collaborative innovation system in PHE in the era of industry 4.0,
the IF-MARCOS method is used. The results of this study found that;
the holistic acceptance of the innovation with a weight value of
Conclusion and policy implications 0.0614 has come out to be the most important challenge of the col-
laborative innovation system in PHE; in addition, the lack of technical
Generally, companies are not capable of creating and commercial- infrastructure with a weight value of 0.0594 is the second most
izing innovation. This problem could be solved by sharing or acquir- important challenge of the collaborative innovation system in the
ing relevant resources through collaboration. The effectiveness of PHE, and educational policy has third with significance value 0.0588.
collaborative relationships is dependent upon the type and quality of To validation of the results of this study, a comparison using the IF-
the partners involved and also the degree to which they are proxi- TOPSIS, IF-WSM, IF-WPM, and IF-WASPAS methods is conducted.
Table 10
Ranking results of the IF-Entropy-SWARA-MARCOS method with different values of g
g p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 Ranking order
g = 0.0 (Subjective weight by IF-SWARA method) 0.6579 0.6368 0.6657 0.6793 0.6205 p4 \succp3 \succp1 \succp2 \succp5
g = 0.5 (Integrated method by IF-Entropy-SWARA) 0.6549 0.6422 0.6568 0.6756 0.6309 p4 \succp3 \succp1 \succp5 \succp2
g = 1.0 (Objective weight by IF-entropy-based method) 0.6520 0.6474 0.6484 0.6720 0.6409 p4 \succp1 \succp3 \succp2 \succp5
Fig. 2. Sensitivity of the CUFs over the strategic parameter g
11
Table 11
The UD of option for the challenges of the collaborative innovation system in PHE in the era of industry
4.0
options WSM WPM UDðCi Þ Ranking

ð1Þ ð1Þ ð2Þ ð2Þ
Ci SðCi Þ Ci SðCi Þ
h1 (0.574, 0.328, 0.098) 0.623 (0.557, 0.344, 0.099) 0.607 0.6147 3

h2 (0.566, 0.335, 0.099) 0.616 (0.543, 0.357, 0.100) 0.593 0.6043 4
h3 (0.574, 0.328, 0.098) 0.623 (0.564, 0.337, 0.099) 0.614 0.6186 2
h4 (0.587, 0.319, 0.094) 0.634 (0.575, 0.330, 0.095) 0.623 0.6285 1
h5 (0.559, 0.340, 0.101) 0.609 (0.534, 0.364, 0.103) 0.585 0.5970 5
policies could be developed to encourage innovation and creativity,

Table 12 such as funding innovation challenges, establishing innovation hubs
Ranking orders of IF- TOPSIS method or incubators, and providing tax incentives for innovative projects.
Additionally, by enhancing capacity and skills development, policies
Options Sðpi ; aþ
j Þ Sðpi ; a
j Þ Cðpi Þ Ranking
could be developed to enhance capacity and skills development
p1 0.093 0.105 0.5293 3 among stakeholders, such as funding training programs, establishing
p2 0.104 0.095 0.4773 5
p3 0.090 0.110 0.5515 2
mentorship or coaching programs, and creating opportunities for
p4 0.078 0.122 0.6093 1 knowledge exchange. Overall, implementing a collaborative innova-
p5 0.112 0.091 0.4469 4 tion system could have significant implications for governments,
institutions, and other stakeholders involved. The system could drive
organizational growth and competitiveness by promoting a culture
Policy implications of collaboration and innovation, enabling evidence-based decision-
making, and enhancing stakeholder engagement and motivation.
Implementing a collaborative innovation system could have sev- However, successful implementation would require careful planning,
eral policy implications for governments, institutions, and other communication, and change management efforts to overcome cul-
stakeholders. Implementing a collaborative innovation system would tural barriers and ensure buy-in and adoption.
require a cultural shift towards collaboration and knowledge sharing.
This could be challenging, especially in organizations that are used to Study limitations
working in silos or where competition is emphasized. The implemen-
tation process would need to be accompanied by change manage- This study has different limitations. The findings of a study con-
ment efforts to encourage buy-in and adoption. Moreover, the ducted in public higher education in China context may not be easily
collaborative innovation system would create an environment where generalizable to other contexts or countries. The collaborative inno-
ideas are shared freely and stakeholders are encouraged to think out- vation system in public higher education can vary significantly across
side the box. This would promote creativity and innovation, enabling regions, institutions, and countries due to differences in resources,
stakeholders to develop new solutions to complex problems. The col- infrastructure, policies, and cultural factors. Future research should
laborative innovation system would create opportunities for stake- aim to include a diverse range of institutions and contexts to enhance
holders to collaborate and share their expertise. This would increase the external validity of the findings. The next limitation is related to
engagement and motivation, as stakeholders feel valued and invested the sampling data; the sample used in the study may not fully repre-
in the process. Policymakers could initiate innovation challenges to sent the diversity of public higher education institutions or the stake-
engage higher education institutions and other stakeholders in devel- holders involved in collaborative innovation. This can limit the
oping solutions to complex challenges facing the sector. Challenges generalizability of the findings and may introduce biases in the
could be structured around specific themes, such as improving stu- results. Future studies could consider using mixed methods
dent outcomes, reducing costs, or increasing access to education. In approaches and leveraging multiple data sources to enhance the
addition, by supporting collaboration and knowledge sharing, poli- validity and reliability of the findings. The availability of relevant and
cies could be developed to encourage collaboration and knowledge reliable data for studying collaborative innovation systems in public
sharing among stakeholders. This could involve incentivizing organi- higher education can be a challenge. Data may be limited or difficult
zations to collaborate, establishing networks or platforms that facili- to access, especially when studying emerging phenomena in the Era
tate knowledge sharing, and providing funding for collaborative of Industry 4.0. Researchers may need to rely on self-reported data or
projects. Furthermore, by encouraging innovation and creativity, qualitative approaches, which can have limitations in terms of
Fig. 3. Variation of CUFs/UDs of options with the different methods
12
accuracy and objectivity. Another limitation was related to data col- Chang, Victor, & Wills, Gary (2013). A university of Greenwich case study of cloud com-
lection, for conducting a comprehensive study on collaborative inno- puting: education as a service. E-Logistics and E-Supply Chain Management: applica-
tions for evolving business. (pp. 232−253). IGI Global.
vation systems in public higher education requires significant time Cooke, N. J., & Hilton, M. L. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Washing-
and resources. Researchers may face limitations in terms of time ton, DC: e National Academies Press.
available for data collection, analysis, and the long-term observation Crosby, Barbara C., & Bryson, John M. (2010). Integrative leadership and the creation
and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2),
of the outcomes of collaborative innovation initiatives. In addition, 211–230.
collaborative innovation systems involve multiple stakeholders, such Damanpour, Fariborz (1991). Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of
as universities, industry partners, government agencies, and stu- Determinants and Moderators. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–
590.
dents. Future research should include a wide range of stakeholders
Demircioglu, Mehmet Akif, & Audretsch, David B (2019). Public sector innovation: the
and employ participatory research methods to understand their effect of universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 596–614.
experiences and viewpoints comprehensively. Moreover, under- Demircioglu, Mehmet Akif, & Audretsch, David B (2020). Conditions for complex inno-
vations: evidence from public organizations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45
standing and analyzing the complex dynamics, interactions, and
(3), 820–843.
interdependencies among these stakeholders can be challenging. It Dente, Bruno, Bobbio, Luigi, & Spada, Alessandra. (2005). Government or Governance of
may require interdisciplinary approaches and collaboration between Urban Innovation? disP - The Planning Review, 41(162), 41–52.
researchers from different fields. Industry 4.0 is a rapidly evolving Diamond, Janet, & Vangen, Siv (2017). Coping with austerity: innovation via collabora-
tion or retreat to the known? Public Money & Management, 37(1), 47–54.
phenomenon, and the landscape of collaborative innovation in higher Dias, Alexandre, & Selan, Beatriz (2022). How does university-industry collaboration
education is continuously changing. Research findings may become relate to research resources and technical-scientific activities? An analysis at the
outdated quickly as new technologies, practices, and policies emerge. laboratory level. The Journal of Technology Transfer.
Downs Anthony. Inside bureaucracy. 1967.
Longitudinal studies or ongoing field monitoring may be necessary to Elston, Thomas, MacCarthaigh, Muiris, & Verhoest, Koen (2018). Collaborative cost-cut-
capture the dynamic nature of the collaborative innovation system. ting: productive efficiency as an interdependency between public organizations.
Therefore, by addressing these limitations and pursuing future rec- Public Management Review, 20(12), 1815–1835.
Emerson, Kirk, Nabatchi, Tina, & Balogh, Stephen (2011). An Integrative Framework for
ommendations, researchers can contribute to a more comprehensive Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22
understanding of collaborative innovation systems in public higher (1), 1–29.
education in the Era of Industry 4.0 and support the development of Etzkowitz, Henry, & Leydesdorff, Loet (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from
National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university−industry−govern-
effective policies and practices in this domain.
ment relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
Evan, Toma s, & Holy
, Vladimír (2021). Economic conditions for innovation: Private vs.
public sector. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 76, 100966.
Fallis, Don (2006). The Epistemic Costs and Benefits of Collaboration. The Southern Jour-
Acknowledgement nal of Philosophy, 44(S1), 197–208.
Forum WE. The future of jobs report 2018
This work was supported by the Teaching Reform Rroject of Forum World Economic. The future of jobs report 2020
Galbraith, Jay R (1974). Organization Design: An Information Processing View.
Undergraduate Higher Education in Jilin Province managed by the INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics, 4(3), 28–36.
Department of Education of Jilin Province in 2020. The project Gulati, Ranjay, Wohlgezogen, Franz, & Zhelyazkov, Pavel (2012). The Two Facets of Col-
involves the reform and practical research of Ideological and political laboration: Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Alliances. The Academy of
Management Annals, 6(1), 531–583.
courses in Applied Undergraduate Colleges under the background of
Hale, Kathleen (2011). How information matters: Networks and public policy innovation.
new liberal arts. (Project Certificate No.: 2020285M98P009B) Georgetown University Press.
Hartley, Jean (2013). Public and private features of innovation. Handbook of innovation in
public services. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hartley, Jean, Sørensen, Eva, & Torfing, Jacob (2013). Collaborative Innovation: A Viable
References Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship. Public
Administration Review, 73(6), 821–830.
Adel, Heba Mohamed, Zeinhom, Ghada Aly, & Younis, Raghda Abulsaoud Ahmed (2021). Hetemi, Ermal, Ordieres, Joaquin, & Nuur, Cali (2022). Inter-organisational collabora-
From university social-responsibility to social-innovation strategy for quality tion and knowledge-work: a contingency framework and evidence from a mega-
accreditation and sustainable competitive advantage during COVID-19 pandemic. project in Spain. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(4), 641–653.
Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, 4(5), 410–437. Huang, Jun Song (2014). Building Research Collaboration Networks−An Interpersonal
Adomako, Samuel, & Tran, Mai Dong (2022). Environmental collaboration, responsible Perspective for Research Capacity Building. Journal of Research Administration, 45
innovation, and firm performance: The moderating role of stakeholder pressure. (2), 89–112.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(4), 1695–1704. jiemin, Huang, & chen, Wen (2022). The impact of private sector energy investment,
Andersen, Simon Calmar, & Jakobsen, Mads Leth (2018). Political Pressure, Conformity innovation and energy consumption on China’s carbon emissions. Renewable
Pressure, and Performance Information as Drivers of Public Sector Innovation Energy, 195, 1291–1299.
Adoption. International Public Management Journal, 21(2), 213–242. Jongbloed, Ben, Enders, Ju € rgen, & Salerno, Carlo (2008). Higher education and its com-
Atanassov, Krassimir T (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 20(1), munities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Edu-
87–96. cation, 56(3), 303–324.
Audretsch, David B., & Belitski, Maksim (2020). The Limits to Collaboration Across Four Kanski, Lukasz, & Pizon, Jakub (2023). The impact of selected components of industry
of the Most Innovative UK Industries. British Journal of Management, 31(4), 830– 4.0 on project management. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8,(1) 100336.
855. Katz, J. Sylvan, & Martin, Ben R (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy,
Audretsch, David B., & Belitski, Maksim (2022). A strategic alignment framework for 26(1), 1–18.
the entrepreneurial university. Industry and Innovation, 29(2), 285–309. Ketchen, David J., Jr., Ireland, R. Duane, & Snow, Charles C (2007). Strategic entre-
Bekkers, Victor, & Tummers, Lars (2018). Innovation in the public sector: Towards an preneurship, collaborative innovation, and wealth creation. Strategic Entrepreneur-
open and collaborative approach. International Review of Administrative Sciences, ship Journal, 1(3-4), 371–385.
84(2), 209–213. Kezar, Adrianna (2005). Redesigning for Collaboration within Higher Education Institu-
Bernier, Luc, Hafsi, Taïeb, & Deschamps, Carl (2015). Environmental Determinants of tions: An Exploration into the Developmental Process. Research in Higher Educa-
Public Sector Innovation: A study of innovation awards in Canada. Public Manage- tion, 46(7), 831–860.
ment Review, 17(6), 834–856. Klara, Kristina, Hou, Ning, Lawman, Allison, & Wang, Li-Qiong (2013). Developing and
Blanken, Marie €lle, Mathijssen, Jolanda, van Nieuwenhuizen, Chijs, Raab, Jo € rg, & Implementing a Collaborative Teaching Innovation in Introductory Chemistry
van Oers, Hans (2022). Cross-sectoral collaboration: comparing complex child ser- from the Perspective of an Undergraduate Student. Journal of Chemical Education,
vice delivery systems. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 36(9), 79–94. 90(4), 401–404.
Bommert, Ben (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International public Lamprini, Kolovou, & Brochler, Raimund (2018). How Collaborative Innovation and
management review, 11(1), 15–33. Technology in Educational Ecosystem Can Meet the Challenges Raised by the 4 th
Boon, Jan, & Verhoest, Koen (2018). On the Dynamics of Reform Resistance: Why and Industrial Revolution. World Technopolis Review, 7(1), 2–14.
How Bureaucratic Organizations Resist Shared Service Center Reforms. Interna- Lewis, Jenny M., Ricard, Lykke Margot, & Klijn, Erik Hans (2017). How innovation driv-
tional Public Management Journal, 21(4), 533–557. ers, networking and leadership shape public sector innovation capacity. Interna-
Bougrain, Fre deric, & Haudeville, Bernard (2002). Innovation, collaboration and SMEs tional Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(2), 288–307.
internal research capacities. Research Policy, 31(5), 735–747. Lewis, Jenny M., Ross, Sandy, & Holden, Thomas (2012). The how and why of academic
Brown, Jill P. (2015). Complexities of digital technology use and the teaching and learn- collaboration: disciplinary differences and policy implications. Higher Education,
ing of function. Computers & Education, 87, 112–122. 64(5), 693–708.
13
Li, Ying, Wang, Yating, Wang, Lei, & Xie, Jingci (2022). Investigating the effects of stake- Seo, Inhee, Kim, Yonghee, & Choi, Jeongil (2018). Assessment of efficiency in public ser-
holder collaboration strategies on risk prevention performance in a digital innova- vice − focused on Government 3.0 case in Korea. Total Quality Management & Busi-
tion ecosystem. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 122(9), 2045–2071. ness Excellence, 29(9-10), 1161–1184.
Lopes, Andre Vaz, & Farias, Josivania Silva (2020). How can governance support collab- Steelman, Toddi A (2010). Implementing innovation: fostering enduring change in envi-
orative innovation in the public sector? A systematic review of the literature. Inter- ronmental and natural resource governance. Georgetown University Press.
national Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(1), 114–130. Terjesen, Siri, & Patel, Pankaj C (2015). In Search of Process Innovations: The Role of
Martínez-Costa, Micaela, Jime nez-Jime nez, Daniel, & Dine, Rabeh Hammady Ahmed (2019). Search Depth, Search Breadth, and the Industry Environment. Journal of Manage-
The effect of organisational learning on interorganisational collaborations in innovation: ment, 43(5), 1421–1446.
an empirical study in SMEs. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(2), 137–150. Tight, Malcolm (2014). Discipline and theory in higher education research. Research
Mazzucato, Mariana (2011). The entrepreneurial state. Soundings, 49(49), 131–142. Papers in Education, 29(1), 93–110.
Miller Jennifer, M. (2016). International inter-sectoral collaboration in university Torfing, Jacob (2019). Collaborative innovation in the public sector: the argument. Pub-
research centres: innovation systems in the United States and beyond in compara- lic Management Review, 21(1), 1–11.
tive perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 38(4), 239–250. Torfing, Jacob, & Ansell, Christopher (2014). Collaboration and design: new tools for pub-
Miller, Kristel, McAdam, Rodney, & McAdam, Maura (2018). A systematic literature lic innovation. Public innovation through collaboration and design. (pp. 1−18). Rout-
review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: ledge.
toward a research agenda. R&D Management, 48(1), 7–24. Torfing Jacob, Krogh Andreas Hagedorn, Ejrnæs Anders. Samarbejdsdrevet innovation i
Mooney, James D (1954). The principles of organization. (p. 1954). Horper and Publisher. kriminalpræventive indsatser: Slutrapport om sammenhængene mellem samar-

Morawska-Jancelewicz, Joanna (2022). The Role of Universities in Social Innovation bejde, innovation og kriminalpræventiv effekt og maling heraf. 2017.
Within Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Model: Practical Implications from Polish Expe- Torfing, Jacob, & Triantafillou, Peter (2016). Enhancing public innovation by transforming
rience. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(3), 2230–2271. public governance. Cambridge University Press.
Mu, Rui, & Wang, Huanming (2022). A systematic literature review of open innovation Tseng, Fan-Chuan, Huang, Mu-Hsuan, & Chen, Dar-Zen (2020). Factors of university
in the public sector: comparing barriers and governance strategies of digital and −industry collaboration affecting university innovation performance. The Journal
non-digital open innovation. Public Management Review, 24(4), 489–511. of Technology Transfer, 45(2), 560–577.
Newman, Janet, Raine, John, & Skelcher, Chris (2001). Developments: Transforming Tymon, Alex (2013). The student perspective on employability. Studies in Higher Educa-
Local Government: Innovation and Modernization. Public Money & Management, tion, 38(6), 841–856.
21(2), 61–68. van der Voet, Joris, & Steijn, Bram (2021). Team innovation through collaboration: how
Nohrstedt, Daniel, Bynander, Fredrik, Parker, Charles, & ‘t Hart, Paul (2018). Managing visionary leadership spurs innovation via team cohesion. Public Management
Crises Collaboratively: Prospects and Problems—A Systematic Literature Review. Review, 23(9), 1275–1294.
Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(4), 257–271. Waardenburg, Maurits, Groenleer, Martijn, de Jong Jorrit, & Keijser, Bas (2020). Para-
O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr. (1997). Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research- doxes of collaborative governance: investigating the real-life dynamics of multi-
based. Agendas in Public Administration, 57(1). agency collaborations using a quasi-experimental action-research approach. Public
Osborne, Stephen P., & Brown, Louise (2011). Innovation, public policy and public serv- Management Review, 22(3), 386–407.
ices delivery in the UK. The word that would be king? Public Administration, 89(4), Walsh, John P., Lee, You-Na, & Nagaoka, Sadao (2016). Openness and innovation in the
1335–1350. US: Collaboration form, idea generation and implementation. Research Policy, 45
Papa, Armando, Dezi, Luca, Gregori, Gian Luca, Mueller, Jens, & Miglietta, Nicola (2020). (8), 1660–1671.
Improving innovation performance through knowledge acquisition: the moderat- Wang, Manman, Chen, Menghan, & Yang, Feng (2022). The optimal subsidy scheme
ing role of employee retention and human resource management practices. Journal and technology innovation strategy considering consumers’ green premium. Asia
of Knowledge Management, 24(3), 589–605. Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 34(8), 1573–1595.
Powell Walter W, Grodal Stine. Networks of innovators. The Oxford handbook of inno- Wegrich, Kai (2019). The blind spots of collaborative innovation. Public Management
vation, 2005. Review, 21(1), 12–20.
Roberts, Nancy C, & King, Paula J (1996). Transforming public policy: Dynamics of policy Wong, Chee Yew, Boon-itt, Sakun, & Wong, Christina W. Y. (2021). The contingency
entrepreneurship and innovation. Jossey-Bass. effects of internal and external collaboration on the performance effects of green
Saini, Charu, & Abraham, Jessy (2019). Implementing Facebook-based instructional practices. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 167, 105383.
approach in pre-service teacher education: An empirical investigation. Computers Xu, Z. (2007). Methods for aggregating interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information
& Education, 128, 243–255. and their application to decision making. Control and decision, 22(2), 215.
14

1 s2.0 S2444569X23001269 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2444569X23001269 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2444569X23001269 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 8 (2023) 100430

Challenges of the collaborative innovation system in public higher

S ¼ fðti ; mS ðti Þ; nS ðti ÞÞ : ti 2 T g; ð1Þ mk ð2 mk nk Þ

To aggregate the individual decision matrices into a combined

Suppose w ¼ ðw1 ; w2 ; :::; wn ÞT is the weight vector of criterion set

Case I. Entropy method for objective weights.

Step 5: Obtain the normalized A-IF-DM (NA-IF-DM). u uþ

The normalization is utilized to assess the values of the A-IF-DM Z

Results and discussion Table 1

q1 (MG,MB,G,M) (M,M,MB,MG) (M,VB,MB,G) (VB,MB,MG,B) (G,M,VB,VB)

Challenges d1 d2 d3 d4 A-IF-DM Crisp values

This characteristic plays an important role in MCDM procedures. 1X

q6 0.635 - 1.000 1.0000 0.0538

Fig. 2. Sensitivity of the CUFs over the strategic parameter g

options WSM WPM UDðCi Þ Ranking

h1 (0.574, 0.328, 0.098) 0.623 (0.557, 0.344, 0.099) 0.607 0.6147 3

policies could be developed to encourage innovation and creativity,

Fig. 3. Variation of CUFs/UDs of options with the different methods

You might also like

1 s2.0 S2444569X23001269 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2444569X23001269 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2444569X23001269 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 8 (2023) 100430

Challenges of the collaborative innovation system in public higher

S ¼ fðti ; mS ðti Þ; nS ðti ÞÞ : ti 2 T g; ð1Þ mk ð2 mk nk Þ

To aggregate the individual decision matrices into a combined

Suppose w ¼ ðw1 ; w2 ; :::; wn ÞT is the weight vector of criterion set

Case I. Entropy method for objective weights.

Step 5: Obtain the normalized A-IF-DM (NA-IF-DM). u  uþ

The normalization is utilized to assess the values of the A-IF-DM Z

Results and discussion Table 1

q1 (MG,MB,G,M) (M,M,MB,MG) (M,VB,MB,G) (VB,MB,MG,B) (G,M,VB,VB)

Challenges d1 d2 d3 d4 A-IF-DM Crisp values

This characteristic plays an important role in MCDM procedures. 1X  

q6 0.635 - 1.000 1.0000 0.0538

Fig. 2. Sensitivity of the CUFs over the strategic parameter g

options WSM WPM UDðCi Þ Ranking

h1 (0.574, 0.328, 0.098) 0.623 (0.557, 0.344, 0.099) 0.607 0.6147 3

policies could be developed to encourage innovation and creativity,

Fig. 3. Variation of CUFs/UDs of options with the different methods

You might also like

Step 5: Obtain the normalized A-IF-DM (NA-IF-DM). u uþ

This characteristic plays an important role in MCDM procedures. 1X