INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4839 www.rsisinternational.org
A Theory-driven Framework for Malaysia’s Research, Development,
Innovation, Commercialisation and Economy (RDICE) Ecosystem
Haswira Nor Mohamad Hashim1*, Muhamad Helmi Muhammad Khair1, Fazlena Hamzah2, Zadariana
Jamil @ Osman3, Azrin Ali4, Norsyazrah Zulkifli5
1Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam
2Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam
3Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam
4Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Puncak Alam
5Department of Law, Centre of Foundation Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Dengkil
*Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000399
Received: 20 October 2025; Accepted: 28 October 2025; Published: 13 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Malaysia’s aspiration to become an innovation-driven economy is hindered by fragmented RDICE (Research,
Development, Innovation, Commercialisation and Economy) efforts, low commercialisation rates, and weak
policy coordination. While previous research has examined theory-based RDICE ecosystem models in advanced
economies such as South Korea, Finland, Germany, and Singapore, limited attention has been given to how
emerging economies like Malaysia can contextualise these approaches amid institutional fragmentation and
resource constraints. This gap underscores the need for an integrated, theory-informed RDICE framework
tailored to national conditions. This study aims to analyse the theoretical foundations of RDICE, review global
best practices, and conceptualise a RDICE eocsystem framework for Malaysia. Using a qualitative, library-based
method, secondary data were analysed through textual and content analysis. Findings indicate that an effective
RDICE ecosystem should be anchored in five complementary theories—National Innovation System, Mission-
Oriented Innovation, Knowledge-Based Economy, Innovation Value Chain, and Integrated Governance. The
proposed framework integrates inputs, actors, processes, outputs, and outcomes into three structural domains,
and is expected to enhance policy coherence, strengthen industry–academia collaboration, accelerate
commercialisation, and support Malaysia’s transition toward sustainable, knowledge-based economic growth.
Keywords: RDICE; theories; governance; framework; ecosystem.
INTRODUCTION
Research and development together with innovation and commercialization plays a critical role in driving the
transition towards a high-income, innovation-led, and knowledge-based economy. The Malaysian government
recognises that long-term economic growth can no longer rely solely on traditional industrial sectors or resource-
based activities. Instead, it must be fuelled by innovation, intellectual property, and value-added technologies
that enhance national competitiveness. The National RDICE Action Plan 2025–2030 has therefore been
formulated to realign Malaysia’s R&D and innovation landscape towards measurable economic outcomes. It
aims to overcome structural inefficiencies such as fragmented governance, duplicated research efforts, and low
commercialisation rates that have historically constrained Malaysia’s innovation performance (Anonymous,
2024; Mukhtar, 2021).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4840 www.rsisinternational.org
The National RDICE Action Plan 2025–2030, is an integrated action plan that includes four key elements:
Research (R), Development (D), Commercialization (C), Innovation (I) and Economy (E). The RDICE Action
Plan was developed to ensure that research and development in Malaysia not only produces knowledge, but also
translates into innovations that can be commercialised and have a direct impact on the country's economic
growth. The RDICE action plan is an important foundation for Malaysia to leapfrog towards a high-income
economy and compete globally through strategically led and sustainable R&D&C&I (Anonymous, 2024).
The elaboration and strengthening of the National RDICE Action Plan 2025-2030 focuses on reducing structural
gaps and implementation weaknesses, by adopting RDICE best models and approaches. At the international
level, the latest models and approaches for RDICE implementation emphasize governance centralization,
integrated fund coordination, and mission-oriented R&D research that targets solutions to major economic
challenges and social. Global trends also show increased investment in strategic technologies such as artificial
intelligence, renewable energy, biotechnology, and digital technologies (Wang et al., 2025; Gonçalves & Silva,
2024; Idoko et al., 2024), as well as an emphasis on economic returns from R&D investments, including
measuring the impact on GDP, high-value jobs, and technological employability globally (Benlaria et al., 2023;
Herzer, 2022; Satrovic et al., 2023; Soh et al., 2023).
Existing literature on RDICE underscores the significance of coordinated national systems in transforming
knowledge into economic impact. The National Innovation System (NIS) approach, popularised by Lundvall
(2022) and Edwards & Thompson (2022), has been widely adopted to explain how innovation performance
depends on the dynamic interaction between government, academia, and industry. However, many studies have
primarily examined these systems in the context of advanced economies such as South Korea, Finland, Germany,
and Singapore (Wagner et al., 2021; Sorin-George, 2023), leaving a research gap in understanding how emerging
economies like Malaysia can effectively adapt NIS principles amid institutional fragmentation and resource
limitations. Few empirical studies have explored how Malaysia’s innovation actors interact systemically or how
policy incoherence constrains such interaction.
Addressing these gaps requires a comprehensive and theory-anchored RDICE framework that unites governance,
policy, and industry collaboration. Such integration will provide the intellectual foundation for Malaysia’s
National RDICE Action Plan 2025–2030 to function not merely as a policy document but as a transformative
engine for innovation-led economic growth.
Problem Statement
Despite decades of investment and policy commitment, Malaysia’s RDICE ecosystem has yet to achieve the
efficiency, integration, and transformative impact necessary to position the country among global innovation
leaders. While Malaysia has established robust research infrastructure and generated considerable academic
output, the translation of research into innovation and commercial value remains limited (Ramli et al., 2021;
Ariffin & Mahdzir, 2021). This disconnect between research generation and economic application reflects deeper
structural, institutional, and governance challenges that continue to impede the realization of RDICE’s full
potential as a national growth engine.
At the policy and governance level, Malaysia’s R&D and innovation efforts remain fragmented and ministry-
centric, characterized by overlapping jurisdictions, disjointed funding streams, and a lack of unified policy
direction (Mukhtar, 2021; Narayanan & Yew-Wah, 2018). The absence of a single national coordinating
authority for RDICE has led to inefficiencies, duplication of initiatives, and weak monitoring mechanisms. In
contrast, leading innovation-driven nations such as South Korea, Finland, and Singapore have successfully
implemented centralized and mission-oriented governance structures that align national research priorities with
socio-economic objectives (Park & Kim, 2022; Kwon, 2024). Malaysia’s current siloed approach therefore limits
the systemic synergy required for high-impact innovation.
At the institutional level, research priorities in higher education institutions (HEIs) remain predominantly
oriented toward academic output — publications, citations, and rankings — rather than innovation outcomes or
commercialization performance (Rahim et al., 2021). The low commercialization rate of university-generated
intellectual property is symptomatic of weak technology transfer mechanisms, inadequate collaboration with
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4841 www.rsisinternational.org
industry, and limited policy incentives for spin-offs and start-ups (Suhaimi et al., 2022; Shahidan et al., 2025).
Furthermore, there is a persistent misalignment between research focus areas and industrial demand, particularly
in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and renewable energy (Muda et al.,
2021). These gaps collectively reduce the capacity of universities and research institutions to function as
effective innovation hubs.
From an industry perspective, the private sector’s contribution to national R&D expenditure remains low, with
Malaysia’s Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD) still below 1% of GDP — significantly trailing OECD
benchmarks (Mostafiz et al., 2024; Yuen & Ng, 2021). Small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which form the
backbone of Malaysia’s economy, face barriers such as limited access to research funding, weak innovation
capacity, and high risks associated with technology adoption. These structural constraints further inhibit the
creation of a vibrant and sustainable innovation-driven private sector.
Collectively, these systemic weaknesses underscore the urgent need for a RDICE Action Plan that unites
governance, funding, and industrial strategies under a single coherent framework. Such a plan must be guided
by sound theoretical foundations and integrated governance principles to ensure accountability, efficiency, and
measurable socio-economic impact. Without a coordinated RDICE policy anchored on strong theoretical and
governance foundations, Malaysia risks lagging behind in global innovation competitiveness, remaining a
consumer rather than a producer of advanced technologies. Addressing these challenges is therefore critical to
transforming Malaysia into a resilient, innovation-led, and knowledge-based economy envisioned in the National
RDICE Action Plan 2025–2030.
Objectives
This paper seeks to achieve the following objectives:
a) To analyse the theoretical frameworks underpinning RDICE.
b) To examine global best practices in R&D, innovation, and commercialization governance.
c) To conceptualise a RDICE ecosystem that aligns theory with Malaysia’s socio-economic and policy
contexts.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology for this study is developed to answer the following research questions:
a) What are the key theoretical frameworks that underpin the conceptualisation of the Research,
Development, Innovation, Commercialisation and Economy (RDICE) ecosystem?
b) How have global best practices in research, innovation, and commercialisation governance been
implemented, and what lessons can be drawn for Malaysia’s RDICE development?
c) How can a theoretically grounded RDICE ecosystem be conceptualised to align with Malaysia’s socio-
economic conditions and policy environment?
This study adopts a qualitative, library-based research design aimed at conceptualizing a theoretical framework
for the RDICE ecosystem in Malaysia. The qualitative approach was selected to enable an in-depth
understanding of existing theories, models, and global best practices related to innovation governance and
economic transformation. This design is appropriate for exploratory and conceptual research that seeks to
synthesise ideas, identify theoretical linkages, and derive new conceptual insights rather than produce numerical
generalisations.
The study employs a desk-based analytical method, relying on secondary data. This method facilitates the
examination of prior scholarly works, policy documents, and empirical findings to construct a comprehensive
theoretical foundation for the RDICE framework. The approach allows for cross-referencing between different
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4842 www.rsisinternational.org
theoretical paradigms—such as the National Innovation System (NIS), Mission-Oriented Innovation Theory,
Knowledge-Based Economy Theory, Innovation Value Chain Theory, and Integrated Governance Theory—to
determine their applicability and interrelationships in the Malaysian context.
Data for this study were collected from secondary sources such as journal articles, conference proceedings,
reports, theses and dissertations obtained through online academic databases and repositories. The selection
criteria focused on materials that are conceptually or empirically relevant to RDICE and its components,
including research and development (R&D), innovation systems, technology transfer, commercialisation, and
economic growth. All selected materials were published between 2010 and 2025 to ensure currency, relevance,
and representation of both foundational theories and recent developments in the field.
The collected data were analysed using a textual and content analysis approach. Textual analysis was employed
to interpret the conceptual meanings and theoretical arguments presented within the literature, with attention
given to definitions, frameworks, and the relationships between R&D, innovation, and commercialization.
Content analysis was used to systematically categorise recurring themes, concepts, and variables relevant to the
RDICE ecosystem—such as governance models, policy coordination, innovation performance indicators, and
economic outcomes. This dual analytical technique enables the study to not only summarise existing literature
but also to uncover conceptual gaps, theoretical overlaps, and potential directions for a unified RDICE model.
To ensure the rigour and credibility of the findings, the study applied several quality control measures. Sources
were carefully screened for academic reliability, prioritising peer-reviewed publications and official government
reports. Data triangulation was achieved by comparing findings from multiple authors, disciplines, and national
case studies to validate consistency and theoretical relevance. Furthermore, reflexive analysis was employed to
maintain researcher neutrality and minimise interpretive bias in synthesising secondary data.
Through this qualitative, library-based inquiry, the study provides an interpretative synthesis that not only
deepens understanding of RDICE theories but also generates actionable insights for Malaysia’s innovation
governance and economic transformation agenda.
Theoretical Analysis
A robust RDICE ecosystem must be grounded in clear theoretical foundations that explain how innovation
emerges, evolves, and contributes to national development. Understanding these theories is essential for
constructing a coherent framework that aligns research activities, innovation processes, and commercialisation
pathways with Malaysia’s socio-economic aspirations. This section examines five key theories that collectively
inform the structure and direction of the RDICE Action Plan. Each theory offers a distinct but complementary
lens, from explaining how innovation actors interact at the national level, to guiding mission-driven priorities,
strengthening knowledge-based growth, enhancing the innovation value chain, and ensuring effective
governance. By analysing these theoretical perspectives, the study establishes a solid intellectual foundation for
conceptualising an integrated and high-impact RDICE ecosystem suited to the Malaysian context.
National Innovation System (NIS) Theory
The National Innovation System Theory emphasizes that a country's innovation capacity depends on the extent
of dynamic and effective interaction between various institutions – including government, research and higher
education institutions, industry and society – in generating, disseminating and applying knowledge. Innovation
is not just a laboratory product or a single technology, rather it is the result of a complex and interdependent
ecosystem (Lundvall, 2022; Edwards & Thompson, 2022; Lewis, 2021). This framework expands the
understanding that modern innovation demands close collaboration between academia, industry and government
(Triple Helix), as well as community involvement as a fourth actor (Quadruple Helix) (Cai & Lattu, 2022).
Therefore, the RDICE action plan should focus on building collaborative and integrative mechanisms between
all actors in the system, as well as supporting policies that create a conducive environment for the sustainable
and productive growth of innovation.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4843 www.rsisinternational.org
Mission-Oriented Innovation Theory
This theory asserts that innovation needs to be driven by a major national mission that is in the nature of solving
the country's main challenges – whether in the aspects of health, energy transition, food security, climate change,
or technological advancement (Kattel and M. Mazzucato, 2025, Mazzucato et al., 2021; Larrue, 2021). Countries
such as Finland, Germany, and South Korea have shown success through the establishment of national missions
in addressing major challenges such as climate change, food security, and digital transformation (Janssen et al.,
2021; Vuong et al., 2021). This approach emphasizes the integration of policy, funding and implementation in a
strategic and focused direction. In the context of the RDICE action plan, this approach means that Malaysia
needs to clearly identify and articulate the national mission that is at the core of research and innovation, as well
as ensure that all ecosystem actors are aligned towards those goals. This will help create innovative solutions
that have a real impact on society and the economy.
Knowledge-Based Economy Theory
This theory asserts that knowledge, innovation and human capital are the main engines of economic growth. A
country's ability to compete and grow in the global economy depends on continuous investment in research and
development (R&D), talent development, as well as the ability to convert knowledge into commercial value
(Stehr et al., 2020). This theory raises knowledge, innovation and human capital as the main drivers of modern
economic growth. Within this framework, investment in RDICE is seen not as just an academic activity or policy
support, but as a key strategy to increase national productivity, industrial competitiveness, and create high-value
jobs (Al-Mubaraki & Busler, 2018). The RDICE action plan, therefore, should be seen not only as a science and
technology agenda, but as a national economic development strategy. It must prioritize long-term investments
that generate high-value jobs, develop national technologies, and contribute to the country's competitiveness in
the global value chain.
Innovation Value Chain Theory
This theory structures the innovation process into three main phases: the creation of knowledge, the
dissemination of knowledge, and the adoption and commercialization of the results of innovation. Each phase
requires tailored policy interventions so that the innovation chain is not broken at any stage (Hansen and J.
Birkinshaw, 2007). This theory emphasizes that innovation thrives in an overarching ecosystem, where various
elements — including institutions, policies, markets, technologies, talents, and innovation cultures — interact
with each other. A good ecosystem provides comprehensive support to the innovation process from the idea
stage to commercialization (Tilahun & Berhan, 2022). In the Malaysian context, many quality research outputs
did not make it to the market due to weaknesses in the middle and late phases of this chain. Therefore, the RDICE
action plan needs to formulate a comprehensive strategy – from supporting basic research, accelerating the
translation of knowledge into prototypes, providing incentives for technology transfer, all the way to market ease
and intellectual property protection. This ensures that the value of innovation is maximized and the return to the
national economy can be doubled.
Integrated Governance Theory
This theory underlines the importance of centralized but flexible governance, to ensure effective coordination
between various government entities, implementing agencies, the private sector, and society (Foster et al., 2024);
Koch, 2008; Jansen, 2007). Fragmented governance (silos) has been identified as a major obstacle to the
effectiveness of the RDICE system in many developing countries, including Malaysia. Therefore, the RDICE
Action Plan should establish an integrated and cross-sectoral national governance structure, with an emphasis
on clarity of roles, efficiency of resource distribution, and impact-based monitoring and evaluation. This
approach not only increases the effectiveness of implementation, but also gives confidence to all stakeholders to
be actively involved in the success of the country's RDICE agenda.
DISCUSSIONS
Overall, RDICE's global strategy is moving towards research that is cross-disciplinary, based on industry needs,
and based on a sustainable and high-impact innovation ecosystem (Budi, 2020; Malec et al., 2020; Yun, 2021;
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4844 www.rsisinternational.org
Sitenko & Holienka, 2022). Nations that have successfully embedded RDICE-like ecosystems—such as
Germany, USA, South Korea, Finland and Singapore —have demonstrated that innovation-driven economic
growth is most effective when supported by coherent governance, mission-oriented research, and industry-
academia collaboration (Wagner et al., 2021; Sorin-George, 2023).
In these countries, the direction of the RDICE ecosystem is closely aligned with the three research questions
outlined in this study. The table below summarises the linkage between each research question, the
corresponding innovation theories, and their practical application in shaping a coherent RDICE ecosystem
framework.
Table 1 Summary of Theoretical Linkages and Significance
Research Question Corresponding Theories Practical Application
RQ1: What are the key theoretical
frameworks underpinning RDICE?
NIS Theory, Mission-Oriented
Innovation Theory, Knowledge-
Based Economy Theory
Establishes conceptual foundations
for understanding the systemic
nature of RDICE.
RQ2: How have global best
practices in R&D, innovation, and
commercialisation governance been
implemented?
Innovation Value Chain Theory,
Integrated Governance Theory
Identifies practical models and
mechanisms adaptable to
Malaysia’s governance and policy
environment.
RQ3: How can a theoretically
grounded RDICE ecosystem be
conceptualised for Malaysia?
Integrated synthesis of all five
theories
Produces a holistic framework
linking research, innovation, and
economic outcomes in alignment
with national priorities.
These theories provide a structured analytical lens through which global RDICE models can be interpreted,
compared, and contextualised. For instance, Germany operationalises the National Innovation System and
Innovation Value Chain through the Fraunhofer model, which emphasises applied R&D and industry-
commissioned research using blended public–private funding sources (Llanos-Paredes, 2023; Vokoun &
Dvouletý, 2025). The United States, through the Bayh-Dole Act, exemplifies the role of Mission-Oriented
Innovation and Knowledge-Based Economy principles, enabling universities to commercialise federally funded
research and thereby accelerating technology transfer and start-up formation (Singh, 2020).
Similarly, Finland institutionalises Integrated Innovation Governance through Business Finland, which links
R&D funding to export growth and SME competitiveness, while Singapore’s Research, Innovation and
Entreprise (RIE) framework operationalises an Innovation Value Chain that integrates talent development,
directed investments, and socio-economic impact measurement (Wagner et al., 2021; Sorin-George, 2023).
Across these cases, one pattern is clear: countries that excel in innovation embed RDICE within a whole-of-
nation governance model, grounded in clear theory, stable legislation, strong institutions, and industry-aligned
incentives.
Malaysia’s direction—particularly under RMK-12 and the Madani Economy—reflects these same aspirations.
Strengthening RDICE is critical to transforming Malaysian universities and research institutes into engines of
economic productivity, high-value employment, and technology entrepreneurship. However, for Malaysia to
close the gap with global innovation leaders, the National RDICE Action Plan 2025–2030 must be theoretically
grounded (RQ1), globally benchmarked (RQ2), and ecosystem-aligned to national priorities (RQ3).
Thus, the National RDICE Action Plan should not merely address structural gaps and implementation
weaknesses, but also ensure alignment with globally tested RDICE models, national legal frameworks, and
Malaysia’s socio-economic aspirations. The intended outcome is a realistic, integrated, and impact-driven
RDICE ecosystem that accelerates Malaysia’s transition toward a high-income, high-tech, innovation-driven
nation by 2030.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4845 www.rsisinternational.org
RECOMMENDATIONS
Building on the theoretical insights and global benchmarking presented in the earlier sections, this part of the
paper outlines key recommendations for strengthening Malaysia’s RDICE ecosystem. A resilient and future-
oriented RDICE framework must operate as a coherent and interconnected system rather than as fragmented
policy domains or isolated institutional efforts. The recommendations that follow translate theoretical principles
into practical design elements, ensuring that research, innovation, and commercialisation activities are
systematically aligned with national socio-economic objectives.
Interdependent Components of the Malaysian RDICE Ecosystem
The conceptualisation of Malaysia’s RDICE ecosystem is grounded in five complementary theoretical
perspectives—National Innovation System (NIS) Theory, Mission-Oriented Innovation Theory, Knowledge-
Based Economy Theory, Innovation Value Chain Theory, and Integrated Governance Theory—which
collectively explain how research, innovation, and commercialisation activities can be systematically
transformed into socio-economic outcomes. These theories provide a coherent foundation for answering the
research questions and for shaping a holistic RDICE model aligned with Malaysia’s national development
priorities. Central to this framework is the principle of continuity across the entire value chain—linking inputs,
actors, processes, outputs, and long-term impacts—to ensure that every policy initiative and investment results
in meaningful and measurable outcomes. Accordingly, the RDICE ecosystem is organised into five
interdependent components:
Input (Source)
The input component includes all the primary sources that support the implementation of RDICE. This includes
funding and funding from governments, the private sector as well as international partners; human capital such
as researchers, scientists, inventors and technology entrepreneurs; as well as R&D infrastructure such as
laboratories, centres of excellence and innovation hubs. In addition, supportive policies such as innovation
policies, technology procurement and intellectual property protection are also the backbone of this ecosystem.
Scientific data and market information, on the other hand, act as a catalyst for strategic decisions and the
development of relevant innovative products.
The input component reflects Knowledge-Based Economy Theory by prioritising knowledge assets, human
talent, and scientific capability as the foundation of innovation-driven growth. It comprises funding from
government, industry, and international partners; skilled human capital such as researchers, scientists, and
technology entrepreneurs; and physical infrastructure including laboratories, centres of excellence, and
innovation hubs. Supportive innovation policies, IP protection, and market intelligence function as enablers
consistent with the preconditions emphasised in NIS Theory.
Actors (Policy Makers/Researchers/Fund Providers/Industry Players)
The RDICE ecosystem is formed by various key actors interacting in various stages of the innovation process.
The government plays the role of a policymaker and implementer, a legislator as well as a provider of incentives
and strategic funds. Higher education institutions and research institutions act as generators of knowledge and
technology, while industries — including small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups — become
consumers of technology, investors and commercializers of products. In addition, fund providers and innovation
facilitators such as technology transfer offices (TTOs), incubators, accelerators and commercialisation agencies
serve as important links in making the RDICE process a success. Civil society and communities, on the other
hand, are the beneficiaries of innovation and an important social partner in the RDICE ecosystem.
Actor interaction within the ecosystem is directly informed by Integrated Governance Theory and the
institutional logic of the NIS approach. Government sets direction and provides incentives, universities and
research institutes generate knowledge, industry acts as adopter and commercialiser, and intermediaries (TTOs,
incubators, venture funds) bridge the research-to-market gap. Civil society completes the Quadruple Helix,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4846 www.rsisinternational.org
ensuring social legitimacy and uptake of innovations—consistent with Mission-Oriented Innovation Theory,
which stresses innovation for societal missions, not merely markets.
Process/Mechanism (System)
The strategic process in the RDICE ecosystem includes a variety of implementation mechanisms that are
structured in an inclusive and systematic manner. It starts with the determination of national RDICE priorities
through multi-stakeholder negotiations. Next, the process of generating knowledge and technology is carried out
through basic and applied research. The results of this research are then transferred through an effective
technology transfer system as well as strong intellectual property protection. This process is followed by the
development of innovative products, services, and business models, followed by the ease of commercialization
and scaling. This entire process is regulated through a system of monitoring, assessment and policy improvement
based on data and evidence (evidence based policy).
This component mirrors the logic of Innovation Value Chain Theory, where RDICE activities progress through
structured stages: (i) priority setting, (ii) research and knowledge generation, (iii) technology transfer and IP
protection, (iv) product and service development, (v) commercialisation and scaling, and (vi) monitoring and
evaluation. Embedded within this sequence is Integrated Governance Theory, which ensures coordination,
accountability, and continuous policy learning through evidence-based monitoring and review.
Output (Short, Medium, Long Term Results)
RDICE Action Plan is expected to deliver short and medium term outcomes consistent with the National
Innovation System (NIS) Theory and the Innovation Value Chain Theory. These include increased research
productivity and stronger collaboration among public, private, and community actors through Triple and
Quadruple Helix interactions, leading to the emergence of locally competitive products and technologies. These
outcomes reflect the Innovation Value Chain’s emphasis on strengthening linkages from knowledge creation to
commercialization, while the NIS perspective reinforces the importance of institutional interaction in driving
system-wide innovation. In addition, RDICE Action Plan is expected to stimulate higher private-sector
investment in R&D and raise the commercialization rate of intellectual property originating from both public
research institutions and industry, further embodying the principles of the Innovation Value Chain in accelerating
market diffusion of innovation outputs.
Over the long term, the RDICE Action Plan aligns with the Knowledge-Based Economy Theory and Mission-
Oriented Innovation Theory, aiming to support sustainable, innovation-led economic growth. By prioritizing
knowledge, talent development, and mission-driven national agendas, the RDICE ecosystem is expected to
generate high-value employment, enhance Malaysia’s global innovation competitiveness, and strengthen the
nation’s technological independence. These targets resonate with the Knowledge-Based Economy Theory’s focus
on innovation and human capital as engines of growth, while Mission-Oriented Innovation Theory underscores
the importance of directing innovation toward national strategic goals. Ultimately, these long-term results also
reinforce the Integrated Governance Theory, which envisions a coordinated, cross-sectoral system that supports
balanced and sustainable socioeconomic development for the country.
Interrelated Domains of the RDICE Ecosystem
The proposed framework structure is organised into three interrelated domains—Theoretical Foundations,
Operational Mechanisms, and Socio-Economic Outcomes. The Operational Mechanisms and Socio-Economic
Outcomes domains are derived from the five components of the conceptual framework (input, actors, process,
output, and impact), ensuring clear continuity between the conceptual model and its structural design. The
Theoretical Foundations domain, on the other hand, is grounded in the five theories analysed in this study,
providing a seamless connection between theoretical reasoning and practical implementation. Together, these
three domains form a holistic framework that supports the design of a coherent, integrated, and impact-driven
RDICE ecosystem for Malaysia.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4847 www.rsisinternational.org
Theoretical Foundations (RQ1)
The first domain, Theoretical Foundations, addresses the initial research question concerning the key theoretical
frameworks that underpin RDICE. This domain draws upon five major theories that collectively explain how
innovation systems function and interact within a national context. The National Innovation System (NIS) Theory
provides a macro-level understanding of how institutions, government policies, and industry actors collaborate
to advance innovation. Complementing this, Mission-Oriented Innovation Theory highlights the importance of
directing innovation efforts toward clearly defined national missions or grand challenges, thereby aligning
research priorities with societal needs. Alongside these, Knowledge-Based Economy Theory emphasizes the
central role of knowledge, human talent, and intellectual capital as critical drivers of long-term economic
transformation.
Operational Mechanisms (RQ2)
The second domain, Operational Mechanisms domain is comprised of the input, actors, and process/mechanism
components of the conceptual framework, reflecting how resources are mobilised, stakeholders interact, and
systemic processes are executed to drive innovation activity. This domain responds to the research question on
how global best practices in R&D, innovation, and commercialisation governance can be adapted to the
Malaysian context. This domain integrates lessons from international innovation ecosystems and is guided by
two key theoretical perspectives. Innovation Value Chain Theory provides a structured view of how research
inputs are transformed into innovation outputs and eventually into commercialised products, underscoring the
importance of strengthening linkages between knowledge generation, technology transfer, and market adoption.
Meanwhile, Integrated Governance Theory offers a model for institutional coordination, ensuring that ministries,
research bodies, and industry players work in synergy rather than in isolation. Through these theoretical lenses,
the operational domain ensures that conceptual foundations are translated into coherent policy mechanisms and
practical governance arrangements.
Outcomes (RQ3)
The final domain, Socio-Economic Outcomes (Output), is derived from the short, medium, and long term results
components of the conceptual framework, This domain corresponds to the third research question, which seeks
to conceptualise a theoretically grounded RDICE ecosystem that reflects Malaysia’s socio-economic context and
policy aspirations. This domain represents the end-state of the RDICE value chain, where the principles
embedded in all five theories converge into measurable national impact.
The National Innovation System (NIS) Theory underpins the expectation of system-level economic performance;
Mission-Oriented Innovation Theory directs outcomes toward national missions and societal needs; Knowledge-
Based Economy Theory aligns outcomes with talent development, productivity, and innovation-led growth;
Innovation Value Chain Theory ensures that outputs are the final result of a completed and efficient research-to-
market process; and Integrated Governance Theory guarantees that outcomes are achieved through coordinated,
accountable, and well-aligned institutions.
Through this theoretical alignment, the Outcomes domain connects operational mechanisms with measurable
national results, including innovation-driven GDP growth, increased high-technology employment, enhanced
SME competitiveness, and the broader transition toward a knowledge-based economy. These outcomes are
consistent with the aspirations of the Twelfth Malaysia Plan (RMK-12) and the National RDICE Action Plan
2025–2030, both of which emphasise inclusivity, sustainability, and high-value innovation as pillars of long-
term national development.
Conceptual framework of RDICE Ecosystem
To translate theory into an actionable model for national innovation, the RDICE framework must be structured
in a way that logically connects theoretical foundation with operational and outcomes domains. The central
hypothesis of this framework structure is that a well-integrated RDICE ecosystem—anchored in robust
theoretical foundations and guided by mission-oriented governance—will produce sustainable, innovation-led
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4848 www.rsisinternational.org
economic growth for Malaysia. These theoretical layers interact vertically and horizontally within the RDICE
framework. Vertically, they move from conceptual foundation to practical implementation to economic impact.
Horizontally, they promote collaboration, feedback, and policy coherence across sectors and actors.
At the core, the National Innovation System theory acts as the structural foundation, linking academia, industry,
and government (the Quintuple Helix model). Surrounding it, the Mission-Oriented Innovation Theory functions
as the strategic driver, defining national missions such as energy transition, digital transformation, and
biotechnology advancement. The Knowledge-Based Economy Theory underpins the human and intellectual
capital dimension, ensuring that innovation activities are supported by skilled talent and research excellence.The
Innovation Value Chain Theory provides the processual framework, ensuring that research results progress
through clearly defined stages — from idea generation to commercialization and market diffusion. Finally, the
Integrated Governance Theory operates as the coordination mechanism, ensuring policy alignment, cross-
ministerial collaboration, and impact-based evaluation across all levels of implementation.
This conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure 1 below.
Fig.1 Dynamic interaction among five theoretical pillars with three domains that support RDICE ecosystem
framework
CONCLUSION
This study has demonstrated that the development of a comprehensive and theoretically grounded RDICE
ecosystem is vital for Malaysia’s aspiration to become a high-income, innovation-driven nation. By synthesising
the National Innovation System, Mission-Oriented Innovation Theory, Knowledge-Based Economy Theory,
Innovation Value Chain Theory, and Integrated Governance Theory, this paper conceptually demonstrates how
multi-theoretical integration can guide Malaysia in developing a robust RDICE ecosystem. It positions theory
not merely as an explanatory tool but as a strategic compass for designing governance structures, funding
mechanisms, and innovation pathways that translate research excellence into sustained economic
competitiveness. The analysis reveals that Malaysia’s current RDICE landscape suffers not from a lack of
initiatives or talent, but from systemic fragmentation, weak governance integration, low commercialisation
performance, and limited industry participation. A theory-based conceptual framework therefore offers strategic
direction to ensure that research excellence can be translated into innovation, market value, and economic
growth.
The findings of this study carry meaningful implications for policy, institutions, and industry. At the policy level,
the proposed framework highlights the urgent need for a unified governance model that coordinates ministries,
funding agencies, and innovation actors under a single institutional architecture. Such an arrangement would
streamline decision-making, prevent policy duplication, and foster accountability in national innovation
spending. Practically, adopting a mission-oriented approach enables Malaysia to channel RDICE investments
toward clearly defined national priorities, such as energy transition, health security, and digital transformation,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4849 www.rsisinternational.org
ensuring that innovation efforts generate measurable social and economic impact. For higher education
institutions, the framework underscores the need to shift from a publication-driven culture toward an impact-
driven innovation ethos, supported by stronger technology transfer structures, incubator ecosystems, and
industry co-creation mechanisms. At the industry level, the study reinforces the importance of strengthening
private-sector participation through co-investment models, talent mobility programmes, and innovation clusters
that enhance competitiveness and foster high-value entrepreneurship.
While this conceptual study offers a valuable foundation, it is not without limitations. As a library-based
qualitative inquiry, the research relies solely on secondary sources and does not incorporate empirical validation
through interviews, surveys, or field data. As such, its conclusions are conceptual rather than tested within real-
world institutional settings. Moreover, although international best practices inform the framework, differences
in national culture, governance readiness, and economic structure may affect the direct applicability of foreign
models to Malaysia. The study also does not provide quantitative measurement of RDICE performance, which
would be necessary to operationalise the framework for monitoring and evaluation.
Recognising these limitations, the paper recommends several pathways for future research. Empirical studies
involving government agencies, industry leaders, and university researchers should be conducted to validate and
refine the proposed RDICE framework. Future scholars should also develop measurable RDICE performance
indicators—such as innovation readiness metrics, commercialisation KPIs, and ecosystem synergy indexes—
that allow policymakers to track progress more precisely. Comparative case studies or longitudinal analyses
could further enrich understanding of how mission-oriented RDICE policies influence innovation capacity and
economic transformation over time. Such work would not only complement this study but also provide practical
tools for policy implementation.
In conclusion, the conceptual framework presented in this paper offers a strategic intellectual blueprint for
reimagining Malaysia’s RDICE ecosystem. By grounding national innovation planning in strong theoretical
foundations and aligning them with socio-economic priorities, Malaysia can accelerate its transition toward a
resilient, knowledge-based, and innovation-led economy. If refined through empirical validation and supported
by sustained political will, institutional commitment, and industry collaboration, the RDICE model proposed
here has the potential to enhance national competitiveness, strengthen commercialisation outcomes, and position
Malaysia as a producer—not merely a user—of advanced technologies in the global innovation landscape.
REFERENCES
1. Al-Mubaraki, H. M., & Busler, M. (2018). Challenges and opportunities of innovation and incubators as
a tool for knowledge based economy. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 6, 1-18. doi:
https://10.1186/s13731-017-0075-y
2. Anonymous. (2024, May 15, 2024). Implementation of RDICE: Over RM9 trillion to GDP by 2030.
Bernama, Retrieved from https://suarasarawak.my/pelaksanaan-rdice-lebih-rm9-trilion-kepada-kdnk-
menjelang-2030/
3. Anonymous. (2024, 29/4/2024). Malaysia's investment in R&D is still lagging behind. Bernama,
Retrieved from https://bernama.com/bm/news.php?id=2292394
4. Ariffin, A. S., & Mahdzir, A. M. (2021). Development And Achievements Of Science, Technology &
Innovation Policy In ASEAN Countries: A Comparative Analysis Of Malaysia In Transition Stage With
Myanmar, Cambodia And Laos In Developing Stage. Journal of Science, Technology and Innovation
Policy, 7(1), 56-61. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.11113/jostip.v7n1.67
5. Benlaria, H., Almawishir, N. F. S., Saadaoui, S., Sanaa Mostafa Mohammed Mohammed, Abdulrahman,
B. M. A., & Eltahir, b. A. E. (2023). The Moderating Role of Research and Development (R&D) Support
in the Relationship between Entrepreneurship and per Capita Output—A Study on the GCCCountries.
Economies 11, 162. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11060162
6. Budi, A. A., & Aldianto, L. (2020). Research and Development – Commercialization Bridge: A Refined
Model The Asian Journal of Technology Management 13(1), 47-62. Retrieved from
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/324148396.pdf
7. Cai, Y., & Lattu, A. (2022). Triple Helix or Quadruple Helix: Which Model of Innovation to Choose for
Empirical Studies? Minerva, 60(2), 257–280.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4850 www.rsisinternational.org
8. Edwards, J., & Thompson, C. (2022). Developing A Robust Framework For National Innovation
Systems. Contemporary Journal of Management and Economic Research, 10(4), 2997-3007
9. Foster, L., Wiewiora, A., & Donnet, T. (2024). Integrating Knowledge Management and Governance for
Innovation Outcomes: A New Framework for Managing Innovation in a Project Environment. Journal
of the Knowledge Economy, 15, 7143-7170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01399-2
10. Gonçalves, R., & Silva, L. d. (2024). The advancement of artificial intelligence in biomedical research
and health innovation: challenges and opportunities in emerging economies. Globalization and Health,
20, 1-19. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01049-5
11. Hansen, M. T., & Birkinshaw, J. (2007). The innovation value chain. Harvard business review, 85(6),
121.
12. Hashim, H. N. M., Khair, M. H. M., Mahmood, A., & Zakuan, Z. Z. M. (2021). Outbound Open
Innovation Policy for Exploitation of Intellectual Creation, Design and Creativity in Malaysian Public
Universities Asian Journal of University Education (AJUE) 16(4), 44-52.
13. Herzer, D. (2022). The impact of domestic and foreign R&D on TFP in developing countries. World
Development, 151. doi: https://10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105754
14. Idoko, I. P., David-Olusa, A., Badu, S. G., Okereke, E. K., Agaba, J. A., & Bashiru, O. (2024). The dual
impact of AI and renewable energy in enhancing medicine for better diagnostics, drug discovery, and
public health, Magna Scientia Advanced Biology and Pharmacy, 12(2), 99-127.
https://doi.org/10.30574/msabp.2024.12.2.0048
15. Jansen, D. (2007). Governance – An Integrated Theory: Springer Netherlands.
16. Janssen, M. J., Torrens, J., Wesseling, J. H., & Wanzenbo, I. (2021). The promises and premises of
mission-oriented innovation policy—A reflection and ways forward. Science and Public Policy, 48(3),
438-444. doi: https://10.1093/scipol/scaa072
17. Kattel, R., & Mazzucato, M. (2025). 4: Mission-oriented innovation policies in Europe: from the
normative to the epistemic turn? : Elgar Online.
18. Koch, C. (2008). The superministry approach: Integrated governance of science, technology and
innovation with contracted autonomy Science and Public Policy, 35(4), 253-264. doi:
https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X307792
19. Kwon, H.-k. (2024). Globalization and the U.S. National Economy. In: Openness and Coordination:
Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.
20. Larrue, P. (2021). The design and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policies. Paper
presented at the OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers; Paris.
21. Lewis, P. (2021). The innovation systems approach: an Austrian and Ostromian perspective. The Review
of Austrian Economics, 34, 97–114. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-020-00507-8
22. Llanos-Paredes, P. (2023). The effect of applied research institutes on invention: Evidence from the
Fraunhofer centres in Europe Open Access. Research Evaluation, 32(3), 566-576. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad028
23. Lundvall, B.-Å. (2022). 43. National systems of innovation: Elgar Encyclopedia on the Economics of
Knowledge and Innovation
24. Malec, M., Stanczak, L., & Ricketts, B. (2020). Integrated Commercialization Model of Researchand
Development Project Results. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 28(4), 228-239. doi:
https://10.2478/mspe-2020-0033
25. Mazzucato, M., Andreoni, A., & Conway, R. (2021). Mission-oriented innovation in the USA Institute
for Innovation and Public Purpose.
26. Mostafiz, M. I., Ahmed, F. U., Ibrahim, F., & Tarba, S. Y. (2024). Innovation and commercialisation:
the role of the international dynamic marketing capability in Malaysian international entrepreneurial
firms. International Marketing Review, 41(1), 199-236. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-
2022-0241
27. Muda, S., Mokhtar, M. Z., Amin, W. A. A. M., Sofian, A., & Halim, A. (2021). Developing Determinant
Factors for Product Commercialization and Innovation in Malaysia, International Journal of Innovation,
Creativity and Change, 15(9), 560.
https://ww.ijicc.net/images/Vol_15/Iss_9/15944_Mokhtar_2021_E1_R.pdf
28. Mukhtar, D. (2016). Implementation of technology driven policy initiatives in emerging economies: The
case of Malaysia’s Commercialisation of Research and Development Fund. (PhD.). Nottingham Trent
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4851 www.rsisinternational.org
University
29. Narayanan, S., & Yew-Wah, L. (2018). Innovation Policy in Malaysia. Economic Research Institute for
ASEAN and East Asia. Retrieved from
https://www.eria.org/uploads/media/6.ERIA_Innovation_Policy_ASEAN_Chapter_5.pdf
30. Park, T., & Kim, J. Y. (2022). An exploratory study on innovation policy in eight Asian countries. Journal
of Science and Technology Policy Management, 13(2), 273-303. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-03-2021-0036
31. Rahim, N. A., Mohamed, Z. B., & Amrin, A. (2021). From Lab To Market: Challenges Faced By
Academic Entrepreneur In Technology Transfer Pursuit. International Journal of Business and Society,
22(3), 1256-1268. Retrieved from
https://eprints.utm.my/96399/1/NoorlizawatiAbdRahim2021_FromLabtoMarketChallengesFacedByAc
ademic.pdf
32. Ramli, M. F., Majid, M., Ya’acob, F. F., & Badyalina, B. (2021). Barrier Towards Commercialisation of
Research Findings Among Science and Engineering Academicians at Malaysian Public Universities.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(7), 824 - 839. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i7/10020
33. Satrovic, E., Muslija, A., Abul, S. J., Gligoric, D., & Dalwai, T. (2023). Interdependence between Gross
Capital Formation, Public Expenditure on R&D and Innovation in Turkey. Journal of Balkan and Near
Eastern Studies 23(1), 163-179. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19448953.2020.1818027
34. Shahidan, N. H., Latiff, A. S. A., & Wahab, S. A. (2025). Examining Issues and Challenges in the
Commercialization of UniversityGenerated Intellectual Property Rights in Malaysia. ASEAN
Entrepreneurship Journal (AEJ), 11(1), 25-39.
35. Singh, A. K. (2020). Technology Transfer and Commercialization Models and Policies in India, USA,
China andMalaysia :A Conceptual Review. Asian Journal of Sociological Research 3(1), 19-45.
Retrieved from https://www.journalsociology.com/index.php/AJSR/article/view/9/9
36. Sitenko, D. A., & Holienka, М. (2022). Analysis of the main forms and types of commercialization of
R&D in developed countries. Buketov Business Review, 108(4), 126-134. Retrieved from
https://bbr.buketov.edu.kz/index.php/economy-vestnik/article/view/806
37. Soh, H. S., Koh, Y., & Aridi, A. (Eds.). (2023). Innovative Korea: Leveraging Innovation and
Technology for Development: The World Bank.
38. Sorin-George, T. (2023). How The World's Most Innovative Countries Evolved In The Period 2020-2022
Annals of the „Constantin Brâncuşi” University of Târgu Jiu, Economy Series, 3, 138-143. Retrieved
from https://www.utgjiu.ro/revista/ec/pdf/2023-03/17_TomaSorin2.pdf
39. Stehr, N., Adolf, M., & Mast, J. L. (2020). Knowledge Society, Knowledge-Based Economy, and
Innovation: Springer International Publishing.
40. Suhaimi, N. S., Halim, M. A. S. A., & Hashim, H. A. (2022). Commercialization of academic research:
assessing the perception of academicians at a public university in Malaysia. Journal of Applied Research
in Higher Education, 14 (1), 59-76. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-04-2020-0071
41. Tilahun, S., & Berhan, E. (2022). Innovation value chain: a systematic and narrative review. International
Journal of Quality and Innovation, 6(1), 91-114.
42. Vokoun, M., & Dvouletý, O. (2025). International, national and sectoral determinants of innovation:
evolutionary perspective from the Czech, German, Hungarian and Slovak community innovation survey
data, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 38(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2022.2158309
43. Vuong, G. T. H., Hong, N. B., & Nguyen, M. H. (2021). The Korean National Innovation System: An
Overview, Experiences And Application In Vietnam International Workshop "Developing the Startup
Ecosystem in a Changing World' Nhà xuất bản Lao Động 15-38 . Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/My-Nguyen-Thi-Nga-
2/publication/370377763_Logistics_trong_thuong_mai_dien_tu_tai_Viet_Nam_Nghien_cuu_tai_Shop
ee/links/644d0bf55762c95ac3605c0e/Logistics-trong-thuong-mai-dien-tu-tai-Viet-Nam-Nghien-cuu-
tai-Shopee.pdf#page=21
44. Wagner, C., Poland, K. B., & Yan, X. (2021). Flows and Networks in Global Innovation System among
Top R&D Nations. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Caroline-Wagner-2/...
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4852 www.rsisinternational.org
45. Wang, Q., Zhang, F., & Li, R. (2025). Artificial intelligence and sustainable development during
urbanization: Perspectives on AI R&D innovation, AI infrastructure, and AI market advantage.
Sustainable Development, 33(1), 1136-1156. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3150
46. Wong, P.-K. (1999). National Innovation Systems for Rapid Technological Catch-up: An analytical
framework and a comparative analysis of Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Paper presented at the Paper to
be presented at the DRUID Summer Conference on National Innovation Systems, Industrial Dynamics
and Innovation Policy, Rebild, Denmark, June 9-12, 1999.
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/32947502/wong_Druid1999-libre.pdf
47. Yuen, Y. Y., & Ng, X. P. (2021). Enhancing innovation performance of small and medium enterprises
in Malaysia. Management Science Letters 11, 887–894. doi: https://10.5267/j.msl.2020.10.010
48. Yun, J.-K. (2021). A Study on the Policy Innovation Plan for Public Technology Commercialization.
Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society, 22, 212-220. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.