Government–Industry–Academia Collaboration for Sustainable Autonomous Vehicle Development: A Qualitative Case Study in Suzhou, China

Abstract

The sustainable development of autonomous vehicles (AVs) depends on effective collaboration among the government–industry–academia (GIA). Drawing on the Triple Helix theory, this study examines how the GIA interacts within emerging AV ecosystems at the local level. A qualitative research design was employed, including policy reviews and in-depth semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in Suzhou’s AV ecosystem, to gain a detailed understanding of the collaborations. Our findings revealed three bottlenecks: (1) fragmented governance across administrative districts, which blurs responsibility for infrastructure investment and policy alignment; (2) short-term, project-based industry partnerships that limit knowledge spillovers and marginalize smaller local firms; and (3) limited academic engagement in R&D, despite a strong output in basic research. These factors lock the AV ecosystem into a hybrid configuration between government-led (Triple Helix I) and industry-driven (Triple Helix II) models, constraining sustained innovation. The study argues that to strengthen the AV ecosystem, it is essential to establish a cohesive policy framework, promote cross-sector collaboration, and involve academia more deeply in addressing social, ethical, and regulatory concerns. This paper contributes to the GIA and Triple Helix literature by offering insights into the complexity of collaboration within a rapidly developing AV sector and providing recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of GIA collaborations to foster sustainable AV development.

1. Introduction

The autonomous vehicle (AV) sector is advancing rapidly, becoming a key driver of future transportation and urban development. AVs promise to improve road safety [1,2], reduce congestion [3], provide greater mobility for vulnerable groups [4], and contribute to low-carbon urban growth [5]. These opportunities position AVs as a strategic lever for advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), by simultaneously strengthening cross-sector innovation capacity and enabling safer, low-carbon, and more inclusive urban mobility.

Successful AV deployment, however, depends not only on technological breakthroughs but also on effective GIA collaborations. The Triple Helix theory provides a valuable lens to understand how these three actors can effectively coordinate roles, resources, and knowledge flows to accelerate innovation and facilitate sustainable technological transitions [6]. Globally, major economies, including the U.S., EU, and UK, have actively promoted AV development through GIA collaborations. In the U.S., Automated Vehicles 4.0 [7] outlines a unified federal strategy involving 38 agencies and significant investments to integrate AVs safely. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act [8] allocates USD 550 billion for new spending, including funding AV testing and intelligent transportation. The government collaborates with Carnegie Mellon University on vehicle–road technologies, while Ford and the University of Michigan developed Mcity, an AV testing hub. Meanwhile, the EU prioritizes AVs under its Smart Mobility Strategy [9], which is a core pillar of the European Green Deal aimed at achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. Initiatives such as the European Automotive Telecommunication Alliance and the European Road Safety Data Network illustrate the EU’s multi-stakeholder approach to accelerating AV deployment [10]. Likewise, in the UK, the Connected and Automated Mobility program invests over GBP 400 million to support AV partnerships [11]. The Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles and Innovate UK leads over 70 AV projects. The Automated Vehicle Research Centre, a collaboration between HORIBA MIRA and Coventry University, provides advanced AV testing environments [12]. These examples underscore the importance of GIA collaboration in driving AV innovations and ensuring road safety across Western economies.

Beyond Western contexts, China has also emerged as a global leader in AV development, driven by strong policy support and soaring market demand [13]. In recent years, China has introduced a series of policies, such as the Intelligent and Connected Vehicle Innovation and Development Strategy [14] and the 14th Five-Year Plan [15], positioning AVs as a key area for future development. Following these policies, leading cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Wuhan, and Changsha are at the forefront of AV development, each employing distinct strategies to accelerate deployment and innovation.

Beijing leads the nation in AV testing and commercialization, becoming the first city to approve commercial AV pilot programs in 2023. It hosts China’s largest testing network, with over 20,000 km of test roads and 70 million km of road tests [16]. Through policies integrating AVs with urban infrastructure, Beijing has accelerated deployment, particularly in Haidian and Yizhuang, where smart traffic systems and AV fleets operate. On the other hand, Shanghai, with its strong automotive industry, has focused on scenario-based AV applications, particularly in the Lingang New Area and Jiading District. In 2024, Shanghai expanded AV operations to major roads and urban nodes, leveraging its 42 smart factories and 600+ auto parts enterprises to develop a complete AV industry chain. The city’s leadership in new energy vehicles (NEVs), reaching 67% market penetration [17], further integrates AVs with sustainable mobility. Wuhan and Changsha have also emerged as AV pioneers. Wuhan focuses on urban infrastructure integration, deploying smart parking, intelligent roads, and 5G-powered traffic management [18]. Changsha, the first city to launch L3-level autonomous bus routes, specializes in AV public transport, with Baidu Apollo playing a key role [19].

While these cities lead in distinct aspects of AV deployment, other emerging hubs are also shaping China’s intelligent mobility landscape. Suzhou, a prominent economic center in the Yangtze River Delta, is leveraging its industrial strength and strategic location to become a key player in the country’s AV ecosystem. Suzhou’s High-Speed Rail New City Intelligent Connected Vehicle Development Plan (2023–2025) [20] aims to position Suzhou as a national leader in intelligent vehicle networking, focusing on advancing the testing and commercialization of AVs, as well as promoting vehicle–road collaboration technologies and 5G infrastructure projects. A key initiative is the establishment of intelligent transportation industrial parks, particularly in Xiangcheng District, where a dedicated AV testing zone supports both domestic and international enterprises across the entire AV value chain, from R&D to technology testing and demonstration [21].

These Chinese cities employ diverse strategies to advance AV technologies, reflecting their unique local priorities, such as testing and commercialization, scenario-based applications, infrastructure integration, public transport innovation, and intelligent vehicle networking. Despite the diversity in strategies, the role and effectiveness of GIA collaboration at the Chinese city level remains unclear and underexplored. This gap deserves further investigation to understand how local governments, industries, and academic institutions interact to drive AV deployment in rapidly developing cities. To fill this gap, this study focuses on Suzhou, a representative innovation hub that combines several features rarely examined together. First, Suzhou’s AV sector is expanding rapidly. In 2024, the city now hosts more than 600 intelligent-vehicle and connected-vehicle enterprises, and the sector’s output already exceeds CNY 60 billion, signaling both scale and rapid growth [22]. Second, Suzhou offers strong but still-evolving policy support, allowing us to analyze GIA interactions at an early formative stage. Third, its industrial landscape mixes national champions with dynamic, local, small, and medium enterprises and is anchored by research-intensive universities, creating a rich context for observing collaboration patterns across organizational scales. Studying Suzhou, therefore, provides both theoretical and practical insights for other rapidly developing urban regions seeking to build sustainable AV ecosystems. Understanding these collaborative frameworks is crucial for shaping sustainable AV ecosystems and guiding future policy decisions.

To address this gap, this study aims to explore the state of GIA collaborations in the AV field at the Chinese city level through the lens of the Triple Helix theory. Utilizing an in-depth qualitative approach, this study captures the complexities of GIA interactions and provides insights into the role of GIA collaborations in accelerating technological innovation. Moreover, the study highlights the variations in collaborative strategies across different cities and offers actionable recommendations for policymakers and industry leaders to enhance future collaboration frameworks.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents a critical literature review on GIA collaborations and their benefits for AV development. Section 3 outlines the methodology. Section 4 presents findings from the Suzhou case study, followed by a discussion of their implications in Section 5. Section 6 concludes with key insights and recommendations for future research and policy.

2. Literature Review

The integration of GIA plays a crucial role in advancing technological innovation and fostering both economic [23] and social sustainability [24]. Effective GIA collaboration is essential for overcoming regulatory, technical, and market-related challenges, ensuring that AVs contribute to sustainable urban mobility systems. The Triple Helix model provides a theoretical lens to understand how these interactions promote innovation. This section critically reviews the Triple Helix theory, examines its applicability to AV innovation, and identifies specific factors influencing successful GIA collaborations.

2.1. Government–Industry–Academia Collaboration and the Triple Helix Model

GIA collaboration is widely recognized as a crucial driver of innovation and economic development, particularly in emerging technological sectors. This framework fosters interactions between government, industry, and academia, facilitating knowledge co-creation [25], technology transfer, and commercialization [26]. The Triple Helix model [27] provides a theoretical foundation for understanding GIA collaboration, categorizing relationships into three configurations (see Figure 1). Specifically, the Triple Helix model identifies three typologies of GIA collaboration [27]: In Triple Helix I, the government dominates innovation by directing research agendas and funding priorities, which may align with national strategies but can also constrain private-sector initiatives and academic autonomy [28]. In Triple Helix II, the industry takes the lead with minimal government involvement, potentially leading to market-driven solutions but risking fragmented efforts and underutilized academic contributions [29,30]. Finally, in Triple Helix III, government, industry, and academia interact dynamically, sharing responsibilities and driving innovation through overlapping roles while maintaining institutional independence [31].

The Triple Helix III model promotes an interactive partnership where academia contributes to knowledge transfer, research commercialization, and talent development [29] while governments provide policy frameworks, funding incentives, and infrastructure support [32]. Industry, in turn, applies research findings, develops prototypes, and scales innovations for market adoption [33]. This interactive model has proven effective in high-tech clusters [34], where structured collaborations facilitate knowledge exchange and technological diffusion.

Governments play a pivotal role in fostering GIA collaboration by acting as policymakers, investors, and coordinators [35]. They enhance innovation landscapes by offering funding schemes, tax incentives, and direct investment in research institutions [33,36]. Additionally, governments facilitate collaboration by providing access to patent licensing, national research programs, and public testing facilities [37], reducing technological risks and encouraging private-sector investment [38]. However, excessive regulatory constraints and bureaucratic inefficiencies may hinder effective government-led collaborations [39,40].

Industry engagement in GIA collaboration is driven by the need for specialized knowledge, access to cutting-edge research, and workforce development [28]. Firms collaborate with academia to acquire technological expertise, recruit skilled researchers, and utilize university resources such as laboratories and research infrastructure [41]. GIA collaboration also helps firms overcome technological barriers by integrating academic research with industrial applications [42]. However, challenges arise when firms perceive academic research as overly theoretical and misaligned with market demands [43]. Moreover, industries may prioritize short-term commercial gains over long-term knowledge production, limiting the depth of university–industry partnerships [44].

Academia plays a central role in innovation by producing research that supports industry and government initiatives. Universities function as knowledge hubs, driving technological advancements through research, technology transfer, and spin-offs [45]. Higher education institutions are also crucial in talent development, providing skilled professionals who contribute to industrial innovation [46]. Academic engagement in commercialization activities, such as patenting and licensing, has become more prominent as universities seek to enhance their impact on technological development [34]. However, collaboration between academia and industry is often hindered by differences in research priorities, institutional incentives, and intellectual property concerns [28].

Despite the benefits of GIA collaboration, various barriers limit its effectiveness. Studies highlight three key challenges: relationship barriers arising from cultural and operational differences; academia-specific barriers linked to perceptions of academic research as disconnected from industry needs; and political barriers concerning intellectual property protection and commercialization strategies [28,43]. Limited communication channels, market uncertainty, and technological readiness gaps further hinder collaboration [36]. Addressing these issues requires structured intermediary institutions, such as research consortia and innovation hubs, which facilitate interactions between government, industry, and academia [47].

The evolution of the Triple Helix framework has led to the development of Triple-Helix Organizations, such as science parks and technology incubators, which integrate resources from multiple institutional domains to support innovation [47,48]. These organizations bridge gaps between research, policy, and industry applications, facilitating long-term partnerships and knowledge spillovers [49]. By fostering collaborative innovation environments, these institutions help mitigate barriers that hinder effective GIA collaboration. Additionally, Tagliazucchi et al. [50] suggest that GIA collaboration through platforms like Living Labs can meet the needs of various stakeholders in urban environments by driving technological advancements while also promoting social inclusivity and responsibility [51].

In summary, GIA collaboration, as conceptualized through the Triple Helix model, plays a crucial role in the innovation and social deployment of technologies. The interplay between government, industry, and academia shapes innovation ecosystems, with each actor assuming different roles depending on the collaboration model in place. While Triple Helix III represents an optimal approach to fostering dynamic, co-evolutionary innovation, achieving this integration requires policy alignment, sustained collaboration mechanisms, and adaptive institutional structures. Addressing barriers such as governance inefficiencies, industry–academia disconnects, and regulatory constraints remain essential for optimizing innovation ecosystems and ensuring sustainable technological progress.

2.2. GIA Collaboration Impacts on the AV Sector

AVs are set to transform urban mobility and the automotive industry, raising technological, political, social, and legal challenges that require coordinated efforts across multiple sectors. GIA collaboration is essential to addressing these challenges and ensuring successful AV deployment [50]. As in broader GIA models, governments provide policy direction and funding, industries drive technological advancements, and academia contributes to research, knowledge transfer [52], and workforce development [53], and the collaboration among these three parties fosters long-term urban innovation [54] and social sustainability [55].

However, AV development faces barriers that hinder GIA collaboration. Tengilimoglu et al. [3] found that while stakeholders generally agree on key AV deployment factors, disagreements persist regarding operational constraints, infrastructure investment, and policy timing. Some industry actors advocate delaying investment until AV technology is fully mature, slowing down overall deployment. Gandia et al. [53] highlight how AV implementation requires localized strategies, yet fragmented actions among government, industry, and academia misalign infrastructure, policy, and technological advancements, limiting efficiency. Likewise, Tagliazucchi et al. [50] observed that while industry–academia collaboration in the AV field is often sporadic, structured mechanisms are needed to facilitate continuous knowledge transfer and sustained innovation.

Despite their technological expertise, universities play a limited role in AV commercialization. Krishnan & Jha [56] found that industry actors prioritize short-term engineering solutions over exploratory research, leading to weak academia–industry collaboration in AV innovation. Shou & Li [57] examined China’s BYD Company, which achieved innovation success but faced challenges such as over-reliance on government subsidies, fragmented industry structures, and weak academic research commercialization.

Government support is crucial in shaping AV deployment. Cohen & Cavoli [58] explored a laissez-faire AV adoption scenario and found that without government intervention, AV deployment could exacerbate congestion and accessibility disparities. Li et al. [59] emphasize that AV deployment depends on government-funded transport infrastructure, including communication networks and road systems. Governments use tax incentives and grants to reduce private-sector risks while ensuring broader social benefits [3]. Deng et al. [60] argue that governments should incentivize data contributors through tax relief, legal frameworks, and cybersecurity protections, ensuring trust and accessibility for both public and private stakeholders in AV development. Hansson [61] outlines key government responsibilities in AV regulation, including safety standards, liability frameworks, privacy policies, and infrastructure investments, highlighting governance’s multifaceted role.

While the literature has illuminated the importance of GIA collaboration in AV development, most empirical studies remain general, offering high-level diagnoses of barriers without providing granular insights into local interaction patterns. In Western contexts, the Triple Helix model has been widely applied to understand regional innovation governance—such as in the Netherlands and Sweden—where Etzkowitz and Ranga [62] conceptualize the interplay of knowledge, consensus, and innovation spaces to foster technology development at the regional level. Bergek [63], focusing on Sweden, analyzes how government agencies, firms, and universities interact within technological innovation systems in sectors including transport and energy. Mora et al. [64], through a bibliometric review of smart city research in the UK, Italy, and Spain, highlight increasing academic and policy interest in GIA configurations around digital and mobility infrastructure. However, few studies have applied the Triple Helix framework to investigate city-level dynamics in the AV sector within non-Western contexts. This study addresses that gap by offering an in-depth, city-specific analysis of GIA collaboration in Suzhou, China. It contributes to the literature by uncovering the constraints and mechanisms at play in a rapidly developing but underexamined urban AV ecosystem, offering both theoretical and practical insights into how Triple Helix dynamics unfold in an emerging market context.

3. Methodology

This study employs semi-structured interviews combined with thematic analysis to examine GIA collaboration in Suzhou’s AV sector. As noted in the Introduction, Suzhou was selected as the study site because its rapidly expanding AV sector, proactive policy environment, and diverse stakeholder landscape offer a strategically relevant and information-rich context for investigating city-level GIA collaboration. Semi-structured interviews were chosen for their flexibility, allowing an in-depth exploration of participant perspectives while maintaining a level of consistency across interviews [56,57]. This approach effectively captures nuanced insights into collaboration mechanisms, technological challenges, and commercialization processes and facilitates the identification of gaps in GIA cooperation that may impede sector growth.

A purposive sampling strategy was used to select five key informants who are influential decision-makers within Suzhou’s AV sector. The sample included one policymaker from the Suzhou municipal government responsible for AV development, two industry stakeholders from leading AV firms (one with a technical background and the other focused on business strategy), and two academic researchers from local universities specializing in AV technology. These informants were carefully selected for their expertise and pivotal roles in shaping AV policy, technological advancements, and industry–academia collaboration in the region. While the sample size was intentionally limited, the key stakeholders were accessed, making these key figures essential for uncovering valuable insights into collaboration dynamics and improvement opportunities.

Recruitment involved initial contact through emails and phone calls to introduce the study and its objectives. Over time, rapport was built through multiple WeChat discussions and informal tea chats, allowing for trust to develop and facilitating more open and insightful exchanges during the interviews. Interviews occurred between April and September 2024 through face-to-face interviews held in the participants’ offices, which fostered a natural and open dialog. Each interview lasted approximately 50 min, with informed consent obtained from all participants. The interviews were audio-recorded, resulting in a total of 4 h of recordings and over 60 pages of transcription notes. Transcriptions were produced using the transcription feature of Tencent Meeting (version V3.34.11.407) and were manually verified for accuracy and completeness.

For data analysis, thematic analysis was conducted to systematically identify and analyze patterns within the qualitative data [58]. Manual coding of the transcribed data began with initial themes drawn from the interview guide, focusing on collaboration mechanisms, technological barriers, and commercialization processes. An iterative process, including open coding to capture emergent themes, was then employed to refine and consolidate these themes into broader categories that reflect the key elements of GIA collaboration in Suzhou’s AV sector.

In addition, this study triangulates qualitative findings from stakeholder interviews with objective data from relevant AV policy documents. These documents provide external validation and contextual grounding for interpreting the participants’ perspectives.

4. Case Study: Suzhou’s GIA Collaborations for the AV Sector

4.1. Institutional and Policy Context

China’s AV sector is guided by a multi-tiered policy framework that prioritizes intelligent mobility as a strategic industrial goal. At the national level, the Intelligent and Connected Vehicle Innovation and Development Strategy [65] outlines milestones for conditional AV deployment by 2025 and large-scale, high-level automation by 2035. This ambition is reinforced by the national 14th Five-Year Plan [15], which designates intelligent connected vehicles as essential for advancing digital infrastructure and AI integration. To accelerate implementation, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), together with five other ministries, issued the Notice on Organizing Pilot Work for the Access and Road Traffic of Intelligent Connected Vehicles [66], establishing pilot zones for vehicle–road–cloud integration.

Suzhou has actively aligned with these national policy initiatives through robust local implementation. The city’s recent Action Plan for the Innovation Cluster of Suzhou’s Intelligent and Connected Vehicle Industry (2023–2025) [67] emphasizes scenario-based testing, infrastructure readiness, and cross-sector partnerships. Central to these local efforts is the High-Speed Rail New Town in Xiangcheng District, which has become a core innovation zone hosting major AV enterprises such as Baidu Apollo, CITIC Digital Technology, and Momenta [59]. Suzhou’s flagship initiative—the 5G Connected Vehicle Municipal Verification and Application Project—has attracted substantial investment totaling CNY 430 million [60]. As the only project of its scale in the Yangtze River Delta, it facilitates large-scale, real-world deployment and serves as a structured platform for GIA interaction.

This supportive policy environment has directly shaped the institutional conditions that structure GIA collaboration. Strategic governmental investments targeted financial incentives, and clearly articulated regulatory frameworks have attracted diverse stakeholders and fostered a vibrant AV ecosystem. Local universities contribute to foundational and applied research, although their integration into collaborative innovation processes remains somewhat uneven. Collectively, these elements—proactive governance, industrial dynamism, and academic potential—make Suzhou an exemplary case to explore how institutional contexts actively structure the mechanisms and effectiveness of GIA collaborations in practice.

4.2. Government Role in Industry Development

The local government of Suzhou has played a pivotal role in advancing the AV sector through a range of policies and initiatives aimed at stimulating technological innovation and fostering industry growth. A senior policymaker in the local government who is responsible for coordinating the city’s autonomous-vehicle strategy, drafting local testing regulations, and supervising pilot-zone approvals was interviewed. Since 2017, this interviewee has been deeply involved in crafting policies designed to position Suzhou as a leading hub for AV development. The government’s focus has been on creating an ecosystem that encourages innovation, with a particular emphasis on supporting AV technology firms. The following was explained:

“Government policies have created a favorable environment for AV’s development, particularly with the support for infrastructure and the testing of AV technologies. The funding opportunities for research and development are critical in sustaining the sector.” (A Senior Policymaker, Local Government)

These policies have successfully attracted numerous enterprises to Suzhou. Beyond fostering industry growth, the local government envisions AV development as a foundational component of the city’s broader transformation into a smart city. The interviewee emphasized that the government’s role extends beyond technological advancement; it is also focused on building an integrated and sustainable urban ecosystem where AV technologies are seamlessly incorporated into smart transportation networks. In this vision, a collaborative framework involving government, technology firms, and research institutions is essential to ensuring long-term development. The government is expected to play a central leadership role in facilitating cooperation among stakeholders and guiding policy directions to support the city’s sustainable growth. The policymaker noted the following:

“To truly advance the AV sector, we must lead and ensure cross-sector cooperation. The government cannot act in isolation. We need the expertise and resources of private enterprises, along with support from various public sectors such as Transportation, Industry and Information Technology, and Development and Reform Commission sectors to develop a fully integrated smart transport system.” (A Senior Policymaker, Local Government)

By positioning itself as a leader and enabler of GIA collaboration, the local government seeks to establish a sustainable and innovative-driven smart city, with AV technologies playing a crucial role in shaping future urban mobility and infrastructure planning.

However, despite the success of these policies and initiatives, some stakeholders highlighted challenges related to fragmented governance. A key industry representative observed the following:

“The government’s efforts are often hindered by the lack of coordination between districts. Different policies and support systems across the districts create confusion and slow down collaborative efforts.” (Senior stakeholder, CICT Connected and Intelligent Technologies Co., Ltd.)

His critique stems from the challenges that companies face when trying to take advantage of the supportive measures offered by the government. The lack of coordination between districts, each with its own policy framework and support mechanisms, not only creates confusion but also leads to redundancies and missed opportunities for companies that operate across different areas. For example, one district may offer financial incentives for AV licensing and testing, while another might focus on infrastructure development without a clear alignment between the two. This disjointed approach makes it difficult for firms to leverage resources efficiently and hampers the collaborative potential between local governments and the private sector.

This fragmentation, while not undermining the overall strength of governmental support, highlights the need for a more cohesive and unified strategy. Without a coordinated approach, companies face difficulties in navigating multiple, sometimes conflicting, regulations and policies across districts. This lack of alignment ultimately slows the pace of innovation, reduces the effectiveness of public–private partnerships, and creates inefficiencies that could otherwise be avoided. A more synchronized strategy could help maximize the potential of Suzhou’s AV ecosystem, fostering smoother collaboration and the more effective use of resources.

4.3. Industry Collaboration

Industry stakeholders indicated that while both local and international companies collaborate on AV projects, these partnerships tend to be short-term rather than strategic and long-term. Big firms like CICT have partnered on various aspects of AV development, such as vehicle–road communication systems and data-sharing frameworks. Based on its collaborative experience, one representative from CICT commented on the following:

“We have worked closely with various manufacturers and infrastructure companies, including Baidu, to develop smart traffic solutions and connected vehicle technology. These partnerships are essential for advancing specific technologies, but they often remain isolated and do not lead to cohesive, cross-sector collaboration. Each company focuses on their own component, whether it is vehicle communication, infrastructure integration, or data-sharing protocols, but there is not yet a unified effort to integrate these pieces into a comprehensive, city-wide smart transport system. This fragmented approach limits the potential for truly transformative, integrated solutions in the AV ecosystem.” (Senior stakeholder, CICT Connected and Intelligent Technologies Co.)

Local firms face challenges competing against larger national firms. Another stakeholder from Tianyi Transportation Technology Co. stressed the following:

“Local smaller firms are often at the forefront of innovation, but they struggle to compete for resources and recognition against larger national companies. To sustain and enhance their contributions to the AV sector, smaller tech firms need greater government support through targeted funding, incentives, and facilitated collaboration.” (Senior stakeholder and technician, Tianyi Transportation Technology Co.)

This disparity highlights a significant challenge for local enterprises within Suzhou’s AV ecosystem. The dominance of national firms in larger projects frequently sidelines local companies, making it difficult for them to secure necessary resources and recognition. Consequently, potentially impactful innovations from smaller firms often remain underutilized. Addressing this imbalance requires inclusive strategies designed to integrate local firms effectively into broader national initiatives, ensuring equitable access to funding, infrastructure, and strategic partnerships. Government and industry leaders must collaboratively develop policies and frameworks that empower local companies, enabling meaningful contributions to both regional and national AV advancements.

4.4. Academia’s Role in the AV Ecosystem:

The role of academia in Suzhou’s AV ecosystem is acknowledged, but it remains primarily focused on foundational research rather than applied technological advancements. Top-tier universities, such as Tsinghua University, engage actively in partnerships with leading industry firms, primarily due to their specialized expertise and established reputations. The following was noted by an industry interviewee:

“Our collaboration with Tsinghua University has been instrumental in advancing technological innovation, particularly in areas requiring deep technical expertise. Although we maintain our internal research capabilities, we rely on top-tier universities because of their specialized knowledge and proven track record in solving complex, technical challenges.” (Senior Stakeholder and Technician, Tianyi Transportation Technology Co.)

This observation highlights that industry–academia collaboration tends to favor prominent universities outside Suzhou, which possess strong existing ties with major industry players. Conversely, local universities in Suzhou have struggled to establish themselves as key contributors to applied AV development, often perceived as lagging behind in producing practically relevant research. An Associate Professor specializing in robotics and automation from a local university explained the following:

“Local universities frequently produce excellent theoretical research but rarely integrate applied AV technology into their core curricula. There is a clear disconnect between our academic outputs and the specific needs of the industry.” (Associate Professor, Soochow University in Suzhou)

Such a disconnect underscores a fundamental challenge within Suzhou’s AV ecosystem, where industry demands for immediate, application-oriented research remain largely unmet by local academic institutions. Research activities at these universities are typically grounded in conventional engineering disciplines or theoretical automation studies, providing a limited direct impact on real-world technological applications required by AV enterprises.

Another academic respondent, a Professor in AV software technologies, shared a similar perspective, highlighting the challenges of establishing local industry collaborations:

“Despite our active attempts to engage with industry partners, local research teams often find it difficult to secure meaningful collaborations. Larger firms in Suzhou generally prefer partnering with universities in cities like Shanghai or Wuhan, which have a more established history of industry-academia collaboration. Nevertheless, nurturing local industry-university partnerships is crucial for the sustained development of the AV industry here.” (Professor, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University in Suzhou)

Additionally, interviewees pointed out an imbalance in government funding priorities, which disproportionately favor direct technological fields—such as engineering and computer science—while social sciences and interdisciplinary research remain underfunded. Yet, addressing governance frameworks, user experience, public acceptance, and ethical considerations is equally essential for successful AV deployment. Even academics from technological fields recognize that a more balanced funding strategy, which includes support for both technical and social research, could greatly enhance the effectiveness of academic–industry collaboration.

To address these challenges, local universities need to transition their research focus from a purely theoretical exploration toward applied innovation that directly addresses industry needs. This shift requires stronger and more systematic collaboration frameworks between academia, industry, and government, including joint laboratories, collaborative research grants, and industry-influenced curricula. By aligning their research agendas closely with practical industry demands and participating actively in government-led innovation initiatives, local universities can significantly strengthen their contributions to Suzhou’s AV ecosystem.

5. Discussion

Our findings reveal a complex and evolving landscape of GIA collaboration in Suzhou’s AV sector. While the government aims for a highly interactive collaboration paradigm, aligning with the Triple Helix III model [27], the current situation falls between Triple Helix I, where the government maintains control, and Triple Helix II, where the industry operates independently while relying on policy support. This hybrid model reflects both the strengths and limitations of Suzhou’s approach, warranting a deeper examination of the gaps in coordination, industry collaboration, and academic engagement.

5.1. Government’s Role: Strong Support but Fragmented Coordination

The government’s role has been instrumental in shaping Suzhou’s AV sector through financial incentives, infrastructure investments, and targeted policy initiatives. However, despite this robust support, government–industry interactions remain predominantly transactional rather than deeply collaborative. Although firms leverage government incentives to enhance their technological capabilities, their involvement rarely extends to strategic policy planning or broader urban development initiatives. Etzkowitz [29] highlights that while government funding and policy frameworks are essential for fostering technological advancement, deeper collaboration is needed to align industry goals with long-term urban innovation.

A critical issue identified is fragmented governance across districts, resulting in inconsistent licensing, infrastructure support, and regulatory frameworks. Such misalignment complicates cross-district collaboration, restricting firms’ abilities to scale and integrate AV technologies city-wide [61]. While interview findings highlight persistent challenges related to fragmented governance across Suzhou’s districts, recent municipal policy efforts appear to acknowledge and partially address these concerns. For example, Suzhou’s Measures for Promoting the Development of the Intelligent Vehicle Networking and New Energy Vehicle Industries emphasize integrated “vehicle–road–cloud” development, city-level investment mechanisms, and inter-district collaboration through shared cloud control platforms [68]. Although these policies do not explicitly mention governance fragmentation, they reflect an institutional push toward coordinated and cross-regional innovation. This contrast suggests that while policy intentions aim to streamline AV governance, implementation gaps may persist at the operational level, reinforcing the importance of triangulating interview-based insights with formal policy analysis. As Reis et al. [55] argue, effective governance models should facilitate collaborative innovation across sectors, ensuring that technological advancements like AVs contribute to urban sustainability. Without a unified city-wide AV policy, bureaucratic hurdles undermine innovation and operational efficiency. To address these challenges, Suzhou requires a unified governance model that harmonizes district-level policies, reduces redundancies, and streamlines resource allocation, fostering greater collaboration and accelerating AV adoption across the city.

5.2. Industry Collaboration: Limited Strategic Alliances

While Suzhou has developed a growing AV cluster, industry collaborations remain fragmented and largely project-based, with a notable absence of long-term strategic alliances, especially involving local companies. Large national firms tend to partner with well-established research institutions outside Suzhou, particularly in Shanghai and Wuhan, while local firms struggle to integrate into these influential networks. As discussed, structured alliances are needed to enable sustained knowledge exchange and technological advancement [54].

The limited strategic depth of current collaborations reduces opportunities for sustained knowledge exchange and broader industry cohesion [69]. Many local enterprises specialize in niche technological components but lack a strategic framework aligning their contributions with the overall industry trajectory. Therefore, fostering structured, long-term partnerships—particularly among local enterprises—would enhance Suzhou’s role as an AV innovation hub, ensuring smaller firms can effectively shape the sector’s future.

This imbalance further highlights a critical challenge: smaller local firms frequently find themselves marginalized in competition for resources and recognition against large-scale national companies. Consequently, valuable innovations often go unnoticed, necessitating more inclusive frameworks. The active integration of local companies through equitable access to funding, infrastructure, and partnerships is essential for a balanced and dynamic AV ecosystem.

Additionally, a persistent lack of common technical standards among AV manufacturers poses a major obstacle to both system integration and ecosystem scale-up. As firms develop proprietary platforms in isolation, the absence of shared communication and safety protocols curbs cross-platform interoperability, vehicle-to-vehicle coordination, and infrastructure compatibility. Such fragmentation impedes the creation of unified smart transport systems and, by extension, weakens the collaborative innovation envisioned in the Triple Helix model. Addressing this challenge requires more than industry-led standardization; it also demands decisive government leadership that embeds interoperability requirements into technical regulations and approval processes, convenes multi-stakeholder working groups to co-develop open interface protocols, and links fiscal incentives such as tax credits and pilot-zone access to demonstrable compliance with the agreed standards [70].

5.3. Academia’s Marginal Role and the Need for Integration

Academia’s involvement in Suzhou’s AV ecosystem remains limited, primarily focused on foundational research rather than practical, application-driven innovations. Although prestigious institutions like Tsinghua University have meaningful collaborations with industry leaders, local universities in Suzhou remain peripheral to direct industry engagements. This marginalization stems from both industry preferences and uneven government funding. Academic funding prioritizes technical disciplines such as engineering and computer science, overlooking social science research that is critical for governance, ethics, user experience, and public acceptance.

This imbalance restricts academia’s capability to meaningfully contribute to AV-related policy and human-centered research [71]. Without targeted incentives promoting applied research collaborations between local universities and industry, academia will struggle to establish a significant foothold in Suzhou’s AV landscape. A balanced funding strategy integrating technological and social sciences would enrich the understanding of AV deployment challenges and foster effective industry–academia partnerships.

Recent studies further highlight the critical role of interdisciplinary academic engagement in AV governance. For example, Gros et al. [72] advocate hybrid AI and augmented utilitarianism to address ethical complexities, while Shah and Guven [73] emphasize culturally informed frameworks to reflect public values. These insights show that integrating social science and ethical expertise into GIA structures can enhance public trust and policy relevance. Suzhou’s GIA framework should, therefore, create clearer pathways for such expertise to shape AV development.

5.4. Leadership and the Dynamic Nature of AV Development

A key tension emerging from the findings is the competing perceptions of leadership between the government and technology firms. The government sees itself as the primary orchestrator of Suzhou’s AV development, crafting policies to regulate and coordinate growth, while AV firms view technological innovation as the primary driver of industry progress. This divergence reflects broader debates in innovation governance, where tensions arise over the control of technological trajectories [74].

The Triple Helix model suggests that leadership in innovation ecosystems is not fixed but dynamic [27,75], shifting across different phases of development. In Suzhou’s case, technology firms initially drive innovation, followed by increasing government intervention to provide structure and policy support. Academia, in later stages, can play a critical role in refining governance and ensuring the long-term societal integration of AV technologies. Recognizing this evolving leadership structure could help mitigate tensions and promote a more adaptive governance approach.

5.5. Addressing Challenges: Toward a Cohesive Triple Helix III Model

To effectively address the identified challenges and move toward a more interactive Triple Helix III model, Suzhou must prioritize the development of a cohesive and unified governance structure. Currently, fragmented district-level policies create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, hinder the efficient use of resources, and impede cross-sector collaboration. Implementing a city-wide AV strategic framework could harmonize regulatory standards, streamline infrastructure investments, and simplify licensing processes, fostering a unified, innovative ecosystem. Establishing a dedicated municipal-level coordination body or committee—comprising representatives from GIA actors—could facilitate inter-district alignment and accelerate AV deployment by ensuring policies and resources are effectively synchronized across all stakeholders.

To implement this, Suzhou could establish a “Suzhou AV Coordination Committee” under the leadership of the Municipal Development and Reform Commission, comprising senior representatives from key administrative districts, the Bureau of Industry and Information Technology, and the Municipal Transport Bureau. This interdepartmental body would be tasked with harmonizing cross-district regulatory frameworks, coordinating infrastructure development, and facilitating joint policy implementation. To ensure sustained collaboration and resolve potential inter-jurisdictional tensions, the committee could adopt a rotating leadership system and shared funding mechanisms, which would help align the strategic interests of different districts and foster mutual accountability. In parallel, a centralized AV data platform managed by the Suzhou Industrial Internet Innovation Center could enable real-time information exchange, promote transparency among stakeholders, and minimize redundant investments across pilot zones.

However, effective coordination also requires addressing systemic incentives within China’s governance model. The administrative contracting system often assigns AV development targets to district governments, encouraging competition over collaboration. These targets emphasize tangible outputs such as infrastructure completion or test mileage, favoring local-level investments over integrated, city-wide planning. Compounding this, GDP-based performance evaluations further incentivize short-term, hardware-driven initiatives while sidelining long-term software and institutional integration. As a result, cross-sectoral innovation and shared governance mechanisms remain underdeveloped. To counter these structural disincentives, Suzhou’s governance framework should embed cooperation-oriented performance indicators—rewarding inter-district alignment, joint planning, and multi-actor participation. Establishing city-level coordination platforms, coupled with shared budget mechanisms, could also mitigate fragmented implementation and encourage system-wide innovation.

Addressing the limited strategic collaboration among industry players is equally critical. While Suzhou has successfully attracted numerous national and international AV companies, collaborative initiatives remain largely short-term and narrowly focused. Establishing longer-term industry alliances would enable sustained technological innovation [76] and knowledge-sharing among firms, particularly supporting local companies that currently face difficulties when competing for resources and recognition. One actionable strategy could involve the creation of AV-focused industry clusters or innovation hubs where large firms partner with smaller local innovators, facilitated by government incentives such as co-funding schemes or tax breaks for collaborative research. Regular cross-sector forums, industry conferences, and joint demonstration projects would also encourage structured dialog and collaboration, fostering deeper, more enduring partnerships and enabling local firms to scale innovations more effectively.

The disconnect between academia and industry presents another barrier to achieving a cohesive Triple Helix III model. Local academic institutions have predominantly emphasized theoretical research, limiting their practical contributions to industry-driven innovation. To bridge this gap, government and industry stakeholders should collaborate to realign academic research agendas with applied innovative goals. Initiatives such as establishing joint research and innovation centers, university—industry collaboration grants, and industry-driven curricula development programs would help local universities integrate applied research directly into their academic core. Additionally, targeted government funding for social science research, including studies on public acceptance, governance models, ethics, and user experience, would ensure a comprehensive understanding of AV deployment challenges, enhancing academia’s strategic value to industry and government.

Finally, acknowledging the dynamic nature of leadership roles among government, industry, and academia is essential for advancing toward an interactive Triple Helix III model. While the government currently plays a prominent orchestrating role, industry and academia must also be empowered to actively influence strategic decision-making processes. Recognizing this dynamic, evolving leadership structure and clearly defining pathways for stakeholder input, such as advisory councils, cross-sector working groups, and public–private–academic partnership platforms, would enable more adaptive and responsive governance practices. By actively facilitating these inclusive structures, Suzhou can create an innovation ecosystem that continuously adapts to emerging technological advancements and shifting market conditions, positioning itself as a global AV leader and a model of integrated smart city governance [3,6].

6. Conclusions

This study examines GIA collaboration within the AV sector, highlighting both achievements and persistent challenges. Guided by the Triple Helix framework, our findings indicate that despite strong governmental support in terms of funding, policies, and infrastructure, current collaboration patterns in emerging AV innovation ecosystems typically remain fragmented and transitional—positioned between a government-driven (Triple Helix I) and industry-centric (Triple Helix II) configuration. Notably, academic participation often remains peripheral, limiting deeper, sustained, and integrated collaboration crucial for long-term innovation and societal integration. Transitioning toward a more interactive, balanced Triple Helix III model is, therefore, essential for sustainable AV sector development.

Theoretically, this research enriches the existing discourse on GIA collaboration by highlighting the dynamic and evolving nature of interactions among government, industry, and academia in the emerging AV sector. Our findings emphasize that collaboration is not static; rather, it requires adaptive leadership, with different actors assuming prominent roles throughout various stages of innovation. The study notably demonstrates the importance of temporal and sectoral fluidity in leadership, which is particularly relevant to rapidly evolving technological industries where government involvement and industry innovation dynamically intersect.

Practically, this study identifies critical barriers hindering sustainable development for the AV ecosystem. Key challenges include fragmented governance across districts, characterized by inconsistent AV regulations, uneven infrastructure support, and limited cross-district collaboration, complicating industry innovation and restricting scalable testing and deployment. Industry collaboration remains predominantly short-term and project-based, lacking strategic alliances essential for long-term knowledge exchange and sector-wide integration. Furthermore, local firms struggle to access necessary resources and networks due to competition from larger national enterprises, creating an imbalanced innovation landscape. Academia, despite its presence, remains marginally involved due to preferential industry collaborations with top-tier universities outside Suzhou and an imbalance in government funding that overly emphasizes technological disciplines while overlooking social sciences crucial to the comprehensive deployment of AV technologies.

To address these challenges and transition toward the Triple Helix III model, strategic policy actions are essential. First, municipalities should develop a unified, city-wide AV policy framework that harmonizes fragmented policies, streamlines infrastructure support and facilitates coordinated governance. Second, the government should actively foster structured, long-term industry alliances, particularly by supporting regional innovation clusters, incentivizing inclusive partnerships involving local enterprises, and providing targeted resources to smaller firms. Third, the government and industry must collaborate to realign local academic research toward applied, industry-driven innovation, broadening research funding strategies to incorporate social sciences alongside technological disciplines. Overall, fostering a cohesive, interactive collaboration ecosystem among government, industry, and academia will not only accelerate AV technological advancements but also support broader sustainable urban development, thereby contributing significantly to smart city initiatives and regional competitiveness.

This research primarily relied on qualitative insights from a limited number of key informants, suggesting a need for future studies incorporating broader samples, quantitative assessments, and comparative analyses across different geographic contexts. While the purposive sample of five key informants yielded rich insights, the limited number of interviews constrains the generalizability of the findings. Future research could benefit from a broader and more diverse sample to validate and expand upon these results. Additionally, future research should explore longitudinal analyses of GIA collaboration dynamics, examining their evolving impacts on technological innovation, sustainability outcomes, and urban development. Comparative studies across multiple cities or countries could further validate and expand upon these findings, enhancing their generalizability and relevance to diverse innovation contexts worldwide.