1 / 17

Maria Theresa Norn, Ph.D . and Head of Analysis , The Think Tank DEA

What do we know about university-industry collaboration ?. Insights from research and policy analysis. Maria Theresa Norn, Ph.D . and Head of Analysis , The Think Tank DEA. How do firms and universities collaborate ?. ”The tip of the iceberg ”

jalene
Download Presentation

Maria Theresa Norn, Ph.D . and Head of Analysis , The Think Tank DEA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What do weknowaboutuniversity-industrycollaboration? • Insights from research and policy analysis • Maria Theresa Norn, Ph.D. and Head of Analysis, The Think Tank DEA

  2. How do firms and universitiescollaborate?

  3. ”The tip of the iceberg” e.g. <10 pct. of all directinteraction* Tech transfer (transfer of IP; spin-out firms) R&D collaboration • Accounts for most directinteraction *2 • A two-way (not one-way) ”flow” *3 • Oftenbased on long-lasting personalrelationships *4 Contract research Consulting Teachingcollaboration For social sciences & humanities:contract research & consultingare the most frequentmechanisms *5 Stafftraining/exchange Informalcollaboration Dissemination of new research, techniques etc. Indirect & difficult to measure the value of – but important *6 Education of new graduates * Agrawal & Henderson 2002; *2D’Este & Patel 2007; *3 e.g. Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch 1998; *4Bishopet al. 2010; *5 Olmos-Peñuela et al. 2014; *6 Salter & Martin 2001

  4. Whycollaborate with universities?

  5. Whatcanfirmsgain from collaboration? E.g. * Abramovsky et al. 2008; Becker & Dietz 2004; Belderbos et al. 2003; Sampson 2007; *2Frenz & Ietto-Gillies 2009; Gemünden et al. 1992; Laursen & Salter 2006; Love & Roper 2004; *3Freel& Harrison 2006; Huang & Yu 2011; Robin & Schubert. 2013; *4Belderboset al. 2004; Lööf & Broström 2008

  6. Whenarefirms more likely to gainfrom it? Bishop et al. 2010

  7. Whendo firmscollaborate with universities?

  8. Academia • Access to funding • Insightintoindustryneeds and inputs to research agenda • Access to industryskills& facilities • Develop / test practicalapplications of research • Training of young researchers, many of whom go to industry Key motivations for collaboration • Firms • Stay up-to-date on research / strengthen ties to academia • Gainaccess to research-basedknowledge and methods • Access to (international) network of researchers & students • Signal thatit’s an innovative firm • Retain (academic) staffmembers A.o. Lee 2000; Hall et al. 2003; Tether 2002; Panagopoulos 2003; DEA & DI 2014 Fra forskningtil innovation

  9. Whendo firmscollaborate with universities? • When they are in industries that depend heavily on science * • Whentheyarebig - & have more resources for long-term R&D *2 • To explore new / uncertain R&D agendas *3 • To develop new-to-market (not new-to-firm) innovations *4 • To solvespecific problems thatrequirescientificinsight*5 • To do research which is far from the market (pre-competitive) *6 * Pavitt 1984; *2Fontana et al. 2006; Mohnen & Hoareau 2003; Negassi 2004; *3Bercovitz& Feldman 2007; Hall et al. 2003; *4Tether 2002; *5Piga & Vivarelli 2004; Rosenberg 1994; *6 Link & Tassey 1989; Panagopolous 2003

  10. Often, firms do not gainwhatthey had hoped from theircollaborationswithuniversities

  11. Whatcan go wrong? • Keybarriers and challenges

  12. The ”usualsuspects” Bureaucracy Differentgoals Time horizons Conflictsover IP Long-term vs. short-term Publish vs. profit Degrees of openness Ownership, compensation, value of IP Onboth sides? ”Window of opportunity” Inspired by Bruneel et al. (2010); also draws on findings from DEA (2013, 2014)

  13. ”Ad hoc” management of collaborations “... companies’ collaborations with universities are often pursued in an ad hoc, piecemeal manner, led by individual initiatives rather than any corporate strategy. Managers who would never dream of leaving their customer or supplier relationships to chance may take an ad hoc approach to their university relationships…” * • Top levelcommitment? High management priority? • Clear strategy & resources for follow-up in case of success? * Perkmann & Salter 2012; see also DEA & DI 2014. Fra forskningtilinnovation

  14. Whatelsecan go wrong? • Whenacademicsareunaware of contractual obligations (i.e. re. publication, sharing of data with other researchers etc.) • Late involvement of companies in designing joint projects • Poor alignment of expectations prior to the project (expected outputs, division of labor, key milestones etc.) • Insufficient validation/testing of key (academic) findings • Lack of flexibility in project design/management DEA 2013. Fra forskningtilfaktura; DEA & DI 2014. Fra forskningtil innovation

  15. Whathelps? • Prior collaborationexperiencereducesIP/admin. conflicts * • Trust amongcollaborators* - buildtrust and mutualinsightthroughe.g. mobility of staff, joint training, dualaffiliations etc. • Focus on buildingstrongrelationships and (long-term) sharedvalue:collaboratealong multiple channels *, e.g. consulting & contract research, whichcanlead to closercollaboration** • Reduce”ad hoc” management of collaborations*** – e.g. involve top management from both parties in negotiations; alignexpectations; professional project managers etc. * Bruneel et al. 2010; ** Perkmann & Walsh 2009; *** Perkmann& Salter 2012

  16. IDEA LAB • GRAND CHALLENGE • EXTENDED WORKBENCH • DEEP EXPLORATION Choose the right model for the goal • Put secrecyaside to developideas & contacts • To attract new partners, buildrelationships, and/or generate new options • E.g. simple contracts, opencalls • Jointlycreate a new knowledge base to bewidelyshared • To further a research agenda • E.g. industryconsortiaoruniversity centers • Workrapidlyonproprietary solutions • To solvenear-term problems • E.g. consulting, contract research or student projects • Long-term, in-depthcollaboration • To tackle fundamental challenges, access new areas of expertise etc. • E.g. university center sponsorship, framework agreements Based on Perkmann & Salter 2012

  17. CONTACT DETAILS Maria Theresa Norn Twitter @mtnorn E-mail mtn@dea.nu Thankyou for your attention

More Related