Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Aldo Geuna

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 21

									    University-Industry Collaboration

                                 Aldo Geuna
                                 Department of Economics
                                 University of Turin
                                 &
                                 Grenoble Ecole of Management




1     DIME-Bathwick Wokshop, Birkbeck College, June 2010
    Content

       The university-industry complex: A yet poorly
        understood system.

       The governance: different system at work.




2
    The university-industry complex




3
    Share HERD financed by Business




4
    What do we know?

       30 years after the start of the
        institutionalisation (with policy support) of
        uni-ind relationships we know something but
        not yet enough to have a consolidated
        understanding (conflicting results):
        –   Field/sector effect
        –   Researcher characteristics
        –   University characteristics
        –   Firm characteristics
5
    Field/sector

       Most of the evidence is based on hightech industries
        and especially biomedical; in most recent years also
        other fields (engineering) have been increasingly
        studied; Fields with most intense collaborations.
       We still fail to recognize the importance of non
        hightech fields: see for example Food;
       We know very little of the interactions in services
        (important in the UK case);



6
    Field/sector

       Across fields/sectors there are extremely important
        differences in:
        –   type of knowledge,
        –   the codification of knowledge,
        –   incentives and reward system,
        –   supply or demand led, etc…




7
    Researcher Characteristics

       Recent wave of studies at the individual
        level:
        –   Previous experience;
        –   Entrepreneurial capacity in raising funding (public
            and private);
        –   Seniority and tenure ~
        –   Male ~
        –   Teaching ?

8
    University Characteristics

       Less clear cut results:
        –   Type (disciplinary orientation, local development focus) of
            the UNI;
        –   Environment of the UNI;
        –   Culture (more is done in the centre/department and more is
            accepted and more will be done …. entrepreneurial UNI);
        –   Quality of the centre/department +/-
        –   Existence of formal infrastructure of KT ?
        –   Size ?
       Why these results?


9
     Firm Characteristics I

        Large literature based on surveys results
         (Yale, Pace, CIS, KNOW, etc….)
        The size of the firm affect collaboration:
         – The larger the more collaboration.
         but
         – Small biotech firms and spin-offs.

        The R&D investment and/or R&D intensity:
         –   Absorptive capacity.

10
     Firm Characteristics II

        Openness of the firm (+):
         –   Searching, screening and signalling
         –   The role of demand !!!
     
     
         –

     
     
        Distance matters (but not always and not for all!).

11
     What do we know?

        30 years after ….. many policy initiatives to
         create more incentives for universities (less
         so for companies) to collaborate:
         –   Industry still only accounts in most countries for
             around 6% of university research funding (up just
             0.7% since 1991)




12
     % of HERD financed by industry




13
     Research Income




14
     The governance of Univ-Ind
           relationships




15
     Governance systems

        There are two different governance systems of the
         interactions between academic and industrial scientists:
         1. those mediated by universities for example through their
            technology transfer offices or knowledge transfer organisations:
            institutional collaborations
         2. those that take place via direct contacts between the academic
            scientists and the company: personal contractual collaborations




16
     Governance of KT

     1. Institutionalisation of KT:
        –   Creation (or development were they existed previously as
            liaison offices) of Knowledge Transfer Organisations
            (KTOs) within the uni responsible for the management of
            KT activities;
        –   Downsizing of company labs and small companies R&D;
        –   Service and research contracts;
        –   New roles for the uni (economic development);
        –   Professors considered more as employees.



17
     Governance of KT
      1. The traditional “personal contractual
          collaborations” model:
            Individual scientist;
            Company R&D lab;
            Advisers / problem solvers informal (though paid) trust
             related relationships;
            Secondment to large labs (see the Bell Labs history);
            High level of professor independence;
            based on some form of trust, sometimes also due to
             sharing of the same educational background (e.g.
             alumni associations).

18
     Governance Systems:
     Personal contractual collaborations

        Not just informal interactions, as the literature often
         assumes, but usually formalized through contracts and
         agreements.
        Most often subsumed under consultancy and always
         assumed to be “soft”. BUT not only applied work also
         original research not soft consultancy.




19
     Institutional collaborations




20
      Personal contractual collaborations




21   Overall 17.5% of the sample has had a collaboration with at least one univ

								
To top