Search results

The paper aims to identify the requisite attributes and organisation to be displayed by a research university in order to engage successfully in collaborative research with industry partners.

The conceptual framework contrasts the traditional public funding model against the requirements of the “triple helix” model of government‐university‐industry research funding. The framework supports the exploration of a case study of a long‐standing and successful joint research partnership, the Dundee‐Kinases Consortium, which links a world‐class life sciences research centre and a group of global pharmaceutical companies.

The case study provides a starting point, and additional case examinations will confirm the role of resource competences and organisational capabilities in facilitating performance by way of knowledge generation and transfer between partners.

The design and leadership of the consortium achieves vital performance outcomes, namely: accelerating the production of new knowledge about cell signalling processes relating to serious diseases; and faster transfer of new knowledge into drug development processes of pharmaceutical companies. The development of key enabling capabilities by the university, allied with routines for academic‐industry researcher interface, are essential elements of the partnering design.

The paper demonstrates that university‐industry partnerships build on government‐university funding, that university‐industry relationships foster new university capabilities, and moreover, that academic publication is not displaced by the requirements of industry partners.

The purpose of this paper is to study the triple helix (TH) of Chinese university‐industry‐government relationships.

Following an evolution path of TH in China, the relations among the actors for innovation have been analyzed and then it is realized that it is not university‐government‐academe relations, but “university‐industry‐government relations”.

The paper points out some limitations and flaws of university‐industry‐academy and brings forward the evolutionary path to TH of university‐industry‐government collaboration and development to cope with these practical and theoretical problems.

The author asserts that university‐industry‐government should be affirmed, not university‐industry‐academy in China for truth, which can dialogue with international academic circles.

As the complexity and scope of technical and social challenges increase, solutions to those challenges must be addressed by collaborative research and intellectual capital sharing efforts involving multiple organizations. One prominent type of research collaborative is the government-university-industry R&D partnership, an organizational form found in many countries. These collaboratives pose special management challenges, as they must combine the efforts of researchers coming from very different institutional and organizational cultures in order to capitalize their own intellectual capital. Many such partnerships have failed due to the inability to bridge these cultural gaps. The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for establishing and managing these partnerships, using principles and constructs drawn from institutional theory, organizational learning, alliance theory, and innovation management.

The examples of the NASA Laboratories, which are incubating several companies, are analyzed to show how this framework can highlight key attributes of successful research collaboratives.

The recurring pattern from these diverse case studies shows that the presence of internal and external champions, appropriate technology, and patient risk capital make a difference in winning in a competitive environment. However, part of the same pattern perhaps is the lack of any identifiable recipes for success - critical factors appear to be situation specific.

In light of the findings from the seven case studies the authors presented, they recommend using a hybrid portfolio approach in assessing the success of technology transfer and commercialization efforts.

This paper aims to present a general framework for fostering research collaboration and knowledge flow between university and industry in Thailand.

With the aim of comprehending complex interactions of the university‐industry (U‐I) linkage, the adopted research methodology for collecting data is based on a combination of various approaches, such as qualitative methods encompassing in‐depth interviews, researcher participations and various documents analysis.

A framework (Government, University, Industry and Networks: G‐U‐I‐N) was developed encompassing the main factors that could make U‐I relationships more successful in Thailand. Knowledge management is an important enabler of this framework.

This paper presents the various elements (enablers) necessary for an emerging country, such as Thailand, to establish or strengthen successful collaboration and research projects between universities and industries in order to remain competitive.

Pressures from globalization and the knowledge‐based economy are transforming the traditional role of universities. Universities are being targeted by policy makers because they are the largest “knowledge‐based” institutions in the regions. They have concluded that universities will aid economic regeneration if they disseminate their knowledge and expertise through industry linked partnerships. The paper argues that this is a rationally driven economic strategic plan which fails to acknowledge that the alliance process is a very high risk strategy at the level of implementation, with reports of as many as two thirds failing. The direct causal link between universities and economic regeneration is contentious. The paper calls for greater understanding of the complex partnership process by drawing on the strategic alliance literature on how to minimize risk. It critically analyses the case of a long established partnership between university‐industry‐government – the teaching company scheme. Important governance issues are identified followed by an analysis of the two stages in the process of partner selection and implementation. The process is promoted as an exemplar to inform the increasing number of public/private sector partnerships.

The purpose of this research paper is to explore innovation activity between the three institutional spheres of government, universities and industry in the Palestinian MAPs sector, with the aim of supporting the growth of the sector through the THM.

The research study employed a qualitative exploratory design. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants from the three spheres of the THM related to the agricultural sector. Content analysis was conducted on the data obtained from the interviews, followed by comparative analysis.

Some elements of the THM are present in the Palestinian MAPs sector, but others are missing, preventing its success. An effective policy is an important prerequisite for a THM to survive and thrive. There is a need to clarify the rules of engagement in terms of collaboration between the three institutional spheres. To promote innovation in the sector, there is a need to empower the farmers and cooperatives, improve farming system efficiency, upgrade distributors to logistic service providers, and build hybrid processing models.

The role of government is to apply policy to facilitate relations and exchanges between the three spheres. Industry possesses the motivation to invest in high-growth potential sectors. Universities could take the opportunity to establish its presence and fine-tune its portfolio of tasks so that industry is aware of these tasks and sees value in them.

The paper discusses the university–industry–government relationships in the framework of a developing and unstable economy such as Palestine.

This paper aims to examine the strategic role of world-class universities and the international academic profession in the regionalisation project of China’s Greater Bay Area (GBA). It illustrates the way in which the case of the GBA regionalisation project offers a potentially rich empirical example for adding contextual understanding to the literature of the Triple Helix model, which largely draws on inductive theorising from western successful innovation cases. The GBA regionalisation processes will provide a wealth of empirical cases for identifying circumstances that address tensions and increase interactions in the Triple Helix relationship of university, government and industry for fostering knowledge synergies.

Focusing on the case of Hong Kong, it engages in policy and stakeholder analysis and addresses three key research questions: What are the competitive advantages and potential strategic role of Hong Kong's universities and academic profession in the regionalisation of innovation systems in the GBA? What is the role of the governments in the regionalisation processes? What are the expected opportunities and challenges offered by the GBA policy initiatives for the future development of Hong Kong’s universities and academic profession?

Hong Kong, given its status as an international finance centre and global city with intense internationalisation and established judicial system operated by the rule of law, will contribute to the GBA development by leveraging on its edge in scientific research and development and international networks of academic research through the world-class academic profession. Scientists and researchers in the city, possessing the competitive advantages of basic research and international partnerships, are highly regarded by the central government. The engagement of Hong Kong’s scientific talents, can play an important role in achieving China’s aspiration of becoming a global technology power.

Analysis of this article implies that the GBA concept is currently China’s ambitious but vague economic plan. The opportunities in which key node cities and knowledge/ innovation clusters will capture and capitalise from the regional ‘co-opetitive” ’entrepreneurial ecosystem are still unclear. The future of the GBA regionalisation is so dynamic and open-ended that grounded concepts related to the governance innovation/ discourse of ‘one country two systems’ and social connectedness and capitalisation with Chinese characteristics will help in making sense of the contextualisation of a Chinese regional innovation system and enhancing the sophistication of reconceptualisation of the Triple Helix model.

This article will add to the literature some novel contextualised knowledge about the GBA’s potential triple-helix relationship between government-university-industry in the 21st century. The empirical example of China’s GBA will also shed light on a new understanding of the role of international social capital in the entrepreneurial knowledge economy, dynamics between basic and applied research, and a synergistic interface between regionalisation and national innovation system.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the methods and findings of a pilot study which applied bibliometrics and webometrics to examine collaboration in Malaysian biotechnology.

The research applied bibliometric and webometric methods to publications and web sites affiliated with Malaysian institutions. The bibliometric analysis focused on biotechnology‐related journal articles indexed in Web of Knowledge. The webometric analysis examined the web sites of top biotechnology institutions generated in the bibliometric analysis. Collaboration behaviour was assessed in three ways: intra‐institutional versus inter‐institutional; national versus international collaboration; and by type of institution collaboration according to the triple helix model.

Findings of the pilot study, which applied bibliometric and webometric analyses to a limited sample, indicate that the methodologies will collect the desired data for a more extensive study.

The quantitative research results describe the collaboration evident in publications and web sites, but not why it has happened in such a way.

The methodologies provide a framework for similar research exploring the impacts of collaboration in an e‐research environment. The methodology is innovative and practical in terms of the combined use of bibliometric and webometric analyses.

This is one of few studies that has examined collaboration using both bibliometric and webometric methods, and elements of the methodology appear to be unique to the study. The methodologies will contribute to an emerging body of literature that explores the nature of research productivity and research collaboration.

The purpose of this paper is to provide information about the long-term ex-post impacts of Vision 2023 technology foresight (TF) on the defense sector and to identify critical success factors (CSFs) of impactful foresight.

In the present research, a theory-based evaluation approach was adopted with the logic-model of defense TF to identify the intended outcomes, impacts and leading mechanisms. The impact assessment framework developed by Johnston, R. (2012) was adopted to identify (un)intended impacts and possible measures.

TF had some effects on technological developments, foresight capacity and capability and skills on the sector. The overall impact was assessed at the “some contribution” level with 2.9 out of 5.0 points. It contributed to the development of science technology and innovation (STI) policies and research and development programs, awareness-raising in STI, increase in cooperation between government-university-industry and the development of foresight culture. However, the impacts were more visible in the early years of TF. Additionally, country/sector-specific CSFs were identified. In consequence, it was proposed to measure the maturity of strategic technologies with technology readiness level as a tangible indicator.

According to the authors, this is the first study to assess the long-term ex-post impact of TF in defense. An instrument was developed to assess TF’s contribution to impact measures. The constructs and weights of the instrument differentiated from the adopted framework/schema reflecting the national/sectoral context of TF. Additionally, the study revealed country/sector-specific CSFs and new tangible impact measures.

The purpose of this paper is to review the answers to the question posed in the introduction to the themed issue: how can effective university‐industry partnerships be developed?

The paper consolidates the findings of various studies featuring in this theme issue on effective university‐industry partnerships. It addresses the aspects which contribute to effective partnerships and also challenges the issues around such partnerships.

The paper discusses the range of best practices for building effective university‐industry partnerships.

There are lessons for industry, universities and policy makers.

The paper provides multiple perspectives on university‐industry partnerships from various geographies.