Search results

Firms tend to transfer more knowledge in technology joint ventures compared to contractual technology agreements. Using insights from new institutional economics, this chapter explores to what extent the alliance governance association with interfirm knowledge transfer is sensitive to an evolving industry norm of collaboration connected to the logic of open innovation. The chapter examines 1,888 dyad-year observations on firms engaged in technology alliances in the U.S. information technology industry during 1980–1999. Using fixed effects linear models, it analyzes longitudinal changes in the alliance governance association with interfirm knowledge transfer, and how such changes vary in magnitude across bilateral versus multipartner alliances, and across computers, telecommunications equipment, software, and microelectronics subsectors. Increases in industry-level alliance activity during 1980–1999 improved the knowledge transfer performance of contractual technology agreements relative to more hierarchical equity joint ventures. This effect was concentrated in bilateral rather than multipartner alliances, and in the software and microelectronics rather than computers and telecommunications equipment subsectors. Therefore, an evolving industry norm of collaboration may sometimes make more arms-length governance of a technology alliance a credible substitute for equity ownership, which can reduce the costs of interfirm R&D. Overall, the chapter shows that the performance of material practices that constitute innovation ecosystems, such as interfirm technology alliances, may differ over time subject to prevailing institutional norms of open innovation. This finding generates novel implications for the literatures on alliances, open innovation, and innovation ecosystems.

University-industry collaboration yields numerous advantages resulting in potential benefits in funding research and innovation. Despite the numerous benefits, there are various perceived disadvantages of such collaboration especially in the field of child and adolescent psychiatry in prominent academic institutes in London, UK. The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions, opinions, beliefs and attitudes of the academics and clinicians in an academic university department towards industry collaboration.

Two methods were applied, quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative method used an online questionnaire of four-point Likert-Scale, the link of which was emailed to 80 members of the department with a response rate of 32%. The qualitative method included a one-to-one interview with eight researchers from the department to garner in-depth information on the attitude of researchers in child and adolescent psychiatry towards industry collaboration.

The online questionnaire was completed by 26 researchers, the vast majority perceived industry as biased to favour their product and as having a bad or mixed reputation. One-on-one interviews with eight prominent researchers allowed us to share their perception and attitude towards industry collaboration, although the researchers believe that availability of funding was the major advantage of working in collaboration with industry, many did not know how to access such grants and some raised concerns about industry’s record of presenting partial results.

Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalisability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further.

This paper will shed light on how prominent researchers perceive collaboration with industry.

Although researchers are very reluctant to collaborate with industry because of its public opinion and sometimes unethical and lack of integrity among the industry, with rigorous ethical guidelines and policies, the pharmaceutical industry can be a potential and significant source of funding of high-quality research and innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework to improve the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration (UIC). This work enhances the existing body of literature and knowledge regarding collaboration and offers concrete steps to be taken for effective collaboration between universities and industries.

A literature review to study the best practices, impediments to collaboration and the various models proposed in the past for successful UIC was conducted. A workshop and focus-group meetings of practitioners and academic researchers was designed and organised to explore the current state of the university–industry engagement within the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) region and gather inputs regarding possible approaches to improve collaboration. The findings from the literature review and the results from this qualitative research regarding the approaches to improve the effectiveness of the collaboration were analysed.

The study discovers that various measures have been proposed in the form of best practices or models to improve the effectiveness of UIC. However, these measures often address a specific concern such as technology transfer, intellectual property (IP), etc. There is a scope for a comprehensive holistic framework to address many aspects of UIC in order to improve effectiveness and achieve success. A framework for improving the effectiveness of collaboration considering a comprehensive list of factors operating in a broad context within the collaboration system was proposed.

The framework builds on previous literature dealing with measures for successful UIC. However, it is the first of its kind, in the researcher's knowledge, in terms of comprehensiveness of the factors contributing to establishing and sustaining successful collaboration. The value of the individual experience of the participants in this qualitative research, which is on average more than 10 years in the software engineering field, validates the importance and quality of the data collected. The addition of these results to the framework increases its validity.The framework can be utilised by universities and industry practitioners to foster successful and effective collaboration. The results have significant relevance, particularly within the Australian context as the government has intensified the adoption of measures to encourage and improve collaboration between universities and the industry.

University–industry projects provide special challenges in understanding and expressing the values required of project management (PM) in delivering stakeholder benefits. This paper presents a framework for understanding, identifying and managing the values of PM in major university–industry R&D projects.

The value framework identifies for each of the key stakeholders, the key PM values that may require to be managed and are largely derived from research literature. Empirical research then explores, prioritises and selects key PM values that need to be managed for a specific project. A large case study is used involving one university and one industry collaborating on a multi-million Euro initiative over six years. Empirical research was conducted by researchers who observed at close quarters, the challenges and successes of managing the competing values of key stakeholders.

The value framework takes a stakeholders' perspective by identifying the respective PM values for each of six stakeholders: university–industry consortium, university, industry, R&D external entities, funding entity and society.

The research was performed using only one case study which limits the generalisability of its findings; however, the findings are presented as a decision support aid for project consortia in developing values for their own collaboration.

Guidance and decision support are provided to multi-stakeholder research consortia when selecting values that need to be managed for achieving tangible and intangible project benefits.

The paper demonstrates a proposed framework for designing and managing the value of PM in large multi-stakeholder university–industry R&D projects.

The purpose of this paper is to conceive the concept of inter-industry creative collaboration; a unique kind of cooperation between business partners from diverse industries. It investigates the motivations that encourage their creation and identifies a method to evaluate consumers’ attitudes towards this kind of partnership. The study analyses consumer-based brand equity and links them to inter-industry creative collaborations within the luxury fashion industry.

Research was conducted using a comparative case design, which was qualitative in nature. Four cases were selected purposively. The data were obtained using semi-structured interviews with industry informants and consumer focus groups. Transcripts were thematically analysed according to common categories identified in the literature to enable cross-case conclusions to be drawn.

The research proposes the existence of a direct relationship between the consumer-based brand equity effects and consumers’ attitudes towards inter-industry creative collaborations. This research not only proves the existence of the stated relationship but also generates a theoretical framework that specifically analyses inter-industry creative collaboration involving luxury fashion brands.

The usage of convenience sampling limited consumer participants to individuals who considered themselves luxury fashion consumers. In addition, the findings are limited to London, UK and cannot be generalised outside the examined cases. That said, the research provides a useful starting point for further empirical research to test the validity and reliability of the model outside of the stated cases.

The proposed theoretical framework serves as a practical guide for luxury managers to assess the planning and execution of inter-industry creative collaborations conducted by their brands.

The research makes a contribution to brand management literature by creating a connection between four topics of academic research: motivations of inter-industry creative collaborations; consumer-based brand equity; consumers’ attitudes towards inter-industry creative collaborations; and the creative and emotional elements of luxury fashion.

The purpose of this paper is to explore university‐industry collaboration in research centres.

The paper builds on an explorative study of three research centres at a technical university in Sweden, using in‐depth interviews. The three research centres, Alpha, Beta and Gamma, have various degrees of involvement with industry.

A total of four broad forms of collaboration are suggested: distanced, translational, specified and developed collaboration.

The paper shows that the different institutional logics of academic actors, industry actors and funding agencies can be present in collaborations in (at least) four different ways resulting in four different types of research processes. Since not all actors are likely to be equally satisfied in all types of collaborations, the continued development of the research centres will be at risk.

If the role of the research centre is to be a forum for collaboration, the research centre has to be a good mediator between the actors in order to ensure their satisfaction with the research centre within and between projects. If, in contrast, the role of the research centre is to be a facilitator of collaboration, the research centre needs to enable the actors to learn how to interact with each other in order for the distanced, translational, specified collaboration to evolve into developed collaboration.

Few studies have focused on the collaborations per se in research centres, taking the different institutional logics of the actors involved in the collaboration into account.

This study aims to discover the influence of researcher competence on University-Industry collaboration via researcher’s domain knowledge.

Quantitative data were collected via survey questionnaire by using purposive sampling technique from a total of 121 academicians from all five research universities in Malaysia. PLS-SEM is used to examine multiple structural relationships between the researcher competence, domain knowledge transfers and spillovers and university-industry collaboration.

Researcher’s competence serves as a success booster to initiate the collaborative endeavour, and the University-Industry collaboration is found to be substantially influenced by the domain knowledge transfers and spillovers.

The size of the sample in this study was however constrained by the characteristics and background of the targeted pool of respondents to be generalised to the population of all universities in Malaysia.

Researcher competence is found to be significant drive to the University-Industry collaboration formation through the development and deployment of domain knowledge transfers and spillovers. Thus, it requires the desire and need for continuous competence development for researchers, and a step change is called for individual principal investigators about extending their leadership across the field of studies and appearing as critical business partners in the University-Industry collaboration.

The paper contributes to the literature by empirically investigating the influence of researcher competence on the University-Industry collaboration via researcher’s domain knowledge. It attempts to show the researcher’s ability to leverage their competencies in increasing the collaborative endeavour in making out business opportunities, which will eventually influence the public university’s sustainability development. In addition, it proves the importance of researcher’s competence and domain knowledge within the entrepreneurial activities, which serves as the significant drivers to ensure successful University-Industry collaboration.

This paper is a response to a frequently asked question from prospective industry partners searching for opportunities to collaborate with the Computer Science Department of Swansea University, UK. This paper seeks to provide structured guidance in the form of what is titled the Industry Engagement Ladder.

The Industry Engagement Ladder presents a selection of collaboration opportunities, outlining the possible cooperation mechanisms between an industry partner and the academic institution.

Opportunities are described and ranked according to the amount of investment required by the industrial partner, and therefore risk, from low to high.

This concise paper provides a quick reference for perspective industry academia collaboration opportunities, the risks involved with each, the possible funding available to help foster these partnerships and the benefits to industry. These collaborative activities (and variations thereof) can be incorporated by any university department. The manuscript offers an ideal starting point for industry–university collaboration.

This paper aims to explore the how, why, who and what of collaborations in green innovation.

The study is based on 11 case studies conducted at high-technological firms where 30 top management representatives were interviewed.

The study shows that firms share knowledge on green innovation across industries through horizontal collaborations and their extended network, such as their suppliers’ and customer’s networks in other industries. The results also show that digitalization, connectivity and big data are considered important vessels to improve environmental sustainability, as firms believe that these technologies will result in large gains related to resource utilization. Finally, the firms in this study engaged to a wide extent in green innovation activities, which resulted in a variety of improved resource utilization related to energy efficiency, new materials, new technologies, limiting emissions and recycle management.

The paper contributes to the literature by showing that firms share knowledge on green innovation not only within their network but also across industries through horizontal collaborations and their extended network.

The study points to the complexity of collaborating on green innovation. The authors show the importance of digitalization to improving environmental sustainability, with managers needing to develop business models and finding collaboration partners that can facilitate the transformation towards more connected products and services.

The study contributes to the field of supply network collaboration by studying how firms collaborate to improve environmental sustainability.

This paper aims to recount the genesis of a successful innovation cluster among Irish-based divisions of multinational enterprises (MNEs) and Irish universities in the pharmaceutical industry. This cluster was actively “narrativized” through the language of obligation, desire, competence and know-how. As such, it is typical of the “hero’s quest” literary genre in which challenges are faced, obstacles are overcome and victory is ultimately won. Importantly, in this story, the cluster was morally and pragmatically charged with dealing with significant challenges faced by the Irish pharmaceutical industry. Broader societal discourses operated as a resource for actors to use in proposing collaboration and innovation as the appropriate response to such challenges. Specifically, through narrative and discourse, actors created the necessary conditions conducive for a cluster to develop. These created a discursively constituted shared purpose which ultimately ensured successful innovation collaboration. Essentially, through narrative and discourse, the key actors identified the collaboration a protagonist in pursuit of a quest. By linking theoretical and empirical insights, the paper offers a conceptual framework that can be used in future studies to understand the emergence of clusters.

Adopting Wengraf’s (2001) structured approach to narrative interviewing, 18 key actors shared their understanding of how the cluster came into being. Each interview began with a single question intended to induce narrative, in this case “tell me the story of the cluster as you see it.” This allowed participants to be in control of their own story (Wengraf, 2001). Each interview was transcribed in full and appended to notes taken at the time of the interview. Each narrative offered a “purposeful account” (Jovchelovitch and Bauer, 2000) of how and why the cluster was formed and the centrality of the participants’ roles. In line with recognised protocols, in the authors analysis of data, they paid specific attention to how stories were told, the roles assigned to key protagonists, as well as how events and actors were linked in stories (see Czarniawska, 1997).

This paper further demonstrates how language, metaphor and narrative and discourse (Hatch, 1997) becomes a strategic resource on which actors can draw to create desired realities (Hardy et al., 2000) particularly in terms of collaboration and innovation. Further, this case highlights how dialogue was encouraged throughout the process of establishing the cluster and has continued to be an important element. Rather than imposing some grand design, the SSPC cluster is and always will be emergent. In this sense, in the early stages of collaboration, detecting and supporting existing and emergent communities is essential to success, and shared identity which is the outcome of members’ discursive practices appears to be a powerful driver of collaboration.

There are important insights for cluster and innovation theory development that can be extrapolated from this study. First, context-specific narrative accounts provided in this study further extend the authors’ understanding of the process through which fundamental changes (innovation) in organisational activities are enacted (Ettlie and Subramaniam, 2004). Second, the authors’ understanding of how new ventures are attributed organisational legitimacy through language and story is augmented (Gollant and Sillince, 2007; Pentland, 1999). Third, the authors have articulated how different discourses are mobilised by actors at different stages of development and for different audiences to create desired innovation outcomes, illustrating that innovations can result from advances in knowledge (McAdam et al., 1998). Finally, the authors see how discourse and practice are dynamic as participants articulate their intention to exert further influence on innovation discourse through their lobbying activities.

By focusing on the specific problem of crystallisation, and using the discourse of collaboration, particularised ties emerged around SSPC and this inspired synergistic action. When seeking approval from host organisations, they spoke in terms of return on investment and the potential to add value, part of the discourse of organisational effectiveness. Consequently, the authors stress the benefits of understanding audiences and adjusting discursive approaches on this basis. As such, this study provides evidence that tailored discursive approaches can be used as a resource for managers and practitioners that are seeking to inspire innovation through collaboration.

The discourse of collaboration also became a resource upon which actors could draw to articulate how they might respond to the context and realise the vision. Because this discourse is promoted in government reports and embodied in government strategy, the protagonists were able to borrow from the discourse to secure the necessary resources (in this case funding) that would enhance the possibilities of more effective collaboration. This is because different stakeholders engage with discourse in ways that help to create the outcomes they desire. It was noticeable that the leaders within the Solid State Pharmaceutical Cluster recognised the importance of discourse to innovation collaboration, and on this basis, they successfully adjusted the use of terminology in relation to the exchange partners they were addressing. When addressing potential partners within industry and academia, they utilised both the “burning platform” and “Ireland Inc.” metaphors to create generalised membership ties around the need for innovation and action.

First, context-specific narrative accounts provided in this study further extend the authors’ understanding of the process through which fundamental changes (innovation) in organisational activities are enacted (Ettlie and Subramaniam, 2004). Second, the authors have articulated how different discourses are mobilised by actors at different stages of development and for different audiences to create desired innovation outcomes, illustrating that innovations can result from advances in knowledge (McAdam et al., 1998). Finally, the authors see how discourse and practice are dynamic as participants articulate their intention to exert further influence on innovation discourse through their lobbying activities.