Search results

We examine the determinants of multinational firms’ propensity to conduct R&D activities in host countries, with specific attention to the influence of host countries’ university research. We consider heterogeneous locational drivers related to the type of R&D activity: basic research, applied research, development for local markets, and development for global markets. Drawing on official survey data on R&D activities by 498 Japanese multinational firms in 24 host countries and estimating two-stage models, we find that the likelihood that firms conduct R&D in a host country is generally increasing in the strength of university research. Conditional on a firm’s R&D presence, university research strength is associated with a greater propensity to conduct (basic) research activities rather than (local) development, while the intensity of host country university–industry collaboration is most strongly associated with applied research. Host country experience and the depth of the firm’s manufacturing presence are also associated higher propensities to engage in research.

It is widely accepted that enterprises obtaining academic discoveries through R&D collaboration improve their innovation performance. However, it is not necessarily true in emerging economies, such as China and post-socialist countries in Europe. The purpose of this paper is to fill the gap by investigating how R&D collaboration between industry and academia (i.e. universities and research institutes) affects the industrial innovation performance; and whether and how intermediaries moderate their relationships.

This paper constructs the research model according to the knowledge production function, and the pooled ordinary least square regression is used to verify our hypotheses.

Evidence from a sample of Chinese industrial enterprises in thirty provinces spanning from 2009 to 2014 suggests that R&D collaboration with research institutes (CWR) is positively related to innovation output, while R&D collaboration with universities (CWU) exerts negative effect on innovation output measured by sales revenue of new product (NPSR). The significant moderating role of technology transfer institutions is confirmed in the negative relationship between CWU and NPSR.

This paper empirically examines the moderating role of intermediary organisations in academia–industry cooperation and industrial innovation, and has practical implications for the government to formulate policies to improve the quality and effectiveness of cooperation between academic and industrial sectors. These results vary in inland and coastal areas, which suggest the policy makers to formulate policies according to local conditions not only in China but also in other countries, like European countries.

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.

This paper aims to explore the relationship between the types of R&D‐activities within science‐based firms and the knowledge transfer channels used for industry‐science collaboration. Rooted in a contingency approach, it seeks to identify patterns in the organization of knowledge transfer and to disclose ways that may support R&D‐managers in achieving effective knowledge transfer.

The paper is an exploratory study in order to obtain a deep understanding of the relationship. At first, both the types of R&D‐activity and the knowledge transfer channels were conceptualized based on an extensive literature review. Second, data were collected by means of semi‐structured interviews with 17 (assistant) R&D‐managers of ten large European chemical firms.

The analysis suggests that almost each of the knowledge transfer channels used for industry‐science collaboration has a more or less unique link to a specific type of R&D‐activity. An empirically based model is developed that visualizes the linkages. In addition, explanations for observed links are proposed.

The empirical analysis reported focuses on multinational firms in the science‐based European chemical industry, because they invest heavily in R&D and are hence more interested in collaboration with scientific partners. Further research is needed to determine the model's applicability in other empirical settings, both within and outside science‐based industries.

The paper provides R&D‐managers with a model that may support them in deciding how to organize their collaboration with scientific partners based on the type of their internal R&D‐activity to achieve effective knowledge transfer.

The paper is one of the first studies that empirically assesses the relationship between the types of R&D‐activities in firms and the knowledge transfer channels that are used for industry‐science collaboration.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of governments in resolving collective action dilemmas arising in R&D collaboration between university-research institutes (URI) and small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs). The paper focusses on R&D collaboration in South Korea in light of its major industrial reforms since the 1980s in strengthening the national science and technology innovation system.

To examine factors explaining the likelihood of SMEs to collaborate with URIs in R&D activities, the authors used data that were collected in the Seoul Metropolitan Area by the Seoul Institute in 2010. A logistic regression analysis was performed with data from the Open Innovation System survey, which consists of 336 SMEs; and supplemented by firm-level data retrieved from the government official statistics on structural characteristics of SMEs. The Mann-Whitney Test of Difference was employed to test the perceived importance of R&D activities in various stages of product development.

This research found that SMEs having government certified R&D facilities and higher investments in R&D activities explain their likelihood in engaging in R&D collaboration with URIs. SMEs in the chemical sector also are more likely to establish R&D collaboration with URIs compared to those in the information technology (IT) sector. In terms of the importance of R&D activities, there are marked differences between SMEs collaborating with URIs and those that do not. The differences are found in R&D’s needs related to acquisition of information, basic research, pilot testing of products, and product manufacturing. Most SMEs in the sample reported several barriers to R&D activities, particularly in securing human resources and the operation of R&D; and that, they believe the government can assist them in research and development activities and human resource training.

This study provides new insights into the way in which R&D facilities of SMEs may facilitate R&D collaboration with URIs. The results broaden the understanding on the scope of R&D collaboration adopted by SMEs and strategies that can be adopted and implemented by government agencies to attract and retain firms that are innovative. While the findings also provide insights on the scope of management decisions adopted by SMEs, the sample was limited to 336 SMEs in the Seoul Metropolitan area, making generalization to other regions of the country limited.

From the institutional collective action framework, this research provides a critical lens to build R&D collaboration between the URI and SMEs, highlighting the role of government with considerable efforts to facilitate SMEs to enter into arrangements with URIs by focussing on the importance of R&D facility and stages of product development.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the collaboration strategies employed by collaborating small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) and university researchers for initiating and optimizing the process and outcome of R&D collaboration.

The paper is based upon a qualitative study of the total population of university departments and SMEs involved in collaborative research projects sponsored by a new governmental programme in Denmark, the aim of which was to build new R&D alliances between industry and universities.

The findings show how partners choose to pursue difference short‐ or long‐term strategies to optimize the process and outcome of university‐industry (UI) collaboration. Some collaborations were thus informed by a short‐term strategy aimed at achieving immediate R&D results. However, to a high extent, many SME partners relied upon a long‐term strategy aiming at developing UI relations beyond the immediate project and practical learning. A variety of shifting strategies shape researchers' decisions during UI collaborations, which thus convey different notions of success.

The findings of the present research point to the importance of taking the diverse reasons and micro strategies informing collaborative efforts into account when studying UI collaborations.

Different strategies may prove successful in optimizing the outcome of UI collaborations depending upon, e.g. partners' previous collaborative experiences. Policies should incorporate some openness towards the differential premises and reasons for UI collaboration.

Relatively little research has addressed the development of UI relationships from the micro‐level perspective of the discretionary decisions and strategies of collaborating researchers.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify how university‐industry (U‐I) collaboration differs by technology fields in Japan.

An analysis of the research resource allocation in the Japanese national universities in the Japanese national innovation system is followed by the analysis of U‐I collaboration by technology fields. The fields analyzed are life science, information and communication technology (ICT), environment science, nanotechnology and material science, which have been designated as strategically important fields by the Second Japanese Science and Technology Basic Plan. The analysis was conducted in a quantitative way using government data of R&D expenditure, researchers, patent application, joint research, contract research and university spin‐offs.

Some characteristics of U‐I collaboration have been quantitatively found by technology fields. Though the national universities occupy large R&D expenditure shares in life science and nanotechnology/material science in the Japanese national innovation system, their joint research and contract research are fairly active in environment science as well as in life science and in nanotechnology/material science. For university spin‐offs, the national universities are active in life science and ICT.

This paper quantitatively clarifies U‐I collaboration by technology fields showing relative importance of U‐I collaboration by technology fields. The results provide information input to policy makers when they formulate policies to promote U‐I collaboration by technology fields and to corporate managers when they make U‐I collaboration strategies by technology fields as a part of open innovation strategies.

The purpose of this paper is to assess how technology‐based university research drives innovation in Europe and China.

This paper draws on extensive theoretical research and literature reviews, and presents a framework based on theories on networking, knowledge creation and innovation. It then introduces three European cases to illustrate practical applications of the framework, and also links the findings to three Chinese cases to make comparative observations as well as recommendations related to Triple Helix concepts and their implications in the China context. It addresses the issue of how learning from universities can enhance company flexibility and performance in innovation, and outlines three different models of collaboration.

The framework and empirical research suggests that weak ties are useful for inspiration in exploration, but that strong industry‐university (I‐U) ties are required to support exploitation. This finding applies both to Europe and China in the industries covered.

This paper provides a new theoretical rationale for I‐U learning alliances as a natural way out from the managerial problem of trying to perform both exploration and exploitation within the same company boundaries. Through the theoretical framework, the academic science domain becomes a logical partner to handle the full phase of exploration and support the process of exploitation. The presented European cases of Bang & Olufsen, Combibloc and Porsche offer new insights into how to perform this act in practice, while the three China‐related cases allow us to cross analyse empirical findings and draw initial conclusions with policy implications for China.

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.

The idea of implementing supply chain management (SCM) principles for the construction industry was embraced by construction stakeholders to enhance the sector's performance. The analysis from the literature revealed that the implementation of SCM in the construction industry enhances the industry's value in terms of cost-saving, time savings, material management, risk management and others. The construction supply chain (CSC) can be managed using the pull or push system. This chapter also discusses the origin and proliferation of SCM into the construction industry. The chapter revealed that the concept of SCM has passed through five different eras: the creation era, the use of ERP, globalisation stage, specialisation stage and electronic stage. The findings from the literature revealed that we are presently in the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) era. At this stage, the SCM witnesses the adoption of technologies and principles driven by the 4IR. This chapter also revealed that the practice of SCM in the construction industry is centred around integration, collaboration, communication and the structure of the supply chain (SC). The forms and challenges hindering the adoption of these practices were also discussed extensively in this chapter.