Individual Incentives

4. The Researcher

4.1.2 Why do academics engage in KTT

Academic researchers are the key actors in initiating and sustaining the collaboration process with industry. Researchers possess tacit knowledge that cannot easily be transferred as explicit knowledge without their involvement. "Explicit" or codified knowledge refers to knowledge that is transmittable in formal, systematic language. On the other hand, "tacit"

knowledge has a personal quality, which makes it hard to formalize and communicate (Grant 1996).

“Tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in action, commitment, and involvement in a specific context”

(Novaka, 1994, p.16). Explicit knowledge is easier to transfer through patents, licensing etc., while a transfer of tacit knowledge is more costly and challenging and need involvement of key knowledge holders (Grant and Baden-Fuller 2004).

There are different motives that can drive academic researchers to engage in UIC. Lee (2000) conducted a survey among faculty members of US universities and identified the availability of funds for graduate students and equipment, the enhancement of research and the possibility to test practical applications of research results as the main motivations of academics to collaborate with industry (Lee 2000). Arvanitis et al. (2008) grouped motivations in four main categories: “access to industrial knowledge; access to additional resources; institutional or organizational motives; pursuing higher research efficiency – cost and time savings; access to specialized technology” (Arvanitis et al., 2008, p.1869). Arvanitis et al. (2008) also found that motives of researchers such as an access to companies’ knowledge and specialized technologies are positively correlated with the propensity to collaborative research activities. Similarly, D’Este and Perkmann (2011) find the most of university researchers engage in UIC to advance their research rather than to commercialize academic knowledge (D’Este and Perkmann 2011). From the strategical point of view, partnerships between university and industry might be created to learn or acquire new external knowledge, absorb this knowledge, regenerate technologically and develop innovation (Guerrero, Urbano & Herrera, 2017).

One of the most comprehensive lists of motivations for universities and industry from the current literature was collected by Ankrah & AL-Tabbaa (2015) (see Table 1). The authors grouped these motivations in six categories: necessity, reciprocity, efficiency, stability, legitimacy and asymmetry (Ankrah & AL-Tabbaa, 2015; Oliver, 1990). Both parties have some similar motivations in the “necessity” group such as government initiatives, institutional policy and necessity to retain a competitive advantage in a knowledge based economy. In terms of reciprocity, universities look for employment possibilities for their graduates and want to gain an access to state-of-the art equipment and facilities. At the same time, companies search among students for new qualified employees for internships and permanent jobs. Companies also hire faculty members to solve specific problems. Collaborations with university may save costs to access knowledge directly at universities instead of obtaining a license to exploit oversees technologies. Additionally, universities want to have business opportunities to exploit research results. Risk reduction or risk sharing plays an important role in initiating collaborations. Although corporate image is important for companies, the legitimation pressure from society and government on Universities is much higher. The asymmetry group does not apply to university, but companies want to maintain control over their proprietary knowledge and technologies.

Table 1

Motivations for universities and industry: a comparison

University Industry

Necessity Responsiveness to government policy Strategic institutional policy

Responsiveness to government policy Strategic institutional policy

Reciprocity Access complementary expertise, state-of-the-art equipment and facilities Employment opportunities for university graduates

Access to students for summer internship or hiring

Hiring of faculty members Efficiency Access funding for research

(Government grant for research and Industrial funding for research assistance, lab equipment, etc.)

Business opportunity, e.g. exploitation of research capabilities and results or deployment of IPR to obtain patents Personal financial gain for academics

Commercialize university-based technologies for financial gain

Benefit financially from serendipitous research results

Costs savings (easier and cheaper than to obtain a license to exploit foreign

technology)

National incentives for developing such relations such as tax exemptions and grants

Enhance the technological capability and economic competitiveness of firms Shortening product life cycle Human capital development Stability Shift in knowledge-based economy

(growth in new knowledge)Discover new knowledge/test application of theory

Obtain better insights into curricular development

Expose students and faculty to practical problems/applied technologies

Publication papers

Shift in knowledge-based economy (growth in new knowledge)

Business growth

Access new knowledge, cutting edge technologies, state-of-the-art expertise/

research facilities and complementary know-how

Multidisciplinary character of leading edge technologies

Access to research networks or pre-cursor to other collaborations

Solutions to specific problems

Subcontract R&D (for example due to the lack of in-house R&D)

Risk reduction or sharing Legitimacy Societal pressure

Service to the industrial community/society

Promote innovation (through technology exchange)

Enhancement of corporate image

University Industry Contribute to regional or national

economy

Academics' quest for recognition or achieve eminence

Asymmetry N/A Maintain control over proprietary

technology Source: Ankrah & AL-Tabbaa, 2015, p.392

4.1.3 Tension field between the three missions

Some decades ago, European universities introduced a new role to their agenda to provide service to society. Universities added the third mission to valorize research results and bring these knowledge and technology to society. An introduction of a new mission increased requirements for academics who were primarily involved in teaching and research activities. To make this transition, the reward system of universities was reviewed and adapted. Universities developed clear regulations on a process of KTT. The researchers receive necessary training and support from the university and TTO.

The transfer of academic knowledge is high on the political agenda in emerging economies.

Academics’ motivation, incentive system, leadership and support from university managers are important factors that affect collaborations with industry from the university side (Schofield 2013).

Universities should provide necessary support for researchers and create an environment where academics would be motivated to engage in KTT activities.

References

Ankrah, S. and AL-Tabbaa, O. (2015). “Universities-Industry Collaboration: A Systematic Review.”

Scandinavian Journal of Management 31 (3): 387–408.

Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U. and Woerter, M. (2008). “University-Industry Knowledge and Technology Transfer in Switzerland: What University Scientists Think about Co-Operation with Private Enterprises.”

Bierly, P. E., Damanpour, F. and Santoro, M.D. (2009). “The Application of External Knowledge:

Organizational Conditions for Exploration and Exploitation.” Journal of Management Studies 46 (3). Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 481–509.

Debackere, K. and Veugelers, R. (2005). “The Role of Academic Technology Transfer Organizations in Improving Industry Science Links.” Research Policy 34 (3): 321–42.

D’Este, P. and Perkmann, M. (2011). “Why Do Academics Engage with Industry? The Entrepreneurial University and Individual Motivations.” Journal of Technology Transfer 36 (3): 316–39.

Grant, R. (1996). “Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm.” Strategic Management Journal 17 (S2): 109–22.

Grant, R. and Baden-Fuller, C. (2004). “A Knowledge Assessing Theory of Strategic Alliances.”

The Journal of Management Studies 41 (1): 61–84.

Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., and Herrera, F. (2017). “Innovation Practices in Emerging Economies:

Do University Partnerships Matter?” The Journal of Technology Transfer, April. Springer US, 1–32.

Lee, Y. S. (2000). “The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration :” Journal of Technology Transfer 25 (2). Kluwer Academic Publishers: 111–33.

Mueller, P. (2006). “Exploring the Knowledge Filter: How Entrepreneurship and University-Industry Relationships Drive Economic Growth.” Research policy 35 (10): 1499–1508.

Nonaka, I (1994). “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.” Organization Science 5 (1): 14-37.

Oliver, C. (1990). “Determinants Of Interorganizational Relationships: Integrat.” Review 15 (2).

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., Mckelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D ’este, P., Fini, R. et al. (2013).

“Academic Engagement and Commercialization: A Review of the Literature on University–Industry Relations.” Research Policy 42: 423–42.

Schofield, T. (2013). “Critical Success Factors for Knowledge Transfer Collaborations between University and Industry.” Journal of Research Administration 44 (2): 38–56.

4.2 From Researcher to Academic Entrepreneur