University-Industry Collaboration and Knowledge Transfer in the Open Innovation Framework

2013 University-Industry Interaction Conference Academic abstract| Page 1

UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN THE OPEN INNOVATION FRAMEWORK

Antero Kutvonen Lappeenranta University of Technology

School of Industrial Engineering and Management

Kouvola, Finland

[email protected]

Mika Kautonen University of Tampere

TaSTI

Tampere, Finland

[email protected]

Juha Tuunainen University of Helsinki

Department of Social Research

Helsinki, Finland

[email protected]

Janne Lehenkari VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

Innovation and Knowledge Economy

Espoo, Finland

[email protected]

Irina Savitskaya Lappeenranta University of Technology

School of Industrial Engineering and Management

Kouvola, Finland

[email protected]

Reetta Muhonen University of Tampere

TaSTI

Tampere, Finland

[email protected]

Abstract

Globalization, pervasiveness of information and

communication technologies, and the build-up of

knowledge society and related policies have led to

growth and redistribution of knowledge and highly

trained labour supply. The foundation of

competitiveness is now more dependent on valuable

knowledge resources that are distributed widely

across the globe, across actors in the value chains

and across highly-skilled individuals in multiple

organizations. Against this backdrop, the paradigm

of open innovation (OI) has emerged as a new

response to manage the increased amount of

boundary-spanning knowledge flows in and out of

the innovation process. It is essentially a framework

for the comprehensive structuring and management

of cross-boundary knowledge flows with the aim of

improving innovation performance of organizations

involved. As such, OI encompasses a wide range of

collaboration modes, technology transfer and

university-industry collaboration included.

However, most of the open innovation literature

focus on business-to-business transactions while

research on open innovation activities in public-

private partnerships (PPP) is only about to start a

research agenda. Furthermore, universities are

typically seen in the role of suppliers of knowledge

without discussing other potential roles and

objectives that universities may have in OI

partnerships or networks. The goal of the paper is to

explore these alternative roles by reviewing the

literature on open innovation with a specific focus

on university-industry collaboration. The paper

finds that the role of universities as utilisers of

external knowledge presents a clear gap in our

knowledge of university-industry collaboration. The

resulting literature synthesis also allows further

elaboration on the emerging approach of open

innovation in university-industry collaboration and

identifies the essential gaps in the research, finally

concluding with a proposed research agenda.

Keywords: University-industry collaboration, open

innovation, knowledge transfer, literature review,

innovation management


I. INTRODUCTION

Open innovation research has focused

predominantly on studying inbound modes of open

innovation and on the viewpoint of commercial

firms (Enkel et al., 2009). University-industry

collaboration, on the other hand, has been studied

under various contexts but with works mainly

focusing on the influence of university-industry

relations, or 'links' (Perkmann et al., 2012), on the

basic functions of the university: scientific research

and education.

Our research sets out to uncover answers to

questions residing at the intersection of these two

theoretical frameworks. The aim is to review

knowledge transfer literature in order to

demonstrate that there is a gap of knowledge on the

university-industry collaboration where universities

are utilizing firm-based knowledge as a starting

point of research and development activities.

Utilization of firm-based knowledge is addressed in

open innovation literature, but, usually in the

context of business-to-business collaborations. Our

second aim is, thus, to review open innovation

literature and display to what extent insights and

analytical concepts of open innovation literature can

be utilized in the study of knowledge transfer

activities in public private partnerships (PPPs),

particularly in university-industry collaboration.

We performed a simplified systematic review of the

literature at the intersection of open innovation and

university-industry collaboration research. The aim

was to establish the state of current knowledge in

the field (Tranfield et al., 2003) and to seek where

the two conceptually close streams of literature

could inform each other. A further motivation was

to update and complement the review by Perkmann

and Walsh (2007). The final objective of the review

was to build understanding and an agenda for

further research regarding the reverse direction of

knowledge transfer in university-industry

collaboration.

Our analysis is focused on the organizational,

institutional and policy levels as we are interested

in informing HEIs about the organizing of such

knowledge transfer and policymakers about

facilitating this important link in the knowledge

triangle of the government, universities and firms.

Our systematic review procedure is summarized in

Figure 1. We conducted the search from 2002 (the

first mention of the concept of open innovation in

literature) to the current day, April 2013. The search

was targeted to published peer-reviewed articles

held by the Web of Knowledge database by using

the keywords of ‘open innovation’ and ‘university’

to list all articles where both were found in title,

abstract or keywords. This initial search yielded

132 results, which were then filtered according to

scientific discipline to exclude articles focusing on

natural sciences and leaving us with 80 articles. We

manually screened these articles for fit based on

abstracts thus eliminating all but 35 articles that

formed our final sample.

Figure 1: Search methodology for open innovation literature review

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227662430_Open_RD_E_Open_Innovation_Exploring_the_Phenomenon?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-ba23658c-927b-48a7-8b07-d31a348732b1&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2NTIyNzQzOTtBUzoxMzY5NjM2OTY4OTM5NTJAMTQwOTY2NjA5ODI3Nw==


The paper is structured as follows. First, our

research is positioned conceptually by reviewing

the spectrum of links between universities and

external organizations and their features in relation

to our study focus (Figure 2). Then we present a

systematic review mapping the intersection between

the literatures of open innovation and university

industry collaboration and finally present our

findings along with an agenda for further research

to explore this promising space.

II. COMMERCIALISATION OF PUBLICLY-FUNDED

RESEARCH

Many policy initiatives, like Bayh-Dole Act of

1980 and similar legislation in Europe (e.g. OECD

2003) have aimed at encouraging universities to

engage in patenting, licensing and creating new

business (Baldini 2006; D’Este & Patel 2007). In

line with policy incentives, much of the literature

on the university–industry collaboration has centred

on the academic capacity to generate intellectual

property rights (e.g. Thursby & Sukanya 2002;

Friedman & Silberman, 2003; Jensen et al., 2003;

D’Este & Patel 2007). However, commercial

collaboration is not a general phenomenon in

academia, and only a small proportion of

researchers are actually involved in entrepreneurial

activities (D’Este & Patel 2007). According to

previous studies (Bozeman & Gaughan 2007;

Lissoni 2008) roughly 5 per cent of academics have

filed a patent. It is also noteworthy that patenting

rates vary strongly between disciplinary cultures

focusing most on technical sciences (Balconi et al.

2004; Himanen & Puuska 2011, 41-42).

There is a plenty of research on the motives and

threats experienced by academics who get involved

with commercial collaboration. In the literature, the

benefits of collaboration to researchers and

universities have been identified as knowledge- and

property-focused advantages (Bozeman et al. 2013).

Motivation to get financial or commercial gains has

been remarkably low in comparison with

knowledge-focused motivations (Abreu et al. 2009,

35; D’Este & Perkmann 2011). There are more

valuable things than pecuniary benefits that are

urging researchers to collaborate. Aiming to

academically valuable insights and ideas, learning,

access to funding sources, materials and data or in-

kind resources, among others, have encouraged

researchers to collaborate with industry. (D’Este &

Perkmann 2011; Bozeman et al. 2013).

What comes to the threats of commercial

collaboration, academics perceive rewards for

faculty involvement in university knowledge

transfer activities insufficient (Friedman &

Figure 2: The different forms of knowledge transfer between universities and external actors. Cf. Perkmann et al 2012;

Salter & Martin 2001; Abreu et al. 2009.


Silberman 2003; Siegel et al. 2003). The

entrepreneurial activities of universities may set

limits to publishing and the free exchange of data

and insights (Florida 1999; Smith & Korn 2000).

Also, the time consuming nature of legal and

bureaucratic commercialisation processes takes

time from research (Jensen et al. 2003; Baldini

2006). Moreover, there is a risk that academic

entrepreneurship affects peer learning when

everybody is tied up watching for their own

pecuniary gains (Stephan 2001).

III. FORMAL AND CONTRACT-BASED

COLLABORATION

According to a recent study on knowledge transfer

in Europe (Arundel et al. 2013), commercial

collaboration is a modest activity in European

universities and highly concentrated in biomedical

research. The license income only equals 1.5% of

the research expenditures of public research

performers. The top 10% of European universities

and research institutes earns approximately 85% of

all license income (€346 million) and 88.8% of the

revenue comes from biomedical inventions.

Not surprisingly, industry values other channels of

university knowledge transfer more than licensing,

namely, consulting, contract research and

cooperative ventures (Cohen et al. 2002).

Consulting is about research or advisory services

provided by academics to industry (Perkmann &

Walsh 2007). In contract research, industry

commissions researchers to perform research that

usually takes place without public subsidies and is

aimed at direct research applications relevant to

industry. Collaborative or joint research is often

publicly supported and has more basic research

focus than that of applications (D’Este & Perkmann

2010). In most cases, consulting, contract research

and collaborative research are formal engagements

in terms of contracts, division of labour and project

organisation.

While its significance is acknowledged, consulting,

contract research and collaborative research are

much less studied than commercial collaboration in

terms of knowledge transfer (cf. Perkmann et al.

2012). It has been, however, noticed that

knowledge transfer works in both ways from

industry to universities and vice versa. As Cohen et

al. (2002, 21) comment their survey results of the

R&D managers of the US industry: “…public

research provides ways of solving problems at least

as often as it suggests new project ideas.”

IV. INFORMAL COLLABORATION

When it comes to technology transfer and

knowledge mobilization between public research

organizations and industries, the existing literature

concentrates on formal channels, such as patenting,

licensing, spin-off companies and collaborative

research (Link & al. 2007, 642). When we move

from formal to informal transfer mechanisms the

picture becomes more varied and a whole diversity

of interaction channels can be identified. These

mechanisms, sometimes regarded as equally or

even more important than the formal ones (Siegel &

al. 2003, 41; D’Este & Patel 2007, 1297), include

publishing, conferencing, personnel mobility,

facility sharing, teaching and training as well as

problem-solving activities of various kinds. Of

these informal mechanisms of knowledge

mobilization, the most important ones are

publications, conferences and other types of

information exchange, all of which were reported as

important sources of research knowledge by 35-42

per cent of industrial R&D managers across all

sectors (Cohen & al. 2002, 15; see also Siegel & al.

2003; D’Este & Patel 2007). A more recent survey

by Bekkers and Bodas Freitas (2008) reported a

similar kind of result with the distinction that

personnel mobility belonged to the most important

interaction mechanisms. Furthermore, the size of

the company involved in interaction had a role to

play in this study: while formal collaboration

arrangements were favoured by large firms, small

companies with few resources benefitted from

informal mechanisms.

Although we are not able to discuss the topic any

further here, one should also notice that the

importance of informal university-industry

interaction, in general, and different mechanisms

used in it, in particular, differ significantly from

country to country and from one field of industry to

another. Of the informal mechanisms, publications

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227447453_Links_and_Impacts_The_Influence_of_Public_Research_on_Industrial_RD?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-ba23658c-927b-48a7-8b07-d31a348732b1&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2NTIyNzQzOTtBUzoxMzY5NjM2OTY4OTM5NTJAMTQwOTY2NjA5ODI3Nw==


and participating in conferences were found to be

very important in a small number of science-based

industries, such as biotechnology and

pharmaceuticals, and moderately important in a

wide range of manufacturing sectors. Personnel

mobility, on the other hand, was essential not only

in biotechnology but also in various fields of

engineering, chemistry and information technology.

(Bekkers & Bodas Freitas 2008; Cohen & al. 2002;

see also D’Este & Patel 2007) In different fields of

social sciences, staff mobility and training courses

for firms were the most important knowledge

transfer activities (Bekkers & Bodas Freitas 2008,

1839).

Despite the fact that several articles emphasise that

knowledge and technology transfer work in both

directions (Siegel & al. 2003; D’Este & Patel 2007;

Link & al. 2007), there are relatively few studies

that analyse transfer of assets from industry to

university. Among the most important ones in this

respect is the large-scale survey by D’Este and

Patel (2007) who concluded that academics interact

with industry, not only because of personal

financial gain and additional research funding (Link

& al. 2007, 643), but also in order to get access to

industry skills and facilities and to keep abreast of

applied, industrial problems: “Interaction with

industry practitioners exposes university

researchers to a wide range of technological

problems identified by industry, opening an array of

research avenues that would not have emerged had

researchers remained within the boundaries of

university research” (D’Este & Patel 2007, 1297).

Additional results emphasising different kinds of

benefits university researchers gain from

knowledge and technology transfer with industrial

partners have been published by Link and others

(2007, 643) as well as Siegel and others (2003). In

these studies important motivational factors

contributing to the interest by university researchers

to become engaged in informal industrial

collaboration were issues like professional

development and increasing quality and quantity of

their academic research. Indeed, the total of 65 per

cent of the scientists interviewed by Siegel and

others (2003) claimed that industrial interaction has

had positive influence on their experimental work at

universities.

V. THE OPEN INNOVATION FRAMEWORK AND

UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION

Open Innovation can be characterized as a

framework for organizing and managing boundary

spanning knowledge flows connected to the

innovation processes of organizations (Kutvonen,

2012). Universities have long been acknowledged

as an important source of industrial innovation and

as such present a special case of open innovation

(Perkmann & Walsh, 2007). Their role so far has

been researched nearly exclusively as suppliers of

specialized knowledge or technology assets within

inbound open innovation, thus ignoring other

potential roles that they may hold in innovative

collaboration setups.

Following the propositions of public-private

partnership and regional innovation research

(Cooke, 2008), universities carry a central role,

especially in regional contexts, that goes beyond

only supplying technology and trained knowledge

workers and is rooted in bidirectional or networked

modes of collaboration rather than unidirectional

knowledge transfer (Meyer-Krahmer and Schmoch,

1998; Perkmann & Walsh, 2009) thus pointing to

coupled open innovation modes being critical to

realizing their potential impact. Furthermore,

understanding the coupled open innovation mode

and managing the potential synergies in parallel

external acquisition and exploitation activities is

according to Lichtenthaler (2011) one of the key

contributions of the open innovation framework.

Our objective in this section of the paper is thus to

summarize the state-of-the-art in what is known of

coupled modes of open innovation collaboration

between universities and other organizations. This

is achieved by reviewing the literature in the

intersection between university-industry

collaboration literature and open innovation

literature through a systematic review, the result of

which is summarized in the appendix.

Open innovation research has focused

predominantly on studying inbound modes of open

innovation and on the viewpoint of commercial


firms (Enkel et al., 2009). University-industry

collaboration, on the other hand, has been studied

under various contexts but with works mainly

focusing on the influence of university-industry

relations, or 'links', on the basic functions of the

university: scientific research and education.

Perkmann and Walsh (2007) performed a literature

review where they proposed that university-industry

links where a strong relational aspect (as a

prerequisite for tacit knowledge transfer) could be

identified would qualify within the open innovation

framework, whereas other modes of collaboration

represented mainly uni-directional technology or

knowledge transfer, or personnel mobility. They

propose that links with high relational involvement

would include research partnerships and services,

while modes of collaboration focused on

commercialization of IP, such as licensing, would

indicate low levels of involvement. This view is

somewhat contradictory to most open innovation

studies on firms which count in- and out-licensing

as essential governance modes of open innovation

(Chesbrough, 2003; Enkel et al., 2009) and

emphasize that they also regularly involve extended

periods of negotiation and mutual involvement of

R&D staff to secure successful knowledge transfer

and learning benefits (Lichtenthaler, 2007;

Kutvonen et al., 2010).

Levy et al. (2009) concur with Perkmann and

Walsh (2007) and focus their study on channels

associated with ‘two-way interactions’ but note that

collaborations may consist of multiple collaboration

projects, which again may include use of several

channels, thus raising questions about the focus of

prior research on comparing the importance of

individual channels. They find four distinct patterns

of collaboration utilized by firms and link them to

‘relational logics’, which describe assumed

motivations of firms to collaborate in a given way.

These are the proximity logic (implying close and

continuous relationship with bidirectional tacit

knowledge exchange yet aim for private benefit),

club logic (where multi-partner collaboration leads

to pre-competitive technologies), market logic

(dyadic relationships on demand to solve specific

bottlenecks in innovation) and open science

oriented logic (where the knowledge exchange and

collaboration are ends on to themselves or a part of

continuous technology exploration and scouting).

VI. FINDINGS: TURNING THE TIDE -

UNIVERSITIES AS UTILISERS OF UNUSED

INTANGIBLE ASSETS OF FIRMS

Prior literature on open innovation and university-

industry collaboration have proposed elements to

initiate a research agenda at the intersection of open

innovation and knowledge transfer literature. West

et al. (2006) suggested searching and matching

processes that precede university-industry

relationships and researching the organization and

management of such collaboration arrangements.

Perkmann and Walsh (2007) add to this by

specifying the two avenues of research further,

noting e.g. the need for research concerning firms’

strategies in establishing and managing university-

industry relationships and to the influence of

institutional structures and national innovation

systems in shaping the organization of university-

industry collaboration. Perkmann and Walsh (2009)

suggest that university-industry relationships

constitute a two-way exchange rather than a one

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2002-2007 2008-2013

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Pu

blic

atio

ns

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Knowledgesupplier

Bi-directionalcollaboration

Other

Nu

mb

er

of

Pu

blic

atio

ns

Figure 3: Publication analysis


way transfer of university generated technology.

Interestingly, this view of bi-directional

collaboration is shared only with less than half of

the papers within our sample (Figure 3.). This

emphasis on mutually beneficial give-and-take

relations in collaboration has constantly increased

in prominence, along with the adoption of the open

innovation concept or terminology in the papers.

We find also that the amount of research combining

notions of openness and university industry

collaboration has seen accelerating growth,

signaling that there is demand for analytical

research utilizing the open innovation framework to

address questions in university-industry

collaboration.

VII. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

Our systematic analysis of literature on open

innovation with a specific focus on university-

industry collaboration suggests that the research on

this topic has accelerated over the last five years

(Figure 3.). It is worth noticing, however, that most

of the research does not operationalize the analytic

concepts of open innovation literature, such as

inbound and outbound innovation activities. Open

innovation is mostly referred to as an umbrella term

to which the research in question has loose

associations and connections.

There are only a handful of studies where the role

of universities as utilizers of firm-based knowledge

is scrutinized (e.g. Young et al., 2008; Malik et al.

2011). Interestingly, the role of universities as

knowledge utilizers as well as the bidirectional

relationship between universities and firms, are

brought to the research agenda simultaneously with

the use of the analytical concepts of open

innovation literature. This implies that the insights

of open innovation literature play a significant role

in the expansion of the research focus of knowledge

transfer literature.

A. References

Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., Hughes, A. and Kitson,

M. (2009) Knowledge Exchange between

Academics and the Business, Public and Third

Sectors. Cambridge: Centre for Business

Research, University of Cambridge.

Agrawal, A. (2006) ‘Engaging the inventor:

Exploring licensing strategies for university

inventions and the role of latent knowledge’

Strategic Management Journal, 27 (1), 63-79

Al-Ashaab, A, Flores, M. Doultsinou, A. and

Magyar, A. (2011) ‘A balanced scorecard for

measuring the impact of industry-university

collaboration’, Production Planning & Control,

22 (5-6), 554-570

Alexander, A.T. and Martin, D.P. (2013)

‘Intermediaries for open innovation: A

competence-based comparison of knowledge

transfer offices practices’ Technological

Forecasting And Social Change, 80 (1), 38-49

Allison, J. and Eversole, R. (2008) ‘A new direction

for regional university campuses: catalyzing

innovation in place’ Innovation-The European

Journal Of Social Science Research ,(21) 2, 95-

109

Arundel, A, Barjak, F., Es-Sadki, N., Hüsing, T.,

Lilischkis, S., Perrett, P. & Samuel, O. (2013).

Respondent Report of the Knowledge Transfer

Study, 2012. Available at: http://knowledge-

transfer-

study.eu/fileadmin/KTS/documents/KTS_Respo

ndent_report_2012_v1.1.pdf

Balconi, M., Breschi, S. and Lissoni, F. (2004)

‘Networks of Inventors and the Role of

Academia: an Exploration of Italian Patent

Data’, Research Policy, 33 (1), 127-145.

Baldini, N. (2006) ‘Patenting in Universities.

University Patenting and Licensing Activity: a

Review of the Literature’. Research Evaluation,

15 (3), 197-207.

Bekkers, R. and Bodas Freitas, I.M. (2008)

'Analysing Knowledge Transfer Channels

between Universities and Industry: To What

degree do Sectors also Matter?' Research Policy,

37 (10), 1837-1853.

Bergman , E.M. (2010) ‘Knowledge links between

European universities and firms: A review’

Papers In Regional Science 89(2), 311-333

Bodas Freitas, I.M., Geuna, A., and Rossi, F. (2013)

‘Finding the right partners: Institutional and

personal modes of governance of university-

industry interactions’, Research Policy, 42(1),

50-62

Bozeman, B. and Gaughan, M. (2007) ‘Impacts of

Grants and Contracts on Academic Researchers’

Interactions with Industry’, Research Policy, 36

(5), 694-707.

Bozeman, B., Fay, D. and Slade, C. P. (2013)

‘Research Collaboration in Universities and

Academic Entrepreneurship: the-State-of-the-

Art’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 38 (1), 1-

67.

http://knowledge-transfer-study.eu/fileadmin/KTS/documents/KTS_Respondent_report_2012_v1.1.pdf





Chesbrough, H. (2003) Open Innovation: The new

imperative for Creating and Profiting from

Technology, Harvard Business Press, Boston,

MA, pp. 1-227.

Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R. & Walsh, J.P. (2002)

'Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public

Research on Industrial R&D.' Management

Science 48 (1), 1-23.

Comacchio, A., Bonesso, S. and Pizzi, C. (2012)

‘Boundary spanning between industry and

university: the role of Technology Transfer

Centres’ Journal of Technology Transfer , 37(6),

943-966

Cooke, P. (2008). Regional Innovation Systems,

Clean Technology & Jacobian Cluster-Platform

Policies. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 1,

1, 23-44.

D’ Este, P. D. and Perkmann, M. (2011) ‘Why do

Academics Engage with Industry? The

Entrepreneurial University and Individual

Motivations’, Journal of Technology Transfer,

36 (3), 316-339.

D’Este, P. and Patel, P. (2007) 'University-industry

Linkages in the UK: What are the Factors

Underlying the Variety of Interactions with

Industry?' Research Policy 36 (9), 1295-1313.

Dabic, M. and Svarc, J. (2011) ‘About the Concept

of Entrepreneurial University: Is There an

Alternative?’ Drustvena Istrazivanja 20(4), 991-

1013

Ebner, W., Leimeister, J.M, and Krcmar, H. (2009)

‘Community engineering for innovations: the

ideas competition as a method to nurture a

virtual community for innovations’, R&D

Management, 39(4), 342-356

Enkel, E., Gassman, O. and Chesbrough, H. (2009),

“Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the

phenomenon”, R&D Management, Vol. 39 No.

4, pp. 311-16.

Fabrizio, K. and Di Minin, A. (2008)

‘Commercializing the Laboratory: Faculty

patenting and the open science environment’,

Research Policy, vol. 37, iss. 5, pp. 914-931.

Florida, R. (1999) ‘The Role of the University:

Leveraging Talent, Not Technology’, Issues in

Science and Technology, 15 (4), 67-73.

Friedman, J. and Silberman J. (2003) ‘University

Technology Transfer: Do Incentives,

Management and Location Matter?’ Journal of

Technology Transfer, 28 (1), 17-30.

Gittelman, M. (2007) ‘Does geography matter for

science-based firms? Epistemic communities

and the geography of research and patenting in

biotechnology’, Organization Science, 18(4),

724-741

Hershberg, E., Nabeshima, K. and Yusuf, S. (2007)

‘Opening the ivory tower to business:

university-industry linkages and the

development of knowledge-intensive clusters in

Asian cities’ World Development 35(6) 931-940

Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2012) ‘Research intensity and

knowledge transfer activity in UK universities’

Research Policy 41(2) 262-275

Himanen, L. and Puuska H.-M. (2011)

’Yliopistoissa tehtävän tutkimuksen

kaupallistamisen ja patentoinnin kehitys’. In

Tutkimuksen tuottavuuden kehitys Suomen

yliopistoissa ed. by E. Kaukonen, L. Himanen,

R. Muhonen, H.-M- Puuska and O. Auranen.

Helsinki: Reports of the Ministry of Education

and Culture, 2, 16-34.

Howells, J., Ramlogan, R. and Cheng, S-L. (2012)

‘Innovation and university collaboration:

paradox and complexity within the knowledge

economy’ Cambridge Journal of Economics

36(3) 703-721

Huang, M. H., and Lin, C. S. (2010) ‘International

Collaboration and Counting Inflation in the

Assessment of National Research Productivity’,

Proceedings of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology, 47 (1), 1-4

Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G. and Thursby, M. C.

(2003) ‘Disclosure and Licensing of University

Inventions: 'The Best We Can Do with the S**t

We Get to Work with'’. International Journal of

Industrial Organization, 21 (9), 1271-1300.

Katz, J. S. and Hicks, D. (1997) ‘How Much Is a

Collaboration Worth? A Calibrated Bibliometric

Model’. Scientometrics, 40 (3), 541-554.

Krishnan R. and Jha, S. (2012) ‘Innovation in the

Indian automotive industry: the role of academic

and public research institutions’, Asian Journal

of Technology Innovation, vol. 20, pp. 67-84.

Kruss, G, Adeoti, J. and Nabudere, D. (2012)

‘Universities and Knowledge-based

Development in sub-Saharan Africa: Comparing

University-Firm Interaction in Nigeria, Uganda

and South Africa’, Journal of Development

Studies, vol. 58, iss. 4, pp. 516-530.

Kutvonen, A. (2012), Strategic External

Deployment of Intellectual Assets, Lappeenranta:

Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis 502

Kutvonen, A., Torkkeli, M.T. and Lin, B. (2010)

‘Pre-commercialisation activities in external

exploitation of technology’, Int. J. Innovation

and Learning, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.208–230.

Lam, A. (2007) ‘Knowledge networks and careers:

Academic scientists in industry-university links’

Journal of Management Studies 44(6), 993-1016

Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2004) ‘Searching high

and low: what types of firms use universities as

https://solecris.uta.fi/crisyp/disp/6_/fi/cr_suorite/edi/edi/fet?id=8633981&verkko=1&cro=2429352619183621301938382224363728242721232118233622232528292838273822292738393739283727351836321717





a source of innovation?’ Research Policy, 33(8),

1201-1215

Lazaro, C.C., de Andoain, J.A.G. and Ruiz, A.C.

(2011) ‘Knowledge management at the technical

university of Madrid’, Arbor-Ciencia

Pensamiento Y Cultura 187, 101-115

Lei, X-P, Zhao, Z-Y, Zhang, X., Chen, D-Z.,

Huang, M-H., and Zhao, Y-H. (2012) ‘The

inventive activities and collaboration pattern of

university-industry-government in China based

on patent analysis’, Scientometrics, 90(1), 231-

251

Levy, R., Roux, P., and Wolff, S. (2009) ‘An

analysis of science-industry collaborative

patterns in a large European University’, Journal

of Technology Transfer Volume, 34(1), 1-23

Lichtenthaler (2011) Open Innovation: Past

Research, Current Debates, and Future

Directions, Academy of Management

Perspectives, 25(1), 75-93

Lichtenthaler, U. (2007) ‘Externally

commercializing technology assets: an

examination of different process stages’, Journal

of Business Venturing, 23, 445–464.

Link, A.N., Siegel, D.S. and Bozeman, B. (2007)

‘An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of

Academics to Engage in Informal University

Technology Transfer’, Industrial and Corporate

Change, 16 (4), 641-655

Lissoni, F. Llerena, P., McKelvey, M. and

Sanditov, B. (2008) ‘Academic Patenting in

Europe: New Evidence from the KEINS

Database, Research Evaluation, 17(2), 87-102.

Malik, K., Georghiou, L. and Grieve, B. (2011)

‘Developing New Technology Platforms for

New Business Models: Syngenta's Partnership

with the University of Manchester’, Research-

Technology Management, 54 (1), 24-31

Markman, D.G., Siegel, D.S. & Wright, M. (2008)

Research on Technology Commercialisation,

Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401-

1423

Mayer (2010) ‘Catching Up: The Role of State

Science and Technology Policy in Open

Innovation’ Economic Development Quarterly,

24(3), 195-209

McKibbon, K.A. (2006), “Systematic reviews and

librarians”, Library Trends, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp.

202–215.

Muhonen, R., Puuska, H.-M. and Leino, Y. (2012)

International Co-Publishing in Finland,

Helsinki: Reports of the Ministry of Education

and Culture, 19.

Nunez-Sanchez, Barge-Gil and Modrego-Rico

(2012) ‘Performance of knowledge interactions

between public research centres and industrial

firms in Spain: a project-level analysis’, Journal

of Technology Transfer, vol. 37, iss. 3, pp. 330-

354.

OECD (2003) Organization for Economic Co-

operation and Development 2003. Turning

Science into Business. Patenting and Licensing

at Public Research Organizations. Paris: OECD.

Penin, J. (2010) ‘On the Consequences of Patenting

University Research: Lessons from a Survey of

French Academic Inventors’, Industry and

Innovation, vol. 17, iss. 5, pp. 445-468.

Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. (2007) University-

industry relationships and open innovation:

Towards a research agenda, International

Journal of Management Review, 9(4), 259–280

Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K., (2009). ‘The two

faces of collaboration: impacts of university

industry relations on public research’, Industrial

and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033-1065.

Roper, S. and Arvanitis, S. (2012) ‘From

knowledge to added value: A comparative,

panel-data analysis of the innovation value chain

in Irish and Swiss manufacturing firms’,

Research Policy, 41, 1093– 1106

Siegel, D.S. and Wright, M. (2007) ‘Intellectual

property: the assessment’, Oxford Review of

Economic Policy, 23(4), 529-540

Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D. & Link, A. (2003)

'Assessing the Impact of Organizational

Practices on the Relative Productivity of

University Technology Transfer Offices: An

Exploratory Study,' Research Policy, 32(1), 27-

48.

Smith, B. L. R. and Korn, D. (2000) ‘Is There a

Crisis of Accountability in the American

Research University?’ Minerva, 38(2), 129-145.

Stephan, P. E. (2001) ‘Educational Implications of

University-Industry Technology Transfer’,

Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 199–

205.

Tether, B. and Tajar, A. (2008) ‘Beyond industry-

university links: Sourcing knowledge for

innovation from consultants, private research

organisations and the public science-base,’

Research Policy, 37(6-7), 1079-1095

Thursby, J. G., and Sukanya K. G. (2002) ‘Growth

and Productive Efficiency of University

Intellectual Property Licensing’, Research

Policy, 31(1), 109-124.

Tijssen (2012) ‘Co-authored research publications

and strategic analysis of public-private

collaboration’, Research Evaluation, vol. 21, iss.

3, pp. 204-215.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003)

‘Towards a Methodology for Developing


Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by

Means of Systematic Analysis’, British Journal

of Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 207-222.

van Geenhuizen, M. and Soetanto, D.P. (2012)

‘Open innovation among university spin-off

firms: what is in it for them, and what can cities

do?’Innovation: The European Journal of Social

Science Research, 25(2), 191-207

West, J. (2008) ‘Commercializing Open Science:

Deep Space Communications as the Lead

Market for Shannon Theory, 1960-73’, Journal

of Management Studies, vol. 45, iss. 8, pp. 1506-

1532. Wright, R. (2008) ‘Collaborating - How to get the

most from university relationships’, MIT Sloan

Management Review, 49(3), 75-80

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007) The

Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production

of Knowledge. Science, 316 (5827), 1036–1039.

Young, B., Hewitt-Dundas, N. and Roper, S. (2008)

‘Intellectual Property management in publicly

funded R&D centres - A comparison of

university-based and company-based research

centres’,Technovation, 28(8), 473-484


Appendix. Systematic review results

Author(s), year Level of analysis Main topics covered Findings University role / interaction

Bodas Freitas, Geuna & Rossi

(2013)

Organization-level Distinction between institutional and

personal contractual governance; which

types of firms elect to use which mode

Personal contractual arrangements with individual

researchers represent close to 50% of all university–

industry interactions. Large firms favour institutional

governance while small and/or technology-open firms

favour personal contractual governance.

University as knowledge

supplier

Alexander & Martin (2013) Organization-level Capabilities and strategies of technology

and knowledge transfer offices.

Conceptual model built on four core competences that

enable transfer offices’ operations: Set up and manage a

research project, Knowledge sharing and support to

enterprises, Boundary-spanning through HR and Patent

and entrepreneurship.


supplier

Comacchio, Bonesso & Pizzi

(2012)

Organization-level Ability of technology transfer centres to

foster university-industry collaboration

TTCs need to perform scanning and selection of R&D

opportunities, bridge building, semantic translation of

domain specific knowledge and engender co-production

of knowledge to bond the academic and industrial

systems. This requires both technical and networking

skills, task coordination and qualified social capital.

Bidirectional collaboration

Tijssen (2012) Publication-level Large-scale systematic measurement of

public-private co-publications

PPC data and metrics need to be situated to the context

of their relative scientific and industrial fields and

applied rather at the level of city agglomerations

(NUTS3) than larger provinces.


Roper & Arvanitis (2012) Policy-level How has innovation contributed to the

growth of economy in Switzerland

versus Ireland

Internal and external sources of knowledge complement

each other in innovation sourcing, emphasizing

importance of in-house R&D. Institutional and historical

contexts also influence the relationship between

innovation and productivity.


supplier

Nunez-Sanchez, Barge-Gil &

Modrego-Rico (2012)

Project-level Scientific and techno-economic impacts

of public research centres (PRC) and

industrial firm collaboration and pre-

project determinants thereof

Prior experience is highly important for techno-

commercial outcomes, but not for scientific performance.

PRC collaboration motives matter: if PRC are seeking

technical knowledge, the likelihood of producing patents

decreases, while financial motives are beneficial to

collaborative outcomes, as well as firm commitment.

Communication process quality also impacts outcomes,

while coordination only improves techno-economic

results.


Howells, Ramlogan & Cheng

(2012)

Organization-level Nature and impact of higher education

institutions collaboration on firms’

innovation and growth.

The effect of HEI collaboration on firms’ innovativeness

and growth is highly diversified and contingent on the

type and location of the firm.



Hewitt-Dundas (2012) Organization-level Is knowledge transfer activity dependent

on the research performance / research

intensiveness of the university?

High research intensive (HRI) universities emphasize IP

enabled knowledge transfer and low research intensive

(LRI) human capital development. Proportionally, LRI

universities are more active regionally although HRIs

have a larger scale and scope of transfer activity in total


Krishnan & Jha (2012) Organization-level Collaboration characteristics of Indian

automotive companies and universities

Indian automotive companies’ collaboration is focused

on competency development, training and utilization of

technical research services, such as testing and analytical

services. Government support may be crucial for

intensifying collaboration between universities and firms


supplier

van Geenhuizen & Soetanto

(2012)

Organization-level Utilization of open innovation in

university spin-off companies and the

role of cities in supporting it

Spin-offs lack resources in understanding and accessing

markets. Regionally or locally confined learning

networks are not sufficient to respond to this deficiency

thus implying need for more open approaches, where

active promotion and support of city governments may

help.


supplier

Kruss, Adeoti & Nabudere

(2012)

Policy-level African innovation systems and

conditions for university-industry

interaction within

Sub-Saharan African (and other low-income) developing

countries face unique challenges that prevent them from

directly imitating established policy models.


supplier

Lei et al. (2012) Policy-level Three models of university-industry-

government (Triple helix) relations and

their relation to inventive activity and

collaboration in China.

University and industry collaboration is the strongest

within the Triple Helix, while other relations remain

weak. China has evolved from etatistic model through

‘laissez-faire toward a triple helix. Innovation is centred

in private and foreign enterprises.


Dabic & Svarc (2011) Organization-level The emergence of the concept of

‘entrepreneurial university’ and the

forces of change behind this new model

Drivers of change include reduction of budgets, renewed

concept of the role of universities that now includes

economic development responsibility and globalization

and internationalization that heighten competition.


supplier

Lazaro, de Andoain & Ruiz

(2011)

Organization-level Describing the knowledge management

approach at a single university

Knowledge management at Polytechnic University of

Madrid aims at attracting a good level of resources,

students and reputation. They address this by developing

remote education, innovation policies, information

systems to store questionnaire data and personnel.


supplier

Al-Ashaab et al. (2011) Organization-level Measuring collaboration outcomes via a

Balanced Scorecard (BSC) method

Two cases of applying the collaboration BSC developed

within the paper are presented along with a list of 26 key

performance indicators that may be used.


supplier

Malik, Georghiou & Grieve

(2011)

Organization-level Organization, performance and

characteristics of University Innovation

Centers (UIC) through single case study

UIC provides a platform for building a deep open

innovation themed strategic alliance between a firm and

an university. They align the research interests of the two

parties while granting universities with more resources



but limiting their freedom in disseminating results;

companies gain access to knowledge and personnel

while requiring significant commitments.

Mayer (2010) Policy-level Impact of open innovation on state

public policy and implications for weak

R&D states: is open innovation a part of

weak R&D states’ policies?

There are implementations of individual elements that

support open innovation in state policy, but none

explicitly utilize the OI framework.


Bergman (2010) Organization-level The ‘European paradox’: the inability to

convert scientific knowledge to

commercial utilization.

Commercialization developments within European

universities are markedly heterogenous. Firms still seek

mainly public science outputs while (most) universities

focus on increasing commercialization. This drive

however has led to increasing opposition from the

academics toward the commercialization of science.


Penin (2010) Individual-level Consequences of academic patenting Patenting university research may facilitate technology

transfer, but delays publication and thus hinders

dissemination of scientific knowledge


supplier

Ebner, Leimeister & Krcmar

(2009)

Organization-level Developing a framework for

‘Community Engineering for Innovation’

as concept for IT-supported idea

competitions utilizing virtual crowds.

Idea competitions should focus on generation of ideas,

address broad topics, include attractive incentives and

involve all stakeholders early on. Communities, not

implementation, are key to success.


Levy, Roux & Wolff (2009) Organization-level Are there distinct collaborative patterns

in UIC? Are they related to firm

characteristics?

Typology of four collaboration logics and patterns,

discriminated by frequency of interaction and level of

secrecy (partner count). Linking firm size, sector and

proximity to collaborative behaviour.


Markman, Siegel & Wright

(2008)

Multiple levels Review on research and technology

commercialization research and

identification of research gaps

Proposing a taxonomy of modes of commercialization:

Internal, quasi-internal (incl. incubators and

intermediaries) and externalization approaches.


West (2008) Technology-level How is open science commercialized

without explicit IPR (i.e. patents)?

‘Open’ science should be defined by the availability,

flows and ability to apply forms of tacit and explicit

knowledge. Excludability may originate from tacit

knowledge and not only IPR. Introduction of notion of

open science commercialization process.


Young, Hewitt-Dundas & Roper

(2008)

Organization-level How do different IP management

practices at public research centers

influence potential knowledge spillovers

University- and company-based public research centers

have different IP strategies, with university-based ones

focusing on generation of public good, and company-

based seek to generate competitive advantage with

organizational characteristics influencing spillover types.

Dual role of universities as

suppliers and exploiters of

(codified) knowledge

Tether & Tajar (2008) Organization-level Extending UIC research to cover other

public science base and private research

organisations and to include also service

Specialist knowledge providers (SKP) complement firms

own innovative activities and different types of SKP

complement each other; Importance of networking and


supplier; private research

organizations act as


firms. social capital; service firms employ universities less. intermediaries.

Fabrizio & Di Minin (2008) Individual-level Relationship between patenting and

publishing research

Publication and patenting are complementary instead of

substitutes, although quality of publications may

decrease over the long run


supplier

Wright (2008) Organization-level How can relationships between firms and

universities be best managed? How can

divergent organizational goals of firms

and universities be reconciled to enable

collaboration?

Three issues lead to more successful collaboration:

1) Long-term partnerships favoured over transactional

approaches; 2) High involvement of senior management;

3) Involving universities on a strategic level, not only on

isolated (technical) problems


Allison & Eversole (2008) Policy-level How should universities engage with the

regional innovation systems?

Place-based knowledge generation and open innovation

open new possibilities for embedding universities to their

local regions and act as catalysts and intermediaries for

the benefit of regional innovation systems.

University as regional

innovation catalyst

Perkmann & Walsh (2007) Firm- / Policy-

level

Importance and role of university-

industry relationships (versus other U-I

links)

University-industry relationships are both widespread

and important in driving innovativeness of firms; open

innovation implies relational forms of collaboration


Siegel & Wright (2007) Policy-level Effects of technology transfer by

codified IP and resulting policy

implications.

Performance of science-based spin-offs that rely on

commercializing university or PRO research is

disappointing.


supplier

Lam (2007) Organization-level What types of career models can best

support university-industry collaboration

and knowledge flows?

Extending Internal Labour Markets to cross-boundary

settings between firm and university enable efficient

knowledge flows and flexibility to innovate.

Bidirectional collaboration;

University as broker / hub of

knowledge assets

Gittelman (2007) Team-level Does geographical proximity influence

likelihood of scientific knowledge or

technology creation?

In science-based teams high distance collaborations lead

to more scientific collaboration and local collaborations

to patentable knowledge.


Hershberg, Nabeshima & Yusuf

(2007)

Policy-level How should Asian countries involve

universities best in their innovation

systems and policies?

Previously Asian universities have mainly focused on

educating specialized skills to workforce and now they

are increasingly building university-industry linkages


supplier / actor in a cluster

Agrawal (2006) Transaction-level Why are some firms more successful

than others in commercializing

university-licensed knowledge?

Engaging the inventor add to the likelihood and degree

of commercialization success.


supplier

Laursen & Salter (2004) Organization-level Influence of search strategy (openness),

size, age and R&D intensity on

propensityof manufacturing firms to

collaborate with universities

Firms with “open” search strategies (using a wide variety

of external knowledge source types) are more likely to

collaborate with universities. Size and R&D intensity

also increase chance of collaboration.


supplier


Documents

University-Industry Collaboration and Knowledge Transfer in the Open Innovation Framework