What are university-industry research links about?

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

What are university-industry research links about?. Structure of the Lecture. The university-industry complex: A yet poorly understood system. University-industry relationships: The importance of searching, screening and signalling - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Text of What are university-industry research links about?

  • What are university-industry research links about?

  • Structure of the LectureThe university-industry complex: A yet poorly understood system.University-industry relationships: The importance of searching, screening and signallingThe Governance of University-Industry Knowledge Transfer: Are Different Models Coexisting?

  • The university-industry complex*

  • *What do we know?30 years after the start of the institutionalisation (with policy support) of uni-ind relationships we know something but not yet enough to have a consolidated understanding (conflicting results):Field/sector effectResearcher characteristicsUniversity characteristicsFirm characteristics

  • *Field/sectorMost of the evidence is based on hightech industries and especially biomedical; in most recent years also other fields (engineering) have been increasingly studied; Fields with most intense collaborations.We still fail to recognize the importance of non hightech fields: see for example Food;We know very little of the interactions in services (important in the UK case);

  • Field/sectorAcross fields/sectors there are extremely important differences in: type of knowledge, the codification of knowledge, incentives and reward system, supply or demand led, etc

    *

  • Researcher CharacteristicsRecent wave of studies at the individual level:Previous experience;Entrepreneurial capacity in raising funding (public and private);Seniority and tenure ~Male ~Teaching ?

  • University characteristicsMore likely to occur in some universities than in others due to differences in:Type (disciplinary orientation, local development focus) of the UNI;Environment of the UNI;Culture (more is done in the centre/department and more is accepted and more will be done . B. Clark entrepreneurial UNI);

  • University characteristicsQuality of the centre/department +/-Existence of formal infrastructure of KT ?Size ?

  • Firm Characteristics I Quantitative analysis based on surveys: Yale, Carnegie Mellon, PACE, CIS II-III-IV, KNOW, National surveys:Klevorick et al., 1995 USMeyer-Krahmer and Schmoch (1998) and Beise and Stahl (1999) national survey Germany;Arundel and Geuna (2004) PACE EU countries;Mohnen and Hoareau (2002) CIS II EU countries;Cohen, Nelson and Walsh (2002) CM USA;Swann (2002) and Laursen and Salter (2003) CIS III UK.

  • Firm Characteristics IIThe size of the firm affect collaboration:The larger the more collaboration. butSmall biotech firms and spin-offs. The R&D investment and/or R&D intensity:Absorptive capacity.

  • Firm Characteristics IIIOpenness of the firm (+):Searching, screening and signallingThe role of demand !!!Product versus process innovation:Mixed results.Independent (+) versus subsidiaries:The role of the headquarter.

  • Firm Characteristics IVCountries differences.Technological sector.Distance matters (but not always and not for all).

  • University-industry relationships: The importance of searching, screening and signalling

    Roberto Fontana, Aldo Geuna, Mireille Matt

  • Contribution of the paperWe want to explain why certain firms do cooperate with universities while other dont (probability of cooperation yes/no);For the sample of firms that cooperated with university, we want to explain the number of R&D JV that firms had (intensity of cooperation how many times.We want to test if openess of the firm plays a role e.g. the role of demand

  • Literature and hypotheses (1)The degree of openness: import external knowledge and knowledge disclosure on a voluntary basis Search strategy: firms look for sources of knowledge (number of external knowledge channels) (Laursen & Salter 2003)Screening activity: selection of a specific relevant source (journals = source of open science, but also of info about scientists)Signalling activity: voluntary disclosure (Pnin 2004) trigger reciprocity, gain feedbacks, network, reputation, higher order knowledge, attract potential partners.H1: Openness should affect positively the probability and the intensity (different effects).

  • Literature and hypotheses (2)The size: Absolute - (Arundel & Geuna 2004, Mohnen & Hoareau 2003, Cohen et al 2002, etc.);Relative to R&D.

    H2.1 Larger firms should have a higher probability to cooperate (internalisation of spillovers).H2.2. Firms with larger R&D investment should be involved in a greater # of R&D projects (spare resources).

  • Literature and hypotheses (3)R&D intensity Active at the technological frontier more reliant on science (Arundel & Geuna 2004, Schartinger et al. 2001); High R&D investment => high absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).

    H3. The higher the R&D intensity, the higher the probability of cooperating and the greater the number of projects.

  • Literature and hypotheses (4)The legal status of the firm:R&D activities concentrated at a firms headquarter;Independent firms cooperate more with PROs than firms belonging to a large group (Mohnen & Hoareau 2003).

    H4. Within multi-plan firms, headquarters mediate collaboration.

  • Literature and hypotheses (5)Type of innovative activities: contrasted results:Positive relation between radical product innovation and cooperation with PROs (Mohnen & Hoareau, 2003);Companies involved in process innovation are more likely to cooperate with PROs than those engaged in product innovation (Swann, 2002).

  • DATA SOURCES

  • Data sourcesKNOW survey 2000 7 EU countries: Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, UK 5 sectors: food and beverages, chemicals excluding pharma, communications equipment, telecom services and computer services 2 size classes: (10-249 employees, 250-999 employees)Average response rate: 33% (minus UK) 50% of innovative firms (222) signed R&D cooperation with PROs in the 3 years before the survey.

  • The variables (1)Openness of the firm :Number of external sources (fairs and conferences, searching patent db, reverse engineering, internet) - SEARCHMean % of new innovations introduced in collaboration with partners - ExtCOLLScreening publications PUBLICATIONSGovernment R&D projects SUBSIDIESPatents - PATENTSSEARCHINGSCREENINGSIGNALLING

  • The variables (2)Firm size:Number of employees - EmployeesR&D employment R&D Firm R&D Activity: R&D intensity R&DINT Outsourcing R&D expenditures ExtR&D Headquarter - HEADQ

  • The variables (3)Firm innovative activityProcess innovation PROCINNProduct innovation PRODINN

    Country and sector fixed effects COUNTRY, SECTOR.

  • ECONOMETRIC RESULTS

  • Estimation: models & results (1)Negative Binomial Models.Zero Inflated Negative BinomialNumber of R&D Projects = extent of collaboration;Propensity for firms to engage in R&D Project = existence of a relationship (Logit Selection)

  • (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    (5)

    Intercept

    -2.091

    -2.065

    -2.601

    -2.589

    -3.823

    [0.51]**

    [0.56]**

    [0.62]**

    [0.61]**

    [0.91]**

    Relative Size

    Ln(R&D)

    0.375

    0.354

    0.231

    0.187

    0.195

    [0.07]**

    [0.08]**

    [0.08]**

    [0.08]**

    [0.09]**

    Abs Capacity

    Ln(R&DINT)

    0.970

    1.169

    1.440

    1.515

    1.280

    [0.49]**

    [0.54]**

    [0.53]**

    [0.52]**

    [0.56]**

    Status

    Headq (dummy)

    0.440

    0.434

    0.504

    0.539

    0.371

    [0.16]**

    [0.17]**

    [0.18]**

    [0.18]**

    [0.21]*

    Type of Innovative Activity

    Process (dummy)

    0.792

    0.846

    0.710

    0.587

    0.614

    [0.22]**

    [0.25]**

    [0.26]**

    [0.26]**

    [0.28]**

    Product(dummy)

    0.703

    0.571

    0.525

    0.404

    0.326

    [0.46]

    [0.50]

    [0.50]

    [0.50]

    [0.51]

    Searching

    ExtColl

    0.005

    0.004

    0.005

    0.005

    [0.00]

    [0.00]

    [0.00]

    [0.00]

    Screening

    Publications (dummy)

    0.786

    0.777

    0.928

    [0.24]**

    [0.24]**

    [0.29]**

    Subsidies (dummy)

    0.591

    0.569

    0.581

    [0.18]**

    [0.18]**

    [0.20]**

    Signalling

    Patent (dummy)

    0.429

    0.495

    [0.17]**

    [0.19]**

    Controls

    Ext R&D

    0.007

    [0.00]

    Sector (dummy)

    YES

    Country (dummy)

    YES

    Log-likelihood

    -643.11

    -550.91

    -506.74

    -502.64

    -418.41

    LR Chisq

    67.95**

    58.81**

    70.20**

    76.93**

    99.73**

    Pseudo Rsq

    0.050

    0.050

    0.065

    0.071

    0.106

    No Obs

    395

    336

    304

    303

    255

    LR Chisq

    370.20**

    324.04**

    268.09**

    257.60**

    163.34**

  • ZINB

    (6)

    (7)

    Logit

    Selection

    Intercept

    -1.17

    3.35

    [0.83]

    [4.50]

    Relative Size

    Ln(R&D)

    0.15

    [0.07]**

    Abs Capacity

    Ln(R&DInt)

    0.83

    -3.22

    [0.48]*

    [1.89]*

    Absolute Size

    Ln(Employees)

    -0.42

    [0.22]*

    Status

    Headq (dummy)

    0.08

    -1.16

    [0.19]

    [0.63]*

    Type of Innovative Activity

    Process (dummy)

    0.50

    -0.32

    [0.31]

    [0.70]

    Product (dummy)

    0.74

    2.78

    [0.44]*

    [3.69]

    Searching

    ExtColl

    0.00

    -0.00

    [0.00]

    [0.01]

    Screening

    Publications (dummy)

    -2.05

    [0.60]**

    Subsidies (dummy)

    -1.58

    [0.62]**