How Industry Benefits from NSF's Engineering Research Centers

Roessner, David; Ailes, Catherine P.; Feller, Irwin; Parker, Linda

doi:10.1080/08956308.1998.11671236

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Literature adopting a managerial perspective in the study of TSS is far more scattered (Heydebreck et al, 2000;Roessner et al, 1998;Rogers et al, 1998). In particular, research on technological collaborations considers TSS organisations among the possible external partners for the innovating firm and draws some general conclusions about the management of the collaborative relationship (Chesbrough and Teece, 1996;Davidow and Malone, 1992;Chatterji and Manuel, 1993;Chatterji, 1996).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing and organising technical and scientific service firms: a taxonomy and an empirical study

Chiesa¹,

Frattini²,

Manzini³

2008

IJSTM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decade, firms have increasingly relied on external sources of technology to support their innovation process. A number of scholars have investigated several aspects of this phenomenon. Little attention has been paid to those companies that offer Technical and Scientific Services (TSS), although their number is increasing and it seems they have a positive impact on client firms' innovative performance.The purpose of this paper is to adopt a firm-level perspective and analyse the key organisational and managerial challenges TSS companies are confronted with. For this purpose, we first conducted a literature analysis in order to build a research framework that comprises: (1) a map of the organisational and managerial decisions that are critical to the TSS firm's competitiveness; and (2) a set of contextual variables that are likely to discriminate between alternative organisational and managerial choices. This research framework is applied in the second part of the paper to support a multiple case study analysis involving 12 TSS firms. A number of exploratory insights into the management and organisation of the analysed companies are presented and discussed.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing and organising technical and scientific service firms: a taxonomy and an empirical study

Chiesa¹,

Frattini²,

Manzini³

2008

IJSTM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For universities, the use of expensive or unique laboratory equipment can be essential to perform certain types of research (Thorsteinsdóttir 2000). High-tech start-ups often require a place to work from or need specialized equipment for technology and product development (Roessner et al 1998). …”

Section: Tangible Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128

Stijn

Rijnsoever

Veelen³

2017

J Technol Transf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the concept of university-start-up interaction (USUI) as a source of knowledge spillover and innovation. In doing so, we bring together literature on three broad mechanisms that enable knowledge utilization: education, new venture support, and university-industry interaction (UII), as we argue that USUI is a process in which all three are relevant. We first identify USUI practices and how universities and start-ups use these practices to achieve their objectives. Second, we study when the USUI process is mutually beneficial to both actor types in terms of resources. We develop a theoretical framework based on the objectives of the two actor types, the resource-based view, and three generic utilization mechanisms: education, creating new venture support, and UII. Empirically, 36 qualitative interviews were conducted with clean-tech start-ups, universities, and other experts, such as accelerators and incubator facilities in the Boston area, Massachusetts, USA, also known as ''Route 128''. After analyzing the resources exchanged during through 14 practices, we find that USUI is largely based on intangible resources. Second, the resources that universities transfer to start-ups mostly relate to organization and product development, but little to market development. Third, universities can strengthen their (entrepreneurship) education programs and knowledge utilization objectives through USUI, but there is little added value to fundamental research carried out by universities. Overall, we conclude that whether USUI is beneficial largely depends how organizations value their different objectives. Science-based start-ups are more likely to benefit from USUI, whereas start-ups close to market might be better off with other support programs. Universities with a strong focus on fundamental research benefit less from USUI than universities that are more diverse, applied, or have a strong focus on teaching and knowledge utilization. As such, our findings provide insight into the motives of USUI, which enables policy makers and universities to promote knowledge utilization through USUI.

show abstract

“…From the companies' point of view, empirical surveys of firms participating in such collaborations, as well as case studies, point to the following benefits, among others (Alic, 1990;Berman, 1990;Brockhoff, 1992Brockhoff, , 1997Bloedon and Stokes, 1994;Quintas and Guy, 1995;Roessner et al, 1998;Senker, 1998): * Economies of scale and scope in research; * Reducing product or process costs; * Acceleration of R&D; * Avoidance of unnecessary duplication of research; * Risk management; * Financial support for costly projects or equipment; * Access to research know-how networks and related technologies; * Technology and knowledge transfer, assimilation and utilisation; * Hiring university students or graduates; * Enhancement of reputation.…”

Section: Randd Collaborative Projects: Benefits For Companies Universimentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing collaborative, pre‐competitive R&D projects: the case of the UK LINK scheme

Grimaldi

Tunzelmann

2002

R & D Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper addresses the evaluation of outcomes of collaborative, pre-competitive R&D projects. It draws on some empirical analysis carried out on data and information gathered under the UK`LINK' scheme, a programme supporting R&D collaborative projects and assessing collaboration outcomes. A new indicator of performance, based on the outputs of LINK projects, has been constructed. It provides a relative and quite consistent measure of performance for making comparisons among different LINK projects. However it does not correlate with the more subjective grade applied by LINK's own management. For further improving evaluating mechanisms, more attention should be paid to the benefits that universities and companies as well as governments are drawing from R&D collaborations.

show abstract

How Industry Benefits from NSF's Engineering Research Centers

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

Managing and organising technical and scientific service firms: a taxonomy and an empirical study

Managing and organising technical and scientific service firms: a taxonomy and an empirical study

Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128

Assessing collaborative, pre‐competitive R&D projects: the case of the UK LINK scheme

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About