Managing the intellectual capital within government-university-industry R&D partnerships

Abstract

Purpose – As the complexity and scope of technical and social challenges increase, solutions to those challenges must be addressed by collaborative research and intellectual capital sharing efforts involving multiple organizations. One prominent type of research collaborative is the government-university-industry R&D partnership, an organizational form found in many countries. These collaboratives pose special management challenges, as they must combine the efforts of researchers coming from very different institutional and organizational cultures in order to capitalize their own intellectual capital. Many such partnerships have failed due to the inability to bridge these cultural gaps. The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for establishing and managing these partnerships, using principles and constructs drawn from institutional theory, organizational learning, alliance theory, and innovation management. Design/methodology/approach – The examples of the NASA Laboratories, which are incubating several companies, are analyzed to show how this framework can highlight key attributes of successful research collaboratives. Findings – The recurring pattern from these diverse case studies shows that the presence of internal and external champions, appropriate technology, and patient risk capital make a difference in winning in a competitive environment. However, part of the same pattern perhaps is the lack of any identifiable recipes for success - critical factors appear to be situation specific. Originality/value – In light of the findings from the seven case studies the authors presented, they recommend using a hybrid portfolio approach in assessing the success of technology transfer and commercialization efforts.

An exploration of the application of universities as artificial institutional entrepreneurs: The case of China

“…In the context of China, the strategic alliance of government, university, and industry/firms uses government funds, transfers a university's research outputs, and commercializes them via industrial entities or microfirms established by entrepreneurial individuals. The key aim is to develop or “evolve as a shared community of innovation” (Carayannis et al, , p. 611). This intention of a close GUI partnership is to build circular national innovation and entrepreneurship systems and emphasizes the importance of knowledge flows and linkages between firms, universities, and state agencies (Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, ; Leydesdorff & Park, ).…”

“…The aim is to generate external revenue, thus Western entrepreneurial universities encourage academic entrepreneurship that helps enhance knowledge spillovers to local firms and creates new jobs and industries (Link & Siegel, ; Marion, Dunlap, & Friar, ; Mowery & Shane, ; Rothaermel et al, ; Yetisen et al, ). However, the Western model has rendered universities as sources of knowledge flows, with less government involvement (Carayannis, Alexander, & Hausler, , ; Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, ).…”

Financing entrepreneurship by risk capital - evidence revisited

“…De Rosa (1995) used a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods to assess this program and verify its impact. Apart from a positive economic impact, improved support for entrepreneurs and easier access to risk capital, enhanced academia-business transfer as well as collaboration show that such initiatives are not only necessary but vital (Carayannis and Papadopoulos, 2011;Carayannis et al, 2014;Cheney and Ozawa, 2011;Lerner, 2002). Obviously, the majority of financing partners are frequently confronted with insufficient investment opportunities, which results in considerable uncommitted sums being available for investment.…”

“…Smith, 1997) using principles and constructs drawn from institutional theory, alliance theory and innovation management (e.g. Carayannis et al, 2014). Table 1b lists studies employing both qualitative and quantitative methods.…”

INDUSTRY 4.0: glitter or gold? A systematic review

“…One possible explanation for why such framework exists is the challenge in linking tangible and intangible inputs and outputs and capturing their relationship and value. This relationship is especially intractable when one tries to link intangible inputs (knowledge and skills) with tangible outputs (money or another measurable ROI) (Carayannis et al, 2014). This lack of systematisation hinders both research and cross-sectional studies.…”