The influence of shared R&D-project innovativeness perceptions on university-industry collaboration performance

Abstract

University-industry collaboration (UIC) partners' different organizational backgrounds entail socialization with distinct thought worlds, management approaches, and therefore diverging goals, which may lead to differences in their perceptions of the R&D challenge. These differences can hamper relationship quality and may cause coordination challenges. Using dyadic survey data of 164 UIC project managers of 82 projects, we analyze the consequences of partners' shared R&D-project innovativeness perceptions for project performance. We consider the planning intensity and the collaboration in the planning process as antecedents to partners' shared perceptions. We find that partners' shared R&D-project innovativeness perceptions increase project performance. We also show that collaborative planning enhances shared perception. Moreover, we find support that planning intensity (i.e., formal control) and collaborative planning (i.e., social control) complement each other. Hence, if both partners are involved in a collaborative and intensive planning process, they will more likely exhibit a shared R&D project innovativeness perception and, therefore, increase UIC project performance. This will help to manage their R&D activities to create a sense of ownership and to prevent inefficient project deviations.

The effects of university–industry collaboration in preclinical research on pharmaceutical firms’ R&D performance: Absorptive capacity’s role

“…A study on particular UIC projects could analyze the outcome of such projects and explore how such projects’ output contributes to particular clinical trials of pharmaceuticals. Such project‐level studies may also be able to target the efficacy of concrete transfer and project management instruments (Schultz et al, 2020).…”

Assessment of industry’s perception of effective mechanisms to stimulate academia–industry collaboration in Sub-Saharan Africa

“…(3) its ability to apply knowledge to solve the firm's problem. In the same line, Schultz et al (2020) link planning intensity as a formal control to shared perceptions of R&D project innovativeness. They contend that this type of control helps to establish a certain level of transparency which in return prevents fraud and misconduct and enhances mutual trust.…”

“…Previous literature on UIC has identified several barriers that preclude interactions between academia and industry. Many stem from the differing organizational backgrounds between firms and universities (Sjöö and Hellström, 2021), often resulting in firms’ unfavorable perception of academics and their proposed services (Schultz et al, 2020) and a low demand for university knowledge (Bonaccorsi, 2016; Zavale, 2017). Understanding industry’s perception and preferences, and creating a favorable positioning of academic services vis-à-vis industry needs can hence be considered the best mechanism to trigger academia–industry interactions (Walters and Ruhanen, 2018).…”

Strategic mechanisms for stimulating academiaindustry interactions in Rwanda

“…Past literature on UIC identified several barriers precluding interactions between academia and industry. Many of them stem from differing organizational background between firms and universities (Sjöö & Hellström, 2021), often resulting in firms' unfavorable perception about academics and their proposed services (Schultz et al, 2020) and in low demand of university knowledge (Zavale, 2017;Bonaccorsi, 2016;Oyelaran-Oyeyinka & Adebowale, 2012). Understanding industry perception and preferences and creating a favorable positioning of academic services vis-à-vis industry needs can hence be considered as the best mechanism to trigger academia industry interactions (Walters & Ruhanen, 2018).…”

“…The majority of previous studies on firms' perception have assessed it from the perspective of firms' intention to engage with academics (e.g., Zavale, 2017;El Hadidi & Kirby, 2017), antecedents to collaboration and UIC process (e.g., Johnston & Haggins, 2018;Schultz et al, 2020;Sjöö & Hellström, 2021;Schillebeeckx et al, 2016) and barriers faced (e.g., Walters & Ruhanen, 2018;Bruneel et al, 2010). Considering that most of these studies based on ex-post collaboration experience, their produced knowledge is more adapted to contexts where UIC is already well practiced, especially since according to Schillebeeckx et al (2016, "deriving antecedents of tie formation ex post can only partially illuminate ex ante motives and preferences".…”