Ph.D. in Management
Academic Year 2015-2016
The Micro-dynamics of
University-Industry Collaboration:
The case of Telecom Italia Joint Open Labs
Doctoral Dissertation presented by:
Maral Mahdad
To
The Class of Social Sciences
For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of PhD in Management: Innovation, Sustainability and Health care
Curriculum: Innovation Management
Supervisor: Andrea Piccaluga
Co-supervisor: Alberto Di Minin
The Micro-dynamics of University-Industry
Collaboration:
The case of Telecom Italia Joint Open Labs
Maral Mahdad
Supervisor ---
Co-supervisor---
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Yes. We did it. We are reaching to the last episode of this fantastic journey. ‘We’ explains many things. Here I would like to thank all wonderful people who walked with me along this way, supported me, believed in me and encouraged me.
Firstly, I would like to give my special thanks to my supervisor Prof. Piccaluga for all his supports, understandings and trust during these three years. You have walked with me toward up and downs step-by-step, trusted me and encouraged me to improve day by day. You have given me many national and international opportunities to broaden my professional landscape. Thank you! I also would like to thank my co-supervisor Prof. Di Minin for his valuable insights and supervision during these three years. Thanks for believing in me; you have given me opportunities to build up my career on their basis. Thanks for listening to me and supporting me.
I would like to express my gratitude to the Institute of Management at Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna and its wonderful staff for giving me this great opportunity. Foremost, I give my heartful thanks to Maria Giulia Costagli for her exceptional support and to Stefania Pizzini for her endless help during my PhD.
I would like to give exceptional thanks to Valeria D’Amico and Gianluca De Petris from Telecom Italia. Thank you for being supportive during the data collection period and facilitating all complications. This thesis would have never been completed without your effective communications and support. Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to all the people I have interviewed and all the JOLs’ directors. Thanks for the time spent in talking to me and sharing your insights.
I would like to express my special thanks to Prof. Bogers who hosted me in his group at the University of Copenhagen during my visiting period. Thanks for all your support, guidance and generosity in time you spent with me discussing plentiful doubts and questions during this process. It has been a pleasure for me to work with you. I would like to express my heartful thanks to Prof. Thi Minh Thai for her endless guidance and help during my visiting period. Thanks for all your constructive comments and patients in listening to me. Your boundless motivating approach made this journey more enjoyable. Thank you! I would like to thank Department of Food and Resource Economics of University of Copenhagen and its staff; where I spent my visiting period from January to September 2016 and have enjoyed their warm hospitability and availability. I would like to thank Prof. Buekel and Prof. Tavella for their valuable insights during my stay. I also want to express my gratitude to the members of the OI-net project in where I spent almost two years with them. Special thanks to Ger Post our WP leader for all he taught me during this period and his believe in me. My special thanks also go to Daria, Ekaterina, Arie, Monique and Yvonne for making this experience as wonderful as it can be.
It was end of May 2013 that I was informed about my PhD acceptance. I became full of excitements and delights not only to meet my goal but also to know that I will be staying in wonderful Italy for three more years. I want to thank my Italian friends and family; during my stay with you I always felt being home because I was fulfilled with your love and protection in every difficulties and in all up an downs of my life. Greta, thank you for being by my side everyday in all my tears and laughter; Irene, there is and there will be only one mate in the world and that is you, thank you; Federica, thanks for believing in me, supporting me, and walking with me through every single step, thank you; Martina, thank you for holding my hands when they were cold; Giovanna, traveling through the journey of PhD has been such an enjoyable roller-coaster, thanks for giving me accompany and believing in me; Chiara, our never-ending stories never ends, thanks for being not only an amazing fellow but a true friend; Andrea, thank you for all your encouragements, pushing forwards and support during these years; Mehdi, thanks for believing in me since the beginning and standing by my side all the way; Herica, this is just the beginning thanks for all your support and kindness along the way; Claudia, I thank you for being so understanding and supportive in these years. I want to give my heartful appreciations to all my friends, fellows and colleagues in Italy: Fabrizio, Francesco, Gianluca, Giuseppe, Silvia, Daniella, Kamran, Elena, Cristina, Mona, Parvane, and Reza. I would like to thank my friends in Iran who are always with me and supporting me: Mina, Elham and Elham thank you.
Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to my parents for their endless love and encouragement. Thank you for being wonderful parents, friends and supervisors. These lines cannot express my gratitude to you, thank you for being so caring and supportive these years. Mom, I am learning how to be strong but I am just stronger with you, thanks for being so close to me even when we are far from each other. Dad, without your thoughts, advises, inspirations and support I would never be able to make it to here, thank you for being my best friend besides being the best dad ever. I also like to give my special thanks to my brothers Yashar and Araz for their infinite love, support and encouragements. Having you always by my side wouldn’t let me being afraid of entering any challenge, thank you.
Maral Mahdad 4 Oct 2016
ABSTRACT
Although university-industry collaboration (UIC) has received significant scholarship for four decades, the underlying micro-dynamics that shape inter-organizational relationships (IOR) within this context remained under-explored. To address this issue, a particular mode of UIC has been selected namely university-industry joint laboratories (UIJL). Separate university-based entity, independent organizational structure, co-location of university and industry representatives and mutual investment are among identical characters of these laboratories and provide us a fairly original case to investigate. The foundation of this dissertation is built on Knowledge-Based View (KBV) of organization because of above-mentioned characters. To conceptualize the micro-dynamics of IOR, localization and coordination arguments helped us. Given the originality of the unexplored context of UIJLs and the process perspective over the phenomenon we employed qualitative approaches. Our results are derived from 53 in-depth interviews with laboratory directors and employees, and representatives from both the company and the university within eight joint laboratories of Telecom Italia (TIM). The emerging four empirical papers of this dissertation yield to elucidate the processes through which interactions shape IORs within UIJLs at micro and macro level. Proximity, leadership and organizational identity are three pillars of the theoretical foundation of the empirical papers. The findings indicate that 1) geographical proximity at the micro-level triggers interactions in inter-organizational relationships within UIJLs by influencing other proximity dimensions especially social and cultural thus facilitates collaborative innovation, 2) localization mechanisms require charismatic leadership at the micro-level and distributed at the collective level to leverage on micro-dynamics of inter-organizational relationships within UIJLs, 3) although localization mechanisms triggers organizational identity change, this change can be coordinated through processes in which shared identity is re-constructed for collaborative innovation environment. The findings of this dissertation contribute theoretically and practically and suggest scholars and practitioners to exploit more micro-level data and micro-dynamics derived from interactions when exploring inter-organizational relationships of university-industry collaboration.
ABSTRACT (ITALIAN)
Negli ultimi quarant’anni, la ricerca accademica ha dedicato significative attenzioni alla tematica della collaborazione università-impresa (University-Industry Collaboration – UIC). Ciononostante, le micro-dinamiche sottese al fenomeno che in tale contesto influenzano le relazioni inter-organizzative (Inter-Organizational Relationships – IOR) sono rimaste inesplorate. Per affrontare il tema, si è scelta una peculiare modalità di UIC, e cioè quella dei laboratori congiunti università-impresa (University Industry Joint Laboratory – UIJL). Tra gli elementi caratteristici comuni agli UIJL si riscontrano la presenza di un istituto universitario, una struttura organizzativa indipendente, una co-localizzazione di università ed industria rappresentative ed un mutuo investimento. Questi elementi caratterizzano un caso alquanto interessante da prendere in esame. Le basi di questa tesi, in virtù dei suddetti elementi, si fondano su una concezione knwowledge-based (Knowledge-Based View – KBV) dell’organizzazione. Al fine di concettualizzare le micro-dinamiche delle IOR, abbiamo considerato il dibattito su localizzazione e coordinazione. Data l’originalità del contesto inesplorato degli UIJL e la prospettiva di processo applicabile al fenomeno, abbiamo scelto di utilizzare un approccio qualitativo. I nostri risultati derivano da 53 interviste approfondite con direttori ed impiegati dei laboratori e con rappresentanti sia dell’azienda che delle università in otto laboratori congiunti di Telecom Italia (TIM). La nostra ricerca ha prodotto i quattro articoli empirici di questa tesi che forniscono delle delucidazioni riguardo ai processi tramite i quali le interazioni modellano le IOR interne ai UIJL a livello micro e macro. Prossimità, leadership ed identità organizzativa sono i tre pilastri della base teorica dei suddetti articoli. I risultati dicono che: 1) la prossimità geografica a livello micro innesca delle interazioni nelle relazioni inter-organizzative interne agli UIJL, che influenzano le altre dimensioni di prossimità, specie quelle sociali e culturali, e dunque facilitano l’innovazione collaborativa; 2) i meccanismi di localizzazione richiedono una leadership carismatica a livello micro e distribuita a livello collettivo in modo da poter far leva sulle micro-dinamiche delle relazioni inter-organizzative nell’ambito degli UIJL; 3) nonostante i meccanismi di localizzazione influenzino il cambiamento dell’identità organizzativa, tale mutamento può essere coordinato per mezzo di processi in cui un’identità condivisa si riedifica per l’ambiente di innovazione collaborativa. I risultati di questa tesi offrono un contributo sia teoretico sia pratico e suggeriscono a studiosi e professionisti di accrescere lo sfruttamento dei dati di livello micro e le micro-dinamiche derivate dalle interazioni allorquando si esplorino le relazioni
inter-TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... IV
ABSTRACT ... VI
ABSTRACT (ITALIAN) ... VII
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... VIII
LIST OF TABLES ... VI
LIST OF FIGURES ... VII
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ... VII
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ... 8
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH PURPOSE ... 8
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION FORMULATION ... 11
1.3 SUMMARY OF EMPIRICAL PAPERS ... 14
1.4 DISSERTATION OVERVIEW AND INTENDED CONTRIBUTIONS ... 18
REFERENCES... 21
CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART AND BACKGROUND ... 25
2.1 THE EVOLUTION OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION ... 25
2.1.1 Period of debates: from 1980s to 1990s ... 25
2.1.2 Period of enrichments: from 1990s to 2000s ... 26
2.1.3 Period of delights: from 2000s to 2010s ... 27
2.1.4 When one size doesn’t fit all: from 2010s to present ... 30
2.2 UNIVERSITY INDUSTRY JOINT LABORATORIES (UIJL) ... 33
2.3 INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS ... 41
2.3.1 Micro-dynamics of IORs... 44
2.4 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ... 46
2.5 SUMMARIZING RESEARCH GAPS ... 47
REFERENCES ... 50
CHAPTER 3. THE RESEARCH CONTEXT ... 56
3.1 INTRODUCING TELECOM ITALIA GROUP (TIM) ... 56
3.2 JOINT OPEN LAB ... 57
3.3 PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE ... 59
3.4 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ... 61
REFERENCES... 67
CHAPTER 4. WHEN INDUSTRY AND UNIVERSITY LIVE UNDER THE SAME ROOF: TELECOM ITALIA’S JOINT LABORATORIES INITIATIVES ... 69
ABSTRACT ... 69
4.1 INTRODUCTION ... 70
4.2 METHODOLOGY ... 73
4.3 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 75
4.4 CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FURTHER RESEARCH ... 80
REFERENCES... 82
CHAPTER 5. THE MICROGEOGRAPHY OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION: THE CASE OF JOINT LABORATORIES OF TELECOM ITALIA ... 84
5.1 INTRODUCTION ... 85
5.2 CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND ... 86
5.2.1 Geographical proximity: an arrangement for innovation? ... 86
5.2.2 Geographical proximity and university-industry collaborations ... 87
5.2.3 Geographical proximity and other proximity dimensions ... 88
5.3 DATA AND METHODOLOGY ... 91
5.3.1 Research design ... 91
5.3.2 Data collection, description & analysis ... 91
5.4 RESULTS ... 95
5.5 PERMANENT GEOGRAPHICAL PROXIMITY WITHIN UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY JOINT LABORATORIES .... 100
5.6 CONCLUSIONS... 101
REFERENCES... 104
CHAPTER 6. THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP IN BRIDGING THE CULTURAL DIVIDE WITHIN UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY JOINT LABORATORIES ... 107
ABSTRACT ... 107
6.1 INTRODUCTION ... 108
6. 2 BACKGROUND ... 109
6.2.1 Divergent culture within U-I Jl ... 109
6.2.2 Leadership for collaborations/partnerships ... 111
6.3 METHODS ... 112 6.3.1 Research design ... 112 6.3.2 Data collection ... 112 6.3.3 Data description ... 113 6.3.4 Data analysis ... 113 6.4 RESULTS ... 115
6.4.1 Leaders as sensemakers and sensegivers ... 116
6.4.2 Leadership in U-I JLs: a proposed analytical framework ... 120
6.5 CONCLUDING DISCUSSION ... 122
REFERENCES... 125
CHAPTER 7. WHY OPEN INNOVATION IS EASIER SAID THAN DONE: AN ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY PERSPECTIVE ... 128 ABSTRACT ... 128 7.1 INTRODUCTION ... 129 7.2 BACKGROUND ... 131 7.3 METHOD ... 134 7.3.1 Participants ... 135 7.3.2 Data collection ... 135 7.3.3 Data analysis ... 136 7.4 FINDINGS ... 136
7.4.1 From company’s core identity to identity ambiguity ... 137
7.4.2 From identity ambiguity to constructing shared identity... 139
7.4.3 Analytical model ... 140
7.5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 141
REFERENCES... 144
CHAPTER 8. MAIN CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE THESIS ... 149
8.1 KEY FINDINGS AND THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION ... 149
8.1.1 localization and university industry collaboration ... 152
8.1.2 Coordination and university industry collaboration ... 153
8.2 INTEGRATION OF KEY CONPECTS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ... 154
8.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ... 156
8.3.1 Implications for enterprises ... 156
8.3.2 Implications for Universities ... 157
8.4 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 157
REFERENCES... 160
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 summary of empirical papers ... 20
Table 2.1 modes of UI interaction (source: Thune & Gulbrandsen, 2013) ... 33
Table 2.2 Literature review of UIJLs ... 37
Table 2.3 level of interactions and IOR (source: Parmigiani & Rivera-santos, 2011) ... 42
Table 3.1 Key features of JOLs ... 58
Table 3.2 Overview of interview data and data collection ... 63
Table 3.3 Number of interviews in each laboratory ... 64
Table 4.1 interviewees information ... 74
Table 4.2 cultural barriers adopted from Rorhbeck and Arnold, 2006 ... 74
Table 4.3 percieved advantages and barriers of working under the same roof ... 77
Table 5.1 Number of key data sources and interviews for each case ... 92
Table 5.2 laboratory profile ... 93
Table 5.3 proximity dimensions profile ... 94
Table 5.4 the influence of geographical proximity on other proximity dimensions at micro and macro level ... 95
Table 6.1 Cultural differences between University and Industry ... 110
Table 6.2 Number of key data sources and interviews for each case ... 113
Table 6.3 Laboratory profile ... 114
Table 6.4 leadership profile and laboratories leadership aspects ... 116
Table 7.1 Key quotations ... 148
Table 8.1 Summary of key findings and contributions of empirical papers ... 150
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 initial conceptual framework ____________________________________________________________________ 13 Figure 2.1 Evolution of UIC: highlights (source: authors) __________________________________________________ 32 Figure 2.2 UI alliances (source: Boardman and Bozeman,2015) __________________________________________ 35 Figure 2.3 Typology of UIJL (source: author) _______________________________________________________________ 41 Figure 3.1 Joint Open Laboratories of TIM __________________________________________________________________ 58 Figure 4.1 Codified advantages and barriers percieved by laboratory members _________________________ 78 Figure 5.1 Geographical proximity and other proximity dimensions: A conceptual framework (Source: Author) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 101 Figure 6.1 Framework for UIJL leadership (Source: Author) _____________________________________________ 121 Figure 7.1 R&D employees organizational identity transformation during open innovation
implementation (Source: Author) _________________________________________________________________________ 141 Figure 8.1 Micro-dynamics of IOR within UIJL (Source: Author) _________________________________________ 155
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
UI University Industry
UIC University industry collaboration
UICRC University industry cooperative research center UIJL University Industry joint laboratory
TIM The Telecom Italia Group RJV Research joint ventures
IUCRC Industry university cooperative research center KBV Knowledge-based view
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
“A relationship between two or more organizations is a social action system because it exhibits the basic properties of any organized form of collective behavior.” Andrew H. Van De Ven (1976)
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH PURPOSE
For decades, university-industry collaboration (UIC) is considered as a tool to stimulate innovative activities within industries. The main motivation for industries to participate in collaborative activities with universities is to obtain leverages on R&D expenditures (Cohen et al., 1994). However, this varied from one industry to another. For years UIC has been a topic for scholars to investigate what drives industry and university to collaborate. But rather little attention is given to how collaborative efforts develop over time, having “one size doesn’t fit all” in mind. The nature of collaboration became to be beneficial with no doubt for active partners; this has been empirically tested in a rich body of literature. Most research in this field look at collaboration as any type of activities that engage university and industry partnerships. Italy with its major industries has not been excluded from this trend.
UIC in Italy started to expand since the late 80s and Italian government started investing on UIC or particularly partnership to boost its regional benefits. A clear example was the Mission Oriented Projects (Progetti Finalizzati) implemented by the National Research Council during the late ‘80s and the ‘90s in which public and private R&D went through ‘sharing’ initiatives. R&D activities of Italian firms are concentrated in some specific sectors: telecommunications, chemical products and pharmaceuticals, transport, and machineries. Interestingly, in 2001 85% of Italian firms performed their R&D activities outside their own laboratories. Among those 39% of them cooperate for R&D activities with external structures, 93% choose an Italian partner, among these 71,4% were other enterprises and 45% universities (Avveduto & Luzi, 2007). Among all, telecommunication industry particularly employed open innovation strategies for outsourcing external knowledge from universities in Italy (Bigliardi et al., 2012). However, none of the studies dived deep into various modes of collaborations with universities. Establishing ‘joint laboratories’ with universities was a novel strategy by the largest Telecommunication Industry in Italy -Telecom Italia (TIM)- to exploit the external sources of knowledge from
universities in their field of expertise. Joint Open Laboratories (JOLs) are research and innovation laboratories set up within universities, as a result of partnership between TIM and the major Italian universities in the specific fields of scientific and technological competencies. Since 2012, eight JOLs were formed among five major Italian universities. This idea was raised to bring possible innovative proficiencies at the same center. The classic model of innovation adopted by TIM changed to agile model of innovation, which enhances creation and co-development. Agile open innovation framework of TIM takes a step forward to get closer to adopt open innovation paradigm and collaboration1.
This particular mode of collaboration that is one-to-one type of research center with university-based infrastructure received little attention from scholars in the field. To be precise, although scholarship on university industry collaboration in general build a rich body of literature but what really happens in the ‘inner-life’ of such settings is not yet being explored (Gulbrandsen & Thune, 2010). These joint laboratories have been set to foster collaborative activities by diminishing existing barriers to UIC. But to what extent this mission has been met is still an underexplored question.
At the same time according to the literature of UIC, it is relevant to understand under what conditions interactions are fostered at micro (individual) and macro (firm, university, center) level. As knowledge and innovation becoming more and more essential to the competitiveness of the firms, research also has shifted its focus to knowledge-based economy. The center of attention gradually moved to individual as the main resource of generating knowledge. The knowledge-based view of the firm (KBV) assumes that the main resource of the entity is knowledge generated by its members, captured and integrated through coordination mechanisms by firms in order to create values (Grant, 1996). In this view the focus and primary task of management is to establish coordination mechanisms to integrate the created knowledge to value. In KBV individuals are the most important resource of firms and their leave/stay might cause ‘considerable influence’ on the advantage of entities (Felin & Hesterly, 2007). Individual knowledge will be expressed when being in communities, groups, organizations and networks. Given these explanations, the focus in management studies is moving from firm level to individual-level mechanisms (Abell et al., 2008, Felin and Foss, 2005).
Hence, it is essential to understand how individual-level interactions in collaborative settings lead to innovation. Having individual and their interaction in the core concentration of collaborations need to be further investigated to lighten ‘behind the scene’ of UIC. The context of UIJLs is explained by the inter-organizational relationship (IOR) phenomenon. And, the knowledge-based view of the firm prepares the foundations to investigate the micro-dynamics of IOR within the context of UIJL for this dissertation.
Literature review2 on the topic of UICRCs (University Industry cooperative research centers) demonstrates that the particular themes have been center of attention: formation motivations and collaboration results (Adams, Chiang, & Starkey, 2001; Geisler, 1995; Gray & Steenhuis, 2003), venture size and infrastructure characteristics (Baldwin & Link, 1998; Geisler, 20013; Santoro, 2000), the relevance of management and organizational factors (Bryant, 2008; Davis & Bryant, 2010; Geisler et al., 1990; Rivers & Gray, 2013), and within-infrastructure dynamics (Boardman & Ponomariov, 2014; Boardman, 2011; Lind et al., 2013, Santoro & Chakrabarti, 1999; Gray et al., 2001).
On the side of the importance of micro-dynamics in UICs, review of published research showed tendency to explore large-scale quantitative datasets with particular themes of: individual-level characteristics and determinants (Boardman & Ponomariov, 2009; D’Este & Patel, 2007; D’Este & Perkmann, 2011) and attitudes and behaviors (Van Dierdonck et al., 1990; D’Este & Patel, 2007). Generally, in most of the research on UIC there are rather few studies that look at this context from a process and dynamic perspective (Thune, 2007).
On the other side, scholars used different theoretical lenses to study and understand the nature of IORs including Transaction Cost Economics theory (Geyskens et al., 2006 and Williamson, 1991), Resource-based theory (Das et al., 2000), Agency theory (Fama & Jensen, 1983), Stakeholder theory (Laplume et al., 2008), Institutional theory (Borgatti & Foster, 2003) and knowledge-based theory (Yli‐Renko et al., 2001). The predominant features of IOR explained by these theories are the importance of social structures and relationships. IORs are formed in accordance to relationships, social ties, trust and micro-dynamics between partners.
In addition, there have been few research understanding inter-organizational relationships (IORs) in the context of UIC. Within this phenomenon research calls for more input from
studying inter- and intra-organizational relationship simultaneously (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). In addition, the role of micro-dynamics and/or micro-level data seems to be a neglected area of IOR research (Felin & Foss, 2005; Teece, 2007).
Building on the above, I argue that the micro-dynamics of IOR within university-industry joint laboratories are not yet fully explored. In this dissertation I go beyond seeing UIC as a tool to innovate, by seeing the ‘inner life’ of collaboration in real time and from a more dynamic perspective.
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION FORMULATION
All in all, the strong focus on micro-level data and micro-dynamics in recent research, the particularity of context-oriented research in current themes, and the necessity of viewing UIC from process/dynamic perspective this thesis aims to answer the general research question of:
How do micro-dynamics of inter-organizational relationship shape interactions within university industry joint laboratories?
To answer the thesis general question I utilized the two main arguments within knowledge-based theory of the firm: localization and coordination. Having the KBV as a theoretical foundation of the dissertation, this thesis draws on three complementary literatures: proximity, leadership and organizational identity.
Proximity: One of the main elements explaining the proximity dimension is the existence of
knowledge spillovers that is triggered by spatial closeness. Knowledge spillovers ultimately drive learning, collaboration and innovation (Malmberg et al, 1996). Estall and Buchanan (1961) claim “The ability of members of the group to meet without inconvenience to discuss common problems and matters of mutual interest is a not inconsiderable advantage of close geographical association”. Maskell (2001) asserted the direct influence of spatial closeness on different aspects of social capital including trust and learning in the knowledge-based economy.
Leadership: In today’s knowledge-based economy the role of leadership has changed from
traditional decision-makers to the one who can effectively manage organizational knowledge resources (Holsapple & Joshi, 2002). Within the context of collaboration for innovative activities
the importance of the interaction building and the fostering of trust and commitment by leaders within the team of followers is an undeniable factor for successful collaboration (Morse, 2010).
Organizational identity: The social perspective toward the knowledge-based view of the firm
asserted that organizational identity plays a pivotal role in overcoming problems of communication and interactions across the specialized competencies created by organizational members (Kogut and Zander, 1996). The shift from closed to open innovation is resulting in organizational transformations as they involve integrated changes in the firm’s structure, boundaries, competencies, culture and identity (Lakhani et al., 2012).
As a starting point for investigation of micro-dynamics of IOR within the context of UIJLs, I developed an initial conceptual framework presented in Figure 1.1 that helped me during the process of research to stay connected with the focal points extracted from the literature.
“Characteristics identified from previous inquiry that provide an internal structure that provides a starting point for observations and interview questions, and for analysis. The researcher proceeds by building on these structures or categories, padding them out or “giving them flesh” and organizing the ways they fit together.” (Morse, Hupcey, et al., 2002, p. 1)
The building blocks of the conceptual framework are based on the following key concepts:
University industry joint laboratories: A novel strategic alliance between university and industry
with shared infrastructure and facilities where one-to-one interactions between organization members take place to create value from collaborative efforts.
Micro-dynamics of inter-organizational relationships: The dynamics of relationship at the
individual level between members of different organizations that enhance joint learning and knowledge sharing between actors.
Localization mechanisms are dynamics that are the result of spatial closeness/distance
between actors. Spatial proximity at micro-level in the case of UIJLs is predefined conditions of formation.
Coordination mechanisms are dynamics related to the management and organization of
FIGURE 1.1 INITIAL CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
University Industry
Micro-dynamics of IOR
Localization mechanisms (Proximity) P2 Coordination mechanisms
(Leadership & organizational identity) P3 & P4
Multi-level interactions in collaborative innovation Innovation studies
Inter-Organizational relationship
Collaborative innovation
As explained, this study aims to look at the micro-dynamics of inter-organizational relationships that shape interactions within university-industry joint laboratories. According to literature reviewed I formulate three following sub-research questions:
a) How do geographically proximate university and industry influence cognitive, social, organizational, institutional, and cultural proximity within university-industry joint laboratories?
b) How does leadership help bridging the cultural divide within university-industry joint laboratories?
c) How do R&D employees experience organizational identity change in the process of open innovation?
Among sub-research questions, (a) addresses the localization argument while (b) and (c) address coordination argument.
1.3 SUMMARY OF EMPIRICAL PAPERS
In this section, I provide a brief overview of the different papers and the respective research questions they address (Table 1). All papers in this dissertation aim to address micro-dynamics of inter-organizational relationship within UIJLs. The final objective of this dissertation is therefore to further develop the initial framework that was presented in the previous section and to provide an answer for the general research questions of How do micro-dynamics of
inter-organizational relationship shape interactions within university industry joint laboratories?
Paper 1: When industry and university live under the same roof: Telecom Italia’s joint
laboratories initiatives
The first paper is the result of explorative/descriptive pilot study in order to gain preliminary insights of the laboratories. It therefore explores the advantages and challenges perceived by laboratory members in this particular type of collaboration. Although research on the motivations, advantages and challenges for UIC shaped a rich body of literature (e.g. D’Este and Perkmann, 2011; Cohen et al., 2002; Murray, 2002; Bruneel et al., 2010) but this explorative paper narrow down the collaboration type to joint laboratories. The study undertakes perceived advantages and challenges by laboratories’ members - both university and industry
representatives- to provide in-depth overview for continuing research. The research question addressed in this pilot study therefore is:
What are the advantages and barriers of living under one roof?
The result of this case study based on 10 in-depth interviews with employees, PhD students and laboratory director was inline with previous research especially in terms of advantages. Co-location triggers knowledge sharing and trust and reduces NIH syndrome due to the day-to-day formal and informal interactions and sharing diversified expertise. On the side of barrier-related perceptions, industry representatives perceived more operational barriers while PhD students experienced more cultural barriers in this particular mode of collaboration. In addition, this type of collaboration diminishes the risk of ‘loosing partnership’ so it might increase the risk of opportunistic behaviours. Although this empirical paper doesn’t address the general research question but this pilot study prepared the foundation for deeper understanding the context.
Paper 2: The Microgeography of University-Industry Collaboration: The Case of Joint
Laboratories of Telecom Italia
Given the growing attention to the role of universities in innovation activities of firms, there has been a strong body of literature on this issue. A subset of this research focuses on the geographical proximity of university-industry collaboration and its positive impact on collaborations (Abramovsky et al., 2007; Arundel and Geuna, 2004; Braunerhjelm, 2008). Taking into account the importance of geographical proximity in university-industry collaboration (e.g. D’Este et al.,2012) , this paper highlights the effect of geographical proximity on other proximity dimensions such as cognitive, institutional, social, organizational, and cultural within university and industry joint laboratories. The interplay between proximity dimensions in different socio-economic context has been an interesting field in socio-economic geography to investigate (Boschma, 2005) and it could therefore have important implications for university-industry collaboration as well. Therefore the research question of this paper is:
How do geographically proximate university and industry influence cognitive, social, organizational, institutional, and cultural proximity within university-industry joint laboratories?
We aim to address this underexplored issues by focusing on joint laboratories between university and industry–which are one specific mode of collaboration–on one side and by
investigating proximity dimensions in these settings on the other side. We base our analysis on 53 in-depth interviews with different stakeholders among eight joint laboratories of Telecom Italia with five major Italian universities during 2014-2015. We explore the relation between geographical proximity and different types of proximity by in-depth analysis of each case. We find that geographical proximity helps to shed light on the performance of university-industry collaboration by influencing proximity dimensions. We specifically identify the significant role of geographical proximity on social and cultural proximity specifically at micro level. Our qualitative analysis draws on a conceptual framework for proximity dimensions and university-industry joint laboratories
Paper 3: The role of leadership in bridging the cultural divide within
university-industry joint laboratories
In this paper we explore the role of leadership in UI joint laboratories by conducting a multiple case-study research on eight joint laboratories of Telecom Italia. The specific features of these laboratories such as long-term relationship, high commitment of partners, tight interactions of stakeholders, and being an independent entity, provide a fairly original case to investigate. Given the nature of leadership as a social influence process including dynamic situations, we adopt a qualitative data analysis approach. Managing such a collaborative process fundamentally challenges what we know about the theory and practice of leadership in UI collaboration, not the least because of the severe cultural barriers that can exist (Rohrbeck et al., 2006). Therefore, in this paper we identified the following research question:
How does leadership help bridging the cultural divide within university-industry joint laboratories?
On the basis of qualitative methods, multiple-case approach with 53 interviews within eight joint laboratories we identify several attributes of the role of leadership in bridging the cultural divide within UI joint laboratories. We find that leadership theories help to shed light on the performance of university-industry collaborations. We specifically identify charismatic leadership at the individual level followed by distributed leadership practices at the collective level as being crucial in bridging the cultural divide between individuals within university-industry joint laboratories. Our qualitative analysis draws on an analytical framework for
Paper 4: Why Open Innovation is easier said than done: An organizational identity
perspective
In the last empirical paper of this dissertation, we explore and interpret organizational identity transformation associated with open innovation strategy of Telecom Italia (TIM), which is establishing joint laboratories with universities and within universities. As a result TIM transferred some of the R&D employees to the new laboratories to work with the university scientists. This organizational transformation created underexplored conditions for R&D employees engaged in the open innovation activities of the firm. We called this an unexplored issue due to several calls by open innovation scholars on the importance of individual level mechanisms, organization behaviors of open innovation activities and mobility of skilled R&D employees (Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014; Bogers et al., 2016). We based the background on organizational identity literature (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Corley & Gioia, 2004) and the inter-related literature on UIC and open innovation (Chesbrough, 2006; Perkmann & Walsh, 2007). Hence, this paper seeks the answer to the following question:
How do R&D employees experience organizational identity change in the process of open innovation?
We chose Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) over other qualitative methods to address the research question because of our focus on the phenomenology of transforming organizational identity within the process of opening up. We aim to enrich the theory rather than generate new theories. According to Gill (2014), phenomenological methodologies enable research that adopts a more dynamic and process view of organizational identity. We based our analysis on 14 interviews with R&D employees who participate in UIC activities. According to the findings of this study, the phenomena of organizational identity change during the process of open innovation implementation suggests the following: 1) The process of open innovation through mobility of skilled R&D employees triggers organizational identity ambiguity and change, 2) Organizational identity ambiguity phase in the process of open innovation can be shortened by the support of parent company and managerial skills, 3) Constructing a shared organizational identity with university members involved in this process is necessary and possible with leadership efforts. We finalized the paper by conceptualization of this process.
1.4 DISSERTATION OVERVIEW AND INTENDED CONTRIBUTIONS
This thesis proceeds as follows: Chapter 2 highlights the state of the art for this dissertation. Thus, it begins by providing and overview of the evolution of university-industry collaboration. Then it moves toward the particular mode of collaboration as University –industry joint laboratories (UIJL). In this section I reviewed this context in the literature or any similar form of university industry collaboration such as cooperative research centers, research canters, university-industry alliances and joint ventures. Then an overview of the phenomenon of inter-organizational relationship (IOR) is given. This section follows by an investigation of micro-dynamics within IOR and it leads to the theoretical lenses that have been used in this dissertations. Chapter 2, concludes by summarizing the identified gaps and introducing the preliminary conceptual framework of the study.
Chapter 3 presents the research context, introducing Telecom Italia (TIM) and a detail description of its eight laboratories; it follows by the research process. Chapter 4, 5, 6 and 7 include research papers of this dissertation as summarized in the previous section and Table 1. Chapter 8, concludes by providing an answer to the general research question of how
micro-dynamics of IOR shape interactions within UIJLs. The answer will be conceptualized using
theories and empirical evidences from research papers presented in this dissertation. I highlight theoretical and practical contributions of this dissertation followed by limitation of the research. Finally avenues for further research will be proposed.
This dissertation aims to contribute to our understanding of micro-dynamics of relationships within university-industry collaborative settings using micro-level data. The intended contributions include but not limited to:
1) This study aims to shed lights on particular mode of university industry collaboration understanding the member-dynamics when located in a separate entity and under one roof. Having this in the center of the study, the research ambition is to discuss the relevant theoretical dimensions and conceptualize university-industry collaboration using empirical qualitative data.
2) Drawing on knowledge-based economy this dissertation engages two arguments of localization and coordination and their inter-relation dynamics. Providing analytical frameworks to better understand these arguments inductively.
3) This dissertation intends to fill the gap of ‘in-depth analysis’ in UIC literature employing qualitative and micro-level data. Most studies in the field of UIC have been data-driven using large-scale databases. The process and dynamic view toward UI collaborations is presented within this dissertation and it sheds light on the “inner-life” of collaboration (Guldbrandesn & Thune, 2010)
4) This dissertation tends to understand intra-organizational dynamics of inter-organizational settings, which previously has been mentioned as a lack of attention in the literature (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011).
5) The current research proposes a conceptual framework that connects the concepts and phenomenon studied in the literature. As will be discussed in the conclusion chapter, this framework is not a theoretical model but a sensitizing instrument. This framework was driven from iterative interaction of empirical evidences and theories.
TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF EMPIRICAL PAPERS
Paper title (chapter) RQ Method Theoretical approaches Paper Status
1) When industry and university live under the same roof: Telecom Italia’s joint laboratories initiatives (Ch. 4)
Pilot study: open-ended questions about: What are advantages and barriers of living under one roof?
Descriptive/informative case
Single case approach 10 interviews
Collaboration Presented at the R&D management
conference 2015, Pisa, Italy.
2) The Microgeography of University-Industry Collaboration: The Case of Joint Laboratories of Telecom Italia (Ch. 5)
RQ a) How do geographically proximate university and industry influence cognitive, social, organizational, institutional, and cultural proximity within university-industry joint laboratories?
Multiple-case study Mix of inductive and abductive approach 53 interviews Collaboration Geographical proximity Proximity dimensions (cognitive, social, organizational, institutional, and cultural) Presented at DRUID16 conference, CBS Copenhagen, Denmark. It will be submitted to the special issue of journal of Industry and Innovation in Oct 2016.
3) The role of leadership in bridging the cultural divide within university-industry joint laboratories (Ch. 6)
RQ b) How does leadership help bridging the cultural divide within university-industry joint laboratories?
Multiple-case study Mix of inductive and abductive approach 53 interviews
Collaboration
Organizational culture Leadership
Presented at the R&D management
conference 2016, Cambridge, UK.
4) Why Open Innovation is Easier Said Than Done: An Organizational Identity Perspective (Ch. 7)
RQ c) How do R&D employees experience organizational identity change in the process of open innovation? Interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) 14 interviews Collaboration Organizational identity Will be presented at WOIC16, Candidate for the best student paper award, Barcelona, Spain.
REFERENCES
Abell, P., Felin, T., & Foss, N. (2008). Building micro‐ foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links. Managerial and decision economics, 29(6), 489-502.
Abramovsky, L., Harrison, R., & Simpson, H. (2007). University Research and the Location of Business R&D*. The Economic Journal, 117(519), C114-C141.
Adams, J. D., Chiang, E. P., & Starkey, K. (2001). Industry-university cooperative research centers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 73-86.
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in organizational behavior. Arundel, A., & Geuna, A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and new Technology, 13(6), 559-580.
Avveduto, S., & Luzi, D. (2007). Binary Stars–Trends and Features of University-Industry Cooperation in Italy. Teaching and Research Synergy in the context of University-Industry
cooperation, 168-177.
Baldwin, W. L., & Link, A. N. (1998). Universities as research joint venture partners: does size of the venture matter?. International Journal of Technology Management, 15(8), 895-913.
Bigliardi, B., Ivo Dormio, A., & Galati, F. (2012). The adoption of open innovation within the telecommunication industry. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(1), 27-54.
Boardman, C. (2011). Organizational capital in boundary-spanning collaborations: internal and external approaches to organizational structure and personnel authority. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, mur041.
Boardman, C., & Ponomariov, B. (2014). Management knowledge and the organization of team science in university research centers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 75-92.
Bogers, M., Zobel, A. K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., ... & Hagedoorn, J. (2016). The Open Innovation Research Landscape: Established Perspectives and Emerging Themes across Different Levels of Analysis.
Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of management, 29(6), 991-1013.
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional studies, 39(1), 61-74.
Braunerhjelm, P. (2008). Specialization of regions and universities: The new versus the old.
Industry and Innovation, 15(3), 253-275.
Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy,39(7), 858-868.
Bryant, J. L. (2008). Effects of leader relationship quality (LMX), supervisor support, and upward
influence in National Science Foundation Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers.
OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: a new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, 1-12.
Chesbrough, H. Bogers, M.(2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (Eds.), New Frontiers in open Innovation, 3-28.
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.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173-208.
D'Este, P., Guy, F., & Iammarino, S. (2012). Shaping the formation of university–industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter?. Journal of Economic
Geography, lbs010.
D’Este, P., & 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.
D’este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316-339.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of
management, 26(1), 31-61.
Davis, D. D., & Bryant, J. L. (2010). Leader-member exchange, trust, and performance in national science foundation industry/university cooperative research centers. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 35(5), 511-526.
Easterby‐ Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., & Tsang, E. W. (2008). Inter‐ organizational knowledge transfer: Current themes and future prospects. Journal of management studies, 45(4), 677-690.
Estall RC, Buchanan RO, 1961 Industrial Activity and Economic Geography (Hutchinson, London)
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law &
Economics, 26(2), 301-325.
Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic organization, 3(4), 441.
Felin, T., & Hesterly, W. S. (2007). The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and new value creation: Philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge. Academy of Management
Review, 32(1), 195-218.
Geisler, E. (1995). Industry–university technology cooperation: a theory of inter-organizational relationships. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 7(2), 217-229.
Geisler, E. (2003). Benchmarking inter-organizational technology cooperation: the link between infrastructure and sustained performance. International Journal of Technology Management, 25(8), 675-702.
Geisler, E., Furino, A., & Kiresuk, T. J. (1990). Factors in the success or failure of industry-university cooperative research centers. Interfaces, 20(6), 99-109.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Kumar, N. (2006). Make, buy, or ally: A transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of management journal,49(3), 519-543.
Gill, M. J. (2014). The possibilities of phenomenology for organizational research. Organizational
Research Methods, 1094428113518348.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge‐ based theory of the firm. Strategic management
journal, 17(S2), 109-122.
Gray, D. O., Lindblad, M., & Rudolph, J. (2001). Industry–university research centers: a multivariate analysis of member retention. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 247-254. Gray, D., & Steenhuis, H. J. (2003). Quantifying the benefits of participating in an industry university research center: An examination of research cost avoidance. Scientometrics, 58(2), 281-300.
Gulbrandsen, M., & Thune, T. (2010). University-IndustryCollaboration: Towards a dynamic process perspective.
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2002). Knowledge management: A threefold framework. The
Information Society, 18(1), 47-64.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization
science, 7(5), 502-518.
Lakhani, K., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., & Tushman, M. (2012). Open innovation and organizational boundaries: the impact of task decomposition and knowledge distribution on the locus of innovation. Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Mgt. Unit Working Paper, (12-57), 12-057.
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of management, 34(6), 1152-1189.
Lind, F., Styhre, A., & Aaboen, L. (2013). Exploring university-industry collaboration in research centres. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(1), 70-91.
Malmberg, A., Sölvell, Ö., & Zander, I. (1996). Spatial clustering, local accumulation of knowledge and firm competitiveness. Geografiska Annaler. Series B. Human Geography, 85-97.
Maskell, P. (2001). Towards a knowledge‐ based theory of the geographical cluster. Industrial and
corporate change, 10(4), 921-943.
Maskell, P. (2001). Towards a knowledge‐ based theory of the geographical cluster. Industrial and
corporate change, 10(4), 921-943.
Morse, J. M., Hupcey, J. E., Penrod, J., Spiers, J. A., Pooler, C., & Mitcham, C. (2002). Symposium Conclusion-Issues of Validity: Behavioral Concepts, Their Derivation and Interpretation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(4), 68-73.
Morse, R. S. (2010). Integrative public leadership: Catalyzing collaboration to create public value. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 231-245.
Murray, F. (2002). Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy, 31, 8, 1389-1403.
Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a path through the forest: A meta-review of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108-1136.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280. Rivers, D., & Gray, D. O. (2013). Cooperative Research Centers as small business: Uncovering the marketing and recruiting practices of University-Based Cooperative Research Centers. In Cooperative research centers and technical innovation (pp. 175-198). Springer New York. Rohrbeck, Rene, and Heinrich Martin Arnold. "Making university-industry collaboration work-a case study on the Deutsche Telekom Laboratories contrasted with findings in literature." In The International Society for Professional Innovation Management Conference, Networks for Innovation, Athens, Greece. 2006.
Santoro, M. D. (2000). Success breeds success: The linkage between relationship intensity and tangible outcomes in industry–university collaborative ventures. The journal of high technology
management research,11(2), 255-273.
Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (1999). Building industry–university research centers: some strategic considerations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(3), 225-244.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Thune, T. (2007). University-industry collaboration: the network embeddedness approach. Science and public policy, 34(3), 158-168.
Van Dierdonck, R., Debackere, K., & Engelen, B. (1990). University-industry relationships: How does the Belgian academic community feel about it?. Research Policy, 19(6), 551-566.
Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative science quarterly, 269-296.
Yli‐ Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology‐ based firms. Strategic management journal, 22(6‐ 7), 587-613.
CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART AND BACKGROUND
2.1 THE EVOLUTION OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION
In this part, I will go briefly through the university-industry collaboration (UIC) literature. This was the baseline of my understanding over the context of this dissertation. The evolution of UIC from my perspective can be divided in two for main periods that evolved over time (Figure 2.1).
2.1.1 PERIOD OF DEBATES: FROM 1980S TO 1990S
The introduction of Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 in the United States left a focal point in a century of university-industry interactions. The enactment of Bayh Dole Act allowed individuals and universities to go through the process of patenting without heavy negotiations with the federal government. OECD (2003), reported that legislative reform in the US such as introduction of Bayh Dole Act have increased the contribution of scientific institution to growth and innovation. This particular case was not limited to the US but countries across OECD area experienced an increment in research collaboration between firms and universities. Gulbrandsen & Nerdrum (2009), relate this increase to higher industrial interest in university research and to policy initiatives, which develop cross-sector interactions. Likewise, this period attract management and social science scholars to observe and study the related dynamics of early 1980s. The research in this period focuses more on the technology transfer, government roles, academic entrepreneurship and debates over the ethical issues of scientist-industry collaborations. A rich body of literature in this period of research brings upon an individual level of analysis (Louis et al., 1989; Bird & Allen, 1989; Etzkowits, 1983). From an industry perspective, the biotechnology sector attracts the most attention in the field of UI relation in this period (Blumental et al., 1986; Krimsky et al., 1991). The dilemma over the ethical concerns of academic engagement with universities rose during this phase particularly by scientists who criticized the term ‘commercialization of academic research’. Martin Kenney (1987) gave an overall image of the ethical debate. He concluded by calling this debate an ‘underdeveloped’ debate because in the U.S. the boundaries between university and industry are blurred and academics are not held in as high regard as in other countries. It is nice to notice that the UI relationships were already well developed in the U.S. compare with other countries. The evidence could be an article written by Brown and O’Brien in early 1980s that calls for more
governmental support in encouraging the existing link between universities and industries and offering new mechanism to support the relationship. Although the debates over this topic continued to few years later but UI relationship started to receive novel scholarship from the beginning of 1990s.
2.1.2 PERIOD OF ENRICHMENTS: FROM 1990S TO 2000S
This period of research on the UIC initiated by major focus on the differences of these units in terms of expectation, motivations, objectives and interests. It seemed that academics started to digest the positive impact of collaboration on growth thanks to previous research and they started to enrich the field by putting bricks of empirical evidences together with theoretical contributions. In 1990, Van Dierdonck et al. published one of the first major non-U.S. contributions. They studied Belgian academics’ attitude toward UI technology transfer. They found that academics’ experience with industry positively change their attitudes toward collaboration. They also pointed that individual efforts in initiating UIC outweighs institutionalized efforts. The research followed by the significant article of Bonaccorsi and Piccaluga in 1994. They proposed sets of motivations for initiating collaboration between universities and industry:
Access to scientific breakthroughs, Increasing the applied power of science, Risk sharing and cost savings,
And easier access to laboratories and equipment.
Their research found that expectations affect the performance of UI interactions.
Another critical point in this period was the introduction of ‘Triple Helix’ by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff in 1995. This work received noticeable attentions during this period and later on. The triple helix model of university – industry – government relations explains the dynamics between these institutions and focuses on the role of knowledge and universities in a greater context. Although the term was introduced in 1995, the significant work was published in 2000 and received momentous attention from academics, industries and government (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). Although this excellent piece of work has been cited in more than 5000 articles but it did not hide from the eyes of critics. Weingart (1997) mentioned that although the
triple helix model tends to subsume all sectors and industries but it has been a result of fairly small sectors like biotechnology and information technology. Others claimed that triple helix model is theoretically ambiguous and problematic in its empirical evidences (Shinn, 1999; Fuller, 1998). Despite these few critics looking at the evolution of UIC Etzkowitz left a major mark in this literature. Following this trend of enrichment and development Lee (1996) investigated the possible boundaries of collaboration between university and industry with respect to the academics’ attitudes toward collaboration. The result showed an improvement in the general attitude toward collaboration in 1990s compare with the one 1980s.
In the late 1990s, a major field-specific research carried out by Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch (1998). They brought considerations back again in Europe and this time particularly to Germany. The research supports that the central factor of collaboration is bidirectional exchange of knowledge in all fields (production technology, microelectronics, software biotechnology and chemistry). They claimed that ‘structural absorptive capacity’ in UI collaborations depends on micro-level factors such as: internal R&D capacity of firms, and interaction patterns to relevant technologies outside traditional linkages, as well as formal co-operation and informal networks. UIC research finds its way to Asia in the late 1990s particularly to Japan (Branscomb & Kodama, 1999; Kneller, 1999; Fujisue, 1998). Japan in 1998 enacted legislation to promote university– industry technology transfer. This legislation does not alter the basic principle that inventors have the right to patent their inventions but it gives them the option of assigning their inventions to TTOs but does not require them to do so (Kneller, 1999). The research on UIC entered a new phase of it evolution by the beginning of 21st century, the period of openness.
2.1.3 PERIOD OF DELIGHTS: FROM 2000S TO 2010S
I believe the first decade of 21st century is a delightful period in the history of UIC research. Scholars talked about improvements, effectiveness, openness, sustainability and cross-national comparisons of UI relations. The research went through many different countries and the main scholarships emerged in this period.
Owen-Smith et al. (2002) did the first broad inter-continental comparison between U.S. and European universities using network visualization and correspondence analysis. They found Europe in terms of regional specialization with less diverse group of public research organizations working in a smaller number of therapeutic areas compare with the U.S.. Talking
