Boundary spanning between industry and university: the role of Technology Transfer Centres
TL;DR: In this article, the boundary spanning role of technology transfer centers (TTCs) is discussed drawing on different and complementary theoretical perspectives and the antecedents of boundary spanning activity from a knowledge-based perspective.
Abstract: Technology Transfer Centres (TTCs) have been analyzed in the last few years by focusing on the relationship between a TTC, provider of knowledge-intensive services, and a firm client-receiver. Less attention has been devoted to a more complex relationship which involves in the dyadic provider-receiver tie a third relevant body, University. We provide both a theoretical and an empirical contribution by studying whether TTCs can bond the academic and industrial system and we define the activities that make-up this role such as: scanning and selection of R&D opportunities, bridge building, semantic translation of domain specific knowledge, co-production of new knowledge. The boundary spanning role of TTCs is discussed drawing on different and complementary theoretical perspectives. Moreover, we test research hypotheses on the antecedents of boundary spanning activity from a knowledge-based perspective. We argue that TTC boundary spanners need to leverage on both technical skills and networking competences. Empirical investigation has been carried out with a survey of the TTC population of North East Italy. The research findings highlight the task coordination activities implied by a boundary spanning role in joint R&D projects and show that the endowment of human capital at individual level and a qualified social capital at individual and organizational level are the main determinants.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors summarise and synthesise the evidence on SME innovation, exporting and growth, paying particular attention to internal and external enablers, and for the interplay between innovation and exporting in SME growth.
Abstract: This article summarises and synthesises the evidence on SME innovation, exporting and growth, paying particular attention to internal and external (eco-system) enablers, and for the interplay between innovation and exporting in SME growth. We highlight those areas for which the evidence base is secure and where the evidence base remains limited, and develop policy suggestions and an agenda for further research.
490 citations
Posted Content•
01 Jan 2013TL;DR: In this article, the authors summarise and synthesise the evidence on SME innovation, exporting and growth, paying particular attention to internal and external enablers, and for the interplay between innovation and exporting in SME growth.
Abstract: SMEs which have a track record of innovation are more likely to export, more likely to export successfully, and more likely to generate growth from exporting than non-innovating firms. What are the factors that enable such performance? This paper summarises and synthesises the evidence on SME innovation, exporting and growth, paying particular attention to internal and external (eco-system) enablers, and for the interplay between innovation and exporting in SME growth. We highlight those areas for which the evidence base is secure and where the evidence base remains limited, and develop policy suggestions and an agenda for further research.
387 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors synthesize the literature on open innovation in SMEs and find that adopting OI by SMEs improves their overall innovation performance, while a larger number of studies are based on a quantitative approach.
Abstract: Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the extant literature on open innovation (OI) in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Design/methodology/approach
– An examination of the literature was undertaken to review the studies on open innovation in SMEs. The selected articles were classified in different themes and analyzed accordingly.
Findings
– The study finds that adopting OI by SMEs improves their overall innovation performance. The authors found that a larger number of studies are based on a quantitative approach. Surprisingly, unlike in many other disciplines, scholars of North America have had a limited contribution. European scholars, along with some scholars from Korea and China, have been active in developing this field of OI in SMEs.
Research limitations/implications
– This study provides theoretical and managerial implications. With thematic analysis, along with identifying gaps, conflations, and contradictions in the literature, this study proposes an agenda for future exploration.
Originality/value
– The value of this study lies in the integration of the limited but scattered studies on OI in SMEs.
183 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a review of the literature to understand how academic entrepreneurship is conceptualized and the extent to which it adopts an ecosystem approach, finding that scholars have largely focused on individual ecosystem elements and characteristics, eschewing strategic and systemic conceptualizations of entrepreneurship ecosystems.
Abstract: Policy-related discussions increasingly view universities as so-called “engines of economic growth”. Recognizing that the economic impact of universities is dependent, at least in part, on the success of university-affiliated entrepreneurial ventures, this paper reviews the extant literature to understand how academic entrepreneurship is conceptualized and the extent to which it adopts an ecosystem approach. We find that scholars have largely focused on individual ecosystem elements and characteristics, eschewing strategic and systemic conceptualizations of entrepreneurship ecosystems. As a result, we argue that the ecosystem perspective has not been fully leveraged to influence policy decisions. We conclude by offering several concrete recommendations on future research directions that, if pursued, would further enhance our understanding of the economic impact of universities.
151 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a bibliometric literature review is presented to examine the evolution of the field and identify the primary emerging patterns of university-industry collaborations and their role across levels of analysis, contexts and stages of the collaboration process.
Abstract: The substantial acknowledgement of university–industry (U–I) collaborations as promotor of economic progress, innovativeness and competitiveness fostered a continuous research engagement. At the same time, the U–I literature experienced a notable increase in the past decade, transforming into a multi-faceted and ambiguous research field, characterised by highly complex interlinks. The recent transformation hinders a comprehensive understanding of the latest developments in research directions and their clear delineation. Therefore, the purpose of this bibliometric literature review is to examine the evolution of the field and identify the primary emerging patterns. This paper employs co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling techniques to analyse the U–I publications dataset. The findings indicate that the U–I collaborations research can be systematically clustered, resulting in an interconnected ecosystem consisting of three levels: individual, organisational and institutional, respectively. Thus, this review presents the immense contribution that the analysis of U–I collaborations makes to various research streams. Building on these findings and employing qualitative content analysis on the clustered publications, the paper develops a research agenda that encourages future investigations of previously overlooked features of U–I collaborations in general, and their role across levels of analysis, contexts and stages of the collaboration process in particular.
123 citations
Cites background from "Boundary spanning between industry ..."
...In fact, research focuses not only on determining the relational success factors (e.g., communication, trust, understanding individuals) but also on the necessity to leverage the technical and networking competences (Comacchio et al. 2012; Plewa et al. 2013a)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a model that incorporates this overall argument in the form of a series of hypothesized relationships between different dimensions of social capital and the main mechanisms and proces.
Abstract: Scholars of the theory of the firm have begun to emphasize the sources and conditions of what has been described as “the organizational advantage,” rather than focus on the causes and consequences of market failure. Typically, researchers see such organizational advantage as accruing from the particular capabilities organizations have for creating and sharing knowledge. In this article we seek to contribute to this body of work by developing the following arguments: (1) social capital facilitates the creation of new intellectual capital; (2) organizations, as institutional settings, are conducive to the development of high levels of social capital; and (3) it is because of their more dense social capital that firms, within certain limits, have an advantage over markets in creating and sharing intellectual capital. We present a model that incorporates this overall argument in the form of a series of hypothesized relationships between different dimensions of social capital and the main mechanisms and proces...
15,365 citations
"Boundary spanning between industry ..." refers background in this paper
...First, a Centre which collaborates with other TTCs that invest in RD Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998 )....
[...]
...The advantages and the complexity of the boundary spanning activity have been studied in the literature on innovation management by considering the individual roles of people or the networks between them ( Aldrich and Herker 1977; Tushman and Scanlan 1981; Carlile 2004; Fleming and Waguespack 2007)....
[...]
...Thus, we maintain that TTCs that collaborate with universities potentially assume the important role of boundary spanning connecting two systems that do not easily come into contact with each other ( Aldrich and Herker 1977; Tushman and Scanlan 1981; Carlile 2004)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, structural holes are defined as network gaps between players which create entrepreneurial opportunities for information access, timing, referrals, and for control, and the structural holes also generate control benefits giving certain players an advantage in negotiating their relationships.
Abstract: The study analyzes the social structure of competition. It addresses the consequences of voids in relational and resource networks. Competitive behavior can be understood in terms of player access to \"holes\" in the social structure of the competitive arena. Those \"structural holes\" are network gaps between players which create entrepreneurial opportunities for information access, timing, referrals, and for control. A player brings capital to the competitive arena and walks away with profit determined by the rate of return where the capital was invested. The rate of return is keyed to the social structure of the competitive arena. Each player brings three kinds of capital to the competitive arena: financial capital, such as money and investments; human capital, such as his or her natural qualities and skills; and social capital, i.e. networks of other players. Social capital is the final determinant of competitive success. Something about the structure of a player's network (his or her relations with other players, such as colleagues, friends, and clients), and the location of the player's network in the structure of the arena defines the player's chances of getting higher rates of return. These chances are enhanced by two kinds of network benefits for those who can exploit structural holes: information and control. Opportunities for success are many, but it is information that plays a central role in seizing them; structural holes determine who knows about opportunities, what they know, and who gets to participate. Structural holes also generate control benefits, giving certain players an advantage in negotiating their relationships. Following sociological theory, a player who derives benefit from structural holes by brokering relationships between other conflicted players is called tertius gaudens. The essential tension in tertius strategies is not hostility of participants, but rather uncertainty; no one has absolute authority in the relationship under negotiation. The findings of empirical research indicate that structural holes are advantageous to suppliers and customers, but not to producers in their negotiated transactions, because suppliers and customers benefit from competition among producers. The information and control benefits of structural holes are advantageous to managers, and the managers who develop those benefits are an asset to the firm employing them. Managers with networks rich in structural holes often reach promotion faster. Hole effects are most evident for managers operating on a social frontier, i.e. in places where two social worlds meet. Social frontiers involve continual negotiations of the expectations of the manager and those of the people across the frontier, and thus more entrepreneurial skill is required. The most serious frontier is the political boundary between top leadership and the rest of the firm. To move up the corporate ladder, a manager has to transform his or her frame of reference from that of an employee protected by the firm, to that of a leader responsible for the firm. The findings also indicate that women and entry-rank men tend to be promoted earlier because they build hierarchical networks around a strategic partner who helps them break into higher ranks. Although the reported differences between the manager networks have clear implications for promotions, there are no differences among managers in their tendencies to have one network rather than another, which is especially striking with respect to the sex and rank differences that are observed to be important in distinguishing network effects. Structural holes provide a theoretical connection between micro and macro levels of sociological analysis. The structural hole argument extends other theories, such as personality theory, interface theory of markets and population ecology, and resource dependence and transaction cost theory
12,103 citations
"Boundary spanning between industry ..." refers background in this paper
...First, a Centre which collaborates with other TTCs that invest in RD Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998)....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1992
TL;DR: In this paper, the Tertius Gaudens Entrepreneurs Secondary Holes Structural Autonomy (SSA) model is used to control the number of holes in a network.
Abstract: Acknowledgments Introduction 1. THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF COMPETITION Opportunity and Capital Information Structural Holes Control and the Tertius Gaudens Entrepreneurs Secondary Holes Structural Autonomy Summary 2. FORMALIZING THE ARGUMENT Network Data Redundancy Constraint Hole Signature Structural Autonomy Summary 3. TURNING A PROFIT Product Networks and Market Profit The Study Population Hole Effects Market Hole Signatures Summary Appendix: Weighing Alternatives 4. GETTING AHEAD Contact Networks and Manager Achievement The Study Population Hole Effects Hierarchy Institutional Holes Selecting a Network Summary Appendix A: Weighing Alternatives Appendix B: Causal Order 5. PLAYER-STRUCTURE DUALITY Structural Unit of Analysis Players and Structures Escape from Attributes No Escape Summary 6. COMMIT AND SURVIVE Holes and Heterogeneity Interface and the Commit Hypothesis Population Ecology and the Survival Hypothesis Summary 7. STRATEGIC EMBEDDING AND INSTITUTIONAL RESIDUE The Other Tertius Strategy Hypothesis Formal Organization as Social Residue Personality as Emotional Residue Summary Notes References Index
10,616 citations
TL;DR: A growing number of sociologists, political scientists, economists, and organizational theorists have invoked the concept of social capital in the search for answers to a broadening range of questions being confronted in their own fields as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: A growing number of sociologists, political scientists, economists, and organizational theorists have invoked the concept of social capital in the search for answers to a broadening range of questions being confronted in their own fields. Seeking to clarify the concept and help assess its utility for organizational theory, we synthesize the theoretical research undertaken in these various disciplines and develop a common conceptual framework that identifies the sources, benefits, risks, and contingencies of social capital.
8,518 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: Open Innovation: A Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation as mentioned in this paper is a new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation, and the use of university research in firm innovation has been shown to support open innovation.
Abstract: 1 Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation SECTION I: FIRMS IMPLEMENTING OPEN INNOVATION 2 New Puzzles and New Findings 3 Whither Core Competency for the Large Corporation in an Open Innovation World? 4 Open, Radical Innovation: Toward an Integrated Model in Large Established Firms 5 Patterns of Open Innovation in Open Source Software SECTION II: INSTITUTIONS GOVERNING OPEN INNOVATION 6 Does Appropriability Enable or Retard Open Innovation? 7 The Use of University Research in Firm Innovation 8 Open Standards and Intellectual Property Rights 9 The Use of Intellectual Property in Software: Implications for Open Innovation SECTION III: NETWORKS SHAPING OPEN INNOVATION 10 The Inter-organizational Context of Open Innovation 11 Knowledge Networks and the Geographic Locus of Innovation 12 Open Innovation in Systemic Innovation Contexts 13 Open Innovation in Value Networks SECTION IV: CONCLUSIONS 14 Open Innovation: A Research Agenda
3,267 citations
"Boundary spanning between industry ..." refers background in this paper
...Empirical research on this issue shows how multinational companies in traditional industries (Huston and Sakkab 2006) as well as firms in fast-moving-science and technology-based sectors (Chesbrough et al. 2006) deal with external sources of knowledge complementary to in-house R&D activities....
[...]