University of Birmingham
University-industry collaboration
Gertner, Drew
DOI:
10.1108/13673271111151992
License:
None: All rights reserved
Document Version
Peer reviewed version
Citation for published version (Harvard):
Gertner, D 2011, 'University-industry collaboration: a CoPs approach to KTPs', Journal of Knowledge
Management, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 625 - 647. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111151992
Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal
Publisher Rights Statement:
Eligibility for repository: Checked on 25/09/2015
General rights
Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the
copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes
permitted by law.
•Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication.
•Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private
study or non-commercial research.
•User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?)
•Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain.
Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.
When citing, please reference the published version.
Take down policy
While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been
uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
If you believe that this is the case for this document, please contact UBIRA@lists.bham.ac.uk providing details and we will remove access to
the work immediately and investigate.
Download date: 09. Aug. 2022
1
University-Industry Collaboration: A CoPs Approach to KTPs
Abstract
This article explores the micro-dimensions of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs) with
the aim of developing an appreciation of the personal interactions that facilitate the success of
these university-industry collaborations. Empirical evidence concerning the operation of
three KTPs, collected through interviews with the key KTP partners and the review of
relevant documentary material, is analysed through the lens of the Communities of Practice
approach to situated learning. The analysis of three case studies provides evidence to support
the value of conceptualising the process of knowledge transfer between universities and
industry as one of learning taking place within communities in which the development of
mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoires play important roles facilitating
successful collaborations. Moreover, the analysis highlights the significance of the boundary
spanning roles of the KTP partners in facilitating the knowledge transfer process through
engagement in both the university and industry communities. By illuminating the dimensions
of the inter-personal interactions the CoPs analysis provides the foundations for
recommendations to improve university-industry KTPs, in particular, and, inter-
organisational knowledge transfer initiatives in general.
2
University-Industry Collaboration: A CoPs Approach to KTPs
1. Introduction
As producers of knowledge, universities make an important contribution to the economy
through their support for innovation (Mansfield, 1991; Kitson, et al., 2009). Interaction
between academia and external organisations can facilitate the transfer of knowledge and
even stimulate the production of new knowledge. However, a key challenge centres on
understanding and facilitating this knowledge transfer process (Bjerregaard, 2010; Boardman
and Ponomariov, 2009). In seeking to understand how university knowledge is applied in
industry to support innovation, much emphasis has been placed on patent licensing and other
easily measurable forms of university-industry linkage yet it has been argued that a wider
range of channels for interaction exist (Agrawal, 2001) and that understanding relationships
in depth may be necessary to better understand the knowledge transfer and innovation
process (Perkmann and Walsh, 2007). By exploring knowledge interactions at this micro
level it will be possible to reveal the factors contributing to successful university – industry
knowledge transfer schemes.
In a comprehensive review of UK university-industry collaboration Lambert (2003: 31)
identifies human interaction as one of the best forms of knowledge transfer. One such
mechanism available in the UK is the Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP) programme,
previously known as the Teaching Company Scheme (TCS), a government sponsored scheme
that brings together individuals from academia and industry through the establishment of a
collaborative project lasting 12 -36 months. Although empirical evidence suggests that KTPs
are successful (Lambert, 2003: 27) there is, as yet, little conceptual analysis or understanding
of how the knowledge transfer process occurs within the partnership. How is knowledge
exchanged through the personal interactions arising from the KTP? As knowledge exchange
can be seen as a form of learning, this article seeks to address this question by examining the
detailed processes of knowledge flow and learning within KTP projects through the lens of
the communities of practice (CoPs) approach to situated learning. Moreover, by
demonstrating the value of the CoPs framework as a means of surfacing the dynamics of
knowledge transfer in KTPs, the article offers a conceptual framework which could be
applied to understanding other forms of knowledge transfer between universities and firms,
such as collaborative research, training programmes and information provision.
Originally developed by Lave and Wenger (1991) in a study of situated learning in
apprenticeships, the CoPs approach has since been used to analyse and facilitate knowledge
transfer in a wide variety of inter and intra organisational environments (Amin and Roberts,
2008). Emerging initially from studies of knowledge sharing in individual organisations such
as an insurance claims office (Wenger 1998) or Xerox (Brown and Duguid, 2000) the
approach has also been applied to inter organisational learning and knowledge dissemination
activities within, for instance, professional communities (Faulconbridge, 2007; Roberts,
2010) and on-line communities (Ardichvili, et al., 2003). The value of the CoPs approach lies
in its focus on the interactions between community members as they engage in their everyday
work practices. Brown and Duguid (2001: 200) refer to practice as the ‘way work is done’,
and a growing emphasis has been placed on practice as a locus of learning and knowledge
transfer (Gherardi, 2006). Moreover, the idea of community captures the social context
within which interdependent individuals working together develop shared identities and, in so
doing, cultivate the mutual understanding that underpins knowledge transfer (Roberts, 2000).
3
The nature of university-industry knowledge transfer is outlined in the next section
providing the context for the overview of the KTP scheme that follows. The CoPs approach
and its value in exploring inter and intra organisational knowledge transfer in KTPs is then
outlined before the research methods employed in the empirical study are briefly reviewed.
The three KTP case studies are then presented before the knowledge interactions identified in
these KTPs are analysed through the CoPs approach. The results of the analysis are discussed
and implications considered, including directions for further research, before conclusions are
drawn in the final section.
2. University-Industry Interactions
University-industry links have spawned a huge literature in recent years and have occupied
considerable policy interest, based on the expectation that university knowledge and
technologies can have significant economic impact (Mansfield, 1991). However the
expectations of policymakers that knowledge and technologies will flow from universities to
be implemented in innovation in firms are frequently naïve. The degree of impact of
university activities on industrial innovation and the nature of the linkage used depend on the
industry concerned, as well as the provision of appropriate policy for knowledge transfer.
Industrial sectors and technologies have differentiated dependence on scientific knowledge;
some such as biotechnology have a very close relationship with the development of new
scientific knowledge whilst others are rooted much more in established knowledge and
industrial techniques which are not a primary interest of universities. Individual firms also
have differentiated orientation to academic partners, with some having strong historic links
whilst others focus their partnerships on other firms and non-academic organisations. The
existence of university-industry links and the success of policy to encourage knowledge
transfer will therefore depend on these attributes of industries and firms as well as policies of
universities and governments.
Much policy attention has become fixed on inventions and intellectual property (IP) (Fini
et al., 2010), perhaps exemplified in the term technology transfer which is increasingly
falling out of favour. This focus on technologies and codified knowledge has been overstated
because university – industry knowledge transfer spans a much broader range of interactions
including formal (cross-licensing deals, research collaborations and joint ventures), informal
collaborations (personal interactions) and focused and non-focused or general support
(Charles and Howells 1992: 26 and 27). The term knowledge transfer or even knowledge
exchange has therefore become more prominent in both academic and policy discourses to
recognise that the needs of innovation in the firm are not restricted to discrete technologies,
but encompass a variety of kinds of knowledge including social and managerial knowledges
which may be essential to the exploitation of technologies.
There is an increasing recognition that knowledge transfer operates through a variety of
channels dependent on the characteristics of knowledge and range from formalised transfer of
codified forms of knowledge such as publications and patents to informal discussions,
collaborative research and the movement of people (Schartinger et al., 2002). Much academic
interest has focused on the more formal channels such as patents as these are more easily
observed and measured, but Agrawal (2001) stresses the importance of non-codified
knowledge channels and the need for more research on the mechanics and characteristics of
such channels. These may be particularly important in industries without a strong patenting
culture. A key dimension of such informal linkage is the degree of intensity of relationship,
for it has been shown that social links and relationships are central to successful knowledge
transfer in various forms of network and alliance (Perkmann and Walsh, 2007, 260). Indeed it
4
is suggested that firms look to ‘capacity building and learning rather than tangible outcomes’
in their collaboration with universities (Perkmann and Walsh, 2007, 272), which suggests
patents would be a minor form of exchange.
Despite the interest in university-industry knowledge transfer, firms themselves usually
rate universities as being of low importance as a source of knowledge for innovation
(Hughes, 2008). Evidently there remain considerable barriers to effective university-industry
knowledge collaboration. For instance, Bruneel et al. (2010) stress the importance of
different institutional norms between universities and firms, as well as conflicts over IP.
Academics generally work within “Mertonian norms of science, such as communalism,
universalism, disinterestedness and organized scepticism (Merton, 1973)” (Bruneel et al
2010, 859). The open nature of science contrasts with the more closed and protective
approach of industry, and despite movement on both sides to a more mixed culture,
attitudinal alignment between firms and universities remains a problem. A growing interest of
university administrators in IP protection and exploitation also raises barriers as over-
optimistic valuations may be placed on university IP.
Close collaboration may help to overcome these barriers, notably by ‘learning to share
common norms’ (Bruneel et al, 2010, 860). Close relationships, fostered by staff mobility
between academic and industrial contexts (Perkmann and Walsh, 2007), can help to build
trust to address the inherently high levels of uncertainty in knowledge transfer. This may be
especially important given the sensitivity of knowledge about the firm and its strategy
revealed through the innovation process.
The importance of tacit knowledge at the heart of firm-specific advantage (Grant, 1996)
implies that effective knowledge transfer needs to have a strong tacit component. While
codified or explicit knowledge can be transferred across time and space embodied in tangible
forms, including operating manuals, software and patents, tacit knowledge transfer involves a
process of demonstration and learning by doing (Roberts 2000; Arrow, 1974). As a result,
tacitness gives knowledge a sticky quality (Szulanski, 2003) making it more difficult to
transfer.
The acquisition of tacit knowledge must then be seen as a process of learning. Academic
partners need to share some of this tacit knowledge to participate in collaborative research:
more intense forms of collaboration, especially those with exchanges of staff, will have a
higher tacit component. Studies related to this type of university-industry knowledge transfer
include those considering the implication of university-industry research/linkages
(Blumenthal et al., 1986; Mueller, 2006; Este and Patel, 2007; Arvanitis et al., 2008) and
those comparing the UK’s Teaching Company Scheme (TCS) with other technology transfer
schemes (Acworth, 2008; Burvill and Leary, 2001). However, these studies tend not to
develop a conceptual framework to examine the nature of knowledge transfer as a learning
process – an omission which this article is seeking to rectify.
3. Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
The TCS was established in 1975 based on the idea of knowledge transfer through ‘learning
by doing’ (Peattie, 1993). Developed in an era characterised by university supply-led
knowledge transfer, the TCS was relaunched and renamed as the KTP in 2003 to reflect the
present day demand-led nature of university-industry knowledge interactions ‘driven by the
interplay between the suppliers and receivers of knowledge’ (Giudice et al., 2008: 338). The
