Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

University-SME collaboration and innovation performance: the role of informal relationships and absorptive capacity

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work analyzes the impact of university–industry collaborations (UICs) on the innovation performance of a sample of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) located in Veneto, a region in the north-east of Italy, which is considered particularly representative of the often-cited “innovation without research” model. We consider two aspects of such UICs that have never been at the center of theoretical and empirical debates on the innovation capacity of SMEs and whose importance has only recently been recognized. The first aspect is the variety of forms that UIC can take. Specifically, we distinguish between formal and informal collaborations. The second aspect is the possible influence of the absorptive capacity of SMEs on their ability to gaining from UICs in terms of innovation performance. We combine statistical analysis of the results of a survey administered to 179 SMEs in Veneto with a collection of anecdotal evidence to show that UICs effectively increase SMEs’ innovation performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This report classifies European regions into four categories, ranging from the most innovative to the least innovative: innovation leaders, strong innovators, moderate innovators, and modest innovators. Each category is subdivided into three groups, and “plus” is the most innovative within each group.

  2. These figures represent our calculations based on data provided by the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) on the online data source: dati.istat.it.

  3. More information on the data source and the variables and data used can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/regional_en

  4. During the interviews, we specified the differences between the various types of collaborations (shown in as Table 1) by carefully instructing the interviewers.

  5. The questionnaire is available upon request.

  6. The details of the industry, included its identification using the NACE Rev. 2 at the 2-digit level, can be accessed at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/Annexes/htec_esms_an3.pdf.

  7. For more information about the methodology adopted and the districts identified in each region can be found at https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/150320.

References

  • Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and small firms: An empirical analysis. American Economic Review, 78(4), 678–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankrah, S., & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonioli, D., Mancinelli, D., & Mazzanti, M. (2013). Is environmental innovation embedded within high-performance organisational changes? The role of human resource management and complementarity in green business strategies. Research Policy, 42(4), 975–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Planta, M. (1996). Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation, 16(9), 451–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asheim, B. T., & Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34(8), 1173–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (2004). Sustaining innovation and growth: Public policy support for entrepreneurship. Industry and Innovation, 11(3), 167–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baba, Y., Shichijo, N., & Sedita, S. R. (2009). How do collaborations with universities affect firms’ innovative performance? The role of “Pasteur scientists” in the advanced materials field. Research Policy, 38(5), 756–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becattini, G. (1990). The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. In F. Pyke, G. Becattini, & W. Sengenberger (Eds.), Industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy (pp. 37–51). Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellandi, M. (1996). Innovation and change in the Marshallian industrial districts. European Planning Studies, 4(3), 357–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belussi, F., & Gottardi, G. (2000). Models of localised technological change. In F. Belussi & G. Gottardi (Eds.), Evolutionary patterns of local industrial systems (pp. 13–48). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belussi, F., & Sammarra, A. (Eds.). (2009). Business networks in clusters and industrial districts: The governance of the global value chain. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belussi, F., & Sedita, S. R. (2012). Industrial districts as open learning systems: Combining emergent and deliberate knowledge structures. Regional Studies, 46(2), 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belussi, F., Sedita, S. R., Aage, T., & Porcellato, D. (2011). Inward flows of information and knowledge in low-tech industrial districts: Contrasting the “few firms gatekeeper” and “direct peer” models. In P. Robertson & D. Jacobson (Eds.), Knowledge transfer and technology diffusion (pp. 64–89). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettiol, M., De Marchi, V., Di Maria, E., & Grandinetti, R. (2013). Determinants of market extension in knowledge-intensive business services: Evidence from a regional innovation system. European Planning Studies, 21(4), 498–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodas Freitas, I. M., Marques, R. A., & de Paula e Silva, E. M. (2013). University–industry collaboration and innovation in emergent and mature industries in new industrialized countries. Research Policy, 42(2), 443–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boix, R., & Galletto, V. (2009). Innovation and industrial districts: a first approach to the measurement and determinants of the I-district effect. Regional Studies, 43(9), 1117–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., & Piccaluga, A. (1994). A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university-industry relationships. R&D Management, 24(3), 229–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bougrain, F., & Haudeville, B. (2002). Innovation, collaboration and SMEs internal research capacities. Research Policy, 31(5), 735–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2015). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L., & Yang, S. (2002). Intangible assets: Computers and organizational capital. Brookings Papers on Economic activity: Macroeconomics, 1, 137–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cainelli, G., & De Liso, N. (2005). Innovation in industrial districts: Evidence from Italy. Industry and Innovation, 12(3), 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cakar, N. D., & Erturk, A. (2010). Comparing innovation capability of small and medium-sized enterprises : Examining the effects of organizational culture. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(3), 325–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caloghirou, Y., Tsakanikas, A., & Vonortas, N. S. (2001). University-industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programmes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camuffo, A., & Grandinetti, R. (2011). Italian industrial districts as cognitive systems: Are they still reproducible? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(9–10), 815–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., Di Guardo, M. C., & Valentini, G. (2010). Organizing links with science: Cooperate or contract? A project-level analysis. Research Policy, 39(7), 882–892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1169–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. L., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, U., & Lanzavecchia, G. (1997). Science and technology in Italian industry: A unique model. Technology in Society, 19(3–4), 467–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltorti, F., Resciniti, R., Tunisini, A., & Varaldo, R. (Eds.). (2013). Mid-sized manufacturing companies: The new driver of Italian competitiveness. Milan: Springer-Verlag Italia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P., Boekholt, P., & Tödtling, F. (2000). The governance of innovation in Europe: Regional perspectives on global competitiveness. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, V., Gereffi, G., & Grandinetti, R. (2018). Evolutionary trajectories of industrial districts in global value chains. In V. De Marchi, E. Di Maria, & G. Gereffi (Eds.), Local clusters in global value chains: Linking actors and territories through manufacturing and innovation (pp. 33–50). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, V., & Grandinetti, R. (2017). Regional innovation systems or innovative regions? evidence from Italy. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 108(2), 234–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organizational performance. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 446–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, C. S., Wu, Q., Hsieh, C. T., & Pedram, M. (1998). Stratified random sampling for power estimation. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 17(6), 465–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornbusch, F., & Neuhäusler, P. (2015). Composition of inventor teams and technological progress: The role of collaboration between academia and industry. Research Policy, 44(7), 1360–1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebersberger, B., Bloch, C., Herstad, S. J., & van de Velde, E. (2012a). Open innovation practices and their effect on innovation performance. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 9(6), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebersberger, B., Bloch, C., Herstad, S. J., & Van De Velde, E. L. S. (2012b). Open innovation practices and their effect on innovation performance. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 9(06), 1250040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university–industry RD projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research Policy, 35(2), 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, L., & Sedita, S. R. (2012). Embodied knowledge transfer for innovation: Comparing interfirm labor mobility between music and manufacturing industries. In F. Belussi & U. Staber (Eds.), Managing networks of creativity (pp. 121–143). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Perez-de-Lema, D., Madrid-Guijarro, A., & Martin, D. P. (2017). Influence of university-firm governance on SMEs innovation and performance levels. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 250–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, H., Von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. (2013). How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1134–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing, V., & Nooteboom, B. (2005). Density and strength of ties in innovation networks: an analysis of multimedia and biotechnology. European Management Review, 2(3), 179–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grandinetti, R. (2016). Absorptive capacity and knowledge management in small and medium enterprises. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14(2), 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2013). Formal and informal knowledge and technology transfer from academia to industry: Complementarity effects and innovation performance. Industry and Innovation, 20(8), 683–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2013). The role of proximity in university-business cooperation for innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(2), 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt-Dundas, N., & Roper, S. (2010). Output additionality of public support for innovation: Evidence for Irish manufacturing plants. European Planning Studies, 18(1), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huergo, E., & Jaumandreu, J. (2004). How does probability of innovation change with firm age? Small Business Economics, 22(3–4), 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5), 680–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., García-Morales, V. J., & Molina, L. M. (2011). Validation of an instrument to measure absorptive capacity. Technovation, 31(5–6), 190–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J., & Corral de Zubielqui, G. (2017). Doing well by doing good: A study of university-industry interactions, innovationess and firm performance in sustainability-oriented Australian SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 262–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. B. (1994). Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 96–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitagawa, F., & Woolgar, L. (2008). Regionalisation of innovation policies and new university–industry links in Japan: Policy review and new trends. Prometheus, 26(1), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobarg, S., Stumpf-Wollersheim, J., & Welpe, I. M. (2018). University-industry collaborations and product innovation performance: The moderating effects of absorptive capacity and innovation competencies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(6), 1696–1724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasagni, A. (2012). How can external relationships enhance innovation in SMEs? new evidence for Europe. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 310–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Foss, N. J. (2003). New human resources management practices, complementarities and the impact on innovation performance. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27(2), 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazzarotti, V., Manzini, R., & Pellegrini, L. (2015). Is your open-innovation successful? The mediating role of a firm’s organizational and social context. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(19), 2453–2485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, J., Welsch, H., & Stoica, M. (2003). Organizational absorptive capacity and responsiveness: An empirical investigation of growth-oriented SMEs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(1), 63–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, J. H., & Ganotakis, P. (2013). Learning by exporting: Lessons from high-technology SMEs. International Business Review, 22(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, J. H., & Roper, S. (2015). SME innovation, exporting and growth: A review of existing evidence. International Small Business Journal, 33(1), 28–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 101–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Research, 17(2), 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messeni Petruzzelli, A. M. (2011). The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university–industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis. Technovation, 31(7), 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Rotolo, D. (2015). Institutional diversity, internal search behaviour, and joint-innovations: Evidence from the US biotechnology industry. Management Decision, 53(9), 2088–2106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitsuhashi, H. (2002). Uncertainty in selecting alliance partners: The three reduction mechanisms and alliance formation processes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(2), 109–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohnen, P., & Hoareau, C. (2003). What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? evidence from CIS 2. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(2–3), 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohnen, P., & Röller, L. H. (2005). Complementarities in innovation policy. European Economic Review, 49(6), 1431–1450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P., Ciupagea, C., & Piccaluga, A. (2006). L’innovazione industriale in Italia: persiste il modello “senza ricerca”? L’industria, 27(3), 533–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motohashi, K. (2005). University–industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System. Research Policy, 34(5), 583–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A. (2007). The impact of absorptive capacity on SMEs’ collaboration. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(8), 653–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R. (2004). R&D collaboration by SMEs: New opportunities and limitations in the face of globalisation. Technovation, 24(2), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (2007). Social capital, institutions and trust. Review of Social Economy, 65(1), 29–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oughton, C., Landabaso, M., & Morgan, K. (2002). The regional innovation paradox: Innovation policy and industrial policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paoli, M., & Prencipe, A. (1999). The role of knowledge bases in complex product systems: Some empirical evidence from the aero engine industry. Journal of Management and Governance, 3(2), 137–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1994). The continuing, widespread (and neglected) importance of improvements in mechanical technologies. Research Policy, 23(5), 533–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajalo, S., & Vadi, M. (2017). University-industry innovation collaboration: Reconceptualization. Technovation, 62–63, 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reischauer, G. (2018). Industry 4.0 as policy-driven discourse to institutionalize innovation systems in manufacturing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rõigas, K., Mohnen, P., & Varblane, U. (2018). Which firms use universities as cooperation partners? a comparative view in Europe. International Journal of Technology Management, 76(1–2), 32–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, R. M., & Shaver, J. M. (2005). Learning by exporting: New insights from examining firm innovation. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 14(2), 431–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmiedeberg, C. (2008). Complementarities of innovation activities: An empirical analysis of the German manufacturing sector. Research Policy, 37(9), 1492–1503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedita, S. R., De Noni, I., & Pilotti, L. (2017). Out of the crisis: An empirical investigation of place-specific determinants of economic resilience. European Planning Studies, 25(2), 155–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K.H. (2005). Measuring innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 148–177) New York, US: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian, A. M., Lim, K., & Soh, P. H. (2013). When birds of a feather don’t flock together: Different scientists and the roles they play in biotech R&D alliances. Research Policy, 42(3), 595–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. J. (2018). Anatomy of use-inspired researchers: From Pasteur’s Quadrant to Pasteur’s Cube model. Research Policy, 47(9), 1626–1638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R. (1997). Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research Policy, 26(3), 303–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P., Baba, Y., Goto, A., & Yasaki, Y. (2008). Promoting university–industry linkages in Japan: Faculty responses to a changing policy environment. Prometheus, 26(1), 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiersema, M. F., & Bowen, H. P. (2009). The use of limited dependent variable techniques in strategy research: Issues and methods. Strategic Management Journal, 30(6), 679–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1996). Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(23), 12709–12716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Regione del Veneto.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, via Celoria 2, 20133, Milan, Italy

    Roberta Apa

  2. Department of Economics and Management, University of Padova, Via del Santo 33, 35123, Padua, Italy

    Valentina De Marchi, Roberto Grandinetti & Silvia Rita Sedita

Authors
  1. Roberta Apa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valentina De Marchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roberto Grandinetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Silvia Rita Sedita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Rita Sedita.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 5 and 6.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Apa, R., De Marchi, V., Grandinetti, R. et al. University-SME collaboration and innovation performance: the role of informal relationships and absorptive capacity. J Technol Transf 46, 961–988 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09802-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09802-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation