The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 943–966 | Cite as

Boundary spanning between industry and university: the role of Technology Transfer Centres

Article

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.

Keywords

Boundary spanning Technology Transfer Centres University-industry linkage SMEs Joint R&D projects Human capital 

JEL Classification

J24 L14 L24 O32 O33 

References

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2011). The role of information asymmetry in the market for university–industry research collaboration. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 84–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.Google Scholar
  3. Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. The Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.Google Scholar
  4. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Balconi, M., & Laboranti, M. (2006). University–industry interactions in applied research: The case of microelectronics. Research Policy, 35, 1616–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balconi, M., & Passannanti, A. (2006). I parchi scientifici e tecnologici nel Nord Italia. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  7. Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego, A. (2011). The impact of research and technology organizations on firm competitiveness. Measurement and determinants. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bessant, J., & Rush, H. (1995). Building bridges for innovation: The role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, 24, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boschma, R. A., & Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2007). Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district: The case of a footwear district in the South of Italy. Industry and Innovation, 14(2), 177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2005). The geography of knowledge spillovers: Conceptual issues and measurement problems. In S. Breschi & F. Malerba (Eds.), Clusters, networks and innovation (pp. 343–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (2005). Clusters, networks and innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brusoni, S., Criscuolo, P., & Geuna, A. (2005). The knowledge bases of the world’s largest pharmaceutical groups: What do patent citations to non-patent literature reveal? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14(5), 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes, the social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage & closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Burt, R. S., Jannotta, J. E., & Mahoney, J. T. (1998). Personality correlates of structural holes. Social Networks, 20, 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Organization science transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carson, S. J., Madhok, A., & Wu, T. (2006). Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: The effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1058–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3), 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., De Massis, A., & Frattini, F. (2008). The knowledge-bridging role of Technical and Scientific Services in knowledge-intensive industries. International Journal of Technology Management, 41(3/4), 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Compagno, C., & Pittino, D. (2006). Ricerca scientifica e nuove imprese. Torino: Isedi.Google Scholar
  23. Corley, P., Boardman, C., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies. Research Policy, 35, 975–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34, 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Decter, M., Bennett, D., & Leseure, M. (2007). University to business technology transfer—UK and USA comparisons. Technovation, 27, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Sylos Labini, M. (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy, 35, 1450–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. European Commission, Enterprise Directorate General. (2004). Technology transfer institutions in Europe: An overview, Brussels.Google Scholar
  29. Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research Policy, 35, 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gulati, R., & Singh, H. (1998). The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 781–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hagardon, A., & Sutton, R. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hollanders, H., Tarantola, S., & Loschky, A. (2009). Regional innovation scoreboard (RIS) 2009. Pro Inno Europe Innova Metrics.Google Scholar
  34. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop—inside Procter & Gamble’s new model for innovation. Harvard Business Review, March, 58–66.Google Scholar
  36. IPI—Istituto per la Promozione Industriale. (2005). Indagine sui centri per l’innovazione e il trasferimento tecnologico in Italia, a cura del Dipartimento Centri e Reti Italia, Direzione Trasferimento di Conoscenza e Innovazione. Roma: Novembre.Google Scholar
  37. ISTAT. (2010). Struttura e dimensione delle unità locali delle imprese Anno 2008. Roma.Google Scholar
  38. Kirkels, Y., & Duysters, G. (2010). Brokerage in SME networks. Research Policy, 39(3), 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kodama, T. (2008). The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university-industry linkages—An empirical study of TAMA in Japan. Research Policy, 37, 1224–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lakhani, K. R. (2008). InnoCentive.com (A). Harvard Business School Case, No. 608–170.Google Scholar
  41. Laranja, M. (2009). The development of technology infrastructure in Portugal and the need to pull innovation using proactive intermediation policies. Technovation, 29, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching low and high: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33, 1201–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The triple helix: An evolutionary model of innovations. Research Policy, 29, 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2007). Developing reputation to overcome the imperfections in the markets for knowledge. Research Policy, 36, 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34, 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms- academy-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31, 859–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). Multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behaviour. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1423–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marsili, O., & Verspagen, B. (2002). Technology and the dynamics of industrial structures: An empirical mapping of Dutch manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 791–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. (2005). Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1033–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging the ties: A source of firms heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1133–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morrison, A. (2008). Gatekeepers of knowledge within industrial districts: Who they are, how they interact. Regional Studies, 42(6), 817–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Muller, E., & Zenker, A. (2001). Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: The role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy, 30, 1501–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Muscio, A. (2007). The impact of absorptive capacity on SMEs’ collaboration. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(8), 653–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.Google Scholar
  56. Nerkar, A., & Paruchuri, S. (2005). Evolution of R&D capabilities: The role of knowledge networks within a firm. Management Science, 51(5), 771–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nest. (2000). Rapport Nest 2000 (Network for Science and Technology). Venezia: Veneto Innovazione.Google Scholar
  58. Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, G., & van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36, 1016–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. OECD. (2003). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2003. OECD: Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (2003). Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14(4), 422–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reisman, A. (2005). Transfer of technologies: A cross-disciplinary taxonomy. Omega, 33, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Robertson, P. L., & Patel, P. R. (2007). New wine in old bottles: Technological diffusion in developed economies. Research Policy, 36(5), 708–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University–incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34, 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roveda, C., & Vecchiato, R. (2008). Foresight and innovation in the context of industrial clusters: The case of some Italian districts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75, 817–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sonali, K. S., & Corley, K. G. (2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1821–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry–university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37, 1079–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tushman, M., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yusuf, S. (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses. Research Policy, 37, 1167–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. (2005). Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 809–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementCa’ Foscari University - VeniceVeniceItaly
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsCa’ Foscari University - VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations