Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A micro level study of university industry collaborative lifecycle key performance indicators

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

Abstract

The assessment of university-industry collaborative projects has been complex and has become more prevalent in national research, educational and innovation system reviews. One criticism made about studies of university-industry collaboration (UIC) is they are too much orientated towards exclusively the outputs (Rossi and Rosli in Stud High Educ 40(10):1970–1991, 2015) and that there is a need to apply case specific metrics. To address this criticism we have taken Brown et al’s Res Technol Manag 31(4):11–15, (1988) R&D lifecycle of inputs, in-process activities, outputs and impact at micro level to examine what are the common and context specific key performance indicators of UIC. Taking a qualitative approach and using university-industry collaborative projects set in Finland and Russia our study identified a common set of micro level KPIs across the UIC lifecycle at a micro level. Namely, the amount of resources allocated by partners to collaboration; efficiency of collaboration management and clearly defined roles; as well as a number of company innovations resulting from collaboration with a university and new strategic partnerships. Our study also found contextual micro level KPIs as number of young researchers involved, fit between collaboration and organizational strategy; number of joint publications; enterprise image improvements. Our research extends the existing knowledge on UIC KPIs in the following ways. First, we define those KPIs, which are applicable by all the three actors of the triple helix, but also identify those that are not used by some of these actors. Second, we analyse the relevance of certain KPIs proposed by governmental bodies and the literature in terms of their applicability in the analysed case studies. Finally, we define those metrics, which among other existing KPIs depend on the case context (region, research area, industrial sector and partners’ goals) as well as identify additional KPIs, which have not received attention in UIC literature.

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. Public–private partnerships for speeding up the innovation processes (see Tekes.fi 2015).

  2. European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument for Cross-border collaboration (CBC).

  3. Iterative development process (ICT, also agile or an ‘evolutionary advancement’) is a work on a project organised in a set of shorter iterating cycles, comprising stages of analysing the problem, exploring, developing a solution (or hypothesis/prototype) and testing it, reviewing the received results and (when required) starting over again (Basili and Turner 1975; Larman and Basili 2003).

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2011). University-industry research collaboration: A model to assess university capability. Higher Education, 62(2), 163–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University–industry collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29(6), 498–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Ashaab, A., Flores, M., Doultsinou, A., & Magyar, A. (2011). A balanced scorecard for measuring the impact of industry–university collaboration. Production Planning & Control, 22(5–6), 554–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albats, E., Fiegenbaum, I., & Kutvonen, A. (2013). Open Innovation in University-Industry collaboration. Case Russia. In The Proceedings of the 6th ISPIM Innovation Symposium. Melbourne-08-11 December.

  • Allen, S. D., Link, A. N., & Rosenbaum, D. (2007). Entrepreneurship and human capital: Evidence of patenting activity from the academic sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 937–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27(5), 306–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asveld, L., & Roeser, S. (Eds.). (2012). The ethics of technological risk (p. 320). UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 313–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2012). Universities as research partners in publicly supported entrepreneurial firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21, 529–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baglieri, D., Cesaroni, F., & Orsi, L. (2014). Does the nano-patent ‘gold rush’ lead to entrepreneurial-driven growth? Some policy lessons from China and Japan. Technovation, 34(12), 746–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balkin, D. B., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1984). Determinants of R and D compensation strategies in the high tech industry. Personnel Psychology, 37(4), 635–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbolla, A. M. B., & Corredera, J. R. C. (2009). Critical factors for success in university–industry research projects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(5), 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T., Pashby, I., & Gibbons, A. (2002). Effective university-industry interaction: A multi-case evaluation of collaborative R&D projects. European Management Journal, 20(3), 272–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basili, V. R., & Turner, A. J. (1975). Iterative enhancement: A practical technique for software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 4, 390–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration. Technovation, 30(2), 100–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9, 571–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennenraedts, R., Bekkers, R., & Verspagen, B. (2006). The different channels of university-industry knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence from Biomedical Engineering. Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. G., & Svenson, R. A. (1988). Measuring R&D productivity. Research-Technology Management, 31(4), 11–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bstieler, L., Hemmert, M., & Barczak, G. (2015). Trust formation in university-industry collaborations in the US Biotechnology Industry: IP policies Shared Governance, and Champions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(1), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, J., & Jeffrey, P. (2007). A view from the coal face: UK research student perceptions of successful and unsuccessful collaborative projects. Research Policy, 36(8), 1239–1250.

    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 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Alexander, J. (1999). Winning by co-opeting in strategic government-university-industry R&D partnerships: The power of complex, dynamic knowledge networks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2–3), 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). “Mode 3” and “quadruple helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Del Giudice, M., & Della Peruta, M. R. (2014). Managing the intellectual capital within government-university-industry R&D partnerships: A framework for the engineering research centers. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(4), 611–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), New frontiers in open innovation (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Hynes, T., & Fraser, S. (1995). Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(4), 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., Doganova, L., Piva, E., D’Adda, D., & Mustar, P. (2015). Hybrid alliances and radical innovation: The performance implications of integrating exploration and exploitation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(4), 696–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B. S. (2003). Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1), 39–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J., & Harney, B. (2006). Strategic management of technology transfer, the new challenge on campus. Oxford: Oak Tree Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. A., & Link, A. M. (2015). Fostering university industry r&d collaborations in European Union. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11, 849–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. A., & Link, A. N. (2014). Fostering university-industry R&D collaborations in European Union countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1–12, 849–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. A., Mangematin, V., O’Kane, C., & O’Reilly, P. (2016a). At the frontiers of scientific advancement: The factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded principal investigators. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 779–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Young, C. (2016b). A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–34. doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9491-6.

  • Cunningham, J., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2014). The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. A., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2015). Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators. International Journal of Technology Management, 68(3–4), 176–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. A., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2016c). Publicly funded principal investigators as transformative agents of public sector entrepreneurship. In D. B. Audretsch & A. N. Link (Eds.), Essays in public sector entrepreneurship (pp. 67–94), Springer.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 13(4), 537–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dezhina, I. (2004). Problemi Sozdanija Innovacionnoi Infrasatructuri v Rossii., Nauchnyj vestnik IEP im. E.T. Gajdara.–(2004).

  • Dezhina, I. (2012). Creating linkages: Government policy to stimulate R&D through University-industry cooperation in Russia. Sociologija nauki i tehnologij, 3(2), 100–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dzisah, J., & Etzkowitz, H. (2008). Triple helix circulation: The heart of innovation and development. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 7(2), 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review., 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • ENPI, (2014). SOUTH-EAST FINLAND-RUSSIA ENPI CBC 2007–2013. Cross-border cooperation programme supporting EU’s external actions with the financing from the European Union, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Finland. Sharing borders—growing closer. Publication date 15th of March 2014. http://www.southeastfinrusnpi.fi/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/10/South-East-Finland-Russia-ENPI-CBC-brochure2014_lowresweb.pdf. Accessed on September 2015.

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.

    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 

  • EU commission. (2011). Horizon 2020 impact assessment. Brussels, 30.11.2011. http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/horizon_2020_impact_assessment_report.pdf. Accessed on March 2015.

  • EU commission. (2014). Boosting open innovation and knowledge transfer in the European Union. Independent expert group report on open innovation and knowledge transfer. The European Commission, Brussels—2014. https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/b1_studies-b5_web-publication_mainreport-kt_oi.pdf. Accessed on July 2015.

  • Finne, H., Arundel, A., Balling, G., Brisson, P., & Erselius, J. (2009). Metrics for knowledge transfer from public research organisations in Europe: Report from the European Commission’s expert group on knowledge transfer metrics (p. 2009). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores, M., Al-Ashaab, A., & Magyar, A. (2009). A balanced scorecard for open innovation: Measuring the impact of Industry-University collaboration. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, I. Paraskakis, & H. Afsarmanesh (Eds.), Leveraging Knowledge for Innovation in Collaborative Networks (pp. 23–32)., Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frasquet, M., Calderón, H., & Cervera, A. (2012). University–industry collaboration from a relationship marketing perspective: An empirical analysis in a Spanish University. Higher Education, 64(1), 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), 748–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: A case study comparison. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 415–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2001). Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: evidence from the advanced technology program. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). Universities as research partners. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 485–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hefce.ac.uk, 2015. Higher education—business and community interaction survey: 2013–14. Higher education funding council for England. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2015/201513/. Accessed on December 2014.

  • Hemmert, M., Bstieler, L., & Okamuro, H. (2014). Bridging the cultural divide: Trust formation in university–industry research collaborations in the US, Japan, and South Korea. Technovation, 34(10), 605–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Chicago: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, W., & Su, Y. S. (2013). The effect of institutional proximity in non-local university–industry collaborations: An analysis based on Chinese patent data. Research Policy, 42(2), 454–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J., Ramlogan, R., & Cheng, S.-L. (2012). Universities in an open innovation system: A UK perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 18(4), 440–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISTAG. (2012). Towards horizon 2020. Recommendations of ISTAG on FP7 ICT Work Program 2013. ISTAG, Belgium, March 2012. Available at: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/istag/documents/istag-wg-2013-v12-march-2012-new.pdf. Accessed on January 2015.

  • Kauppila, O., Mursula, A., Harkonen, J., & Kujala, J. (2015). Evaluating university–industry collaboration: The European foundation of quality management excellence model-based evaluation of university–industry collaboration. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(3), 229–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kautonen, M., Muhonen, R., Lehenkari J., Hyvönen, J., Tuunainen, J., & Kutvanen, A. (2015). New forms of university-industry collaboration in Finland: Key results of the National Survey. Tekes policy brief. Available at: https://www.tekes.fi/globalassets/global/ohjelmat-ja-palvelut/kampanjat/innovaatiotutkimus/policybrief_2_2015_openunic.pdf. Accessed on November 2015.

  • Kharkova, T. L., & Andreev, E. M. (2000). Did the economic crisis cause the fertility decline in Russia: Evidence from the 1994 microcensus. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, 16(3), 211–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klitskov, K., Secher, M., Gad, M., Meineche M., Bogesvang Olesen, N. & Jorgensen M-D. (2014). Global benchmark report. Conferderation of Danish Industry. Zeuner Grafisk. http://di.dk/English/Shop/Productpage/Pages/isdefault.aspx?productid=6884. Accessed on October 2014.

  • Kutvonen, A., Lehenkari, J., Kautonen, M., Savitskaya, I., Tuunainen, J., & Muhonen, R. (2013). University-industry collaboration and knowledge transfer in the open innovation framework. In university-industry interaction conference: Challenges and solutions for fostering entrepreneurial universities and collaborative innovation (pp. 694–710).

  • Lambert, R., Lambert review of business-university collaboration: Final report (2003). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1509981. Accessed on May 2015.

  • Langford, C. H., Hall, J., Josty, P., Matos, S., & Jacobson, A. (2006). Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research Policy, 35(10), 1586–1598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larman, C., & Basili, V. R. (2003). Iterative and incremental development: A brief history. Computer, 36(6), 47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4), 507–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. R. (2014). University-industry R&D collaboration in Korea’s national innovation system. Science Technology & Society, 19(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei, X. P., Zhao, Z. Y., Zhang, X., Chen, D. Z., Huang, M. H., & Zhao, Y. H. (2011). The inventive activities and collaboration pattern of university–industry–government in China based on patent analysis. Scientometrics, 90(1), 231–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, A. J., & Li, W. (2013). Adaption of the clinical correlation instructional model for 2nd year engineering science courses. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(5), 1144–1154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, R., Roux, P., & Wolff, S. (2009). An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large European University. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2013). Knowledge spillovers collective entrepreneurship, and economic growth: The role of universities. Small Business Economics, 41, 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyden, D. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the decision to locate on a university research park. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55, 23–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003a). The growth of research triangle park. Small Business Economics, 20, 167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003b). U. S. science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1323–1356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2005). Opening the ivory tower door: an analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34, 1106–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23, 661–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance, 11, 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 641–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, J., Tomson, G., Lundkvist, I., & Brommels, M. (2006). Collaboration uncovered: Exploring the adequacy of measuring university-industry collaboration through co-authorship and funding. Scientometrics, 69(3), 575–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. (2002). Building trust in cross-cultural collaborations: Toward a contingency perspective. Journal of Management, 28(5), 669–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, N., Beckman, K., Lawrence, J., O’Mary, G., Parish, C., Unpingco, P., et al. (1999). Industry/university collaborations: Different perspectives heighten mutual opportunities. Journal of Systems and Software, 49(2), 155–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menter, M. (2016). Principal investigators and the commercialization of knowledge. In University evolution, entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness. (pp. 193–203). Springer International Publishing.

  • Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research–based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33(2), 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mora-Valentin, E. M., Montoro-Sanchez, A., & Guerras-Martin, L. A. (2004). Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations. Research Policy, 33(1), 17–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, C., Sort, J. C., & Bentsen, M. J. (2013). Levers of management in university-industry collaborations: How project management affects value creation at different life-cycle stages of a collaboration. Tertiary Education and Management, 19(3), 246–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Kane, C., Mangematin, V., Geoghegan, W., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy. Research Policy, 44(2), 421–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paleari, S., Donina, D., & Meoli, M. (2014). The role of the university in twenty-first century European society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(3), 369–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. E., 1992. Industry-university collaboration in developed and developing countries. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/the World Bank.

  • Perkmann, M., Neely, A., & Walsh, K. (2011). How should firms evaluate success in university–industry alliances? A performance measurement system. R&D Management, 41(2), 202–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Piva, E., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). Systems of indicators to evaluate the performance of university-industry alliances: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Measuring Business Excellence, 17(3), 40–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plewa, C., Galan-Muros, V. & Davey, T. (2016). An integrative classification framework for the results of university-business cooperation. Presentation at the University-Industry Interaction Conference 2016, Amsterdam.

  • Plewa, C., Korff, N., Johnson, C., Macpherson, G., Baaken, T., & Rampersad, G. C. (2013). The evolution of university–industry linkages—A framework. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30(1), 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plewa, C., & Quester, P. (2007). Key drivers of university-industry relationships: The role of organisational compatibility and personal experience. Journal of Services Marketing, 21(5), 370–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponds, R., Van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2010). Innovation, spillovers and university–industry collaboration: An extended knowledge production function approach. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(2), 231–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radosevic, S. (2003). Patterns of preservation, restructuring and survival: Science and technology policy in Russia in Post-Soviet era. Research Policy, 32(6), 1105–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos-Vielba, I., Fernández-Esquinas, M., & Espinosa-de-los-Monteros, E. (2010). Measuring university–industry collaboration in a regional innovation system. Scientometrics, 84(3), 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbeck, R., & Arnold, H. M. (2006). 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.

  • Rossi, F., & Rosli, A. (2013). Indicators of university-industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the UK’s HE-BCI survey. CIMR research working paper series. Working paper No. 13. Birkbeck College, University of London, London, UK.

  • Rossi, F., & Rosli, A. (2015). Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: Evidence from the United Kingdom. Studies in Higher Education, 40(10), 1970–1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salimi, N., Bekkers, R., & Frenken, K. (2015). Does working with industry come at a price? A study of doctoral candidates’ performance in collaborative vs. non-collaborative Ph. D. projects. Technovation, 41, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salimi, N., & Rezaei, J. (2016). Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph. D. projects using best worst method. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1911–1938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanberg, P. R., Gharib, M., Harker, P. T., Kaler, E. W., Marchase, R. B., Sands, T. D., et al. (2014). Changing the academic culture: Valuing patents and commercialization toward tenure and career advancement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(18), 6542–6547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savitskaya, I., & Torkkeli, M. (2011). A framework for comparing regional open innovation systems in Russia. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 5(3), 332–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, P., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2012). University-industry collaboration in IS research: An investigation of successful collaboration models. In Proceedings of the International Bled Conference. (pp. 109–126).

  • Schuler, R. S., Jackson, S. E., & Tarique, I. (2011). Global talent management and global talent challenges: Strategic opportunities for IHRM. Journal of World Business, 46(4), 506–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seppo, M., & Lilles, A. (2012). Indicators measuring university-industry cooperation. Discussions on Estonian Economic Policy: Theory and Practice of Economic Policy, 20(1), 204–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Shore, C., & McLauchlan, L. (2012). ‘Third mission’ activities, commercialisation and academic entrepreneurs. Social Anthropology, 20(3), 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulin, G. (1999). Implications of national innovation systems for developing countries: Managing change and complexity in economic development. Institute for New Technologies: United Nations University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., & Phan, P. (2005). Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth, 16, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003a). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003b). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). University technology transfer offices, licensing, and start-ups. Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship (pp. 1–40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stek, P. E., & van Geenhuizen, M. S. (2015). Measuring the dynamics of an innovation system using patent data: a case study of South Korea, 2001–2010. Quality & Quantity, 49(4), 1325–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, I., Dukerich, J. M., & Zajac, E. (2014). Unmixed signals: How reputation and status affect alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 512–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamada, S., Naito, Y., Kodama, F., Gemba, K., & Suzuki, J. (2006). Significant difference of dependence upon scientific knowledge among different technologies. Scientometrics, 68(2), 289–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tekes.fi, 2015. Strategic centres for science, technology and innovation (SHOK). Available at: http://www.tekes.fi/en/programmes-and-services/strategic-centres/. Accessed on September 2014.

  • Thune, T. (2010). The training of “triple helix workers”? Doctoral students in university–industry–government collaborations. Minerva, 48(4), 463–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thune, T. (2011). Success factors in higher education-industry collaboration: A case study of collaboration in the engineering field. Tertiary Education and Management, 17(1), 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. J. (2012). Co-authored research publications and strategic analysis of public–private collaboration. Research Evaluation, 21, 204–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Van Wijk, E. (2009). Benchmarking university-industry research cooperation worldwide: performance measurements and indicators based on co-authorship data for the world’s largest universities. Research Evaluation, 18(1), 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. J., & Wong, P. K. (2016). Unravelling complexities of university-industry research interactions: The analytical power of case studies. Research Evaluation, 25(2), 119–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tovstiga, G., Sabella, A., & Dawoudi, D. (2013). Innovative university-industry partnerships: Comparative analysis and competitive impact on The Palestinian private sector. In University-industry interaction conference proceedings: Challenges and solutions for fostering entrepreneurial universities and collaborative innovation. (p. 44). University Industry Innovation Network.

  • Turk-Bicakci, L., & Brint, S. (2005). University–industry collaboration: patterns of growth for low-and middle-level performers. Higher Education, 49(1–2), 61–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Sijde, P. C. (2012). Profiting from knowledge circulation: the gains from university–industry interaction. Industry and Higher Education, 26(1), 15–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vliet, K., Pellenq, R., Buehler, M. J., Grossman, J. C., Jennings, H., Ulm, F. J., et al. (2012). Set in stone? A perspective on the concrete sustainability challenge. MRS Bulletin, 37(04), 395–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitasek, K. (2015). Innovation and collaboration: It’s not an either-or proposition. from www.forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/sites/katevitasek/2015/01/13/innovation-and-collaboration-its-not-an-either-or-proposition. Accessed on Aug 7, 2015.

  • Vuolle, M., Lönnqvist, A. & Schiuma, G. (2014). Development of key performance indicators and impact assessment for SHOKs. Ministry of employment and the economy. published in electronic format only, https://www.tekes.fi/globalassets/global/ohjelmat-ja-palvelut/shok/temjul_27_2014_web25062014.pdf. Accessed on Aug 2014.

  • Wang, Y., Hu, R., Li, W., & Pan, X. (2016). Does teaching benefit from university–industry collaboration? Investigating the role of academic commercialization and engagement. Scientometrics, 106(3), 1037–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Yin, R. K. (2002) Case study research: Design and methods, Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Management, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Skinnarilankatu 34, 53850, Lappeenranta, Finland

    Ekaterina Albats

  2. International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM), Manchester, UK

    Irina Fiegenbaum

  3. Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    James A. Cunningham

Authors
  1. Ekaterina Albats
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irina Fiegenbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James A. Cunningham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ekaterina Albats.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 8.

Table 8 KPIs identified across the UIC lifecycle and illustrative citations from the interviews’ transcripts
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Albats, E., Fiegenbaum, I. & Cunningham, J.A. A micro level study of university industry collaborative lifecycle key performance indicators. J Technol Transf 43, 389–431 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9555-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9555-2

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation