Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of knowledge interactions between public research centres and industrial firms in Spain: a project-level analysis

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

Abstract

This paper examines cooperation between public research centres (PRCs) and industrial firms. We analyse two types of impact—scientific and techno economic—using objective and subjective measures, and explore the determinants of these impacts by investigating the pre-project context, and the way that relationships are implemented and managed. The main novelty of this paper is that the empirical analysis focuses on project level relationships, based on an original database for the Spanish case; it is the characteristics of these relationships that are the core of our analysis. The results show that the impacts identified are contingent on different characteristics in the relationships between PRCs and industrial firms, and that the influence of these characteristics varies depending on the type of impact considered.

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. To our knowledge only the study by Bekkers and Bodas-Freitas (2008) simultaneously analyses the perceptions of both.

  2. There is a degree of subjectivity in considering a product or a process to be new, or an adaptation of a new technology or the creation of a new technological domain.

  3. We also included sectoral dummies. Their inclusion does not change the results, thus, they are not reported here.

  4. I.e., the conjecture that EU countries play a leading role globally in terms of top-level scientific output, but lag behind in the ability to convert this strength into wealth-generating innovations.

  5. The different frequency distributions of the dependent variables are shown in the "Appendix".

  6. Coefficient = 1.495863. Standard Error = 0.3370911 (p-value = 0.000).

  7. Marginal effects are available from the authors upon request. We do not reproduce them here for reasons of space.

References

  • Adams, J. D., Chiang, E. P., & Jensen, J. L. (2003). The influence of federal laboratory R&D on industrial research. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1003–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2005). Sources of information as determinants of novelty of innovation in manufacturing firms: Evidence from the 1999 statistics Canada innovation survey. Technovation, 25, 245–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1992). The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 18–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: A systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Evaluation, 131, 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arundel, A., Van de Paal, G., & Soete, L. (1995). PACE Report: Innovation strategies of Europe`s largest firms: Results of the PACE survey for information sources, public research, protection of innovations, and government programmes. Brussels: Directorate General XIII, European Commission, EIMS Publication 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitis, S., Sydow, N., & Woerter, M. (2008). Do specific forms of university-industry knowledge transfer have different impacts on the performance of private enterprises? An empirical analysis based on Swiss firm data. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 504–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J. (2007). What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm? Some reasons for the delocalisation of university—industry interaction. Technovation, 27, 704–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barge-Gil, A. (2010). Cooperation-based innovators and peripheral cooperators. An empirical analysis of their characteristics and behavior. Technovation, 30(3), 195–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barge-Gil, A. & Modrego, A. (2010). The impact of research and technology organizations on firm competitiveness. Measurement and determinants. The Journal of Technology Transfer. In press. doi:10.1007/s10961-009-9132-4.

  • Bekkers, R., & Bodas-Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37, 1837–1853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33, 1477–1492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bizan, O. (2003). The determinants of success of R&D projects: Evidence from American–Israeli research alliances. Research Policy, 32, 1619–1640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruneel, J., D’Este, P. and Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Research Policy. In press. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006.

  • Caloghirou, Y., Hondroyiannis, G., & Vonortas, N. S. (2003). The performance of research partnerships. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(2/3), 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Travedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., & Walsh, J. (1998). Industry and the Academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In R. Noll (Ed.), Challenge to the research university (pp. 171–199). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1295–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, M. S., & Pedersen, C. (2004). Knowledge flows through informal contacts in industrial clusters: Myth or reality? Research Policy, 33, 1673–1686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierdonck, R. V., & Debackere, K. (1988). Academic entrepreneurship at Belgian universities. R&D Management, 18(4), 341–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., Powell, B. C., Sakakibara, M. & Wang, A. J. (2007). The determinants of success on R&D alliances. In Academy of management best papers proceedings.

  • Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feller, I., Glasmeier, A., & Mark, M. (1996). Issues and perspectives on evaluating manufacturing modernization programs. Research Policy, 25, 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fransman, M. (2008). Dissagregating firms in analysing the costs and benefits of the university-industry relationship: Based on an analytical and empirical study from Scotland. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17(1), 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geisler, E. (2001). Explaining the generation and performance of intersector technology cooperation: A survey of the literature. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(2), 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences. Journal of Economic Issues, 35(3), 607–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E., & Arza, V. (2009). What drives the formation of ‘valuable’ university-industry linkages? Insights from the wine industry. Research Policy, 38, 906–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932–950.

    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. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). Universities as research partners. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 485–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ham, R. M., & Mowery, D. (1998). Improving the effectiveness of public-private R&D cooperations: case studies at a US weapons laboratory. Research Policy, 26, 661–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, P., & Wyatt, G. (1992). Economics of academic research and its implications for higher education. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 8(2), 48–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijs, J. (2005). Identification of firms sorted by technology policies: The case of Spanish low interest credits. Science and Public Policy, 32(3), 219–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoang, H., & Rothaermer, F. T. (2005). The effect of general and partner-specific alliance experience on joint R&D project performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 332–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, W., & Schlosser, R. (2001). Success factors of strategic alliances in small and medium sized enterprises. An empirical survey. Long Range Planning, 34, 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izushi, H. (2003). Impact of the length of relationships upon the use of research institutes by SMEs. Research Policy, 32, 771–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. (1998). Measurement Issues. In L. M. Branscomb & J. Keller (Eds.), Investing in innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. (2008). The “Science of Science Policy”: reflections on the important questions and the challenges they present. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 131–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. H. A., & Johnston, D. A. (2004). Organisational knowledge creating processes and the performance of university-industry collaborative R&D projects. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(1), 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, M. J., Schaan, J. L., & Joncas, H. (2002). Managing alliance relationships: Key challenges in the early stages of cooperation. R&D Management, 32(1), 11–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klevorick, A., Levin, R., Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1995). On the sources and significance of inter-industry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24, 185–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, J., & Pirnay, F. (2005). An evaluation of public support measures for private external consultancies to SMEs in the Walloon region of Belgium. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17, 89–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33(8), 1201–1215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. (1996). Technology transfer and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry cooperation. Research Policy, 25(6), 843–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitner, K. (2005). Managing and reporting intangible assets in research technology organisations. R&D Management, 35(2), 125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lööf, H., & Broström, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen, T. (2000). Additionality of EU framework programmes. Research Policy, 29, 711–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacPherson, A. (1997). The role of producer service outsourcing in the innovation performance of New York State manufacturing firms. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87(1), 52–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2008). Innovation and SMEs: Misaligned perspectives and goals among entrepreneurs, academics and policy makers. Technovation, 28, 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32, 1481–1499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behaviour, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 135–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monjon, S., & Waelbroeck, P. (2003). Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: Evidence from French firm-level data. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1255–1270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montoro-Sánchez, A., Mora-Valentín, E., & Guerras-Martín, L. (2006). R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organisations: A comparative analysis of the characteristics and reasons depending on the nature of the partner. International Journal of Technology Management., 35(1), 156–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R., & Hagedoorn, J. (1999). Innovating through strategic alliances: Moving towards international partnerships and contractual agreements. Technovation, 19, 283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. (2006). Reflections on “The simple economics of basic scientific research”: Looking back and looking forward. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(6), 903–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Farrell, P. N., & Hitchens, D. M. (1990). Producer services and regional development: Key conceptual issues of taxonomy and quality measurement. Regional Studies, 24(2), 163–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okamuro, H. (2007). Determinants of successful R&D cooperation in Japanese small business: The impact of organizational and contractual characteristics. Research Policy, 36, 1529–1544.

    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 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of cooperation: Impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18, 1033–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranga, L. M., Debackere, K., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58(2), 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, J. D., & Bozeman, B. (1997). Basic research and the success of federal lab-industry partnerships. Journal of Technology Transfer, 22(3), 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M., & Fröhlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy, 31, 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, P. (2001). US manufacturing extension partnerships: Technology policy reinvented? Research Policy, 30, 977–992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tödtling, F., Lehner, P., & Kaufmann, A. (2009). Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation, 29(1), 59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Looy, B., Ranga, L. M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Looy, B., Callaert, J., & Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Research Policy, 35(4), 596–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vence, X. (1998). La política tecnológica comunitaria y la cohesión regional. Los retos de los sistemas de innovación periféricos. Madrid: Civitas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, P. (2002). Knowledge-intensive services and urban innovativeness’. Urban Studies, 39(5–6), 993–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors want to acknowledge the support from project “Evaluación del programa PETRI”. CICYT (Comisión interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnología), 1998–2000. This paper was presented at the 6th European Meeting on Applied Evolutionary Economics at Max Planck Institute of Economics, Jena. We would like to thank all participants of this meeting. Usual disclaimers apply.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Economía, Universidad de Cantabria, Avda. Los Castros, s/n, 39005, Santander, Spain

    R. Núñez-Sánchez

  2. Departamento de Fundamentos de Análisis Económico II, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Campus Somosaguas, 28223, Madrid, Spain

    A. Barge-Gil

  3. Laboratorio de Análisis del Cambio Técnico y la Innovación, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, C/Madrid, 126, 28903, Getafe, Spain

    A. Modrego-Rico

Authors
  1. R. Núñez-Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Barge-Gil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Modrego-Rico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Núñez-Sánchez.

Appendix: Frequency distribution of disaggregate dependent variables

Appendix: Frequency distribution of disaggregate dependent variables

Sci_pub: Number of publications in international journals.

 

 

Freq.

Percent

Cum.

0

123

47.13

47.13

1

44

16.86

63.98

2

43

16.48

80.46

3

21

8.05

88.51

4

12

4.6

93.1

5

5

1.92

95.02

6

4

1.53

96.55

7

1

0.38

96.93

8

2

0.77

97.7

10

3

1.15

98.85

20

1

0.38

99.23

24

1

0.38

99.62

30

1

0.38

100

Total

261

100

 

Sci_comp: Impact on scientific competitiveness of the PRC: Subjective opinions of project managers related to changes in scientific position (international level) as a consequence of the project.

Value = 1, get worse; Value = 2, do not change; Value = 3, improve slightly; Value = 4, improve significant.

 

 

Freq.

Percent

Cum.

2

65

27.66

27.66

3

93

39.57

67.23

4

77

32.77

100

Total

235

100

 

Patents: this impact is measured by the existence of patents achieved as the result of the project.

 

 

Freq.

Percent

Cum.

0

193

73.66

73.66

1

69

26.34

100

Total

262

100

 

Tech_impact: Techno-commercial impact: Project managers’ opinions as to whether new products or process were introduced into the market, whether the quality of existing products was improved, whether a new technological domain was created, whether cost reductions, adjustments to external technology, or replacement of external technology occurred.

 

 

Freq.

Percent

Cum.

0

22

8.4

8.4

1

94

35.88

44.27

2

74

28.24

72.52

3

49

18.7

91.22

4

17

6.49

97.71

5

5

1.91

99.62

6

1

0.38

100

Total

262

100

 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Núñez-Sánchez, R., Barge-Gil, A. & Modrego-Rico, A. Performance of knowledge interactions between public research centres and industrial firms in Spain: a project-level analysis. J Technol Transf 37, 330–354 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9178-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9178-3

Keywords

JEL Classsification

Search

Navigation