Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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. According to the Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS), the three Italian regions show an innovation level at the EU average; in particular, they rank at high level in the innovation outputs indicators (Hollanders et al. 2009).

  2. IPI—Istituto per la Promozione Industriale 2005; Balconi and Passannanti 2006; NEST 2000; MIUR (Italian Ministry of University and Research); CNR (National Research Council); EBN (European Business Network); SINAL (Italian Authority for Laboratory Accreditation); SIT (Italian Calibration Service); SIL (Integrated System of Laboratories).

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. The Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., & Laboranti, M. (2006). University–industry interactions in applied research: The case of microelectronics. Research Policy, 35, 1616–1630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., & Passannanti, A. (2006). I parchi scientifici e tecnologici nel Nord Italia. Milano: Franco Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessant, J., & Rush, H. (1995). Building bridges for innovation: The role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, 24, 97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (2005). Clusters, networks and innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes, the social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage & closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S., Jannotta, J. E., & Mahoney, J. T. (1998). Personality correlates of structural holes. Social Networks, 20, 63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlile, P. R. (2004). Organization science transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3), 229–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compagno, C., & Pittino, D. (2006). Ricerca scientifica e nuove imprese. Torino: Isedi.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34, 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decter, M., Bennett, D., & Leseure, M. (2007). University to business technology transfer—UK and USA comparisons. Technovation, 27, 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • European Commission, Enterprise Directorate General. (2004). Technology transfer institutions in Europe: An overview, Brussels.

  • Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagardon, A., & Sutton, R. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollanders, H., Tarantola, S., & Loschky, A. (2009). Regional innovation scoreboard (RIS) 2009. Pro Inno Europe Innova Metrics.

  • Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop—inside Procter & Gamble’s new model for innovation. Harvard Business Review, March, 58–66.

  • 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 

  • ISTAT. (2010). Struttura e dimensione delle unità locali delle imprese Anno 2008. Roma.

  • Kirkels, Y., & Duysters, G. (2010). Brokerage in SME networks. Research Policy, 39(3), 375–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakhani, K. R. (2008). InnoCentive.com (A). Harvard Business School Case, No. 608–170.

  • Laranja, M. (2009). The development of technology infrastructure in Portugal and the need to pull innovation using proactive intermediation policies. Technovation, 29, 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The triple helix: An evolutionary model of innovations. Research Policy, 29, 243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2007). Developing reputation to overcome the imperfections in the markets for knowledge. Research Policy, 36, 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34, 253–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. (2005). Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1033–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging the ties: A source of firms heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1133–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, A. (2008). Gatekeepers of knowledge within industrial districts: Who they are, how they interact. Regional Studies, 42(6), 817–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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 

  • Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 181–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerkar, A., & Paruchuri, S. (2005). Evolution of R&D capabilities: The role of knowledge networks within a firm. Management Science, 51(5), 771–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nest. (2000). Rapport Nest 2000 (Network for Science and Technology). Venezia: Veneto Innovazione.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2003). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2003. OECD: Paris.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (2003). Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14(4), 422–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman, A. (2005). Transfer of technologies: A cross-disciplinary taxonomy. Omega, 33, 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, P. L., & Patel, P. R. (2007). New wine in old bottles: Technological diffusion in developed economies. Research Policy, 36(5), 708–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University–incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34, 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonali, K. S., & Corley, K. G. (2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1821–1835.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yusuf, S. (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses. Research Policy, 37, 1167–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. (2005). Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 809–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

An early version of this paper was presented at the Euram Conference 2008. We are grateful for comments received in this event. The research has been funded by the Regional Council of Veneto for the project “Open innovation in the Veneto. Mapping innovation and technological transfer Centres”. The authors would like to thank the Centres who collaborated in the research. We would also like to acknowledge the financial support of the Italian Ministry of University and Research (PRIN Project 2006—Prot. 2006135741_002: “Organizational complementarities, stability, change and innovation performance in Italian SMEs”). Comments from the editor and the anonymous referees are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Ca’ Foscari University - Venice, San Giobbe Cannaregio 873, 30121, Venice, Italy

    Anna Comacchio & Sara Bonesso

  2. Department of Economics, Ca’ Foscari University - Venice, San Giobbe Cannaregio 873, 30121, Venice, Italy

    Claudio Pizzi

Authors
  1. Anna Comacchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sara Bonesso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claudio Pizzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Comacchio.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Typologies of TTCs mapped and mission statement
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Comacchio, A., Bonesso, S. & Pizzi, C. Boundary spanning between industry and university: the role of Technology Transfer Centres. J Technol Transf 37, 943–966 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9227-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9227-6

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation