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

  • Ekaterina Albats
  • Irina Fiegenbaum
  • James A. Cunningham
Article

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.

Keywords

University-industry collaboration Indicators Finland Russia Case studies Micro level Triple helix 

JEL Classification

O310 O320 O330 O340 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27(5), 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asveld, L., & Roeser, S. (Eds.). (2012). The ethics of technological risk (p. 320). UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Basili, V. R., & Turner, A. J. (1975). Iterative enhancement: A practical technique for software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 4, 390–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration. Technovation, 30(2), 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Brown, M. G., & Svenson, R. A. (1988). Measuring R&D productivity. Research-Technology Management, 31(4), 11–15.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cunningham, J., & Harney, B. (2006). Strategic management of technology transfer, the new challenge on campus. Oxford: Oak Tree Press.Google Scholar
  34. Cunningham, J. A., & Link, A. M. (2015). Fostering university industry r&d collaborations in European Union. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11, 849–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Dezhina, I. (2004). Problemi Sozdanija Innovacionnoi Infrasatructuri v Rossii., Nauchnyj vestnik IEP im. E.T. Gajdara.–(2004).Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review., 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  48. 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.
  49. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.
  52. 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.
  53. 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
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). Universities as research partners. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hefce.ac.uk, 2015. Higher educationbusiness and community interaction survey: 201314. Higher education funding council for England. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2015/201513/. Accessed on December 2014.
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Chicago: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.
  70. 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).Google Scholar
  71. 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.
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Larman, C., & Basili, V. R. (2003). Iterative and incremental development: A brief history. Computer, 36(6), 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lee, K. R. (2014). University-industry R&D collaboration in Korea’s national innovation system. Science Technology & Society, 19(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2013). Knowledge spillovers collective entrepreneurship, and economic growth: The role of universities. Small Business Economics, 41, 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003a). The growth of research triangle park. Small Business Economics, 20, 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23, 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Luo, Y. (2002). Building trust in cross-cultural collaborations: Toward a contingency perspective. Journal of Management, 28(5), 669–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Menter, M. (2016). Principal investigators and the commercialization of knowledge. In University evolution, entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness. (pp. 193–203). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  92. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research–based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33(2), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Parker, L. E., 1992. Industry-university collaboration in developed and developing countries. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/the World Bank.Google Scholar
  99. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 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.Google Scholar
  104. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 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.Google Scholar
  110. 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.Google Scholar
  111. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Salimi, N., & Rezaei, J. (2016). Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph. D. projects using best worst method. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1911–1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 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).Google Scholar
  118. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 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
  121. Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  122. Shore, C., & McLauchlan, L. (2012). ‘Third mission’ activities, commercialisation and academic entrepreneurs. Social Anthropology, 20(3), 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 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
  124. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Stern, I., Dukerich, J. M., & Zajac, E. (2014). Unmixed signals: How reputation and status affect alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 512–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 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.
  132. Thune, T. (2010). The training of “triple helix workers”? Doctoral students in university–industry–government collaborations. Minerva, 48(4), 463–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Tijssen, R. J. (2012). Co-authored research publications and strategic analysis of public–private collaboration. Research Evaluation, 21, 204–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 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.Google Scholar
  139. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. van der Sijde, P. C. (2012). Profiting from knowledge circulation: the gains from university–industry interaction. Industry and Higher Education, 26(1), 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 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.
  143. 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.
  144. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and ManagementLappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland
  2. 2.International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM)ManchesterUK
  3. 3.Newcastle Business SchoolNorthumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations