A micro level study of university industry collaborative lifecycle key performance indicators
- 719 Downloads
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.
KeywordsUniversity-industry collaboration Indicators Finland Russia Case studies Micro level Triple helix
JEL ClassificationO310 O320 O330 O340
- 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
- Asveld, L., & Roeser, S. (Eds.). (2012). The ethics of technological risk (p. 320). UK: Routledge.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
- 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
- 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. 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., 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. 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
- Dezhina, I. (2004). Problemi Sozdanija Innovacionnoi Infrasatructuri v Rossii., Nauchnyj vestnik IEP im. E.T. Gajdara.–(2004).Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.
- Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Chicago: Pearson Education.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.
- 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.
- 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).Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Parker, L. E., 1992. Industry-university collaboration in developed and developing countries. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/the World Bank.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.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.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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., & 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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