Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The trust “builders” in the technology transfer relationships: an Italian science park experience

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

Abstract

This study proposes and assesses the effectiveness of a solution for disseminating trust in the technology transfer services. Focusing on the original experience of a science park located in Northern Italy, we propose a model focused on interface figures capable of conducting a direct dialogue with an enterprise and gaining its trust thanks to their reputation of reliability and expertise, the informal-personalised nature of the contact and their geographic, social, cultural and professional proximity. These factors stem from the features of this particular “boundary spanner” who identifies in the case-study with retired business owners/managers. This solution has proven to be particularly effective for small and medium-sized enterprises that typically show a preference for local and informal contacts within the networks and the need to refer to guide-figures when interacting with external knowledge sources because often they are not used to such scenarios.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The questionnaire was structured as follows: scope of action of the Blue Eagles (BE); elements on which the trust-based relationship with the BE was based; assessing any actual improvements after the BEs’ action; added value of the project; possible improvement initiatives; availability to repeat the experience.

  2. The sample is composed mostly of small enterprises (96 %), with medium-sized enterprises representing just 4 %, while large enterprises are not represented. The reference industries instead are: (1) mechanics-electronics (23 %); (2) services (13 %); (3) food and agriculture (13 %); (4) building (10 %); (5) ICT (10 %); (6) chemicals-cosmetics-medical equipment (7 %); (7) energy (7 %); (8) textile (7 %); (9) plastic and rubber (3 %); (10) furniture manufacturing (3 %); (11) biotechnologies (3 %).

  3. The focus groups allowed the collection of 113 opinions on the three following items: the role played by them and motivations that encouraged them to take part in the project; initiatives at corporate level (changes made, successful cases, difficult cases); value of the experience and suggestions for the future.

  4. In the remaining cases (9 %), there was not a genuine dissatisfaction, as the lack of meaningful results was due to structural difficulties, such as technical issues or the size of investments required to adopt new technology.

  5. From the viewpoint of the approach to enterprises, the principle underlying the project consists in “giving businesses not the fish, but a fishing rod”. In other words teaming up with the Blue Eagle does not purport to be a traditional top-down consultancy, but rather an instrument aimed at closing the gap between the business and the supply of services offered by the local area. This helps the business owner to disclose the needs yet to be made clear, develop targets and strategies and organise in an effective manner. The key factor for the project’s success is the business owner, or the contact corporate manager, who become the main players in making changes under the guidance and experience of the Blue Eagle.

  6. A Sensei who is well-known in the West is the father of the “Toyota Method”. His name is Masaaki Imai, founder of the Kaizen Institute.

References

  • Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45(7), 905–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, V., & Boocock, G. (2002). Small firms and internationalisation: learning to manage and managing to learn. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(3), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., Sydow, N., & Woerter, M. (2007). Knowledge and technology transfer (KTT) activities between universities and firms in Switzerland—the main facts: An empirical analysis based on firm-level data. The Icfai Journal of Knowledge Management, V(6), 17–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baccarani, C., & Golinelli, G. M. (2006). Misurare ed espellere la sfiducia dalle organizzazioni. Sinergie, 69, V–XIV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baglieri, D. (2008). Brevetti universitari e trasferimento tecnologico: Alcune considerazioni critiche. Sinergie, 75, 175–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessant, J. (1999). The rise and fall of ‘supernet’: A case study of technology transfer policy for smaller firms. Research Policy, 28(6), 601–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boussouara, M., & Deakins, D. (2000). Trust and the acquisition of knowledge from non-executive directors by high technology entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 6(4), 204–226.

    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, 858–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., & McMullan, W. (2004). Outsider assistance as a knowledge resource for new venture survival. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(3), 229–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comacchio, A., Bonesso, S., & Pizzi, C. (2012). Boundary spanning between industry and university: The role of technology transfer centres. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 943–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, C. E., Hamel, S. A., & Connaughton, S. L. (2012). Motivations and obstacles to networking in a university business incubator. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 433–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corsten, H. (1987). Technology transfer from universities to small and medium-sized enterprises—an empirical survey from the standpoint of such enterprises. Technovation, 6, 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deakins, D., O’Neill, E., & Mileham, P. (2000). Executive learning in entrepreneurial firms and the role of external directors. Education + Training, 42(4), 317–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantini, D. (2004). Il manager dell’innovazione. Milano: Guerini e Associati.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson, M. (1993). Learning, trust and technological collaboration. Human Relations, 46, 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florén, H. (2003). Collaborative approaches to management learning in small firms. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(5), 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giaretta, E. (2009). Science and technology parks, innovation and competitiveness: a theme “in search of an author”, In Proceedings, international conference on quality and service sciences, 12th QMOD and Toulon-Verona Conference, Verona, 27–29 August.

  • Jones, O., & Craven, M. (2001). Expanding capabilities in a mature manufacturing firm: Absorptive capacity and the TCS. International Small Business Journal, 19(3), 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (Eds.). (1996). Trust in organizations. Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalkaka, R. (2002). Technology business incubators to help build an innovation-based economy. Journal of Change Management, 3(2), 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, C., & Bachman, R. (Eds.). (1998). Trust within and between organizations. Conceptual issues and empirical applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipscomb, M., & McEwan, A. M. (2001). The TCS model: an effective method of technology transfer at Kingston university, UK. Industry and Higher Education, 15(6), 393–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson, A., & Holt, R. (2007). Knowledge, learning and small firm growth: A systematic review of the evidence. Research Policy, 36, 172–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohan, S. (2011). Understanding interactions between research Institutes and industry: Indian perspective. Journal of Technology Management for Growing Economies, 2(2), 113–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A., & Pozzali, A. (2012). The effects of cognitive distance in university-industry collaborations: Some evidence from Italian universities. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9262-y.

  • Perrone, V. (2004). La fiducia è una cosa seria. Economia e management, 3, 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratinho, T., & Henriques, E. (2010). The role of science parks and business incubators in converging countries: Evidence from Portugal. Technovation, 30(4), 278–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, M., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). Relationship dynamics between university research centers and industrial firms: Their impact on technology transfer activities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 163–171.

    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 

  • Valentin, F., & Jensen, R. L. (2007). Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 251–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9, 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper is the result of a research conducted in conjunction with Trentino Sviluppo. We acknowledge in particular the contribution by Dr. Alessandro Garofalo (Vice-Chairman), Eng. Elena Andreolli (Project coordinator) and Dr. Carlo Foin (trainee with Trentino Sviluppo and dissertator for the Business Management Department of the University of Verona).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, University of Verona, via Dell’Artigliere, 19, 37129, Verona, Italy

    Elena Giaretta

Authors
  1. Elena Giaretta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Giaretta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Giaretta, E. The trust “builders” in the technology transfer relationships: an Italian science park experience. J Technol Transf 39, 675–687 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9313-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9313-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation