Effect of contextual factors on science–industry R&D cooperation. A fuzzy-set analysis

• Autorzy: Kwiotkowska Anna

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2019.138.12

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study examines the different contextual factors (previous cooperative experiences, the partners’ reputation, attraction capacity, a clear definition of objectives, proximity between partners and institutionalization) that, according to the literature, affect the performance of science-industry R&D partnerships. These factors are the preconditions of the contract that are the reference framework in which future relations between the partners are planned. The purpose of this paper is to discuss these factors and to present a causal model to explain how these contextual factors lead to the success of science-industry R&D cooperation. The analysis uses fs/QCA methodology, which allows identifying a combination of causes that lead to the outcome. Results support the argument that different causal paths (combinations of contextual factors) explain profitable R&D contracts.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

science-industry partnership; R&D contracts; contextual factors; fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis; fsQCA

PL

partnerstwo nauka-przemysł; umowy badawczo-rozwojowe; czynniki kontekstowe; rozmyta jakościowa analiza porównawcza; fsQCA

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: z. 138
• Strony: 155--169
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 47 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Kwiotkowska Anna

• Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice

Bibliografia

• 1. Abramovski, L., and Simpson, H. (2011). Geographic proximity and firm–university innovation linkages: evidence from Great Britain. Journal of Economic Geography, 11, 949-977.
• 2. Ankrah, S., AL-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: a systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.
• 3. Arza, V. (2010). Channels, benefits and risks of public – private interactions for knowledge transfer: conceptual framework inspired by Latin America. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 473-484.
• 4. Barge-Gil, A., and Modrego, A. (2011). The impact of research and technology organizations on firm competitiveness. Measurement and determinants. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 61-83.
• 5. Barnes, T., Pashby, I., Gibbons, A. (2002). Effective university–industry interaction: a multi-case evaluation of collaborative R&D projects. European Management Journal, 20, 272-285.
• 6. Barnes, T.A., Pashby, I.R., and Gibbons, A.M. (2006). Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool. International Journal of Project Management, 24(5), 395-404.
• 7. Batonda, G., and Perry, C. (2003). Approaches to relationship development processes in inter-firm networks. European Journal of Marketing, 37(10), 1457-1484.
• 8. Beise, M., and Stahl, H. (1999). Public Research and Industrial Innovations in Germany. Research Policy, 28, 397-422.
• 9. Bennet, R.J., Bratton, W.A., and Robson, P.J. (2000). Business advice: the influence of distance. Regional Studies, 34(9), 813-828.
• 10. Berbegal-Mirabent, J., García, J.L.S., Ribeiro-Soriano, D.E. (2015). University–industry partnerships for the provision of R&D services. Journal of Business Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.023.
• 11. Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Llopis-Albert, C. (2016). Applications of fuzzy logic for determining the driving forces in collaborative research contracts. Journal of Business Research, 69, 1446-1451.
• 12. Bonaccorsi, A., and Piccaluga, A. (1994). A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university-industry relationships. R&D Management, 24/3, 229-247.
• 13. Bstieler, L, Hemmert, M, and Barczak, G. (2015). Trust formation in university-industry collaborations in the US biotechnology industry: IP policies, shared governance, and champions. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32, 111-121.
• 14. Canhoto, A., Quinton, S., Jackson, P., Dibb, S. (2016). The co-production of value in digital, university-industry R&D collaborative projects. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 86-96.
• 15. D’Este, P., and Patel, P. (2007), University-industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors determining the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295-1313.
• 16. Davenport, S., Davies, J., and Grimes, C. (1999a). Collaborative research programmes: Building trust from difference. Technovation, 19/1, 31-40.
• 17. Davenport, S., Grimes, C., and Davies, J. (1999b). Collaboration and organizational learning: A study of a New Zealand Collaborative Research Program. International Journal Technology Management, 18/3-4, 173-187.
• 18. De Fuentes, C., and Dutrenit, G. (2012), Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit, Research Policy, 41(9), 1666-1682.
• 19. De Laat, P. (1997). Research and development alliances: Ensuring trust by mutual commitments. In M. Ebers (ed.), The formation of interorganizational networks (pp. 146- 173). New York: Oxford University Press.
• 20. Gębczyńska, M. (2019), Constellations of conditions affecting employee job satisfaction in small and medium Polish enterprises A qualitative comparative analysis. Organization and Management, 2, 33-61.
• 21. Hemmert, M., Bstieler, L., and Okamuro, H. (2014). Bridging the cultural divide: trust formation in university–industry research collaborations in the US, Japan, and South Korea. Technovation, 34, 605-616.
• 22. Jones-Evans, D., Klofsten, M., Andersson, E., and Pandya, D. (1999). Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: the role of the Industrial Liaison Office. R&D Management, 29(1), 47-56.
• 23. Kao, C., and Hung, H.T. (2008). Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empirical study. Omega, 36(4), 653-664.
• 24. Kayser, A., Schmidt, S., and Dal Ri, R. (2018). University-industry collaborative projects: analysis and proposal of management practices, Revista de Gestão e Projetos – GeP, 9, 24-38.
• 25. Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., and 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.
• 26. Lin, J.Y. (2014). Effects on diversity of R&D sources and human capital on industrial performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 85, 168-184.
• 27. Love, J., and Roper, S. (2001). Outsourcing in the innovation process: Locational and strategic determinants. Papers in Regional Science, 80, 317-336.
• 28. Martínez, A., and Pastor, A-C. (1995). University-industry relationships in peripheral regions: The case of Aragon in Spain. Technovation, 15/10, 613-625.
• 29. Mas-Verdú, F., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., and Roig-Tierno, N. (2015). Firm survival: The role of incubators and business characteristics. Journal of Business Research, 68, 793-796.
• 30. Mohr, J.J., and Spekman, R.E. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15/2, 135-152.
• 31. Muscio, A., and Vallanti, G. (2014). Perceived obstacles to university–industry collaboration: results from a qualitative survey of Italian academic departments. Industry and Innovation, 21, 410-429.
• 32. Myoken, Y. (2013) The role of geographical proximity in university and industry collaboration: case study of Japanese companies in the UK. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialization, 12, 43-61.
• 33. Odagiri, H. (2003). Transaction costs and capabilities as determinants of the R&D boundaries of the firm: A case study of the ten largest pharmaceutical firms in Japan. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(2-3), 187-211.
• 34. Perkmann, M., and Salter, A. (2012), How to create productive partnerships with universities, MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 79-88.
• 35. Perkmann, M., Neely, A., and Walsh, K. (2011). How should firms evaluate success in university-industry alliances? A performance measurement system. R&D Management,41, 202-216.
• 36. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialization: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423-442.
• 37. Ragin, C.C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• 38. Reuer, J.J., Zollo, M., and Singh, H. (2002). Post-formation dynamics in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 23/2, 135-151.
• 39. Rihoux, B., and Ragin, C.C. (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. London: Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
• 40. Rivers, D., and Gray, D.O. (2013). Cooperative research centers as small business: Uncovering the marketing and recruiting practices of university-based cooperative research centers. In C. Boardman, D.O. Gray, and D. Rivers, (Eds.), Cooperative research centers and technical innovation (pp. 175-198). New York: Springer.
• 41. Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M.M., and Frohlich, J. (2002), Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy, 31(3), 303-328.
• 42. Schneider, C.Q., and Wagemann, C. (2010). Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397-418.
• 43. Schneider, C.Q., and Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences. A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 44. Schneider, M.R., Schulze-Bentrop, C., and Paunescu, M. (2010). Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 246-266.
• 45. Soh, P.H., and Subramanian, A.M. (2014). When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(6), 807-821.
• 46. Torre, A., and Gilly, J.-P. (2000). Debates and surveys: On the analytical dimension of proximity dynamics. Regional Studies, 34(2), 169-180.
• 47. Wit-de Vries, E., Dolfsma, W., Windt, H., and Gerkema, M.P. (2019). Knowledge transfer in university–industry research partnerships: a review. The Journal of Technology transfer, 44(4), 1236-1255.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).