Characterization of the Relationship Between Firms and Universities and Innovation Performance: The Case of Colombian Firms
Keywords:Technology Collaboration, Technology Trasnfer
AbstractWithin the National Innovation System, universities play a key role as the main source of knowledge that supports national productivity and as a system that seeks to improve the competitiveness of firms competitiveness and to find answers concerning market needs in today’s fast-changing and globalized economy. Innovation, as a source of competitiveness, is normally supported by a firm’s technological capabilities: internal R&D, external collaborative agreements, and relationships with universities. This study uses a cluster analysis to identify three clusters that represent respectively those firms that interact closely with universities for technology development (which include R&D projects) and technological learning activities, those firms that interact with universities for technological learning only, and those that do not have any kind of relationship with universities. We also analyze the innovation performance of each cluster. Data here come from the Second Colombian Innovation Survey, which was applied in 2005 to a sample of 6,222 firms. Among the main results, this study shows a higher innovation performance for those firms with relevant linkages for technology learning activities.
Adeoti, J., Adeoti, A., 2005. Biotechnology R&D partnership for industrial innovation in Nigeria. Technovation, 25, 349–365. DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00151-2
Abello, R., 2007. Factores claves en las alianzas universidad – industria como soporte de la productividad en la industria local: hacia un modelo de desarrollo económico y social sostenible. Investigación y desarrollo, 15, 208-225.
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Costa, F., Solazzi, M., 2009. University–industry collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29, 498–507. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.11.003
Ali, A., 1994. Pioneering versus incremental innovation: review and research propositions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 46–61. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(94)90118-X
Anderson, T., Daim, T., Lavoie, F., 2007. Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27, 306–318. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.10.003
Arundel, A., Geuna, A., 2004. Proximity and the use of public science by Innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13, 559–5804. DOI: 10.1080/1043859092000234311.
Bagchi-Sen, S., 2004. Firm-specific characteristics of R&D collaborators and non-collaborators in US biotechnology clusters and elsewhere. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1, 92-118. http://inderscience.metapress.com/content/5CXEBB3E6CW0PEC2
Bailetti, A.J., Callahan, J.R., 1993. The coordination structure of international collaborative technology arrangements. R and D Management 23 (2), 129–146. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.1993.tb00081.x
Bayona, C., Garcia-Marco, T., Huerta, E., 2003. ¿Cooperar en I+D? Con quien y para que . Revista de Economıa Aplicada 31, 103–134.
Bettis, R., Hitt, M., 1995. The New Competitive Landscape. Strategic. Managemente Journal, 16, 7–19. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250160915
Bjerregaard, T., 2010. Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration. Technovation, 30, 100–108. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.11.002
Boardman, P. C., 2008. Beyond the stars: The impact of affiliation with university biotechnology centers on the industrial involvement of university scientists.Technovation 28, 291–297. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.06.001
Capron, H., Cincera, M., 2003. Industry–university S&T transfers: Belgium evidence on CIS data. Brussels Economic Review 46 (3), 58–85. urn:issn:1379-9932
Carayannis, E.G., Alexander, J. and Ioannidis, A., 2000. Leveraging knowledge, learning, and innovation in forming strategic government–university–industry (GUI) R&D partnerships in the US, Germany, and France. Technovation 20, 477–488. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(99)00162-5
Chen, E.Y., 1994. The evolution of university-industry technology transfer in Hong Kong. Technovation 14 (7), 449–459. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(94)90003-5
Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D.A., 1989. Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99, 569-596.
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., Wals, J.P., 2002. Links and Impacts: The Inﬂuence of Public Research on Industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, 1-23. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.22.214.171.12473
Colombia, DANE, DNP, Colciencias, 2005. Manual de diligenciamiento de la Segunda Encuesta de Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica 2005. Bogotá D.C.
Daghfous, A., 2004. An empirical investigation of the roles of prior knowledge and learning activities in technology transfer. Technovation 24, 939–953. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00059-2
Decter, M., Bennett, D., Leseure, M., 2007. University to business technology transfer—UK and USA comparisons. Technovation, 27, 145–155. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.02.001
Eom, B. Y., Lee, K., 2010. Determinants of industry-academy linkages and their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization. Research Policy, 39, 625-639. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.015
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., Terra, B.R.C., 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29 (2), 313–330. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4
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. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.12.001
Freel, M.S., Harrison, R.T., 2006. Innovation and cooperation in the small firm sector: evidence from northern Britain. Regional Studies 40 (4), 289–305. DOI: 10.1080/00343400600725095
Gassol, J.H., 2007. The effect of university culture and stakeholders’ perceptions on university–business linking activities. Journal of Technology Transfer 32, 489–507. DOI:10.1007/s10961-007-9035-1
Geisler, E., 1995. Industry–university technology cooperation: a theory of interorganizational relationships. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 7 (2), 217–229. DOI:10.1080/09537329508524205
George, G., Zahra, S. A., Wood, D. R., 2002. The effects of business–university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 577-609. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00069-6
Hall, L. A., Bagchi-Sen, S., 2007. An analysis of firm-level innovation strategies in the US biotechnology industry. Technovation 27, 4–14. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.07.001
Johnson, W. H. A., 2008. Roles, resources and benefits of intermediate organizations supporting triple helix collaborative R&D: The case of Precarn. Technovation 28, 495–505. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.02.007
Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R.R., Winter S.G., 1995. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24, 185-205. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)00762-I
Laursen, K., Salter, A., 2004. Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?. Research Policy, 33, 1201-1215. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.004
Lee, J., Park, C., 2006. Research and development linkages in a national innovation system: Factors affecting success and failure in Korea. Technovation 26, 1045–1054. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.09.004
Lee, J., Win, H.N., 2004. Technology transfer between university research centers and industry in Singapore. Technovation, 24, 433–442. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00101-3
López, A., 2008. Determinants of R&D cooperation: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26, 113-136. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2006.09.006
Markham, S., Kingon, A., Zapata, M., Baumer, D., 1999. A methodology to find assess and commercialize technologies, civilization, modern technology and sustainable development. In: The Eighth International Conference on Management of Technology, IAMOT, 15–17 March, Cairo.
Miotti, L., Sachwald, F., 2003. Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32 , 1481-1499. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00159-2
Mohnen, P., Hoareau, C., 2002. What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? evidence from CIS 2. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24, 133–146. DOI: 10.1002/mde.1086
Monjon, S., Waelbroeck, P., 2003. Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: evidence from french firm-level data. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1255–1270. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00082-1
Mora, E. M., Montoro, A. and Guerras, L.A., 2004. Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations. Research Policy, 33, 17-40. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00087-8
Nikulainen, T., Palmberg, C., 2010. Transferring science-based technologies to industry — Does nanotechnology make adifference?. Technovation, 30, 3–11. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.07.008
OECD. Oslo Manual. Third Edition. Grupo Tragsa. 2005.
Powell, W., Koput, K.W., Smith-Doerr, L., 1996. Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.
Prabhu, Ganesh N., 1999. Implementing university–industry joint product innovation projects. Technovation, 19, 495–505. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(98)00125-4
Rycroft, R. W., Kash, D. E., 2004. Self-organizing innovation networks: implications for globalization. Technovation, 24, 187–197. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00092-0
Santoro, M. D., 2000. Success breeds success: the linkages between relationship intensity and tangible outcomes in industry–university collaborative ventures. Journal of High Technology Management Research 11 (2), 255–273. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(00)00032-8
Santoro, M. D., Chakrabarti, A.K., 2002. Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university interactions. Research Policy, 31, 1163-1180. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00190-1
Segarra-Blasco, A., Arauzo-Carod, J.M., 2008. Sources of innovation and industry–university interaction: Evidence from Spanish ﬁrms. Research Policy, 37, 1283-1295. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.05.003
Schartinger, D., Schibany, A., Gassler, H., 2001. Interactive relations between universities and firms: empirical evidence for Austria. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (3), 255–268. DOI: 10.1023/A:1011110207885
Shilling, M., 2005. Strategic Management of Technological Innovation. Third edition.
Spencer, J.W., 2001. How relevant is university-based scientific research to private high-technology firms? a United States–Japan comparison. Academy of Management Journal 44, 432–440. DOI: 10.2307/3069465
Stuart, T.E., Hoang, H., Hybels, R.C., 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (2), 315–349. DOI: 10.2307/2666998
Valentin, E., 2000. University–industry cooperation: a framework of benefits and obstacles. Industry and Higher Education, 14, 165-172. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5367/000000000101295011
Veugelers, R. and Cassiman, B., 2005. R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23, 355-379. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.01.008
Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Armstrong, J., 1998. Geographically localized knowledge: spillovers or markets. Economic Inquiry, 36 (1), 65–86. DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1998.tb01696.x
How to Cite