6.1 Introduction
Managing university–industry linkages is an essential topic in national and regional science and technology policy as well as in organizational management and open innovation contexts. A multitude of research studies address the determinants of successful collaboration, such as the alignment of motivations for interactions (Morandi,
2013), the formation of mutual personal trust (Santoro & Saparito,
2006; Plewa & Quester,
2006), and the management of pervasive uncertainty (Morandi,
2013; Petruzzelli,
2011). Nonetheless, no universally applicable determinants have emerged, because of the diversity of interaction modes.
Following a framework developed by D’Este et al. (
2019), which characterizes a university–industry interaction, we can systematically identify and understand multiple determinants. The framework differentiates relational arrangements from transactional arrangements—the former referring to a personally based relationship, with frequent communication, and the latter corresponding to relationships that do not include frequent personal interactions, such as patent licensing. Relational arrangements are a major aspect of university–industry collaborations (Bodas Freitas et al.,
2013). Interactions in this relational arrangement inexorably require mutual trust between individuals from both the industry and university levels (Bruneel et al.,
2010; Bstieler et al.,
2015; Santoro & Saparito,
2006). Without trust, both parties are not likely to openly share information (Plewa et al.,
2013).
A key factor of trust formation is long-term linkage (Bruneel et al.,
2010; Garcia et al.,
2020). Shared vocabularies and reduced communicational barriers stimulate necessary information sharing and such reciprocal communication enhances the formation of trust (Bstieler et al.,
2015), which subsequently increases the frequency and efficiency of personal communication. Furthermore, a long-term linkage reduces the transaction costs associated with interorganizational communication (Weckowska,
2015), allowing both parties to establish flexible modification in the collaborative arrangement as needed. Accordingly, such longitudinal linkages not only demonstrate superior academic productivity in contrast to short-term collaborative research and development (R&D) activities (Bstieler et al.,
2015; Garcia et al.,
2020) but also have the potential to elicit innovation based on radical scientific discoveries (Motoyama,
2014). Consequently, in many cases, both academia and industry prefer to develop long and stable collaborative arrangements (Ankrah et al.,
2013).
Long-term collaborative arrangements are often associated with multiple reciprocal outcomes. One of the main outcomes of longitudinal joint R&D projects is that both parties gain additional benefits beyond R&D results. Academic scholars benefit from the learning opportunities available through engaging in industry research and receiving feedback from industry collaborators (Perkmann & Walsh,
2007; D’Este & Perkmann,
2011; Landry et al.,
2010). This can result in the publication of academic papers that are co-authored with industry colleagues (Tijssen et al.,
2009; Yegros-Yegros et al.,
2016). Collaborating industry firms foster the development of technological capabilities (Bishop et al.,
2011; Ankrah et al.,
2013) and social capital with academia (Hagedoorn et al.,
2000), while sustaining continuous access to the latest scientific knowledge. Most of these benefits emerge from frequent, trust-based communication between industry and academia (Petruzzelli,
2011; D’Este et al.,
2019).
Nevertheless, formal contracts are associated with the necessity of management. The establishment of a long-term research contract is equivalent to a request for both parties to tolerate uncertainties regarding the potential outcomes to be obtained and the indeterminate performance-outcome effectiveness of a linkage (e.g., Perkmann et al.,
2011). As firms generally endeavour to prevent uncertain investment, contractual arrangements that reduce risks from uncertainties are often sought. A stage-gate contract is one such solution. This contractual arrangement establishes phased-reviews and subsequent contract renewals (i.e., new contract arrangements between the same parties to continue joint research) or extensions (i.e., an extension of contract terms and/or increased budgets or monetary contributions) to balance the reduction of uncertainty and the continuation of long-term interactions. Many firms employ such arrangements in R&D outsourcing (Wang et al.,
2018), and some scholars have also recommended this approach in university–industry collaborations (Starbuck,
2001; Jelinek & Markham,
2007). Although no data currently exist supporting the efficacy of the actual use of stage-gate contracts in university–industry collaborations, Garcia et al. (
2020) provide indirect evidence. Among collaborative research between industry and Spanish academic researchers, only 38% establish contracts lasting for more than 1 year. This proportion seems to be low, considering the nature of contract research, which often involves research with open-ended goals. We can assume that the wide use of stage-gate contracts simplifies the termination of underperforming university–industry interactions when necessary.
Even when establishing a long-term relationship, using stage-gate contracts as an effective approach, both industry liaison officers and academic researchers engaged in the interaction face two puzzles. First, at the beginning of the interaction, they cannot estimate how long the relationship will be maintained, as it is unreasonable to expect a long-lasting commitment to interaction. We can assume that firms increase their commitment to a renewed collaborative relationship in the first couple of years and potentially decrease after that. If they can determine general trends in the strength of commitment, both industry and research institutions will be better able to predict how long a relationship will be maintained. Second, it is difficult to estimate the probability of a contract renewal in the beginning of a collaboration, as the determinants of continuity remain even less understood. Although Perkmann et al. (
2011) clarify multiple performance measurements for firms, we do not fully know how these measurements are actually considered. R&D managers and policymakers occasionally emphasize the assimilation of academic researchers in the industry context. To maintain long-term collaboration, which actions should an academic researcher take: assimilation into the industry, behaviour as a helpful partner (“a good Sam”), or maintenance of their academic principles (“going my way”)?
Long-term university–industry relationships are often desirable; however, little is known about how these long-term relationships form or evolve. We examine these processes by studying both contract renewals and extensions. To our knowledge, this has never been done previously in such a systematic manner. Using research contract data from an anonymous Japanese university, covering contract research entered into from 2005 to 2014 (approximately 500 contracts per year) and ultimately yielding 1562 research contracts, this paper examines two critical issues of university–industry contract research: time-dependent changes in the strength of commitment and the determinants of continuity. The main contributions are empirical evidence of contract renewals and related managerial insights.
The remainder of this paper is organized to present a literature review and attending hypotheses in Sect.
6.2, followed by an overview of the methodology employed for the study in Sect.
6.3. Section
6.4 describes the detailed results of the study, and Sects.
6.5 and
6.6 offer a discussion of the results and research conclusions.
6.6 Conclusion
This paper investigated longitudinal changes in the commitment to collaborative university–industry research and the determinants of contract renewals. We focused on industry firms’ decision to renew or extend an existing research contract to reveal the effects of project-related factors. Our empirical analyses find that the strength of the commitment to the renewed contract follows an inverse-U-shaped relationship in the time elapsed from the first contract. We also demonstrated that the perceived development of technological capability and academic paper publication lead to a further formal collaboration with the counterparts. Concurrently, our results imply that firms are likely to terminate the relationship when there is no longer a rational business reason to continue the formal collaboration with the academic researcher. This finding sets a limitation to the argument by Ankrah et al. (
2013), who emphasizes that firms have fundamental motives to maintain long-term connections. Although this argument is partly true, firms also seek a unique value from university–industry collaboration.
Our findings suggest that concentrating on academic publications and knowledge-sharing with industry collaborators is, in general, likely to establish long-term university–industry connections. It is noteworthy that these activities are fundamental university roles. Some claim the need for academic scholars to be good partners of industry (or “good Sams”), but data show the opposite need. Based on our research findings, academic scholars are encouraged to be “going my way,” even in university–industry collaborations.
This paper’s main academic contribution lies in its discovery of the importance of contract renewals in the context of university–industry relational arrangements. As De Wit-de Vries et al. (
2019) find, most papers have focused on the informal management aspects of university–industry research partnerships, and limited studies have been conducted on the formal management of such collaborative efforts. Our paper confirms the value of a long-neglected perspective for future research.
One essential practical contribution of this study is the confirmation of concrete determinants of long-term university–industry collaborations. Establishing an open atmosphere in academic publishing is beneficial for both academia and industry. However, as Battilana et al. (
2009) noted, firms sometimes emphasize the secrecy of research outputs, placing some constraints on the academic publication of academic counterparts. Such constraints seem to be reasonable acts of risk aversion, but our findings imply that these constraints may lack foresight for firms. In order to avert these adverse conditions, technology transfer offices, research administrators, and industry liaison offices play an important role in negotiating research contracts (e.g., Berbegal-Mirabent et al.,
2015).
As with most empirical research, this study has some limitations. First, the empirical analysis still has several unobserved variable biases, although we constructed a rich dataset based on highly reliable trajectories of research contracts matched with multiple data sources. Typically, we would neglect the PIs’ scholarly productivity because of data availability; instead, we inserted PIs’ university–industry connections as a control variable. This variable primarily proxies for the weakness of commitment, but the indicator simultaneously reflects the focal point of PIs’ attractiveness, which might correspond to academic productivity (e.g., Gulbrandsen & Smeby,
2005). Second, the majority of our samples are contracts between Japanese firms and the Japanese research university from which the data were derived, while contract practices likely differ among countries. Further validations are necessary to generalize our findings. Finally, our subset of samples in Analysis 2 is not completely balanced with the full samples of Analysis 1, meaning that the results of Analysis 2 are potentially biased.
A long-term relationship is beneficial, but has limitations. Short-term contracts are sometimes the result of inevitable choice. Our findings provide one significant implication, in that going academic way is a key to collaborate with the industry in the long term.