Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling
Introduction
Since the 1980s, many countries have implemented policies to promote and sustain university–industry partnerships. In the light of this phenomenon, an increasing number of academic contributions have attempted to understand, explain, and justify these interactions in economic terms. In Europe, university–industry relationships have been analysed mainly from a qualitative point of view or by relying on case studies of single universities.1 Very few contributions have been supported by systematic data analysis. Some country-specific data have been gathered and analysed: Meyer-Krahmer and Schmoch (1998) and Beise and Stahl (1999) provide interesting evidence of the contribution of public research to industrial innovation in Germany. At the European level, apart from the PACE (Policies, Appropriability and Competitiveness for European Enterprises)2 questionnaire and the three Community Innovation Surveys (CIS),3 there are few databases that facilitate analysis of the links between universities and firms taking into account firm, sector and country effects.
The aim of this paper is to develop an original quantitative analysis of the determinants of firms’ participation in research and development (R&D) projects with public research organisations (PROs are defined here as universities and other public research centres). Our analysis provides preliminary evidence of the characteristics that affect firms’ involvement with PROs in R&D projects, controlling for country and sector fixed effects.4 We use the results of the 2000 KNOW survey covering seven EU countries, including the four largest. The survey was limited to five sectors: food and beverages, chemicals (excluding pharmaceuticals), communications equipment, telecommunications services and computer services, and focused on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) employing a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 999.
The econometric estimations are based on direct measurement of the extent of cooperation between firms and PROs. Unlike previous studies we have information on the number of R&D projects conducted jointly with PROs in the 3 years before the survey (1997–2000). This direct measure of university–industry interaction allows us to assess the factors that affect: (a) the probability of a firm developing cooperation with a PRO and (b) the number of R&D projects developed by the firm in the previous 3 years. Specifically, we address two main questions. Which firms established partnerships with PROs during the 3 years before the questionnaire? What are the particular characteristics that might explain the number of their R&D projects with PROs?
Particular attention is devoted to the idea that the openness of the firm to the external environment has an important effect on the development of collaboration with PROs. Openness refers here to the broad set of activities that firms can conduct to acquire knowledge from, voluntarily disclose knowledge to and/or exchange knowledge with the external world. These activities include searching, screening and signalling and can be carried out in different ways. It is important to account for these activities in order to understand whether their impact on both the propensity and the extent of collaboration is similar. In addition to openness we analysed the influence of other variables on firms’ collaborations with PROs. Among these control factors we tested for firm size, firms’ R&D activity, firms’ innovative activity and firms’ tendency to outsource R&D.
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 briefly reviews the literature on university–industry R&D cooperation. Section 3 discusses the information collected in the KNOW survey and in-depth interviews, relevant to the understanding of university–industry links. The propensity for and extent of engaging in R&D projects are examined in Section 4 using an econometric model. Finally, Section 5 summarises the main results of the analysis.
Section snippets
University–industry relationships
The extensive literature on university–industry relationships is mainly empirical and based on case studies, patent and bibliometric analyses, or large surveys. One part of the literature highlights the positive impacts of scientific results on the economic sphere. Without academic research outcomes many innovations could not have been realised or would have come much later (Mansfield, 1991, Beise and Stahl, 1999). Scientific results brought about increased sales and higher research
Firm-PRO cooperation: evidence from the KNOW survey and in-depth interviews
The empirical analysis presented in this paper is based on the results of the KNOW survey and on 70 in-depth interviews carried out in 2000.7
Modelling PRO-firm collaboration
Direct measurement of the extent of collaboration between firms and PROs is unique to the KNOW survey. In contrast to earlier work, which produced information about the importance of PRO research, here we study the determinants of firms’ collaboration with PROs in terms of both the propensity for a firm to cooperate with a university (do they cooperate or not) and the extent of this cooperation (the number of R&D projects). We are able to do this because we have information about how many R&D
Conclusions
The KNOW questionnaire provides a unique data set for the researcher to analyse the innovation processes of SMEs with less than 999 employees. This paper looked at the characteristics of the firms that developed R&D projects with PROs taking into account sector and country fixed effects. One of the main contributions of this analysis is to characterise firms through the activities used to manage internal and external knowledge. Firms that actively screen their environment and voluntarily
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution offered by the long discussions with Keith Pavitt and Ed Steinmueller on issues of relevance to this paper. They also would like to thank Anthony Arundel, Gustavo Crespi, Lionel Nesta, Arvids Ziedonis. We are indebted to one anonymous referee whose comments and suggestions have significantly improved the quality of the paper. Usual disclaimers apply. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Schumpeter Society Conference 2004
References (39)
- et al.
Public research and industrial innovation in Germany
Research Policy
(1999) - et al.
R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States
Research Policy
(2002) - et al.
What is behind the recent surge in patenting?
Research Policy
(1999) - et al.
Searching low and high: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?
Research Policy
(2004) Academic research and industrial innovation
Research Policy
(1991)Understanding when universities and firms form RJVs: the importance of intellectual property protection
International Journal of Industrial Organization
(2003)Patent versus ex post rewards: a new look
Research Policy
(2005)- et al.
R&D apillovers and recipient firm size
Review of Economics and Statistics
(1994) - Arundel, A., Cobbenhagen, J., Schall N., 2000. The Acquisition and Protection of Competencies by Enterprises. Final...
- et al.
Proximity and the use of public science by Innovative European firms
Economics of Innovation and New Technology
(2004)
Regression Analysis of Count Data
Open Innovation
Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D
Management Science
A reprise of size and R&D
The Economic Journal
Absorptive capacity: a new perspective of learning and innovation
Administrative Science Quarterly
Cited by (450)
Foreign knowledge sources and innovation: Differences across large and small and medium-size multinational enterprises (MNEs)
2024, International Review of Economics and FinanceDeciphering the determinants of firm's engagement with universities: An insight into the Thai industrial landscape
2024, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and ComplexityThe role of public external knowledge for firm innovativeness
2024, International Journal of Industrial OrganizationFailure is an option: How failure can lead to disruptive innovations
2024, Technovation