Benchmarking interorganisational technology cooperation: The link between infrastructure and sustained performance

International Journal of Technology Management

Volumn 25, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 675-702

  Geisler, Eliezer ^a  

^a ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Benchmarking; Industry university cooperative research centres; Infrastructure; Interorganisational cooperation; R D; Sustained performance; Technology

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; COMPETITION; INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; PUBLIC POLICY; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; RESEARCH LABORATORIES; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

INTERORGANISATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT;

TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 0038476483     PISSN: 02675730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJTM.2003.003132     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Geisler, E. (1995) 'Industry university technology cooperation: a theory of interorganizational relations', Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 7, No. 2 pp.217-229.
2. Geisler, E. (2001) 'Explaining the generation and performance of intersector technology cooperation: a survey of the literature', Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 13, no. 2, pp.195-206.
3. Geisler (2000) The Metrics of Science and Technology, Quorum Books.
4. Crow, M. and Bozeman, B. (1987) 'R&D laboratories' environmental contexts: are the government lab-industrial lab stereotypes still valid?', Research Policy, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp.229-258.
5. Bozeman, B. and Crow, M. (1991) 'Technology transfer from US government and university R&D laboratories', Technovation, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.231-246.
6. Geisler, E. (1994) 'Commercializing technology from federal laboratories: a model and a study of mechanisms and outputs', Proceedings of the Conference of Technology Transfer Society, Huntsville, Alabama, June, pp.61-68.
7. The terms cooperative 'effort', 'program', and 'arrangement' are used interchangeably in the early sections of this paper. A more detailed description of the various modes of cooperation and their boundaries is offered later in the paper.
8. This paper explores cooperation in both R&D and technology. Although there are conceptual as well as operational distinctions in the definitions of research, development and technology, they are lumped together for two reasons. Firstly, organisations cooperate across the entire innovation continuum from basic research to transfer of product and process technology. The transfer process allows very little flexibility (if any) to differentiate and isolate the precise portion or segment of the continuum being exchanged or in which cooperation is conducted. Secondly, the legal, organisational and financial instruments used by cooperating entities in describing, evaluating and managing the cooperation do not make such distinctions.
9. Chakrabarti, A. and Rubenstein, A.M. (1975) 'Interorganizational transfer of technology: a study of adoption of NASA innovations', IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.20-34.
10. Bloedon, R. and Stokes, D. (1994) 'Making university/industry collaborative research succeed', Research Technology Management, March-April, pp.44-48.
11. Bozeman, B. and Coker, K. (1992) 'Assessing the effectiveness of technology transform from US government R&D laboratories: the impact of market orientation', Technovation, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.239-255.
12. Ettlie, J. (1982) 'The commercialization of federally sponsored technological innovation', Research Policy, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 173-191.
13. Geisler, E. and Furino, A. (1993) 'University-industry-government cooperation: research horizons', International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 8, Nos. 6/7/8, pp.802-811.
14. Geisler, E. and Rubenstein, A. (1989) 'University-industry relations: a review of major issues', in A. Link and E. Tassey (Eds.) Cooperative Research: New Strategies for Competitiveness, St. Martin's Press, pp.43-62.
15. Borys, B. and Jemison, D. (1989) 'Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: theoretical issues and organizational combinations', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 3 pp.234-249.
16. Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R. (1994) 'Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the work place', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.580-607.
17. Tornatzky, L., Casson, L., Waugaman, P. and Furino, A. (1994) 'Defining the centre analyst function in state/industry university cooperative research centres,': Summary Report, The Southern Technology Council, 27 December, NSF Grant 9422603.
18. Gray, B. (1985) 'Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration', Human Relations, Vol. 38, pp.911-936.
19. Geisler, E. (1986) 'The role of industrial advisory boards in technology transfer between universities and industry', Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.33-42.
20. Geisler, E., Furino, A. and Kiresuk, T. (1990) 'Factors in the success or failure of industry-university cooperative research centres', Interfaces, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp.99-109.
21. Chen, H., Lynch, K., Himler, A. and Goodman, S. (1992) 'Information management in research collaboration', International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.419-445.
22. Gibson, D. and Rogers, E. (1994) R&D Collaboration on Trial, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
23. Hagerdoorn, J. (1993) 'Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp.371-386.
24. Rubenstein, A.H. and Geisler, E. (1994) 'Relations between university-industry interaction and industrial innovation', CITT, Final Report to National Science Foundation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
25. Geisler, E., Furino, A. and Kiresuk, T. (1991) 'Towards a conceptual model of cooperative research: patterns of development and success in university-industry alliances', IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp.136-145.
26. Geisler, E. (1993) 'On the importance of university-industry-govemment cooperation: a global perspective', International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 8, Nos. 6/7/8, pp.435-439.
27. Drucker, P. (1979) 'Science and industry: challenges of antagonistic interdependence', Science, 25 May, pp. 1110-1116.
28. Marazitta, C. (1991) 'Technology transfer in the United States: industrial research at engineering research centres versus the technological needs of US industry', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.397-410.
29. Radosevich, R. and Kassicieh, S. (1993) 'Strategic challenges and proposed responses to competitiveness through public-sector technology', California Management Review, Summer, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.33-50.
30. Hagerdoorn, J. and Schakenraad, J. (1994) 'The effect of strategic technology alliances on company performance', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.291-310.
31. Gray, D., Gidley, T. and Koester, N. (1988) Evaluation of the NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Centres: Longitudinal Analyses of Outcomes and Processes, North Carolina State University, December, Raleigh, NC.
32. Gray, D. (1994) 'The 1980-1992 structural information on the industry-university-cooperative research centres', North Carolina State University, IUCRC Program Database.
33. Gray, D. and Meyer, D. (1995) '1993-1994 structural information of the industry-university cooperative research centres', North Carolina State University, IUCRC Program Database.
34. Morris, C.R. and Ferguson, C. (1993) 'How architecture wins technology wars', Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp.86-96.
35. The terms 'structure' and 'infrastucture' are used interchangeably. They refer to the basic dimensions that describe the organisational building blocks of cooperative arrangement, such as the traditional dimensions of formalisation, complexity and control. The term 'architecture' refers to the combination or mode of arrangement of these dimensions so that different forms of organisation emerge from different combinations.
36. Walters, G. and Gray, D. (Eds.) (1998) Managing the Industry/University Cooperative Research Centre, Columbus, OH, Battelle Press.
37. Barnes, T. (2002) 'Effective university-industry interaction: a multi-case evaluation of collaborative R&D projects', European Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 272-287.
38. Daft, R. and Lewin, A. (1993) 'Where are the theories for the 'new' organizational forms?' Organization Science, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. i-vi.
39. In the case of the IUCRCs, the financial support of government is designed to be drastically reduced after five years. Yet, where government maintained some financial support, the cooperative program seemed to have a better chance to remain a viable entity. (Industry participation accounted for about 38% of total centre funding (2000 figure)).
40. Gray, D. (2000) 'Trends from centre structure database', Report to the National Science Foundation, North Carolina State University.
41. See [13,15,24], See also [42,43]. These are illustrative examples of an extensive literature.
42. Bagchi-Sen, S. (2001) 'A study of university-industry linkages in the biotechnology industry: perspectives from Canada', International Journal of Biotechnology, Vol, 3, No. 3-4, pp.390-403.
43. Carayannis, E. (2000) 'Revisiting SEMATECH: Profiling Public and Private Sector Cooperation', Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 33-43.
44. Grant, R.M. (1991) 'The resource-based theory of competitive advantage', California Management Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 114-135.
45. Wennerfeldt, B. (1984) 'A resource-based view of the firm', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.171-181.
46. Mervis, J. (1995) 'Asking science to measure up', Science, Vol. 267, No. 6, 20-22, January.
47. 'Exit interviews' are part of the evaluation package that centre evaluators administer in their evaluation effort, as mandated by NSF. The author administered these interviews to 12 companies who terminated their membership of the centre that the author was evaluating.
48. Zenger, T. (1994) 'Explaining organizational diseconomies of scale in R&D: agency problems and the allocation of engineering talent, ideas and effort by firm size', Management Science, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp.708-729.
49. Although this paper emphasised the effect of structure and processes on success and sustainability, there is also the effect of technology transfer and the degree to which centres satisfy their constituencies that may impact on success [20]. The purpose of this paper's emphasis on structure and processes was not intended to diminish the relative contribution of technology transfer (i.e., outputs from the cooperation) rather to highlight the role that structure and processes play. This role has received little attention in the literature and this paper is therefore an attempt to offer a contribution in this area.
50. Faulkner, W. and Senker, J. (1994) 'Making sense of diversity: public-private sector research linkage in three technologies', Research Policy, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp.673-696.
51. Another moderating variable may be the type of technology or main discipline in the centre's research agenda. However, the findings do not show any clustering of data by the type of technology. See for example: Merle, J. (2000) 'From sponsorship to partnership in academy-industry relations', R&D Management, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 255-263.
52. Browning, L., Beyer, J. and Shetler, J. (1995) 'Building cooperation in a competitive industry: SEMATECH and the semiconductor industry', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.113-151.
53. See, for example, Scott and Bruce [16] and Chakrabarti and Rubenstein [9].
54. Except to verify the differences in the attributes of respondents.