Science and Public Policy, 38(2), March 2011, pages 99–107
DOI: 10.3152/030234211X12924093660110; http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/spp
Institutionalization of university–industry
interaction: an empirical study of the impact of
formal structures on collaboration patterns
Taran Thune and Magnus Gulbrandsen
This article addresses the increasing formalization of cross-sector collaboration between universities
and industry seen in the development of public funding schemes such as collaborative research centers
(CRCs). This policy trend is analyzed in the article and investigated empirically, treating the
organizational arrangements supporting cross-sector collaboration as a dependent variable, where the
purpose is to investigate institutionalization processes through a number of case studies of university–
industry collaboration. The investigation indicates that less formal, project-based collaborations,
contrary to policy assumptions, often display a higher degree of institutionalization than CRCs, and
that CRCs represent highly formal but weakly institutionalized frameworks of collaboration. The main
reason is that centers involve several industrial partners and as a consequence CRCs represent several
different modalities of collaboration at the same time.
T
HE PURPOSE of this article is to analyze the
increasing use of formal organizational structures for university–industry collaboration, as
seen in public funding schemes intended to create
long-term interaction in the form of collaborative research centers. With this trend as a backdrop, the
aim is further to investigate the impact on institutionalization processes in cross-sector collaboration
through a number of empirical case studies. The
main research question concerns the extent to which
Taran Thune (corresponding author) and Magnus Gulbrandsen
are at the Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research
and Education (NIFU), PB 5183 Majorstuen 0302 Oslo, Norway; Email: taran.thune@nifu.no. Magnus Gulbrandsen is also
at the Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture at the
University of Oslo; Email: magnus.gulbrandsen@nifu.no.
The article reports on a research project funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Science and Education. Their support is
gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to Antje Klitkou,
Siri Aanstad and Inge Ramberg at NIFU STEP for contributions
to the project; participants at the workshop on the role of crosssector collaboration in national innovation systems in Cordoba
in April 2010; two anonymous reviewers and the editors of this
special issue who all provided valuable comments on the article.
Any mistakes or omissions remain the responsibility of the
authors.
Science and Public Policy March 2011
formal structures facilitate the institutionalization of
collaborative relationships in the university–industry
context.
In particular, we aim to make a contribution to the
research literature by addressing an apparent gap in
the existing knowledge of university–industry relations, concerning whether or not characteristics of
organizational structures of collaborations are
related to differences in university–industry interactions (Boardman, 2009).
In the first part of the analysis we look at rationales and policy instruments for the formalization of
cross-sector collaboration through developments in
Norwegian research and innovation policies. In particular, we discuss recent Norwegian initiatives for
promoting cooperative research centers. One goal of
these recent policy instruments is to stimulate the
development of stable, long-term partnerships. Our
aim is to investigate whether or not ‘center structures’ have an institutionalizing effect on partnerships between firms and universities.
The second part of the analysis presents seven
case studies of university–industry collaboration,
where the cases have been selected based on differences in formal organizational structure. By comparing different types of partnerships, we investigate
the impact of organizational structure on how
0302-3427/11/20099-09 US$12.00  Beech Tree Publishing 2011
99
University–industry interaction in Norway
Taran Thune is Head of Research in the research policy
and innovation studies group at the Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU). Her research has focused on university-industry relations, the
experiences of junior scientists and PhD students in collaborative research, the role of the university in sectoral and
regional innovation systems, and the intersection between
education, research and innovation policy. Dr Thune has
published several papers on university–industry collaboration in leading scientific journals like Science and Public
Policy, Minerva and Higher Education.
Magnus Gulbrandsen is Professor at the Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture at the University of Oslo and
Senior Researcher at NIFU. His research has dealt with
university–industry relations and the flow of R&D-based
knowledge between different actors in society, the organization of research, commercialization, policy developments
and policy instruments. Gulbrandsen has published in
books, reports and leading scientific journals like Research
Policy, Science and Public Policy and Minerva. He has also
been involved in work for policy organizations such as the
OECD, ministries and research councils.
collaborative relationships are established, implemented, carried out in practice and how partnerships
develop over time. We utilize conceptual frameworks and theoretical perspectives from institutional
theory, particularly drawing on perspectives on institutionalization processes in collaborative relationships (Corley et al., 2006; Colyvas and Powell,
2006; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994).
Formalization of cross-sector collaboration:
the case of research and innovation policy
in Norway
Since the late 1990s, a wide range of policies have
been implemented directly promoting cross-sector
collaboration in Norway. The first half of the last
decade saw a number of official reports, a range of
white papers on research policy, innovation policy,
and higher education policy as well as several
amendments to laws relevant to cross-sector collaboration. Three white papers on research policy published between 1999 and 2009 view cross-sector
collaboration as a tool for improving relevance of
academic research, for increased research-based
innovation, for stimulating Norwegian industry to
invest more in R&D, and for promoting competitiveness generally. The country’s first white paper
on innovation emphasized that collaboration between universities and industry can promote innovation in Norwegian firms as ‘the quality and volume
of collaboration has great impact on the innovative
capacity in Norway’.
These are not just recent trends, however. Studies
have shown how university–industry collaboration
has been emphasized in Norway at least since the end
of the 19th century; and that policy instruments have
grown organically over many years, often spinning
out new special programs and initiatives (Gulbrandsen and Nerdrum, 2009). The most important policy
100
instruments to support university–industry collaboration include:
 A tax deduction scheme for industrial R&D
(SkatteFUNN) where the deductible amount
doubles if the firm collaborates with approved
public research organizations — including all
Norwegian universities, colleges and research
institutes (and many foreign ones).
 General innovation related programs run by the
Research Council of Norway, which includes
the User-Driven Innovation Arena (BIA), the Industrial PhD scheme, the Program for Commercialization of Research Results, the Program for
Regional R&D and Innovation, as well as international/European programs.
 The research council operates thematic research
programs promoting collaboration between public
research organizations and firms within the areas
of information and communication technology,
biotechnology, energy and petroleum research,
climate and environment, agriculture, aquaculture
and fisheries, nanotechnology and material
science, and transportation.
 The research council runs programs to support institutionalization of cross-sector collaboration, including the centers for research-based innovation
(CRI) and the centers for environment-friendly
energy research. Some of the centers of excellence, which are basic research centers, are established with extensive industrial participation (see
further description below), but do not represent
efforts put into practice to institutionalize crosssector collaboration.
 The national innovation agency, Innovation Norway, and the Industrial Development Agency
have programs intended to support development
of infrastructure for collaboration and clusters,
such as the Norwegian Centers of Expertise, as
well as support to science parks and incubator
facilities.
One of the most important trends of the last five
years has been to create support tools to strengthen
and institutionalize cross-sector collaboration, primarily moving from project support to the creation
of different types of cooperative research centers
(CRCs).1 One of the key tools to institutionalize
cross-sector collaboration has been the CRIs. In
2006, 14 centers were established and in 2011 six
more will follow. The establishment of the CRI centers was inspired by international developments of
competence and innovation centers such as the engineering research centers in the USA and the cooperative research centers in Australia (Arnold et al.,
2004). The overall purpose was to strengthen the innovative capacity of Norwegian industry through industry-relevant fundamental research, carried out in
close collaboration between R&D-intensive firms
and leading research units in universities, research
institutes, hospitals and more.
Science and Public Policy March 2011
University–industry interaction in Norway
The level of ambition is very high, as reflected in
the terms of funding: R&D intensive firms representing strong national industrial clusters and internationally leading research units are selected and
endowed with a fairly high concentration of resources over eight years. The relatively long temporal perspective, and the considerable complexity
and risk involved, necessitate a high rate of public
subsidy and support. Even though the firms are expected to be actively involved and commit themselves to the partnership for a long period of time,
the obligations for firms in the CRI centers are not
precisely defined. In the first program plan the partner firms and research units were to be actively involved in cooperation at leadership level (board
level) and operational level (bench level).
A similar initiative was implemented within the
field of environmentally friendly energy technologies in 2009, modeled directly on the CRI scheme.
Eight centers for environment-friendly energy research have been established, all of them with involvement from industry. They are focused on
environment-friendly energy, transport and CO2
capture and storage.
With this overview of Norwegian policy tools that
support institutionalization of cross-sectoral collaboration as a backdrop, the next section will provide a
theoretical framework for studying the impact of
formal organizational structure on institutionalization of university–industry relationships.
Formal structures and
institutionalization processes in
university–industry relationships
The role and importance of different organizational
arrangements to support cross-sector collaboration
has been a recurrent theme in the literature on
university–industry relations. One reason is that collaboration between firms and universities is carried
out in a multitude of ways, and formal structure is
consequently used as a key variable in distinguishing
and describing forms of collaboration. These range
from informal, ad-hoc networks to long-term collaborative agreements such as CRCs. The organizational features addressed in the extant literature, when
describing different types of collaborative relationships, include the existence and character of formal
or legal agreements between partners, length and
scale of agreement, extent of resource obligations
committed to the agreements, and organizational and
physical arrangements supporting the agreement
(Bonacorssi and Piccaluga, 1994; Vedovello, 1997;
Mora-Valentin et al., 2004; Perkman and Walsh,
2006; Youtie et al., 2006; Corley et al., 2006;
Boardman, 2009). Some of the literature has associated such contractual and organizational traits
with ‘degree of institutionalization’ (Geisler, 1995;
Mora-Valentin et al., 2004). The presence of a
formal structure has been regarded as beneficial for
Science and Public Policy March 2011
The nature of the relationship between
formal organizational structures and
institutionalization processes has
seldom been addressed within
research on university–industry
relationships
collaborative relationships — an assumption also
widely held in current research policy which promotes the establishment of formal structures for
university–industry collaboration. However, the nature of the relationship between formal organizational structures and institutionalization processes
has seldom been addressed within research on university–industry relationships. Before discussing
relevant research contributions that shed light on
this matter, some conceptual clarifications are
needed.
According to Vlaar et al. (2007: 1619) formalization of inter-organizational relationships refers to the
organizing process of codifying and enforcing inputs, outputs and behavior, and the outcomes of this
process in the form of contracts, rules and procedures. A principal form of formalization of interorganizational relationships is contractual planning,
which specifies both the formal nature of the relationship but also contains a description of roles, activities, commitments, organizational structures and
coordination procedures that will enable the fulfillment of contractual obligations. Formalization can
be seen as an instrument for control and coordination in collaborative relationships.
Within the context of inter-organizational relationships, institutionalization can be defined as:
a socialization process that transforms an instrumental transaction into a socially embedded
relationship by infusing it with norms and values that permit the relationship to be reproduced and perpetuated beyond the immediate
tenure of its founders. (Ring and Van de Ven,
1994: 102)
This definition implies an interaction between processes of formalization and institutionalization, entailing that collaborative relationships develop, over
time, from informal to formalized to institutionalized
relationships. Ring and Van de Ven (1994) emphasize that this relationship is not necessarily linear,
but cyclical and repetitive. Informal commitments
between agents over time become transformed into a
formal relationship that is legally recognized and
standardized in terms of behavior and roles. Over
time, formal procedures of control and coordination
101
University–industry interaction in Norway
might be relaxed as repeated interaction between
partners develops into new organizational routines
and thus become institutionalized.
Ring and Van de Ven’s (1994) theory of institutionalization of collaborative relationships to a large
extent focuses on how matters of control and coordination evolve in collaborative relationships over
time. Institutionalization processes also encompass
wider cognitive, social and normative issues. Utilizing Scott’s (1995: 33–34) broad definition, institutions can be defined as ‘cognitive, normative and
regulative structures and activities that provide stability and meaning to social behavior’. Scott specifies that institutions are: ‘multifaceted systems
incorporating symbolic systems — cognitive constructions and normative rules — and regulative
processes’ and that they ‘assume the guise of impersonal and objective reality’, although they are constructed and actively maintained by individual
actors. Institutions develop through repeated patterns
of behavior. Through repeated interactions cognitive
categories, values, practices, roles, and rules of action for particular situations become resilient or
stable, embedded in organizational routines and become taken for granted and legitimized (Scott, 1995;
Nelson and Winter, 1982).
Within the context of research policy studies,
Youtie et al. (2006) and Corley et al. (2006) have
developed a conceptual framework for exploring institutionalization of inter-institutional research collaboration focusing on organizational, cognitive and
normative elements. They claim that to explore institutionalization processes one needs to focus on
changes in organizational structures through which
collaboration becomes more formal, standardized
and structured (the articulation and structuring of internal social arrangements) and how this interacts
with changes in the epistemic domain of science.
According to Corley et al. (2006) ‘epistemic
norms’ include issues connected to identification of
suitable research problems, conceptual approaches,
measurement and methodological standards that are
shared and taken for granted within an epistemic
community. They claim that institutionalization of
new epistemic norms is carried out through particular organizational forms, and that the institutionalization of epistemic norms and the development of
formal organizations that support them run in parallel. For instance, a nascent research field is associated with a development of nascent organizations.
The emerging institutionalization in early stage
collaborations has certain characteristics, including
provision of external resources, a formal agreement,
internal recognition of status and shared space. More
fully institutionalized collaborations start to resemble fully-fledged organizations in terms of an emerging hierarchy, an administrative apparatus, a formal
model of resource allocation, authoritative plans and
objectives, external recognition of status and formal
entry points. However, these analyses also associate
organizational structure with institutionalization, and
102
their concepts are developed within the context
of multi-institutional collaborations, but not for
university–industry relations.
Colyvas and Powell (2006) have conceptualized
institutionalization as a multilevel process with different steps, and have developed a conceptual
scheme for identifying low, medium and high states
of institutionalization in their analysis of the remaking of the boundaries between public and private
science. By this they mean the merging of public
science with economic motives, first and foremost
associated with the development of commercialization of science as a key activity in US universities.
Their analysis consequently describes how commercialization of science becomes a routinized and
taken-for-granted activity, supported by new organizational structures and organizational roles.
 Initial phases with low institutionalization of
commercialization are characterized by: a high
degree of involvement of top leadership; learning
by doing processes; rationales for practice based
on external needs; a strong internal/external
boundary; ambiguous roles; and unclear categories/language to describe new practice.
 Phases with medium institutionalization of commercialization are marked by: new roles/careers
with delegation of responsibility lower in the organization; emerging coherence about goals; development of socialization and training practices to
reproduce behavior; development of institutional
vocabulary; practices becoming consolidated; and
classifications emerging. However, considerable
ambiguity and debate/opposition remain.
 In a mature phase with high degrees of institutionalization of commercialization of science, a
career structure with defined roles and responsibilities is evident; means and ends are well understood; new professional identities and networks
have developed; language, concepts and categories become widely used; and practices are
embedded in organizational routines.
As seen in this overview, several authors have
addressed the relationship between establishment
of formal organizational arrangements and institutionalization processes, but there are some significant shortcomings. First and foremost, the literature
describes changes within public science toward
the institutionalization of entrepreneurial science
(Colyvas and Powell, 2006) or multi-institutional/
multidisciplinary science (Youtie et al., 2006; Corley et al., 2006). The question of institutionalization
within university–industry collaborations is not
directly addressed.
Second, institutionalization tends to be equated
with the establishment of formal organizational
structures. This is a serious shortcoming because
formalization and institutionalization of collaborative relationships are obviously related, but they are
not the same. There is a need to disentangle, both
Science and Public Policy March 2011
University–industry interaction in Norway
conceptually and empirically, formal organizational
structures from processes of institutionalization, and
through this provide further knowledge about how
university–industry relationships develop over time.
This article explores the relationship between
formal structures for collaboration and institutionalization processes, looking at the internal workings of
collaborative relationships as they unfold over time.
Based on the research reviewed above, three alternative propositions are made about the relationship
between formal organizational structures and institutionalization processes in collaborative relationships:
 Proposition 1 The implementation of formal
organizational structures (formalization) leads to
increased institutionalization of collaborative
relationships.
 Proposition 2 Formalization does not lead to increased institutionalization; rather institutionalization depends on the length of existing relationships
between the partners involved in collaborative
relationships.
 Proposition 3 Formalization is a mechanism
through which partnerships with a strong institutional basis build formal organizations that gain
external legitimacy, and thus becomes further
institutionalized.
A comparative case study of
university–industry collaboration
To investigate the relationship between formal organizational arrangements and institutionalization
processes in cross-sector collaborations we opted for
a multiple case-study approach. The selection of
cases was based on two variables, as identified in the
propositions above: formalization of organizational
arrangements and length of existing relationships
between the involved participants. We defined degree of formalization based on the policy instruments through which the partnerships were funded.
We defined collaborative research centers as formal
organizational structures; since they are intended to
support research collaboration over a long time period they represent a physical and organizational
structure for collaboration. They have a formal organizational layout, leadership and administrative
support, goals, strategies and role specifications for
the involved participants (Corley et al., 2006). We
selected collaborative projects as cases with a lower
degree of formality, since they have a shorter time
frame and usually weaker organizational frameworks and more modest commitments. They are
however regulated by contracts, but with less scale
and scope than CRCs.
The second variable identified in the propositions
concerns the length of existing partnerships (Proposition 3). This variable was operationalized by relying on key experts’ assessment of the length of
existing relationships between the partners involved
Science and Public Policy March 2011
in each case, rather than counting the actual number
of years that the particular partnership had existed.
This variable also reflects the maturity of the underlying scientific field and characteristics of the technological sector, which is also a reflection of
the epistemic institutionalization identified by
Corley et al. (2006).
Based on our selected variables, we asked
program officers in the Norwegian research council
to identify relevant cases for our analysis out of
19 potential CRCs currently existing and several
hundreds of relevant collaborative research projects.
The selected cases are not representative of all
possible cases of collaborative research; there is thus
no aim of generalizing to the population but simply
to shed light on underlying analytical dimensions
(Table 1).
Based on our criteria we selected seven cases for
a detailed three-year study:
 Case 1: Medical imaging laboratory (MI Lab), a
CRI hosted by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim.
Seven different companies (most of them NTNU
spin-offs), one research institute, a university hospital and a public health organization are part of
the center.
 Case 2: Center for Integrated Petroleum Research
(CIPR), a multidisciplinary center hosted by the
University of Bergen and supported by several
different Norwegian and international oil and gas
companies.
 Case 3: Marine bioactives and drug discovery
(MabCent), another CRI, hosted by the University
of Tromsø. The center searches for bioactive
compounds that through research may form the
basis for drug-related commercialization by partner companies. Four biotechnology companies
are partners; two of them are spin-offs from the
university.
Table 1. Case-selection matrix
Formality of
relationship
Length of existing relationship
Long-term
Highly formal
Case 1. Medical
imaging laboratory
for innovative
future healthcare (MI
Lab)
Case 2. Center for
Integrated Petroleum
Research (CIPR)
Less formal
More recent
Case 3. Marine
bioactives and
pharmaceuticals
(MabCent)
Case 4. Cancer
Stemcell Innovation
Center (CAST)
Case 7. Service
Case 5. High-value
innovation AT-ONE
aluminum end
projects from extruded
sections
Case 6. Defect
engineering for
crystalline silicon solar
cells
103
University–industry interaction in Norway
 Case 4: Cancer Stem Cell Innovation Center
(CAST), another CRI, hosted by Oslo University
Hospital involving four biotechnology companies
and one university.
 Case 5: An aluminum extraction project which is
a user-driven innovation project hosted by large
multinational Hydro Aluminum and with the research institute SINTEF as well as two universities as partners.
 Case 6: A solar-cell competence project hosted by
the Institute for Energy Technology, involving
three Norwegian solar-cell producers as well as
two universities.
 Case 7: AT-ONE, which is a competence project
hosted by the Norwegian School of Architecture
and Design, oriented at developing new concepts
for service innovation in three large domestic
partner firms.
For each of the cases we gathered data about the
formation of the collaborative relationship, negotiation of agreements, how collaboration is organized,
the roles the different participants have, how interaction is carried out over time, the participants’ involvement in different stages, how collaborations are
managed, the physical and organizational infrastructure, outputs produced in each collaboration, as well
as the experience of all involved participants at different stages in the collaborative relationship. Information was gathered through several sources of data
such as applications, project descriptions, annual
reports, evaluation reports and web pages.
We interviewed the center or project leader,
members of boards and participants from different
partner organizations (universities, research institutes, industry, others), and have participated in
meetings and conferences. We aimed for a balanced
selection of interviewees, taking care to interview
representatives of all involved participant organizations and people that occupy different positions in
each center/project. The number of interviews per
case varies from five to 20 depending on the size
and complexity of the cases, and in total we have
carried out 70 interviews. In one of the cases, Case
2, case-study information is based only on written
sources of evidence.
Case-study results
In this section, we employ the case studies to illustrate the relationship between formal organizational
arrangements and patterns of university–industry
collaboration. To do this we analyze the internal
workings of each collaboration; both in terms of
the establishment of formal organizational structures and informal processes (Ring and Van de
Ven, 1994; Corley et al., 2006). Table 2 provides
an overview of the analytical categories used when
comparing institutionalization processes across the
cases.
104
Table 2. Analytical categories for analyzing
institutionalization processes
Process
Formation
Implementation
Formal
dimensions
Informal
dimensions
Partner selection
Networking and
searching
Formal bargaining
Sensemaking
Developing and
implementing
working plan
Establishing working
practice and routines
Designing consortia
Establishment of roles
and identities
Assigning formal
roles and
responsibilities
Establishing rules for
resource allocation,
reporting
Interaction
Role interactions
Personal interactions
Formal arenas
Developing familiarity,
affinity and trust
through working
together
Formal reporting and
control
Commitmentbuilding
Assigning formal
commitments
Establishment of broad
commitments in the
organizations
Top-level
endorsement important
Governance
0eliance on formal
structures
Reliance of personal
and trust-based control
and informal
coordination of tasks
In the following section we discuss some of the
findings that emerge from the case studies to shed
light on the propositions, focusing particularly on
consortia formation processes and interaction in
early stage relationships.
Formation of collaborative relationships
The interaction between establishment of formal organizational structures and informal processes is
readily observable when investigating how collaborative relationships are formed. In all cases the
informants highlighted personal networks and a prehistory of collaboration as important for the establishment of university–industry collaborations.
Many shared motives for collaborations have roots
in projects and networks stretching back several
decades. For instance in Case 1, the medical imaging
collaboration is fundamentally based on a radically
new ultrasound project started in the early 1970s.
Furthermore, several of the collaborations investigated are between public research organizations and
Science and Public Policy March 2011
University–industry interaction in Norway
the spin-off companies that came out of their own
organization (particularly Cases 1, 3 and 4). More
than half of the firms involved in our seven cases
are, in fact, spin-offs from public research organizations. Case 5 is directly based on a string of related
collaborative research projects between the involved
parties, and the same goes for one of the partnerships between solar-cell companies and public research organizations (Case 6), which can trace its
history back several decades. A similar pattern of
development is also seen in Cases 3 and 4, although
interactions have tended to be based on ‘private’
connections between a small number of individuals.
Of the cases we investigate in this study, Case 7 is
the exception as this collaboration is based on a
completely new consortium with no prior relations
between the parties.
The cases seem to be sensitive to existing funding
opportunities for collaborative research. A broader
view is to see the formation process as ‘existing
cross-sector partnerships on the lookout for public
funding and support’; this is visible in all of the
cases we investigate. The close networks between
public research organizations and industry highlight
an emerging institutionalization of certain technoscientific fields that are able to capitalize on new
funding opportunities. This situation also represents
a ‘lock-in’-situation where it may be difficult for
new firms or academic partners to get involved.
Several of the larger centers (Cases 1, 2, 3 and 4)
seem to have a core group of close collaborative
partnerships and a peripheral group consisting of
firms and academics that are connected to the core in
quite loose ways.
Establishing a consortium agreement plays an important role in all of the cases, especially when there
are multiple partners involved. A lot of work is often
put into this document; informants talked about
months of negotiations and deliberations. All partners define what they bring into the project and their
rights to results from the project within their designated fields of interest. The reason why this is timeconsuming seems mainly due to the complexity of
the process and the relatively low level of experience with such agreements in the system.
The process surrounding the negotiations and
formulations in the agreements is both preconditioned by trust and a challenge to existing trust.
Some informants described a new situation when
universities claim intellectual property ownership.
Smaller firms often seemed quite happy with this
(after a period of doubt), as it would reduce their
financial burden (e.g. related to patenting costs)
and/or make them less dependent upon larger firms.
Most of the companies also stressed that they understood and respected the academic partner’s need for
open publication — perhaps more than they had
done in earlier collaborations. Some informants were
nevertheless skeptical, arguing that the language of
intellectual property rights (IPR) was created more
to deal with situations of low or no trust.
Science and Public Policy March 2011
Some of the formal, long-term
collaborative research centers
appear to be less coordinated and
with weaker and less frequent
interaction than in some of the
shorter-term collaborative research
projects
Organization and modes of interaction in
early stage relationships
The actual interaction in the centers and projects
varies markedly, from almost daily collaboration to
a clearly mostly symbolic interaction. This seems to
be related to many different aspects, such as funding
issues, type of R&D work and organization of the
collaborative ventures themselves. In the larger
and more complex centers (Cases 1–4), the work
packages constitute the framework for the actual interaction between universities and firms. These subprojects encompass different actors and types of
research or other activities, but most often only one
firm is involved in each sub-project. We only found
one example of firms working together within a
work package in our cases (Case 4).
The formal arenas organized at the center/
overarching project level thus become, in most cases, the only place where firms meet each other and
not just meet the academics related to sub-projects
and work packages. The board is another formal
arena where interaction between firms and universities occurs, but to a large extent about formal matters such as IPR. The interaction is dominated by
formal role relationships and relies for the most part
on formal arenas set up by the academic partners.
Indications of such a pattern of collaboration are
found in Cases 1, 3, 4 and 7.
Institutionalization processes in collaborative research contexts are complex and subtle. Some of
the formal, long-term CRCs appear to be less
coordinated and with weaker and less frequent
interaction than in some of the shorter-term collaborative research projects. These were initially
assumed to represent less formal and stable forms
of interaction. Although we see some relationships
moving towards institutionalized forms of interaction, the heterogeneity is notable. In some
cases (e.g. Cases 1 and 2) the partners enjoy cognitive, social and normative affinity. Because
they have collaborated previously, they have developed stable patterns of interaction with clear
roles and expectations and where coordination of
activities seems to be fairly easy and to some
extent taken for granted. Such relationships
105
University–industry interaction in Norway
demonstrate institutionalized frameworks of interaction, where cross-sector collaboration becomes
normalized practice. Over time such legitimized
activities ‘become habitualized’ (Colyvas and
Powell, 2006). According to Ring and Van de
Ven (1994), when network interactions take on institutional traits, formal modes of network coordination such as the set up of CRCs become less
important as an organizational framework or mode
of coordination.
Indications of institutionalization processes in the
cases can be seen in the ability to make rapid decisions and to distribute obligations, rights and tasks,
in the common understanding of project goals and
tasks, in a relatively smooth coordination of work
and a clear understanding of the role of each partner. Trust, goodwill and patience, and a positive
expectation towards the partnership also seem to
develop through long-term interactions, regardless
of the organizational form of the collaborative relationship. Two of the cases of collaborative projects
(Cases 5 and 6) are highly institutionalized relationships that exhibit all these characteristics.
Networks with clear definitions of membership
and roles and collaborative resources such as
established consortia agreements are indications of
institutionalized frameworks of cross-sectoral
collaboration.
Some of the CRCs appear to have few of these
traits — notably Case 4, and partly Cases 1 and 3.
Even though these collaborations are long-term
with a highly formal status, in many respects the
modes of interaction appear to be less institutionalized than in some of the project-based cases. The
participants share less affinity and apparently
struggle more with establishing the consortium and
defining the common goals of the collaboration.
They rely on top leadership endorsement and require constant articulation of goals and rationales.
Definition and distribution of IPR is problematic,
interaction is not intense and relies on highly formal arrangements for collaboration. Coordination
of these partnerships seems quite complex and, at
times, difficult.
Furthermore, in all these cases the modes of interactions differ significantly between the industrial
partners in the consortium. Due to the ‘hub-andspoke’ mode of organizing partnerships, it is hard to
describe a single mode of interaction in the CRCs;
rather, a range of interaction modes can be seen in
each. The informants stressed that modes of interaction with each partner can shift over time, and that
partnerships are flexible and dynamic frames for collaborative action. Interdependence between the parties — for instance, small spin-off firms that rely on
the research facilities of their larger public research
partners — promotes close interaction and a high
degree of commitment. Such differences within each
center also shed light on institutionalization processes, which indicate that CRCs are at best a partly
institutionalized framework for interaction.
106
Discussion and issues for further research
The main research question addressed in this article
concerns the extent to which formal structures facilitate the institutionalization of collaborative relationships in the university–industry context. We first
presented an overview of recent policy trends in
Norway, emphasizing the increasing support of formal, long-term research collaborations between
firms and universities. We then discussed relevant
research on the relationship between organizational
structures and institutionalization processes, leading
to three alternative propositions concerning this relationship. These have been explored through a comparative case study of seven cross-sector
collaborations, selected to shed light on the two underlying analytical dimensions — degree of formality and length of existing relationships — assumed to
have a possible impact on institutionalization processes in university–industry relationships. Institutionalization processes were investigated empirically, focusing on:
 Steps taken to create formal organizational
structures, such as partner selection, negotiation,
organizational structures, formal roles and responsibilities; and
 Informal processes such as developing familiarity,
commitment and trust through repeated interactions.
Our cases indicate that the formal organizational
structure and processes of institutionalization of collaborative relationships are not directly related, in
the sense that the presence of formal organizational
structures such as centers does not lead to institutionalization of partnerships per se. The investigation indicates that less formal, project-based
collaborations often display more characteristics of
institutionalized partnerships than CRCs. The CRCs
on the other hand represent highly formal but weakly institutionalized frameworks of collaboration.
One reason seems to be that CRCs are loosely
coupled and flexible frameworks of action that
can accommodate a diversity of relationships within
one structure, and where the particular relationships
also differ with respect to the nature of institutionalization.
The data indicate that institutionalization processes are long-term developments evolving through repeated interactions. As a consequence, the length of
existing partnerships is often a better indicator of institutionalization than stability and formality of organizational arrangements — providing support to
Proposition 2. Furthermore, there are indications that
the networks between academic environments and
firms in several of the cases are established crosssector partnerships on the lookout for public funding
and support, that when conferred with a formal
status gain external legitimacy and recognition —
providing support to Proposition 3. Having this in
Science and Public Policy March 2011
University–industry interaction in Norway
mind, further research should attempt to demonstrate
under what conditions the creation of formal
structures for collaboration, such as CRCs, leads to a
higher degree of institutionalization of partnerships.
When collaborations are based on long-term partnerships, what role do formal structures have? And alternatively, when collaborations are based on shortterm partnerships or no prior contacts, to what extent
are formal structures requiring repeated interactions
between participants able to promote development
of common resources, commitment and trust?
Several implications for further research can be
derived from this exploratory study. We have
provided empirical evidence on the related yet
dissimilar nature of formal organizational structure
and institutionalization processes, but further empirical studies are needed for testing the framework and
propositions presented. Institutionalization processes
are time- and context-bound; investigating subtle
and informal issues demands a longitudinal approach following each case over a period of time.
Policy-makers should note that if they want to institutionalize university–industry interaction, large
formalized centers with many partners may not be
the best way forward in all cases, and that the maturity of the partnerships needs to be taken into account when selecting and managing research
partnerships.
Note
Gulbrandsen, M and L Nerdrum 2009. University-industry relations in Norway. In Innovation, Path-Dependency and Policy:
the Norwegian Case, eds J Fagerberg, D C Mowery and B
Verspagen, pp. 297–326. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mora-Valentin, E M, A Montoro-Sanches and L A Guerras-Martin
2004. Determining factors in the success or R&D cooperative
agreements between firms and research organizations. Research Policy, 33, 17–40.
Nelson, R and S Winter 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Perkman, M and K Walsh 2006. Relationship-based universityindustry links and open innovation: towards a research
agenda. AIM Research working paper series, July.
Ring, P S and A H van de Ven, 1994. Developmental processes
of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of
Management Review, 19(1), 90–118.
Scott, W R 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Vedovello, C 1997. ‘Firms’ R&D activity and intensity of the
university–enterprise partnership. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 58, 215–226.
Vlaar, P W L, F A van den Bosch and H W Volberda 2007. On the
evolution of trust, distrust and formal coordination and control
in interorganizational relationships: toward an integrative
framework. Group and Organization Management, 32(4),
407–428.
Youtie, J, Dirk Libaers and Barry Bozeman 2006. Institutionalization of university research centers: the case of the National
Cooperative Program in Infertility Research. Technovation,
26(9), 1055–1063.
1. This section is based on several program documents found at
the Research Council of Norway’s website.
References
Arnold, E, J Deuten and J F van Gissel 2004. An international review of Competence Center Programmes. Technopolis, April.
Boardman, P C 2009. Government centrality to university-industry
interactions: university research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers. Research Policy, 38(10),
1505–1516.
Bonaccorsi, A and A Piccaluga 1994. A theoretical framework for
the evaluation of university–industry relationships. R&D Management, 24(3), 229–247.
Colyvas, J and W W Powell 2006. Roads to institutionalization:
the remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 315–363.
Corley, Elizabeth A, P Craig Boardman and Barry Bozeman 2006.
Design and the management of multi-institutional research
collaborations: theoretical implications from two case studies.
Research Policy, 35, 975–993.
Geisler, E 1995. Industry–university technology cooperation: a
theory of inter-organizational relationships. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 7(2), 217–229.
Science and Public Policy March 2011
107