University-Industry Linkages. Utopy or Opportunity?
Author
Jokin Garatea
Gaia University
14th Annual World Forum
Colleagues in Jesuit Business Education
International Association of Jesuit Business Schools
Business and Education in an Era of Globalization:
The Jesuit Position
July 20-23, 2008
1.1
FOREWORD
This paper prepared for the Deusto Jesuit University in Bilbao (Research and Development
Department) has its origin in different projects of research,
developed by GAIA’s (Telecommunication Cluster of the Basque
Country, Spain) team under the coordination of Jokin Garatea,
alumni of the University of Deusto in Bilbao. These projects were,
some of them still are, related to analysing models for generating and
transferring knowledge between the University and the enterprise in
the global economy.
The hypothesis of this thesis tries to demonstrate that: "to design a
successful context for generating and transferring knowledge,
between University and Industry, innovation systems must invest on social capital. Understanding
this concept, but not limiting it, to an environment where relationships are based on trust.” I am of
the opinion that this model can work well in networks like the Jesuit Universities since they share
common values and have a huge capital of alumni that try to be close to their universities in
extending their links by working with the Universities through their enterprises.
1.2
STRUCTURE OF THE WORK
The work is structured in three sections that can be read separately since they are based on results of
different research projects/studies led and/or participated by the author:
 WHERE ARE WE?
STRUCTURES AND POLICIES FOR GENERATING AND TRANSMITING KNOWLEDGE
FROM UNIVERSITY TO INDUSTRY
 WHAT DO WE NEED?
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SOCIAL CAPITAL AS A CATALYST FOR GENERATING
AND TRANSFERING KNOWLEDGE.
 CONCLUSION. WHERE ARE WE GOING?
COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE. A MODEL FOR GENERATING AND TRANSFERRING
KNOWLEDGE.
1.3
WHERE ARE WE?
INNOVATION SYSTEMS AND POLICIES FOR GENERATING AND TRANSMITING
KNOWLEDGE FROM UNIVERSITY TO INDUSTRY
“International comparison studies like the one launched by the world bank should confirm that
countries which introduced autonomy, competition and accountability in their academic systems,
opening public research and universities to prived funding and governance, gained efficiency and
competitiveness for their industry and their economy“
Jean Jacques Duby President of the Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques, France
1.3.1
Summary
This chapter is divided in two sections:
- The first one is related to analyse the concept and structure of an Innovation System.
- The Second one is related to describe some examples of interest of International measures,
developed by some countries, in order to improve the national Systems of Innovation. It has been
focused mainly on the University-Enterprise relationship.
1.3.2
CONCEPT AND STRUCTURE OF AN INNOVATION SYSTEM
This part of the research draws on research analyses developed by Mr Luc Soete Director of the
UNU MERIT-University of Maastrich, a summary of which was presented at the World Bank
symposium on “University-Industry Linkages” at Paris on March 27, 2006
Today is widely recognised that Economic growth and well-being is founded on a well
functioning “knowledge and innovation system”, in which all actors perform well, both the typical
knowledge creation actors such as universities and public research organisations and private firms
(Soete 2006).
The concept of a national (or Regional) Innovation System emerged in the late 80’s. It
incorporated all actors and activities in the economy involved
in knowledge production. It put the emphasis on the national
institutional framework within which firms, universities and
other organisations operated and the linkages between those
as essential factors in explaining the differences in the speed,
extent and success by which innovations got introduced and
diffused in the economy, whether nationally or regionally.
The common feature of all such systems –regional, national
or even trans-national-was the fact that firms rarely, if ever,
innovated alone. From a voluminous literature on innovation studies it appeared that there was
constant interaction and cooperation between the innovating firm and its external environment,
which in the optimal case would lead to a virtuous learning circle of better exploitation of available
knowledge, often located within local knowledge institutions such as universities.
At the same time the fact that the knowledge and innovation systems of countries at similar
levels of development, such as the EU member countries, showed marked differences associated
with their individual paths of specialisation in production, had obvious policy implications and
became the basis of very different sets of innovation policies in different countries. As a result a new
category of policy research emerged addressing these differences between countries and regions. The
argument being that comparative analyses of such systems of innovation would allow one to identify
which elements of the system would be most subject to inertia in particular country or region settings
so that particular deficiencies could be addressed. Hence, many authors on the national systems of
innovations literature, such as Freemen, Lundvall, Nelson and Edquist would speak of the “dynamic
co-evolution of knowledge, innovations, organisations and institutions”
The idea that there is something to learn from institutional arrangements and policies in other,
more “advanced” environments, as exemplified today in the European obsession with the knowledge
gap with the US, and that systematic comparative studies are a useful tool in this respect, is of course
not a new one. Alexander Gerschenkron (1962) pioneered this kind of comparative country study. As
he pointed out, some countries are at the technological frontier, while others lag far behind. Although
the technological gap between the frontier country and the laggard would represent “a great promise”
for the later (a potential for higher growth trough imitating frontier technologies), there were also
various problems that would prevent backward countries from reaping the potential benefits to the
full. Gerschenkoron actually argued that if one country succeeded in embarking on an innovationdriven growth path, others might find it increasily difficult to catch up.
In this context, Moses Abramovitz (1986) introduced the notions of technological congruence
and social capability to discuss what he called the “absorptive capacity” of latecomers.
The concept of technological congruence referred to the degree to which leader and follower
country characteristics were congruent in areas such as market size, factor supply, etc.
The concept of social capability pointed to the various efforts and capabilities that backward
countries possessed in order to catch up, such as improving education, infrastructure and
technological capabilities (R&D facilities, etc). Abramovitz explained the successful catching up of
western Europe vis-à-vis the USA in the post war period as the result of both increasing
technological congruence (via European economic integration led to the creation of larger and more
homogeneous markets in Europe, facilitating the transfer of scale-intensive technologies initially
developed for USA conditions) and improved social capabilities (reflected in such factors as the
general increase in educational levels, the rise in the share of resources devoted to public and private
sector R&D and the success of the financial system in mobilizing resources for change. What
Abramovitz did not talk about was in the success and/or failure in the linkages between those
various features of technological congruence and social capability.
Those linkages though appear to be important notions in explaining the systemic success or
failure of science, technology and innovation policies in various European countries.
It is interesting to point out that some work, related to benchmarking R&D policies, financed
by the European Commission, has been carried out by Soete et al (2002), attempting to identify the
strengths and weakness of such linkages.
The core of this analysis hinges on the notions developed by Abramovitz and subsequently
used in many growth and development studies.
Four factors appear at the outset essential for the functioning of a national system of innovation:
 First there is the investment of the country in social and human capital. It is incorporated in a
number of knowledge generating institutions in the public as well as the private sector such s
universities, polytechnics and other skills’ (talent) training schools.
 Second is the research capacity of a country or region and the way it is closely intertwined with
the country’s higher education system. From a typical “national” innovation system perspective,
such close interaction appears important; from an international perspective the links much be
much looser, with universities and research institutions being capable of attracting talent
worldwide.
 The third node holding knowledge together within the framework of a national system of
innovation is, maybe surprisingly, geographical proximity. The regional clustering of industrial
activities based on the close interactions between suppliers and users, involving learning
networks of various sorts between firms and between public and private players, representas a
more flexible and dynamic organisational set-up that the organisation of such learning activities
confined within the contours of individual firms.
Regional or local learning networks can allow much intensive information flows, mutual learning
and economies of scale amongst firms, private and public knowledge institutions, education
establishments, etc. some innovation management authors (Chesbrough 2003) like to refer here
to the notion of “open innovation”. The technological and innovative performance of firms is
what can be most directly measured to approximate the degree of success of such clustering.
In a well-known study Putnam compares the impact of Silicon Valley and Route 128 in the USA.
He cites silicon Valley in California where a group of entrepreneurs, helped by research effort in
the local universities, contributed to the development of a world centre of advanced technology.
As he put it: “The success is due largely to the horizontal networks of informal and formal
cooperation that developed among fledging companies in the area”. By contrast in the route 128
corridor outside Boston, lack of inter-firm social capital has led to a more traditional form of
corporate hierarchy, self sufficiency, and territoriality. The comparison shows that the
innovativeness and technological performance of firms strongly depends on close interaction
between them.
 In addition to human capital, research and the related phenomenon of local networks and
particularly inter-firm networking, the fourth and last condition essential to any innovation
system approach is the “absorptive capacity” of firms, clients and consumers in a particular
region or country. The ability of companies to learn will of course in first instance depend on
their internal capabilities represented by the number and level of scientifically and
technologically qualified staff. Firms must do enough R&D to be economically dynamic and to
have the “absorptive capacity” to conduct a professional dialogue with the public research sector
and other external resources of knowledge. At the same time, consumers, clients and citizens
might be very open to new designs, products, even ideas, enabling rapid diffusion of such new
products created by R&D in knowledge-intensive sectors, or very conservative, resistant to
change and suspicious to novelty. The absorptive capacity amongst countries, regions, even
suburbs, varies dramatically.
The indicators used to measure each of the four concepts described above, that serves to provide
some empirical evidence to the workings of national systems of innovation use to be the following
ones:
For the Social and Human Capital:
 The concept of social and human capital is most closely related to measures of levels of
education in a country and their maintenance. The human capital proxy used is based on an
average of three indicators: a human capital investment indicator based on the educational
expenditures in a country (percentage of GDP spent on education); an output-based performance
indicator (percentage of working population with third –level degrees) and an informal training
indicator (participation in life long learning).
For the Research Capacity
 The long term strength of a country’s research system is approximated here by its capacity to
deliver highly qualified researchers (scientists and engineering graduates as a percentage of
working population); the amount of public resources a country is prepared to invest in R&D
(GOVERD and HERD as a percentage of GDP) and the performance of its national research
system (number of publications per million population)
For the Technological and innovativeness performance
 Technological performance is reflected in the more traditional RTD indicators such as business
performed R&D (BERD as a percentage of GDP) and the number of patents obtained (triad
patents per capita). In addition an innovation indicator (innovation expenditures as a percentage
of total sales) has been added which provides additional information on firm’s innovation efforts
generally not captured in formal R&D investment or number of patents.
For the Absorptive capacity
 The concept of absorptive capacity is reflected here in the successful diffusion of new
technologies throughout the economy. The measures used are: an indicator measuring a firm’s
capacity to renew its product range and adjust to technological change, based on the weighted
average of sales to new-to-market products; a more process oriented measure of technological
improvements, namely labour productivity; and a competitiveness indicator: relative trade
performance in high tech goods.
These four combined measures provide a close approximation to the four concepts identified by
Abramovitz.
Current research at UNU-MERIT (by Soete et all 2005), EU funded project, has discovered that in
some European National System of Innovation four features are worth noting:
 First, the UK in particular, but also Denmark appears to be characterized by a national system of
innovation heavily biased towards the higher-education interrelationship. The intrinsic weakness
of these countries’ national innovation system resides in the technological innovation-absorptive
capacity linkages, which appear insufficiently strong to compensate for the heavy focus on higher
education-basic research.
 Second, Sweden’s NSI appears characterized by a strong bias in the research-technological
performance relationship.
 Third, Ireland and Italy have NSI strongly biased towards absorptive capacity and weak on the
research side; Portugal and Spain have their NSI biased towards the social and human capital
end; the higher education system. These countries are weak where Sweden, in the case of Italy
and Ireland, and Germany in the case of Portugal and Spain, are strong.
 Finally, and most noticeable of all, NO EU countries are strong in the technological and
innovative performance area, pointing to a general European weakness in this area. When the
data of Japan are added to the figures, Japan has a strong national system of innovation biased
towards the diffusion of technological and innovative performance.
1.3.3
EXAMPLES OF MEASURES TO IMPROVE NATIONAL SYSTEMS OF
INNOVATION RELATED TO UNIVERSITY- ENTERPRISE LINKAGE
1.3.3.1
Introduction
In this chapter we are analysing some examples of how some of the “advanced” worldwide
regions, according to economic and innovation related indicators and/or because the economic
forecasts of some of the cases are stating that they are in the process of becoming economic powers
(like India and China), are trying to solve some the problems that we have described in the previous
chapter related to the National Innovation Systems, transference and the relationship between
university and industry.
I’d like to point out that in the analyses examples we have included Thailand. The reason is
that for the hypothesis I am trying to justify, related to the importance of investing in social capital, it
is a good case study.
1.3.3.2
USA
The relations between University and Industry in research and innovation have a long history
that begins at the end of the XIX.
The historical collaboration University-Industry has been enhanced by the unusual structure
of the North American Universities in comparison with others industrialized countries. The
university has counted with a great financial autonomy, a heterogeneous composition of institutions
(religious, secular, public, private, great and small) a lack of centralized administrative control and a
ferocious competition for students.
This situation allowed the North American Universities to obtain incentives for the faculties
and their administrators with the purpose of orienting its efforts to the scope of the research and also
looking towards the purpose of benefiting economically and socially to the environments in which
they are settled.
The object of the research, instead of being oriented to problems related to scientific
principles, most of the areas of investigation of end of the XIX and the XX, were oriented to
understand and to solve problems on agriculture, public health and industry.
This situation allowed the creation of an ample base of
technicians (through the formation of students in specific
projects for the solution of industrial problems or agriculture)
that facilitated the economic transference of knowledge to the
industry and other sectors.
This important role of the universities in the industrial
innovation, particularly after the II World war also benefited
other external organizations like companies of risk capital,
financing small companies through the participation in the
shareholdings and to the industry through the incorporation of staff of the university in the industry
and vice versa (with the participation of staff of the industry in the University).
The 1980 Bayh-Dole Act (Denominated The Bay-Dole patent and trademark amendments
act) is a break point in the management of patents by the Universities, is a result, among others, of
the lobby made by Universities addressed to allow a general agreement to be able to register patents
result of the research and to subsidize the obtained licenses of those patents, including exclusive right
licenses (to third entities).
This law is as much an effect as a cause of the expansion of the strategy of patents and
licenses coming, on the one side from of the Universities of the U.S.A and on the other side, from the
interest of the administration of the U.S.A. of promoting, with greater strength, of intellectual
property rights.
The Bay Dohl Act contains three provisions that affect to the intellectual property rights and the
granting of licenses:
 The federal financing agencies hold free and not-exclusive right of licenses of royalties (royal tee
free) for all patent, result of public financing conceded to the investigator.
 The law give the power to federal agencies to deny rights of patents to non American researchers
and in circumstances under which the refusal of the property of the invention favours the
objectives of the law
 Finally the law allows to federal agencies "to mandate" licensing of a patent if the owner of the
patent or his licence holders does not act with the due diligence in the development of the
invention.
The effects of the Bayh-Dole act in the increase of registries of
patents and licenses on the Universities side is widely documented
(Henderson et al 1998). But according to other authors (David C.
Mornay University-Industry Research Collaboration and Technology
Transfer in the the USA since 1980), the Bayh Dole act is a law that
comes to corroborate a phase characterized by the direct implication of
the universities in the development and registry of patents and licenses
against the tendency previous to 1970 characterized by the rejection of
great part of the North American Universities to participate directly in
the model to patent the research.
It is a fact that from 1980 the ratio of university patents has
increased. It is interesting to emphasize that the registry of university
patents in the biomedical sector increases a 295% from 1970 to 1980
(David C. Mornay University-Industry Research Collaboration and Technology Transfer in the the
USA since 1980), following the tendency of an enormous demand on the part of the industrial sector.
An effect of the Bayh Dole is the introduction of Universities in the management of patents and
licenses. The result has not been a spectacular increase in the benefits derived from the patents. Some
authors (Mowvery ET all 2004) confirm that the great benefits of Columbia university, Stanford and
the University of California were coming from a very small number of patents. What they
denominate "top 5" was generating 65% of the benefits. All of them were from the biomedicine field.
The generation of benefits is not the only reason why the North American Universities perform
activities of management of patents and licenses. Other reasons are the retention of personnel which
want to see their inventions registered, transfer and commercialization of inventions, local and
national economic development and maintenance of the concept of freedom for researching granted
to their personnel.
The relation university-industry in the U.S.A. from 1995 on is different according to the type
of University.
If we analyze the strategy of the MIT, Standford and Berkeley as world-wide references, we
can confirm that they share a series of characteristics like the top 5 colleges of U.S.A. and a large
research network in addition to patent promotions.
The 3 universities have an assortment of programs to support the University-Industry
collaboration like the "Liason Industrialist Programs" that offer to the industries to be associated by
means of a quota that allows opportunities to the employees of the companies to visualize state-ofthe-art in the investigation, to visit laboratories of the campuses, to participate in meetings with
investigators and, depending on the paid quota and the structure of the program at issue, to be able to
send employees to the research centres with temporary stays.
In addition the universities promote the support of companies to participate in singular
projects of the faculties.
It is important to note that although the activity of patents and licenses is beneficial for the
three universities, the three mentioned institutions manage the model of patents as a complement of
wider programs than promotes closer relations with the industry.
1.3.3.2.1
Criticism of the industry to the policies of registry of the knowledge in the
American University.
The research area that dominates the registry of the knowledge (patents and licenses) in the
U.S.A., from the eighties on, are the biomedical sciences. The patents in this scope have a substantial
value for their potential commercial innovation (i.e. for the pharmaceutical industry).
In the biomedical sector, a report of the National Institute of health (1998, p15) indicates that the
American universities want to be commercial institutions at the time of licensing their knowledge but
being considered academic when it is to accede to technology developed by others.
Another report (2003 Roundtable Government-University-Industry Research) presented/displayed in
the National Academy of Sciences alerted on the risk of the litigation on the intellectual property
between the university and the company.
1.3.3.3
EUROPE
It is a fact that the European Union has increased the tendency towards "collectivized" and
applied science and towards the economic and social relevance of the R&D (strategic research,
applied research, technological development) (Ziman, 1984).
Aspects like, the importance of the management of the
research, the interest in the property of the knowledge, the
formation of hierarchical structures (selection of problems,
allocation of resources) and the definition of missions
(according to social criteria of relevance) are at the core
strategies of many european innovation related groups .
Is Europe now too late to changing the approach?
We do not think so.
Although Georg Winckler, President of the European
Conference of University Presidents, goes on to point out that
the Nobel Prize is typically awarded to an American, or rather someone living and working in the
United States he emphasizes that in this new century, “The higher is the level of education and
human capital of citizens, the higher will be the standard of living. Human capital and education are
the most important source of a high standard of living. Europe is suffering from a clear deficit of
such human capital and education… In contrast to the USA there is too low of a share of European
population with a degree in higher education”.
The new approach of the VII Framework programme promoting the Technological Platforms
that need to be aligned with the Best in class research infrastructure projects (ESFRI report) can be a
very good initiative to shorten the gap mentioned by Mr Wrinckler.
In any case it is important that European Countries work closely and aligned to the European
Commission strategies.
In our opinion the new measures implemented by some countries goes in that direction.
1.3.3.4
GERMANY
In response to the new consensus that the old university model no longer suffices Germany
introduced a bold new policy to move towards the entrepreneurial university.
This new public policy approach is a striking rejection of the post-war policies of
homogeneity and standardization, with the concomitant result of curbing competition across
institutions. Rather this new policy approach injects competition accross universities through the
introduction of a policy instrument called Exzellenzeninitiative, or Excellence Initiative. Over a five
year period, starting in 2005, the German government is investing 1.9
million euros to explicitly create what is termed as Elite Universities.
These funds will be awarded to those universities that have developed
at least the potential for excellence in research in particular research
fields. After years of perhaps admiring in particular de top american
universities, but writing them of as another example of amarican
elitism and exclusivity, to the disadvantage of those not afforded
access to such universities, the germans have radically reversed directions and are now embracing
„elite“ Universities. The old approach would have been to spread the funding around, in a virtual
quota system, where each region got its share. But under this new policy, instead, these new elite
universities are concentrated particularly in the state of Bavaria, where several universities, including
the Ludwig-Maximillian University of Munich and the Technical University of Munich were
selected along with eight other German universities to be targeted to becoming „elite“.
Why has Germany reversed its policy towards highereducation and research? Because it
recognizes that in the global economy, the old, traditional Humboldt University, which is cut off
from societay, does not suffice. Rather, Germany, like countries around the globe is now committed
to create the entrepreneurial university.
Germany spent too many years on sidelines, saddled with a policy approach inhibiting not
just state of the art research and scholarship, but also their commercialization and application in the
economy. It has turned out that the investment that the USA has made in universities and research
was not just an extravagant expenditure but rather the foundation for generating growth and
competitiveness in the global economy.
1.3.3.5
FRANCE
According to Mr Jean Jacques Duby President of the Observatoire des Sciences et des
Techniques, the French public authorities are worried about the lack of efficiency of the country
research and innovation system. They have already designed legislation to improve the situation.
More recently approved legislation including the new programmatic law for research („Loi de
programme sur la recherche“), brings several important structural and institutional changes aiming at
some of the curent problems:
 The creation of academic rusts supporting universities, grandes écoles and research
organizations, is made easier and their funding more attractive with generous tax credits for the
donors, individuals or corporations.
 The designation of „Competitiveness Clusters“ (Poles de competitivite) aims at pulling together
all local resources (university, industry, local government) in a given scientific and technical
domain to reach a critical mass and initiate a positive chain reaction.
 A newly crated National Research Agency (Agence Nationale de Recherche or ANR) will
encourage universities and grandes ecoles to develope their own research strategy independently
from the big national research organisations by funding research projects selected after calls for
proposals.
 Another new agency, The Industrial Innovation Agency (Agence de L’Innovation Industrielle or
AII) will be given a mission parallel to that of the AN, the later addressing knowledge
production, the former addressing knowledge engineering. The AII modus operandi is not fully
defined yet, but it is hoped that it will boost innovation capabilities of the French R&D system at
both its industrial and academic ends.
 A special type of public and industry research center federation, the Carnot Institutes (Instituts
Carnot), is introduced to foster cooperative R&D projects. Several Carnot Institutes will be
designated, and the funds they will get from industry will receive matching grants from public
budget (like the Fraunhofer).
 A broader legislation (the Organic Budget Act or „Loi organique de Loi de Finances“) impacting
all public expenses states that each public expense should pertain to a program with specific
objectives and achievement indicators. Public research finding is no exception and, starting
withfiscalyear 2006, every public research should have several quantitative objectives regarding
not only knowledge production, but also knowledge transmission . Nedless to say, this is a
double revolution for French research, first to get quantitative objectives, second to get objectives
pertaining not only to basic research (in effect, publications), but also innovation.

The programatic law for research, the Organic Budget Act, and
other recent legislative new facilities, shall indeed introduce major
changes in French public research. Those legislative innovations are
generally well received by multinationals and SMEs, which are now
actively updating their R&D strategy to take advantage of the new
facilities, even though those facilities often have the side effect of
creating additional layers of complexity in the already complicated
French administrative system. But will those changes be enough?
Unfortunately, there are reasons to believe that the answer is „no“,
mainly because the present reforms stop short of lowering the barriers that exist between public
and industry research. In the new global economy, it probably is unreasonable to believe that the
french model of a state controlled academic system, where alluniversities andall faculties are
deemed equal, can remain competitive. National comparisons within France already show that
private grandes écoles, or public research institutions where private industry plays an important
role, are more effective and more reactive than the ones that depend solely on state. International
comparison studies like the one launched by the world bank should confirm that countries which
introduced autonomy, competition and accountability in their academic systems, opening public
research and universities to prived funding and governance, gained efficiency and
competitiveness for their industry and their economy.
1.3.3.6
NETHERLANDS
Dutch National policy aimed at strengtening the linkages between universities and industires
has been trying to (re)activate the formal and informal connections between the public and private
knowledge investment parts of the dutch national system of innovation. Given the international
specialisation pattern already developed in the Netherlands in the privately driven research part, it
might be argued that the lead in strenghtening such links should be taken by the private sector.
Practically, the building of new formal bridges could take the form of new Technological Top
Institutes in fields of essential importance to the Dutch economy. Topics for such a new round of TTI
should obviously not only include private sector research interest bu also public research interests
(security, mobility, sustainability, ageing, etc). Alongside such a demand-led set of re-activating
linkage policies, one should also focus on other forms of joint knowledge production policies: e.g.
policies aimed at increasing mobility between public and private research labs, policies opening up
private research labs to public (and other private) research interests, etc. In short national policies
should focus on „crowding in“ the various components of joint knowledge production.
1.3.3.7
SWITZERLAND
Framework conditions and structural characteristics of the Swiss national innovation system
(excellence of science, S&T and competences, anchor tenants, innovative performance of SMEs,
financial development and clusters) are rather good; so that the fact that university-industry
relationships work relatively well is easy to understand. Indeed, the assertion of a largely insufficient
knowledge and technology transfer between corporations and science institutions in Switzerland is
not supported by empirical evidence (KOF, 2005).
Some policy objectives are, however currently discussd to improve the university-industry
relationships, such as deeper enrolement of Universities of Applied Sciences into technology transfer
activities and a better integration of SMEs into the knowledge tand technology flows. This should be
achieved throguh boosting the fonding of R&D at public research institutions by substainability
increasing the resources of the Commission for Technology and Innovation. However the Swiss
economy is engaged in a process of restoring a better control of public spending (to keep the deficit
down to a 1,25% of GDP (OECD, 2005), making it politicaly difficult to aim at a large increase of
public funding of R&D.
As a general conclusion, the Swiss case make it clear that many institutional models can be used
to support technology transfer between the university and industry. National laws and legal
environment play an imprtant role in enabling and facilitating the process. However the most
important factor deal with the type of „private arrangements“ developed:
 At firm level in order to increase absorptive capacities and,
 at university level in order to achieve a good balance between making a technology transfer
more effective and maintaining the basic mision (pure and long term basic research and
education).
1.3.3.8
UK
A number of schemes and initiatives have been developed at regional and local level to
stimulate and sustain university-industry linkages.
In the UK much of the development of initiatives at local and regional level has been the
result of initiatives taken at a national level.
Regional Development agencies are the central mechanism for promoting university-industry
linkages. However, as yet, few RDAs provide an integrated set of initiatives. Some are making
significant progress.
There appears to be a need to identify more clearly the demand and supply side dimensions of
collaboration. For example, an important issue concerns the identification of the different kinkds of
customers for universities’ outputs. Such an approach requires some notion of the kinds of activities
whereuniversities have a comparative advantage over provision of services from outside a university.
It may be important to devote explicit attention to market segmentation in terms of which
universities within a region of locality aremost suited to deliver certain types of linkages with
industries.
It needs to be recognised that the development of linkages is closely associated with the
development of relationships. These relationships may take a considerable period to establish and be
reliant on the development of personal contacts by individual academics. It is therefore important for
initiatives for initiatives to acknowledge the temporal dimension associated with supporting the
development of university-industry links.
1.3.3.9
JAPAN
The need to strengthen the “knowledge-based economy” and is underlying R&D activities
has generated a fundamental policy goal of the Japanese Government. A particular focus of this
policy is on the role that can be played by universities.
The Japanese Government affirmed setting the objectives to a “Nation Based on the Creation
of Science and Technology” as the fundamental policy goal and this orientation has been
consolidated by the Science and Technology Basic Law (1995), which has given the government
legal competence in promoting the advancement of science and technology, and subsequent 5-Year
Science and Technology Basic Plans. It is worth noting that, behind this policy, lie hope that the
creation of spin-off and start-up companies as well as new industries induced by technology transfer
from universities and research institutes will finally defy the prolonged economic stagnation Japan
faced since 1990. Thus University-industry Linkages became a policy tool.
Japan in the post War World II period, faced successive waves of initiatives related to the
University-Industry Linkages.
As example in the confused aftermath of the bursting of bubble economy at the beginning of
1990, the basic law fot S&T of 1995 laid down the basic framework for Japan’s S&T policy for the
21st century (OMI 1996). The law and its first S&T basic plan of 1996 called for the promotion of
S&T as a whole, and of University-Industy Linkage in particular. The policy measures adopted
included the development of various legal frameworks to promote further UILs and a number of
policy programas propelled by these linkage, such as the “Japanese version of the TLO”, the
Japanese version of the Bayh Dole Act” and “the Japanese version of the SBIR”.
The second S&T Basic Plan (2001-2005) was built on the first Plan and on number of reports
on the promotion of UILs presented by various ministerial commissions. The cases of UILs in these
documents emphasised the need for transfer of university technologies to industrial use, patenting of
intellectual property of universities , and the commercialization of university research results. They
paved the way for policies to “strengthen industrial technology and create new industries.
1.3.3.10
CHINA
The promotion of the university based research is a national initiative spearheaded by the
Ministry of Education.
An important change has been the promotion of university based research and
commercialization, particularly by elite institution for which the central government provides more
funding, in programmes like “Climbing”, “863”, “ 985” and “211” focused on basic research and
aimed to turn China’s top universities into world-class research universities.
A series of aggressive programmes have been designed to attract talented returnees to China
from institutions overseas and reward outstanding scientists, such as the “Hundred Talent
Programmes” and the “Cheung Kong” Scholars programme.
Under China recent reforms, UILs are built through two broad categories of mechanisms
(Zhang 2003).
The first is technology transfer trhough licensing and other arrangements such as consulting,
joint or contract R&D and technical services. This resembles how universities in the west build
industry linkages.
The second mechanism is almost uniquely Chinese, is through university enterprises (broadly
defined) that are invested in and owned wholly by universities, operated and owned jointly with
other entities, or invested in partially by universities (Ma 2004, Zhang 2003).
In 2001, the State Economic and Trade Commission and the Ministry of Education jointly set
up the first group of state technology transfer centers in six universities to
promote the commercialization of of technological achievements. More
importantly, the MOE came out with a clear directive in 2002 that would
encourage the development of university enterprises, after some heated
debates on wether commercialization and industry linkages are a central
mission of universities. Now research and technological innovations are
seen, at least from the MOE point of view, as a key mechanism through
which universities contribute to national and local economies (Chinese
University Technology transfer October 2002. p 10). In addition to
commercialization, enterprises are seen as a way to provide supplemental
funding for university operation and absorb surplus personnel on campus
as public universities are not allowed to lay on them (Zhang 2003).
1.3.3.11
INDIA
The academia-industry linkages in India need to be analyzed in the context of a few larger
processes. Till recently, the private sector in India was not very research oriented partly because of
lack of competitive pressures and the bulk of the research was done in public institutions. Within
public institutions barring few exceptions, research has moved out of indian universities and other
academic institutions over the years. For many years, the public sector research institutions have
been the main centers of research activities and universities have largely become teaching
institutions. This pattern is changing in two ways. One, the private sector has started to engage in
research and the academic institutions have started to face financial difficulties which are partly
being alleviated through “sponsored” research. Lack of industry orientation among academic
institutions arelimited to R&D orientation constrained industry-academia linkages. Incubation and
new enterprise creation activities may also pick up as these processes mature.
At the policy level, one critical problem is the absence of angel and venture funding for the
start ups. Most of the so called VC activity in India is actually is “growth funding” and takes the
form of private equity. It may be useful tothink in terms ofliberalizing norms about insurance (and
pension) funds investing in VC firms. That has just started to happen but we have a long way to go.
Finally, research and industry and university is complementary and the success of academiaIndustry linkages lie in the exploitation of these complementarities.
Instruments that facilitate such exploitation should be the focus of policy action. The much
larger challenge, however, is to design appropriate work environments & compensation packages
that will attract talented young people to take up careers in academia. This will go a long way in
alleviating the constraints on availability of “research-inclined” faculty in academic institutions, a
prerequisite for formation of research based linkages.
1.3.3.12
SYNGAPORE
In common with other Newly Industrialized Economies (NIE) in Asia, Singapore is moving
towards a knowledge-based strategy for economic growth (Wong and Singh 2004).
Policy makers have charted a course for Singapore’s transition from an investment driven economy
to an innovation driven economy, emphasizing the building of intellectual capital and its
commercialization to create value and jobs. While the role of Singapore’s universities in nurturing
talent has always been recognized, in the current period of economic transformation, increasing
prominence has been given to their role in stimulating economic growth through industrially relevant
research, technology commercialization, high tech spin offs, attraction of foreign talents and
injecting an entrepreneurial mindset among her graduates.
The primary focus on Singapore’s national innovation system in this emerging knowledge
economy development phase is increasely focusing on the creation and commercialization of
knowledge protected by intellectual property (patented high tech innovations and trademark designs,
proprietary specialized knowledge assets and processes and copyrighted creative contents). A key
part of this shift is the development of entrepreneurial mindsets and capabilities towards knowledge
commercialization. In particular, this calls for a fundamental re-examination of the traditional
manpower development role of the university system in Singapore.
1.3.3.13
THAILAND
According to Mr Peter Brimble from the Asia Policy Research company Limited, the key reasons
why UIL do or do not succeed or reach their full potential appear to be the following:
 First, the move towards UILs must be backed up by the full commitment and involvement of
top management and representatives from all the stake-holders – with the roles for industry,
universities and government clearly defined. The ambiguity and lack of clarity from the
government in Thailand remains a major stumbling block. Creating UILs is as much a
political challenge as a technical and organisational one.
 Second, the persons assigned to manage the linkage programs, either in universities or the
public sector must have some experience with industry as well as a flair for dealing with the
private sector.
 Third, the linkage programs that are developed must be based on entrepreneurial foundations,
both of university staff and of private industry, with a well thought-out development plan. In
addition, from the university side, the programs should relate to the core functions and
resources and ideally involve elements of more than one activity; e.g. research with training,
training with consulting, or all the three activities.
 Lastly, the most important issue of TRUST. Universities and industry have different time
frames, different cultures, and different motivations. Their understanding of knowledge,
the knowledge generation process, and the knowledge utilization process differs greatly.
The challenge is to bridge the gap; to enhance the common understanding of what each
side has, what each side wants, and what each side needs. Linkage programmes, therefore,
should focus clearly both on building credibility with the private sector and acceptance
from the university side.
1.4
WHAT DO WE NEED?
1.4.1
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SOCIAL CAPITAL AS A CATALIYST FOR THE
GENERATION AND TRANSFERENCE OF KNOWLEDGE.
What state would not like to have the next Silicon Valley? Investing in technology centres is
relatively easy; creating a regional economic culture of trust, collaborative relationships and open
communication is a more elusive target.
Paul Star, Author of Regional Advantage
1.4.1.1
INTRODUCTION
Many European Commission financed projects have demonstrated that trust, based on the
establishment of relations of affection and the extension of the diverse forms of association,
contributes to reduce the transaction costs (costs of information, monitoring of contracts, conflict,
etc.). Those regions that present higher levels of trust are able to generate higher levels of
competitiveness and, consequently, to reach a higher level of socioeconomic development.
Star, Putnam, Harrison and other theoreticians of the social capital attribute to the success of
some regions and countries in terms of economic growth, to the existence of strong associative
networks, which provokes uses of cooperation, solidarity and preoccupation for the public affairs
(Putnam, 1993). These attitudes are the base of the resolution of collective problems.
1.4.1.1.1
The importance of cooperation for innovation.
This section deals with the importance of cooperation from the point of view of the
innovation systems theory and the role played by regional governments in the promotion of links
between Knowledge transfer agents. Mainly between firms and universities.
This paper aims to stress the importance of social capital and both formal and informal
networks of cooperation among the agents that take part in the processes of generation and
application of knowledge. In recent literature on innovation and as an instrument for R&D policies
there is an increasing interest in the cooperation among different actors (universities, public research
institutions, technology centres, firms) for innovation processes.
Cooperation in Knowledge Transfer is specially important for small
firms. The innovating capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs), particularly those in less developed regions, is closely linked to
cooperation with other firms (firms learn better from other firms, their
customers and other producers or suppliers) as well as cooperation with
the public sector and KT intermediary agents and infrastructures
(technology centres, universities, technical colleges, business services).
This capacity to cooperate, both inside and outside the firm, is what Cooke
and Morgan (1998) call the firm’s associational capacity The objective of
this paper is to analyze the cooperation relationships established among the
different KT agents (universities, technology centres and firms) in the
Basque Country. Special attention is paid to the role played by KT policies
in the creation, animation and coordination of KT agents.
1.4.1.1.2
Cooperation and regional innovation systems
The end of the Second World War saw the emergence of “patronage policies”, characterized
by an optimistic attitude towards the role of science in society due to the role played by scientists
during the war. It was considered that public support to science led to important social benefits, and
that it was the scientists themselves who must establish the priorities for scientific development
(Bush 1945, Dickson 1988, Elzinga and Jamison 1995).
Beneath those policies underlies a linear model: basic research automatically leads to applied
research and technological development, and to the development of new products and processes
In the sixties and seventies, this model begins to be questioned (among other reasons because of the
limited growth of budgets for scientific research) and scientists are compelled to generate knowledge
of a more applied nature, aiming at social and economic benefits. In the early eighties, in a context of
low or non existent growth of science budgets in many western countries, the emphasis is placed on
the role of science and technology in industrial competitiveness. The social accountability of science
becomes increasingly relevant, which results in a more generalized use of evaluation instruments,
complementing more traditional control instruments such as peer review. This second stage , which
we can call R&D policies, is characterized by the increasing relevance of economic/business agents
and culture (emphasis on the technological uses of sciences (Elzinga and Jamison 1995). The
emphasis shift towards the generation and diffusion of technology, within what we could call a linear
technological model (Caracostas and Muldur 1998)
More recently, the rationality that underlies these policies has evolved towards a more
complex model that aims to explain the interactions between basic science and innovation,
emphasizing the feedback and uncertainties that appear throughput the process. Special attention is
paid to the interconnections between actors and institutions. This academic approach soon begins to
leave an imprint on policies ad by the nineties an emphasis is placed on the creation of links among
the different agents and institutions as an objective of policies. This rationality has emerged hand in
hand with the growing relevance of regions as a level for public intervention in science, technology
and innovation policies.
This systemic model emphasizes the continuous interaction among the different actors and
elements throughout the whole innovation process, as well as the social (institutional, organizational,
cultural) factors that affect the processes of generation and use of innovation (Lundvall 1992,
Edquist 1997, Navarro, 2001)
This interactive character of innovation stresses the importance of cooperation within the
firms and between firms and institutions, and of the role played by the links and networks that
connect the different actors and organizations.
Innovation is defined as the use in economic activity of new knowledge or new combinations
of previously existing knowledge (Edquist 1997, p. 42).
Innovation systems implies a process of creation, dissemination and application of
knowledge, which can generically be called learning process (Boekema et al 2000), where different
types of knowledge (technological, managerial, market) are combined (Boekema et al 2000, Rutten
and Boekema 2004).
A great deal of this knowledge is of a tacit, procedural nature, and is linked to
group/organizational abilities, routines and practices.
Regional innovation systems foster these learning processes, as they create favourable
environments for cooperation among agents and facilitate the exchange of mainly tacit knowledge.
Regional innovation systems comprise a knowledge generation subsystem (university, technology
transfer agents, public research institutions) and a knowledge exploitation subsystem (firms) (Autio
1998). Regular, bidirectional relationships among the different agents must be established.
Information technologies facilitate and multiply relationships, but they cannot replace the
element of social interaction, communication and trust that is required in the processes of generation
and transfer of knowledge (especially tacit knowledge and organizational knowledge).
Regional innovation systems provide intangible resources and mutually beneficial
cooperation (Coleman 1988, Putnam 2002, 2003). When economic and political dealings are carried
out within networks of social interaction, incentives for opportunism and corruption are reduced.
Social interaction fosters norms of generalised reciprocity. Social capital facilitates the associative
action (Cooke and Morgan 1998) within the firms, in firms networks and between firms and their
institutional environment.
Social capital contributes towards innovation by reducing transactional costs between firms
and between firms and other agents, research and information costs, negotiation and decision costs,
and policy and execution costs (Maskell 2001). Mutual trust, reciprocity, shared values, networks
and norms accelerate information transference and the development of new knowledge.
The acquisition of knowledge by firms depends on the social capital accumulated within
regions through networks of interaction and learning, so the capacity to create and share knowledge
lies partly in formal and informal regional institutions (Landry, Amara and Lamari 2002).
Social capital can be defined as the sum of resources that a company has access to or can mobilize by
owing a lasting relationships network (Yli Renko, Autio and Tontti 2002).
By accelerating information transfer and the development of new knowledge, elements such as
trust, reciprocity, shared norms/ values and networks add value to firms and to relationships between
firms (McElroy, 2002). “Market failures” affecting knowledge exchange among firms can be
overcome if purely economic relationships are replaced by an agreement of reciprocal and stable
exchange based on an element of trust (Maskell 2001).
Nonaka and Takeuchi’s seminal work stressed the importance of internal social processes of
knowledge conversion. Even though the organization is constantly receiving knowledge from
outside, these authors emphasized the importance of internal processes of knowledge creation, as a
consequence of the interaction among individuals (and groups) and of the combination and
conversion of different types of knowledge (explicit-tacit, socialization, externalization,
combination, internalization). Special relevance is given to tacit knowledge, linked to action (ideas,
values, abilities, emotions). Knowledge leads to action, and implies the assimilation and location of
information allowing actions to be carried out (Howells 2002). Nonaka and Takeuchi’s work clearly
shows that, for processes of knowledge creation to take place, a social/organizational basis is
required, characterized by the formulation of collective intentions (strategy), autonomy of the actors,
open confrontation of ideas, trust, commitment, redundancy and internal plurality.
Technological knowledge is specific to the firm and the context and to a great extent tacit
(Antonelli and Quere 2002). Knowledge transference is a continuous process, so stable channels of
communication between the actors are required. For technology transference to take place, the
distance, both physical and symbolic, between transmitter and receiver must be covered. A new body
of knowledge does not replace the previous one, but becomes assimilated to it. Therefore, there must
exist a reciprocal knowledge of both the knowledge to be transferred and the knowledge each part
owns and shares (which will require a high degree of trust between the partners in order to overcome
situations of information and the risk of opportunism).
The production of new knowledge implies a process of combination of internal and external
knowledge, so the links to other firms and other actors are a means towards the creation of
knowledge (network knowledge). As pointed out by Rutten (Rutten 2000), network collaboration
implies trust. Since firms depend on one another to create knowledge and obtain a competitive
advantage, mutual trust between partners becomes particularly important. Market relations are not
suitable for knowledge exchange. A closer and more intense type of communication is required
between partners to transfer the content and context of knowledge, so that the receiver can actually
use the acquired knowledge. Successful collaboration for knowledge exchange requires a degree of
openness that cannot been achieved under conditions of opportunistic behaviour. Nevertheless, social
capital is also marked by negative externalities such as the risk of lock in (which falls into three
categories: cognitive, cultural and political). This problem is also known as the “weakness of strong
ties”, and becomes present when the agents are so involved in their own networks that they are
unable to keep abreast of new sources of information, new working methods and new learning
opportunities. In order to avoid these risks, some authors have pointed to the “strength of weak ties”
(Cooke, Gomez and Etxebarria 1997, Granovetter 1983) and to how non-local connections allow the
incorporation of new ideas into particular, local processes and contexts (Oinas 2000).
In addition to lock in situations and lack of external links, researchers point out two other
problems which regions that are weak in innovation must cope with: 1) ‘institutional thinness’,
namely low clustering levels and a weak presence of relevant institutions, and 2) fragmentation (lack
of interaction and networks between agents) (Todtling and Trippl 2005). In these regions the lack of
agglomeration and of location advantages for innovating firms is due to factors such as:
- Low interaction density, at individual and organizational levels
- Peripheral situation as regards centres of power and economic and political decision
- Presence of cultural and social marginalization
- Weak networks and social capital
- Lack of dynamic, innovating firms and institutions
- Weak access to and weak attraction of external knowledge and information flows
- Inflexibility of organizational and institutional structures, which impedes the capacity to
adequately evaluate, monitor, absorb and spread the innovation produced elsewhere
For these weak regions, the change of cultural and political habits and attitudes may be the most
difficult obstacle to overcome when trying to abandon their peripheral situation (Lagendijk 2000).
Some regional governments may not be ready for the tasks they must take on for this new
‘governance mode’. It has been pointed out that, in less developed regions, government structures
may suffer from:
1) Lack of credibility (reflected in the inability to create consensus and partnership
agreements with firms and other institutional actors),
2) Political instability (which weakens the efforts aimed to at implementing an innovation
policy that is medium- and long term by definition),
3) Absence of professional competition in the field of innovation (reflected in the fact that
those administrations tend to favour traditional regional instruments easier to manage than
more complex and more sophisticated policies such as innovation policies (Landabaso 2000,
Koschatzky 2005).
On the other hand, emphasis is placed on the role of governments encouraging or promoting
processes that generate consensus and formulate collective strategies among agents from different
fields and sectors. It has been stressed the shift from direct intervention (rule maker) towards a role
in which government stimulate, mediate, foster regional dialogue and generate social capital
(Todtling and Trippl 2005). Local governments then play a crucial role in the articulation of
innovation systems, promoting connections among actors and matching firms’ innovation needs with
R&D supply (Landabaso 2000).
R&D policies should not only be aimed at providing tangible resources (human resources,
research infrastructures) but should play an additional role in the improvement of intangible
resources, such as promoting an institutional framework that encourages inter-firm and publicprivate cooperation (Landabaso 2000). From an evolutionary standpoint, the main aim of such
policies is to stimulate the firms’ technological and innovating capacities, starting and accelerating
the learning process in firms and other R&D agents. A region’s innovating potential, then depends
not only on the available R&D resources but also on the density and quality of the cooperation
networks between regional actors (and on external links).
1.5
1.5.1
1.5.1.1
CONCLUSION. WHERE ARE WE GOING?
THE COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICES. A MODEL FOR GENERATING AND
TRANSMITING KNOWLEDGE FROM UNIVERSITY TO INDUSTRY.
INTRODUCTION
Although there is still a kind of confusion, about what it is and how to create it ,the generation
and transference of knowledge is not an option any more, it has been transformed into the only way
of surviving in this globalization era for most of the actual structures related to innovation systems
(firms and universities among others)..
One frequent and dangerous misunderstanding related to the generation and transference of
knowledge is the question about if this is just a new fashion.
The generation and transference of knowledge is a condition sine qua non for the survival of
any system but in specially for the Universities in the short future.
The present trend of collaboration University-enterprise for the generation and transference of
knowledge is neither a novelty nor a fashion. It is a need to update that has been accelerated and
increased in terms of speed and is still unpredictable where it will go. The changes of means to
which the systems must adapt, are every day greater and faster.
The changes no longer are short term changes, but true mutations, transformations of such
depth and amplitude that are altering drastically not only the productive and commercial logics
anywhere in the world, but also the ways of life and coexistence of the globe, affecting to the culture
and the fundamental institutions of many human societies.
1.5.1.1.1
The University-Company collaboration a must for leading in innovation
It is under this approach where the communities of practice, tuned with the organizational
social capital, can cause the interaction and the interchange of knowledge that results in the creation
of new forms to face the changes of the environments, creating modifications in the own structure of
the organization.
One of the greater limits to the generation and transference of knowledge is that it conceives
the human being like an essentially selfish being that acts only based on its own well-being, in
competition with the rest of the people. According to this theory people are more innovative when
they are under the pressure of the competition. Therefore, the companies and organizations trying to
be innovative must provoke an internal competitive contexts, understood like true "swap-meets", in
order that profit is reached.
The empirical evidence, nevertheless, does not guarantee this position. The studies of
innovating companies show, on the contrary, that without denying the space for the initiative and the
individual creativity, the innovation as a question of equipment it jeopardize with a common project
(communities of practice) or mission.
These communities allow the total manifestation of the human potentiality, next to their
social practices and attitudes that contain the free expression of emotional flowing of the people.
The cultural specificities of each community are of enormous importance and reinforce the necessity
of autonomy in the generation of spare part paradigms.
Our experience trying to work in the line expressed above and linked to the success and
problems described in above chapters, has driven us to develop an “experiment” that links the
University-Enterprise cooperation approach with the Social Capital investment and resulting in a
kind of community of Practice. The project has been denominated Center 3T (Centro 3T for the
Talent promotion through the Transfer of Knowledge).
1.5.1.2
THE 3T CENTER AS AN EXAMPLE OF A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
BETWEEN PEOPLE COMING FROM THE UNIVERSITY AND THE
ENTERPRISE
Finns don't always develop new technology, but they are very good at applying it. The strength of
Finland is its ability to create, network and rapidly apply new technologies. The only weakness in the
Finish ICT industry, is the lack of multisectoral cooperation. The challenge is now for companies to
cooperate between different business sectors. We need to create new horizontal business clusters. We
need to create a synergy between large EU programme platforms and regional small scale project
consortia for applied R&D
Mr Laaksonen, Director of Technology Industry in Finland
The listed statement above describes the aims, or to better say, one of the best references, at
least in the Basque Region of Spain, (Finland) for the Knowledge Transfer approach in the ICT
sector.
We can summarise those aims, related to the needs of the ICT-SME Spanish sectors, in the following
bullet points:
- Need for Spanish SMEs to apply advanced technologies resulting from R&D projects.
- Difficulty interlinking project results with the needs of SMEs
- SMEs are unaware of successful location, adaptation, use and exploitation methodologies for
products and services funded by public and private entities (IR&D developments).
In trying to analyse and overcome the above mentioned problems, and having defined the market,
three people pertaining to three different entities in the Basque Region in Spain coming from the
Industry, University and the Government joined efforts and enthusiasm and decided, as starting
point, just to exchange information of interest related to solve the above listed problems.
Once this stage (of exchange of information) was running swiftly they decided to go a bit further and
look for structuring their work by just start defining some projects of common interest
In their first stage of their work related to project generation they (the community) looked for
cooperation with some other people in the USA with whom they had good personal relationship and
common fields/interests.
After different exchange of informal e-mails among these people they decided to take a step
further and tried to structure the information they were sharing into a formal project
The project name was TRANSFER. The work was initiated in the year 2005 and was structured in
the following way
1.5.1.2.1
OPERATIVE PROCEDURE OF THE TRANSFER PROJECT
The TRANSFER project (Technological Alliance to promote the use of R&D&I results amongst
SMEs and other entities of interest) served to:
 Gather the results of the R&D&I developments of interest for the community.
 Promote the use of these developments by means of adaptations, the purchase of licences and
exploitation plans established by consensus with the proprietors.
 Develop a methodology for the sale of products / services initially based on three vectors:
o Exploitation of the results (economic, legal, IPR, etc) of projects of interest to certain
sectors (environment, car electronics, biotechnology, transport, sport technologies,
competitiveness,…)
o Sale of services to other administrations and SME for assistance in the use of
Technologies resulting from R&D&I projects
o The result shall give rise to a structure to promote the development and use of the
results of R&D&I amongst SMEs and other entities of interest
1.5.1.2.2

OBJECTIVES OF THE TRANSFER PROJECT
To embark on a series of actions required to create a network of excellence for technology
transfer, capable of taking advantage of both basic and applied R&D results from the
Spanish, the rest of Europe and the USA, in accordance with the Spanish and EU research
priorities.
 To facilitate operating capacity between technology transfer and research institutions (TTIs
and RIs) and SME business organisations located in the participating countries.
 To ensure greater convergence between the standpoints of the USA (as a world reference)
and Spain, in order to analyse different models of excellence (best practices) for transfer to
business sectors that are currently working in close collaboration with the USA, such as, for
example, the ICT-backed security industry.
 To study best transfer practices in the environment and ICT sector in the USA (mainly in
West Virginia, where the Government – University – SME industrial complex project is a
model of best practice well worth analysing) and to compare them with their Spanish
counterparts; to outline the profile of ‘Best in their Field’ organisations within this sector and
establish the correct mechanisms for the future development of collaborating transfer groups
between the two regions.
In order to analyse the needs of Spanish business as accurately as possible, we have based our
work on the key technology method developed in the USA during the 1980s.
The main pillar of the project rests on the comprehensive planning of diverse activities, such
as the development of a map of excellence for collaboration between the USA and the Basque
Country in the environment and ICT sector, the consolidation of a business-institutional framework
and the operating activities required to facilitate day-to-day cooperation between the Basque Country
and West Virginia in the Environment and ICT sector, including activities designed to aid the set up
of a Technology transfer centre for SMEs in the Environment and ICT sector, focusing on
studies, products and services of interest to Spanish entities and, in general terms, the establishment
of the conditions required to ensure that the cooperation between the Spanish and the USA, through
the work carried out by entities based in West Virginia, is characterised by normal, fluent business
relations within the Environment and ICT sector, rather than being something extraordinary
characterised by the difficulties involved.
1.5.1.2.3

The principal direct objectives of the project were:
To develop a map of excellence (transfer entities and licenses to be transferred) for
collaboration between the USA and Spain, in accordance with the strategic
objectives of the EU’s 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development.
The TRANSFER project will strive to identify ‘excellence’ in research, in accordance with its
structuring within the current Strategic Objectives of the European programme.
Measurable / Verifiable indicators: Profiles of around 50 projects in the field of
environment and ICTs, developed by entities in West Virginia with an outstanding track record in the
aforementioned areas.
One of the objectives was to set up a web portal to serve as an instrument for enabling the
Basque and American research communities to identify the best results produced by R&D
programmes / projects carried out in both regions (bearing European programmes in mind also).
 To raise awareness regarding the need for cooperation between the research /
business communities of Spain and the USA, within the framework of State and
European programmes, by boosting collaboration between public and private sector
entities with the aim of establishing technological research priorities and subsequently
identifying specific areas of cooperation: cooperation will only be effective if there is
clear information regarding the possibilities offered by the various programmes, and if
this information is disseminated around the Spanish/European and North American
research communities working in the study’s specific field. To this end, a number of
specific actions have been planned aimed at raising awareness, based on the USA focus
points of excellence identified by the map. During the course of the project, special
attention will be paid to combining ‘operative information’ aimed at the research
community with the creation and consolidation (by consensus) of objectives within the
North American scientific and institutional framework. The project needs to exert its
influence in those entities which play a key role in the establishment of strategies and
policies in the USA, in order to ensure a closer synchronisation between European
objectives (and European policies) and North American objectives, and to facilitate the
creation of a Transfer Centre in both Spain and the USA (see point 3 below). For this
reason, the project will involve partners from top-level entities in the USA, in order to
ensure more efficient operation in the political framework which will have to support
cooperation between Spain and the USA over the coming years.
Obtained results: a community of researchers trained to engage in specific research
projects with Spanish university and business partners, and support for structuring an
institutional environment in Spain and the USA that is conducive to greater cooperation
with Spain in the field of research.
 To set up the first Transfer Centre for SMEs in the Basque Country (Spain), with its
counterpart in the USA: the West Virginia High Technology Foundation Consortium
(SVHTCF) (USA) has already expressed their interest in participating in the project and
taking on the role of Transfer Centre in the USA, in close collaboration with the
University of Deusto and the Bixkaia Xede organisation (Biscay county government
linked), as a strategic move designed to increase the competitiveness of the American
environment and ICT industry in collaboration with Europe, especially with regard to
small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as to strengthen ties with research
communities in both the USA and Spain.
All the above listed objectives were obtained and the project is running successfully.
As a last reflection I’d like to point out that this project is running without concrete funding
addressed specifically to it but investing on trust (social capital) and interest in working together
based on an structure similar to what it is understood as a community of practice.
REFERENCES
FUMIO KODAMA, SHINGO KANO, JUN SUZUKI (2006): “Beyond Absorptive capacity: MOT
Approach for Proactive Corporate Strategy on UIES
PETER BRIMBLE (2006): “Specific Approachs towards UILs of Selected Companies in Thailankd
and Relative Effectiveness”
JEAN JAQUES DUBY (2006): “Corporate Strategies in University-Industry Linkages in France”.
PHILIPPE MUSTAR (2006): “Public Policies to Foster the Creation of Research Based Spin off
firms in France”
DAVID B. AUDRESTCH (2006): “Does Entrepreneurial Economy Need and Entrepreneurial
University?”
MIKE WRIGHT (2006): “University-Industry Linkages: Regional Policies and Initiatives in the UK
DAVID A. WOLFE (2006): “Community Participation in Local Economic Development Strategy:
the Ontario Case”
DAVID C. MOWERY (2006): University-Industry Research Collaboration and Technology Transfer
in the USA since 1980”
POH-KAM WONG (2006): “Approaches to University-Industry Linkages: The case of the National
University of Singapore”.
WEIPING WU (2006): “CULTIVATING Research Universities and Industrial Linkages: The case
of China
DOMINIQUE FORAY (2006): “University-Industry Knowledge transfer: Switzerland”
SOETE LUC (2006): “ Notes on UIL related polices of national governments”
JUAN JIANG, YUKO HARAYAMA, SHIRO ABE (2006): University Industry Linkages in the
Japanese Context: Between Policies and Practice”
HUGHES ALAN (2006): “University Industry Linkages and UK Science and Innovation Policy”
BASANT RAKESH (2006): “University-Industry Linkages and enterprise creation of India: Some
strategic policy issues
ANTONELLI, C. and QUERE, M. (2002): "The governance of interactive learning within
innovation systems” Urban Studies. 39(5-6): 1051-1063
ARCHIBUGI, D., HOWELLS, J. and MICHIE, J. (2001): “Innovation Systems and policy in a
global economy”.
ARCHIBUGI, D.HOWELLS, J. and MICHIE, J: Innovation Policy in a Global Economy.
Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-16
ASHEIM, B.T. and ISAKSEN, A (1999): “Regional Innovation Systems: the integration of local
“sticky” and global “ubiquitous” knowledge”. Regional Innovation Systems in Europe.
NECSTS/RICTES. Conference Proceedings
AUTIO, E. (1998): "Evaluation of RTD in Regional Systems of Innovation". European Planning
Studies. 6(2): 1998
BOEKEMA, F., MORGAN, K., BAKKERS, S. and RUTTEN, R. (2000): "Introduction to learning
regions: a new issue for analysis" BOEKEMA, K.; MORGAN,
K.; BAKKERS, S. and RUTTEN, R. (2000) (Eds.): Knowledge, innovation and economic growth.
The theory and practice of learning regions. Edwar Elgar, Cheltenham. pp. 95-114
BRAZCYK, H. J., COOKE, P. and HEIDENREICH, M. (Eds.) (1998): Regional Innovation
Systems: The Role of Governances in a Globalized World”. University College London Press,
London
BUSH, V. (1945): Science – The Endless Frontier. NSF, 1960. Washington DC
CARACOSTAS, P. and MULDUR, U. (1998): Society, The endless frontier. A European vision of
research and innovation policies for the 21st century. European Commission, DG XII, Brussels.
CASTELLS, M. (1996): The information age: economy, society, and culture. Blackwell Publ.
Massachusetts.
COLEMAN, J. S. (1988): “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital”. American Journal of
Sociology. 94: 95-120
COOKE, P. (2001): “Sistemas de innovación regional: conceptos, análisis y tipología”.
OLAZARAN, M. and GÓMEZ URANGA, M. (Eds.) Sistemas regionales de innovación. Servicio
Editorial de la UPV-EHU, Bilbao, pp. 73-91.
COOKE, P. and MORGAN, K. (1998): The associational economy. Firms, regions, and Innovation.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
COOKE, P., GOMEZ, M. and ETXEBARRIA, G. (1997): “Regional Innovation Systems:
Institutional and Organizational Dimensions”. Research Policy. 26(4-5):475- 491
DICKSON, D. (1988): The New Politics of Science. University of Chicago Press. Chicago (1st
edition 1984).
EDQUIST, C. (Ed.) (1997): Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations.
Frances Pinter, London
ELZINGA, A. and JAMISON, A. (1995): “Changing policy agendas in science and technology.
JASANOFF, S., MARKLE, G.E., PETERSEN, J.C. and PINCH, T. (Eds.), Handbook of Science
and Technology Studies, pp. 572-597. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, California.
FREEMAN, C. (1987): Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan. Pinter.
London
GRANOVETTER, M. (1983): “The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited”. Sociological
Theory. 1: 201-233
HOWELLS, J. R. L. (2002): "Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography" Urban Studies.
39(5-6): 871-884 21
KOSCHATZKY, K. (2005): "Foresight as a governance concept at the interface between global
challenges and regional innovation potentials" European Planning Studies .13(4): 619-639
KOSCHATZKY, K. and STERNBERG, R. (2000): “R&D Cooperation in Innovation Systems.
Some lessons from the European Regional Innovation Survey (ERIS)”. European Planning
Studies. 8(4): 487-501
LAGENDIJK, A. (2000): "Learning in non-core regions: towards 'intelligent clusters': addressing
business and regional needs". BOEKEMA, K.; MORGAN, K.; BAKKERS,
S. and RUTTEN, R. (2000) (Eds.) : Op. cit.. pp. 165-191
LANDABASO, M. (2000): "Innovation and regional development policy".
BOEKEMA, K.; MORGAN, K.; BAKKERS, S. and RUTTEN, R. (2000) (Eds.) : Op cit.. pp. 73-94
LANDRY, R.; AMARA, N. and LAMARI, M. (2002): “Does social capital determine innovation?
To what extent?. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 69: 681-701
LUNDVALL, B. A. and BORRÁS, S. (1998): The Globalising Learning Economy: Implications
forInnovation Policy. European Commission, D.G. XII, Bruselas, 1998.
LUNDVALL, B.A. (Ed.) (1992): National Systems of Innovation. Towards a theory of innovation
and interactive learning. Pinter, London
MASKELL, P. (2001): “Social capital, innovation and competitiveness”. BARON, S.;
FIELD, J.andSCHULLER, T. (Eds.) Social Capital: Critical perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Oxford
McELROY, M. W. (2002): “Social innovation capital”. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 3(1): 30-39
NAVARRO, M. (2001): Los sistemas nacionales de innovación. Una revisión de la literatura.
Instituto de Análisis Industrial y Financiero, Universidad Complutense.Documento de trabajo nº
26. Madrid
OTERO, B (2006). “National Innovation Sysems”
NAVARRO, M. and ZUBIAURRE, A. (2003): “Los centros tecnológicos y el sistema regional de la
innovación. El caso del País Vasco”. Documento de Trabajo nº 38
NELSON R. R. (Ed) (1993): National Innovation Systems. A comparative analysis. Oxford
University Press. Oxford.
NONAKA, I. and TAKEUCHI, I. (1995): The knowledge creating company. Oxford University
Press. Oxford. 22
OINAS, P. (2000): "Distance and learning: does proximity matter?" BOEKEMA, K.;
MORGAN, K.; BAKKERS, S.andRUTTEN, R. (2000) (Eds.): Op. cit.. pp. 57-69
OLAZARAN, M. and GOMEZ URANGA, M. (2001), (Eds.) Sistemas regionales de innovación.
Servicio Editorial de la UPV-EHU. Bilbao
OLAZARAN, M., LAVIA, C. and OTERO, B. (2004), “¿Hacia una segunda transición en la
ciencia?. Política científica y grupos de investigación.”. Revista Española de Sociología. 4: 143172.
OLAZARAN, M.; LAVIA, C. and OTERO, B. (2005): "Cooperación, conocimiento e innovación:
políticas y agentes regionales de I+D". Capital social y economía, Ekonomiaz. 59(2º
cuatrimestre): 204-231
PORTER, M. (1990): The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press. New York
PUTNAM, R. D. (Ed.) (2003): El declive del capital social. Un estudio internacional sobre las
sociedades y el sentido comunitario. Galaxia Guttenberg: Circulo de Lectores, Barcelona
PUTNAM, R.D. (2002): Solo en la bolera. Galaxia Guttenberg: Circulo de Lectores, Barcelona
RUTTEN, R. (2000): " Innovation in regional supplier networks: the case of KIC".
BOEKEMA, K.; MORGAN, K.; BAKKERS, S.and RUTTEN, R. (2000) (Eds.) : Op cit.. pp. 217241
RUTTEN, R. and BOEKEMA, F. (2004): "The spatial dimensions of inter-firm learning: case study
and conceptualization”. COOKE, P. and PICCALUGA, A. (2004) (Eds.): Regional Economies as
knowledge laboratories. Edward Elgar, Chentelham. pp. 181-196
SPRI (2005): “Competitividad Empresarial e Innovación Social: Bases de la Estrategia y Líneas de
Actuación. Foro de Competitividad EUSKADI 2015”.
STORPER, M. (1997): The Regional World. Territorial Development in a Global Economy. The
Guildford Press, New York
TODTLING, F. and TRIPPL, M. (2005): "One size fits all? Towards a differenciated regional
innovation policy approach?". Research Policy. 34: 1203-1219
YLI-RENKO, H.; AUTIO, E. and TONTTI, V. (2002): “Social capital, knowledge and the
international growth of technology-based new firms”. International Busines Review.11: 279-304
23
ZUBIAURRE, A. (2002): “Cooperación entre empresas y centros tecnológicos en la política
tecnológica vasca”. Economía Industria.l 346: 115-126