Theorical concept and Critical success factors Of science – industry Relationships

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHeijs, Joost
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-20T16:38:06Z
dc.date.available2023-06-20T16:38:06Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.description.abstractIn the last twenty years the call for “value for money” in research policy is increasing. Nowadays –especially in the context of the economic crisis- during the decision making process about public investments in scientific research the economic utility and “commercial results” are an important factor. Therefore Science Industrial Relationships (SIRE) play an important and growing role. This paper offers an analysis of the concept and importance of such relationships followed by a review of their critical success factors. Chapter 2 offers an approximation about the role of science in economic development; the importance of the science industrial relationships; taxonomy to classify the SIREs and the importance and usefulness of those mechanisms. Chapters 3 to 7 analyse the barriers and the critical success factors for technology transfer and science-industry relationships in relation with the broad contextual framework conditions of the economic structure and with the characteristics of the Innovation system.
dc.description.abstractEn los últimos veinte años, la convocatoria de "valor por dinero" en la política de investigación es cada vez mayor. Hoy en día el proceso de tomar de decisiones sobre las inversiones públicas en investigación científica sobre la utilidad económica y los "resultados comerciales" son factores importantes. Por lo tanto, las Relaciones Ciencia Industria (SIRE en inglés) juegan un papel importante y creciente. Este artículo ofrece un análisis del concepto y la importancia de este tipo de relaciones seguidas de una revisión de los factores críticos de éxito. El capítulo 2 ofrece una aproximación sobre el papel de la ciencia en el desarrollo económico, la importancia de la relación entre ciencia e industria, la taxonomía para clasificar a los SIRES y la importancia y utilidad de estos mecanismos. Del capítulo 3 al 7 se analizan las barreras y los factores críticos de éxito para la transferencia de tecnología y las relaciones entre ciencia e industria en relación con las condiciones generales del marco contextual de la estructura económica y con las características del sistema de innovación.
dc.description.facultyFac. de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales
dc.description.facultyInstituto de Análisis Industrial y Financiero (IAIF)
dc.description.refereedFALSE
dc.description.statusunpub
dc.eprint.idhttps://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/33237
dc.identifier.citationAcosta, J. (1996) Análisis Económico de la Política Tecnológica: Una Aproximación Econométrica a los Proyectos Concertados del Plan Nacional de I+D. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Laguna. Acosta, J. y Modrego, A. (2001), “Public Financing of Cooperative R&D Projects in Spain: The Concerted Projects under the National R&D Plan”. Research Policy, Vol. 30, p. 625-641. Acs, Z., D. Audretsch, and M. Feldman. 1994. R&D spillovers and recipient firm size. The Review of Economics and Statistics 76, no. 2: 336-40. Adams & Chiang & Jensen, (2003). The Influence of Federal Laboratory R&D on Industrial Research, The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 85(4), pages 1003-1020. Ahmad Seyf (2000) On the Importance of Knowledge- Augmenting research: An Empirical Investigation. Working paper of the Business School of the Staffordshire University Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: A systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Evaluation, 131, 3–17. Arnold, E. (2007) Erik Arnold, Neil Brown, Annelie Ericsson, Tommy Jansson, Alessandro Muscio, Johanna Nählinder and Rapela Zaman, The Role of Research Institutes in the National Innovation System, VA 2007:12, Stockholm: VINNOVA, 2007. Arnold, E., and B. Thuriaux. 1997. Developing Firms` Technological Capabilities. OECD Report, Brighton, Technopolis. Arnold, E., Rush, H., Bessan, J., Hobday, M. (1998): Strategic planning in Research and Technology Institutes. R&D Management 28(2), 89-100. Arvanitis, S., Sydow, N., Woerter (2008): Is there any Impact of University–Industry Knowledge Transfer on Innovation and Productivity? An Empirical Analysis Based on Swiss Firm Data. Review of Industrial Organization 32(2), 77-94. Aschhoff, B., Schmidt, T. (2009). Empirical Evidence on the Success of R&D Cooperation—Happy Together? Review of Industrial Organization 33(1), 41-62. Azzone, G., Maccarrone, P., 1997. The emerging role of lean infrastructures in technology transfer: the case of the Innovation Plaza project. Technovation 17 _7., 391–402. Barge-Gil, A. (2009). Cooperation-based innovators and peripheral co-operators: An empirical analysis of their characteristics and behaviour. Paper presented at DRUID Conference, June, in Copenhagen, Denmark. http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewabstract.php?id=5659&cf=32. Accessed May 18, 2009. Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego-Rico, A. (2008). Are technology institutes a satisfactory tool for public intervention in the area of technology? A neoclassical and evolutionary evaluation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(4), 808–823. Barge-Gil, A., Modrego, A. (2011): The impact of research organizations on firm competitiveness. Measurement and determinants. Journal of Technology Transfer. In press. Barge-Gil, A., Santamaría, L. Modrego, A. (2011): Complementarities between universities and technology institutes: New empirical lessons and perspectives. European Planning Studies. Forthcoming. Barrio-Castro del, T., and J. García-Quevedo. 2005. Effects of university research on the geography of innovation. Regional Studies 39, no 9: 1217-29. Bayona, C., García-Marco, T., & Huerta, E. (2001). Firms´ motivations for cooperative R&D: an empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Research Policy, 30, 1289-1307. Becker, W., & Dietz, J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms - evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, 33, 209-223. Beise, M., and H. Stahl. 1999. Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy 28: 397-422. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B. (2004): Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy 33, 1477-1492. Belderbos, R., M. Carree, B. Diederen, B. Lokshin, and R. Veugelers. 2004. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organisation 22: 1237-63. Bennet, R., Robson, P. (2004): Support services for SMEs: does the ´franchisee` make a difference to the Business Link offer? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 22(6), 859-880. Bennet, R.; & Robson, P. (1999). Intensity of interaction in supply of business advice and client impact: a comparison of consultancy, business associations and government support initiatives for SMEs. British Journal of Management, 10, 351-369. Beugelsdijk Sjoerd (2007) Entrepreneurial culture, regional innovativeness and economic growth Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Volume 17, Number 2. Boekholt, P., Lankhuizen, M., Arnold, E., Clarke, J., Kuusisto, J., de Laat, B., et al. (2001). An international review of methods to measure relative effectiveness of technology policy instruments. Final Report. Technopolis. http://www.technopolis-group.com/resources/downloads/reports/261_EZ_Final_010723. pdf. Accessed 21 November 2007. Bozeman, B. (1999). Commercialization of federal laboratory technology. Results of a study of industry partners. In R. P. Oakey (Ed.), New technology-based firms in the 1990s (Vol. 3, pp. 127–139). London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655. Branscomb, Lewis M; Fumio Kodama and Richard Florida (1999) Industrializing Knowledge. University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States. Breschi, S., and F. Lissoni. 2001. Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change 10, no 4: 975-1005. Brown, M. A., Berry, L. G., & Goel, R. K. (1991). Guidelines for successfully transferring government sponsored innovations. Research Policy, 20, 121–143. Bryson, J., Daniels, P (1998): Business Links, strong ties, and the walls of silence: small and medium-sized enterprise and external business-service expertise. Environment and Public Policy C: Government and Policy 16(3), 265-280. Bush V. (1960) Science and the Endless and Frontier. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 1945. reprinted 1960. Campos, A.L. (2010) A demand side perspective on multinational corporations, university industry linkages: the case of Unilever. SPRU Electronic Working paper, Number 186. Cassimann, B., and R. Veugelers, R. 2002. R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review 92, no 4: 1169-84. Cooke, P. and K. Morgan, “The Regional Innovation System in Baden-Württemberg”. International Journal of Technology Management: Special Issue on Technology Growth and HR, 1994, 394. Cooke, P.; Morgan, K. (1993) The Network Paradigm; New Departures in Corporate and Regional Development. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 11, P. 543-564. Cooke, P.; Morgan, K. (1994) The Creative Milieu: a Regional Perspective on Innovation. Cozzarin, B. (2008). Data and the measurement of R&D program impacts. Evaluation and Program Planning, 31, 284–298. Dasgupta, P. and P.A. David, 1994, Towards a new economics of science, Research Policy, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 487-521. DEST, (2002); DEST Report: Best Practice Processes for University Research & Commercialisation, 2002. EC, (2005): Research and Technology Organisations (RTOs) and ERA, DG Research, European Commission, 2005. Feldman, M. 1994. The geography of innovation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Feller, I., C. Ailes, and D. Roessner. 2002. Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from engineering research centres. Research Policy 26: 317-30. Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research Policy, 35, 309-323. Frenz, M., Ietto-Gilles, G. (2009). The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge: Evidence from the UK Community Innovation Survey. Research Policy 38, 1125-1135. Fritsch, M. Lukas, R. (2001): Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy 30, 297-312. Fritsch, M., and R. Lukas. 2001. Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy 30: 297-312. Fromhold-Eisebith, M., & Schartinger, D. (2002). Universities as agents in regional innovation systems. Evaluating patterns of knowledge-intensive collaboration in Austria. In Z. Acs, H. de Groot, & P. Nijkamp (Eds.), The emergence of the knowledge economy (pp. 173–194). New York: Springer. Fuellhart, K., and A. Glasmeier. 2003. Acquisition, assessment and use of business information by small-and medium-sized businesses: a demand perspective. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 15: 229-52. Fukugawa, N. (2005): Characteristics of knowledge interactions between universities and small firms in Japan. International Small Business Journal 23(4), 379-401. Galli, R., and M. Teubal, M. 1997. Paradigmatic shifts in National Innovation Systems. In Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, ed Edquist, C., 342-70. London: Pinter Publishers. Gallouj, C. (1997). Asymmetry of information and the service relationship: Selection and evaluation of the service provider. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(1), 42–64. Geisler, E. (2001). Explaining the generation and performance of intersector technology cooperation. A survey of the literature. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(2), 195–206. Geisler, E. 1997. Intersector technology cooperation: hard myths, soft facts. Technovation 17, no 6: 309-20. Hagendoorn, J (1995) Strategic Technology Partnering during the 1980´S. Trends, Networks, and Corporate Patterns in Non-Core Technologies. Research Policy, Vol. 24. Hagendoorn, J.; Narula, R. (1996) Choosing organisational modes of strategic technology partnering: interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14. Hall, B.H., Link, A.N. and Scott, J.T. (2003). Universities as research partners. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 485-491. Ham, R. M., & Mowery, D. (1998). Improving the effectiveness of public-private R&D collaborations: Case studies at a US weapons laboratory. Research Policy, 26, 661–675. Hauser, 2009 The Current and Future Role of Technology and Innovation Centres in the UK. Heijs, J. (2001). Evaluación de la política tecnológica: teoría y práctica. Editado por el Consejo Económico y Social de España, 280 páginas, ISBN 84-8188-154-6. Heijs, J.; (2010) Política tecnológica, aprendizaje y capacidad de absorción de conocimientos: los circulos viciosos y virtuosos. Parte III en M.Davide Parrilla: Innovación y aprendizaje: lecciones para el diseño de políticas. Editorial; Instituto Vasco de Competitividad, San Sebastian. ISBN: 978-84-693-3526-0, 438 pages. Howard Rush, Michael Hobday, John Bessant, Erik Arnold and Robin Murray (1995) , Technology Institutes: Strategies for Best Practice, London: International Thomson Business Press, 1996. IESE (1995) Evaluación de la Acción de los Proyectos Concertados del Plan Nacional de I+D. Izushi, H. (2002): The "voice" approach of trade associations: support for SMEs accessing a research institute. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 20(3), 439-454. Izushi, H. (2005): Creation of relational assets through the ´library of equipment models: an industrial modernization approach of Japan`s local technology centres. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 17(3), 183-204. Izushi, H. 2003. Impact of the length of relationships upon the use of research institutes by SMEs. Research Policy 32: 771-88. Jaffe, A. (2008): The “Science of Science Policy”: reflection on the important questions and the challenges they present. Journal of Technology Transfer 33, 131-139. Julien, P. A. (2007). A Theory of Local Entrepreneurship in the Knowledge Economy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Kaiser, U. (2002): An empirical test of models explaining research expenditures and research cooperation: evidence for the German service sector. International Journal of Industrial Organisation 20, 747-774. Katsoulacos, Y. (1994) European Community R&D support: Effects on the cooperative behaviour of firms European Commission. Kulicke, M; Bross, U.; Gundrum, U. (1997) Innovationsdarlehen Als Instrument Zur Förderung Kleiner und Mittlerer Unternehmen. ISI-Fraunhofer. Kulicke, M; Bross, U.; Gundrum, U. (1997) Innovationsdarlehen Als Instrument Zur Förderung Kleiner und Mittlerer Unternehmen. ISI-Fraunhofer. Lambrecht, J., & Pirnay, F. (2005), An evaluation of public support measures for private external consultancies to SMEs in the Walloon Region of Belgium. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 17, 89-108. Lambrecht, J., & Pirnay, F. (2005). An evaluation of public support measures for private external consultancies to SMEs in the Walloon Region of Belgium. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 17, 89–108. Lambrecht, J., and F. Pirnay. 2005. An evaluation of public support measures for private external consultancies to SMEs in the Walloon region of Belgium. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 17: 89-108. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33, 1201-1215. Leitner, K. 2005. Managing and reporting intangible assets in research technology organisations. R&D Management 35, no 2: 125-36. Lopez, X; 2007. Technology centres: a strategic R&D&I partner for companies. Louis, K.S., D. Blumenthal, M.E. Gluck and M.A. Stoto, 1989, Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 110-131. Luukkonen, T. (2000). Additionality of EU framework programmes. Research Policy, 29, 711–724. MacPherson, A., and M. Ziolkowski. 2005. The role of university-based industrial extension services in the business performance of small manufacturing firms: case-study evidence from Western New York. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 17: 431-47. Mas-Verdú, F. 2007. Services and innovation systems: European models of Technology Centres. Service Business 1: 7-23. Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32, 1481-1499. Miotti, L., and F. Sachwald, F. 2003. Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy 32: 1481-99. Modrego, A., Barge-Gil, A., Núñez, R., 2005, “Developing indicators to measure Technology Institutes` performance”, Research Evaluation 14(2) 177-184. Mohnen, P., Hoareau, C. (2003): What type of enterprises forge close links with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS2. Managerial and Decision Economics 24(2/3), 133-145. Molas-Gallart, J., A. Salter, P. Patel, A. Scott, and X. Duran. 2002. Measuring Third Stream activities. Final Report to the Russell Group of Universities. SPRU, University of Sussex. Mole, K., Bramley, G. (2006): Making policy choices in nonfinancial business support: an international comparison. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24, 885-908. Mole, K., Hart, M., Roper, S., & Saal, D. (2008). Differential gains from Business Link support and advice a treatment effects approach. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 315-334. Mowery D. (1983) Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: the role of national innovation systems; Metcalfe In: Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. Stoneman P, editor. Oxford: Blackwell; 1995. pp. 409–512. (49, 50). Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?Nathan Rosenberg. Mowery, D. (1999). Collaborative R&D. How effective is it? Issues in Science and Technology, Fall, 3, 7–44. Mytelka, L. K. (1991) Strategic Partnerships and the World Economy. Pinter Publishers. Myrdal, R. (1957) Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions (La teoría económica y los países subdesarrollados), 1957. Narin, F., K. Hamilton, and D. Olivastro. 1997. The increasing linkage between U.S. Technology and public science. Research Policy 26: 317-30. Nelson, R. 1986. Institutions supporting technical advance in industry. American Economic Review 76, no 2: 186-9. O’Farrell, P., & Moffat, L. (1995). Business services and their impact upon client performance. An exploratory interregional analysis. Regional Studies, 292, 111–124. OECD (2001) Perspectives de la science, de la technologie et de l’industrie. Les moteurs de la croissance: technologies de l’information, innovation et entreprenariat, París. Okamuro, H. (2007). Determinants of successful R&D cooperation in Japanese small business: The impact of organizational and contractual characteristics. Research Policy, 36, 1529-1544. PREST (2002), A Comparative Analysis of Public, Semi-Public and Recently Privatised Research Centres, Manchester University: PREST, 2002. PREST, ( 2008) COWI, Co-ordination and co-operation – non-university Research Performing Organisations, Lyngby: COWI, 2008. Revilla, E., Sarkis, J., & Modrego, A. (2003). Evaluating performance of public-private research collaborations. A DEA analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 165–174. Robson, P., Bennet, R. (2000): The use and impact of business advice by SMEs in Britain: an empirical assessment using logit and ordered logit models. Applied Economics 32, 1675-1688. Roessner, D. (2002). Outcome measurement in the USA: State of the art. Research Evaluation, 11(2), 85–93. Rolfo, S., and G. Calabrese. 2003. Traditional SMEs and innovation: the role of the industrial policy in Italy. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 15 no 3: 253-71. Rossi, P.; Freeman, H. (1989) Evaluation, a Systematic Approach. Sánchez, P. 1999. Política tecnológica para sectores tradicionales. Papeles de Economía Española 81: 242-59. Segarra-Blasco, A., Arauzo-Carod (2008): Sources of innovation and industry-university interaction. Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy 37, 1283-1295. Shaphira, D. Roessner, and R. Barke. 1995. New public infrastructures for small firm industrial modernization in USA. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 7:63-84. Shapira, P. (2001): US manufacturing extension partnerships: technology policy reinvented? Research Policy 30, 977-992. Shapira, P., Youtie, J., Roessner, J.D., 1996, "Current practices in the evaluation of US industrial modernization programs", Research Policy, 25 185-214. Sharp, M.; Shearman, C. (1987) European Technological Collaboration. Chatham House Paper, 36. Smallbone, D., D. North, and R. Leigh. 1993. The use of external assistance by mature SMEs in the UK: some policy implications. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 5: 279-95. Smallbone, D., D. North, and R. Leigh. 1993. The use of external assistance by mature SMEs in the UK: some policy implications. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 5: 279-95. Spiesberger, M. (2009). Governance and Benchmarking of RTOs. Contribution of RTD to Developing Sustainable Knowledge-Based Economies in Central and South East Europe. 22-23 May 2009, Dubrovnik Steensma, 1996. Tether, B. (2002). Who cooperates for innovation, and why. An empirical analysis. Research Policy 31, 947-967. Teubal, M. 1997. A catalytic and evolutionary approach to horizontal technology policies (HTPs). Research Policy 25: 1161-88. Thursby, J.G. and M.C. Thursby, 2000, Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing, NBER Working Paper 7718. Tyler/Steensma, 1995: Theory of Transaction Cost or Resource-Based Theory van Helleputte, J., & Reid, A. (2004). Tackling the paradox: Can attaining global research excellence be compatible with local technology development? R&D Management, 341, 33–44. Williams, D., & Rank, D. (1998). Measuring the economic benefits of research and development: The current state of the art. Research Evaluation, 71, 17–30. Winter, S. (1984) Schumpeterian Competition in Alternative Technological Regimes. Journal of Economic Behaviour and organization (September).
dc.identifier.relatedurlhttps://www.ucm.es/iaif/documentos-en-texto-completo-del-instituto
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/56493
dc.issue.number70
dc.language.isospa
dc.page.total74
dc.relation.ispartofseriesDocumentos de Trabajo del Instituto de Análisis Industrial y Financiero (IAIF)
dc.rights.accessRightsopen access
dc.subject.keywordValue for money
dc.subject.keywordScience industrial relationships
dc.subject.keywordCritical success factor
dc.subject.keywordBarriers
dc.subject.keywordInnovation system.
dc.subject.keywordValor por dinero
dc.subject.keywordRelaciones ciencia-industria
dc.subject.keywordFactores criticos de exito
dc.subject.keywordBarreras
dc.subject.keywordSistema de innovación.
dc.subject.ucmAdministración de empresas
dc.subject.ucmComercio
dc.subject.ucmCooperación económica
dc.subject.ucmDesarrollo económico
dc.subject.ucmEconomía internacional
dc.subject.ucmEmpresas
dc.subject.ucmIntegración económica
dc.subject.ucmTrabajo
dc.subject.ucmEconomía industrial
dc.subject.unesco5311 Organización y Dirección de Empresas
dc.subject.unesco5304.03 Comercio exterior
dc.subject.unesco5307.03 Modelos y Teorías del desarrollo Económico
dc.subject.unesco5307.04 Estudios del desarrollo Económico
dc.subject.unesco5310 Economía Internacional
dc.subject.unesco5311 Organización y Dirección de Empresas
dc.subject.unesco5309.02 Integración Económica
dc.titleTheorical concept and Critical success factors Of science – industry Relationships
dc.typetechnical report
dspace.entity.typePublication
Download
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
DT IAIF 2009 (70) OK.pdf
Size:
1.06 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
downoload Download
Collections
Documentos de trabajo e informes técnicos