Master’s Thesis MSc. BA - Business Development
University of Groningen - Faculty of Economics and Business MSc BA, Business Development
Technology Roadmapping for
International University-Industry Partnerships
Improved technology push- and new demand pull- partnership approaches
for the Healthy Ageing Campus Netherlands.
Academically supervised by:
Drs. H.P. (Heleen) van Peet RuG, supervisor. Dr. K.R.S. (Eelko) Huizingh RuG, co-assessor. Professionally supervised by:
Student: Ronald Hesse
Student no.: 1802623
Address: Radijsstraat 33b
9741 BK Groningen
Email: ronaldhesse@gmail.com
“Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Its founding fathers from the triple helix aspire the Healthy Ageing Campus Netherlands (HACN) to provide a multitude of services to its partners, including intermediation in international university-industry partnerships. Although the HACN is a young organization and a formalized approach to such partnership intermediation has never been established, the stakeholders bear with them lots of implicit knowledge from technology transfer experience at and beyond the University of Groningen (RuG) and the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG): they have implicit know-how on the national and international collaborations between universities and industry. The main research question is: How can the HACN successfully intermediate in international university-industry partnerships? Due to HACN’s strategic desire to improve its ‘technology push’ activities and increasingly focus on ‘demand pull’ partnership intermediation, this research has a fourfold objective: 1) formalizing the current domestic ‘technology push’ partnership approach, 2) improving it based on historic difficulties and 3) internationalizing it based on anticipated difficulties, as well as 4)
recommending on a ‘demand-pull’ partnership intermediation approach for the future. Four research sub-questions are allocated accordingly.
In chapter 1, the opportunity and its context are described based on exploratory interviews with four high-ranking stakeholders. The research methods are then discussed in chapter 2 and relevant literature is consulted in chapter 3. Next, the findings (Ch. 4) are described in accordance to the objectives:
1) the first finding is the current five-staged domestic ‘technology push’ partnership intermediation approach obtained through interviews with six experienced HACN intermediaries, exposing their implicit knowledge of the process;
2) the second finding relates to the sought after improvements to the current approach: the most prevalent historic difficulty as indicated by ten experienced partnership stakeholders is the lack of technology- and market applicability- assessments causing lengthy negotiations; 3) the third finding relates to the anticipated difficulties of the hypothetical international
application of the current approach’s: four interviews reveal that lengthy international negotiations are expected to negatively impact partnership chances of success through a lack of understanding of- and accounting for- national cultural differences;
4) finally, the current approach’s applicability in demand-pull partnership intermediation is considered and concluded to be minimal: a new approach needs to be established that, like the current technology-push approach, has a clear structure and describes which activities and techniques need to be performed, when, by whom and how.
Finally, the solution-design (Ch. 5) outlines remedies to the historic and anticipated difficulties. Primarily, Technology Roadmapping (TRM) techniques are described, customized and applied, in order to overcome the current approach’s lack of technology- and market application- assessments. With the help of Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s cross-cultural management study, the anticipated difficulty of international application of the current technology-push approach is remedied. The proposed improvements and recommendations regarding the technology push partnership intermediation approach were tested with domestic and international experts, revealing trust and confidence in the proposed solutions. Finally, in recommendations regarding a future demand pull strategy, TRM-techniques are again adjusted and expanded accordingly in a preliminary but detailed and complete, demand-pull partnership intermediation approach.
All in all, this paper offers the HACN an improved ‘technology-push’ partnerships intermediation approach based on its domestic experience while accounting for its international application, as well as recommendations regarding a future ‘demand pull’ partnership intermediation approach. To the current scope of theoretical knowledge, this paper complements in its central consideration of the intermediary and its activities in university-industry partnerships establishment based on the different strategic approaches of technology-push and demand-pull.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Being the final hurdle to graduation from the Business Development specialization of the MSc Business Administration at the University of Groningen, this thesis reports on the Healthy Ageing Campus Netherlands (HACN), a young organization which is looking to offer an international partnership intermediation service. Based on that ambition and my own to graduate, the current design-oriented business opportunity study was conducted during an 7 months internship and examines the implicit knowledge of experienced employees and stakeholders, challenges encountered problematic areas with solutions offered by HACN’s experts as well as literature, to improve the current approach and make it internationally applicable. Recommendations vis-à-vis the strategic goals of the HACN, namely the increasing likelihood of future ‘demand-pull’ initiated partnerships, have also been made with great pleasure and confidence.
Although progress didn’t always come easy, it has been a valuable experience to undertake the process of academic study in a professional setting. It has taught me much about the different contexts in which Business Development theory is viewed and applied. Although the report’s setting does not embrace much of the faculty’s program of business development, I believe this experience to be a valuable addition to what so far has been an academic journey.
To my academic and professional supervisors I owe special thanks, for without them I would not have been able to overcome the many obstacles and graduate with such pleasure. Communication has proven critical to steady progression and in that field too, this experience has been a valuable one. The received guidance and support has been uncannily encouraging. I furthermore owe thanks to all HACN stakeholders who have openheartedly provided their valuable opinions and visions: your inputs have been my centre of motivation. Finally, the support of family and friends has pulled me through this sometimes demanding process.
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Context ...9
1.2 The Organization ...9
1.3 The Business Opportunity ... 13
1.4 The Design Specifications ... 15
1.5 The Research Objective ... 15
2. RESEARCH DESIGN 2.1 Basic Assumptions and Research Questions ... 16
2.2 Quality Criteria ... 17
2.3 Research Process... 17
2.4 Data Collection and Analysis ... 21
3. THEORY ON PARTNERSHIPS 3.1 The Theoretical Context ... 22
3.2 Technology Push vs. Demand Pull ... 23
3.3 Defining Partnerships ... 24
3.4 Mediating Roles in Partnerships ... 26
3.5 Motivating Partnerships ... 26
3.6 Transferring Technology in Partnerships ... 28
3.7 Considering Trust in Partnerships ... 29
3.8 Considering Cultural Differences in Partnerships ... 29
3.9 Generalizing the Partnership Facilitation Process... 31
3.10 The Theoretical Opportunity... 32
4. FINDINGS 4.1 The Current Technology Push Approach ... 33
4.2 HACN’s Role in the Current Technology Push Approach ... 35
4.3 Difficulty with the Current Technology Push Approach... 35
4.4 Anticipated Difficulties for International Application ... 37
4.5 The Current Approach and Demand Pull Partnership Intermediation ... 39
4.6 Findings in terms of the Main Research Questions ... 40
5. SOLUTION DESIGN 5.1 Revisiting the Design Specifications ... 41
5.2 Overcoming Transactional Difficulties ... 41
5.3 Overcoming Cultural Differences... 44
5.4 An Improved Technology Push Approach... 45
5.5 Testing the Improved Technology-Push Partnership Intermediation Approach ... 47
5.6 Considering Demand-Pull Partnerships ... 47
5.7 A Demand-Pull Partnership Intermediation Approach ... 50
6. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS... 53
7. REFLECTION 7.1 Scientific Implications... 56
7.2 Limitations and Future Research... 57
REFERENCES... 58
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Organizational structure of the Healthy Ageing Campus Netherlands. 10
Figure 2: Typology of the HACN: intermediary in a national system of innovation. 11
Figure 3: Similar organizations: Maastricht Health Campus & Campus Berlin-Buch. 12
Figure 4: The research process visualized. 18
Figure 5: Technology-push vs. Market-pull and the partnerships in HACN’s context. 23
Figure 6: Approach to partnerships as applied to the current technology push strategy. 34
Figure 7: Cause-and-effect diagram - anticipated international barriers to partnerships. 38
Figure 8: Improved technology push partnership intermediation approach. 46
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Context
Low fertility, low immigration, and increasing life expectancy give rise to several challenges of an ageing population in the Netherlands. The increasing numbers of elderly do not always spend their longer lives in good health but research on ageing suggests that its conditions are variable and that medical and technological innovations will be vital to overcome its challenges (e.g. Christensen et al. 2009). Innovations are more likely to be successful in an open innovation context (Chesbrough, 2006) where organizations with ties to their environment (e.g. research institutions, customers, suppliers and competitors) are expected to have higher innovative success. At different levels, a major factor of innovative performance is indeed the degree and strength of university-industry relations (OECD, 2002). The Healthy Ageing Campus Netherlands (HACN) provides premises for top research and entrepreneurship on the north-east-side of the old city center of Groningen, aiming to encourage an open innovation setting to spark such innovations.
Kroll and Stahlecker (2009) as well as the Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011 have characterized the Netherlands as a well-developed innovation driven economy with an inefficient government bureaucracy and difficult access to finance, but high levels of business sophistication, technological readiness, and innovative capacity. The latter they argue, is largely contributed to by high quality scientific research institutions and strong university-industry linkages. Dutch private investment nevertheless lags behind EU average (Eurostat 1). This leaves room for improvements. HACN’s activities are expected to contribute to improvements in these areas by attracting more private investment for fundamental research and facilitating inventions and innovations in healthy and active aging.
1.2 The Organization
Together, the UMCG, the Triade Foundation, the Foundation for Business Generation Groningen (SBGG), and the municipality of Groningen, recognized the need for an organization that specifically focuses its efforts on the ambition to unite research and industry, and as such gave birth to the Healthy Ageing Campus Netherlands (HACN). The underlying thought is to increase general commercial activity and develop technological innovations through increased numbers of partnerships between the researchers and industry, stimulating facility-sharing, and creating new knowledge in the field of Healthy Ageing. In short, the HACN
Figure 1: Organizational structure of the Healthy
Ageing Campus Netherlands.
to accelerate and diffuse scientific knowledge and technologies (2) to thereby stimulate its own growth, that of the region and that of relevant technologies, and (3) to generate increasing private support for - and increasing returns from - academic efforts. Encouraged by the local government, several knowledge institutes as well as numerous small and larger organizations have united in the HACN to engage the challenges of ageing population and the unexploited growth potential in the three Northern provinces. Its organizational structure is depicted in figure 1. Some positions are still vacant pending organizational growth. HACN’s six current employees are scientifically educated and have diverse backgrounds and experience.
The HACN wants to intermediate in partnerships based on both developed technologies that result from the personal interests of researchers (technology-push) as well as industrial partners’ expressions of desired technologies (demand-pull), in the fields of:
- Food and Health: based on the large-scale regional agriculture and strong ties to enterprises in the industry of nutrition and other research institutes (e.g. Wageningen), the HACN is able to offer modern knowledge and research techniques that can assist in the industry’s research on and development of innovations (imagine e.g. pro-biotic in dairy products);
- Biomedical Technologies: with scarce research competences and sixteen highly regarded enterprises on its premises, the HACN can supply ground-breaking techniques and facilities, especially in the area of imaging and diagnostics, which are of critical importance to industry who seeks to e.g. develop medical equipment or implants; and
- Pharmaceuticals: its remarkable research competences and its strong ties to industry in the entire process of the development of pharmaceuticals, allow the HACN to help the industry in further developing and testing for example new drugs (through all phases of drug discovery and development, i.e. laboratories, mice-models and human trials).
Figure 2: Typology of the HACN: intermediary in a national system of innovation (Arnold & Kuhlmann, 2001).
Through what Adler and Kwon (2002) have referred to as the production and reproduction of social capital, the HACN receives great support and trust from its partners. It has been established to mediate between the university and multi-national enterprises (MNEs) as well as young knowledge intensive small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), bringing them closer physically and virtually to stimulate establishment and growth of partnerships. The HACN might then be characterized as a knowledge broker in a system of innovation (fig. 2).
Comparable to a foundation, the HACN is a non-profit organization that has its own resources to invest while intending to cover its costs. It nevertheless operates as a commercial organization that wants to push its academic partners’ technologies towards the market and increasingly implement a demand pull strategy. As the ‘front-office’ for the industry, the HACN is based on the ‘triple helix’ concept which Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1997; 2000) have described through the partner’s common objectives to build an innovative atmosphere of alliances to increase their overall innovativeness. These linkages and alliances are influenced by governments, who should aim to encourage rather than control (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 1998), which is indeed the municipality of Groningen’s position in the HACN. The acquisition of the HACN is mainly aimed at organizations that are not yet situated in the region, both Dutch and foreign SMEs and MNEs. It aims to build an interesting work-environment for organizations and researchers from the Netherlands and abroad. In its context, past practices have resulted in a strong open social network with various single-firm and multiple-firm partnership affiliations. The HACN generally offers business case solution propositions based on unique competencies of its partners that together form niches
The establishment of closed networks around niches has been confirmed in literature to facilitate the development of trust through shared professional culture, open communication and information sharing, resulting in strong ties that facilitate cooperation and coordination of partnerships (Coleman, 1990).
HACN’s aspired business support portfolio contains:
•••• an innovation-scan (determines the market and technology potentials of an innovation); •••• business case support (help with the establishment or development of business cases); •••• program-management (based on expertise in science or business for example);
•••• a Campus service-desk (targeted at entrepreneurs who need answers to questions related to Intellectual Property, capital enrichment, and subsidies for example);
•••• an international desk (offering HACN’s clients support in contacts abroad); •••• staff secondment (allowing ‘detachment’ of UMCG employees to organizations); •••• a jobseeker database (helping to connect vacancies and jobseekers);
•••• real-estate management (providing support to those looking for accommodation in the R&D Hotel, Incubator facilities, Accelerator facilities, or independent facilities); and
•••• marketing / branding assistance (for example a product/service guide on the website).
The sought international partnerships intermediation approach will closely relate to other services (such as the program management service and the international desk amongst others). The HACN aims to identify and react to stakeholders’ opportunities, connect the various parties and mediate discussions and different interests, which could be argued to match for example the definitions of “knowledge brokers” (Stadtler and Probst, 2011) or “partnership conveners” (Gray, 1989). Similar organizations are described in figure 3.
Figure 3: Examples of similar organizations: Maastricht Health Campus & Campus Berlin-Buch
The Maastricht Health Campus is comparable to the HACN in that it also holds the entire Life Science scope central to its activities, specializing in cardiovascular diseases. The commercialization of their research is also a very important part of their activities and is mentioned to be one of their historic strengths as well as a reason for becoming a campus. Maastricht Health Campus’ website (Jan 23rd)
http://www.maastrichthealthcampus.nl
Campus Berlin-Buch focuses on biomedicine. It is comparable to the HACN in that it is centered around multiple research institutes and clinics as well as private organizations. Although their basic research is mainly funded by local, regional and national governments and the EU, they do provide a basic insight into their aims to work more and more with private partners.
Campus Berlin-Buch’s website (Jan 22nd): http://www.campus-berlin-buch.de/
1.3 The Business Opportunity
Let us first consider Ford’s (1997, p. 559) notion on networks: “The inherent complexity of intercompany relationships and networks means that it is unrealistic to imagine that they can be wholly ‘designed’ by any one party, still less that their evolution can be solely the result of conscious one-sided plans”; and Wilkinson and Young’s (1994) vision on network management, which they stated “is about being able to respond to the opportunities presented and created by others” (p.76). One might say that in order to manage a network, opportunities need proper responding to. International partnership intermediation is an example of the HACN’s spirit to do so. It is eager to build momentum: within the Netherlands through the Healthy Ageing Network Northern Netherlands (HANNN); and internationally through for example BioCon Valley (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany) and the ScanBalt Network (Life Sciences network among Scandinavian and Baltic countries). The excellence of the internationalized domestic approach should establish a solid reputation with potential international partners. Once trans-national linkages are made, more can be done with the available resources and facilities in different regions, optimizing their efficiency. Initially, the problem owner (HACN’s director) simply stated the opportunity as a desire for an international partnership intermediation service. Because forming partnerships is not new in HACN’s environment, one could argue that he seeks increased levels of formalization (Jones, 2009), namely an increased degree to which specific procedures are outlined. He argued that many of his employees and stakeholders have been involved in university-industry collaborations and carry implicit knowledge on how these partnerships are formed. Passive learning has allowed partakers to acquire knowledge through experience from their involvement in any partnership that has been formed in the past, as argued by Gulati et al. (2009). HACN lacks an explicit denotation of its approach and the effect of international application is unknown.
Four informal and open interviews with HACN’s director, its business developer and liaison officer, as well as the director of the technology transfer office - all high level, scientifically educated and practically experienced stakeholders - provided a better understanding of the context. The stakeholders indicated that is vital to the HACN to expand abroad to attract regional, national and international attention and private investment, to develop the region and build strong foundations for collaborations and future public fund-requests. To do so, it intends to facilitate partnerships based on existing technology push (research to market) and future demand pull (markets to research) approaches. Implicit knowledge of HACN’s stakeholders on the current technology push approach is improved for international
furthermore aims to increasingly implement a ‘market pull’ strategy (besides its context’s predominant technology push strategy) in order to moderate the content of academic shelves and allow them to steer research towards existing or future market demands. The open innovation principle’s background of the opportunity might be clarified by user-involvement theory (Von Hippel, 1986) of new product development (NPD): involving (lead) users in the process of invention and innovation increases its chances of success and rate of adoption. Lead users - those that are able to provide radically new solutions - are those that have unsolved problems or are dissatisfied with their current solutions, are intrinsically motivated and open to new technologies, and have access to interdisciplinary knowledge (Lettl, 2007). Through the University Medical Center Groningen specifically, the HACN offers a large number of those clinical lead-users: the medical experts that can be seen as customers of newly developed medical innovations, who are the first to spot market needs.
The four interviewees indicate that there are two kinds of partnerships in HACN’s context. The characteristics separating both types include for example a partnership’s temporal horizon, its observability, its level of newness (to the different parties as well as the market), its ability to clearly define desired outputs, and its size (by number of stakeholders involved). Both types of partnerships will continuously be part of HACN’s environment, and are described below.
Type 1 partnerships center on young existing technologies resulting from academic research. Their outcomes are accurately definable and the partnerships involve much less uncertainty. Technology transfer plays a significant role in these partnerships that generally aim to increase the productivity and effectiveness of recent technologies, skills or capabilities, and/or the market application thereof. An example of such a partnership in HACN’s context is out-licensing.
Type 2 partnerships are established to expand knowledge in a problem-area, aiming to spot opportunities that result in above-average returns from innovations, often initiated by industrial partners. Due to the unpredictable nature of this type of partnership’s outcome, they involve a relatively high degree of technology- and market-uncertainty. Another characteristic that is identified is the long-term orientation of this type of partnership that is aimed at developing and sharing new knowledge to create unanticipated technology and know-how.
To provide the HACN in their needs, this paper thus explicates and improves the current technology-push partnership intermediation approach (type 1) to then evaluate its applicability on demand-pull partnership intermediation (type 2) as will be of increasing strategy emphasis in the future.
1.4 The Design Specifications
Project problems can usually be traced back to a bad or incoherent problem statement so the problem should be defined carefully, considering its entire scope. A problem is not only a state of affairs with which key stakeholders are unsatisfied, but also a state they believe can be improved spending a reasonable amount of time and resources (van Aken et al. 2007). In this specific project, international ‘technology push’ and ‘demand pull’ partnership intermediation is considered a situation requiring improvements: implicit knowledge on the topic should be made explicit and useable. As argued by HACN’s director, the explicated and improved current approach partnerships service aims at establishing type 1 technology-push partnerships, whereas advice concerning the demand-pull strategic context’s approach should aim to facilitate type 2 partnerships. The desired result yields requirements, conditions and restrictions in terms of van Aken et al.’s (2007) design specifications,.
First of all, the core performance issue, or functional demand, requires the result of this paper to deliver HACN employees with instructions of activities to perform and techniques to use, overcoming foreseeable obstacles, especially for its international application. The users require a holistic stage-like model that provides detailed information on the contents and methods of each phase, especially considering the international issues, based on expert advice and scientific foundations, such that the international partnerships can successfully be established. It should be based on current techniques to minimize requirements in terms of e.g. training and competence development. Therefore, the result of this paper is restricted by the fact that it should as much as possible be built on the currently implicit approach and the current professional culture. The report should furthermore be presented by the end of February.
1.5 The Research Objective
Seen the fact that there is no clear business problem and this paper is rather the reaction to a business opportunity, a research objective best describes its aims. In short, this paper’s objective is fourfold: formalizing the current domestic ‘technology push’ partnership approach (sub-question 1), improving and internationalizing it based on historic and anticipated difficulties as well as testing its applicability domestically and internationally (sub-questions 2 & 3), and recommending on a ‘demand pull’ partnership intermediation approach of the future (sub-question 4). Answering these four sub-questions, will yield an answer to the main research questions: How can the HACN successfully intermediate in international university-industry partnerships? The following chapter will discuss the design of the research.
2. RESEARCH DESIGN
2.1 Basic Assumptions and Research Questions
In order to arrive at a set of questions relevant enough to attempt tackling them in this paper, several assumptions need to be outlined. First, problems associated with an ageing population will continue to increase, constituting the relevancy of HACN’s strategic intentions to intermediate in partnerships that facilitate technological innovations. Second, technological innovation will contribute significantly to solving the problems of an ageing population. Third, in the context of today’s knowledge intensive and advanced state of technology, the HACN and its founding fathers - specifically their unique and scarce expertise and facilities - play an important role in increasing the number and pace of collaborative partnerships between universities and industry, who in turn contribute to the number and pace of the technological innovations that help to overcome the challenges of an ageing population. Considering furthermore that designing is “the process of determining the required function of an object to be designed combined with making a model of it” (van Aken et al., 2007, p.23), the main research question of this paper is:
How can the HACN successfully intermediate in international university-industry partnerships?
The research question can be subdivided into three sub-questions regarding the technology push strategic context, i.e. explication and improvement of the current approach:
I. a. How are partnerships currently established? and b. What is HACN’s role in the current approach?
II. To what extent is the approach satisfactory and how can it be improved?
III. How can the current approach be (re)designed to suit international application? An additional sub-questions is added and, although outside the scope of this paper’s methodological approach as described in this section but of passionate interest to the HACN, the authors visions on the demand pull strategic context’s partnership intermediation approach - based on scientific literature - are included through a fourth sub-question:
IV. To what extent can the current technology push partnership intermediation approach serve demand pull partnership intermediation?
The current approach in the technology push strategic context will first be made explicit. Based on experts’ opinions on real and anticipated difficulties faced therewith, recommendation will then be offered in terms of improvements and internationalization in a (re)design. A consideration of its potential application in a demand pull strategic context will then be provided, based on careful consideration of applicable scientific literature.
Being that this paper is a design based research aimed at developing prescriptive knowledge in the form of a grounded solution concept, it follows van Aken et al. (2007)’s reflective cycle. It’s roots lie in the business problem solving activity and is comprised by the steps displayed in figure 4. This section thoroughly describes the methods used to collect data based on van Aken et al. (2007)’s research quality criteria controllability, reliability and validity. In an attempt to meet these criteria, the process and methods are described accordingly.
2.2 Quality Criteria
Controllability is the most essential quality criterion for any research: it is the foundation for and a prerequisite of the evaluation of its validity and reliability. Controllability is derived from a description of the circumstances of the research so that with a similar method, the same conclusions would be drawn. Reliability then stems from four potential causes: the researcher, the instrument, the respondents and the situation. When replicated by other researchers using different instruments with different respondents or in a different situation, the research should yield similar results. Van Aken et al. (2007) also discern three types of validity: construct validity, internal validity and external validity. Construct validity concerns the quality of the measuring instrument in relation with the intended meaning of that measurement. According to Van Aken et al. (2007), results of a research are internally valid when conclusions about relationships are justified and complete. External validity refers to the generalizability of research results and conclusions to external parties, for example, other researchers or companies. This chapter aims to establish controllability through a careful description of each step taken, so that finally the paper’s reliability and validity can be judged in a reflection (ch7).
2.3 Research Process
Due to the nature of the context as described earlier, this research follows a reflective cycle: it aims to add to practice by designing a solution suited to a specific business opportunity (van Aken et al., 2007). Due to the lack of a problem, cause-and-effect cannot be analysed and the starting point of this paper is an analysis of the opportunity and the current situation. The current situation is then improved based on historic complications before being adopted for international application based on expected difficulties. The resulting design is evaluated by domestic and international experts. Incorporating their evaluative feedback requires an iteration back to the process of designing, until the design is approved and finalized. The fourth sub-question does not suit this methodological approach as it concern but a matter of the authors interpretation of relevant literature. The research process is visualized in figure 4.
A detailed description of each step and the activities involved will be provided hereafter. A list of the experts interviewed and the steps of their involvement can be found in appendix 1.
Step and Purpose Interviews Period
1. Analyzing the context and the business opportunity 4 Aug 2011
2. Making explicit the current technology push approach & HACN’s role 6 Sept 2011
3. Identifying and analyzing problematic areas with the current technology push approach
3.1 Historic domestic problematic areas 3.2 Anticipated international problematic areas
10 4
Oct-Dec 2011
4. Drawing a cause and effect diagram for the identified potential barriers to internationalization of the current technology push approach
- Jan 2012
5. Drawing preliminary conclusions on the first three sub-question and recommending courses of action in a preliminary design
- Jan 2012
6. Testing the preliminary technology-push design domestically 1 Feb 2012
7. Testing the preliminary technology-push design for a foreign market 1 Feb 2012
8. Concluding the research in a final technology push design and recommending on a partnership approach to a demand pull strategic context
- Feb 2012
Figure 4: the research process visualized.
Analyzing the Opportunity and Academic Interest Conceptualizing the Current Situation Synthesis: Designing and Improving Final Design Academic Solution and Reflection Testing and Evaluating
Step 1. Analyzing the context and the business opportunity: Formulating the problem statement and the research requirements has been the starting point of this research. Thorough in-depth face-to-face interviews on the aims of this paper and the business phenomenon were held with four employees / stakeholders of the HACN: its director, its business developer, its liaison officer and an experienced technology transfer officer. The results have been presented in previous chapters.
Step 2. Making explicit the current technology push approach and HACN’s role: Being that this paper concerns a design oriented ‘descriptive’ research, analysis of an explicit current situation is required (van Aken et al., 2008). Unfortunately, a basis for improvement or adjustment - a current partnership intermediation approach - did not exist explicitly. To further describe the current situation and investigate problematic areas, qualitative data collection methods are needed (Cooper and Schindler, 2003) making the current approach explicit and thereby answering sub-question 1. The organization’s employees and stakeholders have implicit knowledge from education and experience. In order to make the current situation explicit, six experienced partnership intermediaries and stakeholders of the HACN were interviewed. Main- and sub- topics provided a guide to these interviews to make sure relevant topics were not overlooked. These topics are discussed at the end of this section. The current approach is presented in the ‘findings’ section of this paper.
Step 3. Identifying and analyzing problematic areas with the current technology push approach: Once the current approach had been made explicit, some references to problematic areas had already been made. Follow-up interviews were held with the same stakeholders to confirm the conceptualization of the current approach, providing the chance for feedback and potential further alteration. The interviews focused on the second research question to identify and analyse problematic areas in the current approach (3.1) and anticipated problematic areas of its international application (3.2). The perspective of past public and private partners in examples of successful and unsuccessful partnerships provided useful relative perspective. From an example of a successful partnership in HACN’s context, a public and a private partner were approached to discuss the second sub-question. Similarly, a public and a private partner in an example of a less successful partnership were approached. The number of interviewees then amounted to ten, with interestingly diverse perspectives, including the most important as described in New Service Development literature (e.g. Johne and Storey, 1998): a number of
potential ‘customers’ of the new service. The identified problem-areas are discussed in the Findings and Design section of this paper and recommendations follow thereafter.
Step 4. Drawing a cause and effect diagram for the identified potential barriers to internationalization of the current technology push approach: Four of the interviewees approached in the previous step have international partnership experience. After identifying and analyzing problematic areas of the current approach and considering potential solutions, a cause-and-effect diagram is designed for the identified issue of ‘negotiations’ specifically. Based on those experts’ perception and literature on the topic, its increasing problematic nature in an international setting is analyzed and symptoms and their causes are plotted.
Step 5. Drawing preliminary conclusions on the first three sub-question and recommending courses of action in a preliminary design: Together with the problem analysis at step three, questions regarding their potential solutions and remedies to obstacles are asked. The corpus of field notes from the interviews and the literature on the topic is consulted to find consensus on potential solutions to the issue’s causes resulting from the cause-and-effect tree.
Step 6. Testing the preliminary technology-push design domestically: After the current model has been explicated, improved, and adopted for international application, it is tested domestically, with the two most experienced international partnership intermediaries in HACN’s context. Resulting feedback is considered and changes can be made, if necessary.
Step 7. Testing the preliminary technology-push design for a foreign market: A German expert from partner organization BioCon Valley is approached to confirm the thoughts on internationalization, an international test. The scenario is: imagine that the HACN would take its partnership intermediation approach to Germany; would the advice provided in this paper suffice? Resulting feedback and changes can be considered and discussed if necessary.
Step 8. Concluding the research in a final technology push design and recommending on a partnership approach to a demand pull strategic context: The improved domestic model is finalized based on careful consideration of experts’ input from domestic and international contexts and feedback from the domestic and foreign tests. The relevant findings on application of the current technology push approach in a demand pull strategic context are discussed and finalized resulting in recommendations based on the author’s perceptions of relevant scientific literature.
2.4 Data Collection and Analysis
Considering the difficulty with quantifying the nature of a process - especially an implicit one - qualitative data collection and analysis is most appropriate (Lincoln and Denzin, 2003). Semi-structured face-to-face interviews are the most appropriate tool for the assembly of qualitative data (Cooper and Schindler, 2003) and allow the researcher to address the core topics during the interview, while preserving the freedom to go into further depth when deemed appropriate (van Aken et al., 2007), leaving room to address new topics and questions that arise from the interviews themselves (Myers, 2009). The interview questions used are mostly explanatory: respondents are asked to describe their perspective on the situation that is relevant to research question (Blumberg et al., 2005) and the interviewer merely absorbs the information. As grounded theory literature would anticipate (e.g. Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1998), the corpus of field notes provided a textual database through which - with the help of loosely applied coding techniques as proposed by Myers (2009) - similarities and differences are analyzed and concepts are discovered. Interviews were largely conducted upon the limited availability of experts in HACN’s environment and the project’s limitations in time. As only members of HACN’s direct environment have been included, one could be argue that the generalizability of this paper’s results is limited. This constitutes an argument against this paper’s external validity. For a full list of interviewees, please turn to appendix 1. To maximize the amount and quality of the data collected, the interviews were semi-structured, guided by ‘topics’ and ‘topics’. The main research question was sub-divided into sub-questions. These sub-questions spawned ‘topics’ and ‘sub-topics’ (appendix 2) that needed addressing during the discussions and interviews, that were otherwise in-depth and open. They would thereby move from general to specific from the standpoint of the interviewee: the different definitions are discussed, followed by the phases in the process and the content of such stages as well as difficulties often arising in such phases, their potential impact and solutions. To prevent bias in the method and secure construct validity, the expected or desired content of the topics was never shared with interviewees. It proved impossible for this research paper to triangulate its collected qualitative data with quantitative data collection methods or historical documents from HACN’s context. The number of interviewees did however provide foundations for strong comparison between their qualitative inputs and coding of identifiable categories. Theoretical triangulation was sought through confirmation of concepts in multiple streams of literature. By the end of this paper, a further reflection on its controllability, reliability and validity will be provided.
3. THEORY ON PARTNERSHIPS
This section aims to constitute a frame of thought through which to view the study and through which the interviews were prepared, based on respected scientific journal articles and books. Theoretical triangulation was sought through the use of journals in different academic and professional fields. Linking literature on strategic management, organizational behavior, government policy decisions and technology and innovation management has especially proven valuable. Parts of the frame of thought outlined in this chapter will be revisited for the design and establishment of solid recommendations regarding improvements for the current technology push approach as well as an approach to the demand pull strategic context.
3.1 The Theoretical Context
In 2001, Murtha et al. have described how industries of the future are becoming more international and increasingly depend on coalitions between technological innovation and market opportunity. Organizations are forced to cross national borders to gather knowledge, complementary assets and the essential partners to create new businesses (Doz et al., 2001). Being embedded in prosperous networks enables access to knowledge, which in turn enables organizations to build collaborative relationships, gain resources, develop learning skills, and coordinate experiments (McEvily & Marcus, 2005). For these reasons, and the general endurance of both parties and as an engine for growth, many scholar (e.g. Siegel et al., 2004) have claimed the significance of relations between universities and industry.
Chesbrough (2006) has defined open innovation as an method of optimizing organizational networks (containing e.g. customers, suppliers, teaching institutions, and research institutes) to increase its innovative capability, by pursuing the implementation of partnerships in the process of innovation. With ‘open innovation’ in- and out- flows of knowledge, Intellectual Property (IP) plays an increasingly significant role (Chesbrough, 2006). Universities are more and more a motivating and stimulating power in the development of high technology industries through technology transfer activities, strategic alliances, and spinoff firms (Saxenian, 1994; Powel and Owen-Smith, 1998). In collaborations - generally termed university-industry collaborations or research partnerships amongst others - the industry often provides funds to universities in exchange for an ‘option’ on new inventions and technologies (Blaug et al., 2004), resulting in licenses from universities to industry that takes further development into its hands (Zinner et al., 2004). To attract private funds, it is important for a
university to build critical mass in research in a given sector, building solid, long-term relationships with businesses, especially in the - preferably proximate - industrial district (Muscio et al., 2011). Similarly, it is important for organizations to adopt different strategies in their search for new technologies, including for example collaborations with universities. Van de Vrande et al. (2009) show how such Open Innovation practices are not only increasingly common in large corporations but also, and more importantly in this context, in Dutch small and medium sized enterprises. One might argue that the increasing organizational readiness to connect to and collaborate with universities constitutes an established and growing open innovation context that in turn constitutes HACN’s business opportunity as described before.
3.2 Technology Push vs. Demand Pull
Ideas for technological innovations can be sparked by supply of new technology as a result from scientific research, or by demand found in markets (see figure 5). As part of the context, it seems of critical importance to analyze the strategic intentions of the HACN: increasingly respond to demand-pull partnerships besides continuing to manage the technology-push environment. High level stakeholders of the HACN have indicated that they see a demand pull strategy as one where the industry formulates a question to thereby steer researchers to perform demand-related basic technology research, instead of research which comes from sheer interest or opportunity alone. Chidamber and Kon (1994) have argued that technology-push is the Schumpeterian view on innovation, where the pace and direction of innovative activities are determined by the scientific base they stem from. In other words, scientists are motivated by sheer interest and invent new and improved means to reach certain goals, which then shape the markets in which their inventions are applied. This describes what HACN’s scientific environment will continue to consist of. For demand-pull on the other hand, the primary motivation for basic research is the need or demand for a solution to a problem as perceived in markets.
In the development of science-based technologies - where the linear technology/science-push principle of changing policy measures leading to visible outputs traditionally predominates - Schmoch (2007) has found double-boom cycles in a technology’s development: the first can be associated with technology push and the second with demand pull. He has shown how generally, a rise in patents in relation to a certain technology is followed by an increase in publications thereon, forming the first boom of the technology’s development and, after at some point the technology’s further development is hampered by difficulties, the second boom follows years later, consisting of publications and patenting activities, leading to the technology’s application and visible sales growths. Schmoch’s (2007) findings thus suggest that the demand pull follows after technology (or science) push: there is an interaction between both and thus not one nor the other true on its own. Other researchers have come to similar conclusions: both technology push and demand pull are needed to explain innovation, i.e. a combination or linking thereof (e.g. Freeman, 1974; Kleinknecht and Verspagen, 1990). Thus, although from an professional point of view it makes sense to argue that a technology that stems from researchers’ interest is pushed and one that is requested by the market is pulled, it seems literature disagrees: to explain any innovation, both technological competencies and market conditions need to be considered. It seems that a technology push and demand pull strategic aim can coincide and a clear line is hard to draw. One might even argue that it is a matter of perception to and thus subject of discussion, whether an invention has been purely pushed or somewhat pulled: even a lone researcher operating out of interest alone might have his reasons based on perceptions of potential improvements to current activities readily available in a particular market.
Considering the discussion above, this paper maintains the separation between technology push and market pull solely to identify the source of the partnerships in HACN’s context: they are based either on a technology that resulted from research that was not inspired by markets directly and is now pushed to find a place therein, or they are based on research that was purely driven by the market’s desire for it (pull) and a technology has yet to be developed.
3.3 Defining Partnerships
University-industry (UI) links need to be defined in many ways because they often display differing characteristics. As mentioned earlier, the constituting dimensions of partnerships found so far include e.g. its origins (pushed or pulled), its temporal horizon, its observability, its level of technological newness, its level of output definition, and its size (in terms of e.g. investments).
Perkmann and Walsh (2007) have divided common forms of UI collaboration and it seems unclear whether they are purely push or purely pull partnerships, or a combination of both: - ‘licensing partnerships’ (as in Argawal, 2006): industry develops and innovates on university
patented inventions, where inventor consultation increases the innovations’ potential success. - ‘university-industry research centres’ (based on Adams et al., 2008): academic centres
designed to advance technology transfer to the industry, usually centred on a specific topic. - ‘collaborative research’ / ‘research-joint-ventures’ (see Behrens and Gray, 2001): support for
economic development through establishment of increased support for academic research, more and faster technology transfer and greater competitive outcomes.
‘Public-Private Partnerships’ (or PPPs) is another common term in literature that seems worth considering. PPPs commonly show three features (Zhang et al., 2009): differences in organizational structures; results are a public good/service, or part thereof; and they remain in operation for longer periods of time. Kolk et al. (2008) describe how collaborations between the public and the private give rise to challenges stemming from e.g. their cross-sectorial nature, limited experience of partners, neglected governance or project management, or the complex settings involved. Lee (2000) adds that they encounter specific issues such as variability in team structure and multiple affiliations between the partners. If governments participate strongly in such projects, they might be better defined as ‘triple helix projects’ (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000; Leydesdorff, 2000; Johnson, 2008) or Government-University-Industry (GUI) R&D partnerships (Carayannis al., 2000).
In B2B markets such partnerships are often referred to as Joint Ventures or Strategic Alliances (Geringer & Hebert, 1989). These generally involve two or more legally separated organizations that actively participate in the decision-making activities of the partnership, besides investing in it. Their internationality generally implies that the partners are not located in the same country. In such a B2B partnership setting, Rothaermel (2001) has made the distinction between exploratory- and exploitative- international partnerships. Exploratory
partnerships aim to discover new opportunities and exceptional innovations (see also Cohen & Levinthal, 1990), whereas exploitative partnerships focus on increasing the productivity or effectiveness of existing technologies, skills or capabilities (see also Koza & Lewin, 1998). This separation between exploratory- and exploitative- partnerships has proven to significantly affect partnership success (Nielsen and Gudergan, 2011).
Partnerships in HACN’s context are either initiated by pushed technology of pulled demand: - Technology push partnerships are based on a newly invented technology resulting from basic
research that was not inspired by markets but by opportunism and sheer interest: the initial partnership desire stems from a technology-partner that has research results;
- Demand pull partnerships are based on an idea for a technology that meets certain future market needs but is not yet in existence: the initial partnership desire stems from the market-partner that has no more than an idea and no competence to research the technology.
3.4 Mediating Roles in Partnerships
For its use in this paper, Stadtler and Probst’s (2011) definition of a knowledge broker is worth considering: the HACN pursues to be the constant in every partnership as well as its position in the innovation system. “[knowledge brokers] are organizations that have specific experience and capacity to build and/or facilitate partnerships” (Stadtler and Probst’s, 2011, p.1). Also, Gray (1989)’s description of a convener comes close to HACN’s sought role in: conveners, whether part of the problem setting or not, conveners are organizations that “identify and bring all legitimate stakeholders to the table” (p.71). Brokering is a term that is often used in a networking perspective. It has been described by Marsden (1982) as a process ‘‘by which intermediary actors facilitate transactions between other actors lacking access or trust in one another’’ (p. 202). Social networks establish an environment of shared information about capabilities and reliability of potential partners (Gulati, 2009) allowing trust to develop, either through previous experience with partners or through trust in the intermediary. Wood and Gray (1991) have argued that such an intermediary requires legitimacy and informal authority based on e.g. its position, its expertise, and its credibility resulting from past actions. They have furthermore argued that when the intermediary is reactive in establishing partnerships it should be formally powerful and informally credible, and when proactive it should be formally impartial and informally trustworthy.
3.5 Motivating Partnerships
An obvious motive for collaboration for both parties is the reduction of risk and uncertainty (Hagedoorn, 1993) as well as shared rewards. It is still interesting to look at motives for collaborations because of the partners’ obvious differences: universities primarily focus on creating knowledge and educating, while organizations want to capture it to increase competitive advantage (Dasgupta and David, 1994). The opennature of universities provides them their successes as a reliable and relevant publication constitutes reputation, governmental support, and thus growth. Organizations are more closed by nature: through
careful consideration they keep their intelligence indoors to constitute and secure competitiveness. Some believe collaborations between these parties to be a distraction from academic relevance for the universities (e.g. Nelson, 2004), while controversially other see it as a fresh instrument of economic development (e.g. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). Although university-industry linkages are indeed a measure of innovativeness on many levels (OECD, 2002), they have shown to be difficult to manage (Shane and Somaya, 2007).
In a literature review, Belkhodja and Landry (2007) found the most frequently mentioned reasons for researchers to collaborate with industry to be access to resources, cross-fertilization, visibility, access to tacit knowledge, and specialization enhancement. It is important to realize that university employees are required to assign all patent-rights to the university whom then, through technology transfer offices, out-license these patents to the industry to cover their costs and gain financial benefits. Because these benefits go to the owners of the patents - in the Netherlands the inventors (25%), their department (25%) and their university (50%), whereas in Germany only to the inventor (100%) - decisions to collaborate with industrial partners are also influenced by personal factors such as looking for business opportunities, gaining knowledge about practical applications, gaining insight in the research area, generating funds, and fulfilling university goals (Lee, 1996 & 2000). Lee has also argued that the choice of collaborative partners depends on: inter-institutional structures; formal and informal research networks; research alliances and covenants; and arrangements for sharing expensive or scarce scientific resources or equipment. Barriers to collaborations are discussed by Belkhodja and Landry (2007) as a lack of linkages and networks, access to venture capital, academic rewards, and funds for proof of concept.
Firms also benefit much from such relations. Especially those firms that downsize and outsource R&D activities become increasingly interested in joint research with academics (Mowery and Oxley, 1995). It has been found that partner size and openness of firms to the external environment (i.e. searching, screening and signaling) influences the choice to collaborate. Furthermore, Fontana et al. (2006) have found that firms that outsource their R&D activities and patent to protect innovation and to indicate competencies, show higher willingness to - and intensity of - collaboration. In general, transfer of knowledge and technology stands central, especially when initiating collaborations (Arvanitis et al. 2011).
3.6 Transferring Technology in Partnerships
In collaboration between universities and the industry, transfer of technology stands central. As HACN stakeholders often refer to it, they believe valorization is about brokering technology and bridging the gap between scientific concepts and commercialization onto a practical problem. What is of interest here especially, is the process whereby the HACN aims to valorize on- and transfer technologies. It is important to recognize that the terms knowledge transfer and technology transfer are often used to mean the same thing but, although they are both highly interactive activities, they serve different functions nevertheless. Knowledge transfer
implies a more general and inclusive idea aimed at understanding reasons for change.
Technology transfer is more targeted, often involving a set of tools to accommodate change. The term technology transfer seems to suits the primary aims of this paper: explication of the approach to technology push collaborations in HACN’s context. Technology transfer has been confirmed in literature to increasingly be measured and managed by universities (Bruneel et al., 2010). Due to for example confidentiality issues and the role of trust, such transfer depends heavily on face-to-face technology transfer in e.g. contract-research or innovative related services of testing, consulting and training of personnel, as well as joint (university-industry) R&D projects (Fritsch and Schwirten, 1999). Gopalakrishnan and Santoro (2004) showed how differing organizational structures, professional cultures, as well as policies on Intellectual Property Right, patent ownership and licensing, can stimulate either one: mechanistic and goal oriented cultures produce higher levels of knowledge transfer, while organic structures, flexible change oriented cultures and customized university policies for IP, patent ownership and licensing, accommodate higher levels of technology transfer. Finally they argue that central to the success of both activities stands trust.
Literature generally describes how the technology transfer process is affected by the role of clusters (Porter, 1990), legislations (Kenney and Patton, 2009), and the type of mechanism used (i.e. formal vs. informal channels - Giuri et al., 2007). Powel and Owen-Smith (2001) have argued that most Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) lack the necessary resources and that the success of such offices depends on the university’s perception of the benefits of valorization. According to Gilsing et al. (2011)’s taxonomy, the technology transfer regime apparent in HACN’s context is science-based: relatively basic knowledge (as opposed to applied) which is of high value to the industry, constituting a preference towards formal mechanisms (patents and consultancy). In more detail, the biotechnology industry has been characterized as a network of alliances between different players such as universities,
research institutions and large companies as well as SMEs who generally perform a connecting role (Genet et al., 2011). The transfer of knowledge-intensive technologies often involves the communication of tacit knowledge which is not easily expressed, hard to formalize and highly personal (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) and might thus hinder learning and understanding for the transferee. Strong long-lasting personal ties and trust are therefore particularly important.
3.7 Considering Trust in Partnerships
Considering the frequency and intensity with which trust is mentioned in this review of relevant literature, especially in the context of university-industry collaborative efforts, there is a need to take the term and its implications into consideration. Generally, a consensus exists about the meaning of the word: trust is the one’s willingness to be vulnerable to another’s actions based on the anticipation that the other will execute the action, regardless of the ability to monitor or control the other (as in Ring and van de Ven, 1994; & Mayer et al., 1995). Academics have argued the importance of trust in many fields, amongst which for example communications and leadership, but more importantly negotiations (Nooteboom, 2011). The latter is closely related to the anticipated barriers discussed earlier. Lhuillery and Pfister (2009) as well as Jones and George (1998) have for example argued that previous experience as well as trust in international partnerships significantly increase partnership chance of success. Trust diminishes opportunism and generates the will to participate in more cooperative activities (Tyler and Kramer, 1996). Due to the time required to establish trust, a stable and durable relationship is needed (Ring and van de Ven, 1992). It has been argued that without mechanisms and institutions sustaining dialogues, trust would not endure (Powell, 1996). As discussed earlier, the trust required to convene in partnerships might be constituted by previous experience with partners and the resulting long-term relationship, or in a lack thereof, by a trustworthy intermediary. Trust is important to collaborative negotiations as parties need to share their preferences and value they place on different issues, to maximize joint benefit (Bazerman and Moore, 2009). It has been confirmed to be a critical factor in partnerships by many academics (e.g. Ring and van de Ven, 1994; Blomqvist, 2002). Its value to this paper’s recommendations will be considered later.
3.8 Considering Cultural Differences in Partnerships
Bearing in mind an international context for the partnerships’ implementation requires the consideration of cultural differences and their effect on university-industry partnerships.
found to explain 50% of managers’ attitudes and believes in international partnerships (Hofstede, 1991) and it therefore clearly affects those partnerships (see also Sirmon and Lane, 2004). Lhuillery and Pfister (2009) have indicated that partnership failure is significantly higher in partnerships with foreign partners. National culture differences however also create awareness, that in turn gives rise to managerial efforts that might lack in domestic partnerships, providing a positive effect on partnership success (Morosini et al., 1998). Hofstede (1984) had initially classified four dimensions constituting national cultural differences (masculinity; uncertainty avoidance; power distance; and individualism) but added a fifth in 1991 (long-term orientation). In Barkema and Vermeulen (1997), the disruptive effect of Hofstede’s five dimensions on international joint ventures was tested, resulting in evidence that especially differences in Uncertainty Avoidance and Long-term Orientation cause problems, arguing that differences in other dimensions concern mainly the management of personnel and can be agreed upon explicitly.
Sirmon and Lane (2004) argue that “managers need to carefully evaluate both the complementarity of potential partners' resources and the fit of the professional cultures of the employees who are likely to work together in the alliance” (p. 12). Professional culture is an understanding of how things should be done amongst individuals in a similar function which is established during socialization taking place in education, training, experience and interactions, constituting in a social identity and an understanding of emotional demands belonging to that function (van Maanen and Barley, 1984). Although involvement of and interaction between individuals with different professions is often required in partnerships, Ulijn and Fayole (2002) have shown how professionals from both Germany and the Netherlands gain authority from knowledge and expertise, and how both therefore require little formal hierarchy. The specificity of the problem domain of Healthy Ageing furthermore establishes common professional culture fundamentals for those involved in the partnerships.
If any, the most prevalent barrier of cultural differences is thus expected to be that of national cultural differences. Although much is known about the national cultural differences between e.g. the Netherlands and Germany, little is known about its effects on international ‘technology push’ and ‘demand pull’, university-industry partnership chances of success.
