1
Successful collaboration between universities and
SMEs: A case of BioBRUG
01-07-2013
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Master Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Author
Name : Martha Kootstra
Student number : S1789287
Address : Skoalfinne 15, Boornbergum
E-mail : m.z.kootstra@student.rug.nl
Supervisors
2
Table of content
INTRODUCTION ...4
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ...7
Bridging the theory-practice gap: The context, the content and the process ...7
The process of the collaboration between SMEs and universities ...9
Knowledge exchange ...9
Absorptive capacity ... 10
Trust and the contract ... 11
Interaction ... 12
Intermediary... 13
The context of universities and firms collaborations ... 14
Previous collaboration ... 15
Trust build during previous collaborations ... 16
Interaction during previous collaborations ... 16
The content of universities and firm collaborations ... 17
Problems regarding fulfilling the needs of the SMEs ... 18
Problem solving approach: offering solutions ... 18
Active role of the SME ... 19
Fulfillment of the needs of the SMEs ... 19
Figure 1: The framework of Pettigrew applied to the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs ... 21
METHODOLOGY ... 22 Research setting ... 22 Biobased economy ... 22 BioBRUG ... 23 Research method ... 25 Questionnaire ... 25 Sample ... 25 Procedure ... 25
Validation of the research ... 26
Measurements ... 27
Dependent variable ... 27
Independent variables ... 27
Analyzing the data ... 30
3
Reliability ... 31
Validity ... 31
Generalizability ... 32
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 33
Descriptives ... 33
Results found in the process part ... 35
Knowledge and expertise exchange ... 35
ACAP ... 36
Trust ... 37
Interaction ... 38
Intermediary... 40
Determinants of a successful collaboration identified in the process part. ... 41
Results found in the context part ... 41
Previous collaboration ... 41
Trust build during previous collaborations ... 42
Interaction during previous collaborations ... 43
Determinants of a successful collaboration identified in the context part. ... 44
Results found in the content part ... 44
Problem solving ... 44
Active role ... 45
Fulfillment of the needs of the firms ... 46
Determinants of a successful collaboration identified in the content part. ... 47
Spin-off vs. Non-spin-off ... 47
Young vs. old ... 47
BioBRUG ... 47
CONCLUSION ... 49
Limitations & future research ... 51
Theoretical implications ... 52
Managerial implications ... 53
APPENDIX: Questionnaire BioBRUG ... 55
4
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays knowledge becomes of increasing importance for firms to stay competitive and to keep up with the changes in the environment (Beer, 2001). To gain that knowledge firms have to conduct research and invest in R&D. This might be possible for large enterprises. However, imagine you are the owner or manager of a small enterprise. Do you think you would have enough money and employees to finance and guide the research? It would probably be very difficult to conduct all the research your firm needs and to manage the research properly. So, how would you cope with these problems? You probably would have to search for other possibilities to gather the knowledge your firm needs (Wong & Aspinwall, 2004).
Where a lot of research is conducted and knowledge is produced, is at the universities. This would bring in a possibility for your firm to get the needed knowledge at the university. However, this is not that easy. An obstacle for your firm is the gap between the practice of everyday life of your firm and the research which is conducted at universities (Reed, 2009).
This gap is called the theory – practice gap, which often comes from the misfit in the goals and research focus between firms and universities. The university focuses more on fundamental, long-term research whereas firms are more seeking for applied solutions (Schartinger, Schibany & Gassler, 2001). Thus, this gap makes it difficult for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) to use the university as a source of knowledge. So, how could this difficulty be overcome? One way would be to collaborate with the university (Fogg, 2012).
However, this is often very difficult as SMEs only collaborate with universities to a minor extent and when they do collaborate, they often experience many problems during the collaboration (Yusuf, 2008). It is important that these problems are overcome. Especially for SMEs, as they are the back-bone of the European economy, they have to be able to stay competitive and have to keep up with the current changes (EU, 2007). Therefore the goal of this study is to understand what makes collaboration successful between universities and SMEs.
5 After the elements have been identified in literature, these will be tested in practice. This will be done in a specific industry, the Biobased economy (BBE). This industry is chosen because it is a new industry where the need for new knowledge is high. Especially SMEs in this industry consider a high need, as these firms often operate in niche markets where very little knowledge is available (Enzing & Van der Valk, 2009). For these firms, universities can have a important role in providing them with new knowledge (Harmanni, 2011). However, also the SMEs in the BBE collaborate with universities to a very small extent (Yusuf, 2008). Therefore, especially for these firms, it is important to investigate what determinants are important for a successful collaboration.
To conduct the research, a specific research setting is chosen, which is called BioBRUG. This is an intermediary created by the Rijksunversiteit Groningen (RuG), to stimulate the collaboration between the RuG and SMEs in the BBE. Hereby the RuG wants to help to increase the accessibility of the RuG and increase the knowledge exchange between the university and SMEs in the BBE. BioBRUG wants to accomplish this by collaborating intensively with these SMEs, and thereby solving the problems of these firms.
Based on this study, some interesting findings have been done. First of all was found that a problem solving approach had a real positive influence on the success of the collaboration between SMEs and universities. Here it is not only important that the university offers a solution to the problem of the firm, but also that the format in which it is presented suits to the needs of these firms. Not only the university, but also the firm should have an active role during the collaboration. Trust, interaction and knowledge exchange also have a positive influence on the success of the collaboration. Interesting was that face-to-face interaction, a long-term relationship and absorptive capacity did not have a positive influence on the success of the collaboration between SMEs and universities. Last, the use of an intermediary by the university seems to have a positive influence on the collaboration, as it increases both the accessibility of the university and the knowledge exchange between the firms and university. This study contributes to theory, first of all, because it has adapted the framework of Pettigrew (1987) to this specific research topic. It has been proven that this framework is useful for this topic as elements in all three parts have been found to determinate the success of the collaboration. Second, this study specifically focuses on the success of collaboration between SMEs in the BBE and universities. This industry is very young and has a high need of new knowledge. The findings in this study especially count for SMEs in industries with the same kind of characteristics. This study contributes to theory as it provides the determinants of a successful collaboration with universities with these types of firms.
6 success of the collaboration. For BioBRUG specifically these are all elements on which they should keep their focus. One element which they should consider specifically is a previous collaboration. This seems to negatively influence the success of the collaboration between the SMEs and the university. I suggest that it is important for BioBRUG to pay attention to this point and to find out what the reasons are for this. Besides face-to-face interaction and proximity did not seem to have any influence. Therefore the focus on this communication device should diminish and the focus on virtual collaboration increase.
7
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
Bridging the theory-practice gap: The context, the content and the process
In the business world nowadays a premium is placed upon knowledge as a source of competitive advantage. This is due to changing times (Beer, 2001; Mohrman, Gibson & Mohrman, 2001) where the importance of the role of information and knowledge is increasing (Hudges, O’Regan & Wornham, 2009; Harding, Scott, Laske & Burtscher, 2007). Therefore, firms often have to acquire new knowledge as their own knowledge level is often not high enough (Starkey & Madan, 2001). However, a lot of firms cannot keep up with the changing times and are not able to acquire the new and necessary knowledge fast enough (Van de Ven, 2007). To get support, the firms have to rely on external sources (Wong & Aspinwall, 2004). One of these sources is the university (Schartinger et al., 2001). University researchers are the primary channels through which new knowledge should enter practice (Yusuf, 2008 ; Cristina, 2010). However, often research does not fit to and cannot fulfill the needs of the practitioners (Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006 ; Reed, 2009). This misfit between theory and practice is called the theory–practice gap.
The theory-practice gap is, however, not the same for all firms. SMEs have even more problems regarding knowledge creation and management compared to larger firms. SMEs often do not have their own research and development department, have limited finance and often lack time (Wong & Aspinwall, 2004). When SMEs want to use the university as a source to gather more information, they also have more problems with this compared to large firms. SMEs use universities as a source of knowledge to a minor extent (Corsten, 1987). Only 5% of the SMEs are currently involved in collaboration with universities (Fogg, 2012), compared to 47% of the large firms (Arvanitis, Kubli, & Woerter, 2011). SMEs are often poorly informed, not aware of new technologies and lack technical and marketing skills. Even when SMEs are aware of new technologies, they can be discouraged from utilizing such technology due to their limited access to finance and risky and lengthy payback period (Yusuf, 2008). All this provides some reasons for concerns as 99% of all European businesses are SMEs. These firms provide two-third of the jobs in the private sector and are considered as the true back-bone of the European economy (EU, 2007). Thus the theory – practice gap is even larger for SMEs than for the large firms.
8 been successful between universities and SMEs (Yusuf, 2008). To overcome these problems and to further close the theory-practice gap between SMEs and universities it is important to investigate what this collaboration should look like to be successful. Therefore the goal of this study is to discover what elements are important in a successful collaboration between universities and SMEs. The following research question is formulated:
What are the determinants of successful collaboration between universities and SMEs?
Collaboration needs to be discussed a bit more in depth. To define collaboration, the definition of Wood and Gray (1991) is used: ‘Collaboration occurs when a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in a interactive process, using shared rules, norms and structures, to act or decide on issues related to that domain’. It can be seen that collaboration is somewhat complex and difficult to understand. When investigating what successful collaboration looks like, this is not easy to capture and is determined by many elements (Mattessich & Monsey, 1992). Therefore it is important that this is analyzed systematically. This could be done with the help of a framework, introduced by Pettigrew (1987). This will be highlighted in the next paragraph.
9 for this study, because collaboration is a broad research topic which should be analyzed systematically to be able to capture all elements.
The literature review will start with investigating the relation between SMEs and universities for the process part. After that the content and context part will be discussed. For each identified element a hypothesis will be developed.
The process of the collaboration between SMEs and universities
The process part is about the ‘how’ of the framework. It refers to the actions, reactions and interactions between the various parties (Pettigrew, 1985). Here the process of collaboration between SMEs and universities is discussed. In the process part four elements have been identified which positively influence the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs. The elements are, knowledge exchange, absorptive capacity (ACAP), interaction and trust. These elements have been found to be individually important determinants of the success of collaboration. However these elements also complement each other and therefore not ‘just’ one element can be eliminated. It was found that knowledge exchange is especially effective in combination with a high ACAP (Fogg, 2012), strong trust positively influences knowledge exchange and interaction between firms and universities (Woolthuis, Hillebrand & Nooteboom, 2005) and frequent, personal, new and understandable interaction has a positive effect on trust and knowledge exchange (Enzing & Van der Valk, 2009). These four elements are all important in the process part of collaboration. Besides the role of an intermediary will be discussed. An intermediary can influence different elements of the collaboration.
Knowledge exchange
10 H1: A high knowledge exchange positively influences the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs
However, knowledge exchange between the universities and SMEs on its own is not sufficient to successfully collaborate. Knowledge exchange is especially effective when the universities and SMEs both possess sufficient absorptive capacity (ACAP) (Fogg, 2012). After the universities and the SMEs have exchanged the knowledge, the processes for absorbing the knowledge are of importance (Camisón & Forés, 2010; Kodama, 2008).
Absorptive capacity
When a firm needs to acquire and use new knowledge that is unrelated to their ongoing activity, then the firm has to dedicate effort to create absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 2007; Starkey & Madan, 2001). Due to their smallness, SMEs often have very low levels of ACAP (Fogg, 2012), as SMEs generally lack proper understanding of knowledge management and the related formal and systematic approaches (Löwik, 2013).
11 high ACAP (Fogg, 2012). When SMEs have a high ACAP they are better able to absorb the knowledge which the university has transferred to them (Löwik, 2013). When firms do not have a high ACAP they are not capable to really use the knowledge in their advantage. A low ACAP might limit the university in successfully exchange the knowledge and thus also to successfully collaborate with the SME (Fogg, 2012).
H2: A high ACAP of the SMEs positively influences the success of the collaboration between SMEs and the universities
The knowledge exchange between SMEs and university also renews the knowledge of the university (Fogg, 2012). Enzing and Van der Valk (2009) emphasize that when different parties collaborate, that it is important that both have a high ACAP in order to be able to work together. By having a high ACAP, the university is able to diagnose the problems and the need for innovation of the SME(s) (Yusuf, 2008).
The process part should also have a more relational approach (Tuli, Kohli & Bharadway, 2007). This has a iterative nature, with frequent interactions during collaborations between universities and firms, where also a significant degree of trust is necessary (Nordin & Kowalkowski, 2009). These elements will be discussed next.
Trust and the contract
Trust can be defined as the willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence (Moorman, Zaltman & Deshpande, 1992) that it will not exploit the vulnerabilities of the collaboration (Faems, Janssens, Madhok & Van Looy, 2008). It has been found that strong trust has a positive influence on the relationship between firms and universities (Bruneel, D’Este & Salter, 2010; Santoro & Saparito, 2003). Relationships characterized by trust have been considered as more successful. This is due to the fact that when trust is around, parties are more likely to share information, timely and accurately, problems are signaled earlier and are more often jointly solved (Woolthuis et al., 2005). Strong trust in relationship with universities is important for all firms independent of their firm size (Corston, 1987) and independent of the industry (Enzing and Van der Valk, 2009).
H3a: Strong trust between universities and SMEs during the collaboration has a positive influence on the success of the collaboration
12 safeguard for opportunism. Second, firms that have a trusting relationship interpret contracts as an expression of trust (Woolthuis et al., 2005). Often trust is a prerequisite for parties to precede contract because it provides a basis for openness which is needed for effective collaboration (Woolthuis et al., 2002; Woolthuis et al., 2005). The parties need to be sure that their relationship-specific investment is not wasted. Thus ‘in a trusting atmosphere, the presence of contracts might be interpreted as the embodiment of commitment and trust’ (Woolthuis, et al., 2002).
H3b: The presence of contracts has a positive influence on the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs
Interaction
Van de Ven and Johnsen (2006) emphasize that the interaction between people with different views and approaches lies at the heart of the collaboration process. Academics have to get practitioners to value their research before and during the collaboration (Mohrman et al., 2001). To reach this, researchers should not study alone (Van de Ven, 2009), but should interact with stakeholders about the research content and process (Hodgkinson, Herriot & Anderson, 2001; Starkey & Madan, 2009; Pettigrew, 2001). They should take each other’s perspective into account and jointly participate in interpreting the results of the research (Enzing & Van der Valk, 2009). When considering interactions four aspects have been found to determine the influence on interaction. These will be discussed next.
Frequent interaction is an very important underlying aspect in the collaboration to get these perspectives aligned, to interpret the results and eventually contribute to the usefulness of the research Mohrman et al., 2001). Frequency is therefore an important aspect of interaction in order to be able to contribute to the success of collaboration (Santoro & Saparito, 2003).
H4a: The more frequent is interacted during the collaboration, the more this positively influences the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs
13 e-mail, telephone, letters, etc. (Nardi & Whittaker, 2002). This makes face-to-face interaction an important aspect of interaction.
H4b: The more frequent use of face-to-face of interaction during the collaboration, the more this positively influences the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs
Another aspect, proximity is considered as important for supporting low-cost communications, high quality interactions (Kraut & Edigo, 1988), trust and the tangible knowledge outcomes of a collaboration (Santoro & Saparito, 2003). Thus when the university and firms are located close to each other this will positively influence the success of the collaboration.
H4c: The closer the SMEs are to the university, the more successful the collaboration between universities and SMEs will be
Last aspect of interaction to consider is cognitive distance. Cognitive distance denotes differences in knowledge, competences, motives, values and beliefs, which determine the alignment of activities between research partners (Nooteboom, Van Haverbeke, Duysters, Gilsing & Van den Oord, 2007). When considering knowledge exchange, firms should be able to exchange knowledge that is new. To be able to do this, the cognitive distance should not be too small. On the other hand, the cognitive distance should not be too high because than the university and the firm will not be able to understand each other anymore. ‘Information is useless if it is not new, but it is also useless if it is so new that it cannot be understood’ (Nooteboom, 2000). Löwik (2013) therefore emphasizes the importance of a balance in the cognitive distance for SMEs during a collaboration, where the knowledge and information exchanged is both new and understandable.
H4d: When the knowledge and information exchanged is both new and understandable, this positively influences the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs
Intermediary
14 be an important goal as the research environment often finds it difficult to translate and disseminate scientific knowledge to practice (Van de Ven & Johnsen, 2006; Hudges, et al., 2009). Increasing accessibility could be especially important for SMEs, as for them universities are often difficult to reach. Besides, many intermediaries have access to special funds. This is also of significant importance for SMEs as they often have limited access to finance (Yusuf, 2008).
H5: The presence of an intermediary positively influences the success of the collaboration between the universities and the SMEs
In this part four elements have been discussed, knowledge exchange, ACAP, trust and interaction. All these four elements positively influence the success of the collaboration between SMEs and universities. Besides, as already mentioned these are also interrelated. First of all, in this study knowledge exchange instead of knowledge transfer is emphasized to positively influence the success of the collaboration (Fogg, 2012; Yusuf, 2008). However, after the universities and the SMEs have exchanged the knowledge, the processes for absorbing the knowledge are of importance (Camisón & Forés, 2010; Kodama, 2008). When SMEs have a high ACAP they are better able to absorb the knowledge which the university has transferred to them (Löwik, 2013). However, in the process part also a more relational approach is important (Tuli, Kohli & Bharadway, 2007), here trust and interaction come in (Nordin & Kowalkowski, 2009). Relationships characterized by trust have been considered as more successful. This is due to the fact that when trust is around, parties are more likely to share information, timely and accurately, problems are signaled earlier and are more often jointly solved (Woolthuis et al., 2005). Besides the presence of contracts is also found to have an positive influence on the success of the collaboration (Woolthuis, et al., 2002). Last, interaction has four aspects which positively influence the success of the collaboration, these are frequency (Santoro & Saparito, 2003), face-to-face interaction (Bruneel et al., 2010), proximity (Kraut & Edigo, 1988) and cognitive distance (Nooteboom, 2007).
In the next part the context will be discussed. The context part mainly concerns the reasons why the firms and universities collaborate.
The context of universities and firms collaborations
15 when firms and universities collaborate they often misunderstand each other, which decreases the success of the collaboration (Van de Ven and Johnson, 2006).
Bruneel et al., (2010) have identified problems of differences in orientations of firms and universities. They mainly emphasize the differences in norms and attitudes between firms and universities. When university and industry collaborate they are likely to be confronted with conflicts mainly due to disagreement on what is interesting and justified (Baldridge, Floyd & Markóczy, 2004). The main reasons for these differences in orientations are that universities and firms have different research focus, goals and time frame (Starkey & Madan, 2001; Schartinger et al., 2001). Research in universities is driven by the search for understanding and explanation, through the systematic application of theoretical reasoning and empirical investigation, whereby the focus is on more general research topics. Rather than on generalization, in practice the focus is on reflection and judgement in context-specific issues and problems (Reed, 2009). Besides the research focus, also the goals of the universities and firms often differ. The main goal of universities is to produce knowledge in the form of public goods. Firms, on the other hand, want to maximize profit and therefore seek to optimize the results of their innovation process (Schartinger et al., 2001). However, these goals mainly count for large firms, as SMEs often have different and more diverse goals. The goals of SMEs often do not emphasize profit maximization, they rather attempt to earn a satisfactory income. Besides that, the goals are also more diverse, as the SMEs often focus on both economic and/or non-economic goals, as job satisfaction and freedom (Greenbank, 2001). The SME owners, compared to managers of large firms, consider non-economic goals as more important (Bucar & Hisrich, 2001). When considering the research time frame, firms, and especially SMEs have a more short term focus, compared to universities who are more long term oriented (Schartinger, et al., 2001). Therefore, SMEs do perceive the long-term orientation of universities as a more important constraint than larger firms do (Bruneel et al., 2010), as SMEs are often short of time and therefore more short-term focused (Fogg, 2012).
The different points of views between universities and firms limits bridging the success of collaboration between these two parties (Van de Ven, 2007). Due to this, firms believe that the research interests of the universities can not correspond to their needs and interests. So, very often firms, and especially SMEs, do not even consider to collaborate with universities (Arvanitis et al., 2011).
Previous collaboration
16 ways of engaging with the university sector (Bruneel et al., 2010). Therefore, the next hypothesis has been developed.
H6: Previous collaboration positively influences the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs
During previous collaborations, interaction and trust between universities and firms are of significant importance to be able to align these different viewpoints (Van der Ven & Johnsen, 2006). In the process part, trust and interaction was already discussed specifically for the collaboration between universities and SMEs. Here is dealt with trust and interaction to the university during previous collaboration. This thus focuses more on the relationship between SMEs and universities in general.
Trust build during previous collaborations
Trust is an important element that needs to be developed during previous collaborations between the university and the firms (Nooteboom, Berger & Noorderhaven, 1997; Ganesan, 1994). This is because it takes time to build trust between two parties. Trust will probably not fully develop during only one specific collaboration, but grows when more often is collaborated (Pettigrew, 2001; Lewicki, Tomlinson & Gillespie, 2006). The way in which the long-term relationship is build is important (Santoro, & Saparito, 2003). Bruneel et al. (2010) found that trust was best predicted by the process-based perspective. This means that trust is highly correlated with stable and consistent processes and routines between parties, which represents commitments towards the long-term. Without trust it is unlikely for the previous collaborations to successfully influence next collaborations (Bruneel et al., 2010). Thus, trust in previous collaborations between universities and SMEs is necessary to positively influence the success of the collaboration (Nordin & Kowalkowski, 2009).
H7: Strong trust developed during previous collaborations positively influences the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs
Interaction during previous collaborations
To overcome the problems of misunderstanding, it is important that differences in goals and incentives between universities and firms are understood. To align this, interaction is important during previous collaborations (Bruneel et al., 2010; Nordin & Kowalkowski, 2009). When considering ‘long-term’ interaction, different aspects are important.
17 SMEs and universities should interact frequently during collaborations. Here is argued however that they also should interact more often by collaborating on different projects to increase the success of the collaboration (Mohrman et al., 2001).
H8a: The more frequent is collaborated, the more this positively influences the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs
Bruneel et al. (2010) emphasizes the importance of face-to-face interactions as it can help to emerge the different viewpoints. For SMEs face-to-face interaction during previous collaboration is one of the main factors to overcome interaction difficulties and to gain a better understanding of each other research focus, goals and time frame (Corsten, 1987).
H8b: The more the use of face-to-face interactions during previous collaborations, the more this positively influences the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs
In this part the main the importance of mutual understanding, where firms and universities should understand each other’s point of view, incentives and goals, is emphasized (Bruneel et al., 2010). However, when SMEs and universities collaborate they often misunderstand each other, which decreases the success of the collaboration (Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006). The main cause for this is the difference in the orientations of universities and firms (Starkey & Madan, 2001; Schartinger et al., 2001). To align these different viewpoints previous collaboration between universities and SMEs is necessary (Bruneel et al., 2010). During these previous collaborations, interaction and trust between universities and SMEs are of significant importance to be able to align these different viewpoints (Van der Ven & Johnsen, 2006).
In the next paragraph the content will be evaluated. Whereas context focuses on the differences in viewpoints between universities and firms, content is more directed towards the fulfillment of the needs of the firms (Hudges, et al., 2009).
The content of universities and firm collaborations
18 (Hudges, et al., 2009). To be able to apply such an approach, the university should offer solutions to the SMEs. The characteristics, antecedents and outcomes of this approach are discussed (Nordin & Kowalkoski, 2010). Also an active role of the SMEs in this approach is important.
Problems regarding fulfilling the needs of the SMEs
A main problem is the lack of relevance of academic research (Hudges et al., 2009; Van de Ven, 2007; Starkey & Madan, 2001), because much academic research is not contributing to practice (Van de Ven, 2007; Beer, 2001). Researchers typically study alone, without involving or communicating with other stakeholders. Due to this, research is not grounded in reality (Van de Ven, 2007) and firms do not observe that many relevant topics for them (Starkey & Madan, 2001). Even when there is relevant research available, then firms often lack awareness of the research, because they cannot find it or it has not been disseminated thoroughly by the universities (Starkey & Madan, 2001). This especially applies to SMEs (Yusuf, 2009), as only a minor extent of the SMEs collaborates with universities (Corsten, 1987). SMEs often consider large obstacles to identify relevant research (Kodama, 2008). Even when relevant research is available and when firms are aware, other problems regarding the language employed and the format used may occur (Hudges et al., 2009). Academics often rely on reflective analysis to communicate their research, instead of on best practices and advice, on which firms often rely (Starkey & Madan, 2001). It is therefore also important that the outcomes of the research are reported in a not too complex, understandable language for SMEs (Fogg, 2012).
To overcome these problems, universities should adopt a problem solving approach by connecting the firms’ problems to their research (Hudges et al., 2009). The problem solving approach will be discussed in the next paragraphs.
Problem solving approach: offering solutions
19 These solutions apply to certain characteristics identified by Nordin and Kowalkoski (2010); these solutions should be customized by offering a unique combination of products and services (Brady, Davies & Gann, 2005; Miller et al., 2002), integrated products, services and software (Miller et al., 2002), a bundle of products and services (Brax & Jonsson, 2008), a proactive and reactive response to client specifications (Matthyssens & Vandenbempt, 1998), it can be both vertical (industry-specific) and horizontal (industry-generic) solutions (Galbraith, 2002), and can range from product to business to partnership solutions (Dunn & Thomas, 1994). The solutions offered by the universities should apply to these characteristics.
‘The focus is on the providers of integrated solutions to identify and solve each customer’s business problem by providing services to design, integrate, operate, and finance a product during its life time’ (Davies, et al., 2006). By using the problem solving approach the university is better able to apply to the needs of the firms and therefore contributing to the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs (Nordin & Kowalkoski, 2010).
H9: The use of the problem solving approach by the universities positively influences the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs
Active role of the SME
Starkey and Madan (2001) emphasize that, for universities to offer solutions, a different academic mindset is required. Researchers need to rethink their knowledge production process, more towards a knowledge demand production process. However, this does not mean that the firms can wait until it receives the solution. In a university- firm collaboration, also a different mindset is needed from the firms to increase the success of the collaboration. Practitioners also have to rethink their involvement in the research process (Starkey & Madan, 2001). In such processes SMEs should have an active role where they think about their needs and transfer information about it to the university (Fogg, 2012).
H10: The more active the role of the SMEs are, the more this positively influences the success of the collaboration between SMEs and universities.
Fulfillment of the needs of the SMEs
20 whether the needs of the firms are fulfilled (Nordin & Kowalkoski, 2010). This is also an important part of the collaboration and therefore influences the success of the collaboration.
H11: The more the needs of the SMEs are fulfilled, the more this positively influences the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs
21 Figure 1: The framework of Pettigrew applied to the success of the collaboration between universities and SMEs
22
METHODOLOGY
In this study the following research question was formulated: What are the determinants of successful collaboration between universities and SMEs? To answer this research question, in this study I chose to conduct research in a specific research setting. The research setting of this study is BioBRUG. BioBRUG is a project of the University of Groningen, set up to increase the collaboration with SMEs in the Biobased economy (BBE). Therefore first this industry is discussed in depth. What are specific characteristics of this industry and why this industry is relevant in this study. Next I describe the research method. In this study a questionnaire is developed and is send to the firms involved in BioBRUG. However, before this is send out, first a pre-test is conducted. After, I describe the dependent, independent and control variables and here is indicated how these variables are measured. Last, reliability, validity and generalizability issues are discussed.
Research setting
Biobased economy
In the BBE there is a transition from the use of oil and other fossil fuels to the use of biomass, which consists of both animal and vegetable derived material. These materials are renewable and can replace fossil fuels. This is important because fossil fuels are depleting (Derksen, 2012). Besides, this helps to lighten the environmental footprint and enhance energy security. The BBE economy can have important positive contributions towards a more sustainable economy (Enzing & Van der Valk, 2009) and is therefore of increasing importance (Asveld, Van Est & Stemerding, 2011; Minnesma & Hisschemöller, 2003; SER, 2010). The BBE is an industry where innovation and R&D is considered as important. Although this is important for almost all firms, especially counts for the BBE. One reason is that the BBE is an relatively new industry where a lot of research needs to be done and a lot of new knowledge is needed. Besides government en EU wants to stimulate firms in the BBE to innovate faster (Enzing & Van der Valk, 2009). This is because the developments in the BBE can contribute to environmental goals. One example is that they want to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses with 30% by 2020. The BBE can contribute to this goal because of their co2 neutral production (Hanemaaijer, Manders, Kruitwagen & Dietz, 2012; Rijksoverheid, 2011; Werkprogramma schoon en zuinig, 2012).
23 parts of the market of the BBE. This gives an necessity for SMEs to find market niches. Here another problem comes in, as very little new knowledge is available about these niches. To solve this obstacle a lot of new knowledge will have to be developed in the future to overcome this problem. Options, as joining a larger agriculture cluster or collaborating with other firms is very difficult for these SMEs. Therefore, the importance of universities to make new knowledge available for SMEs in the BBE is emphasized to have large opportunities (Harmanni, 2011). However SMEs are, on one hand, often less visible for universities that larger firms. On the other hand SMEs often perceive lack of accessibility and do not know who to contact (Hudges et al., 2009). Thus, the theory-practice gap can be considered as an important impediment for the SMEs in the BBE. As it is difficult for SMEs in the BBE to collaborate with the university. Therefore it will be investigated what determinants are important in the collaboration between universities and SMEs in the BBE.
BioBRUG
The research setting which was found to suit to this research, is called BioBRUG. BioBRUG is a project initiated by the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG) which focuses on SMEs in the North of The Netherlands which are operating in the BBE. These firms can apply to BioBRUG with a specific question or need about ‘green’ inputs, processes or products. BioBRUG assesses the question or need and connects this firm with a master student of the technical business administration field, biology or chemistry. The student will conduct research and eventually supply the firm with an answer to their question or a solution to their problem. The main idea here is that the university applies to the needs of the businesses instead of the other way around. BioBRUG started in November 2011 and will end in June 2015.
24 the region. Therefore this asset should be more fully exploited in the development of the BBE in the North of The Netherlands (De BioBRUG, 2012).
BioBRUG has two main goals:
- Stimulating synergy and interaction between entrepreneurship and research in the biobased economy.
Before the project started, there was little interaction between the RUG and the SMEs in the region in the BBE. Therefore BioBRUG chose to apply a different working method. They want to increase interaction by actively collaborating with the SMEs. These firms can bring in their own question or need and together with the RUG research will be conducted with the focus on this particular need/question. Not only to increase the interaction but also to increase the synergy between entrepreneurship and research, and thereby further closing the gap between theory and practice.
- Strengthen the economic position of the SMEs in the region by creating direct access to the scientific expertise of the RUG.
BioBRUG wants to bring in the possibility for SMEs to have a flexible, easy approachable, quick and uncomplicated access to the knowledge and expertise of the RUG. BioBRUG wants to do this by connecting talented and motivated masterstudents to the SMEs who contact BioBRUG. The students have to conduct research considering the specific problem/question which the SMEs have introduced (De BioBRUG, 2012).
This research setting has a good fit to this study because, first of all, BioBRUG wants to contribute to closing the gap between theory and practice for SMEs. It thereby brings in the possibility for SMEs to have a flexible, easy approachable, quick and uncomplicated access to the knowledge and expertise of the RUG. Second, BioBRUG focuses on a relevant sector, research in this area is often of high technological complexity, where much new knowledge is needed. Third, Yusuf (2008) states that in such areas, that universities are a primary source through which new knowledge enters practice. Besides, he emphasizes the importance of an intermediary to achieve effective collaboration. In this case, BioBRUG is an intermediary created by the RUG. An intermediary can be defined as a third party who connects, recombines and transfers knowledge to firms in order to facilitate innovation (Hargadon, & Sutton, 1997). In their role of intermediary, BioBRUG connects a masterstudent of the RUG to a firm. The student is doing the execution of the project, the direction of the project is in still control of BioBRUG.
25
Research method
Questionnaire
To conduct the research I have developed a questionnaire, which was spread among the firms involved in BioBRUG (Appendix 1). There are a couple of reasons why I have chosen this data collection method. It is easy to spread them among a group of respondents, as it costs much less time then conducting interviews. Second, it is a non-intrusive way to gather data. Respondents can fill in the questionnaire in their own time, can take as much time as they need and can fill it in anonymous. Respondents feel less tension from the interviewer to give certain answers, which also declines the researchers bias. Last, in general, a questionnaire costs less time for the respondent to fill in than an interview. Therefore this might increase the response rate. However the use of a questionnaire also has some disadvantages. Due to the fact that there are many closed questions, there might be a lack of in-depth data (McClelland 1994). To minimize this, also some open questions are asked, which complement the answers given in the closed ended questions. Besides questions might be poorly worded or interpreted differently by the respondents than by the researcher. Therefore a pre-test and an interview with the leader of BioBRUG is conducted first, to see whether the questions are right understood and interpreted, and to investigate whether the right choices are given (Del Greco & Walop, 1987).
Sample
The sample for this study are the firms which collaborate or have been collaborating with the RuG through BioBRUG. I have chosen to include all these firms because they can provide relevant information about the collaboration, even if the collaboration is not finished yet. Besides, otherwise the sample would have been very small.
At the start I received 37 e-mail addresses of firms of the leader of BioBRUG. 17 of firms who have finished their collaboration and 20 of firms who still collaborate. However, when I send out the questionnaire I received some e-mails of firms who stated that they could not fill in the questionnaire. One firm refused, two firms only collaborated with BioBRUG very short and seven stated that they did not collaborate with BioBRUG or only to a very small extent. In total 27 firms were left, all are SMEs and active in the BBE. 12 of these firms have already finished their collaboration with BioBRUG and 15 still collaborate with BioBRUG.
Procedure
26 same meaning as the English ones. Before the actual questionnaire was send out, the leader of BioBRUG send out an announcement to all the firms. This was done to grab the attention of the firms and to increase the response rate. A couple days after I send the link to the questionnaire to the firms, which was followed by a reminder a week later. This in total led to 16 responses out of 28, of which 15 were filled in completely. This is a response rate of 55%.
Validation of the research
Pre-test
Before the questionnaire was spread among the sample, I did conduct a pre-test. The pre-test was conducted at a SME which has been involved in BioBRUG. This firm, named BioClear, is an already existing SME since 1988 and already active in the BBE for 25 years. An interview was conducted with the founder and owner of BioClear. His firm is a spin-off of the RuG, however the RuG has no stake in it for the last 20 years.
Due to the pre-test I have made some small changes to the questionnaire. First of all some questions have been added. During the pre-test was, besides knowledge exchange, also expertise exchange was mentioned as a very important aspect. The founder did emphasize the importance of expertise exchange between firm and RuG. Therefore I have added another hypotheses to this study and questions about it in the questionnaire.
H1b: High expertise exchange positively influences the collaboration between universities and SMEs in the BBE
One way to distinguish between firms is to investigate whether they are a spin-off from the university or not. BioClear was a spin-off, but the university is no stakeholder anymore. The university did not have much direct influence on the firm, however they emphasized that being a spin-off makes it much easier to access the university. Therefore it was decided to add a question about, if the university is still a stakeholder in the firm, to see whether that has influence on the firm.
Also I have made some other slight adjustments in the questions to make them better understandable for the respondents.
Interview with the leader of BioBRUG
27 collaborate with the RuG again after BioBRUG. Therefore, I have added a question about this in the questionnaire.
Feedback
After the results of the questionnaire were received, I have conducted a post-test to get some feedback on the results. The post-test was conducted at a firm named Water & Energy Solutions. This is a SME of only 2,5 years old, it employs 4 people, and is a spin-off of the RuG. The RuG has no stake in their firm anymore, however the firm still uses some facilities of the RuG. An interview was conducted with the owner of the firm. The reason for this was to be able to clarify some, especially the surprising or unclear results.
Measurements
Dependent variable
The dependent variable in this study is the success of the collaboration. This is measured by the perceived success of the collaboration. Hereby the respondents of the questionnaire will be asked the following question:
How did your firm experience the collaboration with BioBRUG in general? Not successful Very successful
Although there might be more ways of investigating the success of the collaboration, this was chosen because it is important that the firms consider it as successful. These are the main target group of BioBRUG. Besides it is difficult, for this study, to measure it in a different way. For example when focusing on the more long-term, economic influences.
Independent variables
For some variables it is important to combine separate questions to be able to measure the. Here for both the formative indicator measurement model and the reflective measurement model are used, dependent on the variable and the question.
28 The formative model also assume the combination of items to measure or indicate a variable. It, however, does not assume that these items are necessarily positively correlated (Coltman, Devinney, Midgley & Venaik, 2008). Interpretation should be based on loadings, rather than on regression weights (Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001). A formative model is used when a concept can be defined by a combination of indicators, whereas a reflective analysis should be used when a concept is indicated by similar possible indicators (Saris, 2009). The main part is that not just elements are deleted but that all items should be included. Hereby all items have been included which are relevant for that variable.
For problem solving and ACAP the reflective model will be used as for these variables it is important that the questions correlate. When the reflective model is applied, than the Cronbach’s Alpha will be computed for the indicators. For cognitive distance and outcomes the formative indicator model is used as here different aspects are important to define the variable.
Next the is discussed how each independent variable is measured.
Most questions have to be answered on a 7-point likert scale. Thus when nothing is mentioned it can be assumed that this is the case.
Knowledge (and expertise) exchange
Expertise exchange has not been discussed in the literature part, but its importance has only been emphasized during the pre-test. In literature there in only very limited literature about this topic. There are some sources which emphasize the importance of expertise exchange in the collaboration between firms and universities (Vedovello, 1998). Therefore to measure this variable it is asked to what extent there was a two way exchange expertise during the collaboration. The same method is used for knowledge exchange.
ACAP
For measuring ACAP the method of Löwik (2013) was used. ACAP can be divided in four categories. For each of these categories Löwik has developed 3 or 4 statements to measure the ACAP of a firm. These method of Löwik seems specifically relevant for this study as he has adjusted this for especially SMEs. These in total 12 statements had to be combined to be able to measure ACAP as a whole. This could be done as Cronbach’s Alpha was 0,953.
Trust
Trust was measured with the following statement:
o My firm was could rely on BioBRUG during the collaboration
This statement measures trust by when asking if firms could rely on BioBRUG, this indicates the amount of trust they have (Moorman et al., 1992).
29 For interaction there are four aspects which have to be measured.
o Frequency
This aspect was measured by asking respondents how often they have interacted with the university during the collaboration on average per week. This is because it is probably easier for respondents to indicate per week than the total amount of interactions during the collaborations.
o Face-to-face interaction
For face-to-face interaction is also asked how often is interacted per week on average by using this communication device.
o Proximity
This is measured by asking how far the firm is located from the university (in kilometers).
o Cognitive distance
Cognitive distance has two aspects. First the newness of the information which is transferred, and second the understandability of the information transferred. To measure this two statements were developed:
The transferred information was understandable for us The transferred information was new to us
The respondents had to answer to what extent they did agree with the statements. To measure the cognitive distance it is important to combine both, as both understandability and newness should be high. Here the formative model is applied as both are important indicators of cognitive distance, which need to be considered together.
Previous collaboration
This variable is measured by asking the respondents if they have collaborated with the RuG before BioBRUG. Here are only two answers, yes or no. To analyze the differences, the two groups will be compared.
Problem solving approach
To analyze this question, three statements have been taken together: o The offer of BioBRUG is specific for the BBE
o During the collaboration our firm’s perspective has been taken into account sufficiently
o The BioBRUG adjusts its offer to the needs of our firm
30 Active role
Here the question was asked to what extent the firms did consider their own role as active. Although this might be somewhat subjective, as they have to judge their own role, this cannot be asked the university, as the questionnaire is filled in anonymous.
Fulfillment of the needs
The outcomes apply to the direct results of the collaboration, thus whether these have contributed to the firm, if their problem was solved etc. In total seven elements determine the outcomes. Here the formative model is applied as all outcomes are important elements in determining the success of the collaboration.
Intermediary
This research setting was specifically chosen because BioBRUG was installed as an intermediary by the RuG to increase the accessibility and knowledge exchange. Therefore the next question was asked and statement given:
- To what extent do you believe that BioBRUG has changed the accessibility of the RuG? - BioBRUG had a positive influence on the knowledge exchange between the RuG and our
firm
Although this might be somewhat subjective, to measure it more extensively is behind the scope of this study.
Analyzing the data
At first I wanted to use SPSS, a software to conduct statistical analysis, to analyze the data and test the hypotheses. However, here one difficulty came in. This study only has a small sample size and, due to that, only a small data set, as only 16 firms have filled in the questionnaire Although this research setting was chosen on purpose, it makes analyzing the data somewhat more difficult. When using SPSS with only a small data set, this is difficult and can lead to a wrong interpretation of the results. One outlier might already influence the significance level to a very large extent. Therefore is chosen for a different approach of analyzing the data more in depth. This is done by presenting an overview of the data in tables or graphs, which gives a clear idea about the relations between variables. Also, when there is no relationship is found, it can be seen where the outliers are.
31
Justification
Reliability
When considering the reliability, the results of the study should be independent of the specific study characteristics. For reliability there are four potential sources of biases which should be minimalized.
First bias is the researcher’s bias. Here the results should be independent of the person who conducted the research. This bias is first of all lowered, because of the use of the questionnaire. It was chosen that the leader of BioBRUG, would only send out the announcement. This was to raise awareness and the response rate. However, I send out the questionnaire to the firm. This will probably minimize the bias as the owners or managers of the firms did not know their researcher in person. Besides is emphasized that the questionnaire is filled is anonymous. This should also lower the bias as people feel more free to answer.
Next bias is the instrument bias. This indicates that the results of the study should be independent of the instrument used. This bias was first of all lowered for some variables by the use of different questions to measure one element. If possible, with the Cronbach’s Alpha it is tested whether it is reliable to take these questions together. Second, also a pre-test was conducted. This was done to check if the questions were interpreted in the right way and to provide some more in-depth data.
Third bias is the respondent bias. Here the results of the study should be independent of the respondents. The questionnaire was send to the firms involved in BioBRUG. As the research was conducted in a specific research setting this might increase the respondent bias. The research probably only counts for SMEs who are in the same kind of industry.
Last bias discussed is the situation bias. Here the results should be independent of the circumstances in which the questionnaire is conducted. This is difficult to control for, as the respondents can fill in the questionnaire at any time they want. It can be seen that the questionnaires have been filled in at all different moments in time.
Validity
For validity it is important that research is justified by the way it is generated. There are three types of validity, each will be discussed now.
32 by asking about different aspects of a element. For example, when considering interaction different questions are asked about frequency, face-to-face, multiple communication devices, etc. to cover all important aspects.
Also internal validity is important. This concerns the relationships between elements. Hereby the proposed relationships or hypotheses should be adequate and the theoretical ground should be sufficient. In this study all hypotheses are grounded in theory.
Last type is external validity. This focuses on generalizability. This will be discussed next.
Generalizability
33
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this part first some descriptives will be presented to give an overview of what kind of firms are involved and what their goals and objectives are. Also it will be shown why these firms have chosen to collaborate with BioBRUG. In the last part the hypotheses will be tested to investigate whether the findings support existing theories. If support is not found, plausible reasons are presented why it might have turned out differently.
Descriptives
First some short descriptives about the firms are given. In total 16 respondents have filled in the questionnaire. The firms involved in this study are on average 10 years old. The oldest firms is 33 years old and the youngest first is founded this year, 2013. The SMEs on average have 20 employees. The largest firm has 120 employees and the smallest only 1 (the owner him- or herself). Of these firms three are a spin-off of the RuG, the rest is not. In only one of these firms, the RuG still has a stake. The research focus, time focus and goals of the firms are also investigated to see whether this is in line with the literature. On average the firms in this study;
- Focus rather on the long-term than on the short-term - Have a specific research focus
- Focus to a larger extent on economic goals than on non-economic goals - Do consider a satisfactory income more important than profit maximalization
- Find innovation, contribution to the environment, and contribution to the production of knowledge for society important.
- Other goals as ‘having fun’, ‘contribute to public health’, ‘find solutions for customers’, were also mentioned as important by some firms.
34 commercialize. Here for it is a necessity for firms in the BBE to focus on the long-term (Enzing & Van der Valk, 2009).
Reasons for collaboration
The firms had different reasons for collaboration, these are shown in the table below.
Reasons of collaboration Amount of firms
Urgent problem 7
Information request 3
Brokerage request 1
No urgent problem request 1
Other reasons:
- ‘Our firm wanted the RuG to conduct independent scientific research’ - ‘To conduct technological research’
- ‘Development of a project in the BBE’
Table 1: Reasons of collaboration. (N= 15)
It can be seen that there is some diversity in reasons of collaboration. However the largest part wanted to collaborate with BioBRUG because they had an urgent problem.
BioBRUG also funds the projects of the firms. Therefore was also asked to what extent these funds were important for the firms in their decision to collaborate. Here the answers were really diverse, as can be seen in figure 2. Although the largest part of the firms considered it as important to some extent, it probably depends on the possibilities, capabilities and financial position of the firm itself.
Figure 2: The importance of finance for SMEs. (N=15)
Successfulness of the collaboration
The firms were asked how they have experienced the collaboration with BioBRUG (until now). Only 2 out of 14 firms ranked the success as low. The rest of the firms all ranked the successfulness of the collaboration as high, and 6 out of this even as very high. With a mean of 6.14 (on a scale from 1 to 7), it can be said that the overall success of the collaboration was perceived as quite high.
0 2 4 6 8 10 Not important Of some importance Very important A m o u n t o f fi r m s Importance of finance
The importance of finance
35
Results found in the process part
At first the results of the process part are analyzed. Here the relationship between knowledge exchange, expertise exchange, ACAP, interaction, trust and the perceived success is investigated. Besides also the role of the intermediary is investigated.
Knowledge and expertise exchange
The data about knowledge and expertise exchange in relation to the success of the collaboration are presented in the tables below.
Amount of knowledge exchange
Success of the collaboration
Low High
Low 0 2
High 1 10
Table 2: Knowledge exchange in relation to the success of the collaboration. (N=13)
Amount of expertise exchange
Success of the collaboration
Low High
Low 0 1
High 4 7
Table 3: Expertise exchange in relation to the success of the collaboration. (N=12)
In the tables 2 and 3 can be seen that overall firms with a high knowledge or expertise exchange also consider the collaboration as highly successful. When considering knowledge exchange, three outliers were found. The largest part, however, both considers the knowledge exchange and the success of the collaboration as high. Although there is not a clear linear relationship, a high knowledge exchange does influence the success of the collaboration positively to some extent. Therefore, the findings in this study largely match with literature, where knowledge exchange was found to be an important determinant of successful collaboration (Fogg, 2012; Yusuf, 2008). It plays an important role in the collaboration between firms and universities and both parties should pay attention to it. Therefore it can be concluded that there was found some support for hypothesis 1a.
36
0 5 10
Low ACAP High ACAP
A m o u n t o f fi r m s Amount of ACAP ACAP Low succes High Succes
exchange and the success of collaboration is unclear and should be investigated further. In literature this relationship is also researched to a very limited extent. Therefore it is also difficult to give plausible reasons why this relationship is unclear. Thus, no support was found for hypotheses 1b.
ACAP
In the figure below an overview is given of the relationship between ACAP and the success of the collaboration.
Figure 3: ACAP in relation to the success of the collaboration. (N=14)
The relationship between ACAP and the success of collaboration cannot be considered as linear as, on one hand, there are some firms with very low ACAP, which still consider the collaboration as successful. On the other hand, there are firms who scored low on successfulness, but did have a high ACAP. In literature a high ACAP was considered as important for firms to be able to absorb the information which was exchanged (Fogg, 2012). However, in this study no clear relationship can be found between ACAP and the success of the collaboration. Based on this, no support has been found for hypothesis 2.
37 shortly, ACAP might be more of importance for firms before, in their decision to collaborate, and after, to gain a competitive advantage, the collaboration.
Trust
In the table below, the relationship between trust and the success of collaboration is presented. It can be seen that there is a clear relationship. This finding matches strongly to literature where a strong trust is considered as having a positive influence on the relationship between firms and universities (Bruneel et al., 2010; Santoro & Saparito, 2003). Based on this support is found for hypotheses 3a.
Strength of trust Success of the collaboration Weak Strong Low 2 0 High 0 12
Table 4: Strength of the trust in relation to the success of the collaboration. (N=14)
Contract
As part of trust, also the influence of presence of the contract on the success of the collaboration was investigated. Importance contract Success of the collaboration Low High Low 2 0 High 6 6
Table 5: Importance of the contract in relation to the success of the collaboration. (N=14)
In the table above can be seen that there is no clear relationship at all between success of a collaboration and the importance of the contract. Thus, hypothesis 3b cannot be confirmed.
Importance contract
Strength of trust Low High
Weak 1 0
Strong 6 6
Table 6: Importance of the contract in relation to the strength of trust. (N=13)
38
Interaction
For interaction four aspects were found in literature to be important to determine the success of the collaboration. These aspects are frequency of interaction, frequency of face-to-face interaction, proximity and cognitive distance.
Frequency and face-to-face interaction
First both frequency of interaction and frequency of face-to-face interaction are discussed. In literature was found that both a high frequency of interactions (Mohrman et al., 2001) and a high frequency of face-to-face interactions (Bruneel et al., 2010) are very important aspects in determining the success of the collaboration. However, the results in this study do not confirm this for both aspects, as can be seen in the figures below.
Figure 4: Frequency of interactions in relation to Figure 5: Frequency of face-to-face interactions in the success of the collaboration. (N=14) relation to the success of the collaboration. (N=14)
In the figures above the results are shown. In the first figure it can be seen that frequency of interaction positively influences the success of the collaboration. This is indicated by the upward sloping of the line. Therefore, some support is found for hypothesis 4a.
