Boundary spanning between industry and university: the role of Technology Transfer Centres

Abstract

Technology Transfer Centres (TTCs) have been analyzed in the last few years\ud by focusing on the relationship between a TTC, provider of knowledge-intensive services,\ud and a firm client-receiver. Less attention has been devoted to a more complex relationship\ud which involves in the dyadic provider-receiver tie a third relevant body, University. We\ud provide both a theoretical and an empirical contribution by studying whether TTCs can\ud bond the academic and industrial system and we define the activities that make-up this role\ud such as: scanning and selection of R&D opportunities, bridge building, semantic translation\ud of domain specific knowledge, co-production of new knowledge. The boundary\ud spanning role of TTCs is discussed drawing on different and complementary theoretical\ud perspectives. Moreover, we test research hypotheses on the antecedents of boundary\ud spanning activity from a knowledge-based perspective. We argue that TTC boundary\ud spanners need to leverage on both technical skills and networking competences. Empirical\ud investigation has been carried out with a survey of the TTC population of North East Italy.\ud The research findings highlight the task coordination activities implied by a boundary\ud spanning role in joint R&D projects and show that the endowment of human capital at\ud individual level and a qualified social capital at individual and organizational level are the\ud main determinant

Orchestration Roles to Facilitate Networked Innovation in a Healthcare Ecosystem

“…Both theoretical and empirical research insights were derived from the analysis in this study. By focusing on the roles taken by orchestrators, that is, the specific orchestration activities (e.g., Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006;Nambisan & Sawhney, 2011) and the ways to conduct them (e.g., Czacon and Klimas, 2014;Hinterhuber, 2002;Howells, 2006;HurmelinnaLaukkanen et al, 2014;Ritala et al, 2012;Wallin, 2006) in a healthcare ecosystem, we were able to see how innovation network orchestrators, and more specifically facilitator-orchestrators (e.g., Comacchio et al, 2012;Napier et al, 2012) can take multiple, sometimes even parallel orchestrator roles in networked innovation. More specifically, we gained insights into how and in which limiting or facilitative conditions these roles are practically conducted.…”

“…These non-players can be further divided into facilitators and sponsors. The latter type of orchestrators have their individual goals coupled with collective goals (consider, for example, venture capitalists and business incubators; Comacchio et al, 2012;Napier et al, 2012), whereas the facilitators' main concern is the wellbeing and functioning of the network: they are not as interested in utilizing the innovation outcomes themselves, nor are they orchestrating the networks for financial gain (see Fichter, 2009;Hurmelinna-Laukkanen & Nätti, 2012;Metcalfe, 2010).…”

Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations

“…Here, articles centre around factors that facilitate and optimise sustainable relationships between actors, incentives for collaboration, and networking activities that foster reliable knowledge and technology transfer. In fact, research focuses not only on determining the relational success factors (e.g., communication, trust, understanding individuals) but also on the necessity to leverage the technical and networking competences (Comacchio et al 2012;Plewa et al 2013a). Correspondingly, research addresses the importance of developing an understanding of differences in these relational success factors across various cognitive, normative and regulative contexts (Hemmert et al 2014).…”

Performance Evaluation for Knowledge Transfer Organizations: Best European Practices and a Conceptual Framework

“…In this regard, in order to meet the firms' requirements, recent research highlights that KTOs are expanding rapidly and further typologies are emerging, such as business innovation centres, innovation agencies, R&D labs, technology consultants, technical testing and analysis labs (Comacchio et al, 2011;Consoli & Elche-Hortelano, 2010;Laranja, 2009). Moreover, studies show that KTOs are progressively evolving in terms of wider TT services portfolios and additional roles performed.…”

“…-Human capital: this encompasses the competence, skills, and the relevant knowledge possessed by employees of KTOs. Research shows that the level of education and the continuous investment on employees' competency development not only enable KTOs to provide high-quality KT services but also to assume an intermediation role between firms and universities (Comacchio et al, 2011); -Relational capital: this comprises the set of resources rooted in relationships that the KTOs establish with research and institutional partners (universities, research labs, policy makers) and with the firms-receivers. Arundel & Bordoy, 2010;Bigliardi et al, 2006;EBN, 2011;European Commission, 2009;Piccaluga et al, 2011.…”