Common purpose and divided loyalties: the risks and rewards of cross-sector collaboration for academic and government researchers

Garrett-Jones, Samuel; Turpin, Tim; Burns, Peter F.; Diment, Kieren

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00410.x

Cited by 46 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There might be differences in terms of interests, needs and languages. Not only it is necessary to recognize and balance the different objectives of each stakeholder, thus ensuring that their needs and wants are systematically addressed and balanced (Garrett-Jones et al, 2005), but also, as noted by Chiesa and Piccaluga (1998), there is a need for knowledge translators between these groups given the different objectives and languages prevalent in the diverse contexts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge translation mechanisms in open innovation: the role of design in R&D projects

Simeone

Secundo

Schiuma

2017

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. This paper investigates the role of design as a knowledge translation mechanism in R&D-oriented open innovation. In particular, the paper intends to look at how design can be used as a means of knowledge transfer among various stakeholders who speak different languages and have divergent needs and interests in a process where knowledge openly flew across the boundaries of a high number of organizations.Methods. The paper combines the insights from theory with the empirical evidence gathered by adopting an extreme case study approach: the detailed analysis of a case study related to an R&D project funded by the European Commission and aimed to investigate and produce innovative serious games in the area of healthcare. The project gathered a large number of stakeholders and deliberately adopted design processes in order to support an open innovation approach.Findings. The paper provides insights into the use of design outputs such as artifacts, sketches, visual representations or prototypes in order to translate ideas, theoretical and technical requirements, documents and outputs into formats that can be more easily understood and appreciated by various stakeholders. This supports and favors coordination in open innovation projects where many different stakeholders are engaged. Research limitations.Although the adoption of an extreme case study approach offers important implications to understand the role of design in R&D-oriented open innovation, the use of single case study represents the basis both to explore hypothesis and to provide first evidences, that need to be further tested with other qualitative and quantitative analysis.Practical implications. The paper offers practical implications about how design can help individuals and organizations involved in R&D activities to better communicate and share knowledge among various stakeholders by aligning their different needs, interests and languages along the various phases of their project development.Originality/value. The originality of the paper lays at the intersection of three different fields: open innovation, knowledge management and design for innovation, thus 2 integrating mature, but so far isolated research streams. It provides insights for theory building by explaining the use of design as knowledge translational mechanism and informs the practice by highlighting the power of design as a means to support knowledge flows into open innovation-based R&D projects.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge translation mechanisms in open innovation: the role of design in R&D projects

Simeone

Secundo

Schiuma

2017

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within the literature, although the process of incubation varies, it is generally considered to incorporate mentoring and knowledge exchange between various stakeholders to enhance sustainability and growth (Hackett and Dilts, 2008;Wonglimpiyarat, 2010;Ahmad, and Ingle, 2011). Consequently, it is an interactive process often involving interorganisational collaboration between government, universities, industry and end user stakeholders (Garrett-Jones et al, 2005;Fogelberg and Sandén, 2008;Howells, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Situated regional university incubation: A multi-level stakeholder perspective

McAdam¹,

Miller²,

McAdam

2016

Technovation

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From a macro perspective, it is widely acknowledged that University incubation models within a region are important stimulants of economic development through innovation and job creation. With the emergence of quadruple helix innovation ecosystems, universities have had re-evaluate their University incubation activity and models to engage more fully with industry and end users. However, within a given region, the type of University may influence their ability to engage with quadruple helix stakeholders and consequently impact their incubation activity. To date there is a scarcity of research which explores this 'meso' environment and its subsequent impact on University incubation models. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to use a stakeholder lens to explore University Incubation models within unique regional and organisational characteristics and constraints. The research methodology employed was based on a comparative case analysis of incubation of two different Universities within a UK peripheral region. It was found that variances existed in relation to the two universities incubation models which were found to result from both regional (macro environment) and organisational (meso environment) influences (i.e. university type).This research contributes to both regional and national agendas by empirically illustrating the need for appropriate design and tailoring of university incubation models (via acknowledgment of quadruple helix stakeholder influence) to incorporate contextual influences rather than adopting a best practice approach.

show abstract

“…Industry partners are in a commercially competitive environment, but also compete for scientific staff and the intellectual property rewards this can bring. Moreover, as we have documented elsewhere, collaborative research centres are also in competition with the departmental organizational structures that exist within their partner universities (Garrett-Jones et al 2005a). This has implications for the career options for research personnel.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Reward, risk and response in Australian cooperative research centres

Turpin

Garrett-Jones

2010

IJTTC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperative research centres are a well-established organizational embodiment of the 'triple helix' . As complex inter-organizational structures they are subject to diverse management strategies. The imperatives that drive their strategic plans and their impact on partner organizations and the careers of the scientists who work within them are not well understood. We examine 370 participants' experience in Australian Cooperative Research Centres and consider their effect on personnel and organizations in the public research system. We propose that a necessary part of management strategies is the negotiation and reconciliation of risk and reward for partner organizations and careers of participating scientists. Achieving a sustainable strategy carries implications for change within the partner organizations and for the endurance of CRCs as organizational arrangements. These emergent triple helix structures can be harbingers of change not just for the alternative institutional structures they present and the partner organizations, but also for the careers of scientists. Abstract: Cooperative research centres are a well-established organizational embodiment of the 'triple helix'. As complex inter-organizational structures they are subject to diverse management strategies. The imperatives that drive their strategic plans and their impact on partner organizations and the careers of the scientists who work within them are not well understood. We examine 370 participants' experience in Australian Cooperative Research Centres and consider their effect on personnel and organizations in the public research system. We propose that a necessary part of management strategies is the negotiation and reconciliation of risk and reward for partner organizations and careers of participating scientists. Achieving a sustainable strategy carries implications for change within the partner organizations and for the endurance of CRCs as organizational arrangements. These emergent triple helix structures can be harbingers of change not just for the alternative institutional structures they present and the partner organizations, but also for the careers of scientists.

show abstract

Common purpose and divided loyalties: the risks and rewards of cross-sector collaboration for academic and government researchers

Cited by 46 publications

References 4 publications

Knowledge translation mechanisms in open innovation: the role of design in R&D projects

Knowledge translation mechanisms in open innovation: the role of design in R&D projects

Situated regional university incubation: A multi-level stakeholder perspective

Reward, risk and response in Australian cooperative research centres

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About