Establishing successful university–industry collaborations: barriers and enablers deconstructed

Abstract

University–Industry Collaboration networks are increasingly significant to national economies. Previous studies have identified barriers and enablers of University–Industry Collaborations, however our understanding of the evolution of such collaborations is still limited thereby restricting our ability to nurture their development. This study explores the establishment of a successful University–Industry Collaboration and considers a range of perceived barriers and enablers through four emergent evolutionary phases: embryonic, initiation, engagement and established. The study adopted a qualitative research approach using a single site case study, focusing on the pharmaceutical industry, with 10 multinational firms and 8 academic institutions involved in a pharmaceutical collaboration. The results demonstrate that specific University–Industry Collaboration barriers and enablers emerge at different points in time, for example, strong lack of trust; strong fear of knowledge leakage, reluctance to share in the embryonic phase evolve to achieving integrity based trust and an intellectual property agreement in the engagement phase. These barriers were overcome using a range of phase appropriate mechanisms, for example, prior experience of the partners was critical in the embryonic phase, while cohesiveness and knowledge complementarity were vital in the engagement phase. The study emphasizes the significance of public funding and its distribution among members in order to support industry evolution and competitiveness. The University–Industry Collaboration continues to attract new participants and additional network-specific investments and has become a global centre of excellence for pharmaceutical research and development.

The Complementarity Investment in University-Industry Collaboration

“…Just as we began this partnership with an understanding that our goals extended beyond the exchange of capital and labor, we were also open to further collaborations and extensions of the current work, and this area is where we saw the greatest amount of collective growth outputs resulting from the UIC. While a common criticism of UICs is that they may stifle research and innovation (Collyer, 2015), our experiences echo previous studies showing how industry collaboration can benefit academic research (Bhullar et al, 2019;D'Este & Perkmann, 2011;O'Dwyer et al, 2022). Austin et al (2021) found that successful UICs are marked by a critical evaluation of ideas and increased ambitions, and we saw markers of both these elements within our own experience.…”

“…Extant literature about UICs present mixed experiences depending on a number of factors including industry expectations, university policies, and each party's position and contribution in the relationship (Dougherty et al, 2004;O'Dwyer et al, 2022;Welsh et al, 2008). In this section, we review literature that presents both criticisms and benefits to UICs to highlight the breadth of experiences for those engaging in these collaborative projects.…”

“…Nevertheless, not all UIC relationships lead to similar outcomes, as variability exists among institutional types, disciplines, and even academic units in the manner these units search or value capitalistic behaviors and rewards (Mendoza, 2012). Further, although inquiry into successful collaborations has emerged more recently in the future, these studies have limiting application to non-medical or engineering-based projects or the context or the data emerged outside of an actual UIC case experience (Awasthy et al, 2020;O'Dwyer et al, 2022). Thus, the extant literature is less clear how UICs have demonstrated significant value propositions for both parties across disciplines and may move beyond a critical or neoliberal view of this relation-ship when considering social and behavioral fields such as education.…”

Micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities to facilitate university technology transfer

“…The present study deploys dynamic capabilities as the theory to study how to facilitate university technology transfer. The majority of scientific dynamic capabilities-based studies have focused on innovation scenarios of for-profit organizations, while so far few studies have been reported to deploy dynamic capabilities in university-industry collaborations, wherein not-for-profit universities are active [ 11 , 31 , 64 , 71 , 73 ]. The present study responds to the call to research the micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities in the UTT process, as previous studies mainly focus on the overall strategic management of universities [ 9 , 12 ].…”

Learning based on co-creation processes: a glimpse of the (Demola) Pedagogical Innovation Training course at IPV

“…Academia-industry collaboration is advantageous to all parties involved: it enables the latter to benefit from new knowledge generated in HEI, minimising internal R&D costs; academia also benefits from these partnerships since it can receive research funding not only from the government and other public agencies but also from the private sector, while also participating in, and providing students with, real-life challenges that the industry faces, and contributing to the economic and social wellbeing of society; students can take advantage of innovative learning environments in which classrooms are transformed into hubs for innovation and co-creation (Catalá-Perez et al, 2020;O'Dwyer et al, 2022). If HEI have become business corporations, and professors, rather than just devoting their time to research and teaching, have been turning into entrepreneurial academics, then students have these role models to look up to.…”