Knowledge Transfer Performance of Industry-University-Research Institute Collaboration in China: The Moderating Effect of Partner Difference

Abstract

How to realize the sustainable development of the industry-university-research institute (IUR) collaboration innovation ecosystem has become a key factor restricting the independent innovation capability of Chinese enterprises. Knowledge transfer performance is a key consideration in the process of R&D collaboration between companies and research institutes; how to improve the performance of knowledge transfer depends on the matching between the partners of IUR collaboration. This article seeks to explore the influence mechanism of partner differences in the industry-university-research institute collaboration on the performance of knowledge transfer from the perspective of enterprises. Specifically, the study explores the moderating effect of technical knowledge difference and goal difference on the relationship between absorptive capacity, learning willingness, and knowledge transfer performance. The study applied the partial least squares structural equation modeling approach to model these relationships, based on survey data gathered from 211 Chinese firms. The results show that the goal difference of industry-university-research institute collaboration partners has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between learning willingness, absorptive capacity, and knowledge transfer performance. The greater the degree of goal difference, the lower the role of the enterprise’s learning willingness and absorptive capacity to promote knowledge transfer performance. Technical knowledge difference has a significant inverted U-shaped effect on the relationship between absorptive capacity and knowledge transfer performance: a high degree of technical knowledge difference weakens the effects of absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer performance, while a low degree of technical knowledge difference will also negatively moderate the effects of absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer performance. The research conclusions provide scientists, government bodies, and decision makers with the necessary information for a better understanding of the effective mechanism of sustainable knowledge transfer in the IUR innovation ecosystem.

Substitution or Complementarity: Influence of Industry–University–Research-Institute Cooperation Governance Mechanism on Knowledge Transfer—An Empirical Analysis from China

“…Obvious differences exist between universities/scientific institutions and enterprises in value objectives and knowledge structures. Universities/scientific institutions pursue the frontiers and universality of knowledge and advocate the academic atmosphere of free exploration, whereas enterprises focus on the market benefits of technology and emphasize the low cost and rapid effect of technology development [30]. Such differences make both parties prone to cognitive bias, communication barriers, and behavioral disorders in cooperation.…”

“…The more detailed the technical objectives of a contract, the richer the knowledge transferred, and the more the opportunities of an enterprise to obtain explicit knowledge. In addition, to ensure the smooth realization of the goals of an IUR cooperation, creating explicit agreements in advance on the technical resource investment of the alliance members, especially universities/scientific institutions, is necessary, including patent intellectual property rights, technical development materials, and process design schemes that should be shared, and the R&D effort that should be exerted [30]. Such a contractual coordination mechanism can establish an explicit knowledge-sharing platform based on economic transaction relations for all the partners and become an important condition for enterprises to obtain coded knowledge and research institutions.…”

“…In addition, trust can improve partners' willingness to send and receive knowledge. Second, from the perspective of knowledge transfer difficulties, trust can reduce cooperative members' anxiety about opportunistic behaviors [48,52], thereby urging them to increase the frequency and means of communication and improve the breadth and depth of communication to objectively expand the amount of information that can be transmitted and reduce knowledge transfer difficulties and transaction costs [30,53]. According to Zaheer, Mcevily, and Perrone (1998) and Majuri (2022), trust reduces people's requirements for short-term interests [54,55], makes them start from long-term interests, and creates a satisfactory information communication environment to directly or indirectly reduce knowledge transfer difficulties.…”

Innovation Research on Symbiotic Relationship of Organization’s Tacit Knowledge Transfer Network

“…Questionnaires and empirical research are most commonly used methods in previous studies on the discipline of tacit knowledge transfer. For example, Li and Zhu [34], Li and Hsieh [35], Wang et al [36], and Cummings and Teng [37] used the questionnaire method to analyze the influencing factors of tacit knowledge transfer. Ning and Fang [38] adopted empirical research to analyze the tacit knowledge transfer model in knowledge alliances and proposed concrete strategies to promote tacit knowledge transfer.…”

What Drives? What Restrains? Hidden Dynamics of Knowledge Transfer from Buddhist Male Managers to Female Trainees

“…In organizations, knowledge transfer practices have been argued to be the most critical success factors and human resource (HR) practitioners’ responsibility (Kaya et al, 2013). However, most researchers conducted quantitative studies focused on knowledge transfer training content and methodologies, rather than exploring the underlying societal and ideological forces that affect effective knowledge transfer practices (Argote et al, 2022; Li & Zhu, 2021; Silva & Odelius, 2018). Despite a plethora of literature on knowledge transfer practices and theoretical approaches, there is a dearth of research on hidden forces that drive or restraint knowledge transfer between male and female employees in developing countries that subsist on vastly different religious, sociocultural and gender-specific ideologies (Ganguly et al, 2019; Mutahar et al, 2021; Probodha & Vasanthapriyan, 2019; Zumrah et al, 2017).…”