UK biotechnology: institutional linkages, technology transfer and the role of intermediaries

Abstract

One prominent feature of biotechnology in the UK is the close relationship between the public‐sector science base and industry. Using information from interviews, the system for technology transfer is examined and four main institutional actors are identified: sponsors (both public and private, which fund research), hosts (which provide an environment in which research takes place), users (which commercialize research) and intermediaries (which act as agents in the technology transfer process). Models of the process of technology transfer are developed which incorporate knowledge flows between these institutions and the accompanying contractual, and financial/ economic relations. The direction, scale and formality of these interactions is examined and it is suggested that institutional approaches can capture important feedbacks and relationships which are overlooked in traditional stage and activity models of innovation. In particular, intermediaries are highlighted, and it is suggested that they play an important role in contractual and financial/economic linkages in three ways: (i) by acting as agents between institutions in the presence of an imperfect knowledge market, (ii) by performing a liaison function for firms sourcing external know‐how, and (iii) by providing access to complementary assets for development of technologies internally. In the conclusion, we argue that institutional models can (a) help to define optimal linkage structures for specific technological areas at national and supranational levels (e.g. between members of the European Union) and (b) highlight the presence of inter‐agency tensions and help identify the appropriate management options for resolving these.

Intermediation in intermediation: triple helix innovation and intermediary legal organisation

“…Similarly, Metcalfe (2010: 504) has found the fully-integrated trilateral networks of the triple helix to be 'understudied, ' prompting her to critically explore and model 'the role of external organizations in the formation of AIG ties.' Notwithstanding the relatively small sample of directly applicable scholarship, more developed literatures tackling intermediation and intermediary organisation exist within many disciplines (Landry et al 2013;Todeva 2013)-in particular, for current purposes, in the related research fields of innovation and technology transfer intermediation (Boon et al 2011;Dalziel 2010;Dalziel and Parjanen 2012;Gassmann et al 2011;Håkanson et al 2011;Hoppe and Ozdenoren 2005;Howells 2006;Kivimaa 2014;Klerkx and Leeuwis 2008;Kodama 2008;Lichtenthaler and Ernst 2008;Pollard 2006;Sieg et al 2010;Shohet and Prevezer 1996;Stewart and Hyysalo 2008;Suvinen et al 2010;van der Meulen et al 2005;van Lente et al 2003;Villani et al 2016) and knowledge intermediation (Cantù et al 2015;Parker and Hine 2014;Schlierf and Meyer 2013;Wright et al 2008;Yusuf 2008). Even here, however, authors have pointed out that '[d]espite their obvious presence, … innovation intermediaries have received little attention in the theoretical intermediation literature' (Hoppe and Ozdenoren 2005: 484) so that 'relatively few systematic analyses of their functions' (Suvinen et al 2010(Suvinen et al : 1366 are available today (see also van der Meulen et al (2005: 2)).…”

“…3 and 4 above in combination, it can further be posited that the aggregate effect of seventeen 'potential unit[s] of analysis' (Metcalfe 2010: 507)-namely, ten triple helix hybridisation equilibria within the sphere-4 triple helix process and seven triple helix intermediation equilibria within the sphere-3 triple helix intermediation process-puts a significant organisational burden on the intermediating organisation and its internal processes. In this regard, the nature, role and functionality of fourthparty intermediation organisations must be much more than merely 'serving as interorganizational bridges between universities, industries, and governments' (Metcalfe 2010: 504; see also Shohet and Prevezer (1996)). Because of the complexity (Leydesdorff 2000;Suvinen et al 2010;Todeva 2013) and multiplicity-and, thus, also the resultant opacity-of organisational intermediary processes, the internal organisational realm of triple helix intermediation, i.e.…”

R&D CONSORTIA AS BOUNDARY ORGANISATIONS: MISALIGNMENT AND ASYMMETRY OF BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT

“…Dodgson (1992) suggests that managing an R&D collaboration should be a strategic concern and highlights the importance of selecting appropriate partners, developing adaptable and flexible structures, and building effective communication paths. Based on their study of technology transfer offices in public-private research collaborations, Shohet and Prevezer (1996) emphasise the importance of intermediaries in managing contractual, financial linkages that accompany knowledge flows between research sponsors, hosts and users. Finally, Roelofsen et al (2011) argue that a carefully structured dialogue method aligning the interests of the demand side with those of the supply side is critical for crossing the boundaries in innovation networks.…”

Use of knowledge brokering services in the innovation process

“…Often the decision-making criteria of the firm revolve around whether to use external collaborative partnerships to gain knowledge and/ or an assessment of the costs associated with potential knowledge gains and losses [14,15]. After a decision has been made to collaborate with an external partner, often the next step is to formalise the informal initial collaboration in terms of setting up a contractual agreement [16]. Some studies have analyzed this contractual aspect for technology transfer agreements, where for example, Watkins and Horley [17] identified the role played by intermediary organizations to identify technology transfer partners, help package the technology to be transferred between two firms, select suppliers to make components for the technology and provide support in making the deal between the firms concerned.…”