Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2020 | z. 146 Competitiveness and Development of Regions in the Context of European Integration and Globalization. State - Trends -Strategies | 219--132
Tytuł artykułu

The Success of Science-industry R&D Cooperation. A Fuzzy-set Approach

Treść / Zawartość
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
Purpose: This study focuses on the causal mechanisms by which a series of organizational factors like commitment, communication, experience, dependence and trust collectively affect on the success of science-industry R&D cooperation. The purpose of this paper is to identify multiple paths of complex causal recipes that can lead to success of science-industry R&D cooperation. Design/methodology/approach: The study uses fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), a technique that provides a holistic view of the examined interrelationships, compared to traditional net effect approaches that assume symmetric and linear relationships among variables. Findings: Results indicate that different causal paths, exactly five configurations, explain success R&D contracts. Particularly, the findings reveal that the availability of commitment and communication are important, sufficient conditions because they appear in at least three of the five configurations that result from the analysis. In this way, a series of conclusions and implications have been obtained that can be very useful, both in the academic world and when trying to lead and manage cooperation agreements. Research implications: A comprehensive theoretical model was developed and tested that identifies the organizational factors of the success of science-industry R&D cooperation. The presented model and comprehensive research using fs/QCA allows to overcome the fragmentation of this specialized literature. Practical implications: The results contain a number of practical recommendations that can be useful in the conduct and management of cooperation agreements. During the establishing and developing contract stages, it is recommended to design managerial and organizational mechanisms that ensure a high degree of commitment and communication in combination with experience (configuration number 1) and/or with dependences (configuration number 4). Originality/value: Vital value of this paper is the use of fs/QCA, a technique that is an important novelty, at least in the field of R&D cooperation relationships between companies and research organizations. This method allows testing the configuration of conditions in relation to a specific outcome (e.g. success of science-industry R&D cooperation) in a way that is not possible using a linear additive approach. (original abstract)
  • Silesian University of Technology
  • 1. Andaleeb, S.S. (1996). An experimental investigation of satisfaction and commitment in marketing channels: The role of trust and dependence. Journal of Retailing, 72(1), 77-93.
  • 2. Ankrah, S., and Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). University-industry collaboration: A systematic review, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31, 387-408.
  • 3. Audretsch, D.B., Leyden, D.P., and Link, A.N. (2012). Universities as research partners in publicly supported entrepreneurial firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21(5-6), 529-545.
  • 4. Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration. Technovation, 30(2), 100-108.
  • 5. Blankenburg, D., Eriksson, K., and Johanson, J. (1999). Creating value through mutual commitment to business network relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 467-486.
  • 6. Burnham, J.B. (1997). Evaluating Industry/University Research Linkages. Research- Technology Management, 40/1, 52-55.
  • 7. Canhoto, AI., Quinton, S., Jackson, P., and Dibb, S. (2016). The co-production of value in digital, university-industry R&D collaborative projects. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 86-96.
  • 8. Collier, A., Gray, BJ., and Ahn, MJ. (2011). Enablers and barriers to university and high technology SME partnerships. Small Enterprise Research, 18, 2-18.
  • 9. Cullen, J.B., Johnson, J.L., and Sakano, T. (2000). Success through commitment and trust: The soft side of strategic alliance management. Journal of World Business, 35(3), 223-240, doi: 10.1016/S1090-9516(00)00036-5.
  • 10. Davenport, S., Davies, J., and Grimes, C. (1999). Collaborative research programmes: Building trust from difference. Technovation, 19/1, 31-40.
  • 11. Dowling, B., Powell, M., and Glendinning, C. (2004). Conceptualizing successful partnerships. Health and Social Care in the community, 12(4), 309-317.
  • 12. Fiss, P.C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420.
  • 13. Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 1-19.
  • 14. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J-B., and Scheer, L.K.; Kumar, N. (1996). The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A Trans-Atlantic study. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(4), 303-317.
  • 15. Giannopoulou, E., Barlatier, P.J., and Penin, J. (2019). Same but different? Research and technology organizations, universities and the innovation activities of firms. Research Policy, 48, 223-233.
  • 16. Gritzo, L., Fusfeld, A., and Carpenter, D. (2017) Success factors in R&D leadership. Research-Technology Management, 60:4, 43-52, doi: 10.1080/08956308.2017.1325683.
  • 17. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293-317.
  • 18. Haire, C.M., and Dodson-Pennington, L.S. (2002). Taking the road less traveled: A journey in collaborative resource development. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 26(1), 61-75, doi: 10.1080/106689202753365016.
  • 19. Hemmert, M., Bstieler, L., and Okamuro, H. (2014). Bridging the cultural divide: Trust formation in university-industry research collaborations in the US, Japan, and South Korea. Technovation, 34, 605-616.
  • 20. Inkpen, A.C., and Tsang, E.W.K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. The Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146-165, doi: 10.5465/AMR.2005.15281445.
  • 21. Kao, C., and Hung, H.T. (2008). Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empirical study. Omega, 36(4), 653-664.
  • 22. Kathoefer, D.G., and Leker, J. (2012). Knowledge transfer in academia: An exploratory study on the not-invented-here syndrome. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), 658-675.
  • 23. Kumar, N. (1996). The power of trust in manufacturer-retailer relationships. Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 92-106.
  • 24. Lin, J.Y. (2014). Effects on diversity of R&D sources and human capital on industrial performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 85, 168-184.
  • 25. Mohr, J.J., and Spekman, R.E. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15/2, 135-152.
  • 26. Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B., and Ziedonis, A. (2015). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-dole Act. Stanford University Press.
  • 27. Olk, P., and Young, C. (1997). Why members stay in or leave an R&D consortium: Performance and conditions of membership as determinants of continuity. Strategic Management Journal, 18(11), 855-877.
  • 28. Philbin, S. (2008). Process model for university-industry research collaboration. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(4), 488-521, doi: 10.1108/14601060810911138.
  • 29. Plewa, C., and Quester. P. (2006). Satisfaction with university-industry relationships: the impact of commitment, trust and championship. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 5(1/2), 79-101.
  • 30. Ragin, C.C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • 31. Randazzese, L.P. (1996). Exploring university-industry technology transfer of CAD technology. Transactions on Engineering Management, 43/4, 393-401.
  • 32. Rihoux, B., and Ragin, C.C. (2009). Configurational comparitive methods: qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  • 33. Schneider, M.R., Schulze-Bentrop, C., and Paunescu, M. (2010). Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 246-266.
  • 34. Sink, D.W., and Jackson, K.L. (2002). Successful community college campus-based partnerships. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(1), 35-46.
  • 35. Soh, P.H., and Subramanian, A.M. (2014). When do firms benefit from university-industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(6), 807-821.
  • 36. Woodside, A.G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463-472.
  • 37. Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., and Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141-159.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.