Conference Agenda

Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).

 
Session Overview
Session
21-PM2-03: G5 - Innovation Ecosystems
Time:
Friday, 21/Jun/2019:
2:45pm - 4:15pm

Session Chair: Thierry Rayna, École Polytechnique / CNRS
Location: Amphi Becquerel

Show help for 'Increase or decrease the abstract text size'
Presentations

TRIPLE HELIX RELATIONS AND PATENT DEPOSITION IN INNOVATION PROJECTS IN A LARGE BRAZILIAN UNIVERSITY

Sanderson César Macêdo Barbalho, Rennê Martins, André Basseto Okamura

University of Brasília, Brazil

Context

The innovation nowadays is one of the most important factors for a long-term success of any company, or the economic development of a country. In Brazil, the investments in Research and Development are mostly public, counting on government support in the form of incentives and specific legislation to foment innovation.

Literature

Among the many factors that influence the development of innovative projects are the triple helix relations (ETZKOWITZ; LEYDESDORFF, 2000), which are established among university, industry and government. The main objective of this interaction model is to enable the three spheres to be overlapped, supporting each other to reduce barriers and accomplish trilateral relations in favor of innovation. The entrepreneurial university is the main institution of this model (ETZKOWITZ, 2003) as it represents the largest source of knowledge which is needed to stimulate technological advancement and entrepreneurship.

Another framework to help understand innovation nowardays is open innovation (WEST et al., 2014). Open innovation is a form of triple helix run between companies and universities, or even Government agencies and universities. Operationally, these kind of relation can be implemented by means of technology transfer efforts, based on patents, or bilateral contracts for technology development (DAHLANDER; GANN, 2010).

Literature Gap

Our classic litterature and researched articles do not correlate technology develolpment contracts to patent deposits and technology transfer based on them.

Research Questions

What are the relations of technology development contracts, patent deposition and technology transfer in a large university of an emergent country? What is the reasoning of agents in these relations?

Methodology

The project consisted in analyzing the historical data of innovation projects conducted by the support institution, in order to determine the impact of each of the spheres in the institution’s portfolio. All projects from 2006 to 2018 were analysed in terms of partnerships for the project, results in terms of patents and business the partners do after patent deposition. Interviews were taken for explain quantitative data.

Empirical Material

We found 286 projects, summing up to 300 Million BRL. Public funding represented 212 projects and only 74 were private. Most of the projects lasted less than one year. Few of them lasted more than three years. Only 23% of the projects have triple helix relations, and 53% in our sample relates government agencies and the university. It is explained, because the researched university is located in the Brazilian federal district. Only 19% of the projects, 55 of them, relates University and private companies.

Results

From the researched projects only 10 had patents as a result. None of the projects with less than one year duration had a patented technology. But main medium term projects has this result. Long term projects were large alliances between the University and some government agency, and is running when the research was carried out. When analysing the partnership in projects with patents as a result, 70% has university, industry and government and partners, while projects without patents have only 21% of all triple helix actors as partners. Surprisingly, 67% of university-industry projects were short-term ones, and and only 10% of them have a patent as a result.

Qualitative data demonstrates that actores, academic and industrial ones, do not trust patents as a differential for their business activities.

From patent deposition, only four of them resulted in a technology transfer for a company for commercial purposes.

Contribution to Scholarship

The main scientific contribution of this research is the fact that in an emergent country like Brazil, patents are not a focus. The low rate of patents in industry-university projects suggest that businesses run away from patents, but maybe trusting on industrial secrets, and confidential relation among actors. Also, the high presence of short term projects among industry and university show a profile which jeopardize the possiblity for patent deposition. Data suggest also that triple helix´s projects outlined more patents.

Qualitative data suggests that the whole context of Bralizian market and regulatory issues contribute for undertrustness of academic and entrepreneurs for investing in patents.

Contribution to Practice

This research has practical implication for public decision making in Brazil and emergent countries. For having more technological-based business, maybe it will be better to fund triple helix partnerships, because only university-industry relations tend to be more short time ones, and with low effort to patent deposition, and consequently generate technology-driven business.

Fitness

Our article show the kind of triple helix relation which produce more in terms of technology-driven business. So, an example of how bridging reseach for the society is analysed. This paper can contribute to the themes of R&D, emerging markets and ecossystems.

Bibliography

WEST, J. et al.Open Innovation: The Next Decade. Research Policy 43(5):805-811. 2014.

DAHLANDER, L.; GANN, D. M. How open is innovation? Research Policy, v. 39, n. 6, p. 699–709, 2010.

ETZKOWITZ, H. Research groups as “quasi-firms”: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, v. 32, n. 1, p. 109–121, 2003.

ETZKOWITZ, H.; LEYDESDORFF, L. The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, v. 29, n. 2, p. 109–123, 2000.



Does science park presence generate breakthrough inventions? The case of US Science Park-based firms

Maarten Rabijns

KU Leuven, Belgium

Context

The objective of a science park is to provide on-park firms with an attractive innovation-oriented environment in which the formation of links with universities and other firms is stimulated. The existing literature has put emphasis on this role that the formation of networks plays in fostering knowledge-sharing.

Literature

In the recent two decades, the body of empirical work on science park and the role they play in innovation has taken off, as shown in a literature study on science parks by Hobbs et al. (2016). For instance, prior literature has demonstrated that firms which are located on a science park achieve a higher research productivity than firms which are off a science park (Westhead, 1997) and are associated with more innovation and more investments in R&D (Lamperti et al, 2017). Furthermore, a study by Siegel et al. (2003) shows that the research productivity of on-park firms is greater than that of off-park firms, while Squicciarini (2009a, 2009b) finds that the innovative performance of firms located inside a science park is greater due to knowledge spillovers.

Literature Gap

Although prior literature has confirmed the claimed benefits of science parks in the generation of innovative productivity and has stressed the role of universities in knowledge diffusion and innovative performance of tenant firms within a science parks, the quality of the patents produced by on-park firms remains to be investigated.

Research Questions

In this paper, we aim to explore the boundary conditions under which science park presence becomes advantageous for the firm in their generation of impactful inventions. Specifically, we will test whether science park-invented patents have a higher likelihood of being breakthrough as compared to off-park patents.

Methodology

We have set up this paper as a quantitative study. Specifically, we use patent-level data from PATSTAT, on the basis of which we develop a measure of breakthrough inventions. We test our hypotheses on a set of 548 science park-based firms located on 60 science parks spread across the US.

Empirical Material

We test our prediction by using a matched sample of 7,196 US patents filed between 1980 and 2010. More specifically, our sample contains patents filed by science park-based firms established on 60 US science parks. Based on geo-coded inventor data on the patent (Li et al., 2014), we have categorized these patents as either on- or off-park. Using an exact matching approach, we linked each on-park patent to an off-park patent, filed by the same firm, in the same year, under the same technology classes (at the IPC-3 digit level). This results in 3,598 on-park patents and 3,598 off-park patents, which constitute our treatment and control group on which we have performed our analyses. To rule out confounding influences, we have developed a set of firm-level, science park-level and industry-level control variables.

Results

Our preliminary results suggest that patents which are created on a science park indeed seem to have a more substantial technological impact, as compared to patents which are created off-park. In our analyses, we control for time-, firm-, and technology-invariant unobservable traits, by adopting a matching approach which matches each on-park patent to an off-park patent with the same characteristics for firm, year and technology class(es) mentioned on the patents.

Contribution to Scholarship

By studying the question of this paper, we contribute to the stream of literature by adopting a quality-oriented measure, whereas prior studies rather looked to innovative perfor-mance from a ‘quantity’ point of view. Furthermore, this study takes into account all US Science Parks, as identified by the UNESCO list of science parks, for an extensive period stretching from 1980 to 2010. Therefore, this study also makes a contribution in terms of a more extensive time frame and by adopting a broader scope, investigating all US science parks.

Contribution to Practice

The main managerial implication of this paper is that it may pay off for firms to allocate specific R&D activities to branches active on science parks. The results of our study show that patents which are created on a science park have a higher likelihood of being breakthrough, measured by being an outlier in the distribution of forward citations received within 5 years of filing a patent.

Fitness

This paper fits the theme of the conference, since it empirically explores whether science park-presence leads to a higher likelihood of generating breakthrough inventions. Thus, this paper adds to the literature on industry-science links and knowledge recombination.

Bibliography

Albahari, A., Catalano, G., & Landoni, P. (2013). Evaluation of national science park systems: A theoretical framework and its application to the Italian and Spanish systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(5), 599-614.

Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. (2016). How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park. Technovation, 50, 41-52.

Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search. Management Science, 47(1), pp. 117-132.

Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017). Science and technology parks: an annotated and analytical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 957-976.

Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2017). The role of Science Parks: a puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(1), 158-183.

Malairaja, C., & Zawdie, G. (2008). Science parks and university–industry collaboration in Malaysia. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(6), 727-739.

Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International journal of industrial organization, 21(9), 1357-1369.

Squicciarini, M. (2009a). Science parks, knowledge spillovers, and firms' innovative performance: evidence from Finland (No. 2009-32). Economics/Discussion papers.

Squicciarini, M. (2009b). Science parks: seedbeds of innovation? A duration analysis of firms’ patenting activity. Small Business Economics, 32(2), 169-190.

Westhead, P. (1997). R&D ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ of technology‐based firms located on and off Science Parks. R&D Management, 27(1), 45-62.

Westhead, P., & Batstone, S. (1998). Independent technology-based firms: the perceived benefits of a science park location. Urban Studies, 35(12), 2197-2219.



Understanding Bio Health Technologies Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: An Intellectual Capital Approach

Ângela Gonçalves1, Dina Pereira1, João Leitão1, Maria del Mar Fuentes2

1University of Beira Interior, Portugal; 2University of Granada, Spain

Context

In this paper, an intellectual capital (IC) qualitative approach is used for contrasting the bio health technologies entrepreneurial ecosystems of two different universities located in Southern Europe, with the purpose of identifying and comparing the role played by the IC’s components, in fostering the sustainable success of the entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Literature

An entrepreneurial ecosystem is quite hard to define, but the term has become relatively popular recently (Oh et al. 2016) and it entails a series of interactions between organizations (Jacobides et al. 2018; Leitão et al. 2018). These types of ecosystems are attractive because they can bring co-evolution and co-creation of value (Dodgson et al. 2014). As companies thrive on information, networks and labour markets, it is beneficial to cluster in advantageous regions (Coenen et al. 2015). Most of the times this involves a variety of networks embracing people, relationships and organizational procedures; as well as integrating academic researchers, government, small businesses, investors and industry (Coenen et al. 2015).

For Schiavone & Marco (2014), there is a need for deepening the knowledge of these complex networks, using an IC lens, focused on incubated start-ups, in order to ascertain on both their own intangible assets and the knowledge, experiences and processes.

Literature Gap

There has not been much interest in deepening the knowledge of the entrepreneurial ecosystems’ dimensions, using an IC lens, in the context of university cities with different dimensions. Small cities may not have some dimensions, so developed, comparing with the ones of the ecosystems of large urban centres.

Research Questions

The main research question is on the role played by IC for fostering the performance of entrepreneurial ecosystems. As secondary question, there is need for assessing the role played by each of the intellectual capital’s dimensions, in fostering the pathway of bio health technologies entrepreneurial ecosystems, contrasting distinct university cities.

Methodology

The paper uses a qualitative approach funded in two case studies that are part of an exploratory study funded in the scope of a European Project, aiming to explore in a pioneering way the application of the dominant triad of capitals forming IC, and, thus, identifying and comparing the dimensions of different bio health technologies entrepreneurial ecosystems. This study combines existing literature studies with qualitative data on two contemporary real-life cases of ecosystems: the UBImedical (Portugal) vs. the UGRemprendedora (Spain); which both foster innovative and entrepreneurial initiatives in a boosting activity sector, that is, bio health technologies.

Empirical Material

Primary data: 40 interviews are performed for both external and internal stakeholders of each bio health entrepreneurial ecosystem under study, summing up a total of 80 interviews.

Secondary data about entrepreneurs: founders; age; previous experience; finance; economic activity; R&D activities; patents; etc.

Results

The case studies reveal that, independently of the university city’ dimension, the IC’s dimensions more critical for the success of the bio health entrepreneurial ecosystems are the human capital and the relational capital. The results are funded in primary and qualitative data collected from the interviews developed to previously identified external and internal stakeholders of this type of entrepreneurial ecosystem under study.

Contribution to Scholarship

The exploratory study here presented produces implications for policy makers and managers interested in managing an entrepreneurial ecosystem, using a IC approach, along different stages and age of its life cycle. It also contributes to the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems by presenting new qualitative data on the evolutionary process of bio health entrepreneurial ecosystems located in different sized university cities.

Contribution to Practice

This work will be useful to directors, coordinators and managers of incubators and accelerators, especially in the bio health sector, providing several guidelines for a long term management process, using an IC approach, which is oriented to the sustainable success of a bio health entrepreneurial ecosystem. It will also be useful for policy makers who design supporting measures to the ecosystems. As they can gain some insight into what constitutes a bio health entrepreneurial ecosystem, and what IC dimensions can contribute to a successful and sustainable pathway.

Fitness

This paper is of great significance to the theme of this year’s conference, as both the entrepreneurial ecosystems studied, aim to transfer the knowledge and technology from academia to the business world, thus building bridges between research, industry and society, attending to distinct university cities contexts.

Bibliography

Coenen, L., Moodysson, J. & Martin, H., 2015. Path Renewal in Old Industrial Regions: Possibilities and Limitations for Regional Innovation Policy. Regional Studies, 49(5), pp. 850–865. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.979321.

Dodgson, M., Gann, D. & Phillips, N., 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management,

Jacobides, M., Cennamo, C. & Gawer, A., 2018. Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), pp. 2255–2276.

Leitão, J.; Alves, H.; Krueger, N.; & Park, J. (Eds.) (2018). Entrepreneurial, Innovative and Sustainable Ecosystems - Best Practices and Implications for Quality of Life, Series: Applying Quality of Life Research: Best Practices, Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-71014-3. Hard cover ISBN 978-3-319-71013-6.

Oh, D-S.; Phillips, F.; Park, S. & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. Technovation, 54, pp. 1–6.

Schiavone, F. & Marco, R. (2014). Intellectual capital, science parks and incubators: an introduction to the special issue", Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(4): https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-07-2014-0084.



Organizational Learning and Learning Alliances: A Theoretical Integration

Danica Bauer, Sascha Albers

UAntwerpen, Belgium

Context

Learning alliances are a common practice amongst firms and have been in the focus of alliance researchers for roughly 30 years (Gulati, 1998, 2007; Kale and Singh, 2009). In such alliances, partners intend to access and transfer tacit knowledge between them for their mutual benefit.

Literature

Learning alliances rest on the premise that complementary knowledge bases are an advantage when acquiring new knowledge (Fiol and Lyes, 1985; Dosi, 1988). Also, firms with similarities in knowledge bases are better able to absorb new knowledge from a partner firm (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Various learning processes have been outlined on how knowledge can be transferred across organizational boundaries. For example, Lindholm (1997) defines three stages through which learning in international joint ventures can take place: firstly, through the transfer of explicit knowledge; secondly, through mutual knowledge development; and lastly, through strategically “harvesting” knowledge.

The organizational learning literature outlines various levels of learning: the individual, the group, and the organization (Nonaka, 1994). Additionally, Crossan, Lane, and White (1999) define four different processes that take place within the three different levels of organizational learning, namely intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing.

Literature Gap

Given the importance of learning and innovation, which are essential for firm competitiveness (as outlined by the resource- and knowledge-based view as well as the dynamic capabilities approach), it is surprising that the learning alliance literature has been hesitant in adopting theories and processes from the rich organizational learning literature.

Research Questions

Previous literature suggests a multitude of isolated organization solutions (tools and processes) for inter-organizational knowledge transfer in alliances, yet rarely leverages the potential of the organizational learning literature. Little do we know about various forms and mechanisms of learning and how and under which conditions partner firms can actually learn from each other.

Methodology

We analyze and dissect the literatures on learning alliances and organizational learning theories to theoretically and argumentatively integrate pertinent elements and relations into a novel contingency framework of organizational learning in learning alliances.

Empirical Material

not relevant --> conceptual paper

Results

Depending on the goal of the learning alliance, various learning processes may be needed (Inkpen, 2000). When the goal of the learning alliance is the absorption of implicit knowledge, the organizational learning process starts at the individual level. An individual’s experience at the partner firm can initiate first discussions amongst various groups that the individual may belong to. A shared understanding may ultimately lead to new routines and an integration on the organizational level.

However, if the goal of a learning alliance is the absorption of technical knowledge (explicit knowledge), then the organizational process may be reversed and may start at the organizational level instead of the individual level. The new technology is imposed on the groups of individuals and on the individual himself. In this case, the learning process is different as it follows a top-down learning mechanism.

Given that a firm wants to absorb implicit as well as explicit knowledge, the learning process needs to be adjusted accordingly. We thus propose that depending on a firm’s strategy of knowledge absorption, learning mechanisms vary accordingly.

Contribution to Scholarship

With this paper we contribute to both, the literature on strategic alliances as well as the literature on organizational learning. Both literature streams have benefitted from each other over the past decades, however, to date and to our knowledge, no attempt has been made on an integrated framework that embeds learning alliance tools within the organizational learning literature. We address this issue in our paper by integrating tools into an organizational learning mechanism.

Contribution to Practice

Our paper also contributes to practice as alliance learning is a common goal for inter-organizational collaborations. Firms in general may still lack knowledge on how to transfer crucial pieces of knowledge that are not codified or readily available. As the transfer of knowledge is a complex process, we try to outline strategies in our paper that firms can adopt to facilitate the transfer of the type of knowledge that they wish to acquire.

Fitness

Innovation, inter-organizational collaborations and learning are closely aligned and form the basis for studies on research and development. Not only innovation is a challenge for firms, it all starts with the challenge for organizational learning and the complexity thereof.

Bibliography

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of management review, 24(3), 522-537.

Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of economic literature, 1120-1171.

Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of management review, 10(4), 803-813.

Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic management journal, 19(4), 293-317.

Gulati, R. (2007). Managing network resources: Alliances, affiliations, and other relational assets. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Inkpen, A. C. (2000). A note on the dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 21(7), 775-779.

Kale, P., & Singh, H. (2009). Managing strategic alliances: what do we know now, and where do we go from here?. Academy of management perspectives, 23(3), 45-62.

Lindholm, N. (1997). Learning processes in international joint ventures in China. Advances in Chinese Industrial Studies, 5, 139-154.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science, 5(1), 14-37.



 
Contact and Legal Notice · Contact Address:
Privacy Statement · Conference: R&D Management Conference 2019
Conference Software - ConfTool Pro 2.6.129+TC
© 2001 - 2019 by Dr. H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany