Finding the balance in university-industry research centres:
The use and consequences of firms influencing strategies
University-industry collaboration (UIC)
• An important external knowledge source during the development of new
firm innovations is universities.
• One of the predominant policy response to increase UIC is university-industry
research centres (Ponomariov & Boardman, 2010).
• Research centres has two main goals; to produce academic research, i.e. academic
journal papers and research monographs, and contribute to industrial
competitiveness through innovation development (Styhre & Lind, 2010).
• Although UIC could be highly rewarding (Cohen et al., 2002; Mansfield,
1991; Mueller, 2006), it is a challenging process (Bjerregaard, 2010,
Perkmann and Walsh, 2007, Galán-Muros and Plewa, 2016)
Conflicting institutional logics
Academic science logic
Commercial science logic
Mission
Developing public knowledge
Solving concrete problems valued in the marketplace
Goal
Publications
Financial returns
Research
Primarily basic research
Primarily applied research and technological
development projects
Disclosure of results
Publish research results
Obtain patents
Working practices
Autonomy and research freedom based on
personal interests, long-term curiosity-driven
research
Limit freedom and coordinate scientists’
actions according to the firm’s needs. Short- and
medium term outcomes
Motivation
Status in the scientific community
Higher expected returns
The aim of the university-industry research centres is to bridge these logics!
Centres for Environment-friendly Energy Research (CEER)/
Forskningssentre for Miljøvennlig Energi (FME)
• 6 centres
• CO2 storage, bioenergy, zero emission
buildings, offshore wind energy (2 centres)
and solar cell technology.
• Evaluated by the scientific merit of the
research, and the potential to generate
innovation and value creation.
• Operates from 2009 – 2017
• Yearly ca. 30 mill NOK per centre
• Managed by a university or research
institute and includes firms from different
parts of the value chain.
The study
• Longitudinal study of six technological FME centres
• 94 interviews (48 firms, 46 research partners)
(Sept-Nov 2013, following round Oct-Nov 2015)
• Annual reports, evaluation reports, newsletters
• Research team:
•
•
•
•
PhD candidate Thomas Lauvås, Nord University Business School
Associate prof. Marianne Steinmo, Nord University Business School
Professor Roger Sørheim, NTNU/Nord
Associate prof. Ola Edvin Vie, NTNU
Research gaps and purpose
• The effect of links between firms and universities are extensively studied, but
less is known about how the collaboration unfold
• Explores one of firms’ greatest challenges in UIC; namely how to “steer” or
“bend” the collaborative projects towards firms business-objectives (Harryson
et al., 2007, Sydow and Windeler, 1998), and the consequences for firms and
university partners:
• “Our challenge is to know how and when we should influence [the research], and when
we should not influence!? This is very challenging; the university researchers have their
needs, and we have ours” [Firm representative in university-industry research centre].
• Limited insights has been provided regarding how organizations impose their
interest on others in organizational research. This comprise both the literature
on Resource dependence theory (Wry et al., 2013, Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003),
inter-organizational collaboration (Gulati et al., 2012) and UIC (Bruneel et al.,
2010, Estrada et al., 2016).
Theoretical framework and research question
• Resource dependency theory (power imbalance and mutual dependence)
• Influencing strategies (coercive and noncoercive)
• How do industry partners influence the research agenda in universityindustry research centres, and what are the consequences?
Findings - structure
1. Operationalize firms’ coercive and noncoercive influencing
strategies.
2. Firms’ influencing strategies’ are connected to the shifts in power
imbalance and mutual dependence, showing, which type of R&D
that is conducted in the research centres over time.
Data structure – Firms’ influencing strategies
Influencing strategies
(First order categories)
Aggregate influencing strategies
(Second order themes)
Overreaching dimensions
Influencing in one-on-one meetings with university partners
Influencing in annual meetings and workshops
Influencing and suggesting
research activities in official
meetings
Influencing through position on center board
Noncoercive influencing strategies
Firm D2: “We suggest relevant topics, we always do that. That is how we
can influence and get research topics that is in line with our strategy”.
Data structure – Firms’ influencing strategies
Influencing strategies
(First order categories)
Aggregate influencing strategies
(Second order themes)
Overreaching dimensions
Influencing in one-on-one meetings with university partners
Influencing in annual meetings and workshops
Influencing and suggesting
research activities in official
meetings
Influencing through position on center board
Noncoercive influencing strategies
Following-up on research activities
Giving researchers access to facilities and data
Providing industrial
perspectives and data
Constructive feedback in official evaluations
Firm E1: “We connected some of our projects to Epsilon [research centre],
and we have devoted many resources towards these research projects”.
Data structure – Firms’ influencing strategies
Influencing strategies
(First order categories)
Aggregate influencing strategies
(Second order themes)
Overreaching dimensions
Influencing in one-on-one meetings with university partners
Influencing in annual meetings and workshops
Influencing and suggesting
research activities in official
meetings
Influencing through position on center board
Noncoercive influencing strategies
Following-up on research activities
Giving researchers access to facilities and data
Providing industrial
perspectives and data
Constructive feedback in official evaluations
Harsh feedback in official evaluations
Threatening to leave the research centre
Forcing change
Coercive influencing strategies
Demanding to influence the research strategy
“The university partners understood that it was critical and changed. Several
of the industry partners threatened to leave the research centre”. (Firm A1)
Data structure – Firms’ influencing strategies
Influencing strategies
(First order categories)
Aggregate influencing strategies
(Second order themes)
Overreaching dimensions
Influencing in one-on-one meetings with university partners
Influencing in annual meetings and workshops
Influencing and suggesting
research activities in official
meetings
Influencing through position on center board
Noncoercive influencing strategies
Following-up on research activities
Giving researchers access to facilities and data
Providing industrial
perspectives and data
Constructive feedback in official evaluations
Harsh feedback in official evaluations
Threatening to leave the research centre
Demanding to influence the research strategy
Forcing change
Coercive influencing strategies
University
Basic Research
Oriented Basic Research
Experimental development
Applied Research
Power imbalance
Industry
Low
Degree of mutual dependence
High
University
Basic Research
Oriented Basic Research
Experimental development
Applied Research
Power imbalance
Industry
Low
Degree of mutual dependence
High
Alpha Year 1-4:
“We perceive that we don’t get through to the university partners, and their research is not relevant for us or the business
sector that we represent’”. (Firm A2)
“The industry is often very busy. If they contact us, it is typically if they have some sort of a problem, which is not given that we
can solve in the research centre. Alpha is a research centre that has a time horizon on things”. (WP-leader A2)
Alpha year 1-4
University
Basic Research
Oriented Basic Research
Experimental development
Applied Research
Power imbalance
Industry
Low
Degree of mutual dependence
High
Alpha Year 1-4:
“We perceive that we don’t get through to the university partners, and their research is not relevant for us or the business
sector that we represent’”. (Firm A2)
“The industry is often very busy. If they contact us, it is typically if they have some sort of a problem, which is not given that we
can solve in the research centre. Alpha is a research centre that has a time horizon on things”. (WP-leader A2)
Alpha year 1-4
University
Basic Research
Oriented Basic Research
Power imbalance
Alpha year 4-8
Industry
Experimental development
Low
Applied Research
Degree of mutual dependence
High
Alpha Year 4-8:
“Gradually we understood that we have to engage more, demanding to set the strategy for the research centre”. (Firm A1)
«We need the industry partners… Without them, there is no research centre. Therefore, we need to give in, and we have
maybe given in to much… A research centre is supposed to be the ‘national team of research’, but we end up doing many
‘small things’ for them, which is not research or relevant for publications”. (WP-leader A1).
Epsilon Year 1-4:
“Epsilon have no financial responsibility [for the industry’s projects]. They contribute with their competence. Thus, I believe
they realize that the agenda has to be set by the industry”. (Firm E2)
“Some of the projects [in the centre] involves activities close to consulting. But they generate academic papers as it is new
processes and new ways to calculate”. (Centre Director)
Alpha year 1-4
University
Basic Research
Oriented Basic Research
Power imbalance
Epsilon year 1-4
Alpha year 4-8
Industry
Experimental development
Low
Applied Research
Degree of mutual dependence
High
Epsilon Year 1-4:
“Epsilon have no financial responsibility [for the industry’s projects]. They contribute with their competence. Thus, I believe
they realize that the agenda has to be set by the industry”. (Firm E2)
“Some of the projects [in the centre] involves activities close to consulting. But they generate academic papers as it is new
processes and new ways to calculate”. (Centre Director)
Alpha year 1-4
University
Basic Research
Oriented Basic Research
Power imbalance
Epsilon year 1-4
Alpha year 4-8
Industry
Experimental development
Low
Epsilon year 4-8
Degree of mutual dependence
Applied Research
High
Epsilon Year 4-8:
“We focus now even more on the industry partner’s research and development needs. (Centre director Epsilon)
«We use Epsilon as a consultant… and they need us for research purposes”. (Firm E3)
«We have done a solid job on Product X, which has a great potential. However, it is too long-term. The research are therefore
downscaled, and terminating ongoing activities that still grant large publication possibilities is difficult for the university
researchers”. (Centre director Epsilon)
Beta, Gamma and Delta Year 1-4:
“The university partners have financed a lot of the centre. We cannot force them to do a specific thing. We can wish and
suggest, but in the end the university partners decide what they want to do”. (Firm C2)
“Some knowledge gaps are filled by the conducted research… but I wish for an increased amount of applied results and
feedback in the last half of the centre period”. (Firm B2)
Alpha year 1-4
Beta, Gamma and Delta year 1-4
University
Basic Research
Oriented Basic Research
Power imbalance
Epsilon year 1-4
Alpha year 4-8
Industry
Experimental development
Low
Epsilon year 4-8
Degree of mutual dependence
Applied Research
High
Beta, Gamma and Delta Year 1-4:
“The university partners have financed a lot of the centre. We cannot force them to do a specific thing. We can wish and
suggest, but in the end the university partners decide what they want to do”. (Firm C2)
“Some knowledge gaps are filled by the conducted research… but I wish for an increased amount of applied results and
feedback in the last half of the centre period”. (Firm B2)
Alpha year 1-4
Beta, Gamma and Delta year 1-4
University
Basic Research
Oriented Basic Research
Beta, Gamma and Delta year 4-8
Power imbalance
Epsilon year 1-4
Alpha year 4-8
Industry
Experimental development
Low
Epsilon year 4-8
Degree of mutual dependence
Applied Research
High
Beta, Gamma and Delta Year 4-8:
«There has been a very good mid-term evaluation, which indicated the need for the research to be a bit more applied”. (Firm
B2)
“When I say applied, it does not mean that our research are very different; we do the same research, but we work on
research questions that are more relevant for the industry partners. We now steer the research into using data from the
industry partners, instead of a purely theoretical exploration of these processes”. (Centre Director Beta)
Alpha year 1-4
Beta, Gamma and Delta year 1-4
University
Basic Research
Oriented Basic Research
Beta, Gamma and Delta year 4-8
Power imbalance
Epsilon year 1-4
Alpha year 4-8
Industry
Experimental development
Low
Epsilon year 4-8
Degree of mutual dependence
Applied Research
High
Firm implications
• Essential for firms to take actions to participate effectively in UIC from the
beginning.
• Give the researchers access to data and relevant cases
• It is not only the university partners that is responsible for a valuable collaboration
• Clarify expectations with the university partners
• Coercive influencing strategies may grant positive outcomes for the shortterm objectives of the firm, but at the expense of the university partner.
This may harm the relationship and impede further collaborations.
• Noncoercive influencing strategies may provide a balanced research
agenda with regard to industrial application and academic publications,
and lay the foundations for future UIC.
Implications for university researchers
• The literature has showed diverging results if UIC participation harms
the academic output:
• Participation in UIC, in itself, do not lower the academic output;
what matters is how the research agenda are adjusted towards the
research needs of the industry, and if this is done at the expense of
the university partners.
• Be proactive in contacting and engaging firm partners early in the
process
Policy implications
• Clear guidelines to which degree and how, the industry partners
should influence the research agenda.
• Mid-term evaluation after 4 years  An early phase survey could steer
the research agenda towards a better fit with the research needs of
both industry and university partners’ at an earlier stage.
• To contain opportunistic use of ‘harsh feedback in official evaluations
and to obtain a balanced view; ask university partners’ to comment
on the industry partners’ involvement and contributions.
References
•
•
•
•
•
Jakobsen, S. and Steinmo, M (2016) The role of proximity dimensions in the
development of innovations in coopetition: a longitudinal case study,
International Journal of Technology Management (Vol. 71, No. 1/2, 2016)
Steinmo, & Rasmussen. (2016) How firms collaborate with public research
organizations: The evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation
projects. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1250-1259
Steinmo, M. (2015) Collaboration for Innovation: A Case Study on How Social
Capital Mitigates Collaborative Challenges in University–Industry Research
Alliances. Industry and Innovation, 1-28.
Lauvås, T., & Steinmo, M (2017) Managing university-industry collaboration: How
firm representatives accomplish knowledge integration through transferring,
translating and transforming activities, work in progess.
Lauvås, T. (2017) Finding the balance in university-industry research centres: The
use and consequences of firms influencing strategies, work in progess.
Contact
• Thomas Lauvås ([email protected])
Theoretical Framework
• Resource dependency theory is based on the premise that all organizations are critically dependent on other
organizations for the provision of vital resources, such as finances, information and knowledge, and that the
dependence is reciprocal (Drees and Heugens, 2013)
• Interdependence consist of two separate dimensions:
• Power imbalance: ‘the power differential between two organizations’
• Mutual dependence: the ‘sum of their dependencies’ (Casciaro and Piskorski, 2005, p. 168)
• Influencing strategies is ‘the alternative means for applying power’ (Frazier and Summers, 1986, p. 169), and are
generally distinguished into coercive and noncoercive influencing strategies (Hausman and Johnston, 2010, Frazier and
Summers, 1986).
• Coercive influencing strategies is defined as ‘putting direct pressure on the target to perform a specific behavior or set
of behaviors, with adverse consequences of noncompliance stressed and mediated by the source’ (Frazier and Rody,
1991, p. 54) (i.e. threats, demands, legalistic pleas and punishments (Frazier and Summers, 1984, Gundlach and
Cadotte, 1994)).
• Noncoercive influencing strategies are less compulsive and involves little, if any, direct pressure from the source
(Frazier and Rody, 1991, Hu and Sheu, 2005) (i.e. requests, information exchange, discussions, promises and rewards
(Gundlach and Cadotte, 1994, Hu and Sheu, 2005)).