IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach

Listed author(s):
  • Villani, Elisa
  • Rasmussen, Einar
  • Grimaldi, Rosa
Registered author(s):

    The literature on university–industry (U–I) links has revealed many barriers that impede U–I technology transfer. A growing number of intermediary organizations, such as Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), University Incubators (UIs), and Collaborative Research Centres (CRCs) have been established to mitigate such barriers. While the activities and effects of such intermediaries are frequently studied, conceptual understandings of how these organizations facilitate technology transfer are lacking. Our case study of nine Italian intermediary organizations shows that different types of intermediary organizations address the same fundamental issue of bridging the different logics of academia and industry in different ways. Based on a proximity approach, we develop a theoretical framework explaining how intermediary organizations can reduce cognitive, geographical, organizational, and social distance in U–I collaborations. Intermediary organizations address different proximity dimensions depending on the prior experience of academic and industrial actors and the nature of the knowledge that is transferred. In particular, TTOs focus more on improving cognitive and organizational dimensions, whereas UIs and CRCs attempt to reduce social and geographical distance.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162516301111
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

    Volume (Year): 114 (2017)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 86-102

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:114:y:2017:i:c:p:86-102
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.004
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Vohora, Ajay & Wright, Mike & Lockett, Andy, 2004. "Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 147-175, January.
    2. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    3. Wuyts, Stefan & Colombo, Massimo G. & Dutta, Shantanu & Nooteboom, Bart, 2005. "Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 277-302, October.
    4. Valentina Tartari & Ammon Salter & Pablo D'Este, 2012. "Crossing the Rubicon: exploring the factors that shape academics' perceptions of the barriers to working with industry," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 655-677.
    5. Lorenzo Cassi & Anne Plunket, 2014. "Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 53(2), pages 395-422, September.
    6. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    7. Knockaert, Mirjam & Spithoven, André & Clarysse, Bart, 2014. "The impact of technology intermediaries on firm cognitive capacity additionality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 376-387.
    8. Siegel, Donald S. & Waldman, David & Link, Albert, 2003. "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 27-48, January.
    9. Pieter W. Heringa & Edwin Horlings & Mariëlle van der Zouwen & Peter van den Besselaar & Wim van Vierssen, 2014. "How do dimensions of proximity relate to the outcomes of collaboration? A survey of knowledge-intensive networks in the Dutch water sector," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7), pages 689-716, October.
    10. Bruneel, Johan & D'Este, Pablo & Salter, Ammon, 2010. "Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 858-868, September.
    11. Corinne Autant-Bernard & Pascal Billand & David Frachisse & Nadine Massard, 2007. "Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 86(3), pages 495-519, 08.
    12. Alexander, Allen T. & Martin, Dominique Philippe, 2013. "Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 38-49.
    13. Colombo, Massimo G. & Piva, Evila, 2012. "Firms’ genetic characteristics and competence-enlarging strategies: A comparison between academic and non-academic high-tech start-ups," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 79-92.
    14. Jannika Mattes, 2012. "Dimensions of Proximity and Knowledge Bases: Innovation between Spatial and Non-spatial Factors," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(8), pages 1085-1099, December.
    15. Nadine Massard & Caroline Mehier, 2009. "Proximity and Innovation through an 'Accessibility to Knowledge' Lens," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 77-88.
    16. Marrocu, Emanuela & Paci, Raffaele & Usai, Stefano, 2013. "Proximity, networking and knowledge production in Europe: What lessons for innovation policy?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1484-1498.
    17. Keld Laursen & Toke Reichstein & Ammon Salter, 2011. "Exploring the Effect of Geographical Proximity and University Quality on University-Industry Collaboration in the United Kingdom," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(4), pages 507-523.
    18. Bernardina Algieri & Antonio Aquino & Marianna Succurro, 2013. "Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: the case of Italy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 382-400, August.
    19. Geldes, Cristian & Felzensztein, Christian & Turkina, Ekaterina & Durand, Aurélia, 2015. "How does proximity affect interfirm marketing cooperation? A study of an agribusiness cluster," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 263-272.
    20. Pierre-Alexandre Balland, 2012. "Proximity and the Evolution of Collaboration Networks: Evidence from Research and Development Projects within the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Industry," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(6), pages 741-756, September.
    21. Hoekman, Jarno & Frenken, Koen & Tijssen, Robert J.W., 2010. "Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 662-673, June.
    22. Anne Aguiléra & Virginie Lethiais & Alain Rallet, 2012. "Spatial and Non-spatial Proximities in Inter-firm Relations: An Empirical Analysis," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 187-202, April.
    23. O’Kane, Conor & Mangematin, Vincent & Geoghegan, Will & Fitzgerald, Ciara, 2015. "University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 421-437.
    24. Nooteboom, Bart & Van Haverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & Gilsing, Victor & van den Oord, Ad, 2007. "Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1016-1034, September.
    25. Roderik Ponds & Frank van Oort & Koen Frenken, 2007. "The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 86(3), pages 423-443, August.
    26. Pablo D'Este & Frederick Guy & Simona Iammarino, 2013. "Shaping the formation of university--industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter?," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 537-558, July.
    27. Christopher Hayter & Albert Link, 2015. "On the economic impact of university proof of concept centers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 178-183, February.
    28. Lori Rosenkopf & Paul Almeida, 2003. "Overcoming Local Search Through Alliances and Mobility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 751-766, June.
    29. Tom Broekel & Ron Boschma, 2012. "Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: the proximity paradox," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 409-433, March.
    30. Lhuillery, Stéphane & Pfister, Etienne, 2009. "R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 45-57, February.
    31. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2005. "Incubator firm failure or graduation?: The role of university linkages," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1076-1090, September.
    32. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    33. Viktor Slavtchev, 2013. "Proximity and the Transfer of Academic Knowledge: Evidence from the Spatial Pattern of Industry Collaborations of East German Professors," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(5), pages 686-702, May.
    34. Annelore Huyghe & Mirjam Knockaert & Mike Wright & Evila Piva, 2014. "Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: the case of a hybrid model," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 289-307, August.
    35. Markman, Gideon D. & Phan, Phillip H. & Balkin, David B. & Gianiodis, Peter T., 2005. "Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 241-263, March.
    36. Maietta, Ornella Wanda, 2015. "Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1341-1359.
    37. Craig Boardman & Denis Gray, 2010. "The new science and engineering management: cooperative research centers as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 445-459, October.
    38. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    39. Steinmo, Marianne & Rasmussen, Einar, 2016. "How firms collaborate with public research organizations: The evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation projects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 1250-1259.
    40. Tina C. Ambos & Kristiina Mäkelä & Julian Birkinshaw & Pablo D'Este, 2008. "When Does University Research Get Commercialized? Creating Ambidexterity in Research Institutions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1424-1447, December.
    41. Kodama, Toshihiro, 2008. "The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university-industry linkages--An empirical study of TAMA in Japan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1224-1240, September.
    42. repec:taf:regstd:v:46:y:2011:i:9:p:1169-1182 is not listed on IDEAS
    43. Ann-Charlotte Fridh & Bo Carlsson, 2002. "special issue: Technology transfer in United States universities," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 199-232.
    44. Hong, Wei & Su, Yu-Sung, 2013. "The effect of institutional proximity in non-local university–industry collaborations: An analysis based on Chinese patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 454-464.
    45. Wright, Mike & Clarysse, Bart & Lockett, Andy & Knockaert, Mirjam, 2008. "Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1205-1223, September.
    46. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    47. Franzoni, Chiara & Sauermann, Henry, 2014. "Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-20.
    48. Jacobsson, Staffan & Karltorp, Kersti, 2013. "Mechanisms blocking the dynamics of the European offshore wind energy innovation system – Challenges for policy intervention," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1182-1195.
    49. Marie Thursby & Richard Jensen, 2001. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 240-259, March.
    50. David Minguillo & Mike Thelwall, 2015. "Research excellence and university–industry collaboration in UK science parks," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 181-196.
    51. Dornbusch, Friedrich & Neuhäusler, Peter, 2015. "Composition of inventor teams and technological progress – The role of collaboration between academia and industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1360-1375.
    52. Perkmann, Markus & Schildt, Henri, 2015. "Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1133-1143.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:114:y:2017:i:c:p:86-102. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.