IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulp/sbbeta/2019-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Opening the black box of university-suppliers' co-invention: some field study evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Sofia Patsali

Abstract

While there is extensive evidence that the flow of knowledge between academia and industry is important, scholars have noticed that little is known about the actual transmission mechanisms of these influences (Rosenberg and Nelson, 1994; Kenney and Patton, 2009). The paucity of research reflects the fact that university-industry exchanges are a complex process that involves many factors that are difficult to grasp. Furthermore, the practical benefits of most university research for companies stem from interactions and processes that are very much roundabout and indirect (Pavitt, 2005). For instance, a case in point of such processes consists of the technology-intensive interactions between academics and their suppliers of equipment (Perkmann and Walsh, 2007). This paper explores the emergence of dynamic complementarities among researchers’ demand and suppliers’ competencies and aims to identify the dynamic processes through which university labs serve as learning-environment for suppliers. We conducted field-study based on a set of instrumental devices developed in close collaboration between University of Strasbourg laboratories on the one hand, and equipment manufacturers on the other hand. Our case studies illustrate a multitude of patterns through which researchers share their technological knowledge with industrial suppliers. More precisely, our evidence shows the presence of a “procurement-led” innovation phenomenon wherein university researchers provide companies with unique insights by acting both as equipment-demanders as well as suppliers of scientific knowledge about instruments, ultimately allow firms to explore new innovative trajectories.

Suggested Citation

  • Sofia Patsali, 2019. "Opening the black box of university-suppliers' co-invention: some field study evidence," Working Papers of BETA 2019-46, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
  • Handle: RePEc:ulp:sbbeta:2019-46
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://beta.u-strasbg.fr/WP/2019/2019-46.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roberto Fontana & Marco Guerzoni, 2008. "Incentives and uncertainty: an empirical analysis of the impact of demand on innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(6), pages 927-946, November.
    2. Max Rolfstam, 2009. "Public procurement as an innovation policy tool: The role of institutions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 349-360, June.
    3. Julien Chicot & Mireille Matt, 2018. "Public procurement of innovation: a review of rationales, designs, and contributions to grand challenges," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 480-492.
    4. Edler, Jakob & Georghiou, Luke, 2007. "Public procurement and innovation--Resurrecting the demand side," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 949-963, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Anna Giunta & Emanuela Sirtori, 2018. "Big science, learning, and innovation: evidence from CERN procurement," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(5), pages 915-936.
    7. Murray, Fiona, 2002. "Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1389-1403, December.
    8. Autio, Erkko & Hameri, Ari-Pekka & Vuola, Olli, 2004. "A framework of industrial knowledge spillovers in big-science centers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 107-126, January.
    9. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    10. Anil K. Gupta & Vijay Govindarajan, 2000. "Knowledge flows within multinational corporations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(4), pages 473-496, April.
    11. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    12. Castelnovo, Paolo & Florio, Massimo & Forte, Stefano & Rossi, Lucio & Sirtori, Emanuela, 2018. "The economic impact of technological procurement for large-scale research infrastructures: Evidence from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1853-1867.
    13. Anna-Maija Hietajärvi & Kirsi Aaltonen, 2018. "The formation of a collaborative project identity in an infrastructure alliance project," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 1-21, January.
    14. Cristiano Antonelli & Agnieszka Gehringer, 2019. "Competent demand pull and technological flows within sectoral systems: the evidence on differences within Europe," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(6), pages 1525-1547.
    15. Franco Malerba & Richard Nelson & Luigi Orsenigo & Sidney Winter, 2007. "Demand, innovation, and the dynamics of market structure: The role of experimental users and diverse preferences," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 371-399, August.
    16. Fred Gault (ed.), 2013. "Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14427.
    17. Loof, Hans & Heshmati, Almas, 2002. "Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity: : A firm-level innovation study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 61-85, March.
    18. Chiara Franzoni, 2009. "Do scientists get fundamental research ideas by solving practical problems?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 671-699, August.
    19. Autio, Erkko & Kenney, Martin & Mustar, Philippe & Siegel, Don & Wright, Mike, 2014. "Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1097-1108.
    20. Richard L. Daft & Robert H. Lengel, 1986. "Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 554-571, May.
    21. Balboni, Bernardo & Marchi, Gianluca & Vignola, Marina, 2017. "Knowledge transfer in the context of buyer–supplier relationship: An analysis of a supplier's customer portfolio," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 277-287.
    22. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 523-532, September.
    23. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2003. "Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D," Chapters, in: Aldo Geuna & Ammon J. Salter & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), Science and Innovation, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    24. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1992. "Scientific instrumentation and university research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 381-390, August.
    25. Trochim, William M. K., 1989. "Concept mapping : Soft science or hard art?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 87-110, January.
    26. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1963. "Technological Change in the Machine Tool Industry, 1840–1910," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 414-443, December.
    27. Claire Nauwelaers & Rene Wintjes (ed.), 2008. "Innovation Policy in Europe," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4131.
    28. Cohendet, Patrick & Steinmueller, W Edward, 2000. "The Codification of Knowledge: A Conceptual and Empirical Exploration," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 195-209, June.
    29. Dosi, Giovanni, 1988. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 1120-1171, September.
    30. Helena Yli‐Renko & Erkko Autio & Harry J. Sapienza, 2001. "Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology‐based firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 587-613, June.
    31. 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.
    32. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    33. Lee, Yong S, 2000. "The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An Empirical Assessment," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 111-133, June.
    34. Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
    35. Peter J. Lane & Michael Lubatkin, 1998. "Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning," Post-Print hal-02311860, HAL.
    36. Amesse, Fernand & Cohendet, P., 2001. "Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1459-1478, December.
    37. Dosi, Giovanni & Llerena, Patrick & Labini, Mauro Sylos, 2006. "The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called `European Paradox'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1450-1464, December.
    38. Manuel Becerra & Randi Lunnan & Lars Huemer, 2008. "Trustworthiness, Risk, and the Transfer of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge Between Alliance Partners," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 691-713, June.
    39. Marengo, L, 1992. "Coordination and Organizational Learning in the Firm," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 313-326, December.
    40. Seungwha (Andy) Chung & Harbir Singh & Kyungmook Lee, 2000. "Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 1-22, January.
    41. Lockett, Andy & Wright, Mike, 2005. "Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1043-1057, September.
    42. Geroski, P A, 1990. "Innovation, Technological Opportunity, and Market Structure," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 586-602, July.
    43. Trochim, William M. K., 1989. "An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, January.
    44. Cristiano Antonelli & Agnieszka Gehringer, 2015. "The competent demand pull hypothesis: which sectors do play a role?," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 32(1), pages 97-134, April.
    45. Franco Malerba, 2006. "Innovation, Industrial Dynamics and Industry Evolution: Progress and the Research Agendas," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 97(5), pages 21-46.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bianchini, Stefano & Llerena, Patrick & Patsali, Sofia, 2019. "Demand-pull innovation in science: Empirical evidence from a research university’s suppliers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(S).
    2. Sofia Patsali, 2021. "University Procurement-led Innovation," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-13, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    3. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    4. García-Vega, María & Vicente-Chirivella, Óscar, 2020. "Do university technology transfers increase firms’ innovation?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    5. Castelnovo, Paolo & Clò, Stefano & Florio, Massimo, 2023. "A quasi-experimental design to assess the innovative impact of public procurement: An application to the Italian space industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    6. Victoria Galan-Muros & Todd Davey, 2019. "The UBC ecosystem: putting together a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1311-1346, August.
    7. Su Jung Jee & So Young Sohn, 2023. "A firm’s creation of proprietary knowledge linked to the knowledge spilled over from its research publications: the case of artificial intelligence," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 876-900.
    8. Uwe Cantner, 2017. "Foundations of Economic Change: An Extended Schumpeterian Approach," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner (ed.), Foundations of Economic Change, pages 9-49, Springer.
    9. Balconi, Margherita & Brusoni, Stefano & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2010. "In defence of the linear model: An essay," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, February.
    10. Isabel Cavalli & Charlie Joyez, 2021. "The Dynamics of French Universities in Patent Collaboration Networks," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-38, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    11. Duong, Phuong-Anh Nguyen & Voordeckers, Wim & Huybrechts, Jolien & Lambrechts, Frank, 2022. "On external knowledge sources and innovation performance: Family versus non-family firms," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    12. Hottenrott, Hanna & Lawson, Cornelia, 2017. "Fishing for complementarities: Research grants and research productivity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-38.
    13. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Jofre-Bonet, Mireia & Lawson, Cornelia, 2015. "The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1160-1175.
    14. Robert Huggins & Daniel Prokop & Piers Thompson, 2020. "Universities and open innovation: the determinants of network centrality," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 718-757, June.
    15. Ani Gerbin & Mateja Drnovsek, 2016. "Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 979-1076, October.
    16. Andrea Bastianin & Paolo Castelnovo & Massimo Florio & Anna Giunta, 2022. "Big science and innovation: gestation lag from procurement to patents for CERN suppliers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 531-555, April.
    17. José Bestier Padilla Bejarano & Jhon Wilder Zartha Sossa & Carlos Ocampo-López & Margarita Ramírez-Carmona, 2023. "University Technology Transfer from a Knowledge-Flow Approach—Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-21, April.
    18. Cornelia Lawson, 2013. "Academic Inventions Outside the University: Investigating Patent Ownership in the UK," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 385-398, July.
    19. Fini, Riccardo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Meoli, Azzurra, 2020. "The effectiveness of university regulations to foster science-based entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    20. Emilio Bellini & Giuseppe Piroli & Luca Pennacchio, 2019. "Collaborative know-how and trust in university–industry collaborations: empirical evidence from ICT firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1939-1963, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    University-industry interactions; scientific instrumentation; technology co-development; public procurement.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D22 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • H57 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Procurement
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ulp:sbbeta:2019-46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bestrfr.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.