Public-private innovation: Mediating roles and ICT niches of industrial research institutes
Dzamila Bienkowska
Linköping University; KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Katarina Larsen
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Sverker Sörlin
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
PP: 206 - 216
Abstract
Innovation processes involve diverse sets of organizations including universities, private firms, corporate research labs and public research institutes. Collaborative forms of knowledge production and innovative activity enable actors to reduce risk, specialize, and take advantage of knowledge internal and external to the own organization.
This paper discusses interactions and collaborations between public and private sector innovation. This is done through an analysis of semi-public research institutes in Sweden and their roles as arenas for R&D processes involving industry, university and government in terms of funding, research and public-private innovation. Particular attention is paid to technological niches of research institutes and utilization of research findings from collaborative R&D.
The results show that institutes occupy specific niches which influence their ways of transferring knowledge. It is argued that diversity among R&D performers as well as funding opportunities is paramount for innovation systems to thrive.
Keywords
absorptive capacity; basic science; industrial research institutes; innovation systems; intellectual property rights; knowledge transfer; technological niche
References
Arnold E, Brown N, Ericsson A, Jansson T, Muscio A, Nählinder J and Zaman R (2007) The role of research institutes in the national innovation system. VINNOVA Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, Stockholm.
Balconi M, Breschi S and Lissoni F (2004) Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data, Research Policy 33(1): 127-145.
Bresnahan T, Gambardella A and Saxenian A (2005) 'Old economy' inputs for 'new economy' outcomes: cluster formation in the new Silicon Valleys, in Breschi S and Malerba F (eds) Clusters, networks, and innovation, pp.113-135, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2008) Bundesbericht forschung und innovation 2008. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Berlin.
Calvert J (2006) What's special about basic research? Science, Technology and Human Values 31(2): 199-220.
Carlsson B, Jacobsson S, Holmén M and Rickne A (2002) Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues, Research Policy 31: 233-245.
Chang PL and Shih HY (2004) The innovation systems of Taiwan and China: a comparative analysis, Technovation 24: 529-539.
Cohen W and Levinthal D (1989) Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal 99: 569-596.
Colyvas J and Powell W (2007) From vulnerable to venerated: The institutionalization of academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences. Research in the Sociology of Organization 25: 219-259.
Conti A, Gaulé P and Foray D (2007) Academic licensing: A European study. Working Paper 2007-001. Chaire en Economie et Management de l'Innovation (CEMI), EPFL - Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne CH.
Corrocher N, Malerba F and Montobbio F (2003) How do new technologies emerge? A patentbased analysis of ICT-related new industrial activities. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 5(2-3): 234-256. http://www.innovation-enterprise.com/archives/vol/5/issue/2-3/article/1481/how-do-new-technologies-emerge
Corrocher N, Malerba F and Montobbio F (2007) Schumpeterian patterns of innovation activity in the ICT field, Research Policy 36: 418-432.
de Solla Price D (1965) Is technology historically independent of science? A study in statistical historiography, Technology and Culture 6(4): 553-568.
Dosi G, Llerna P and Labini M (2006) The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration trough the myths and realities of the so-called 'European Paradox', Research Policy 35(10): 1450-1464.
Edgerton D (2004) 'The linear model' did not exist, in Grandin K, Wormbs N and Widmalm S (eds) The science-industry nexus: History, policy, implications, pp.31-57. Science History Publications, Canton MA.
Eliasson K (2004) American science the envy of the world? An overview of the science system and policies in the United States. ITPS - Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies, Stockholm.
European Investment Fund (2005) Technology transfer accelerator (TTA). Final report. European Investment Fund, Luxembourg.
Faulkner W and Senker J (1994) Making sense of diversity: public-private sector research linkages in three technologies, Research Policy 23(6): 673-695.
Feldman M (2000) Location and innovation: the new economic geography of innovation, spillovers, and agglomeration, in Clark G, Feldman M and Gertler M (eds) The Oxford handbook of economic geography, pp.373-394, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fiber Optic Valley (2010) Accessed at http://en.fiberopticvalley.com in January 2010.
Fjaestad M (2010) Research institutes in Germany: Basic and applied science institutionalized? CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series, nr 232. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Fridlund M (1999) Den gemensamma utvecklingen: Staten, storföretaget och samarbetet kring den svenska elkrafttekniken. (The mutual development: The state, big industry and cooperation on Swedish electric power technology). Dissertation, Stockholm papers in history and philosophy of technology. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Gaulé P and Conti A (2009) Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European paradox. Working paper 2009-003. Chaire en Economie et Management de l'Innovation (CEMI), EPFL - Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne CH.
Gertler M (2003) Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there), Journal of Economic Geography 3: 75-99.
Godin B (2006a) The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework, Science, Technology, & Human Values 31(6): 639-667.
Godin B (2006b) Research and development: how the 'D' got into R&D, Science and Public Policy 33(1): 59-76.
Klofsten M and Jones-Evans D (2000) Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe: The case of Sweden and Ireland, Small Business Economics 14: 299-309.
Larsen K (2004) Science and technology parks and the integration of environmental policy, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 6(2): 294-305. http://www.innovation-enterprise.com/archives/vol/6/issue/2/article/1348/science-and-technology-parks-and-the-integration
Liu X and White S (2001) Comparing innovation systems: a framework and application to China's transitional context, Research Policy 30: 1091-1114.
McKelvey M (2004) How and why dynamic selection regimes affect the firm's innovative search activities, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 6(1): 3-24. http://www.innovation-enterprise.com/archives/vol/6/issue/1/article/1493/how-and-why-dynamic-selection-regimes-affect-the
OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010) Main science and technology indicators: Volume 2009/2. OECD, Paris.
Owen-Smith J (2003) From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities, Research Policy 32(6): 1081-1104.
Owen-Smith J, Riccaboni M, Pammolli F and Powell W (2002) A comparison of US and European university-industry relations in the life sciences, Management Science 48(1): 24-43.
Perkmann M and Walsh K (2009) The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of university-industry relations on public research, Industrial and Corporate Change 18(6): 1033-1065.
Pettersson I, Larsen K and Sörlin S (2010) Dealing with the uncertainty of industrial research: Swedish institute policy in the 1940s. Paper presented at Research on Innovation workshop, 24 February, Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg.
Potts J (2009) The innovation deficit in public services: The curious problem of too much efficiency and not enough waste and failure, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 11(1): 34-43. http://www.innovation-enterprise.com/archives/vol/11/issue/1/article/2611/the-innovation-deficit-in-public-services
Preissl B (2006) Research and technology organizations in the service economy, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 19(1): 131-146.
Rhoten D and Powell W (2007) The frontiers of intellectual property: Expanded protection vs. new models of open science, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3: 345-373.
Senker J and Senker P (1997) Implications of industrial relationships for universities: A case study of the UK teaching company scheme, Science and Public Policy 24(3): 173-182.
Shane S (2004) Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Sörlin S (2006) En ny institutssektor: En analys av industriforskningsinstitutens villkor och framtid ur ett närings- och innovationspolitiskt perspektiv. Report to the Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Sörlin S, Arnold E, Andersen B, Honoré J, Jørnø P, Leppävuori E and Storvik K (2009) A step beyond: International evaluation of the GTS institute system in Denmark. Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, Copenhagen.
Tahvanainen A and Hermans R (2008) Value creation in the interface of industry and academia: A case study on the intellectual capital of technology transfer offices at US universities. Discussion paper No. 1148. The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA), Helsinki.
eContent Home
