Technology intermediaries in low tech sectors: the case of collective research centres in Belgium
André Spithoven
Senior Researcher, Belgian Science Policy Office, Part-time Researcher, Vrije Universiteit, Brussels, Belgium
Mirjam Knockaert
Assistant Professor in Entrepreneurship, Ghent University, Belgium; Adjunct Associate Professor, Entrepreneurship Centre, Oslo University, Norway
Abstract
Firms have become increasingly open towards collaboration to become more innovative. Opening up the innovation process and letting knowledge percolate through the boundaries of the firm is however not a guarantee to success. Many small and medium sized firms simply have insufficient resources to collaborate on innovation and lack in-house absorptive capacity to capture the results thereof. In Belgium the collective research centres have specialised in various activities related to R&D collaboration and technology transfer. As such they act as technology intermediaries. This paper positions these particular players in the innovation system. Further, it provides an insight into how collective research centres help firms, many of which are low tech SMEs, to build absorptive capacity for R&D activities. In this way, this paper aims at filling a gap in the literature, which has mainly focused on technology transfer in high tech sectors, technology transfer from universities to companies and government initiatives that stimulate tech transfer. We find that collective research centres are unique actors in the innovation system, engaging in both R&D and technology transfer activities to an extent that depends on their size, R&D budgets and number of members and aiming at strengthening the members' absorptive capacity.
Keywords
Technology intermediaries, low tech, technology transfer, Belgium
Article Text
The capacity to apply new knowledge and techniques has a significant impact on economic growth (OECD 1989: 41) and urges governments worldwide to take initiatives to put firms into a position to tap into the technological progress that has been made around the globe. Further, the observation made by the European Commission that not all developed and publicly available knowledge gets automatically converted into commercial products or processes (European Commission 2002), has given rise to a number of initiatives aimed at knowledge and technology transfer. In addition, the tendency of firms to open up their innovation process also stimulated the need for firms to look for knowledge and technology outside their walls (Chesbrough 2003). Cooperation is one way of getting insight into outside R&D results (Tether 2002). Yet some firms, short on internal capabilities, face the challenge of accessing these R&D results. Technology transfer involves the mobilisation of technology, information and technical know-how between organisations (Bozeman 2000). The government initiatives to stimulate technology transfer are diverse in nature. Polt (2001) distinguishes between four sets of policy-related framework conditions. These include legislation and regulation that may act as incentives for industry-science relations (ISR), such as regulation on intellectual property, public promotion programmes often providing financial resources for ISR, the establishment of intermediary structures and regulations to affect institutional settings in higher education and public research establishments.
The different types of technology transfer have led to different streams of research on technology transfer. One group of researchers has focused on academic spin-offs (Zucker, Darby & Armstrong 1998; Audretsch & Stephan 1996; Debackere & Veugelers 2005), whereas other researchers have studied licensing of intellectual property (Siegel, Waldman & Link 2003; Di Gregorio & Shane 2003, Thursby & Thursby 2002), contract research (Poyago Theotoky 2002) and graduate and researcher mobility (Argote & Ingram, 2000). Many researchers have studied the role of the technology transfer office (Debackere & Veugelers 2005), science parks and incubators (Phan, Siegel & Wright 2005), but have neglected to a large extent the role of other technology intermediaries. The focus of this paper is on the third type of policy-related framework conditions, namely the establishment of intermediary structures for ISR.
Although the existing literature on technology transfer and intermediation is large and multifaceted, several shortcomings remain. First, many articles have focused on new and promising industrial activities building on the latest scientific insights, hereby focusing to a large extent on spin-off creation (Polt 2001; OECD 2002b), technology transfer at universities (Debackere & Veugelers 2005), university licensing (Thursby, Jensen & Thursby 2001) and academic patenting (Mowery & Ziedonis 2007); leaving technology intermediaries, apart from technology transfer mechanisms at universities and research institutes, largely understudied.
Second, many researchers have focused on technology transfer in high tech sectors, such as biotech, nanotech and microelectronics (Markman et al. 2005). Hence, a good deal of attention has been devoted to the emerging sectors leaving the insights for traditional sectors understudied (exceptions are von Tunzelman & Acha 2004). As Pisano (2006) notices there is need for a new design for all businesses relying on basic science. Chesbrough & Crowther (2006) also plea for the study of open innovation practices in traditional industries. Indeed, firms in traditional industries, and especially SMEs in these industries often lack the necessary absorptive capacity. This absorptive capacity allows firms to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends (Cohen & Levinthal 1990). Cassiman & Veugelers (2000) found evidence of two dimensions of absorptive capacity: the ability to scan the market for technology and the ability to absorb the technology acquired. So far, however, no research has investigated how technology intermediaries help their "clients" to build absorptive capacity.
Third, the current literature on technology transfer has to a large extent highlighted government initiatives, hereby neglecting the rise in private and public/private initiatives (Polt 2001). However, we believe that important lessons can be learnt from experiences in alternative technology transfer organisations.
This paper aims at filling the gap of current technology transfer literature that mainly focuses on tech transfer in high tech sectors and that has highlighted government initiatives, by presenting a good practice in private public partnerships: the collective research centres in Belgium. These centres are private initiatives devised by policy in the aftermath of the Second World War and were, initially, created to encourage scientific and technological research in specific low tech sectors of the economy to improve productivity, quality and production. They are involved in two main activities. First, they are involved in R&D, often together with their member firms, and second, they offer their member companies a range of technology transfer services. Given the long history of the collective research centres, they demonstrate the adaptability of technology intermediaries in the face of technological changes and changing business models. Collective research centres consider technology transfer to be a teleological process: the transportation and translation of general technological insights on behalf of a specific group of users. Although collective research centres are non-profit organisations and partly publicly funded, they are firmly rooted in the private sector. In this paper, the activities of collective research centres are studied using secondary data and based on face-to-face interviews with CEOs from the centres using a semi-structured questionnaire.
The paper is structured as follows: first, we provide an overview of the role of technology intermediaries. Second, we position technology intermediaries within national innovation systems (Lundvall 1992; Capron & Meeusen 2000; OECD 1997; OECD 2002a) and provide a rationale for the existence of these technology intermediaries, hereby elaborating on the concepts of absorptive capacity. Third, we provide an insight into the data collection and method employed. In a fourth section, we study the activities of the collective research centres and their heterogeneity. Section five and six conclude and suggest avenues for further research.
References
Allen TJ (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology. Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information within the R&D Organization, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Anderson, P and Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 604-33.
Arbussa A and Coenders G (2007) Innovation activities, use of appropriation instruments and absorptive capacity: evidence from Spanish firms, Research Policy 36(10): 1545-58.
Argote L and Ingram P (2000) Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82 (1): 150-69.
Audretsch DB and Stephan PE (1996) Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology, American Economic Review 86(3): 641-52
Bercovitz J and Feldman M (2006) Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development, Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 175-88.
Bessant J and Rush H (1995) Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer, Research Policy 24(1): 97-114.
Bozeman B (2000) Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory, Research Policy 29(4/5): 627-55.
Capron H and Meeusen W (eds) (2000) The National Innovation System of Belgium, Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag.
Carlsson B and Stankiewicz R (1991) On the nature, function, and compositions of technological systems, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1(2): 93-118.
Cassiman B and Veugelers R (2000) External technology sources: embodied or disembodied technology acquisition, Working paper UPF 444, 1-22
CFS/STAT (2007) Statistics on R&D Activities of Non-Profit Organisations, Belgian Science Policy, Brussels.
Chesbough H and Crowther AK (2006) Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries, R&D Management 36(3): 229-36.
Chesbrough H (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Cohen WM and Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 128-52.
Debackere K and Veugelers R (2005) The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links, Research Policy 34(3): 321-42.
Di Gregorio D and Shane S (2003) Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?, Research Policy 32(2): 209-27.
Dodgson M, Gann D and Salter A (2006) The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble, R&D Management 36(3): 333-46.
Dosi G (1988) Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation, Journal of Economic Literature 26: 1120-71.
Edquist C, Eriksson M-L and Sjögren H (2002) Characteristics of collaboration in product innovation in the regional system of innovation of East Gothia, European Planning Studies 10(5): 563-81.
Edquist, C. (ed.) (1997) Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations,
Ellis H (1965) The Transfer of Learning, MacMillan, New York.
Estes W (1970) Learning Theory and Mental Development, Academic Press, New York.
European Commission (2002) 'Good practice in industry-science relations', Benchmarking papers no. 5, European Communities, Luxemburg.
Gann D (2001) Putting academic ideas into practice: technological progress and the absorptive capacity of construction organizations, Construction Management and Economics 19: 321-30.
Hadjimanolis A (1999) Types of networks and their effect on innovation in a developing country (Cyprus), International Journal of Innovation Management 3(2): 209- 32.
Howells J (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation, Research Policy 35(5): 715-28.
Laursen K and Salter A (2004) Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?, Research Policy 33(8): 1201-15.
Leiponen A (2006) Organization of knowledge exchange: an empirical study of knowledge intensive business service relationships, Economics of Innovation and New Technology 15(4/5): 443-64.
Lundvall BA (eds) (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter Publishers, London.
Malerba F (2002) Sectoral systems of innovation and production, Research Policy 31(2): 247-64.
Malerba F and Orsenigo L (1997) Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities, Industrial and Corporate Change 6(1): 83-117.
Markman G, Phan P, Balkin D and Gianiodis P (2005) Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer, Journal of Business Venturing 20: 241-63
Mowery DC and Ziedonis AA. (2007) Academic patents and materials transfer agreements: substitutes or complements? Journal of Technology Transfer 32(3): 157-72.
Nauwelaers C (2001) The S&T institutional profile, in Cincera M and Clarysse B (eds) Belgian Report on Science, Technology and Innovation, pp.129-256, Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs, Brussels,
Nelson RR (2008) What enables rapid economic progress: what are the needed institutions? Research Policy 37(1): 1-11.
Nooteboom B, Coehoorn C and Van Der Zwaan A (1992) The purpose and effectiveness of technology transfer to small businesses by government-sponsored innovation centres, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 4(2): 149-66.
OECD (1989) Government Policies and the Diffusion of Microelectronics, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2002a) Frascati Manual: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2002b) Benchmarking Industry Science Relations, OECD, Paris.
Pavitt K (1984) Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory, Research Policy 13(6): 343-73.
Payago-Theotoky J (2002) Universities and fundamental research: reflections on the growth of university-industry partnerships, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 18(1): 10-21.
Phan PH, Siegel DS and Wright M (2005) Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research, Journal of Business Venturing 20(2): 165-182.
Pisano G (2006) Can science be a business? Lessons from biotech, Harvard Business Review, October: 114-25.
Polt W (2001) Benchmarking Industry Science Relations: the Role of Framework Conditions, Final Report prepared for the European Commission, DG Enterprise.
Porter, ME (1998) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Pinter/Cassell, London.
Rappa MA and Debackere K (1992) Technological communities and the diffusion of knowledge, R&D Management 22(3): 209-20.
Roper S, Love JH, Ashcroft B and Dunlop S (2000) Industry and location effects on UK plants' innovation propensity, Annals of Regional Science 34: 489-502.
Sapsed J, Grantham A and DeFillippi R (2007) A bridge over troubled waters: bridging organisations and entrepreneurial opportunities in emerging sectors, Research Policy 36(9): 1314-34.
Siegel DS, Waldman D and Link A (2003) Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study, Research Policy 32(1): 27-48.
Tann J, Platts AE and Stein J (2002) The roles of independent research and technology organizations in the United Kingdom's technology transfer mechanism to SMEs, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 14(2): 241-49.
Tether B (2002) Who co-operates for innovation, and why. An empirical analysis, Research Policy 31(6): 947-967.
Thursby J and Thursby M (2002) Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing, Management Science 48: 90-104.
Thursby JG, Jensen R and Thursby MC (2001) Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing a survey of major U.S. universities, Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1): 59-72.
Tushmann M (1977) Special boundary roles in the innovation process, Administrative Science. Quarterly 22(4): 587-605.
von Hippel E (1988) The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.
von Tunzelmann GN and Acha V (2004) Innovation in 'low tech' industries', in: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC and Nelson RR (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, pp.407-32, Oxford University Press, New York.
Williamson O. E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, Free Press, New York.
Zahra S and George G (2002) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualisation, and extension, Academy of Management Review 27(2): 185-203.
Zucker, L., Darby, M., Armstrong, J., 1998. Geographically localized knowledge: spillovers or markets? Economic Inquiry 36(1): 65-86.
eContent Home
