Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

/faculteit technologie management The different channels of university-industry knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence from Biomedical Engineering Reg.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "/faculteit technologie management The different channels of university-industry knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence from Biomedical Engineering Reg."— Presentation transcript:

1 /faculteit technologie management The different channels of university-industry knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence from Biomedical Engineering Reg Brennenraedts Dialogic Innovatie & Interactie Bart Verspagen Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Rudi Bekkers Technische Universiteit Eindhoven DIME, Workshop on Technology transfer from universities: A critical appraisal of patents, spin-offs and human mobility September 29-30/2006, Lausanne

2 /faculteit technologie management Talk outline Research questions Theoretical framework Methodology Analysis of the data Conclusions Discussion

3 /faculteit technologie management Research questions How do industry-science relations take place at the faculty of Biomedical Engineering at the Eindhoven University? What is the relative frequency of the different forms of ISRs? What is the perceived importance of the different forms of ISRs? Which factors influence the pattern of ISRs? Research questions

4 /faculteit technologie management Context Science increasingly more important for economic growth European paradox: –Europe excels in scientific research… However: –Commercial/technological performance in high tech sectors is decreasing Large differences in ISRs occur between countries and universities Purpose of ISRs  Knowledge transfer Theoretical framework

5 /faculteit technologie management Forms of ISRs Publications Participation in conferences, professional networks and boards Mobility of people Other informal contacts Cooperation in R&D Sharing of facilities Cooperation in education Contract research and advisement Intellectual property rights Spin-offs and entrepreneurship Theoretical framework

6 /faculteit technologie management What causes different footprints of ISRs? Between sector variation: –Knowledge base (in casu BME) Nelson and Winter (entrepreneurial / routinized) Schumpeter (Mark I: widening / Mark II deepening) Pavitt (supplier dominated, production intensive, science) Within sector variation: –Reputation of a researcher –Exact type of research one conducts: Applied vs. not-applied Multidisciplinary vs. monodisciplinary –Social network of an individual Weak ties (acquaintances) Strong ties (friends) –National or Regional System of Innovation –Policy of faculty or university (regarding ISRs) Theoretical framework

7 /faculteit technologie management Faculty of Biomedical Engineering (BME) 200 employees, 400 students Founded in 1997 Cooperation between: –Eindhoven University (TU/e) –Maastricht University (UM) –Teaching hospital Maastricht (azM) Focus on: –BMTE (BioMechanics and Tissue Engineering) –MBEMI (Molecular BioEngineering & Molecular Imaging) –BIOMIM (BIOMedical Imaging and Modeling) Knowledge base in: Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Electronics, Medicine & Biology Theoretical framework

8 /faculteit technologie management Back to our research question… Relative frequency / perceived importance of the different forms of ISRs? Which factors influence the pattern of ISRs? Dependent variables: frequency/perceived importance of ISRs Independent variables: Properties of researchers Methodology

9 /faculteit technologie management Obtaining data (i) Focus on knowledge producers, not R&D managers Publication and citation scores –Web of Science database Questionnaire: –Population are all the researchers employed at BME (n=138) –Response >62% (n=85) Methodology

10 /faculteit technologie management Obtaining data (ii) Questionnaire contains questions regarding: –Background of the researcher Position at university? Other position? In the past employed in industry? Monodisciplinary or multidisciplinary research? Applied or fundamental or experimental research? Patents? –Frequency/perceived importance of forms of ISRs 21 different forms of ISRs Methodology

11 /faculteit technologie management Methodology

12 /faculteit technologie management Relative frequency and perceived importance of ISRs Highly correlated –Correlation coefficient = 0.95 –Rank correlation = 0.92 People do what they find important No possibility (or need) to distinguish between these variables Further analysis is conducted using the sum of these scores Analysis of the data

13 /faculteit technologie management Perceived importance and frequency of ISRs (top-5) 1. Conferences and workshops 2. Refereed scientific journals or books 3. Joint R&D projects with the industry 4. Networks based on friendship 5. Presentation of research at the industry Analysis of the data

14 /faculteit technologie management General patterns in ISRs (using Factor Analysis) Analysis of the data Factors 1. Entrepreneur 2. Dense cooperation 3. Formal network 4. Science 5. Informal network

15 /faculteit technologie management Towards a taxonomy (i) (using cluster analysis) Clustering the respondents by their factor scores… –Cluster I (n=24) high factor scores on informal networking –Cluster II (n=18) high factor scores on science –Cluster III (n=14) high factor scores on science, formal network, informal network Note: Factors entrepreneur and dense cooperation are not preffered by a specific group Analysis of the data

16 /faculteit technologie management Towards a taxonomy (ii) (using multinomial logit regression) Cluster II (opposed to Cluster I) is typified by researchers who usually: –Do not have another appointment; –Do not have worked in a firm; –Do not have any patents; –Do have conducted mainly fundamental; –Do have many publications. Cluster III (opposed to Cluster I) is typified by researchers who usually: –Do have another appointment (relative risk ration >60) Analysis of the data

17 /faculteit technologie management The taxonomy (i) Some ISRs are appreciated by a broad set of respondents: –Spin-offs, patents, contract research, et cetera (factor: Entrepreneur) –Exchange of personnel, sharing facilities, joint R&D, et cetera (factor: Dense cooperation) Some ISRs are preferred by a specific type of respondent. Conclusions

18 /faculteit technologie management The taxonomy (ii) Cluster I: –prefers: friendships, presentation at the industry, et cetera (factor: informal networking) Cluster II: –prefers: refereed publications, conferences, supervision of a Ph.D. student (factor: science) –contains: Traditional academics Cluster III –prefers: many different channels (factors: informal networking, formal networking, science) –contains: academics with more then 1 appointment Conclusions

19 /faculteit technologie management Policy implications: Much variation found in transferring knowledge – Policy should be aimed at a multitude of channels and a wide range of channels. Academics with a strong reputation prefer to use the traditional (rather passive) channels – Although an interesting match for the industry, could possibly be hard to motivate to use the more active channels of knowledge transfer. Conclusions

20 /faculteit technologie management Suggestions for further research Research at another sector (faculty)  verify within sector variations Research at broad scope of faculties  find between sector variations Research at the industry  do they have the same opinion? Conclusions

21 /faculteit technologie management Discussion… Discussion

22 /faculteit technologie management N=24

23 /faculteit technologie management N=24


Download ppt "/faculteit technologie management The different channels of university-industry knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence from Biomedical Engineering Reg."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google