ADMINISTRACIÓN EXTRAVASAL

As for the industry perspective the categories of knowledge transfer mechanisms used in studies from the PRO perspective are not the same across the studies and so the same mapping was made, based on the information available, of the mechanisms defined in Figure 3.

The Bekkers’ study looked at the importance of different knowledge transfer mechanisms from both the industry and PRO perspective and found very little difference between the two (Figure 24 and Figure 26). Eight of the top ten most important mechanisms are the same for both industry and PROs, and include publications, informal interactions and accessing research skills. For both industry and PROs contract R&D and consultancy fall in the middle

a private university in the USA with a strong tradition (borne out of necessity to some extent) of ttracting private funding. For MIT, exploiting IP ranks relatively low but higher than the formal mechanisms. The Sussex study contains a much smaller set of mechanisms and akes a slightly different assessment – the frequency of use rather than their importance. The ndings rank consultancy higher than informal routes and access to skills, and exploiting IP is

d very low in terms of usage.

ground while exploiting IP is of less importance – albeit slightly more important for industry than PROs.

Studies by Agrawal and Martinelli⁹⁰ addressed specific universities, namely the University of Sussex in the UK and MIT in the USA respectively, with the former gathering data across all academic faculties and the latter addressing a much narrower range of two engineering departments. Publications are ranked highly for the MIT study (publications were not addressed by the Sussex study) but interestingly, rank below consulting, which received the highest ranking. This may be the result of the national and organisational context for MIT i.e.

a in m fi ranke

t. (2002)

90 Martinelli et al, op. cit. (2008); Ajay Agrawal et al, op. ci

he KT case studies present a similar picture. The interviewees able to make an assessment of the relative importance of the different KT mechanisms⁹¹ reported a mixed picture with

disciplinary progress and for wider benefits in the shorter term while mechanisms such as collaborative and contract R&D, consultancy and IP exploitation as more important for supporting wider benefits in the lo

th d PRO perspective th for

es ear to be the public an al channels such as pub

conference tha formal channels of collabor

and IP. Th P generated by PROs is not important, but that it nee to b

In practice mpanies interactions with

make use using different mechanisms to instigate and then

dev op l th relevant groups to

rele nt k ation help identify th

pla in relationship might start wi ct R&D project

solve a pa problem ollaborative R&D

aris as a rstanding is gained of each others’ skills, needs and motivations and a

level of tru such proje at the industry p

can exploi

Licencees nisations already known to the PRO⁹² and are,

the ore la y, empirical res

suggests th g point for a relationship; here patents are used

to i tify en sing is used as a method

to instigat h exploitat f

PRO generat sually requ

fur r inp hers during essful) eve l

commercia he fo &D, contract R&

consultanc nsfer of ‘the softer’ forms of knowledge such as tacit knowledg

T

impacts arising from all mechanisms in varying degrees. Publications were generally reported as more important for

a business an accessing

lications, earch app

s, and informal interactions, rather is is not to suggest that exploiting I

n the more ations

ds e seen in a wider context.

, TTOs report, individual co with fairly intensive PROs of a range of KT mechanisms;

ong-term relationships wi

el academics and research access

va yers

nowledge and expertise. Public a field, or a

s, for example, may th a consultancy or contra

e key to rticular relatively short-term

deeper unde

. Opportunities for C may

e

st has been developed, and cts might result in IP th artner t.

of PRO-generated IP tend to be orga the culmination of longer-term re

ref tionships. Interestingl earch

at IP licensing can also be the startin who to work with (e.g. through pat

den t scanning) and licen

e and then develop relationships wit ed IP, which is typically at a very e

academics.⁹³ Furthermore, the arly stage of development, u

ion o ires the ut from academic researc the development and (if succ ntua

lisation phases. This can take t y that facilitate the tra

rm of collaborative R D or

e and know-how.

91 A divi point, le to make this assessment

92 Inventor’s sential elements of technology transfer at the Massachusetts

Institute o , M

93 Ahmad glimpse into their thoughts, Journal of Technology

M gem p 38 8; and Gillian McFadzean, A compar f

different ex n-outs) as means to extract value from research results:

why do p es e exploitation of research results, European

Commissi xpert Group on Knowledge Transfer (2009) s in duals, with a relatively narrow view most felt unab

Guide to Tech Transfer outlines the es

f Technology. Technology Licensing Office IT, 2005 Rahal, University technology buyers, a

ent and Innovation, Vol. 3, Issues 1, p

ana -41, 20 ison o

ploitation methods (eg licensing, selling, spi eople or organisations choose certain rout on 2009 E

for th

rank echanism

(Bekkers) transfer mechanisms defined in

igh by % of university

s

Uni KT M Correspondence to Knowledge

Cited as h importance

Figure 3 respondent

1 Personal (informal) contacts Informal collaboration 91%

2 Scientific publications in (refereed) journals Publications 90%

/ books

3 Participation in conferences and

oration 89%

workshops Informal collab

4 University graduates as

level) employees (Ph.D. Access to research skills 89%

5 Other publications, including professional Publications 81%

publications and reports

6 Joint R&D projects (except those in

Framework Program the 80%

context of EU mes) Formal collaboration 7 University gra

M.Sc) duates as employees (B.Sc/ Access to research skills 77%

8 Financing of Ph.D. projects Access to research skills 76%

9 Students working as trainees Access to research skills 63%

10 Staff holding positions in both a university arch skills 63%

and a business Access to rese

11 Joint R&D projects in the context of EU

Framework Programmes Formal collaboration 60%

12 Contract research (excl. Ph.D. projects) Contract R&D and consultancy 55%

13 Consultancy by university staff members Contract R&D and consultancy 55%

15 Flow of university staff members to

industry positions (exc. Ph.D. graduates) Access to research skills 47%

15 University spin-offs (as a source of Exploiting IP 47%

knowledge)

16 Sharing facilities (e.g. laboratories,

equipment, housing with universities) Other 44%

18 Temporary staff exchange (e.g. staff

mobility programmes) Access to research skills 43%

18 Personal contacts via membership of

professional organisations Informal collaboration 41%

18 Patent texts, as found in the patent office or

in p Other 38%

atent databases

20 Contract-based in-business education &

training Other 36%

21 Licenses of university-held patents and

‘know-how’ licenses Exploiting IP 33%

22 Specific knowledge transfer activities

organised by the university’s TTO Other 26%

23 Personal contacts via alumni organisations Informal collaboration 23%

F