This research can be considered as descriptive and understanding but it also has provided through inductive analysis a theoretical framework that could be utilized in similar kind of researches. There are many actors that operate in the interfaces of the sectors of business, university and government. Their strategies and goals as well as operative models vary greatly and this framework could offer assistance in analyzing them. Especially the question of whether the activity is conducted in one of the sectors or as a a hybrid between two or maybe all three sectors is an important starting point. The analysis could also be focused on one or more individual parts of the service management system.
The Business-University-Government context is also a rather undefined one and offers many ideas for research. The three sectors have separately many development processes underway which could be analyzed from the marketing perspective. In the business sector, the trends of the economy are constantly under research, but in the university sector more attention should be paid on communicating the results of both basic and applied research. This would enhance the cooperation of different actors in conducting the research as such. Relationships between the three sectors and network dynamics should also be studied more profoundly to gain the maximum benefits from them. The initiatives and programs from the government sector also provide interesting topics for research, mainly from the point of view of their success.
As for the case organization and the intermediating activity it conducts, more research should be done in the different stakeholder groups to gain a wider perspective on how
143
the activity should be carried out and if it is actually sought for. The service concept is fresh and visionary and it has followed that many stakeholders might have not gotten accustomed to it yet. Basic market research would help eBRC as it plans its future.
REFERENCES
Publications
Brennan R. & Tornbull P.W. 2001. Sophistry, relevance and technology transfer in management research: an IMP perspective. Journal of Business Research
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. 1983. Becoming critical: Knowing through action research. Victoria: Deakin University
Castells M., & Himanen P. 2001. Suomen Tietoyhteiskuntamalli, SITRA publications no. 242
Elmuti D., Abebe M., Nicolosi M. 2005. An overview of strategic alliances between universities and corporations. The Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 17, No. 1-2. pp. 115-129.
Eriksson, K. 2004. Verkoston ajatus teknologiapolitiikassa. In Tarmo Lemola & Petri Honkanen (eds.): Innovaatiopolitikkaa – Kenen hyväksi, keiden ehdoilla? Gaudeamus, Helsinki.
Eskola J. & Suoranta, J. 1998. Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen. 2nd edition.Tampere: Vastapaino
Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., 1999. The future location of research and technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, Summer.
Etzkowitz H., Webster A., Gebhardt C., Regina, B. & Terra C. 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm, pp.313-330, Research Policy 29
Gadde, L-E & Snehota, I. 2001. Rethinking the Role of the Middleman. Proceedings of the 17th IMP Conference, Oslo, Norway
George, G., Zahra, S. & Wood D. 2002 The effects of business-university alliances on the innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing. 17(6) pp. 577-608. Grönroos, C. 2000. Service management and marketing: a customer relationship
management approach. Second edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Gummesson, E. 2000. Qualitative methods in management research 2nd ed. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hardy K. G, Magrath A.J. 1988. Marketing channel management, Scott, Foresman and Company, Illinois, USA
Havila, V. 1996. International Business-Relationship Triads. A Study of the Changing Role of the Intermediating Actor. Uppsala: Uppsala University. Doctoral thesis no. 64.
Havila, V., Johanson, J. & Thilenius, P. 2004. International Business-relationship Triads. International Marketing Review. Vol. 21. No. 2. pp. 172-186. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Hirsjärvi, S. & Hurme, H. 2000. Tutkimushaastattelu. Teemahaastattelun teoria ja käytäntö. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.
Hirsjärvi, S., Remes, P. & Sajavaara, P. 2002. Tutki ja Kirjoita. Vantaa: Tammi.
Jahnukainen, I., Junnelius, C. & Sonkin, L. 1988. Liiketoiminnan kehittäminen liikeidean pohjalta, Ekonomia-sarja 66, Espoo: Suomen Ekonomiliitto ja Weilin+Göös
Järvelin, A-M. & Koskela, H-E. 2005. The role of science parks in developing company networks. In: Seppä, M., Hannula, M. Järvelin, A-M, Kujala, J., Ruohonen, M. & Tiainen, T. (eds.) 2005 Frontiers of e-Business Research 2004. Proceedings of the 4th eBRF Conference. pp.507-519. Tampere, Finland
Karlöf, B. 1995. Johtamisen käsitteet ja mallit. Porvoo: Ekonomia-sarja.
Kaufmann A. & Tödtling F. 2001. Science–industry interaction in the process of innovation: the importance of boundary-crossing between systems, pp. 791-804, Research Policy 30
Kutinlahti P. & Kankaala, K. 2004. Tutkimuksen kaupallinen hyödyntäminen pp. 87- 113 in Kankaala, K., Kaukonen, E., Kutinlahti, P., Lemola, T., Nieminen, M. & Välimaa, J., Yliopistojen kolmas tehtävä?, Helsinki: Edita
Kuula, A. 1999. Toimintatutkimus – kenttätyötä ja muutospyrkimyksiä. Vastapaino, Tampere.
Lehtinen, U. & Niinimäki, S. 2005. Asiantuntijapalvelut – markkinoinnin ja tuotteistamisen suunnittelu. Helsinki: WSOY
Malecki, E.J., 1997. Technology and Economic Development. Addison-Wesley Longman, Harlow.
Mittilä, Tuula 2000. Relation Trine. An Analysis of Industrial Supplier-Customer Relations. Tampere: University of Tampere, School of Business Administration Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 768
Nieminen, M. 2004. Lähtökohtia yliopistojen kolmannen tehtävän tarkastelulle pp. 15- 42 in Kankaala, K., Kaukonen, E., Kutinlahti, P., Lemola, T., Nieminen, M. & Välimaa, J., Yliopistojen kolmas tehtävä?, Helsinki: Edita
Normann, R. 1983. Luova yritysjohto, Ekonomia-sarja 44, Espoo: Suomen Ekonomiliitto ja Weilin+Göös
Normann, R. 1984. Palveluyrityksen johtaminen, Ekonomia-sarja 93, Espoo: Suomen Ekonomiliitto ja Weilin+Göös
Palmer, A. 1996. Linking external and internal relationship building in networks of public and private sector organizations: a case study. International Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 9 No. 3 pp.51-60
Parellada, M. and Sanroma, E. 2000. Continuing education and the role of universities, towards a European perspective. Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 173-82.
Powell, W. W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295– 336.
Saarikoski M, Tommila J. & Turtiainen M. 2005. Case 2. e-Business Research Center. In Lehtinen, U. & Niinimäki, S. Asiantuntijapalvelut – markkinoinnin ja tuotteistamisen suunnittelu. Helsinki: WSOY
Santoro, M. 2000. Success Breeds Success: The Linkage Between Relationship Intensity and Tangible Outcomes in Industry-University Collaborative Ventures. Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 11 (2), pp 255-273. Sipilä, J. 1996. Asiantuntijapalvelujen markkinointi 2nd edition. Porvoo: WSOY
Tommila, J., Järvelin, A-M & Seppä, M. 2004. From Idea to Knowledge – Creating New Knowledge on e-Business, pp. 975-980 in Shaping Business Strategy in the Networked World, Proceedings of ICEB 2004
Tähtinen J. 2002. Triad Net Dissolution. Proceedings of EMAC-ANZMAC Colloquium, 16. -17.12.2002, Perth, Australia.
Tähtinen, J. & Halinen-Kaila A. 1997. The death of business triads: the dissolution process of a net of companies. In: Mazet, F., Salle R. & Valla J-P (eds.) 1997. Interaction, relationships and networks. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Industrial Marketing and Purchasing. Competitive papers. pp.553-590. Lyon, France
Valentin, E.M.M. 2000. University cooperation: a framework of benefits and obstacles. Industry and Higher Education. vol. 14. no. 3. pp. 165 – 172. Virkkunen, J. 1995. Työpaikkatarkastuksen ristiriidat ja niiden ylittämisen
mahdollisuudet - Tutkimus keskusteluun perustuvan työn välineistä ja tuloksellisuudesta. Helsinki: työministeriö. Työpoliittinen tutkimus 123.
Wit, B. de & Meyer, R., 2005 Strategy synthesis: resolving strategy paradoxes to create competitive advantage. London: Thomson Learning
Internet sources
eTampere program web pages <http://www.etampere.fi/en/>, 28.5.2005 Etzkowitz H. & Leydesdorff L. 1995, The Triple Helix: University - Industry -
Government Relations, <http://www.easst.net/review/march1995/leydesdorff>, 21.3.2005
Finnish innovation system, <http://www.research.fi/innojarj_en.html>, 6.3.2005 IMP-group <http://www.impgroup.org/history.php>, 26.2.2005
i2010 - Challenges for Europe's Information Society beyond 2005: Starting point for a new EU strategy,
<http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/i2010/index_en.htm>, 29.5.2005
Merriam & Webster´s web dictionary, <www.britannica.com>, 28.1.2005 Seppälä, E-O 2002. Finnish Innovation System
<http://www.research.fi/innojarj2_en.html>, 6.3.2005
Reports and digital sources
European Union 2000. eEurope 2002 action plan
<http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2002/action_plan/pdf/actionpl an_en.pdf> 30.1.2005
European Union 2000. eEurope 2002 initiative
<http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2002/news_library/pdf_files/i nitiative_en.pdf>, 29.1.2005
Information society program 2003.
<http://www.tietoyhteiskuntaohjelma.fi/esittely/en_GB/introduction/_files/1104 2717720000592/default/tietoyhteiskuntaohjelma_engl_030404.pdf> 28.5.2005 Ståhle, Pirjo, Smedlund, Anssi, & Köppä, Lassi 2004. Välittäjäorganisaatioiden
rakenteelliset ja dynaamiset haasteet: osaselvitys innovatiivisesta johtamisesta monen toimijan verkostossa. Report financed by Finland’s Ministry of Trade and Industry.
<http://ktm.elinar.fi/ktm_jur/ktmjur.nsf/All/82C22418EEFA2836C2256F26003 D29AA/$file/jaettu_johtajuus_final.pdf> 22.2.2005
Tekes 2002. Technology strategy
<http://www.tekes.fi/julkaisut/Tekes_Teknstrat_eng.pdf>, 1.2.2005
Valovirta, Ville & Niinikoski Marja-Liisa 2004. Välittäjäorganisaatioiden toiminta fyysisesti etäällä sijaitsevien toimijoiden välillä. Esiselvitys valtion tiede- ja
teknologianeuvostolle. Neteffect Oy.
<http://ktm.elinar.fi/ktm_jur/ktmjur.nsf/All/5BE4AF07A1355244C2256F26003 C30B2/$file/Välittäjäorganisaatiot%20ja%20etäisyys%20FINAL.pdf>
22.2.2005
Survey participants
3 Business sector representatives 3 University sector representatives 1 Government sector representative
Material from eBRC
Reporting
Report from examination period -30.6.2001 Report from examination period 1.7.-31.12.2001 Report from examination period 1.7.-31.12.2002 Report from examination period 1.1.-30.6.2003 Report from examination period 1.7.-31.12.2003 Report from examination period 1.1.-30.6.2004 Report from examination period 1.7.-31.12.2004 Status reports to the eBRC board
eBRC meeting minutes
Strategic documents
eBRC plan 2001 Strategy 8/2001
Strategy summary 12/2002
eBRC Research Board Memo 2004 Strategy 2005
eBRC Logframe
eBRC´s merits 2001-2005
Other materials
Aho, E. 2003. Business, university, government. Presentation at eBRF 2003 conference 23.-25.9.2003 Tampere, Finland
Kurkela, M & Saario, A 2003 eBRC;n tunnettuus ja imago sidosryhmään kuuluvien tutkijoiden keskuudessa. Course practice
Discussions, meetings and other unofficial contacts Discussions with eBRC´s director Dr. Marko Seppä Meetings with the eBRC staff including:
eBRC´s management:
Marko Seppä, director (sub program director) 2002-, project director for TUT 2001-, project director for UTA 2002-
Anne-Mari Järvelin, project director for UTA 2001-2002 (vice president of the board, 2002-)
eBRC team:
Hanna Martin, project manager, 2001- Tommi Rissanen, project manager, 2004-
Eeva Salminen, head of project activities, project manager, 2001-2004 Hannu Jungman, project manager, 2003-
Johanna Tommila, project coordinator, 2002-
Maria Mäntymäki, project manager, 2001-2003 (leave of absence 2004-) Saija Heikkinen, project coordinator, 2001-2003
Olli Kellokumpu, project assistant, 2002-2004 Sachin Arora, trainee from India, 2003
Luc Houssonloge, trainee from Belgium, 2004
Seminars and strategy sessions with eBRC´s team and stakeholders, e.g. strategy seminar in Hakametsä Ice Rink on March 8th 2005 and strategy seminar in Lapinniemi Spa on April 28th 2005
ATTACHMENT 1: SURVEY QUESTIONS
1. Mitä tarpeita ja odotuksia yrityksellänne/teillä tutkijana/organisaatiollanne on yliopisto- ja tutkimusrahoittajayhteistyön/yritys- ja tutkimusrahoittajayhteistyön /yritys- ja yliopistoyhteistyön suhteen?
2. Millaisena olette kokeneet tutkimusyhteistyön yliopisto- ja
3. tutkimusrahoittajatahojen/yritysten ja tutkimusrahoittajatahojen/yritysten ja yliopistojen kanssa yleisesti?
4. Millaisena olette kokeneet yhteistyön erityisesti eBRC:n kanssa? 5. Mikä olisi mielestänne eBRC:n kaltaisen organisaation tärkein tehtävä? 6. Miten kehittäisitte eBRC:n toimintamallia ja palveluita?
7. Mitä haasteita ja mahdollisuuksia näette yritysten, yliopistojen ja rahoittajaorganisaatioiden välisessä yhteistyössä?