1. Focus on long-term relationships - Academic-industry partnerships that are focused on long-term relationships are infinitely more successful than “one-off” ventures
(Geisler, 1986, 33; Giamatti, 1982, 1278-1280; Link & Tassey, 1989, 53). The National Council of University Research Administrators (2006, 8) states “the value of a long-term relationship can be greater than the sum of the individual transactions” or the results of one isolated project. Universities and industry should look towards establishing long-term multi-faceted relationships that maximize returns across a spectrum of interaction opportunities. Hall et al. (2001, 93) found that IP barriers are greater the shorter the length of the project. As project length increases from mean of 3.17 years to 3.67 years, the estimated probability of there being an insurmountable IP barrier decreases by 11.5%, with a standard error of approximately 6%. As academic-industry relationships are very complex, multi-faceted and diverse, feedback loops are the norm, with progressions from a single transaction to longer- term relationships occurring as trust and joint vision are developed (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2006, 182). A 2007 article in the Harvard Business Review had two phrases that sum up the goals of these collaborations: “Managing for the Long Term,” and “Going the Distance.” The article concludes that academic-industry collaborations depend upon critical long-term infrastructure developments (Fitzgerald, 2008, 333). Lee (2000, 127) found that the longer the duration of a project, the greater the benefits accrue to a faculty member in areas of research support, teaching function and entrepreneurial opportunity. Projects spanning at least three to five years or more tend to offer greater benefits in all counts: research support, pedagogical support and entrepreneurial opportunity. Projects of less than one year tend to produce the lowest benefits.
2. Partners with complementary scientific backgrounds and objectives - Successful partnerships also tend to create more value when partners are complementary in their scientific capabilities, when they substitute each other for lack of certain skill sets and when they complement each other with different types of knowledge, either
diversified or specialized (Mindruta, 2009, 2).
3. Flexibility, adaptability and resilience - Academic partners who were flexible, adaptable and resilient to the changes that occur during the partnership were more successful (Liyange & Mitchell, 1994, 642; Hall, Link et al., 2001, 95). Similarly, corporate partners are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of focusing less on forcing their university collaborators to adopt restrictive and onerous
contractual terms that will adversely affect the collaboration and instead focusing on mutually acceptable terms that will allow both parties to achieve their goals.
4. Strong support and commitment by senior administration - Partnerships are more successful when the senior administration of the academic institution indicated a strong commitment for these types of relationships. Internal advocacy and the emergence of a partnership champion were significant indicators of success (Powell & Owen-Smith, 2002, 25-26; National Council of University Research
Administrators, 2006, 10). Without senior management’s influence, lower levels of management are unlikely to give a collaborative project the required degree of commitment, attention and priority (Barnes et al., 2002, 275). Golob (2006, 686) interviewed academic entrepreneurs in the New York city area and found that universities with internal advocacy and support of university leadership are more likely to generate high tech enterprises than those that do not and cite the increase in
spin-off activity at Columbia University in the 1990s as a prime example. The president of the university should be responsible for establishing a cooperative tone toward academic-industry research collaborations and should align incentives to encourage and promote research collaborations. Likewise, the industry’s CEO must establish the priorities and set the tone for successful partnerships. “The climate is set at the top,” sated Hank McKinnell, chairman and CEO of Pfizer (Business Higher Education Forum, 2001, 83). Senior officials from each side of the partnership need to have a commitment to and see the value of external research. Commitment from senior management to honor these programs is critical since building technology transfer often takes years to achieve.
5. Atmosphere of mutual trust and transparency - An atmosphere of mutual trust, strong interpersonal relationships and the lack of hidden agendas were the most significant, overriding characteristics of successful partnerships (Davenport, 1999, 32; Jacob et al., 2000, 259). Developing trust is a lengthy process, sometimes requiring repeated collaborations. The University-Industry Congress’s University Industry Partnership Project was formed in 2003 with the purpose of building trust and teamwork, after repeated comments that there was significant distrust among some of the participants, either based upon a general level or prior negative experiences. According to the National Council of University Research Administrators et al. (2006, 12),
collaboration occurs across a continuum. The most important ingredients for success in this paradigm are trust and transparency.
6. Strong social relationships - Perkmann reports that most successful research partnerships are precipitated by strong social relationships between individual
university faculty members and members of the industry sector (Oliver & Liebeskind, 1997, 77; Perkmann & Walsh, 2007, 260; Siegel et al., 2003, 41). Some research has suggested that partnerships are most effective when there are previously known partners, when partners have a rapport and an effective channel of communication (Melese et al., 2009, 503; Schartinger et al., 2001, 266). “A partnership heavily relies on the strength of personal relationships” (National Council of University Research Administrators et al., 2006, 9). The loss of the key researcher from either side will typically terminate the collaboration, along with the hope of future collaborations. Since these collaborative projects are dependent upon mutual trust and understanding between the partners, the injection of new personnel into an existing partnership or ongoing negotiation can derail a well-thought arrangement. A study by Link et al. (2007, 645) indicates that social networks play an important role in technology transfer processes. These social networks allow knowledge transfer to work in both directions. Academic scientists indicated that interactions enabled them to conduct better basic research. A National Academy of Engineering study (Grossman et al., 2001, 146) indicates that informal alliances are a crucial source of technology spill- overs.
Colyvas et al. (2002, 67) , in an examination of 22 case studies from Columbia and Stanford Universities, found that in all but one case, researchers involved were members of a network of scientists that included industry
professionals. In the single case where there was no academic and industry scientist linkage, there was no technology transfer.
7. Strong communication skills - Strong communication between the partners is necessary for the longevity of a collaborative partnership (MacPherson, 2002, 122). Building a continuous dialogue is significant in this process of interaction in which both partners transfer knowledge to each other in a mutual learning process. Lee (2000, 127) refers to these partnerships as a “body contact sport.” The more frequent the contact, the greater the discussion of knowledge and technology. Lee found that faculty-firm interaction positively and systematically affected the benefits faculty experienced from collaborations with industry. The “Guiding Principles” from the National Council of University Research Administrators (2006, 11) recommend that universities and industry create events where researchers can readily intersect and interact with their industry counterparts in order to foster new collaborations. They state that communication is “the most critical management issue in collaboration,” and that there should be pre-specified points of formal contact and frequent informal exchange to keep the relationship in real time. Communication should be clear, straightforward, organized and honest (2006, 12).
8. Interdisciplinary partnerships - Successful academic researchers involved in industry partnerships tended to be more interdisciplinary in orientation and more supportive of extension-oriented educational programs. They also tended to be less concerned or worried about the seriousness of conflict of interest issues or divided organizational loyalty, but instead called upon the ability of the researchers to work with others across a broad spectrum of disciplines. A university environment which adheres to rigid disciplinary boundaries in funding research projects will inhibit these
interactions and therefore limit collaboration opportunities (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2006, 184; Debackere & Veugelers, 2004, 320).
Table 15 summarizes the
Table 15: Characteristics of