ContentslistsavailableatSciVerseScienceDirect
Research Policy
j o ur na l ho me p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / r e s p o l
University–industry collaboration and innovation in emergent and mature industries in new industrialized countries
Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas
a,b,∗, Rosane Argou Marques
c, Evando Mirra de Paula e Silva
caGrenobleEcoledeManagement,12ruePierreSémard-BP127,38003Grenoblecedex01,France
bDISPEA,PolitecnicodiTorino,CorsoDucadegliAbruzzi,24b,10129Torino,Italy
cBrazilianAgencyforIndustrialDevelopment(ABDI),SBNQuadra1,BlocoB,14oandar,EdifícioCNC,70041-902,Brasília,DF,Brazil
a r t i c l e i n f o
Articlehistory:
Received26May2011
Receivedinrevisedform12January2012 Accepted17June2012
Available online 24 July 2012
Keywords:
University–industrycollaboration Emergentindustries
Newindustrializedcountries Scienceandtechnologypolicies
a b s t r a c t
Astheeconomiesandindigenoustechnologicalcapabilitiesofthenewindustrializedcountriesimprove, nationaluniversitiesandpublicresearchorganizationsareexpectedtobecomeincreasinglyimportant forsupportingindigenousfirmstomoveintomoredynamicandhigh-opportunityindustries.However, thecharacteristicsofcollaborationwithuniversitiesmaybeveryspecificdependingonwhetherthe industrypartnerisengagedinmatureoremergentactivities.Inthisstudy,weexploreanddiscussthe roleofuniversity–industrycollaborationforthedevelopmentofinnovationinmatureandemergent industriesinnewindustrializedcountries.Evidencefrom24researchgroupsinscienceandengineering departmentsinuniversitiesandpublicresearchorganizationsinBrazilprovidespreliminaryempirical corroborationfortheproposalthatthecontextsandroleofuniversity–industrycollaborationinmature andemergentindustriesarediverse.Knowledgenetworksareunderdevelopedinemergingindustries, andpublicsupportforresearchprojectsisdispersed.Thismeansthatuniversityresearchanddevel- opmentprojectswithfirmsinemergentindustriesarelesslikelythanprojectswithfirmsinmature industriestobetheresultofacademicinitiativesandpubliccallsforresearchprojects,ortobewholly financedbymajorpublicresearchsponsors.Inemergentindustries,theroleofstudentsandfirmemploy- eesiscrucialformediatingbetweenpublicresearchorganizationsandcompanies.Thepolicyimplications ofthesepreliminaryfindingsarediscussed.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Newlyindustrializedcountry(NIC)governmentsareincreas- ingly focused on fostering science–industry interactions and developing high-technology sectors (OECD, 2010; Gouvea and Kassicieh,2005).Policy-makersinbothdevelopedeconomiesand NICshavebeenconcentratingondesigningpoliciesaimedatrais- ingthe qualityof Public Research and Education Organizations (PREOs)researchandtrainingprogrammes,tomaketheirrolemore entrepreneurialandofmorebenefittonationaleconomicdevel- opment,andtosupportthegrowthofhigh-technologyactivities (Eunetal.,2006;Wongetal.,2007).Astheeconomiesandindige- noustechnologicalcapabilities ofNICsimprove, nationalPREOs are expected to become increasingly important for supporting indigenousfirmstomoveintomoredynamicandhigh-opportunity
∗Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddresses:[email protected], [email protected](I.M.BodasFreitas),
[email protected],[email protected](R.A.Marques), [email protected](E.M.P.Silva).
industries(MathewsandHu,2007;MazzoleniandNelson,2007).
However,theinnovationenvironmentsinmatureandemergent industriesdifferconsiderablyintermsoftheirmarketandtech- nologyturbulence,knowledgeinputcharacteristics,mainsearch strategiesforinnovationinputs,roleofnetworking,andcollabora- tionforinnovationdevelopment(UtterbackandAbernathy,1975;
Tushman and Anderson, 1986; Robertson and Patel, 2007; von Tunzelmann,2009).Thecharacteristicsofcollaborationwithuni- versitiesmaybespecifictowhethertheindustrypartner(s)belongs toamatureoranemergentindustry.
Thereisanextensivebodyofliteratureonuniversity–industry collaborationsandsomeofthesestudiesexaminecross-sectoral anddisciplinarydifferencesin thepatternsofknowledgetrans- ferbetweenuniversityandindustryindeveloped countriesand NICs (e.g. Bekkers and Bodas Freitas, 2008; Dutrénitand Arza, 2010).However,toourknowledge,noworkhasbeenpublished onwhether and howthe establishment,content and organiza- tionofuniversity–industrycollaborationsdifferbetweenemergent andmatureindustries.Thepresentstudytriestofillthisgap.Its main objectiveis toprovide preliminaryempiricalevidence on thespecificitiesofuniversity–industryrelationshipsinmatureand emergentindustriesinBrazil,oneofthemostimportantNICs.
0048-7333/$–seefrontmatter© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.06.006
Ontheone hand,PREOs areoftenkey actorsin theprocess ofindustrialtechnologicaldevelopmentandcatch-upinspecific industrialsectors(Mazzoleni,2008).Theycansupportthedevelop- mentofnationaltechnologicalcapabilitiesandcatchup,through theprovisionoftrainingforscientistandengineers,supportfor personnelexchangesinvolvinginternationalresearchers,experts andstudents,accesstointernationalresearchnetworksandnew technologies,andadvancedknowledgeandskillsinrelevantsci- enceand engineering fields(Pavitt, 1998; Robertson and Patel, 2007).PREOscanprovidesupportandadvicetofirmsandgovern- mentsonhowtodevelopandemploytechnologiesandavoiddirect infringementofforeignIntellectualPropertyRights(IPR)(Gouvea andKassicieh,2005;MazzoleniandNelson,2007).
Ontheotherhand,nationalinstitutionalenvironmentscanpro- vide incentives for firms active specificallyin emerging and in matureindustriesandinfluencetheirperformance.Inparticular, Chesbrough(1999)andGittelman(2006)provideevidenceofhow theUSinstitutionalenvironmentsupportsthedevelopmentofnew high-techfirmsinbiotechnologyindustry,andhowtheFrenchand theJapaneseinstitutionalenvironmentsencouragetheexploita- tionofthenewmarketopportunitiesbylargeestablishedfirmsin thepharmaceuticalsindustry.
The design and implementation of appropriate science and technologypoliciesrequires informationabout thecontext and characteristicsof existinguniversity–industrycollaboration,and anunderstanding,especially,ofthespecificitiesofPREO-industry interactioninbothmatureandemergentindustries.Employingthe OECD’sbestpracticeinrelationtotechnologytransfer(e.g.creation ofuniversityTechnologyTransferOffices(TTOs),definitionofIPR, supportforuniversityspinoffs)mightbelesseffectiveforsupport- inguniversity–industrycollaborationandthegrowthofnational high-technologysectorsinNICs(OECD,2005;MoweryandSampat, 2005).
Giventhescarceempiricalevidence,especiallyinthecaseof NICs,thispapershouldbeseenasafirststeptowardsunderstand- ingwhetherand how thecharacteristicsof university–industry interactions in mature and emergent industries differ, and as providing preliminary evidence to guide managers, and sci- enceand technology policymakers in NICs. The present study focuses on Brazil, where since 2003 policyhas been aimed at improvingnationaltechnologicalcapabilitiesandsupportingthe developmentandgrowthofhigh-technologyindustries(Brazilian Government,2003;GouveaandKassicieh,2005).
Usingdatafromsemi-structured,face-to-faceinterviewswith asampleof 24coordinatorsofresearchdepartmentsinscience andengineering facultiesin universities,and in publicresearch organizations,first, we analysethe context of science–industry collaboration,i.e.themotivationsfor,goals,mainbarrierstoand facilitatorsofsuchcollaborationinBrazil.Second,weexaminethe organizationalchangesundertakenbyPREOstopromoteimprove
‘entrepreneurialattitudes’amongacademicresearchers.Third,we explore the specificities of university–industry collaboration in emergentandmatureindustries.
Our studycontributes to theliterature ontheeconomics of knowledgetransferbyhighlightingdifferencesintheformsand objectives of university–industry interaction in emergent and matureindustries,andbyprovidingpreliminaryevidencethatcer- tainknowledgetransfermechanismsare particularlycrucial for mediatingPREOsandfirmsinemergentindustries.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the existing knowledge,and develops expectationsabout thechar- acteristicsandroleofuniversity–industryinteractionsinmature and emergentindustries. Section 3examines thespecific insti- tutional context of university–industry collaboration in Brazil.
Section4presentsthedataandmethodologyusedinthisstudy.
Section 5 discusses the motivations, object of and barriers to
university–industrycollaborationinBrazil,andtheorganizational changesimplementedinPREOstofacilitateresearchcooperation withindustry.Section6contraststhecharacteristicsofuniversity projectsinvolvingfirmsactiveinemergentandinmatureindustrial andtechnologicalsectors.Section7discussesthepolicyandman- agementimplicationsofthepreliminaryfindingsandconcludesthe paper.
2. University–industryinteractionandthetechnological challengesinmatureandemergentindustries
Inthissection,wereviewthedifferencesbetweenmatureand emergentindustriesintermsoftheprocessofbuildingindustrial innovativecapabilities,anddiscussanddevelopexpectationsabout thespecificroleoftheuniversityinthedevelopmentoftechno- logical and innovativecapabilities in industry, in light ofthese differences.
Theinnovativeenvironmentsofmaturelowandmediumtech- nologyindustriesandemergenthigh-technologyindustriesdiffer considerablyintermsofmarketandtechnologyturbulence,andthe characteristicsofknowledgeinputs.Consequently,searchstrate- giesforinnovationinputs,theroleofnetworkingandcollaboration forinnovationdevelopment,andeventualinnovativeoutputsalso differ(Utterbackand Abernathy,1975;TushmanandAnderson, 1986;Strebel,1987;EisenhardtandMartin,2000).
Theemergentindustryenvironmentischaracterizedbystrong competitionintechnologyandproductdevelopmentsandstrong marketturbulence.Asindustriesmature,andadominantindustry design emerges, technological uncertainty decreases and com- petition increasingly isbased oncost, andincremental product innovations(UtterbackandAbernathy,1975;Strebel,1987).Thus, technologiesandmarketsevolvemorequicklyinemergentthan inmatureindustries(EisenhardtandMartin,2000),butthereisno evidencethatinnovationismorefrequentintheformercompared tothelatter(McGahanandSilverman,2001;RobertsonandPatel, 2007).
Also,thetypesofknowledgeinputsrequiredforfirms’innova- tiondevelopment,waysofaccessingknowledgesources,andthe resultsoffirms’innovativeeffortsmaybequitedifferentacrossthe industrylifecycle.Tacitanddisembodiedknowledgewouldseem particularlyimportantforinnovativeactivityintheearlystages oftheindustrylifecycleand,consequently,personalcontacts(i.e.
telephonecalls,participationinmeetings,demonstrations)maybe decisiveforknowledgetransfer(Audretsch,1998;Mangematinand Nesta,1999;FurmanandMacGarvie,2009).FurmanandMacGarvie (2009) show that in the early years of the US pharmaceutical industry, US universities supported the development of firms’
researchanddevelopment(R&D)labsviatrainingofscientificand technicalstaffandcollaborative research.Given theimportance ofdisembodiedknowledgeandpersonalcontactsfor innovative activity,geographicproximityoftencharacterizesemergentindus- tries(Prevenzer,1997).Intheearlystagesofanindustrylifecycle, newknowledgeinputsandresources,suchasuniversityresearch, mayenhancetheagglomerationofinnovativeactivity,whilethe newknowledgeembodied inskilledworkersfavours clustering inallphasesoftheindustrycycle(AudretschandStephan,1996;
Audretsch,1998).Regardlessofthecharacteristicsoftheknowl- edge, however,low absorptive capacity makes firmsreliant on personalcontacts(andthusproximity)toabsorbexternalcodified knowledgenotrelatedtoitscorecompetencies(Eisenhardtand Martin,2000;MangematinandNesta,1999).
In mature industries, firms tend to rely on embodied and codified knowledge to innovate (Robertson and Smith, 2008).
Consequently,innovationdevelopmentandmaintenanceofcom- petitive advantage mainly involve the fusion of new and old
technologies, which is a demanding problem-solving activity (RobertsonandPatel,2007;Freddi,2009).Inotherwords,inno- vation entails a development and problem-solving exercise of adaptationofnewsophisticatedtechnologiestothefirm’smar- ketandtechnicalcompetencies(Freddi, 2009;vonTunzelmann, 2009).Technologydiversityseemstobeacharacteristicmainlyof firmsinmatureindustries(Granstrandetal.,1997;McGahanand Silverman,2001).
Matureandemergentindustriesmaydifferalsointheirpat- terns of search for the knowledge and resources required to innovate.GrimpeandSofka(2009)showthatinhigh-technology sectors, firmssearchtechnological knowledgefromuniversities and/orsuppliers;whileinmatureindustries,firmsacquiremar- ket knowledge from customers or competitors. Robertson and Smith(2008)arguethat,inmatureindustries,marketknowledge providesthe framework for the recombination and creation of knowledgethroughproblemsolving,viaarangeofactivitiesand R&D.
Networkingandcollaborationmayplaydifferentstrategicroles inthedevelopmentof innovationovertheindustrylifecycle.In matureindustries,innovationinvolvesthe‘managementofknowl- edge bases distributed across a set of agents and institutions’
(RobertsonandSmith,2008:100;vonTunzelmann,2009).Inother words,firmsneedtorelyonexternalknowledgesourcesforthe developmentofnon-coretechnologies(Pavitt,1984;Morrisonand Rabellotti, 2007; Grimpe and Sofka, 2009). In emergent indus- tries,networkingandcollaborationmaybecrucialforaccessing resourcesandsearchingfor knowledgeinputs(i.e.disembodied knowledgeonscienceandtechnologicaldevelopmentandmarket information)todevelopspecificnewtechnologiesand products (Powelletal.,1996;KoumpisandPavitt,1999).
Insum,asemergentand matureindustriesseemtodifferin termsofthecharacteristicsoftheinnovationdevelopmentpro- cessratherthantheleveloftheinnovativeactivity,collaboration withuniversitiesmayhavespecificcharacteristicsdependingon whether the industry partner is involved in mature or emer- gent activities.1 In mature industries, firms usually engage in frequentcollaborationwithuniversitiestoenlargetheirgeneral knowledgebaseandfacilitatehigherlevelsoftechnologyintegra- tionwithembodiedknowledge.Also,sinceinmatureindustries product technologies and process technologies tend to over- lap less (Granstrand et al., 1997; von Tunzelmann and Acha, 2005), PREOs are more likely to be able to support complex problem-solving related to the blending of new and old tech- nologiesand,consequently,tothedevelopmentofnewprocesses.
Hence,university–industrycollaborationisexpectedtobeinitiated throughcontactswithestablishedknowledgeandactornetworks, andtofocusonthemanipulationofcodifiedknowledgetoproduce newtechnicaldevicesandinstruments(UtterbackandAbernathy, 1975;TushmanandAnderson,1986;MangematinandNesta,1999;
MorrisonandRabellotti,2007;RobertsonandSmith,2008).
Inemergentindustries,cooperationwithuniversitiesismore often aimed at enhancingnew knowledge development. Firms are more likely to collaborate with universities to access new knowledgedevelopments and obtainscientific supportfornew productdevelopment(Powelletal.,1996;Lee,2000).Itislikely thatthiscollaborationwillbebasedonnewandinformalcontacts
1Theabilityefficientlytoengageinandexploitcollaborationwithuniversities seemstobelimitedtofirmswithhighresearchandorganizationalabsorptive capacity,andespeciallycompaniesactiveinhigh-technologyandscience-based industries(FritschandLukas,2001).Themorebasictheknowledge,thehigher theabsorptivecapacityandlearninginvestmentrequiredoffirmstoabsorbthe knowledge,regardlessoftheknowledgetransferchannels(EisenhardtandMartin, 2000).
withemployeesandstudentsplayingimportantroles(Lam,2005;
Balconi and Laboranti, 2006; Furman and MacGarvie, 2009).In termsoftheirobjectivesandorganization,university–industrycol- laborationmaybemorelikelytofocusontheuseofdisembodied knowledgeandinvolveresearchstudentsandtoalesserextent spin-offscreation(Powelletal.,1996;KoumpisandPavitt,1999;
Lam, 2005), and itsoutcomestobe intheform ofnewinstru- ments,technicaldevicesandeventuallypatentsandpublications (KoumpisandPavitt,1999;MangematinandNesta,1999;Furman andMacGarvie,2009).
Startingfromtheevidenceintheliterature,thepresentstudy investigateswhetherandhowuniversity–industrycollaborationin emergenthigh-technologysectorsdiffersfromuniversity–industry collaborationinmaturesectors.WefocusonthecaseofBraziland inSection3examinethescientific,technological,collaborativeand institutionaluniversity–industrycontextsinthatcountry.
3. Contextofuniversity–industrycollaborationinBrazil
Thissectionprovidesthebackgroundfortheempiricalresearch.
Inparticular,wemapthecontextofuniversity–industrycollab- orationinBrazil,relyingonsecondarysourcessuchasscientific publications,policyreportsandnationalandinternationalstatis- tics.We startbyproviding someessential detailsontherecent evolutionofscientific,technologicalandindustrialperformancein theBrazilianeconomy.Weanalyseaveragelevelsandpatternsof firminteractionwithPREOsforinnovationdevelopment,andthe institutionalsetupinBrazilhighlightingtheevolutionofthelegal andpolicyaspectsofuniversity–industrycollaboration.
3.1. Scienceandtechnologyandcompetitiveperformance
Fromthe1970stotheearly1980s,therewasasignificantshift inBrazil’srevealedcomparativeadvantagefromprimarygoodsto consumptiongoodsandbasicmanufacturing.Thissituationthen graduallyreversed,andinthelate1990sitbecamemoreprofitable toproduceandexportagriculturalgoodsandrawmaterialsthan industrialgoods,althoughBrazilwasalso‘exportingsophisticated industrial products, suchasroad vehicles,and aircrafts’ (OECD, 2001:142–143).
Brazilcurrentlyhasgoodtechnologicalcompetencesinsome highandmedium-hightechnologyindustries.Itisclosetoorat theglobal innovationfrontierin agriculture,biomass (ethanol), aeronautics and electric motors (Dahlmanand Frischtak, 2005;
Knight andMarques, 2008).Thoseindustries that areat along waybehindtheglobalinnovationfrontierincludeelectronicinstru- mentsandinformationandcommunicationtechnologyequipment andrelatedcapitalgoods,chemicalproducts(mainlyfinechem- icals),and pharmaceuticalproducts(OECD,2001; Dahlmanand Frischtak,2005).2
Despite Brazil’s fairly good performance in some high- technologyindustries,duringthe1990s,thereweresmallshiftsin thesectoralcompositionofitsexports,andstagnation(decrease) inexportperformance,incontrasttoChina,MalaysiaandThailand (MontobbioandRampa,2005).BrazilalsolagsbehindotherNICsin termsofscienceandtechnologyinputsandscientificandinventive outputs(MCT,2002;OECD,2005).
In2000,Brazilspent1%ofitsGDPonR&D,onlyslightlylessthan China(1.29%)andRussia(1.24%),andmorethanIndia(0.8%)(MCT, 2002;OECD,2005).In2008,Brazilspent1.13%ofitsGDPonR&D,
2Thesectorsatamoderatedistancefromthewordfrontierareagricultural machinery,buses,trucksandcompactcars;autopartsandwhitegoods(cooking stoves,refrigerators,washingmachines,etc.);software(financial,administrative andsecurity);andcosmetics.
whichwasasmuchasRussia,butlessthanChina(1.49%)(MCT, 2009).DespitehigherspendingonpublicR&D(53.5%in2008)than businessresearch,99.2%ofBrazilianR&Dexpenditureisincivil ratherthanmilitaryareas.
Bytheearly2000s,overhalfofChina’sscientistsandengineers wereemployedinenterprises,whichwasaconsiderablechange fromtheearly1990swhen mostof China’sR&D workerswere employedinpublicresearchinstitutes.InBrazil,however,around 60%ofitsR&DisconductedinPREOs (MCT,2002,2009;OECD, 2005).ThisconcentrationofresearchinPREOsratherthanprivate firms,andBrazil’spooradaptationofpublicresearchfundingand institutionstosupportgrowthinhightechnologyopportunitysec- tors,combinedwithpooruniversity–industrylinks,isoftenseenas themaincauseofthestagnationinBrazil’sexportstructure(MCT, 2002;OECD,2005).
Intermsofinventiveoutput,Brazilregistered53and88new patentapplicationsin1980andin1990respectively,withtheUS PatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO).ThiscompareswithChina’s 7and111.In2007,registeredpatentsforBrazil,ChinaandRussia wererespectively385,4,422and443(MCT,2009).Brazilalsohas fewerpatentsregisteredinnationalofficesperunitofGDPcom- paredtothedevelopedcountries(IBGE,2003).AmongtheBRICS (i.e.Brazil,Russia,India,ChinaandSouthAfrica),foreignowner- shipofdomesticpatentsislowestinBrazil(35%),followedbyRussia (60%),China(50%)andIndia(40%)(OECD,2005).
Forscientificoutput,in2002Brazilwasranked17thfornumber ofISIpublishedpapers(China6th,Russia9th,India13th).Between 2001and2006,BrazilandChinarosetwoplacesinthisranking andIndiawentupbyoneplace,whileRussialostfiveplaces(MCT, 2009).With1.5researchersper1000activehabitants,Brazillags behindsomeotherNICsfornumbersofscientistsandengineers (MCT,2002,2009).
AlthoughBrazilisa relative laggardinterms ofscience and technologyinputsandoutputs,largemultinationalfirmsalready in Brazil refer to the quality and framework of their interac- tionswithuniversities asthemain reasonfor theirwillingness toincreasetheirinvestmentin R&Din Brazil(ABDI and ANPEI, 2007).TheABDIandANPEI(2007)studysurveyed48multinational firmslocatedinBrazil,intheautomotive,informationtechnology, chemistry, pharmaceutical, metallurgy, energy/electricity, elec- tronics and telecommunications, food, hygiene, capital goods, semiconductors,andaluminiumandmetalsindustries.Amajor- ityofrespondents(49%) weresubsidiariesofUSmultinationals, withFrench(10%), Japanese(6%),and others nationalitiesmak- inguptheremainder.Almostallinterviewedfirms(96%)hadR&D investmentsinBrazil:80%oftheseactivitieswererelatedtothe developmentofnew products,processes and services,and 20%
weredevotedtoresearch,69%ofwhichwasexperimentaldevelop- mentalresearch,18%wasappliedresearchand13%wasresearch onadaptationstoproductsfortheBrazilianmarket.
3.2. TheinnovativeactivityofBrazilianfirmsandtheir collaborationwithuniversities
Accordingtothe2003and2005Brazilian PINTECinnovation surveys,theinnovativecapabilityofBrazilianindustryisquitehigh, 20%offirmshaddevelopedanewproduct,27%haddevelopeda newprocessand13%haddevelopedbothtypesofinnovation(IBGE, 2005).
In2003–2005,some7%ofinnovativemanufacturingfirms(4%
intheperiod2001–2003)hadcooperatedwithotherorganizations toinnovate.For overa third (38%)of firmsthatcooperated for innovation,theinnovationpartnerwasauniversity.Mostuniver- sitycollaborationswereforR&Dandproducttestingratherthan technicalassistance, industrial design, or otheractivities(IBGE, 2003,2005).CollaborationwithBrazilianuniversitiesisparticularly
important for the coke and oil, metals, electronic equipment, instruments,machinery,chemicals,pharmaceutical,andprinting industries.
Universitiesareanimportantsourceofinformationforindus- trialinnovationprocesses:5%ofinnovativefirmsfinduniversity knowledgeimportantand5%rateitveryimportant.Universities areaparticularlyrelevantsourceofknowledgeforthepharmaceu- ticals,electronicequipment,instruments,chemicals,automobile, oilandcoke,metalsandbeveragesindustries(IBGE,2003,2005).
Inrelationtopublicsupportforinnovation,around20%ofinno- vativefirmsreceivesometypeofpublicsupport,and1%received public support for collaboration with universities (IBGE, 2003, 2005).Theshareofinnovativefirmsreceivingpublicsupportfor collaborationwithauniversityisparticularlyhighintheelectronic equipment,machinery,metals,pulpandpaper,cokeandoil,phar- maceuticals,andtransportequipmentsectors(IBGE,2005).
Firms in maturesectors (such ascoke and oil, metals, pulp andpaper)showhighratesofcollaborationwithmanyexternal partners,includinguniversities,andthehighestlevelsofaccessto publicfinancialsupportforcollaborationwithacademia(PINTEC, 2003,2005).Thismayberelatedtothefactthat,historically,these industriesplayedanimportantroleinBrazil’scatching-upprocess (OECD,2001;DahlmanandFrischtak,2005).
3.3. Theevolutionofpolicymeasuressupporting university–industrycollaboration
ThescienceandtechnologyinfrastructureinBrazildeveloped alongsidethecountry’sindustrializationprocess,especiallyafter the1940s.Followingtheestablishmentoftheolderuniversitiesin thelate1920sand1930s,researchinstitutesweresetuptoresolve technicalproblemsindifferenttechnologicalareasinthe1940s.In the1950sthenationalresearchcouncilwascreatedandprovided supportforscientificandtechnologicaldevelopmentandpromoted Brazil’sindustrializationthroughthetransferofnewtechnologies.
Inthe1960s,additionalinstitutionsandadministrativeresources wereaddedandin1985theMinistryofScienceandTechnology wascreated(VelhoandSaenz,2002;MCT,2010).Thepresenceof theseinstitutionsnotwithstanding,thecentralityofinnovationin industryandcompetitionpolicies,andtheemphasisontechnology transferinscienceandtechnologypoliciesisarelativelyrecentphe- nomenon(VelhoandSaenz,2002;DagninoandGomes,2003).In 2003,industrialinnovationbecameanexplicitgovernmentobjec- tivesupportedbythelaunchofBrazil’sIndustrial,Technological andTradePolicy(PITCE).The2008WhitePaperonIndustrialPol- icyfortheDevelopmentofProductionstrengthenedgovernment supportforindustrialinnovation.In2007,theScienceandTechnol- ogyPlan(PACTI)stressedtheimportanceofcreatingpublicsupport forinnovationinindustry,andanincreasedroleforuniversitiesin thisprocess(SilvaandOliveira,2007;Erawatch,2009).
With regard to technology transfer activities, public incen- tivesforuniversity–industrycollaborationthroughpublicresearch sponsorswere introducedin the1970s in theformof collabo- rative Masters and Doctoral projects. During the1970s, public support for university–industry collaboration was focused on themetals industry, but was later extended to suchindustries as agriculture, offshore petroleum exploration and aeronautics (FINEP,2005).Sincethe1980s,andespeciallyinthe1990s,pub- licsupportforuniversity–industrycollaborationhasgrownhugely (Velho and Saenz, 2002) and in the 2000s, public support for university–industry collaboration in high-technology sectors is beingencouragedinpartbecauseitisfocusedonfirms’valuechains ratherthanbranchesofactivity(FINEP,2005;Silva,2007).
Government’s efforts to facilitate the institutional set up of university–industrycollaboration,whichdatesbacktothe1970s, hasbeenstrengthened.In2001,theInnovationlawsetthegeneral
regulations for the IPR on the results of government financed research,forsharedinfrastructures,andformobilityofresearchers fromthenationalstateuniversitiesandresearchcentrestothepri- vatesector(Invernizzi,2005).InNovember2005,Law11.196,21, knownlocallyastheGoodLaw(LeidoBem)providedforlargefinan- cialincentivestofirms(taxdeductions)forprivateinvestmentin innovation,contractingofdoctoralstudents,andfilingofpatents, amongotherthings(MCT,2009).
In sum, despite its overall good industry innovation perfor- mance, Brazil is lagging behind in scientific and technological outputs,itsexportperformanceisstagnant,andinsomemedium andhigh-technologyindustrieslevelsofcompetitiveandtechno- logical advantagearelow. Brazil’s policy-makersare concerned withsupporting thedevelopment of technologicaland innova- tivecapabilities in nationalfirms, growingthehigh-technology industries,andinvolvingPREOintheachievementofthesegoals.
SomeOECDbestpracticeinprovidingincentivesforindustryR&D andinteractionwithuniversitieshavebeenadopted.Thecritical issuesarethemotivationsfor,andobjectivesandorganizationof university–industrycooperationsinceitis seenasanimportant meanstofosterinnovationperformanceandincreasethemarket competitivenessofBrazilianindustry,especiallyintheemergent technology-intensivesectors.
4. Method
Theobjectiveofourresearchistoexaminewhetherandhow university collaboration with emergent and mature industries differinBrazil.Theanalysisneedstobecontextualized.Hence,we alsoanalyseacademics’motivationsandthebarrierstocollabora- tionwithindustrygenerally,andPREOpoliciestofostercollabora- tionwithindustry,andthereactionsofacademicstotheseefforts.
Fortheempiricalpartoftheanalysis,betweenAprilandAugust 2007,wecarriedoutsemi-structuredface-to-faceinterviewswith thecoordinatorsof24researchgroupsatvariousuniversitiesand PREOs,in severaldifferentscientific and engineeringareas. We conductedeightinterviewswithresearchdepartmentsinPhysics, seveninChemistry,sixinEngineering,andthreeinMathematics.
Intervieweeswereaskedtoprovidesomegeneralinformation ontheirdepartmentanditsrelationshipswithindustry.Theywere alsoaskedforspecificanddetailedinformationononecurrentor recentlycompletedcollaborativeprojectwithindustry.Sincethe interviewsweresemi-structuredthisallowedustocollectinfor- mationonthecharacteristicsofresearchdepartments(i.e.size, staff,papers,patents),theircollaborationswithindustry(i.e.objec- tives,formsofresearchmanagement,facilitatorsandbarriers),and theorganizationaleffortsofPREOstosupportcollaborationwith industry.Wecollecteddetailedinformationforonespecificproject conductedincollaborationwithindustry,foreachresearchdepart- ment.Thisincludedinformationonorigin,formofmanagement, financing and output (Bozeman, 2000; Bercovitz and Feldman, 2006).
Tocategorizeprojectsintoemergentandmatureindustries,we focusedontheactivitiesofparticipatingfirmsratherthanonthe projectobjectives.However,thisclassificationisnotperfect.For
example,severalauthorsarguethatthere isnomatchbetween productsand technologiesandfor this reasoncategorizationof industriesintohigh-technologyandlow-technologyisproblematic (i.e.firmsoperatinginlowtechnologyindustriesalsousesophis- ticated technologies) (Granstrand et al.,1997; von Tunzelmann andAcha,2005;vonTunzelmann,2009).However,thecombina- tionofoldandnewtechnologiesseemsmorerelevantformature industries,asdiscussedinSection2.2,whilethesearchfornew knowledgebasesseemsmoreapplicabletoemergentindustries (McGahanandSilverman,2001;Freddi,2009).Therefore,weclas- sifyemergentindustryprojectsasthosewherethemainactivity oftheparticipatingfirmisrelatedtotheproduction ofscience- basedtechnologiesandproducts(i.e.newindustries)andmature industryprojectsasthosewheretheparticipatingfirmwasnotthe producerofthetechnologiesbutthe‘knowledgeable’userofthe technologies(i.e.firmsactiveinlongestablishedindustriesthatare identifiedbynationalandinternationalstatistics,Robertsonand Patel,2007).
Of the 24 collaborative projects surveyed 10 involved firms activeinemergentindustries,i.e.firmsinvolvedintheproduction ofinformationtechnology(3),biotechnology(5)ornanotechnol- ogy(2)andproducts.Amongtheprojectswithmatureindustries, fiveprojectsinvolvedfirmsintheoilindustry(twowithMathemat- icsdepartments),threeinvolvedequipmentandmachineryfirms;
twoinvolvedchemicalfirms;onewaswithafirminthetextile industry,onewithafirmintheelectricitysector,andonewaswith atelecommunicationsfirm.
Using the information collected from the interviews, in Section5, we examine the specificities of PREO collaboration with industry. We examine the motivations and objectives of, thebarrierstoandthefacilitatorsofuniversity–industrycollab- oration.WeanalysetheauxiliaryservicesprovidedbyPREOsto promoteresearchers’collaborationwithindustry,andtheviewsof researchersontheeffectivenessofthoseservices.Section6focuses ononespecificcollaborativeprojectineachresearchdepartment.
Weexplorethedifferencesinpromotion,finance,objectivesand outcomesbetweenprojectsundertaken withfirmsinemergent industriesandthoseundertakenwithfirmsinmorematureindus- tries.Themainpartoftheanalysisisbasedonqualitativedataon thecharacteristicsofemergentandmaturecollaborativeprojects, reported by research department coordinators, complemented bytheresultsofcrosstabulations,rankedSpearman’scorrelation coefficientsandMann–WhitneynonparametricT-testsinorderto furtherhighlightthequalitativefindingsreportedinthetext.
5. University–industrycollaborationinBrazil
5.1. Researchers’perceptionsofthemotivationsforandbarriers tocollaborationwithindustry
Table1ranksofthemainmotivationsforresearchdepartments thatengageincollaborationswithindustry.Ahigherloadingindi- catesalessimportantmotivation.
Developmentandtransferofnewtechnologyanddevelopmentof newknowledgewerethemainmotivationsforcollaboratingwith
Table1
RankingofthemotivationsofPREOtocollaboratewithindustry.
Motivations Averageranking
Averageorderofimportanceof motivationstocollaboratea
Developmentandtransferofanewtechnology 1.33◦
Developmentofnewknowledge 1.38◦
Accessresearchfunds 1.75◦
Supporttheinnovativecapacityofthefirm 2.04◦
aResearchcoordinatorswereaskedtoidentifybyorderofimportancethemainmotivationtocollaboratewithindustry.Being1themostimportantmotivationandthe 4theleastimportant.
Table2
MostcommonobjectivesofPREOcollaborationwithindustry.
Commoncollaboration objectives
Shareofinterviewees thatcitethem Thethreemostcommon
collaborationobjectives
Developmentofanew product
0.8333 Developmentofanew
process
0.6250 Providingservices/use
ofequipment
0.5000 Trainingoffirms’
employees
0.4167 Improvedprocess 0.1667 Improvedproduct 0.1667
industryidentifiedbytheresearchdepartmentswesurveyed.Sup- portfortheinnovativecapabilitiesofnationalfirmswasseenasthe leastimportantreasonforcollaboratingonwithindustry,reflecting thepresenceofanacademicbiastowardsscientificdevelopments.
Theranking of themotivations tocollaboratewith industry reflectstheobjectivesofuniversity–industrycollaboration.Table2 showsthatthemostcommonobjectiveofcollaborationwithindus- try is the development of a new product or process and that improvementtoanexistingproductorprocessisaverypoormoti- vationforuniversity–industrycollaboration.
Weaskedresearchcoordinators,basedontheirexperienceof cooperation,tocategorizedifferentfactorsintobarrierstoand/or facilitatorsofuniversity–industrycollaboration.Table3reportsthe numberofresearchdepartmentsthatidentifiedeachfactorasa barriertoorafacilitatorofcollaborationwithindustry.
Proximity,publicresearchsponsorship,TTOsandotherorga- nizationssupportingknowledgetransfer,andtaxincentives,were seenasfacilitatorsofuniversity–industrycollaborationwhilehigh technicaluncertainty,bureaucracy imposed bythesponsor,the timerequiredbythefirm,andthelong-timeframeofcollabora- tiveprojectswereseenasbarrierstothecompletionandsuccess ofcollaborativeresearchprojects.
Itisinterestingthatownershipofprojectresultsanduniver- sitysupport for projectmanagement are grey areas given that asimilar numberof departmentsrated themas enhancingand inhibitinguniversity–industrycollaboration.Theissueofowner- ship of collaborative projectresults can affect PREOs’ research activitybecauseresearchersmayneedtodelaypublicationsand complywithspecificdisclosureprocedures.Ontheotherhand,it mayproduceadditionalremuneration.Researchersoftenreceive assistancefromPREOadministrationsorTTOsfordealingwiththe contractualsideofcollaborations.However,theseservicesmaynot fitfullytheneedsandroutinesofresearchers.In thenextsub- section,weanalysetheincentivescreatedbyPREOsforacademic entrepreneurship.
Table3
Factorsrecognizedasbarriersorfacilitatorsofcollaborationwithindustry.
Facilitators Barriers Locationoftheuniversity(proximity) 18 2
Publicresearchsponsoring 17 4
TTOsandsimilaroffices 15 6
Taxincentives 10 5
Administrativesupporttoprojectmanagement 10 7 Ownershipofproject’sresults(patents) 8 11
Long-termprojects 4 12
Timerequiredbythefirm 2 11
Uncertainty 0 13
Bureaucracy 0 20
Note:Totalof24researchcoordinatorsinterviewed.Thetablereportsonlythe numberofrespondentsforwhichthesefactorswererecognizedasbarriersoras facilitators.Theremainingdidnotfindthemtoinfluencethecollaboration.
5.2. Institutionalincentivesforacademicentrepreneurshipand interactionwithindustry
In order to understand the institutional efforts involved in organizational change in PREO to facilitate university–industry collaboration, we asked research coordinators to identify whether their organizations provided lists of services to sup- portuniversity–industrycollaboration,andwhethertheseservices addressedthemainbarrierstouniversity–industrycollaboration.
Fig.1showsthenumberofPREOsthatofferspecificsupportfor collaborationwithindustry,thenumberofrespondentsthatrated provisionoftheseservicesasimportanttoovercomethebarriers to collaboration,and the number of respondents that had not benefitedfromtheseservices,butacknowledgedtheirvalue.
Responsessuggestthatthemostcommonservicesavailableto universityresearchersarerelatedtothecontractualandfinancial aspectsofuniversity–industryinteraction:legaladvice;procedures foracquiringmaterials/equipment;financialmonitoringandcon- trol;drawingupthecontract;keepingaccounts.Thesecontractual andfinancialservicesarerecognizedassupportingcollaboration with industry and overcoming the barriers identified. Services suchasscreeningofR&Dsponsorshipavailableforindustrycol- laboration,developmentofindustrialcontacts,andmanagement ofcollaborative projects areprovided bymore than halfofthe organizationssurveyed.Establishmentandmanagementofindustry collaborationarenotalwaysseenbythebeneficiariesofknowledge asfacilitatingitstransfer;however,researchersinorganizations thatdidnotoffertheseservicesacknowledgedtheirimportance forovercomingcertainbarriers.
Personalandprofessionalincentivesandhelpindiffusingresearch toindustryarenot widelyofferedbyPREOsin Brazil.However, universityresearchersconsiderthattheprovisionofservicesto improveindustryawarenessofuniversityresearchandprofessional incentivesforcollaborationwouldencouragehigherlevelsofcoop- eration.
Adviceonpatentingisrarelyavailableandwasrankedlowest amongtheservicesthatmighthelpaddressthebarrierstocollabo- rationwithindustry.Thisperhapsisrelatedtothepassingin2001 oftheInnovationLaw,whichsettherulesforIPRsontheresults ofgovernmentfinancedresearch.Thus,thereisanautomaticlegal frameworkforIPRsissuesrelatedtogovernmentfundedresearch.
Overall,ourevidencesuggeststhatuniversity–industrycollab- orationfocusesmoreoftenonthedevelopmentofnewproducts andprocessesthanimprovementstoexistingonesortheprovi- sionofservices.Brazilianacademics’collaborationwithindustryis relatedmainlytothedevelopmentandtransferofnewtechnology andnewknowledge.Thelengthandtechnologicaluncertainty,and thebureaucracyrelatedtoconductingprojectswerethemostfre- quentlycitedbarrierstocollaborationwithindustry,whiledirect andindirectpublicsupportand,andtoalesserextentTTOsup- portwererankedhighestforsupportingcollaboration.Studiesin developedcountries,mainlyEuropeancountriesandtheUS,report similarmotivationsforandsimilarbarrierstouniversitycollabo- rationwithindustry(Lee,2000;Halletal.,2001;Lam,2005).
Theevidencefromthisstudysuggestsalsothat,followingtrends intheOECDcountries,mostBrazilianPREOshaveintroducedincen- tivesforindustrycollaborationthroughtheprovisionofcontractual andfinancial advice andservices, both of which are highly val- uedbyresearchers.MostPREOsprovidesomeservicestosupport theestablishmentandmanagementofindustrycollaboration.These areseenonlyasfacilitatingresearchers’interactionwithindus- tryby; theresearchers that do notbenefit from themdirectly.
Despitefairly goodprovisionofauxiliary management services, BrazilianPREOsgenerallyhavebeenslowtoprovideservicesto addressinformationandcontactgapsbetweenindustryanduni- versities.Researchcoordinatorswouldwelcometheintroduction
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Law counselling Procedures for acquisition of material
Contract setting
Financial monitoring
Accounting support
Procedures for outsourcing
Development of industrial contacts
Screening R&D grants
Management of collaborative
projects
Communication with industry
Diffusion of university research lines next to industry
Patenting counseling
Incentives directed to university researchers
not offer but acknowledged as importantt not offered
offered & acknowledged as important
offered
Fig.1.Theofferofsupportingservicestouniversity–industrycollaboration.
ofservicestoraiseindustryawarenessaboutuniversityresearch, andtomapindustry’stechnologicalcapabilitiesandneeds.More- over,theyclaimtherevisionofthecareerrulesinordertocreate incentivestocollaboratewithindustry,andarguethatthedelay inadapting theincentivesystemofPREOsis amajorbarrierto collaborationwithindustry.
6. University–industrycollaboration:whatarethe differencesinprojectsestablishedwithfirmsinemergent industries?
To achieve a more rounded view of the process of university–industry cooperation, we asked research depart- mentcoordinatorstoidentifyaspecificcollaborativeprojectand describeitsdesignandmainresults.3Tenofthe24projectsana- lysedinvolvedfirmsinemergentindustries:5inbiotechnology,3 ininformationtechnologyand2innanotechnology.Ouranalysis ofthedifferencesbetweenprojectsinvolvingfirmsinemergent and matureindustriesyielded someinteresting results. Table4 reportsthenumber ofprojectsthat addressedlistedobjectives, the origins of the collaborative projects, funding sources, and outputs,forthewholesampleandforthesub-sampleofprojects undertaken with firms in emergent industries, along with the respectivenon-parametricSpearman’correlationcoefficientsand theresultsofMann–WhitneyT-tests.
In relation toprojectobjectives, fromthe full sample of 24 projects,newproductdevelopmentappliedto14projectsandnew processdevelopmentfor10projects.Fourprojectswereaimedat thedevelopmentofanewproductandanewprocess,ofwhich threewereundertakenbyChemistryresearchdepartments.Only
3Itcouldbearguedthatdepartmentalcharacteristicsaffectthelikelihoodof engagingincollaborationwithemergentindustries.Inthisstudy,weanalysethe differencesinthecontentandorganizationofprojectsundertakenwithfirmsin emergentandinmatureindustries,ratherthanhowthedifferentcharacteristics oftheresearchdepartmentsinvolvedinfluencethelikelihoodoftheircollabo- ratingwithfirmsinemergentindustries,whichwouldrequiredifferentdataand method.Outofcuriosity,weexaminethecorrelationbetweensomedepartment characteristicsandreportingaprojectwithanemergentindustryfirm.Intermsof yearoffoundationofthedepartment,numberofresearchersandnumberofon- goingcollaborativeprojectswithindustry,departmentsthatidentifiedaproject withanemergentindustrydonotdifferfromthosethatreportedaprojectwitha matureindustry.However,theydifferfornumberofpatentsissuedandlicensing agreements.Departmentswithasmallernumberofpatentsandlargernumbersof licensingagreementsweresignificantly(10%)morelikelytodescribeacollabora- tionwithafirminanemergentindustry.Also,alargershareofcollaborativeprojects withemergentindustrieswasreportedbyPhysics,withEngineeringdepartments reportingsignificantlyfewer.
threeprojectsfocusedonimprovementstoexistingprocesses.For thesub-sampleofprojectsundertakenwithfirmsactiveinemer- gentindustries,theobjectiveofacollaborationwaslesslikelyto beanimprovedprocessandtoalesserextentthedevelopmentof anewprocess.Relativelymoreprojectswithfirmsinemergent industries areaimedatthedevelopmentofa newproductand trainingofemployees,thanprojectswithfirmsinmatureindustries (butwefoundnostatisticallysignificantdifference).
Ifwecomparetheoriginsofcollaborativeprojectsinmature andemergentprojects,wefindimportantdifferences.Inthefull sample,athird(8projects)wereoriginatedbyfirms,whichidenti- fiedneedsandexpressedinterestincollaboratingwiththeresearch departmentsinquestiontosupporttheirinternalR&D.Sixprojects weretheresultofanideaformulatedbyaPREO,wheretheresearch groups identified and contacted potential firms to support the developmentofanewprocessorimproveanexistingprocess.The othercaseswerelessclearcutandwerebasedonacombinationof informalandprofessionalcontacts,applicationstoR&Dsponsors, anddoctoralresearchprojects.Ifwecomparematureandemerg- ingindustriesfortheoriginsofcollaborativeprojects,weseethat, inthecaseofemergentindustries,relativelyfewerprojectswere proposedbyPREOstoaddressanindustryR&Dneed.Also,fewer emergentindustryprojectswerebasedonaproposaltoapplyfor researchfunding.Halfoftheprojectswithfirmsinemergentsectors wereinitiatedbyfirmsorstudents.Students,andespeciallypost- graduatestudents,arethemajorlinkbetweenPREOsandemergent industryfirmsbecausetheyproposenewprojectsandbecausethey goontoworkinfirmsandareawareoftheimportanceofPREOfor supportingproductdevelopment.
Themainsourceoffinance,amongthefullsampleofprojects analysed, is FINEP (Funding for Studies and Projects) which financed11projects,followedbyCNPq(NationalCouncilforSci- entificandTechnologicalDevelopment),whichfinanced8projects.
Thestatefundingagencies(FAPs)financedtwoprojects.Eighteen projectsalsoreceivedfundingfromotherprivateorpublicsources, butonlysixprojectswereimplementedwithoutco-fundingfrom FINEP,CNPqorFAPs.CNPqisthenationalresearchcouncil,under theMinistryofScienceandTechnology,andisresponsibleforpro- motingscienceandtechnologydevelopmentandtraining.FINEPis anationalbodywithintheMinistryofScienceandTechnology,and isresponsibleformanagingnationalsectoralfundsandforsupport- inginnovationandtechnologydevelopmentinfirms,universities andotherresearchorganizations.FAPsarestatefundingorganiza- tionswhichpromoteandinvestinR&D,trainingofscientistsand engineers,andinnovation.Ofthe10emergentindustryprojects, ninereceivedfundingfromothersources,fourwerefullyfinanced bytheseothersourcesandsixwereco-financedbyFINEP,CNPq,
Table4
Characteristicsoftheuniversity–industrycollaborativeprojectsanalysed.
All Emergent
sector
Spearman’s correlation
Mann–WhitneyT-test z
Objectives Newproductdevelopment 14 7 0.20 0.959
Newprocessdevelopment 10 3 −0.20 −0.959
Services/useofequipment 3 2 0.19 0.919
Trainingoffirms’employees 1 1 0.25a 1.183a
Improvedprocess 3 0 −0.32* −1.532*
Improvedproduct 0 0
Otherobjectives 3 2 0.19 0.919
Origin Firmcontacteduniversity 8 5 0.30* 1.433*
Universitycontactedthefirm/proposeaproject 6 1 −0.29* −1.404*
Co-applicationtoR&Dsponsoring 6 1 −0.38** −1.813**
Studentsthesesandprojects 6 4 0.19 0.919
Informalcontacts 4 1 −0.18 −0.845
Employeetraining 1 1 0.25a 1.183a
Financingsources CNPq 8 3 −0.06 −0.287
Fapes 2 1 0.05 0.244
Finep 11 4 −0.10 −0.475
Othersources 18 9 0.29* 1.404*
Private 10 5 0.14 0.685
Public 12 7 0.31* 1.468*
Grants(theses) 2 1 0.05 0.255
Averagenumberofsources 1.79 2 0.35** 1.659**
Outputs Theses 20 9 0.15 0.725
Publications 19 8 0.02 0.083
Newproduct 13 6 0.10 0.475
PatentapplicationbythePREO 12 5 0.00 0
Newprocess 9 5 0.04 0.209
Spin-off 8 4 0.12 0.573
Services 7 4 0.20 0.966
Licensing 6 2 −0.10 −0.468
Improvedprocess 4 3 0.30* 1.450*
Books 3 3 0.44** 2.145**
Averagenumberofoutputs 4.2 4.9 0.25a 1.216a
Collaborationaftertheproject 11 2 −0.43** −2.101**
Totalnumberofprojects 24 10
aSignificantat15%(one-tailed).
* Significanceat10%(one-tailed).
** Significanceat5%(one-tailed).
and by FAPES. Relativelymore emergent industry projects are financedbyothersources,especiallyotherpublicsources(includ- ingscholarshipsforPhDstudies),comparedtoprojectsinmature industries.ThemainpublicR&D sponsors,especially FINEP and CNPq,seemtoarticulatetheirfundswithotherspecificfundsmade availableunderotherpublicresearchorinnovation programme lines,resultinginahighernumberofdifferentfinancingsources foremergentprojectsthanformatureprojects.
Furthermore,weaskedabouttheoutputsofthe24collabora- tiveprojects.Inthewholesample,papersandpost-graduatetheses arethemostfrequentoutputsofcollaborativeresearch,followed bynewproducts,patentsandnewprocesses.Books,improvedpro- cesses,licensingandspinoffcreationaretheleastfrequentoutputs ofuniversity–industrycollaborativeprojects.Universityprojects withfirmsinemergentindustriesresultinbooksandimproved processes more frequently than projects withfirms in mature industries.Relativelymoreemergentindustryprojectshavenew processes,studenttheses,andnewproductsasoutputs,however, therearenostatisticallysignificantdifferences.Improvedandnew processesaremorelikelytobeby-productssince,asalreadynoted, thesewereamongtheleastimportantobjectivesofcollaborative projectswithemergentindustries.Thus,projectswithemergent industriesachieveaslightlyhigheraveragenumberofoutputsthan projectswithmatureindustries.Licensingistheonlyoutcomewith anegative,butnotsignificantcorrelationcoefficientofemergent projects.
Finally,forinitiatinganewprojectaftercompletionofaprevi- ousproject,wefindthatinthefullsample11projectsledtoanew
collaborativeproject.Ofthetenprojectswithemergentindustry firms,twoledtoanewcollaboration,whichsuggeststhatthepos- sibilityofanewprojectfollowingapreviouscollaborationissmall forcollaborationwithfirmsinemergentindustries.
Inlinetheliterature,ouranalysissuggeststhatknowledgeand actornetworksseemtobelesswelldevelopedinemergentthanin matureindustries.Projectswithfirmsinemergentindustriesare lesslikelytobeinitiatedbyaPREOoraninformal,professional PREOresearchercontactsnetwork.Callsforcollaborativeresearch proposalsfor researchfundingareless likelytobethemotiva- tionforuniversity–industrycollaborationinemergentindustries.
Instead,collaborativeprojectswithfirmsinemergentindustries are more likely to be initiated by current graduate and post- graduatestudents,whomayproposespecificprojectstobecarried outincollaborationwithfirmsinemergentindustries,orbyfirm graduateemployees.Hence,whileinformalandpersonalcontacts areimportantinemergentindustries,thenetworkdependsheav- ilyonparticipationofstudentsandformerstudentsratherthan ontheincentivescreatedbypublicfunds,professionalexperience oracademicresearchagendas.Thus,collaborationswithemergent industryfirmstendstobetheresultofthetwotraditionalPREO missionsofteachingandresearch,ratherthanthethirdmission4
4Notethatthereisnoconsensusontheconceptof‘entrepreneurialuniver- sity’and the analytical frameof ‘the three universitymissions’ proposedby Etzkowitz,1998.Manyauthorsclaimthatitisthetraditionalactivitiesofuniversi- tiesthatmostoftencomplemententrepreneurialactivities(Azoulayetal.,2007).In
(Etzkowitz, 1998)ofsupportfor economic development.More- over,collaborativeprojectswithemergingindustryfirmsaremore likelytocombinefinancingfromthemainpublicresearchsponsors and other(mainly public) sources, toaddress specific develop- mentsinalimitedgroupoftechnologies,oftenrelatedtodoctoral projects.
Projectswithfirmsinemergingindustryfirmsfocusmoreonthe developmentofnewproducts,andemployeetrainingthanonpro- cessimprovements,andshowaslightlyhigheraveragenumberof outputsthanprojectswithfirmsinmatureindustries.Thishigher performanceintermsofoutputmaybetheresultoftechnologi- calspilloversfromtheseprojects,whichinadditiontothemain goalofproductdevelopment,oftenachievecomplementarynew orimprovedprocesses.Booksandthesesaremorefrequentout- putsintheseprojectsthaninprojectswithmatureindustryfirms, duetotheinvolvementofpostgraduatestudentsinmanyprojects.
However,continuedcollaborationaftercompletionofaprojectis lesscommoninemergingindustryfirms.Thismightberelatedto thefactthatstudentsoftenactasthemediatorsintheseone-off collaborations:thetrustingrelationshipsbetweenuniversityand firmrequiredforcollaborativeprojectsmaynotbeachievableon thebasisofasingleproject.Anotherexplanationmightbethatpub- licfundingforR&Dcollaborationinemergenttechnologiesmaybe difficulttolocateassourcesoffundingarespreadacrossseveral publicorganizationsandpolicyprograms.
7. Discussionandconclusions
Thisstudyprovidespreliminaryempiricalevidenceontherole andspecificitiesofcollaborationbetweenPREOsandfirmsactive inmatureandemergentindustries.We reliedonstudiesinthe literatureanddatacollectedthroughsemi-structuredinterviews with24researchgroupcoordinatorsinscienceandengineering departmentsinPREOsinBrazil.BrazilisaNICwhichhasachieved hightechnologicalcompetenceincertainhighandmedium-high technologysectors although itis laggingbehind otherNICs for scientificandtechnologicalperformance(MontobbioandRampa, 2005;IBGE,2005;MCT,2009).Giventheacknowledgedimportance ofuniversity–industrycollaborationintheprocessofcatchingup insomesectors,includinginBrazil(MazzoleniandNelson,2007), wefocusedonthecontextofuniversity–industrycollaborationand then exploredthespecificities of this collaborationin Brazilian emergenthigh-technologyindustriesinordertogetabetterunder- standingofhowPREOscansupportthedevelopmentandgrowth oftheseindustries.
Ourstudyprovidesseveralinsights.Informalandprofessional networksofPREOsandindustryresearchersinemergentactivities areunderdevelopedcomparedtothenetworksofmatureindus- tries. Moreover,national publicsupportfor university–industry collaborationin emergent industries is dispersed across differ- ent publicorganizations/programmes. Therefore, in contrast to projectswith firmsactive in matureindustries, universityR&D projectswithfirmsactiveinemergent industriesareless likely to be the result of academics’ initiative and public research
particular,undergraduateteaching,specialistmasterscoursesforprofessionals,and academicandresearchtrainingactivitiesrepresentthefulfilmentofthetraditional universitymissionsandalso,toanextent,fulfilmentofthethirdmissioninstimu- latingthelocaleconomythroughthetrainingoffuturelocalemployees,attractionof foreignstudents,andtechnologyleadership(Laredo,2007).Othersarguethatincen- tivesforentrepreneurshipshouldnotbeimposedonuniversitiesbecauseitmay affecttheincentivesforacademicstoengageinhighqualityresearchandteaching (Welshetal.,2008;Dosietal.,2006).Specificlevelsofinvolvementofuniversities inresearch,teachingandeconomicdevelopmentvaryaccordingtothedisciplinary focus,thetypesofstudentsandtheacademiccharacteristicsofuniversities(Laursen etal.,2011).
sponsors’callsforprojects,ortobewhollyfinancedbythemajor publicresearchsponsors.Consequently,in emergentindustries, it is students and firm’s employeesmediation between PREOs andfirmsratherthancallsforcollaborativeprojectsthatmatter.
PREOcollaborationwithemergentindustryfirmstendstofocus onnewproductdevelopment,andemployeetraining. Thus,our resultssuggestthatPREOcollaborationwithemergentindustries resultsmainlyfromtheuniversitytraditionalmissionsofteach- ing and research.Our analysis suggests alsothat collaboration withemergentindustriesisrelativelymoreproductivethancol- laborationwithmatureindustryfirms,becausebesidestheirmain objective ofnewproduct developmentand training, theyoften achieveneworimprovedprocessesandbooksascomplementary outputs.
Itshouldbenotedthatthisstudyhassomelimitations.First, itfocusesondatacollectedfromtheuniversitypartnerinthecol- laboration.Itwouldbeinterestingtoinvestigatetheperspectives ofindustryinordertobetterunderstandthemotivationsforand barrierstocollaboratingwithuniversities,andtocaptureindustry differencesin thesemotivationsbetweenemergentand mature industryfirms.Thisisa commonlimitationsinceveryfewcon- tributionsintheuniversity–industryliteratureusedataonboth collaborationpartners(BekkersandBodasFreitas,2008isoneof theveryfewexceptions).Second,inordertoextractdetailedinfor- mationonthecharacteristicsofcollaborations,ouranalysiswas carriedoutusinguniqueprojectleveldatacollectedfrominter- viewswithPREOdirectorsand,necessarily,reliesonasmallsample ofobservations.Thisrestrictsthetypeofstatisticalanalysisthat ispossible,and makesourresultsexploratory.Furtherresearch isneededtoexpandthesizeofthesampleandtoexploitdiffer- entmethodsofenquiryandanalysis.Third,thisisasinglecountry study.Itwouldbeinterestingtoanalysetheextenttowhichthese results canbe generalized toother countries given that cross- countrydifferencesmayexistbetweenspecificacademic,industrial andpolitical contexts.Somestudiesshowthatsomeeconomies haveinstitutionalsystemsthatcreatepositivecomplementarities fornewbusinessfirmswhileinothers theincentivesareaimed at and absorbed by largeestablished firms (Chesbrough, 1999;
Gittelman,2006).
Finally,wewouldstressthatthenationalresearchsystemon itsowncannotfostertheemergenceandgrowthoftechnological capabilities,especiallyinhigh-technologyindustries.Ontheone hand,afocusonnationalpoliciestargetinghigh-technologyindus- triesmaybeineffectivebecause,combinedwiththetechnological characteristicsoftheseindustries,policiesmayworktoreinforce over-investmentandexcessivecompetition(i.e.abnormalexcess capacity,highsunkcostsandsustainedsubnormalprofits),espe- ciallybecausenationalgovernmentsworldwidetendtotargetthe same high-technology industries (Brahm, 1995). Moreover, the valueofuniversitycollaborationseemstodependonthefirms’
knowledgebases(GiulianiandArza,2009).Ontheotherhand,the developmentofdynamicemergentindustriesinvolvesaprocessof capabilitybuildingwithinfirms,whichrequiresupgradestointer- nalskills,productionandR&Dactivities(Lall,1992,1993;Koumpis andPavitt,1999;Gittelman,2006).Thisrequiresgovernmentpoli- ciesthattargetthedevelopmentofhumanskillsandtechnology infrastructuresandthecreationofmacroeconomicstability,selec- tiveindustryincentivesandmarketandnon-marketinstitutions suchaslaws,IPRs,standards,codesofgoodbusinesspractice,and soon(Dahlmanetal.,1987;Lall,1992,1993;GouveaandKassicieh, 2005;Storm,2008).Theseissues,whicharenotaddressedinthis paper,areveryimportantforinvestmentanddevelopmentinhigh- technologyindustries.
Bearinginmindtheselimitations,ourevidencepromptssome questionsabouttheroleofPREOsforthedevelopmentandgrowth ofemergent industries,and allowssomepolicyandmanagerial