ایجاد مرکز نوآوری: یک مطالعه موردی از تحول نقش دانشگاه در توسعه فن آوری و اقتصادی منطقه ای
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|6947||2008||17 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||12520 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Research Policy, Volume 37, Issue 8, September 2008, Pages 1188–1204
Universities have assumed an expanded role in science and technology-based economic development that has become of interest to catch-up regions as well as to leading innovation locales. This paper examines how the role of the university has evolved from performing conventional research and education functions to serving as an innovation-promoting knowledge hub though the case of Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). This case is discussed in the context of state efforts to shift the region from an agricultural to an industrial to an innovation-driven economy. Central to the transformation of Georgia Tech as a knowledge hub is the emergence of new institutional leadership, programs, organizational forms and boundary-spanning roles that meditate among academic, educational, entrepreneurial, venture capital, industrial, and public spheres. Comparisons between Georgia Tech's experiences and those of university roles in selected other catch-up regions in the southern United States highlight the importance to the case of networked approaches, capacity building, technology-based entrepreneurial development, and local innovation system leadership. Insights on the transformation of universities and the challenges of fostering a similar transformation in regional economies are offered.
Albeit often gradually, the roles that universities undertake in society change and evolve over time. “The medieval university looked backwards; it professed to be a storehouse of old knowledge… The modern university looks forward, and is a factory of new knowledge.” So wrote the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley in 1892 (Huxley, 1892), remarking on the transformation that industrial society had stimulated in long-established functions of universities. In this paper, we examine the case of one university and how it has undergone a further transformation, from that of a knowledge factory to a knowledge hub, to advance technological innovation and economic development in its region. One of the hallmarks of a knowledge hub is that it serves as a boundary-spanning organization that accumulates mediating functions for the exchange of tacit as well as codified knowledge between academia and local business and financial communities. The case of Georgia Tech illustrates how one university has benefited from university leadership and the accumulation of boundary-spanning programs. These programs seek to develop new technology-oriented business capabilities among academic faculty, startup ventures, mature companies, and industry clusters. Evaluations of these programs suggest that their explicit elements are most likely to be measured and reported, even though tacit knowledge sharing is what is most valued by participants and stakeholders. After comparing the approaches to leveraging universities in other rising innovation regions in the US South, we then explore the implications for university transformation in stimulating an innovation-based regional economy.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper has suggested an evolution in the roles of universities from knowledge storehouse (mode 1) to knowledge factory (mode 2) to knowledge hub (mode 3). (See Carayannis and Campbell, 2006, Harrison and Leitch, 2005 and Hagen, 2002 regarding related uses of the mode 3 concept.) Of course, this is a highly abstracted simplification. Arguably there are variations and exceptions by country and institution. And we note that the university tends to accumulate roles, i.e. earlier roles do not necessarily disappear as new roles are added. While the details of our case derive from a US institution (which began life in mode 2, then more recently transitioned to mode 3), we do observe a general tendency across many advanced countries for universities to seek (or be pushed) towards greater linkages and relevance for innovation, particularly in regional contexts (OECD, 2007b). Some universities attempt to address these imperatives by “bolting-on” new activities, but without fundamental restructuring and reorientation. Others have more fully embraced innovation missions, and in the process, are pioneering a variety of new organizational and knowledge modes that we collectively term as knowledge hubs. In contrast to earlier modes, these knowledge-hub institutions not only accumulate and produce knowledge, but they also actively foster knowledge exchange, learning and innovation through new methods and the development of boundary-spanning activities. We have explored this notion through a case study of the evolution of Georgia Tech as a knowledge hub. This focus on networked programmatic elements, capacity building, knowledge pool creation, and technology-based entrepreneurship has fostered the important transformation of Georgia Tech from a knowledge factory to an “animateur” of development. Georgia Tech has taken on a series of boundary-spanning roles that impart tacit as well as codified knowledge to other stakeholders. These are represented in the new policy leadership roles of Georgia Tech presidents, the Georgia Research Alliance's support for eminent scholars to transfer knowledge to the private sector, the Yamacraw Initiative's efforts directed toward telecommunications and mixed signal chip design, industrial extension's transferal of know-how to SMEs, linkages developed by ATDC and VentureLab among entrepreneurs, academics, and venture capital finance, the Traditional Industry Program's linking of researchers and mature firms, and the Centers of Innovation's connections with mid-sized Georgia cities. We saw that these knowledge transfer programs administered at Georgia Tech include both tacit and explicit elements. This dual nature can serve as a challenge to evaluation efforts. Moreover, the knowledge duality is compounded because these programs span diverse communities and thus may have different evaluation benchmarks. That said, most of the evaluations focus on the codified aspects of these programs, while most stakeholders tacitly believe these programs work (rather than being convinced by codified evaluations per se). Moreover, programs themselves discursively make changes based on learning over time rather than relying solely on codified knowledge in evaluations. We note that university R&D, startups, and other knowledge-transfer programs are important, but by themselves may not be enough to turn around an innovation system. The importance of complementary assets (Teece, 1986) such as the need for venture capital and a good educational system suggest that there are limits to a university-based strategy. Georgia industry still ranks low in terms of private R&D activity, SBIR awards, and patenting. In areas targeted by the state for development, such as in the Yamacraw Initiative, Georgia Tech was by far the dominant knowledge producer. To address this issue of the dominant knowledge producer, the state could potentially look at strengthening other universities’ research roles or attracting new independent R&D facilities, both activities of which are evident in Research Triangle and Austin. But it can be a challenge to introduce additional research nodes where a dominant institution exists with respect to being able to build alternatives of sufficient scale and quality and with sufficient political support to make a difference. As a state, Georgia also needs to address fundamental problems and weaknesses outside of the research university sector, particularly those of K-12 public education, vocational training, incentives and capabilities for innovation in traditional and mature industries, lagging private R&D, and the quality of economic development strategies in smaller cities and towns. Many states and regions, in the US and elsewhere, face similar challenges. While there are no clear-cut technical or financial solutions to these and other critical economic, societal, and environmental problems, a common theme is the need to develop new capabilities, including the capability to pursue informed joint actions involving multiple stakeholders targeted towards implementing innovative regional and local approaches. A university knowledge hub has the design attributes to contribute in meaningful ways to the development of these capabilities. That does not mean that universities, even when acting as knowledge hubs, are enough to affect a broadly based transformation in a local economy. However, as the Georgia case shows, universities are more likely to be able to address the problems and opportunities of their regions if they pursue active institutional engagement to generate and share human capital, knowledge, leadership and other resources.