واسطه ها برای نوآوری آزاد: مقایسه مبتنی بر صلاحیت شیوه های ادارات انتقال دانش

Universities and Public Research Organisation rely on the capabilities and competences of their transfer offices to engage with commercial partners and to manage the exchange of knowledge and expertise. This paper promotes a model that can be used to analyse the capabilities and relative strategies of these transfer offices. Based on a ‘core competences’ approach the model enables the precise characterisation of the different modes and methods of transfer and engagement. Findings, coming from a two-year, in-depth comparative study of two transfer offices located in France and in the UK, underline the office's relative positioning within their institutional environment and identify the relative priority given to their use of the channels of transfer. These results provide a guide for the strategic management of transfer offices that are now operating within an ‘open innovation’ paradigm.

The university–industry–government interdependence model, which promotes a triple-helix of evolving networks of communication and relationships is now a classical view [1] and [2]. Knowledge transfer organisations have developed, according to this evolutionary interdependence [3], to intermediate their institution's relationships and projects [4]. They offer development and management services and are instrumental in bridging between knowledge providers and knowledge-users [5]. Early linear models of innovation [6] denoted simplistic relationships between knowledge supplier and knowledge users. In these models the role of intermediation was more limited — often falling to consultants and technology brokers who sought out potential partners as part of a search phase [7]. With the arrival of more complex models of innovation [8], with multiple or geographically spatial partners [9], the need for intermediation has increased as the relationships become more complex and multi-faceted [10]. The recent focus on open innovation extends the partner reach and complexity of intermediation further [11]. Large companies often develop ‘knowledge gatekeepers’ who search out opportunities and develop knowledge transfer [12]. This type of intermediation is resource-intensive and often smaller companies are unable to bear the cost of these dedicated roles. Large organisation still approach universities and individual academics directly, so the role of knowledge gatekeeper has proven to be an enduring one, however as the value of knowledge transfer has been more widely recognised [13] and [14] universities have tightened up on their governance of research partnerships [15]. For academics and companies to engage directly without using their respective transfer offices is now the exception, not the norm [16]. Universities are also encouraged to work with SMEs and micro-organisations [13] who cannot fund knowledge gatekeepers and so the scope of intermediation grows. Significant funds have been provided to intermediaries to offset intermediation costs [14] and [17]. A number of studies of intermediaries have been undertaken [7], [10] and [18] and in particular the Triple Helix model. These are either at an international, national or regional level [19], [20] and [21] and positioned from a macro perspective. Other studies have provided a good understanding of the different channels available for knowledge interaction between the stakeholders [22], [23], [24] and [25]. Currently there are no studies presented that explore the different modes of integration or differentiate between these transfer activities at a micro level. For instance, what practical actions could be employed, to create different styles of management between private firms and public research teams? Is it possible to identify and distinguish between different resource configurations and institutional strategies that affect knowledge transfer activity? This paper sets out to answer these questions. On a day-to-day basis, knowledge and technology transfer practices are mainly organized and implemented by transfer offices (TO) and this is the focus for the research, which has two main objectives: 1. To identify different models of knowledge or technology transfer, by considering both the comparative levels of activity and the support provided by the respective transfer offices accordingly; 2. To highlight, within each model, the most important outcomes achieved by each transfer office;

One important conclusion to come from this research is regardless of the differences of their organisation structure both TO offer the same range of activities or channels of knowledge transfer, just too differing extents. This shows that the conceptual model built has proven useful for comparative purposes. Also both TOs have a focus toward the “set up and management of research projects”, whilst FTO also favour the exploitation of intellectual property and entrepreneurial activity as compared to UKTO who favour boundary-spanning through HR and knowledge sharing services to business above this. In relation to open innovation models and the role that they play as intermediaries, both FTO and UKTO operate within this arena and promote ‘private-open’ solutions [85], by promoting the same range of channels of knowledge transfer. This focus of FTO toward intellectual property and entrepreneurial activity is in direct comparison toward the less output driven and more outcome centric focus of the UKTO toward knowledge sharing and boundary spanning through HR practices. These relate to an impetus for UKTO to engage in channels with a mix of relational and transactional governance and with a bias toward relational activities. FTO relies more on transactional activities. One further challenge arising from this work is to gain a better understanding of underlying components and relationship between “transactional” and “relational” governance. As explained by Cannon et al. [86] the capability to use multiple forms of governance could be a condition of organisational performance. In other words it may be that trust is equally as important a component in more contractual relationships – for example when buying or selling intellectual property; “when cooperative norms are well developed, the use of contracts enhances … performance. The spirit in which negotiations are conducted becomes crucial” [86, Op. cited p 191–192]. By focussing on building trust when developing transactional activities a hybrid mode of governance could be developed. An interesting hypothesis could be — does a focus on building trust between partners result in more effective transactional relationship? Or from a practical perspective is it better to focus policy toward utilising relationships (from CC2 and CC3) for the transfer of IP than a policy focusing only on commercialisation (CC4)? Thus one of the questions for further research, is to establish if the focus toward transactional governance is really the best way to transfer patents from public research teams into the private firms, and also to enhance the creation of spin-outs, in a open innovation environment, or could we consider that a greater focus toward boundary-spanning through HR and knowledge sharing and support services for enterprises be a more efficient strategy to transfer knowledge? Answering this question would allow us to identify what are, or what could be, the key points of strength and weakness of each model of knowledge transfer. The second challenge is to develop a better understanding of the inter-dependencies within the knowledge transfer activities (perhaps when considered as an ‘ecosystem’) and how these interrelationships relate to economic prosperity. The word “ecosystem” is often used as a metaphor and there are different views of what an ecosystem is [87], [88], [89] and [90]. In the knowledge and technological transfer context a pragmatic approach towards understanding this ‘system’ could be through the study of the interrelationship between the channels of knowledge transfer. It could be interesting to better understand the connections between “student placement” (in CC3), “patent and licences” (in CC4), “collaborative research” (in CC1) and “professional journal publication” (in CC2). A firm employing a doctoral student could also present an opportunity to enjoy a closer link with a research centre, to develop new collaborative projects or to buy patents and/or eventually to publish in professional journals – a multiplicity of activity arising from one initial activity – and therefore gain an understanding of drivers for developing an overarching mode of governance that stimulates longevity and sustainable systems of activity. This could be done by considering the intensity of the relationships between the different channels of transfer. In turn this may lead to more dynamic and less disparate transfer practices. In other words, what channels from each core competence are more regularly mobilized in long term relationships and why? One thing however does exhibit from the results, whilst each TO now has a clear strategic focus, they have arrived at the current levels of activity through a practice driven focus rather than a more strategy driven one. Moving forward into an open innovation era, one key question is which model is more appropriate? If open innovation reflects the free transfer of knowledge between multiple partners, then one could jump to an assumption that relational governance is a better route to enable knowledge transfer in this context, however this is overly simplistic. According to Huizingh [85] differing levels of “openness” occur in open innovation, and with a model that promotes categories of closed-open innovation and open-private innovation then as with any strategic choice it is important to understand the planned outcomes and chose a channel accordingly. 7.1. Limitations of the results Firstly and most importantly are the differences evident between FTO and UKTO representative of all UK and French transfer offices? Is there a national emphasis toward orientations of the policy and the practices of knowledge and technological transfer? Asking this question would require the extension of our evaluation model to larger range of representative transfer offices. To do that we need: – to collect of data from other TOs to be able to compare their models of transfers and, – to reframe the initial model in order to go from the ability to differentiate different models of knowledge transfer, toward a more systems-orientated and explicit model. Secondly interviews across a range of TO staff would identify if strategic visions were shared and whether individuals were able to replicate the strategies and competences identified by their relative models. From a policy and education perspective in its current format the models for analysis and comparison could be utilised to create teaching material to promote education for transfer office employees toward the range of channels offered, the relative merits of transactional vs. relational activity and how these relate to the institutional core competence model. From a policy perspective, further study of relational governance could begin to advise TOs on the most effective way to accelerate the evolution of the Triple‐Helix to enhance and sustain greater levels of knowledge flows.