Author
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of university‐industry research collaboration through the development of a new process model. Design/methodology/approach - A literature review was carried out on collaborative partnering and supporting factors namely social capital and the role of knowledge. Empirical research involved a series of 32 structured interviews with relevant stakeholders, with subsequent grouping and conceptualisation allowing common themes to be identified and a new process model to be proposed. Findings - The study finds that there is a lack of integrative frameworks for the management of research collaborations. Through building on the suggested best practice described in the paper, application of the model to the management of an engineering research programme has allowed the benefits of this approach as well as some of the underlying issues to be explored in detail. Research limitations/implications - The research focused on university‐industry research collaborations and although it may be applicable to other forms of collaborations, e.g. industry‐to‐industry, there could be features that are particular to the area under investigation. Practical implications - A model has been proposed, which is a logical methodology that can be utilised by practitioners from both academia and industry in order to improve the process of research collaboration and facilitate more effective transfer of knowledge. Originality/value - The model builds on previous literature on alliance and collaboration management but crucially is based on an innovative new process‐based methodology, which provides practitioners with a “route map” of how to develop and manage research collaborations. The model uses a holistic approach to collaboration through capturing process, knowledge and social elements.
Suggested Citation
Simon Philbin, 2008.
"Process model for university‐industry research collaboration,"
European Journal of Innovation Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 11(4), pages 488-521, October.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:ejimpp:14601060810911138
DOI: 10.1108/14601060810911138
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:ejimpp:14601060810911138. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.