Knowledge interaction in collaborative innovation activities

This study argues that the primary reason for U–I collaboration is the need to gain complementary knowledge, expertise or competence with the aim of applying it to a commercial end. Universities have access to intellectual resources and can offer a competent basic research infrastructure and conduct high-quality research; companies on the other hand possess practical knowledge and up-to-date technology information, are a contact interface with the international market and financial resources, and offer employment opportunities for new graduates. When discussing such U–I partnership and collaboration, Gustavs and Clegg (2005: 11) refer to it, for instance, as the

60

interaction between the two modes of knowledge production originally proposed by Gibbons and his colleagues. Knowledge production Mode 1 is defined as being

“institutionalized primarily within university structures” and is discipline-based, whereas Mode 2 is characterized as operating “within a context of application” (e.g., workplace knowledge). Knowledge itself as a prime value for U-I collaboration becomes evident through the interaction of knowledge production Modes 1 and 2, which reveals knowledge co-creation and mutual learning between universities and companies.

Typical U–I knowledge interaction is revealed, for instance, in knowledge networks (e.g., direct personal networks such as talks at academic conferences/workshops, and indirect linkages intermediated by third parties such as liaison offices) (Fukugawa, 2005), strategic knowledge alliances focusing on the knowledge-based value in innovation (Lin, 2005), joint R&D projects and institutes and their evolving activities (Hermans & Castiaux, 2007; Johnson & Johnson, 2004; Li, 2005; Li & Zhong, 2003), co-operation in education and training (Ryan, 2007), science-based industrial innovation (Gu & Lundvall, 2006; Guan et al., 2005), university-run enterprises (Eun et al., 2006), and science parks as knowledge organizations (Hansson, 2007). Some types of knowledge interaction are highly interactive and more intense than others.

U-I knowledge interaction approaches

When considering the knowledge interaction approaches previously identified and reviewed, typical TKT practices of U-I knowledge interaction include the transfer of techniques and technologies from one location to another, the commercialization of an innovation (e.g. licensing), or hiring new graduate and young talents from collaboration universities. In the context of U-I collaboration, it would be interesting, for instance, to study the recruitment of graduate students in addition to the conventional focus on patent and paper studies (Agrawal, 2001).

Previous U–I knowledge interaction research focuses primarily on knowledge transfer.

In a comprehensive literature review of U-I knowledge transfer, Agrawal (2001)

61

identifies four research streams. Research in the firm characteristics category focuses directly on company issues such as internal organization, resource allocation, and partnerships. Research in the university characteristics stream pays special attention to issues relating to the university, like licensing strategies, incentives for professors to patent, and policies such as taking equity in return for intellectual property. The geography in terms of localized spillovers stream of research considers the spatial relationship between firms and universities relative to performance in terms of knowledge transfer success. The channels of knowledge transfer literature examines the relative importance of various transfer pathways such as publications, patents, and consulting. A number of specific topics in the field of U–I knowledge transfer are of particular interest to the study, namely those which deal with the enabling function of trust and networking (Koschatzky, 2002; Lambooy, 2004; Santoro, 2006: Sherwood &

Covin, 2008), the interplay between the characteristics of U–I relationships and the transfer of sticky knowledge (Wang & Lu, 2007), and the potentially moderating role of technical and organizational uncertainties (Daghfous, 2003). Achieving effective knowledge transfer across countries and cultures can be even challenging. As Perrin et al. (2007) note, much knowledge management theory is based on limited and often anecdotal evidence and this is particularly the case for knowledge transfer within and between different cultural contexts.

In U-I collaboration, one example of KI could be when firms request technical and management consultation from university-based scientists. These consultants present solutions, but seldom know what happens afterwards in the firm. Knowledge integration may take very different shapes at early versus later stages. At an early stage, there is much more face-to-face contact and personal interaction involved, which is not the case at a later stage when actions happen internally within the recipient organization.

Studies on knowledge creation in U–I collaborative research projects seem to present an emerging line of research (Hermans & Castiaux, 2007; Johnson & Johnson, 2004) which expands Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) theorizing context from within an organization into a wider U–I context. As Nonaka et al. (2000: 30) note: “For the immediate future, it will be important to examine how companies, governments and

62

universities can work together to make knowledge creation possible.” Nonaka et al.’s knowledge creation theory and concepts are also applied and discussed in a number of other U–I studies (Gustavs & Clegg, 2005; Hansson, 2007; Heikkinen et al., 2007). The research on CKC as defined in this study is rarely found in this context.

U-I knowledge interaction in the Chinese MNC context

Based on literature study and research experience, the most prevalent forms and activities of MNCs’ R&D collaboration and knowledge interaction with Chinese universities can be identified (see also Eun et al., 2006; Li, 2005; Lin, 2005). They include: 1) Authorized or contract-based research projects – normally companies provide research funds and equipment, and the authorized universities return research outcomes back to the companies on the basis of the agreement made. 2) Joint research projects – in most cases they are only partially “joint” in the early stage of the project establishment. The research topic is jointly discussed and established according to a common interest or target. 3) Collaborative training enterprises or programs – commonly planned and developed by both partners. 4) Joint R&D institutes or laboratories – focusing on specialized areas in collaboration and creating local talent pools is increasingly becoming the true motivation of MNCs’ collaboration with Chinese universities. 5) Science and technology parks close to university campuses – these provide a geographically convenient and common ground for U–I interaction. 6) University-run enterprises are locally grown MNCs which have university or academic roots. 7) Technical and management consultation is a one-way rather than interactive form of knowledge interaction since firms exclusively act as the user of knowledge instead of the co-creator of knowledge. 8) Licensing refers to the interest and potential of the firm in applying the inventions of university-based scientists. 9) Donation is the firm’s long-term strategy to build up relationships with universities with the aim of hiring competent new graduates, although this is the least interactive form of U–I collaboration. Within this category, company-sponsored post-doctoral research positions in universities are nowadays popular. Other forms of collaboration and knowledge interaction involving strategic knowledge alliances (in various forms) and

63

thematic joint workshops between university researchers and company managers are emerging as new trends in China.

The different forms of U–I collaboration and knowledge interaction are intertwined as shown in Figure 3. The forms of knowledge interaction identified and presented in the figure are in a relative sense and for purposes of analysis. There is much overlapping. It is worth noting that the intensity of knowledge interaction may increase from TKT to KI, and the U-I interaction is most intense in CKC.

Role of trust and knowledge type in U-I knowledge interaction

Recent U-I research indicates that the role of trust is different in different types of knowledge (explicit vs tacit). In a study of knowledge acquisition in U-I alliances, for instance, it has been found that the role of partner trust is different depending on the type of knowledge (Sherwood & Covin, 2008). The role of partner trust is more significant for tacit knowledge rather than explicit knowledge. The findings of the study suggest that partner trust varies in importance in knowledge acquisition, contingent upon the type of knowledge being transferred. Trust in the university partner was not a significant predictor of successful knowledge acquisition for explicit knowledge, but was for tacit knowledge. Although the development of a trusting relationship between the knowledge source and knowledge-seeking parties is generally advisable, firms that seek to acquire explicit technological knowledge from their alliance partners may successfully do so without making significant time and energy investments designed to assure themselves that they can trust their partners. A similar result was confirmed by an early study of Santoro and Saparito (2006). It was found that a trust relationship is subject to differences in the knowledge type (tacit vs explicit knowledge): As knowledge becomes more tacit, the self-interest assumption becomes negatively associated with knowledge transfer while relational trust becomes more strongly positive. The self-interest assumption in Santoro and Saparito’s study means when one alliance member perceives that its alliance partner will fulfill their commitments because it is in their self-interest to do so. They propose that a firm’s self-interest

64

The intensity of knowledge interaction increases from TKT to CKC

Figure 3. Knowledge interaction in university-industry joint innovation activities

assumption about their university partner will be appositively associated with knowledge transfer within a university-industry relationship: the reason being that when self-interest assumptions are high, it translates into greater knowledge transfer (Santoro

& Saparito, 2006).