6. CONCLUSIONS
6.5 Suggestions for future research
The results of the dissertation provide some interesting possibilities and starting points for future research. First, as the results for the study were gathered from one country and from a few chosen academic disciplines, future results from different countries and from different scientific disciplines would be important for understanding the explored phenomenon more widely. Further, as the results of the dissertation are based on qualitative case studies, they might be complemented by quantitative studies.
As the results revealed that the frameworks, methods, and tools presented to support performance measurement activities in university–industry collaborations are not currently actively utilized and implemented, further research should be carried out to remove the obstacles for implementation. In other words, further studies could be conducted to understand how performance measurement frameworks and tools could be more comprehensively transferred from theory to practice. As a part of this research gap, it would
be important to understand how the culture of collaborative performance measurement design and implementation could be developed in university–industry collaborations.
As this dissertation focused on operational-level performance measurement in university–
industry collaborations, further research should be conducted to understand and support the connection of operational-level performance measurement and other performance measurement practices of university–industry collaborations. For example, it might be important to understand how operational-level performance measurement activities could be connected to universities’ other performance measurement practices, such as those related to the evaluation of research and education activities.
REFERENCES
Abreu, M., and Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK:
widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42 (2), 408–422.
Adams, J.D., Black, B.C., Clemnons, J.R., and Stephan, P.E. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: evidence from U.S. universities, 1981–1999. Research Policy, 34 (3), 259–285.
Adams, R., Bessant, J., and Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: a review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, 21-47
Agrawal, A. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 285–302.
Albats, E., Fiegenbaum, I., and Cunningham, J.A. (2018). A micro level study of university-industry collaborative lifecycle key performance indicators. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 389-431.
Al-Ashaab, A., Flores, M., Doultsinou, A., and Magyar, A. (2011). A Balanced Scorecard for Measuring the Impact of Industry-University Collaboration. Production Planning &
Control: The Management of Operations, 22 (5–6), 554–70.
Al-Tabbaa, O., and Ankrah, S. (2016). Social capital to facilitate ‘engineered’ university–
industry collaboration for technology transfer: A dynamic perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 1-15.
Amaratunga, D., and Baldry, D. (2002). Moving from performance measurement to performance management. Facilities, 20 (5/6), 217-223.
Ankrah, S., and Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: a systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31, 387–408.
Ankrah, S.N., Burgess, T.F., Grimshaw, P., and Shaw, N.E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: what single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33 (2/3), 50–65.
Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., and Woerter, M. (2008). University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: what university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37 (10), 1865–1883.
Arza, V. (2010). Channels, benefits and risks of public–private interactions for knowledge transfer: a conceptual framework inspired by Latin America. Science and Public Policy, 37 (7), 473–484.
Azagra-Caro, J.M., Barberá-Tomás, D., Edwards-Schachter, M., and Tur, E.M. (2017).
Dynamic interactions between university-industry knowledge transfer channels: A case study of the most highly cited academic patent. Research Policy, 40, 463-474.
Barratt, M., Choi, T.Y., and Li, M. (2011). Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. Journal of Operations Management, 29 (4), 329-342.
Bishop, K, D´Este, P., and Neely, A. (2011). Gaining from interactions with universities:
Multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity. Research policy, 40, 30-40.
Bitektine, A. (2008). Prospective case study design qualitative method for deductive theory testing. Organizational Research Methods, 11 (1), 160-180.
Bititci, U., Carengo, P., Dörfler, V., and Nudurupati, S. (2012) Performance measurement:
Challenges for tomorrow. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 305-327.
Bititci, U., Mendibil, K., Nudurupati, S., Garengo, P. and Turner, T. (2006). Dynamics of performance measurement and organizational culture. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 26 (12), 1325-1350.
Bititci, U.S., Carrie, A.S., and McDevitt, L. (1997). Integrated performance measurement systems: a development guide. Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17 (5), 522-534.
Bouncken, R.B. (2018). University coworking-spaces: mechanisms, examples, and suggestions for entrepreneurial universities. International Journal of Technology Management, 77 (1–3), 38–56.
Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A. and Platts, K. (2000). Designing,
implementing and updating performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20 (7), 754-771.
Braz, R.G.F., Scavarda, L.F., and Martins, R.A. (2011). Reviewing and improving performance measurement systems: An action research. International Journal of Production Economics, 133, 751-760.
Broadbent, J. (2007). If you can’t measure it, how can you manage it? Management and governance in higher educational institutions. Public Money and Management, 27 (3), 193–198.
Bruneel, J., D'Este, P., and Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39 (7), 858–868.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research methods, 5thedition, New York: Oxford University Press.
Busi, M., and Bititci, U.S. (2006). Collaborative performance management: present gaps and future research. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55 (1), 7-25.
Carayannis, E.G., and Provance, M. (2008). Measuring firm innovativeness: towards a composite innovation index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1 (1), 90-107.
Chandler J, Barry, J., and Clark H. (2002). Stressing academe: The wear and tear of the New Public Management. Human Relations, 55 (9), 1051–1069.
Choi, T.Y., and Hong, Y. (2002). Unveiling the structure of supply networks: case studies in Honda, Acura and Daimler Chrysler. Journal of Operations Management, 20 (5), 469-493
Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Pergamon, Oxford.
Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., and Walsh, J.P. (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48 (1), 1–23.
Coriat, B., and Orsi, F. (2002). Establishing a new regime of intellectual property rights in the United States: Origins, content and problems. Research Policy, 31, 1491-1507
Crook, C., and Garrat, D. (2005). The positivist paradigm in contemporary social science research. In Research Methods in The Social Sciences. Eds. Somekh, B., and Lewin, C.
Sage Publications, London.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of Social Research – Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Czarnitzki, D., Grimpe, C., and Toole, A.A. (2015). Delay and secrecy: does industry sponsorship jeopardize disclosure of academic research? Industrial and Corporate Change, 24 (1), 251–279.
Czarnitzki, D., Ebersberger, B., and Fier, A. (2007). The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: empirical evidence from Finland and Germany. Journal of Applied Econometric, 22, 1347-1366.
de Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., Benneworth, P., Cremonini, L., Kolster, R., Kottmann, A., and Vossensteyn, H. (2015). Performance-based funding and performance agreements in fourteen higher education systems. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.
Debackere, K., and Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34 (3), 321–342.
D´Este, P., and Patel, P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?. Research Policy, 36 (9), 1295-1313.
D’Este, P., and Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36 (3), 316–339.
Dietz, J.S., and Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34 (3), 349–367.
Eisenhardt, K.M., and Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 25-32.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550.
Ellegaard, C., and Andersen, P.H. (2015). The process of resolving severe conflict in buyer–supplier relationships. Scandinavian. Journal of Management, 31, 457–470.
Engwall ,L. (2007). Universities, the state and the market: Changing patterns of university governance in Sweden and beyond. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19 (3), 87–
103.
Etzkowitz, H., (2016). The entrepreneurial university: vision and metrics. Industry and Higher Education 30, (2), 83–97.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27 (8), 823–833.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., and Terra, B.R.C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29 (2), 313–330.
European Commission. (2011). What is Horizon 2020? Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020
European Commission. (2007). Knowledge transfer between research institutions and industry – frequently asked questions. European Commission, Brussels.
Fabrizio, K., and DiMinin, A. (2008). Commercializing the laboratory: faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy, 37 (5), 914–931.
Ferreira, A., and Otley, D. (2009). The Design and Use of Performance Management Systems: An Extended Framework for Analysis. Management Accounting Research, 20 (4), 263–282.
Franco, M., and Haase, H. (2015). University-industry cooperation: Researchers´
motivation and interaction channels. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 36, 41-51.
Franco-Santos, M., Kennerley, M., Micheli, P., Martinez, V., Mason, S., Marr,B., Gray, D., and Neely, A. (2007). Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 27 (8), 784–801.
Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., and Bourne, M. (2012). Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review of their consequences and a framework for research.
Management Accounting Research, 23, 79-119.
Garengo, P., Biazzo, S., and Bititci, U.S. (2005). Performance measurement systems in SMEs: A review for a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7 (1), 25-47.
Garengo, P., Nudurupati, S., and Bititci, U. (2007). Understanding the relationship between PMS and MIS in SMEs: an organizational life cycle perspective. Computers in Industry, 58 (7), 677–686.
Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (1), 9-41.
Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies For Qualitative Research. Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, London.
Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D.S., and Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh-Dole:
reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40 (8), 1045–1057.
Grimaldi, R., and von Tunzelmann, N. (2002). Assessing collaborative, pre-competitive R&D projects: the case of the UK LINK scheme. R&D Management, 32, 165-173.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., and Organ, D. (2012). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: a case study comparison. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–20.
Gulbrandsen, M., and Slipersaeter, S. (2007). The Third Mission and the Entrepreneurial University Model. In Universities and Strategic Knowledge Creation. Eds. Bonaccorsi, A., and Daraio, C. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Göransson, B., Maharajh, R., and Schmoch, U. (2009). New activities of universities in transferand extension: multiple requirements and manifold solutions. Science and Public Policy, 36 (2), 157–164.
Hall, M. (2008). The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance. Accounting
Organizations and Society, 33 (2/3), 141–163.
Hansen, H.F., Geschwind, L., Kivistö, J., Pekkola, E., Pinheiro, R., and Pulkkinen, K.
(2019). Balancing accountability and trust: university reforms in the Nordic countries.
Higher Education, 78 (3), 557-573.
Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J.D., and Senker, J.M. (2009). Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38 (4), 610–
623.
Henri, J.-F. (2006). Management control systems and strategy: a resource-based perspective. Accounting, Organization and Society, 31 (6), 529–558.
Hirsjärvi, S., Remes, P., and Sajavaara, P. (2007). Tutki ja kirjoita. 13. painos, Tammi, Keuruu (in Finnish).
Hottenrott, H., and Lawson, C. (2014). Research grants, sources of ideas and the effects on academic research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 23 (2), 109–133.
Hsu, D.W.L., Shen, Y.C., Yuan, B.J.C., and Chou, C.Y. (2015). Toward successful commercialization of university technology: performance drivers of university technology transfer in Taiwan. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 25–39.
Huang, M-H., and Chen, D-Z. (2017). How can academic innovation performance in university–industry collaboration be improved?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 210-215.
Ittner, C.D., Larcker, D.F., and Randall, T. (2003). Performance implication of strategic performance measurement in financial service firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28 (7/8), 715–741.
Iqbal, A., Shahid Khan, A., Iqbal, S., and Aslan Amat, S. (2011). Designing of Success Criteria-based Evaluation Model for Assessing the Research Collaboration between University and Industry. International Journal of Business Research and Management, 2 (2), 59-73.
Isaksen, A., and Karlsen, J. (2010). Different modes of innovation and the challenge of connecting universities and industry: Case studies of two regional industries in Norway.
European Planning Studies, 18 (12), 1993-2008.
Kalar, B., and Antonic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, 36-37, 1-11.
Kallio, K-M., Kallio, T.J., Tienari, J., and Hyvönen, T. (2015). Ethos at stake:
Performance management and academic work in universities. Human Relations, 69 (3), 685-709.
Kapetanoiu, C., and Lee, S.H. (2017). A framework for assessing the performance of universities: The case of Cyprus. Technological Forecasting and & Social Change, 120, 169-180.
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., and Rugelsjoen, B. (2010), Managing alliances with the balanced scorecard. Harvard Business Review, 88 (1), 114-120.
Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D.P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard – measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70 (1), 71–79.
Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D.P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard – Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D.P. (2001). The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kasanen, E., Lukka, K. and Siitonen, A. (1991). Konstruktiivinen tutkimusote liiketaloustieteessä. Liiketaloustieteellinen Aikakauskirja, 3/1991, 301–327. (in Finnish) Katz ML. (1986). An analysis of cooperative research and development. RAND Journal of Economics, 17 (4), 527–543.
Klofsten, M., Fayolle, A., Guerrero, M., Milan, S., Urbano, D., and Wright, M. (2019).
The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and socialchange - Key strategic challenges. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 141, 149-158.
Kohtamäki, V. (2019). Academic leadership and university reform-guided management changes in Finland. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41 (1), 70-85.
Krabel, S., and Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38 (6), 947–956
Lauras, M., Marques, G., and Gourc, D. (2010). Towards a multi-dimensional project Performance Measurement System. Decision Support Systems, 48, 342-353.
Lebas, M.J. (1995). Performance measurement and performance management.
International Journal of Production Economics, 41, 23–25.
Lebas, M. and Euske, K. (2002). A conceptual and operational delineation of performance.
In: Neely, A., eds. Business Performance Measurement: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 65–79.
Lee, Y.S. (2000). The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25 (2), 111–133.
Leischnig, A., and Geigenmüller, A. (2018). Examining alliance management capabilities in university‑industry collaboration. The Journal of Technology Transfer
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9671-7
Lin, J-Y. (2017). Balancing industry collaboration and academic innovation: The contingent role of collaboration-specific attributes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 216-228.
Link, A.N., Siegel, D.S., and Bozeman, B. (2007), An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 16 (4), 641–655.
Loi, M., and Di Guardo, M.C. (2015). The third mission of universities: An investigation of the espoused values. Science and Public Policy, 42 (6), 855-870.
Lowe, R.A., and Gonzalez-Brambila, C. (2007). Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32 (3), 173–194.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 41, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Maylor, H., and Blackmon, K. (2005). Researching Business and Management, New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
McCutcheon, D.M., and Meredith, J.R. (1993). Conducting case study research in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 11 (3), 239-256
McMillan, G.S. and Hamilton, R.D. (2003). The impact of publicly funded basic research:
an integrative extension of Martin and Salter. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50 (2), 184–191.
Meek, V.L., Goedegebuure, L., Santiago, R., and Carvalho, T. (Eds.). (2010). The changing dynamics of higher education middle management (Vol. 33). Dordrecht, Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media.
Melo, A.I., Sarrico, C.S., and Radnor, Z. (2010). The influence of performance
management systems on key actors in universities. Public Management Review, 12 (2), 233-254.
Michele, P., and Mari, L. (2014). The theory and practice of performance measurement.
Management Accounting Research, 25, 147-156.
Montesinos, P., Carot, J.M., Martínez, J.M., and Mora, F. (2008). Third mission ranking for world class universities: beyond teaching and research. Higher Education in Europe 33 (2/3), 259–271.
Mora-Valentin, E.M., Montoro-Sanchez, A., and Guerras-Martin, L.A. (2004). Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations. Research Policy, 33, 17-40.
Movery, D.C., and Sampat, B.N. (2004). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments?. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30 (1-2), 115-127.
Movery, D.C. and Nelson, R.R. (eds) (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation:
university– industry technology before and after the Bayh–Dole Act. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mudambi, R., and Swift, T. (2009). Professional guilds, tension and knowledge management. Research Policy 38 (5), 736–745.
Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35 (2), 181–202.
Neely, A. (2005). The evolution of performance measurement research: Developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 25 (12), 1264-1277.
Neely, A. (1999). The performance measurement revolution: why now and where next.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19 (2), 205–228.
Neely, A., Gregory, M., and Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design. A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15 (4), 80-116.
Ng, I.C.L., and Forbes, J. (2009). Education as service: The understanding of university experience through the service logic. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19 (1), 38–64.
Niebecker, K., Eager, D., and Kubitza, K. (2008). Improving cross-company project management performance with a collaborative project scorecard. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,1 (3), 368-386.
Niebecker, K., Eager, D., and Moulton, B. (2010). Collaborative and cross-company project management within the automotive industry using the balanced scorecard.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3 (2), 328-337.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods,3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pavlov, A., Mura, M., Franco-Santos, M., and Bourne, M. (2017). Modelling the impact of performance management practices on firm performance: interaction with human resource management practices. Production Planning & Control, 28 (5), 431-443.
Perkmann, M. (2015). University-Industry relations. In: Concise Guide to
Entrepreneurship, Technology and Innovation. Edited by Audretsch, D.B., Hayter, C.S., and Link, A.N. Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham, UK.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Kitson, M., Krabel, S., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., and Sobrero, M. (2013), Academic engagement and commercialization: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42 (2), 423–442.
Perkmann, M., Neely, A., and Walsh, K. (2011). How should firms evaluate success in university–industry alliances? A performance measurement system. R&D Management, 41 (2), 202-216.
Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholar: three forms of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37 (10), 1884–
1891.
Perkmann, M., and Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9 (4), 259–280.
Philbott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., and Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31 (4), 161–170.
Piva, E., and Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). Systems of indicators to evaluate the performance of university-industry alliances: a review of the literature and directions for future
research. Measuring Business Excellence, 17 (3), 40-54.
Pollitt, C., and Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press.
Ranga, M., Perälampi,J., and Kansikas, J. (2016), The new face of university-business cooperation in Finland. Science and Public Policy, 43 (5), 601-612.
Saunila, M., and Ukko, J. (2012). A conceptual framework for the measurement of innovation capability and its effects. Baltic Journal of Management, 7 (4), 355-75 Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M.M., and Fröhlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy, 31, 303-328.
Secundo, G., Perez, S.E., Martinaitis, Z., and Leitner, K.H. (2017). An intellectual capital framework to measure universities´ third mission activities. Technological Forecasting &
Social Change, 123, 229-239.
Secundo, G., Margherita, A., Elia, G., and Passiante, G. (2010). Intangible assets in higher education and research: mission, performance or both? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11 (2), 140–157.
Sedlacek, S. (2013). The role of universities in fostering sustainable development at the regional level. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 74–84.
Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D.A., Atwater, L.E., and Link, A.N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–
industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14 (1), 111–133.
Sparkes, A.C. (1992). The paradigms debate: an extended review and celebration of difference. In A.C. Sparkes (ed.), Research and Physical Education and Sport. Lewes:
Falmer, 9-60.
Speckbacher, G., Bischof, J., and Pfeiffer, T. (2003). A descriptive analysis on the implementation of balanced scorecards in German-speaking countries. Management Accounting Research, 14 (4), 361–388.
Soh, P.-H., and Subramanian, A.M. (2014). When do firms benefit from university–
industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 807–821.
Sousa C.A., De Nijs W.F., and Hendriks P.H. (2010). Secrets of the beehive: Performance management in university research organizations. Human Relations, 63 (9), 1439–1460.
Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handfield, R., McLachlin, R., and Samson, D. (2002).
Effective case research in operations management: a process perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 20 (5), 419-433.
Tangen, S. (2005). Analysing the Requirements of Performance Measurement Systems. Measuring Business Excellence, 9 (4), 46-54.
Tartari, V., Salter, A., and D'Este, P. (2012). Crossing the Rubicon: exploring the factors that shape academics' perceptions of the barriers to working with industry. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36 (3), 655–677.
ter Bogt, H.J., and Scapens, R.W. (2012).Performance Management in Universities:
Effects of the Transition to More Quantitative Measurement Systems. European Accounting Review, 21 (3), 451-497.
Tijssen, R. J. (2012). Co-authored Research Publications and Strategic Analysis of Public–
Private Collaboration. Research Evaluation, 21, 204–215
Toole, A.A., and Czarnitzki, D. (2009). Exploring the relationship between scientist human capital and firm performance: the case of biomedical academic entrepreneurs in the SBIR program. Management Science, 55 (1), 101–114.
Torregrosa-Hetland, S., Pelkonen, A., Oksanen, J., and Kander, A. (2019). The prevalence of publicly stimulated innovations – A comparison of Finland and Sweden, 1970-2003.
Research Policy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.02.001
Tsai, K. H. (2009). Collaborative Networks and Product Innovation Performance: Toward a Contingency Perspective. Research Policy, 38, 765–778
Ukko, J., Tenhunen, J., and Rantanen, H. (2008). The impacts of performance measurement on the quality of working life. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 10 (1), 86-98.
Ulhoi, J. (2004). Open source development: a hybrid in innovation and management theory.
Management Decision, 42, 1095–1114.
Van Looy, B., Debackere, K., and Callaert, J. (2006). Publication and patent behaviour of academic researchers: conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing. Research Policy 35 (4), 596–608.
Varamäki, E., Kohtamäki, M., Järvenpää, M., Vuorinen, T., Laitinen, E., Sorama, K.,
Varamäki, E., Kohtamäki, M., Järvenpää, M., Vuorinen, T., Laitinen, E., Sorama, K.,