BDI Confederación de la Industria Alemana - reditiam.org · para PyMEs Fuente: Steinbeis, 2010 Innovation Partnership Germany ... Section three discusses the Steinbeis model of knowledge

Proyecto

Asociación para la Innovación

Alemania – México / Alianza del Pacífico

BDI – Confederación de la Industria Alemana

Confederación de la Industria Alemana (BDI)

• La Confederación de la Industria

Alemana (BDI) es la organización

cúpula que representa la Industria

Alemana y proveedores de

servicios relacionados con la

industria.

• BDI interviene por 36

asociaciones comerciales y más

de 100,000 empresas con

alrededor de 8 millones de

empleados.

• 15 organizaciones en los Estados

federados (Länder) representan

los intereses de la industria a nivel

regional.

Innovation Partnership Germany - Mexico/Pacific Alliance Página 2

Nuestra tarea

• La tarea de BDI es asegurar las

mejores condiciones posibles para

el desarrollo de las empresas.

• Nuestro principio rector es:

BDI sirve a la industria

– y la industria sirve a la gente.

Página 3Innovation Partnership Germany - Mexico/Pacific Alliance

Proyecto de la Confederación de la Industria Alemana (BDI):

Asociación para la Innovación Alemania – México / Alianza del Pacífico

Página 4

Objetivo general: El mejoramiento de las condiciones (sistémicas) políticas e

institucionales y el fortalecimiento de actividades empresariales sostenibles

coadyuvan a las innovaciones, aumento de la competitividad y al empleo en

México y en otros países de la Alianza del Pacífico.

Innovation Partnership Germany - Mexico/Pacific Alliance

Asociación para la Innovación Alemania – México / Alianza del Pacífico:

El proyecto se desarrolla en 3 niveles regionales

Página 5

• A nivel Alianza del Pacífico: construcción de una red

transnacional de cooperación e innovación con las

organizaciones empresariales cúpula.

• A nivel nacional en México: profundización de la

cooperación con COPARMEX y USEM en los temas de

políticas de innovación y ordenamiento económico.

• A nivel región piloto en los Estados de Aguascalientes,

Guanajuato, Jalisco, Querétaro y perspectivo San Luis

Potosí: mayor cooperación con los Clústeres Tecnológicos

(incl. Cadenas de Valor y Redes de Innovación) para la

implementación ejemplar de elementos de una política de

innovación sostenible.



Resultado a nivel región piloto AGS-GTO-JAL-QRO (perspectivo SLP)

Página 6

Fuente: Cluster Navigators Ltd, 1997

La administración de

los Clústeres

seleccionados en la

región del proyecto

son cada uno capaces

de iniciar y controlar

estratégicamente la

transferencia de

conocimiento, fomento

a la innovación y

sustentabilidad

empresarial en redes

de colaboración.




Página 7

Indicador 1:

Establecimiento de una

red de consultores y

expertos para la

transferencia de

conocimiento y de

tecnología en la región

piloto, basado en el

modelo de Steinbeis.

Transferencia de Conocimiento

El Sistema Steinbeis de Alemania

Transferencia de Conocimiento y “Solución de Problemas“

para PyMEsFuente: Steinbeis, 2010




Página 8

Indicador 2:

5 proyectos piloto de

gestión innovadora de

empresas y

responsabilidad social

corporativa, basados en

el modelo de referencia

de “econsense"

(Foro para el desarrollo

sustentable de la

economia alemana).

Fuente: econsense, 2016




Página 9

Worldwide Leadership in Social and Ecological Compliance Standards.

Promover una plataforma empresarial en Mexico para introducir y “vivir” los

Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) de las Naciones Unidas.

Fuente: econsense, 2016

Miembros




Página 10

Indicador 3:

El modelo de la

Educación Superior

basado en la práctica es

establecido en al menos

un Estado de la región

piloto del proyecto

(al menos está en curso

1 Ciclo de Formación

Piloto dirigido por

instituciones educativas

y empresas en

conjunto).

Fuente: Prof. Matthias Landmesser, „Herausforderungen für die akademische Weiterbildung aus Unternehmenssicht“, KIT, 2013


Cambios en las necesidades de cualificación en la

economía: De la pirámide al rombo

Alemania

Sigrid Zirbel, BDI, [email protected]

Joachim Elsässer, IFG, [email protected]

Uta Knott, IFG, [email protected]

Contactos

México

Alberto Equihua, IFG, [email protected]

German Bonilla, IFG, [email protected]

174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 1/20

The Steinbeis-Model of

Knowledge and Technology Transfer Governance

Structures and Recent Reform Processes

Paper Submitted to

Panel F - Research and Knowledge Utilization in Public Management/

F102 - Research and Practice: Reinventing the Space Between

(SIG on CPMRPIO)

Work in Progress: Please do not quote or cite!

Dr. Michael Ortiz

Project Manager

Steinbeis-Foundation

Dr. Michael Ortiz | [email protected] | Willi-Bleicher-Straße 19 | 70174 Stuttgart | Germany


Abstract

In the wake of the current economic, fiscal and monetary crisis (Streeck 2013; Scharpf

2011) the competitiveness of whole national economies, regions and large parts of the

business sector is questioned. The innovative ability not only of firms, but also of the

institutional frameworks surrounding them is increasingly moving into the center of

interest (Archibugi et al. 1999; Streeck 2004; Archibugi/Iammarino 2010). Decisive in

reconstructing, maintaining and developing competitive edges with regard to innovation

are processes of knowledge and technology transfer connecting science and practice

and representing indispensable preconditions for innovation processes

(Audretsch/Lehmann 2005; Edquist 2005; Acs et al. 1999).

The proposed paper will focus on the Steinbeis model of knowledge and technology

transfer as a unique type of institutional knowledge and technology transfer

governance at the micro level, i.e. as an organizational model (Thommen 2003;

Thommen/Achleitner 2012) and meso level, i.e. governance as coordination of

economic actors (Hollingsworth et. al 1994, Voelzkow 2007). The aim is to discuss

central features of this particular governance model, bringing these features together

into a consistent governance concept, and to analyze its strengths and weaknesses as

well as current reform processes it is currently undergoing not only in the light of the

crisis, but also with reference to other long-term processes of socio-economic change.

1. Introduction

Like innovation, also knowledge and technology transfer has to be conceptualized as a

systemic process. These processes are frequently embedded into complex social

systems of innovation and production. Similar to many other socio-economic

processes, also these systems of knowledge and technology transfer are characterized

by specific models of governance to coordinate the transactions among their actors. In

the past, I have suggested a heuristic model to analyze systems of knowledge and

technology transfer in a systematic way (Ortiz 2013). This heuristic model

conceptualizes knowledge and technology transfer systems as specific configurations

of six ideal types of social and economic governance: state, market, organization,

network, association and community (Ortiz 2013: 86ff.; Hollingsworth et al. 1994: 5ff.;

Voelzkow 2007: 41). The model suggests that all structures, mechanisms and actors

constituting a knowledge and technology transfer system can be ascribed to one of


these ideal types, allowing to investigate and compare knowledge and technology

transfer systems on the basis of their particular governance model. Furthermore,

processes of institutional reform and change within these systems can be

reconstructed and analyzed as shifts in the configuration of its governance model (Ortiz

2013: 86ff.).

While this heuristic model has already been applied to knowledge and technology

transfer systems on the macro level, i.e. regional and national economies (Ortiz 2013),

the purpose of this paper is to also apply it to the meso level of a particular institutional

entity in the field of knowledge and technology transfer, namely the Steinbeis system of

technology transfer in the German region of Baden-Württemberg. While discussing this

particular case, the paper aims to show that also single systemic actors can be

characterized by their specific knowledge and technology transfer governance model.

In addition, the paper also addresses recent reform processes within the Steinbeis

system, showing in which way and to which degree governance models in knowledge

and technology transfer systems can shift while adapting to changes in their macro-

institutional environment.

The paper is structured as follows: Section two discusses a systemic approach to

analyze knowledge and technology transfer systems and introduces the structure and

distinct dimensions of the heuristic governance model underlying these systems.

Section three discusses the Steinbeis model of knowledge and technology transfer with

its formal organizational structure, the Steinbeis-Units as the model's central elements,

as well as its character as market laboratory and business model incubator. Section

four then analyzes two major challenges the Steinbeis governance model is recently

facing, the fragmentation of its service portfolio and the imbalance of performance

within the group. Sections five and six then point the respective reform processes

Steinbeis is currently undergoing and discusses two concrete project examples which

explicitly address these challenges: The Steinbeis Enterprise Competence Check and

the Joint Transfer Corporations with Universities. Section seven then summarizes the

results and provides an outlook to possible future developments of the Steinbeis

governance model.


2. The Governance of Knowledge and Technology Transfer

Like innovation, also knowledge and technology transfer must be conceptualized as

systemic processes. These processes show strong non-linear characteristics, and are

shaped by complex relationships of interaction, collaboration and interdependence. In

most cases, these relationships are characterized by their reciprocity, recursivity and a

multitude of feedback mechanisms (Edquist 2005: 185). A knowledge and technology

transfer system is, therefore, constituted by different elements like individual,

institutional and social actors and the specific relationships and interactions between

them in the production, diffusion and use of new and economically useful knowledge

and technology (Ortiz 2013: 32f.).

In addition, these processes are structured, shaped and mediated by specific formal

and informal institutions. This institutional set-up will, however, vary to a considerable

degree among knowledge and technology transfer systems. Therefore, differences in

the institutional set-up of specific knowledge and technology transfer systems should

be supposed to constitute important explanatory factors for differences in the concrete

structures and mechanisms of knowledge and technology transfer processes

observable within these systems (Ortiz 2013: 34).

As I suggested elsewhere (Ortiz 2013), it is both useful and necessary for purposes of

systematic and comparative analysis to apply a heuristic model of knowledge transfer

systems, which captures the basic structures and mechanisms of knowledge transfer in

different institutional dimensions of governance. This model can help to precisely name

and systemize the concrete mechanisms and channels of knowledge and technology

transfer in their systemic context and to reconstruct the structures these systems are

shaped by on the basis of (comparative) empirical analysis. The heuristic model uses

the six dimensions of institutional governance presented above and assigns to them

concrete mechanisms of knowledge and technology transfer which are pre-dominantly

shaped by one of the six ideal-typical forms of institutions (network, association,

organization, state, market, community) (Ortiz 2013: 86f.; Figure 1).


Fig. 1: A Heuristic Governance Model of Knowledge Transfer in Innovation Systems

Source: Ortiz (2013): 87

Shortly summarized, in this model the network dimension describes stable relations

and interactions of individuals or institutional actors without losing their autonomy. In

networks, the coordination of economic transactions is neither realized through simple

market based exchange processes, nor through instruction-based hierarchies, but

rather trough reciprocity, i.e. trust in the fact that an own input into the network will be

compensated at a later point with a more or less equivalent return. To this dimension of

knowledge and technology transfer mechanisms most sorts of informal as well as

institutionally stabilized networks can be counted, as would be horizontal business

networks, vertical networks between firms and their customers and suppliers,

collaborative inter-firm R&D-activities as well as cooperative R&D-projects between

firms and scientific institutions (Ortiz 2013: 88f.).

Second, the association based dimension of governance focuses on corporatist actors

like collective interest representation bodies coordinating their internal as well as their

external interactions through the concertation of interests. These bodies assume


considerable regulatory potential, so that they can enforce taken decisions through

effective organization structures, internally as well as in external collective agreements.

Above all, business- employers- and trade associations and chambers of industry and

commerce can be regarded as central association based mechanisms of knowledge

and technology transfer, in the sense that they create enhanced levels of trust among

their members and, therefore, foster intensified interaction and transfer activities.

Additionally, these associations and chambers are also active in elaborating and

implementing common and binding technical standards, as well as standards for

vocational training and education curricula, which can also be regarded as important

instruments in this regard (Ortiz 2013: 89).

Third, the organization is defined as a dimension of governance in which the inter-

actions between the actors are coordinated through hierarchies that are deduced from

specific formalized as well as informal rights and duties. In this type of governance,

knowledge and technology transfer is realized through the creation and adaptation of

organizational structures as well as the vertical integration of knowledge into the

hierarchy. The predominant organization based mechanisms of knowledge and

technology transfer, are, therefore, the transfer of highly qualified technical and

scientific staff from one organization to another and especially from academia to the

business sector, purposeful headhunting activities by firms to recruit highly qualified

personnel from other firms or research institutes, as well as business start-ups and

spin-offs (Ortiz 2013: 89f.).

Fourth, the state is defined to rely on hierarchical control to coordinate the interactions

of the actors using its monopoly of power allowing him to implement decisions, if

necessary by force. Central state induced mechanisms of knowledge and technology

transfer in this regard are both national and regional government policy measures in

the fields of knowledge and technology transfer, (larger) state-induced innovation

projects, public scientific parks and technological centers as well as technology transfer

agencies at the public universities and research institutes (Ortiz 2013: 90f.).

Moreover, the market can be defined as a fifth type of social governance in which

interactions of rational and utility maximizing actors are coordinated through atomistic

competition in the exchange of private goods and services by individuals and

collectivities (particularly firms) being primarily concerned with profit. The main market

based mechanisms of knowledge transfer are, therefore, mechanisms through which

knowledge is bought and sold by actors holding separate property rights in different


stocks of knowledge on the basis of legally enforceable contractual exchanges. To this

category would belong external consultancies, as well as mergers, acquisitions or

hostile takeovers, through which the stocks of knowledge incorporated in a whole firm

are bought by another firm. Furthermore, also the buying, selling and licensing of pa-

tents and other forms of IPRs must be mentioned in this regard (Ortiz 2013: 91f.).

Finally, in the community model of governance the central mechanism of coordination

between the actors is informal, voluntary, and sometimes spontaneous solidarity

among the members of a social unit, not being motivated by profit, but by the

appreciation of the other members of the community or the desire to belong to a group.

Therefore, to this model one should ascribe mechanisms of knowledge and technology

transfer which base on a strong and commonly shared historical, cultural and social

identity as major driving force. Informal contacts of any kind would be one of these

knowledge transfer mechanisms, through which the involved actors can exchange

knowledge on a low level, flexible, unplanned and non-contractual way, supported by

commonly shared languages, experiences, practices and worldviews. Another would

be regional platforms, on which actors from different fields can come together, interact

and exchange knowledge and ideas, as well as establish more stable and formalized

interaction. But also social media and virtual platforms can be mentioned in this regard

(Ortiz 2013: 92).

Taking this heuristic model as an analytical basis for investigating empirical cases of

knowledge and technology transfer systems allows for differentiating their particular

governance structures by the six dimensions discussed before, showing the specific

institutional configuration the respective systems are shaped by. Moreover, also

processes of institutional reform within these governance structures can be analyzed in

a detailed and systematic way. The present article intends to apply this heuristic model

to the Steinbeis model of knowledge and technology transfer, a systemic actor in the

field of knowledge and technology transfer in the German region of Baden-

Württemberg. This model, which in the past has been highlighted as exceptionally

effective and successful in promoting knowledge and technology transfer in its home

region (Beise et al. 1995; Braczyk et al. 1998: 229f.; Cooke et al. 2004; Krauss 2009;

Heidenreich/Krauss 2004; Fuchs/Wassermann 2004; Heidenreich 2001), and which

has undergone substantial growth processes in the last decade, currently finds itself in

a process of deep institutional reform. This paper intents to discuss these reform

processes with regard to the resulting changes in the system’s governance structure.


For this purpose, in a first step, the general governance structure of Steinbeis will be

discussed, before, in a second step, some currently realized reform processes will be

investigated exemplarily to show the general direction these and other reform

processes take.

3. The Steinbeis Model of Technology Transfer

The Steinbeis model of technology transfer governance (Steinbeis 2004a) can be

described as decentralized, competitive and entrepreneurial (Auer 2007). It bases on

the individual entrepreneurial initiative and bottom-up activities of actors at the

knowledge and technology sources of universities and R&D-institutions, as well as

firms and experts outside these institutions. To these actors, Steinbeis offers the

structural, organizational and legal framework for realizing transfer oriented projects

with economic added value in an entrepreneurial way. The model grounds on the

philosophy of a ―transfer via heads‖, i.e. via people, their know-how, their commitment

and their networks (Ortiz 2015).

3.1 The formal organizational framework

The roof of the Steinbeis Group is the non-profit Steinbeis Foundation. This foundation,

firming as a foundation under civil law, is founded with the clear mission to promote

knowledge and technology transfer in the German Land of Baden-Württemberg, and,

with that, to give the business sector in the Land access to the results of research and

development produced at the scientific institutions. Emphasizing the foundation’s

―private‖ (civil) character is decisive in differentiating it from many other entities in the

field of knowledge and technology transfer: Steinbeis is independent of public funding

and builds its model on individual initiative, entrepreneurial independence and market

based funding. The foundation with its endowment funds is headed by a board of

trustees and an executive board, which are responsible for the foundation’s strategic

and operative management decisions (Auer 2007: 163ff.; Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.).

While the actual foundation uses its endowment solely for purposes of the so called

―diffuse‖ knowledge and technology transfer, i.e. expert talks, conferences, publications

etc., its subsidiary Steinbeis GmbH & Co. KG (StC) is responsible for all commercial

activities in the field of knowledge and technology transfer under the foundation’s roof.

http://www.steinbeis.de/tta


The StC’s purpose is, therefore, technology transfer via market based projects and via

consultancy services, as well as via the commercialization of own products, as far as

they represent own developments of the foundation or of one of its subsidiaries or

holdings. In addition, the StC is allowed to enter into holdings with similar thematic

purposes and supervises these holding activities (Auer 2007: 167ff.; Steinbeis 2009:

11ff.). With that, the StC is the framework in which the more than 1.000 Steinbeis Units

(SUs) operate in the fields of technology-research-engineering, consulting and

competence (Steinbeis 2014b).

In this context, the area of technology-research-engineering encompasses in particular

market and transfer oriented contract research and technology development, but also

collaborative research and non-profit projects. The consulting area unites competences

in business and strategy consulting, assessment and training. The competences area,

finally, offers education and training in demand-oriented learning models, reaching from

seminars, workshops and in-house-trainings to whole curricula. In addition, the

Steinbeis University Berlin (SHB) offers transfer oriented research as well as extra

occupational and competence oriented education and training via its institutes (STI)

(Steinbeis 2014b; Steinbeis 2013).

This organizational structure offers a broad framework for the actors within the

Steinbeis group: The foundation as a roof embodies the non-profit and solidity based

mission of Steinbeis, while the StC represents itself as a commercial service provider

towards customers and market partners. With the possibility of founding subsidiaries

the StC additionally offers options for realizing spin-offs from the SUs, the

commercialization of self-developed mass products or for technology oriented start-ups

(Auer 2007: 167ff.; Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.).

The decentralized structure and the entrepreneurial philosophy of the Steinbeis group

involve that the headquarters are pointedly slim and focus on strategy development for

the group as a whole, on the provision of the central organizational and liable

framework, on basic support and services for the SUs as well as on compliance with

the firm’s values and philosophy. Centralized regulation, cuts into the entrepreneurial

freedom of the single SU or excessive bureaucracy do, however, not characterize the

Steinbeis model (Auer 2007: 167ff.; Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.; Ortiz 2015).

Concerning the provision of central services Steinbeis headquarters focus e.g. on the

areas of central financial accounting, central payroll accounting, general consultancy


services, communication, founding and support of SUs, coordination, network

management, support of the managing directors, etc. To a growing extent,

headquarters also operate own projects, especially in the area of consultancy services,

training and expert evaluations (Auer 2007: 167ff.; Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.; Ortiz 2015;

Ortiz and Maurer 2014).

3.2 The Steinbeis-Units: Diversity, networking and competence building

The core of the Steinbeis model is represented by its 1.000 SUs with its more than

6.000 experts. These SUs mainly represent decentralized operational units which are

legally dependent on one of the three thematic areas of the StC discussed before.

However, within this legal framework of rules of the game they operate with

entrepreneurial freedom, i.e. they acquire, choose, finance and calculate their projects

autonomously. This stands in the center of the decentralized and entrepreneurial

philosophy behind the Steinbeis model. Project work on all levels regularly bases on an

entrepreneurial calculation at market prices. Customer and supplier of a transfer

service keep their mutual advantage in a market based exchange (Auer 2007: 170f.;

Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.; Ortiz 2015).

Steinbeis receives only very few public funding, so that every single transfer project

must be financed via the market. Since this is only possible through decentralized

entrepreneurial calculations and assessment of the competitive environment by the

single SU, the administrative workload of the headquarters in minimized to services of

framework provision, as discussed before.

In formal terms, a SU is a legally dependent organizational unit of the StC (and with

that also of the Steinbeis Foundation), which is responsible for the operational

realization of projects. These SUs are directed by freelancers (professors or others) or

by employed staff. Also the employees of the SUs are in part freelancers, while others

are employed staff. Generally, this leads to three kinds of contract: Freelancers are

offered a contract as a project manager, in which the internal and external relations are

regulated. Additionally, a contract for SU directors is closed with the SU directors, in

which the internal and external relations are further specified. Finally, the employed

staff is generally offered a fixed term employment contract with the StC (Auer 2007:

170f.; Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.).


The SUs assume the responsibility for the projects, so that the operational competence

and responsibility is delegated from the managing directors of the StC to the SU

directors. The SUs offer concrete solutions and realize these projects on behalf and in

the name of the StC, i.e. the StC (represented by the managing director) is liable

externally. The SU directors have to take care of a balanced annual account. Apart

from that, and within the framework of the internal general terms and conditions, they

autonomously determine their service (supply, prices, etc.) and costs (fees, salaries

and amortizations through investments). Each SU has an own banking account, over

which the SU director and the managing director of the StC can command. The SUs

pay a share of 9% of the reported invoice amounts (excluding sales tax) as a so called

group fee to the StC. This group fee covers the costs for the SU relevant central

services provided by the headquarters as well as for the maintenance and further

development of the organizational framework (Auer 2007: 167ff.; Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.).

3.3 Steinbeis as Market Laboratory and Business Model Incubator

In addition to these formal features, one further aspect must be added: The Steinbeis

group can be described as a strongly differentiated system, in which 20% of the SUs

generate approx. 80% of the total turnover. However, the 80% of SUs accounting for

only 20% of total turnover are a decisive factor of success of this natural pareto-

distribution. The headquarters’ expenses for the founding process and the provision of

the organizational framework often exceed the financial return from the turnover based

group fee (generally 9%) of individual SUs (Auer 2007: 170f.; Ortiz 2015).

Nevertheless, the model proves to be remarkably profitable: The high number of SUs

represents a pool of ideas and business models in knowledge and technology transfer,

in which the most successful approaches prevail in the sense of an opportunity-

oriented, productive and competitive system and, with that, carry the group as a whole.

In this regard, the group works in the sense of a ―market laboratory‖ and provides an

opportunity for persons with their technology transfer approaches to prove themselves

in market competition. Because of the strength of the group as a whole Steinbeis can

take the risk which is connected to these opportunities and regards this strategy as an

investment in perspectively stable knowledge transfer business models (Ortiz 2015).

Altogether, the number of 1.000 SUs acting as enterprises within the enterprise

underlines the model’s attractiveness and still represents the main instrument in


technology transfer with Steinbeis. Their diversity and the broad range of supplied

services are a central differentiating feature of the Steinbeis model and one of its major

USPs (Steinbeis 2014b). The portfolio of services and solutions offered by the group is

encompassing and the single SU can rely on a broad variety of competences and

potential cooperation partners, creating trust and easing project acquisitions. However,

both aspects, the imbalanced structure of SU-performance within the group, as well as

the broad and fragmented supply of services also create specific challenges, which will

be discussed subsequently.

3.4 The Steinbeis Governance Model

In terms of the governance structure that characterizes Steinbeis, the discussion above

clearly shows that Steinbeis is foremost a market and organization driven model. First,

entrepreneurial freedom of the SUs, project acquisitions and calculations at market

conditions as well as profit oriented atomistic competition of business models underline

the market character of the Steinbeis model, where, at the end, knowledge and

technology are bought and sold at market conditions. The central mechanisms in this

regard are the manifold transfer services provided by the SUs like e.g. consultancy and

R&D-services, the services of the private Steinbeis University Berlin, or the buying,

selling and licensing of IPR, etc.

Second, Steinbeis of course also shows elements of organization based governance.

Its organizational structure with the foundation as a roof and the StC as the roof for the

commercial activities evidently stand for hierarchical integration and a certain

coordination through specific formalized as well as informal rights and duties. In this

regard, founding new SUs is in a way a vertical integration of expertise and

technological knowledge into the group in the sense of a business start-up or an

academic spin-off, which is mainly based on a process of transfer of highly qualified

technical and scientific staff into the group.

While Steinbeis is certainly not characterized by state or association based elements of

governance, the model's network and community dimension must be further specified.

Since vertical integration under the roof of Steinbeis is explicitly not strict, but leaves

the individual SUs their entrepreneurial freedom to act among each other and with

external partners without losing their autonomy, and since market transactions are

coupled with a group fee being used to allow for the provision of central network


services for the group as a whole, it does show certain features of reciprocity and, with

that, network based governance. However, as will be shown later, cases of reciprocity

based interaction among single SUs or collaborative R&D-projects are rather rare, and

it is basically the thematic forums and groups which are carried by trust in the fact that

an own input into the group will be compensated at a later point with a more or less

equivalent return. Thus, only to a limited degree Steinbeis can be regarded as a

formalized network of collaborating and cooperating individual actors.

The same holds true for the community dimension of governance: Although the

Steinbeis group exercises a considerable attraction to members and external actors,

and creates a certain desire to belong to the group, not least because of its strong and

successful economic performance and historical tradition, it generates only to a very

limited extent a commonly shared identity among its actors. However, there are

activities within the group basing on informal, voluntary, and sometimes spontaneous

solidarity among the actors, and as a platform and provider of platform activities

Steinbeis certainly promotes knowledge and technology transfer also on the informal

level.

4. Two Challenges: Fragmentation and Imbalance

This model is, as described, strongly entrepreneurial, market-based, organizationally

integrated and dynamically evolving, but also fragmented and imbalanced in its

structure. To face the multiple challenges emerging from the current and future

technological developments, the Steinbeis group currently undertakes several

processes of deep structural reform. The aim of these processes is to secure the fit of

its service portfolio to market demands in the future. In these reform processes,

fragmentation is faced with strategies of stronger coordination and networking

activities, and imbalance is approached with strategies of competence building through

providing central services and tools to the actors within and outside the group.

Let us start with the aspect of fragmentation. 1.000 SUs within the Steinbeis group

mean a portfolio of 1.000 service providers. The range of these services covers almost

all possible thematic fields in the areas of research, technology development,

engineering and business administration. However, we are currently facing a time of

more and more interconnected rather than fragmented technological development,

mostly occurring at the interfaces of branches, disciplines and technologies. Since the


substantial technological challenges of the present in the fields of mobility, energy, ICT

and health are strongly cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral in their character, it is to

fear that the current service portfolio of individual SUs will in many cases not match the

future market demand anymore, neither in scope, nor in scale. Therefore, the challenge

for Steinbeis is to further connect its competences around strategically important and

interdisciplinary topics to allow the SUs to also acquire technology transfer projects

requiring a larger scope of competences and thematic expertise as well as larger scale

resources.

From a comparative perspective, this supposed disadvantage of fragmentation, could,

though, be regarded as specific strength of the Steinbeis group, since other actors in

the field of knowledge and technology transfer might not have a comparably broad and

rich basis of expertise to work with. Even more, if Steinbeis could succeed not only in

creating and coordinating groups and collaborations of SUs around strategically

important topics, but also in flexibly combining and re-combining these competences

under conditions of dynamically changing technological demand, it could certainly gain

substantial competitive edges.

Imbalance, i.e. the pareto-distribution of performance among the 1.000 SUs (20% of

them account for 80% of total turnover, the other 80% only for 20%), on the other hand,

might indeed be a fruitful breeding ground for the incubation of successful and

sustainable ideas, business and service models in knowledge and technology transfer

in the sense of a ―market laboratory‖. However, and taking the effort for founding,

administrating and coordinating the SUs into account, one might expect considerable

leverage effects when contributing to the professionalization of the service provision by

the single units. And this is especially important, since the field of knowledge and

technology transfer has strongly moved forward from approaches of just bringing actors

together and creating certain framework conditions in which transfer processes can

occur.

Rather, the general trend of the past decade clearly is towards a stronger

professionalization of both actors and approaches, especially with regard to the

provision of structured, elaborated and qualitatively weighted strategy concepts,

mechanisms, tools and instruments. Therefore, the challenge for Steinbeis in this

regard is to secure and even improve the quality of its services through the whole

portfolio. Here, one could think of the development of certification processes for the

SUs operating within the group, structured strategy impulses provided by headquarters,


which would act as a "think tank" in this regard, as well as of elaborated and advanced

central tools and instruments developed by headquarters or individual SUs to be

diffused into the group as a whole.

In sum, these challenges point to the fact that Steinbeis, like all other governance

systems, is a dynamically learning system, which is continuously adapting its

governance structures to current market developments and processes of structural

change. This is manifested in several processes of structural reform, which have

recently been undertaken to approach these challenges. In the two following sections,

therefore, two exemplary projects will be discussed, which explicitly intent to address

fragmentation and imbalance within the Steinbeis governance model.

5. Leveraging Expertise and Creating Platforms: The Steinbeis Enterprise

Competence Check

One of the projects with which Steinbeis faces fragmentation and imbalance is the

Steinbeis Enterprise Competence Check (UKC). The UKC is a tool for the software

based analysis of enterprise competences, mainly in the area of consultancy services

(Ortiz and Maurer 2014). It foremost addresses consultants within but also outside the

Steinbeis group. With this tool, on the one hand, Steinbeis headquarters for the first

time developes an own product to bring it to the market and diffuse it into the group.

While in the past some single SUs already worked with different tools and, therefore,

different approaches to analyze enterprise competences, with this tool, headquarters

now provide a framework in which activities in the field competence analysis within the

Steinbeis group can be systematically coordinated. Although this also contains some

elements of a centralization, the intention is foremost to create a platform to which

further, individual approaches and tools can be connected on a solid base. The aim is

to bring together all actors within the group concerned with this strategically important

topic of enterprise competences, creating with that an encompassing service supply in

the field.

Many important effects accompany this project. The first is that fragmented approaches

and tools for competence analysis within the group in the past led to confusion on

which approach would be the Steinbeis-approach and made it hard for both SUs and

customers to recognize which approach to use. With the UKC as a central platform,


there will be one single point of access to the expertise in the field of competence

analysis within the group easing with that the access to the group’s service portfolio.

Moreover, also the quality of the tools used so far in terms of both contents and

methods was not entirely satisfactory. The UKC, therefore, also contributes to a

substantial professionalization in the field of competence analysis by explicitly

addressing and overcoming these shortcomings. In addition, through providing this tool

to all SUs Steinbeis proliferates to the group a new and professionalized approach,

which, in its thematic scope, methodic elaborateness and analytical depth represents a

new level of service provision for a large number of SUs. That is why the introduction of

the tool will also be accompanied by intensive training activities in the use of the tool for

all the SUs willing to apply it. One could also think of a certification process at the end

of these trainings identifying SUs as certified UKC competence consultants or trainers.

With regard to fragmentation, the UKC will also be used as a networking tool. For each

of the eight thematic dimensions of enterprise competences differentiated by the tool

(Ortiz and Maurer 2014), one so called consulting group will be constituted, in which

experts for the respective fields will further develop application strategies, new and

more differentiated analysis tools, training curricula as well as business models. The

aim is to connect a substantial share of SUs around these eight dimensions, not only to

create topic specific pools of expertise within the group, but also to enhance networking

and collaboration among the SUs. This shall ease the accessibility of the Steinbeis

service portfolio for customers and external partners, as well as the scope and scale of

the provided services.

6. Regional Networking and Coordinated Transfer Activities: Joint Transfer

Corporations with Universities

A second project addressing the challenges of fragmentation and imbalance focuses

on the creation and management of joint transfer corporations with universities

(―Transfergesellschaften an den Hochschulen‖; H-Trans). Within this project, Steinbeis

creates new corporations together with universities at specific university locations

within Baden-Württemberg to better coordinate and bundle the activities of the SUs

around particular universities (Steinbeis 2013: 38). In this context, the H-Trans operate

like local roof-organizations at the universities under which all newly founded and many

established SUs at the respective universities are grouped. In this model, the


universities are involved as business partners, including revenues, while Steinbeis is

secured exclusivity rights in organizing the university’s transfer activities.

The effect is twofold: On the one hand, these corporations allow for a better

coordination of the transfer activities of the SUs on the local and regional level, and

therefore, to overcome fragmentation of transfer activities even within one and the

same university or region. In addition, also cooperation with the business sector is

eased, since the accessibility of the transfer services at the universities is relieved and

joint marketing activities can be realized. On the basis of joint events and conferences

intensified networking activities in spatial proximity are fostered, not only among SUs

and their customers and potential business partners, but also among the local SUs

themselves.

Through these coordination and networking processes, on the other hand, the H-Trans

might also allow for acquiring projects with a higher scope, both in terms of expertise

and resources. With the bundling effect, moreover, an intensified strategic orientation

and management of the single SUs is possible, with impulses coming from both

partners, the universities and Steinbeis headquarters. This allows for developing a

much more fitted supply of services and expertise by taking into account the

particularities of the respective regions. Altogether, a certain leverage effect can be

expected to result from these activities, helping to attenuate structures of imbalance

among the SUs within particular regions.

7. Conclusion

Altogether, it has been shown that particular knowledge and technology transfer

systems can be investigated on the basis of a heuristic governance model

differentiating between the six dimensions of social and economic governance: state,

market, organization, network, association and community. This model has then been

applied to the Steinbeis model of knowledge and technology transfer. As has been

demonstrated, this model is a specific institutional configuration in between atomistic

market competition and vertical organizational integration. In providing the

organizational framework for the highly diverse entrepreneurial activities of individual

SUs, it exercises an decisive function as business model incubator and market

laboratory in the regional and national innovation systems it is operating in. While the

model is certainly not characterized by state or association based dimensions of


governance, it indeed shows elements of network and community related structures

and mechanisms of governance, which might be to extend with regard to pending

reform processes in the light of current market developments.

As has been discussed, these challenges consist above all in the fragmentation of the

service portfolio offered by Steinbeis and in the imbalance of performance within the

group. Since the present and future market environment and technological

development requires more and more interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral and

encompassing expertise and solutions, as well as a continuously rising degree of

professionalization in service provision, Steinbeis has to move stronger than before

towards a strategic networking and coordination as well as towards a stronger

professionalization of its service portfolio and provision.

In facing these challenges, Steinbeis is recently undergoing an intensive reform

process. Two exemplary projects have been discussed in detail, which demonstrate the

direction these reform processes take: With the UKC a thematic platform will be

generated, which will bundle and coordinate competences within the group around the

thematic dimensions of the tool. Not only will this contribute to a stronger networking

and cooperation between single SUs within the group, the tool per se will also generally

leverage the service quality in the fields of competence development and business

consultancy. With the second project, the joint transfer corporations with universities

(H-Trans), Steinbeis is bundling its expertise and service portfolio on the local and

regional levels around particular university locations. The effect is a better strategic

coordination around the H-Trans allowing for service provision on a higher scope, scale

and quality.

In sum, Steinbeis has been discussed as a unique governance model still exercising a

strong attractiveness for both service suppliers and customers, as well as a model of

good practice in the field of knowledge and technology transfer. Its central

differentiating assets, like organizationally integrated entrepreneurial activities,

atomistic competition and fragmented service provision must, however, continuously be

reinvented and adapted to actual market developments. The discussed exemplary

projects are important elements of the corresponding reform processes, which are, yet,

much more encompassing than could be described within this paper and will affect

wider parts of the Steinbeis model.


However, the direction of these reform processes is already indicated by the two

presented project examples: The strong market dimension will surely be complemented

by stronger elements of organizational integration, especially with regard to central

strategy development, as would be a "think-tank-function" and fostered coordination

activities. As has been shown, the described challenges also imply a strengthening of

the model's network dimension, which, at the end, will require a certain cultural and

mental shift within the group from atomistic competition to reciprocity in cooperation.

But also the community dimension should be strengthened more than in the past. The

added value of belonging to a group of 1.000 agents in knowledge and technology

transfer under the roof of the highly renowned Steinbeis label could certainly be a good

basis for generating this community dimension, supplemented by a successful history

of transfer projects and a commonly shared philosophy and culture of free and

entrepreneurial transfer activities.

References:

Acs, Zoltan J., Felix R. Fitzroy and Ian Smith (1999): High Technology Employment, Wages and

University R&D Spillovers. Evidence from US Cities. In: R. Henderson and A. Jaffe (eds.): Economics of

Innovation and New Technology 8, Special Issue on R&D Spillovers: 57–78.

Archibugi, Daniele, Jeremy Howells and Jonathan Michie (1999): Innovation Systems in a Global

Economy. In: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 11 (4): 527–539.

Archibugi, Daniele and Simona Iammarino (2010): The Globalization of Technology and National

Policies. In: Archibugi, Daniele and Lundvall, Bengt-Åke (eds.): The Globalizing Learning Economy. Oxford

University Press, Oxford: 111–126.

Audretsch, David B. and Erik E. Lehmann (2005): Does the Knowledge Spillover Theory of

Entrepreneurship Hold for Regions? In: Research Policy 34: 1191–1202.

Auer, Michael (2007): Transferunternehmertum. Erfolgreiche Organisation des Technologietransfers.

Stuttgart: Steinbeis-Edition.

Beise, Marian, Georg Licht, Georg and Albrecht Spielkamp (1995): Technologietransfer an kleine und

mittlere Unternehmen, Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Braczyk, Hans-Joachim, Philip Cooke and Martin Heidenreich (eds.) (1998): Regional Innovation

Systems. London: UCL-Press.

Cooke, Philip, Martin Heidenreich and Hans-Joachim Braczyk (eds.) (2004): Regional Innovation

Systems (2nd edition). London; New York: Routledge.

Edquist, Charles (2005): Systems of Innovation. Perspectives and Challenges. In: Fagerberg, Jan, David

C. Mowery and Richard R. Nelson (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford/New York: Oxford

University Press.


Fuchs, Gerhard and Sandra Wassermann (2004): The Regional Innovation System of Baden-

Württemberg. Lock-In or Breakthrough? Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Risiko- und Nachhaltigkeitsforschung.

Stuttgart: Institut für Sozialwissenschaften; Abt. für Technik- und Umweltsoziologie; Universität Stuttgart.

Heidenreich, Martin and Gerhard Krauss (2004): The Production and Innovation Regime of Baden-

Württemberg. Between Past Successes and New Challenges. In: Cooke, Philip, Martin Heidenreich and

Hans-Joachim Braczyk (eds.): Regional Innovation Systems. The Role of Governance in a Globalized

World (2nd edition). London/New York: Routledge: 186–213.

Heidenreich, Martin (2001): Regionale Innovationssysteme. Zwischen Wandel und Beharrung. In: Fuchs,

Gerhard and Karin Töpsch (eds.): Baden-Württemberg—Erneuerung einer Industrieregion. Stuttgart:

Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung: 87–106.

Hollingsworth, J. Rogers, Philippe C. Schmitter and Wolfgang Streeck (1994): Governing Capitalist

Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Krauss, Gerhard (2009): Baden-Württemberg als Prototyp eines regionalen Innovationssystems. In:

Blättel-Mink, Birgit and Alexander Ebner: Innovationssysteme. Technologie, Institutionen und die Dynamik

der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Wiesbaden: VS.

Ortiz, Michael (2013): Varieties of Innovation Systems - The Governance of Knowledge Transfer in

Europe. Frankfurt/Main, New York: Campus.

Ortiz, Michael and Katharina Maurer (2014): Organisationale Fähigkeiten und ganzheitliche

Kompetenzmessung. Der Steinbeis Unternehmens-Kompetenzcheck. Stuttgart: Steinbeis Edition.

Ortiz, Michael (forthcoming 2015): Das Steinbeis-Modell des Technologietransfers in Baden-

Württemberg. In: Steinbeis Stiftung and BioPro Baden-Württemberg (Hg.): Best Practice im

Technologietransfer von Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart: Steinbeis Edition.

Scharpf, Fritz W. (2011): Monetary Union, Fiscal Crisis and the Preemption of Democracy. MPIfG

Discussion Paper 11/11. Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne.

Steinbeis-Stiftung (2014a): http://www.steinbeis.de/tta [last access: 2014-10-22].

Steinbeis-Stiftung (2014b): http://www.steinbeis.de [last access: 2014-10-22].

Steinbeis Stiftung (2013): Steinbeis 1983-2013. 30 Jahre. Stuttgart: Steinbeis Edition.

Steinbeis Stiftung (2009): Steinbeis 1983-2008. Stuttgart: Steinbeis Edition.

Streeck, Wolfgang (2013): Gekaufte Zeit. Die vertagte Krise des demokratischen Kapitalismus. Berlin:

Suhrkamp.

Streeck, Wolfgang (2004): Globalisierung. Mythos und Wirklichkeit. MPIfG Working Paper 04/4. Max

Planck Institute for the Study of Societies: Cologne.

Thommen, Jean-Paul and Ann-Kristin Achleitner (2012): Allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftslehre.

Umfassende Einführung aus managementorientierter Sicht. 7. Auflage. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Thommen, Jean-Paul (2003): Glaubwürdigkeit und Corporate Governance. Zürich: Versus

Voelzkow, Helmut, with Elbing, Sabine and Martin Schröder (2007): Jenseits nationaler

Produktionsmodelle? Die Governance regionaler Wirtschaftscluster. International vergleichende Analysen.

Marburg: Metropolis.

http://www.steinbeis.de/tta

http://www.steinbeis.de/

Documents

BDI Confederación de la Industria Alemana - reditiam.org · para PyMEs Fuente: Steinbeis, 2010 Innovation Partnership Germany ... Section three discusses the Steinbeis model of knowledge