Influence of STW funding on public-private knowledge …From the case analyses, conclusions can be made on how STW funded projects differ from and correspond to other collaborative

Eindhoven University of Technology

MASTER

Influence of STW funding on public-private knowledge transfer

Versteeg, D.W.

Award date:2007

Link to publication

DisclaimerThis document contains a student thesis (bachelor's or master's), as authored by a student at Eindhoven University of Technology. Studenttheses are made available in the TU/e repository upon obtaining the required degree. The grade received is not published on the documentas presented in the repository. The required complexity or quality of research of student theses may vary by program, and the requiredminimum study period may vary in duration.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

https://research.tue.nl/en/studentthesis/influence-of-stw-funding-on-publicprivate-knowledge-transfer(1246aca2-00ca-4570-9aec-66ec7ba552bf).html

Influence of STW funding on

public-private knowledge transfer

Dirk Versteeg

ii

iii

Influence of STW funding on public-

private knowledge transfer

Author: D.W.Versteeg

Student id: 489646

Date: 15th October 2007

Supervisors: dr. I.M. (Isabel) Bodas de Araújo Freitas

Technology & Policy


prof. dr. B. (Bart) Verspagen

Technology & Policy


mr. M.M.L. (Marjan) Konings

Head Legal Department, IP and Licensing

Technology Foundation STW

Master Technology & Policy

Faculty Technology Management


iv

v

Executive summary

This thesis focuses on the influence of funding by the Technology Foundation STW on public-private

collaborative R&D projects. While policy makers try to increase economic growth by the stimulation

of interaction between universities and industry, in-depth qualitative analyses of collaborative R&D

projects between universities and firms are still scarce. This thesis contributes to the innovation

debate in the Netherlands and provides more insight in the mechanisms of knowledge transfer

between universities and industry.

From an extensive literature review on collaborative R&D and the knowledge transfer between

universities and firms, the conclusion can be made that for effective knowledge transfer and

collaborative R&D many issues have to be dealt with. However, on many of these issues discussion

exists in literature about the best way to deal with the issues. It can be concluded that knowledge

transfer and collaborative R&D are diverse processes with no “one-size fits all approach”. For

example, the relative importance of patents as a knowledge transfer mechanism are disputable.

While under certain condition, patents can be used to transfer knowledge, drawbacks of patents can

be identified like the possible decrease of open science culture, blockade for further research, and a

potential decline of fundamental research. Besides the relative importance of mechanisms for

knowledge transfer, the characteristics of the university researchers, firms, knowledge and

disciplinary area have to be taken into account. Other issues are the motivations to perform

collaborative R&D, the source of funding, geographic proximity, intellectual property, experience

with collaborative R&D, involvement of university researchers, conflict of interests, mutual trust, and

the communication effectiveness.

For exploring the effects of STW’s policy on collaborative R&D, STW’s policy is described. STW

receives its budget from the ministry of Economic Affairs and the Dutch Organisation for Scientific

Research (NWO). STW’s mission is the stimulation and coordination of scientific research in the

Netherlands and the stimulation of knowledge transfer to the society, industry, and science groups.

STW’s mission is carried out by (sub) financing excellent scientific research with a clear focus on

utilisation. STW funds research on the boarder of fundamental and applied research, hence research

with high risks but also with possible high rewards. In order to stimulate knowledge transfer, it can

be stated that STW uses three different methods in their policy. First, in the decision procedure, STW

grants funds to research projects that by nature (in the character of the research) have high

possibilities to eventually be transferred and used by the industry. Second, (industrial) users are

involved in the user committee from the beginning of the project. The interaction between the firms

and the university researchers stimulates the knowledge transfer. Finally, STW’s knowledge trade

policy creates guidelines and sets conditions under which firms can make use of the created

knowledge.

To find the differences between STW and non-STW funded projects, six cases are analysed. Three

cases are STW funded projects and the other three cases are used as a control group and are not

funded by STW. To indicate any sector specific differences in collaborative R&D, the cases are within

three disciplinary areas: Biomedical engineering, Chemical engineering and Chemistry, and

Mechanical engineering.

From the case analyses, conclusions can be made on how STW funded projects differ from and

correspond to other collaborative R&D projects between universities and industry.

Several differences between STW cases and non-STW cases could be identified. First of all, the origin

of the research project differs in STW cases from non-STW cases. In most cases (STW and non-STW),

contact is made through personal networks but STW cases mainly originate from previous

(collaborative) research and non-STW cases are based on technological problems at firms.

vi

Furthermore, STW cases are more often multidisciplinary compared to non-STW cases, since

multiple research groups are involved. Another important difference between STW and non-STW

projects is the character of the knowledge involved. Although this difference is not directly observed

in the cases, it can be assumed that STW project are mainly fundamental with a clear applied aspect

and non-STW project are mostly applied.

STW’s framework sets guidelines, creates mutual trust, and deals with IPR stipulations which are

effective measures for the prevention of conflicts of interests and for the creation of mutual trust

(which both positively stimulates the knowledge transfer). In addition, more freedom is given to

university researchers in STW projects than on non-STW projects to determine the direction of the

research. A main difference between STW and non-STW cases is the use of a user committee. The

user committee seems to stimulate bi-directional knowledge transfer especially through informal

interaction between the members of the user committee.

Concerning the differences between STW and non-STW cases, it can be concluded that most

differences are resulting from the specific framework STW projects have to obey to (governmental

funding, user committee, and knowledge trade).

On some aspects however, STW and non-STW projects are common while some of these

commonalities were initially not expected. One of the unexpected commonalities is the degree of

adoption of research results. Since STW highly values the utilisation of research results, a difference

in the degree of adoption of research results could be expected between STW and non-STW projects.

The expectation that the results of STW projects would be more utilized was however not found in

the case data. Furthermore, no specific university motivations could be found to apply for STW

grants and in overall, the same knowledge transfer mechanisms are used in STW as non-STW

projects. Only one small difference can be identified in the knowledge transfer mechanisms used; it

seems that informal interaction is more important as a knowledge transfer mechanism in STW cases

than in non-STW cases.

Since the STW cases would not have occurred without STW funding and STW’s framework creates a

setting which positively influences knowledge transfer, it can be concluded in general that STW’s

current policy positively stimulates knowledge transfer through collaborative R&D projects. So it

seems that STW is (more or less) effective in its operations. However, there are some

recommendations for STW, resulting from the findings in this thesis. First of all, STW’s knowledge

trade policy could lead to tension between firms and STW, especially with large firms. STW could

consider revising their knowledge trade policy, based on the debate in the literature about the

effectiveness of patents for knowledge transfer. More research needs to be performed on STW’s

knowledge trade policy to give effective recommendations. Furthermore, STW should constantly be

aware of the developments in the debate on the theoretical issues concerning knowledge transfer

and collaborative R&D and possibly adapt their policy to meet these developments.

vii

Preface

The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page

~

Saint Augustine (AD 354-430)

In May 2006, I started with my Master thesis, performing research on IT-possibilities in hospitals in

developing countries. For three months I was working on this project at a company in Utrecht until I

finally decided that this project might get disastrous if I continued it. The biggest obstacle was the

fact that the company and the university had to collaborate with each other. Unfortunately, the goals

of the firm and the goals of the university led to conflicts of interests. Looking back at those 3 months,

now (after finishing this thesis) I can identify what went wrong. A lack of interaction and

communication between the university supervisors and the firm supervisors led to

misunderstandings and tension. Furthermore, no clear framework was set at the beginning of the

project on how I should perform my research and under which conditions. Hence, the conditions

under which universities and firm should cooperate are very important for the success of the

collaboration.

The failure of my first attempt on my Master thesis triggered me to perform research on industry-

science relationships. I got in contact with Isabel who is performing research on the diversity of

knowledge transfer in public-private knowledge networks in the Netherlands. Finally in December

2006, after performing a broad literature review I finished my research proposal and started

gathering the case data I needed. During the gathering of the data I performed many interviews with

university- and firm researchers. Those interviews motivated me, since everybody pointed out the

importance and relevance of research on knowledge transfer between universities and firms. Other

motivations that kept me going were the joy of performing my research at the “k-gang”. I would like

to thank Annemiek for her pep-talks and brainstorm sessions in “k-4”. Furthermore I would like to

thank Hans, Jurjen, Chiel and Daniel for the Friday afternoon poker session in the “k-gang”.

In June 2007, I gathered most of the data. At that time, my girlfriend finished her Msc thesis and we

planned to make a 4 months trip to South America, leaving on the 22nd of October. Therefore, I made

a strict planning which made it possible to present my thesis for you today. But not only hard work

and strict planning helped me to finish my thesis before our plain left to South America. I would like

to thank the interviewees and Marjan Konings from STW. Furthermore, I would like to express my

gratitude to Bart and especially to Isabel for her quick reactions every time I sent here a part of my

thesis. She was able to give comments within one hour, even during her holiday!

But most of my thanks go out to my girlfriend Eva. During times I was blinded by my own words, she

helped me to keep on track and stay focused. I want to say that it would have been hard to finish in

time without her…. Thank you!

Dirk Versteeg

Eindhoven, October 2007

viii

Table of contents

Executive summary......................................................................................................................................................................v Preface ............................................................................................................................................................................................vii Table of contents.......................................................................................................................................................................viii

List of figures..............................................................................................................................................................................x List of tables................................................................................................................................................................................x List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................. xi

1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Research objective and question ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Research boundaries............................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Research design and methodology ................................................................................................................... 3

2 Theoretical framework.................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Knowledge transfer in Industry Science Relationships ........................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Knowledge transfer means .......................................................................................................................... 5 Relative importance of mechanisms for knowledge transfer .................................................................... 8

2.1.2 Patents as a mechanism for knowledge transfer................................................................................ 8 How are university patents used....................................................................................................................... 8 Propensity to patent..............................................................................................................................................10

2.1.3 Other factors influencing knowledge transfer...................................................................................11 Firm characteristics....................................................................................................................................................11 Knowledge characteristics ......................................................................................................................................12 Characteristics of university researcher ...........................................................................................................12 Disciplinary area..........................................................................................................................................................12

2.2 Collaborative R&D..................................................................................................................................................13 2.2.1 Motives for collaborative R&D .................................................................................................................13 2.2.2 Propensity to collaborate on R&D...........................................................................................................14 2.2.3 Execution of collaborative R&D ...............................................................................................................15

Source of funding....................................................................................................................................................15 Geographic proximity ...........................................................................................................................................17 Intellectual property rights................................................................................................................................17 Experience with collaborative R&D................................................................................................................18 University researcher involvement ................................................................................................................18 Conflict of interest..................................................................................................................................................18 Mutual trust ..............................................................................................................................................................19 Communication effectiveness ...........................................................................................................................19

2.3 Summary & conclusion ........................................................................................................................................20 3 Technology Foundation STW......................................................................................................................................25

3.1 STW’s history ...........................................................................................................................................................25 3.2 STW in the Dutch National Innovation System..........................................................................................26

3.2.1 Dutch innovation policy ..............................................................................................................................26 3.2.2 STW in the Dutch NIS ...................................................................................................................................28

3.3 STW’s policy..............................................................................................................................................................30 3.3.1 Mission and vision of STW .........................................................................................................................30 3.3.2 STW’s activities ...............................................................................................................................................31 3.3.3 Applicants..........................................................................................................................................................33 3.3.4 Project execution............................................................................................................................................33

ix

Decision procedure................................................................................................................................................34 STW user committee.............................................................................................................................................34

3.3.5 STW’s knowledge trade policy .................................................................................................................35 Results from STW’s knowledge trade policy ..............................................................................................37

3.4 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................40 4 STW’s policy confronted with theory ......................................................................................................................41

4.1 STW analysis.............................................................................................................................................................41 4.2 Hypotheses & summary.......................................................................................................................................47

5 Case descriptions..............................................................................................................................................................53 5.1 Research method ....................................................................................................................................................53 5.2 Case summaries.......................................................................................................................................................56

Case 1 – STW: Flow measurement in the coronary artery ........................................................................56 Case 2 – STW: Improvement of the slurry bubble column reactor performance............................57 Case 3 – STW: Air film cooling through laser drilled nozzles...................................................................58 Case 1 – non STW: Mechanical characterization of the coronary artery............................................59 Case 2 – non STW: Rare earth activated-(oxy) nitride materials for LED applications ...............60 Case 3 – non STW: Supervisory control of complex manufacturing machines.................................61

6 Research results................................................................................................................................................................63 6.1 Case analyses............................................................................................................................................................63

Financing....................................................................................................................................................................65 Characteristics of parties involved..................................................................................................................66 Motivations................................................................................................................................................................67 Character of research............................................................................................................................................69 Project execution ....................................................................................................................................................71 Knowledge transfer mechanisms ....................................................................................................................72 Patents.........................................................................................................................................................................73 Results .........................................................................................................................................................................75 Conflicts ......................................................................................................................................................................76

6.2 Conclusions & discussion....................................................................................................................................77 7 Findings and discussion ................................................................................................................................................83

7.1 Main findings............................................................................................................................................................83 7.2 Implications for STW ............................................................................................................................................84 7.3 Discussion..................................................................................................................................................................85 7.4 Recommendations for further research .......................................................................................................86

8 References ...........................................................................................................................................................................87 Appendix A....................................................................................................................................................................................95 Appendix B....................................................................................................................................................................................96 Appendix C.................................................................................................................................................................................100 Appendix D.................................................................................................................................................................................101 Appendix E.................................................................................................................................................................................102 Appendix F .................................................................................................................................................................................104

x

List of figures

Figure 1: Schematical representation of research boundary.................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Research framework............................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Patents by Broad Fields in the U.S. (Henderson et al., 1998) ..............................................................10 Figure 4: Investments in R&D at the Dutch universities in 2006 (www.nwo.nl)...........................................16 Figure 5: Organisational chart of the innovation governance system (adapted from: van Giessel et al.,

2007). ..............................................................................................................................................................................................28 Figure 6: Objectives and activities of STW (adapted from Bodewes et al., 2006)..........................................30 Figure 7: Positioning of STW (Boots, 2006). ..................................................................................................................31 Figure 8: STW’s activities .......................................................................................................................................................32 Figure 9: Patents filed during STW projects (source: STW annual reports and utilisation reports).....37 Figure 10: Amount of patents per project from 1992 – 2000 (source: STW annual reports and

utilisation reports) ....................................................................................................................................................................37 Figure 11: Amount of patents transferred and licences given (source: STW annual reports and

utilisation reports) ....................................................................................................................................................................38 Figure 12: Yearly patent revenues......................................................................................................................................39 Figure 13: Patents dropped and portfolio mutation...................................................................................................39 Figure 14: main disciplinary areas in STW projects (adopted from Bodewes et al., 2006).......................45

List of tables

Table 1: Different categories and forms of university-industry knowledge transfer (Adopted from

Bongers et al., 2003). .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Table 2: Issues concerning knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D............................................................20 Table 3: Minimal required co financing under a certain project scale (STW, 2007) ....................................33 Table 4: Annual exploitation degree of STW patents (STW utilisation report, 2006) .................................38 Table 5: Summary of STW’s policy .....................................................................................................................................40 Table 6: Summary of theoretical framework, confronted with STW’s policy..................................................49 Table 7: Case overview............................................................................................................................................................54 Table 8: Protocol subjects ......................................................................................................................................................55 Table 10: Motivations to perform collaborative R&D ................................................................................................68 Table 12: Main knowledge transfer mechanisms in the cases ...............................................................................72 Table 13: Summary of theoretical framework, confronted with case results..................................................79 Table 14: List of research institutes that can apply for STW grants (STW, 2004).........................................95 Table 15 : clasification of disciplinary areas for STW evaluation (Bodewes et al., 2006) .......................100 Table 16: Case comparison table......................................................................................................................................101

xi

List of abbreviations

AER General Energy Counsel

AWT Advisory Council for Science and Technology Policy

STW Foundation for Science and Technology

EZ Ministry of Economic Affairs

CWTI Committee on Science, Technology and Information Policy

DLO Agricultural Research Institute

DPI Dutch Polymer Institute

ECN Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands

KNAW Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

MARIN Maritime Research Institute Netherlands

NIMR Netherlands Institute for Metals Research

NLR National Aerospace Laboratory

NWO Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research

OCW Ministry of Education, Culture and Science

OR Education Counsel

OTP Open Technology Programme

RMO Counsel for Societal Development

RVW Counsel for Transport and Water Management

RWTI Counsel on Science, Technology and Information Policy

SER Social Economic Counsel

TI Pharma Top Institute Pharma

TNO Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research

WRR Scientific Counsel for Government Policy

WUR Wageningen University and Research centre

xii

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The creation and application of new knowledge is the primary factor that drives economic growth

and universities are an important source for the creation of this new knowledge (Agrawal, 2001). In

recent years, academics and policy makers have given much attention to the role of universities in

the production of economically useful knowledge (Crespi et al., 2007). It is commonly accepted that

the knowledge transfer from universities to the industry is beneficial to innovation and economic

growth (Shane, 2004; Mowery et al., 2001; Agrawal, 2001; Rosenberg & Nelson, 1994; Henderson et

al., 1998). Hence, without effective knowledge flow from universities to industry, economic growth

can be seriously hampered.

Effective interaction between universities and industry is important for the creation of an efficient

innovation system and a competing knowledge economy (Bongers et al., 2003). In particular,

collaborative R&D activities between universities and firms have been acknowledged as an efficient

channel to to transfer knowledge. Moreover, R&D collaboration between university and industry was

recently listed as one of the six priorities for European universities (European Commission, 2003).

Hence, not surprisingly, several authors have argued that research cooperation between universities

and firms has intensified the last decade (Belderbos et al., 2004a; Caloghirou et al., 2003; Hall et al.,

2001). However, in-depth analyses of how public funded and non-funded collaborative research

between university and industry function have not been done yet.

The need for stimulation of collaborative R&D was already identified in 1979, when the Dutch

government introduced the innovation White Paper. In this paper a problem was identified which is

also known as the "European Paradox": Europe performs well in scientific research, but is bad in

commercializing the results of the research (European Commission, 1995). Or, as stated by Bongers

et al. (2003): There is an impressive quantity and quality in public R&D, but at the same time there is

a less impressive performance in terms of innovation in the private sector. The European paradox is

the starting point for a number of activities that aim at the valorisation of research results. For

example, strengthening the societal role of the universities, adapting their funding model, and

stimulating the university patent policy (van Giessel et al., 2007).

One of the actions to stimulate the collaborative R&D between universities and industry in the

Netherlands was the creation of the Technology Foundation STW in 1981 (www.stw.nl). The

Technology Foundation STW funds cooperative research between industry and universities in order

to stimulate technical scientific research and its utilisation, as well as to encourage public private

knowledge transfer. The goal of STW is to bring public and private organisations together into

cooperative research arrangements, which can result in practical applicable results with patentable

value (www.stw.nl). Compared to other collaborative projects, the STW funded projects need to obey

to a specific framework, mainly characterised by three aspects. First, the project is financed by the

STW with public money. Second, a user committee is established in which there is an interaction

between the research team and potential industrial users. Third, the STW has a specific knowledge

transfer policy regarding intellectual property.

Even tough the European Paradox was already identified in the Netherlands in 1979 by the Dutch

government, the issue is still high on the political agenda (www.government.nl). This attention is

given since there is still inadequate interaction between universities and industry in the Netherlands

(OECD, 2003). To realize an innovation driven economic growth, the Cabinet Balkenende II launched

an Innovation White paper in 2003 called “the Innovation Letter - Action for Innovation: Raising the

2

Dutch knowledge economy to a leading position in Europe” (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2003). In

this innovation letter, special attention is given to the stimulation of collaborative R&D, partly

through the activities of STW.

In spite of these regulatory actions, National innovation policy makers are still in debate about

creating a policy which can solve the European Paradox. It is even questioned if Dutch policy should

introduce a policy partly similar to aspects of the U.S. innovation policy to stimulate universities to be

more entrepreneurial (www.minocw.nl). However, the effect of the U.S. innovation policy in the U.S.

is disputable (Mowery et al., 2001).

Since in-depth analyses of how public funded and non-funded collaborative research between

university and industry is scarce, more insight will be provided for policy makers when STW funded

collaborative R&D projects are analyzed in detail. This research will contribute to the innovation

policy debate in the Netherlands.

1.2 Research objective and question

In this thesis, the objective is to explore the effects of the STW framework on collaborative R&D

projects between universities and industry. By analyzing STW projects and non-STW projects, a

better understanding is obtained about the effects of STW’s policy on collaborative R&D projects

between universities and industry. Special attention will be given in this analysis to the effects of

STW’s policy on knowledge transfer. The main question in this thesis is:

By analyzing empirically the development and transfer of knowledge generated by STW funded

projects, this thesis will contribute to the innovation policy debate in the Netherlands and will

provide more insight in the mechanisms of knowledge transfer between universities and industry.

1.3 Research boundaries

This thesis is bounded on two different areas. One concerning the cases chosen and the other

concerning the literature regarded in this thesis.

Due to time limitations, the findings of this thesis are based on six cases. In all cases, the Eindhoven

University of Technology (TU/e) collaborated with (one or more) firms. By limiting the public actor

in the collaborative R&D projects to be the TU/e, certainty is created that university researchers

could be easily contacted for cooperation on this thesis. Three different disciplinary areas are chosen

for the cases since according to some authors, the degree and mechanisms of knowledge transfer

may differ per disciplinary area (Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch, 1998). These are Biomedical

engineering, Chemical Engineering and Chemistry, and Mechanical Engineering. By selecting three

different sectors, sector specific biases are eliminated.

Because of the extensive literature about knowledge transfer in general and collaborative R&D in

general, the theoretical framework is bounded to collaborative R&D between universities and

industry and the knowledge transfer between universities and industry in general. This can be

explained by figure 1. Collaborative R&D can occur in different forms. To generate R&D and to pool

resources in pursuit of a shared R&D objective, cooperative arrangements (partnerships) can be

made engaging companies, universities, and government agencies and laboratories in various

combinations (Hagedoorn et al., 2000). In the literature, extensive attention is given to these general

How do STW funded projects differ from other collaborative R&D projects between universities and

industry?

3

knowledge transfer mechanisms. The overlapping mechanisms to transfer knowledge (between

industries, between universities, or between industry and universities) are represented by the outer

layer in the schematical representation of the research boundaries in figure 1. In this thesis, the

knowledge transfer mechanisms are narrowed down to public-private relationships which are

relationships between public research organisations (like universities) and firms; also called

Industry Science Relationships (ISR) (Bongers et al., 2003). ISR comprises all types of relationships

between universities and the industry and are represented by the middle layer of figure 1. In this

thesis, special attention is given to collaborative R&D. Collaborative R&D can be defined as public-

private R&D partnerships to generate knowledge transfer. Any project in which a university

collaborates with a firm(s) by means of R&D can be seen as a collaborative R&D project. Since the

focus of this thesis is on knowledge transfer during collaborative R&D the focus is on the inner layer

of figure 1. Issues related to knowledge transfer in ISR however, can also apply for collaborative R&D.

Therefore, the theoretical framework comprises the issues related to knowledge transfer in ISR and

the issues related to knowledge transfer in collaborative R&D.

Figure 1: Schematical representation of research boundary

1.4 Research design and methodology

To answer the question how STW funded projects differ from other collaborative R&D projects

between universities and industry the framework as presented in figure 2 is used. First, in chapter 2

a theoretical framework is presented, based on an extensive literature review, in which the different

theories about knowledge transfer in general and knowledge transfer during collaborative R&D are

analyzed. This framework is used as a guideline when confronting the theory with practical

situations.

Besides the theoretical background of knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D, information is

gathered about the Technology Foundation STW in chapter 3. This chapter gives a widespread

overview of STW’s policy to get a clear picture of how STW stimulates collaborative R&D and

knowledge transfer. Chapter 3 is based on interviews, annual reports, documentation on the Internet,

and on evaluation reports. By confronting STW’s policy with the theoretical framework in chapter 4,

STW’s policy in relation to knowledge transfer in collaborative R&D is hypothesized.

To empirically test how STW funded collaborative R&D projects differ from non-STW projects, six

case studies are done on STW projects (3 cases) and non-STW projects (3 cases). These six cases are

selected on certain criteria. First, the cases should incorporate collaborative R&D projects and

Knowledge transfer

Industry Science Relationships (ISR)

Public-private collaborative R&D

4

second, the technology foundation STW needs to be involved in three of the six cases. The three non-

STW cases are used as a control group to be able to indicate any specific factors that distinguish

STW-projects. A brief summary of these cases and the methodology how case data are gathered is

given in chapter 5. An extensive summary of the cases are presented in Appendix F, but remain

confidential.

Finally in chapter 6, the cases are thoroughly analyzed. The differences between STW and non-STW

cases are summarized and confronted with the theoretical framework and the hypotheses from

STW’s policy. The conclusions of the case analysis give an answer to the research question.

The main findings in this thesis are summarized in chapter 7 which also includes the implications for

STW, a discussion about the limitations of this thesis, and further research recommendations.

Figure 2: Research framework

5

2 Theoretical framework

In this chapter, a theoretical framework is presented which elaborates on knowledge transfer and

collaborative research & development (R&D). The goal is to explore the theory concerning

knowledge transfer in Industry Science Relationships (ISRs) and specific theories of knowledge

transfer during collaborative R&D between universities and the industry.

In section 2.1, the knowledge transfer issues in ISRs are discussed (middle layer of figure 1). The

different knowledge transfer mechanisms in ISRs are elaborated in section 2.1.1 together with a

description of the debate in the literature on the relative importance of the knowledge transfer

issues. Because STW empathizes patents as a mean of knowledge transfer, special attention will be

given to this mean of knowledge transfer in section 2.1.2. Besides the mechanism of knowledge

transfer, there are some other factors that influence the knowledge transfer in ISR. These are further

elaborated in section 2.1.3.

The issues discussed in section 2.1 can occur during collaborative R&D but can also occur in other

forms of ISR. Therefore in Section 2.2 the knowledge transfer in a specific situation is discussed;

during collaborative R&D (inner layer of figure 1).

Finally, all main issues concerning knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D are summarized in a

list in section 2.3 . These issues of knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D will be confronted with

STW's policy in chapter 4 and with six case studies in chapter 6. In section 2.3, also conclusions are

concerning the theory about knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D and its potential relation to

STW.

2.1 Knowledge transfer in Industry Science Relationships

2.1.1 Knowledge transfer means

Bongers et al. (2003) has identified different means of knowledge transfer between universities and

the industry (see table 1). In this paragraph, the different mechanisms are briefly explained.

Table 1: Different categories and forms of university-industry knowledge transfer (Adopted from

Bongers et al., 2003).

Knowledge Transfer Mechanisms

Mobility of people

Graduates

Mobility from public knowledge institutes to

industry

Mobility from industry to public knowledge

institutes

Mobility between public knowledge institutes

Trainees

Double appointments

Temporarily exchange of personnel

Cooperation in R&D

Joint R&D projects

Presentation of research (vice versa)

Supervision of a trainee or Ph.D. student

Financing of Ph.D. research

Sponsoring of research

6

Contract research and consultancy

Contract research

consultancy

Cooperation in education

Contract education or training

Retraining of employees

Working students

Giving information to students

Influencing curriculum of university programs

Providing scholarships

Sponsoring of education

Intellectual Property Rights

Apply for patents

Information via patents

Co-patenting

Emitting licenses

Acquire licenses

Copyright and other forms of intellectual

property

Spin-offs and entrepreneurship

Spin-offs

Start ups

Incubators at universities

Stimulating entrepreneurship

Sharing of facilities

Shared laboratories

Common use of machines (vice versa)

Common location or building (science parks)

Purchase of prototypes (vice versa)

Publications

Scientific publications of companies

Co-publications

Consulting of publications

Participation in conference professional

networks & boards

Participation in conferences

Participation in fairs

Exchange in professional organizations

Participation in boards of knowledge

institutions

Participation in governmental organizations

Other informal contacts / networks

Networks based on friendship

Alumni societies

Other boards

7

Contract research and consultancy

In contract research, research is done at the university under the contract of the industry.

Universities and firms collaborate in the sense that firms outsource their research by contract.

Contract research is primarily a one-directional knowledge export from universities (Meyer-

Krahmer & Schmoch, 1998). Besides contract research, knowledge can be transferred through

consultancy. Providing consultancy (under contract or not) by university researchers to firms is

considered an important mechanism of knowledge transfer (Cohen et al., 2002).

Cooperation in education

While education is the core-business of universities, industry employees can be educated by

universities. Also, courses can be given by the industry at the university so that the university can

stay in touch with the latest developments in the industry (Bongers et al., 2003).

Intellectual property rights

Like publications, patents are a way to transfer codified knowledge (Verspagen, 2006). Information

provided by patents can be used when licenses are given. Knowledge transfer can also occur through

co-patenting. Since knowledge transfer through patents is one of the objectives of STW (see chapter

3), more detailed information about this form of knowledge transfer is given in section 2.1.2.

Spin-offs and entrepreneurship

Spin-offs are new commercial companies capitalizing knowledge that has been created at public

institutes or companies. Knowledge created at universities can be used for commercial purposes

when spin-offs are created, based on this knowledge. An intensive contact between the spin-off and

its “parent” university, may positively contribute to the successful development of the invention and

hence a wider diffusion of new technological knowledge (Bekkers et al., 2006). University

researchers are seen as entrepreneurs when they actively try to commercialize knowledge and start

up spin-offs. By stimulating this entrepreneurship, knowledge flow can be stimulated.

Sharing of facilities

Laboratories, machines, or buildings can be shared between universities and firms. This shared use

of research infrastructure can generate knowledge transfer while both university researchers and

industry researchers are working within the same infrastructure (Bongers et al., 2003).

Publications

Publications and patents are seen as the most important form to transfer codified knowledge (Narin

et al. 1997). Scientific research results are made public by publications. Firms can use the codified

knowledge in scientific publications for their own use. Using publications as a knowledge transfer

mean implicates that companies must have the absorptive capacity to use the knowledge and

translate the generic knowledge to specific applications for their own use (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).

Participation in conferences, professional networks & boards

Participating in conferences enables academic researchers to get in contact with specialists, from

universities as well as from the industry. Knowledge can be transferred through these informal

meetings. A social network of people within a certain field of science can be created (Bongers et al.,

2003).

Other informal contacts / networks

Social networks of academics (alumni societies) or between academics and the industry are accepted

as a well-known form of informal knowledge transfer. Contact between universities and industry

often originates from personal networks (Bongers et al., 2003).

8

Relative importance of mechanisms for knowledge transfer

The knowledge transfer mechanisms as identified by Bongers et al. (2003) are not equally rated as

important. In the literature, discussion exists about the relative importance of the different

knowledge transfer mechanisms. It should be noticed that no single mechanism is optimal and that

the knowledge transfer mechanisms are complementary (Bongers et al., 2003).

Many authors agree that scientific publications can be seen as one of the most important mechanisms

for knowledge transfer (Cohen et al., 2002; Gibbons & Johnston, 2000; Argrawal & Henderson, 2002).

Besides publications, interaction between firms and university researchers, like conferences and

consulting, is mentioned as an important mechanism (Cohen et al., 2002; Argrwal & Henderson,

2002; Gibbons & Johnston, 2000). The informal contact between scientists and engineers working in

the private and university sectors are seen as the most important form of interaction to facilitate

knowledge transfer (Crespi et al., 2007). A third important mechanism is labour mobility. Zucker et

al. (1998) point out the importance of so-called "star-scientists" for the knowledge transfer, who acts

as principals, employees or consultants for firms. A final important mechanism for knowledge

transfer as stated in the literature is formal collaboration (Monjon & Waelbroeck, 2003). They argue

that formal collaboration result in spillovers like informal meetings, publications and conferences.

The relative importance of patents as a mean of knowledge transfer is disputable. Some authors

indicate patenting and licensing as unimportant means for the transfer of knowledge (Cohen et al.,

2002; Argrawal & Henderson, 2002). On the other hand, Narin et al. (1997) argue that codified

output like patents are the main mechanisms for knowledge transfer. More attention on this debate

is given in the following section.

2.1.2 Patents as a mechanism for knowledge transfer

In this section, more information is given on patents as a mechanism for knowledge transfer. This

knowledge transfer mechanism receives more attention in this chapter because STW emphasises

patents as a mean for knowledge transfer (more information on STW will be given in chapter 3). The

exploration of patents as a mean for knowledge transfer is based on the extensive literature about

university patents. Most information is adapted from the U.S. situation. The U.S. can be considered as

the benchmark in the field of industry-science relations, so these factors can also play a significant

role in the Dutch setting (Bekkers et al, 2006). First is explained how (university) patents can be used

for knowledge transfer. Second, more information is given about the propensity for universities to

patent.

How are university patents used

Patents can be used in several ways to transfer knowledge from universities to industry. First,

university patents can create awareness of commercially useful research results in universities;

patented knowledge may take the form of ‘idea-creating’ knowledge spillovers. By codifying the

knowledge that is created by universities into patents, firms can be triggered to commercialise the

university invention (Verspagen, 2006). Another approach that describes patents as a mean for

knowledge transfer is based on the concept of embryonic inventions. Basic research done at

universities can generate embryonic inventions (Jensen & Thursby, 2001) that require more

extensive research investment to reach commercial viability (Bercovitz & Feldmann, 2006). Firms

might only make these investments if a certain guarantee is given that the firm will earn its

investments back. If the university would hold a patent for the embryonic invention, an exclusive

license can be given to the firm that is willing to invest the resources needed to bring the invention

into practice. By providing an exclusive license, the firm has a guaranteed monopoly and it can earn

its investments back without having any competition (Shane, 2004; Colyvas et al., 2002; Berger,

2001). The theory declares that knowledge transfer would not occur without a university patent that

provides protection and so the embryonic invention would not come into practice (Verspagen, 2006).

9

However, university patents can only stimulate knowledge transfer when the development costs of

the embryonic invention are non-trival and the additional R&D work that is necessary to develop the

university discovery cannot be patented separately (Verspagen, 2006). If the extra development

costs are low, many firms can adopt the embryonic invention and university patents are not needed

to generate the knowledge transfer. Also when firms can apply for patents for the additional

research, the university patent does not give the needed protection because the patents granted for

the additional research are sufficient for protection. Besides the difficulty to determine the costs of

the additional R&D work, it is also difficult to determine the value of the intellectual property in

advance. Therefore, the ability of individual scientists to appropriate the value of intellectual

property rights is one important factor that may affect knowledge transfer outcomes (Bercovitz &

Feldmann, 2006).

Discussion exists about the effectiveness of university patents. Colyvas et al. (2002) performed 11

case studies to get a better understanding of the role of patents in university knowledge transfer.

They concluded that patents and exclusive licenses were unimportant for the transfer of the

inventions that were basically ready to use. The patents allowed the universities to generate

revenues but did not stimulate the knowledge transfer. In the cases where embryonic inventions

were involved, patenting did play a significant role for knowledge transfer.

When exclusive licenses are given to firms to provide a monopoly, a drawback arises. It is difficult to

choose the proper licensee ex ante (Colyvas et al., 2002). In addition, Jensen and Thursby (2001)

conclude that the cooperation of the inventor of an embryonic invention should be considered when

an exclusive license is given to a firm to generate successful knowledge transfer (Jensen & Thursby,

2001). Firms are otherwise not able to adopt the tacit knowledge associated with embryonic

inventions.

The literature also points to potentially negative effects of patents as a knowledge transfer

mechanism (Geuna & Nesta, 2006; Verspagen, 2006; Mowery et al, 2001). In a literature review done

by Verspagen (2006), the disadvantages of university patents can be categorized under three broad

topics. First, university patents have an impact on the "culture of open science". Scientific research is

build upon the sharing of data and discussion between researchers. However, patents are intended to

protect the knowledge and knowledge that is patented will not be published. In addition, when

patents and their potential financial rewards are an important research aim, researchers may feel

tempted to operate in a competitive mode, instead of in the cooperative mode that characterizes the

open culture of science (Verspagen, 2006). Secondly, patents may block potential future research.

When basic research is patented, it is not able for other researchers to build on this research.

Especially where progress on a certain area is mainly cumulative, patents can block the scientific

progress (Verspagen, 2006). Finally, a third disadvantage of university patents is related to the

strategic behaviour of universities. Universities would become too "entrepreneurial" which might

affect the amount of fundamental research done at a university in favour of more applied research

instead of basic research. Patenting may cause universities to behave more like firms, and hence,

important synergies between universities and firms would disappear (Verspagen, 2006).

The negative effects of university patents can be strongly related to the conflict of interests that can

occur when universities and firms are collaborating on R&D. Conflicts of interest occur since the

objective of universities is to make research results public through publications, in order to create

the opportunity for an open discussion among colleagues. Companies on the other hand, have a

responsibility for, and a need to, protect (possibly with patents) the value of their investments. This

conflict of interests and its relation to patents is further elaborated in section 2.2.

10

Propensity to patent

During the 1980s and 1990s universities’ activity in patenting and licensing raised enormously in the

U.S. (Mowery et al., 2001). The propensity to patent at universities has been rising significantly, while

at the same time the overall propensity to patent has been falling (Henderson et al., 1998). Various

factors can be identified that influence the university propensity to patent.

The first factor is a government policy factor. In the literature, a lot of attention is given to the

relationship between this rise in patenting activity and the US. Bayh-Dole Act. The Bayh-Dole Act,

passed in 1980, lowered the barrier for universities to patent an innovation by instituting a uniform

patent policy and removing many restrictions on licensing. Hence, universities were allowed to file

patents and to gain revenues from these patents (Mowery et al., 2001; Henderson et al., 1998; Siegel

et al., 2003; Hall, 2004). However, it is also stated that the effect of Bayh-Dole is very little, given the

fact that the rise in patenting and licensing activity started before the passage of the Bayh-Dole act

(Nelson, 2001; Mowery et al, 2001). Still some scholars indicate that the effect of the Bayh-Dole Act is

underestimated and should be reconsidered (Shane, 2004).

Besides government policy, a second factor can be identified. The increase in patenting and licensing

at universities in the U.S. can be associated with the rise and maturation of new technology fields

with significant commercial value like biotechnology and computer science (Goldfarb & Colyvas,

2004; Colyvas et al., 2002; Mowery et al., 2001; Nelson, 2001; Henderson et al, 1998). This implies

that the universities’ propensity to patent is sector specific (Henderson et al., 1998; Mowery et al.,

2001; Owen-Smith & Powell, 2001). It can be seen from figure 3 that universities in the U.S. patent

more in drugs, medical and chemical fields than in the technological fields of electronic and

mechanical. In Europe, universities patent mostly in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals (Geuna &

Nesta, 2006).

Figure 3: Patents by Broad Fields in the U.S. (Henderson et al., 1998)

A third factor that influences the propensity to patent is faculty perception about university patents

(Owen-Smith & Powell, 2001; Thursby & Thursby, 2002). Argyres and Liebeskind (1998) confirm the

important role of the faculty policy regarding knowledge transfer. Related policies generally involve

two types of parameters: those that restrict the degree to which intellectual property created by

university-employed professors may be controlled for commercial purposes, and those that create

incentives (or disincentives) for professors to engage in activities associated with the

commercialization of their research by way of patenting (Agrawal, 2001). According to research done

11

by Siegel et al. (2003), one of the most critical factors that influences the propensity to patent at

universities is the faculty reward system (Siegel et al., 2003). Thursby & Thursby (2002) conclude

that the propensity to patent is linked to the individual scientist’s propensity to patent and firm’s

propensity to outsource R&D by licensing. The propensity for a university scientist to patent

however, is related to the reward from licensing and faculty perception (Link et al., 2003).

The establishment of Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) at universities also contributes to the

perception about university patents (Henderson et al., 1998). TTOs facilitate technological diffusion

through licensing to industry (Siegel et al., 2003).

Other factors that could stimulate university patents are the prevention of “pirating” of university

inventions, quality control of the application of university research and raising awareness of

commercially useful research (Verspagen, 2006). Pirating means that opportunistic firms can patent

inventions, made public by universities. Quality control is reached when the university can control

(by giving a license) which company develops the discovery further. Commercial patents can trigger

researchers to perform useful research with commercial value (Verspagen, 2006).

A final major factor that influences the propensity to patent is a financial factor. Enhancing university

revenues by licensing is an important objective of universities in their patenting and licensing

policies (Colyvas et al., 2002; Jensen & Thursby, 2001; Henderson et al., 1998). Licensing revenues

are seen as extra input for funding besides governmental funding. While governmental funding for

basic research is shrinking, financial support has to be found from commercial research (Lee, 1996;

Shane, 2004). The desire for many universities to exploit new sources of income is also underlined by

Henderson et al. (Henderson et al., 1998). Still a small share of patents is responsible for a large share

of the total licensing income and most of the patents are within a few technology fields (Verspagen,

2006). The distribution and the licensing income of U.S. university patents are rather skewed. In

1995, the top-5 patents in terms of licensing income were responsible for 94%, 85% and 66% of

gross total income (respectively for Columbia, Stanford and the University of California, Mowery et

al., 2001). In addition, these universities earn the most from licensing in the U.S. compared with all

U.S. universities. This implies that the top patents of these universities are responsible for a very

large share of total licensing income at U.S. universities (Verspagen, 2006). As can be seen in figure 3,

in the total sample of patents in 1998, medical technology is strongly over-represented and

mechanical technology is under-represented. It can be concluded that only a few real “cash-cows”

exists and that a majority of the patents are filed by one technological sector. According to Verspagen

(2006), it cannot be expected that licensing income will soon become a major source of income for

universities, whether in the U.S. or in Europe.

2.1.3 Other factors influencing knowledge transfer

Effective knowledge transfer does not only depend on the type of knowledge transfer mechanism. In

the literature, attention is given to the influence of firm-, knowledge- and university researcher

characteristics on knowledge transfer. Also, the role of the disciplinary area is given attention to.

Firm characteristics

A difference in firm characteristics exists between firms that use patents and firms that use

publications as a mean of knowledge transfer (Agrawal & Henderson, 2002). This implies that firm

characteristics influence the used means of knowledge transfer between universities and firms.

Cohen et al. (2002) found that the impact of knowledge flow from universities to firms is greater for

larger firms as well as for start-ups. Firms must also have the absorptive capacity to adopt the

knowledge. Absorptive capacity refers to a firm's ability to recognize, assimilate, and apply new

scientific information for its innovation and product development (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). It can

be said that a firm's absorptive capacity and willingness to engage in multiple knowledge transfer

12

mechanisms will affect the potential of effectively transferring knowledge from universities

(Bercovitz & Feldmann, 2006).

Knowledge characteristics

The type of knowledge involved also influences the knowledge transfer process. As concluded by

Bodas Freitas & Bekkers (2007), the differences in knowledge transfer mechanisms can be explained

by the basic characteristics of the knowledge in question, like tacitness, systemicness, and expected

breakthroughs. The transfer of tacit knowledge is necessary since knowledge associated with

inventions can not be completely transferred in the codified form of patents or publications.

However, tacit knowledge is difficult to transfer since it is highly personal (Zucker et al., 2002). So, to

transfer tacit knowledge some kind of interaction must exist between the firm and the inventor

(Teece, 1985). Lam (2005), states that firms and university researchers should cooperate in teams to

transfer tacit knowledge. Hence, industry-university collaborative networks should be created. By

creating these networks, firms have to deal with two common problems. First, firms have to recruit

scientists, especially at the PhD level, who will be able to connect the firms internal R&D with the

external academic community. The second problem arises from the difficulties in transferring

knowledge across organizational and institutional boundaries. The transfer of knowledge between

industry and universities is especially difficult because of the divergent goals and career objectives

sought by industry members and academia.

Characteristics of university researcher

The characteristics of the university researcher influence the success of knowledge transfer.

Experience (in general terms like age and amount of publications) of the university researcher

contributes positively to the rate of knowledge transfer (Crespi et al., 2007; Audretsch, 2000 in

Agrawal, 2001). Bodas Freitas & Bekkers (2007) conclude that to some extend the success of

knowledge transfer depends on university researcher characteristics like: seniority, publication

record, patent record, and entrepreneurship. Besides the experience of the researcher, the (national)

culture and academic socialization can influence the degree to which individual scientists participate

in knowledge transfer activities (Bercovitz & Feldmann, 2006). Some researchers are not actively

commercializing their knowledge because they might be unwilling to spend time on applied R&D,

unwilling to risk publication delays associated with patenting, or because they believe that

commercial activity is not appropriate for an academic scientist (Thursby & Thursby, 2002).

Bercovitz & Feldmann (2006) show that the actions of the chair of the department appear to

influences behaviour: if the chair is active in knowledge transfer then other members of the

department are also likely to disclose knowledge.

Disciplinary area

Some authors argue that the degree and mechanisms of knowledge transfer differ per disciplinary

area (Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch, 1998; Schartinger et al., 2002; Bodas Freitas & Bekkers, 2007).

The characteristics of the disciplinary area could influence the research and the knowledge transfer

mechanism. The disciplinary area of chemistry, mechanical engineering and biotechnology (the areas

researched in this thesis) have some special research characteristics according to Meyer-Krahmer &

Schmoch (1998). Chemistry is an academic field with an explicit focus on basic research. The

academic field of chemistry is put in relation with "oriented basic research"; research without a

specific practical aim, but which is carried out with the expectation that it will produce a broad base

of knowledge likely to form the background to the solution of recognized or expected current or

future problems or possibilities (Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch, 1998). Mechanical engineering on the

other hand is primarily an application-oriented discipline with just a few radical science-based

innovations like leading-edge technologies as gas turbines (Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch, 1998). The

13

characteristic of biotechnology can be located between chemistry and mechanical engineering with

more similarities to chemistry. However, the focus in biotechnology is more on applied research than

in chemistry. Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch (1998) argue that these differences identified in the

character of research per disciplinary area, lead to differences in knowledge transfer mechanisms

applied. Like Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch (1998), Bodas Freitas & Bekkers (2007) and Schartinger et

al. (2002) argue that the disciplinary origin of the knowledge influences the use of knowledge

transfer mechanism. For instance, biomedical and chemical engineering prefer scientific output,

students, informal contact, collaborative and contract research, and patents and licensing as

knowledge transfer mechanisms (Bodas Freitas & Bekkers, 2007). Furthermore, research

collaboration and personnel mobility are intensively used in chemistry, biotechnology, engineering

and information technology (Schartinger et al., 2002). However, the differences in the use of

knowledge transfer mechanisms are not related to industrial sectors as such (Bodas Freitas &

Bekkers, 2007).

2.2 Collaborative R&D

Now that knowledge transfer in ISRs is discussed, we will zoom in on the concept of collaborative

R&D (Inner layer of figure 1). Collaborative R&D can be defined as public-private R&D partnerships

to generate knowledge transfer. Any project in which a university collaborates with a firm(s) by

means of R&D can be seen as a collaborative R&D project. As will be explained in chapter 3, STW

projects are always collaborative R&D projects since R&D is done by universities with the

involvement of firms in the STW user committee. In this section, the issues in the literature

concerning collaborative R&D are discussed.

The issues concerning collaborative R&D can be categorized into three subjects. These subjects are:

why are firms and universities collaborating on R&D (motives for collaborative R&D), under what

conditions are firms and universities collaborating (propensity to collaborate on R&D), and how is

collaborative R&D performed (execution of collaborative R&D). These three subjects are discussed

below. Each of the subjects are discussed below.

2.2.1 Motives for collaborative R&D

Empirical research shows that the incentives for collaborative R&D differ between universities and

firms. First, the motivations for firms to engage in collaborative R&D are discussed, second the

motivations for universities.

In general, industry incentives for collaborative R&D with universities are access to complementary

research activity and research results and access to key university personnel (Hall et al., 2001;

Adams et al., 2001; Belderbos et al., 2004a). Some authors are more specific about industry’s

motivations to collaborate on R&D. Collaboration with universities allows firms to recruit highly

productive individuals (Baldoni & Laboranti, 2006). Tether (2002) states that firms collaborate with

universities to complement internal R&D and get access to specialist technical support (including

experts and specialist equipment). According to Tether (2002), universities are seen as especially

useful for basic and long-term strategic research, particularly in pre-competitive technologies.

Furthermore, an important motivation for firms to get university researchers involved in their R&D

projects is to be able to perform research related to product development (Lee, 2000). Through

collaboration, firms can avoid further investment in in-house facilities while tests can be conducted

by universities (Hurmelinna, 2004). Moreover, collaborative R&D increases the capability of firms to

conduct research at the technological frontier and thus increases the ability of firms to patent the

results from collaborative R&D (Miotti & Sachwald, 2003). Miotti & Sachwald (2003) state that firms

collaborate with universities because collaborating with public partners does not involve commercial

risk. This is stated under the hypothesis that universities tend to focus on generic research and not

14

on applications. Finally when large numbers of firms (including rivals) are collaborating, including

universities in some kind of consortia, their main motivation is to maximize disclosure and spillovers

(Miotti & Sachwald, 2003). This type of research is often supported by public funds (Miotti &

Sachwald, 2003). In general, it can be stated that the main motives for industry to collaborate on

R&D is mostly based on access to university research, university researchers, and complement

internal R&D.

Now that the industry motives are described, motives for universities to collaborate are depicted.

According to empirical research done by Lee (2000), university researchers look at research

collaboration with industry primarily as a means to secure funds for their graduate students and lab

equipment, supplement their own academic research, field-test the application of their own research,

and gain insights into their own research (Lee, 2000). Hall et al. (2001) conclude that university

motives for collaborative R&D are largely financial based. While governmental funding lowered in

the 90’s in the USA, collaborative R&D increased to secure funds to perform research (Jankowski,

1999). Besides the opportunities for alternative funding, collaborative R&D provides an essential

means for undertaking work that is complex and multidisciplinary (Jankowski, 1999).

Besides these motivations based on inputs, other motivations can be identified who are based on the

relationship with the industry. The social responsibility theory implies that it is the social

responsibility for universities to engage in the production of usable goods (Lee, 1996). Balconi &

Laboranti (2006) argue that university researchers need direction from industry and the needed

direction from industry can be achieved through collaborative R&D. After all, according to Balconi &

Laboranti (2006), the ultimate goal of research is the creation of new artefacts that can work

successfully, and that can be produced and sold on the marketplace.

Jankowski (1999) also expresses the importance of collaborative R&D to channel academic research

towards practical applications. Hurmelinna (2004) states that by collaborative R&D, universities get

access to empirical data, so that the research may be more closely related to “real life” problems. The

know-how embedded in companies may be diffused to universities through the creation of networks.

As a result, new types of research may be originated and conducted, and the results may even create

new funding for the universities (Hurmelinna, 2004).

Some authors describe the general advantages of collaborative R&D. The advantages of collaborative

R&D can be directly linked to the motives of collaborative R&D. Advantages are an increased support

for academic research, increased and accelerated technology transfer, enhanced competitiveness,

and economic development. An increase of patents and licenses is also mentioned in the literature as

possible benefits of collaborative research (Behrens & Gray, 2001). Still, much discussion is stated in

the literature about the advantages and disadvantages of collaborative R&D. Because of an increase

in collaborative R&D, universities are becoming more entrepreneurial which results in more

involvement in socio-economic development and greater emphasis on exploiting research results

(Van Looy et al., 2006). Critics are concerned about the increase in collaborative R&D because it

could harm the traditional role of universities: providing education and perform fundamental

research (Verspagen, 2006).

2.2.2 Propensity to collaborate on R&D

Collaborative R&D had intensified in recent years (Hall et al., 2001). Still, collaborative R&D is not

only driven by possible advantages as previously discussed. The propensity to collaborate on R&D

depends on several factors, which are described in this section.

According to Bercovitz & Feldmann (2006), the increase of collaborative R&D project is due to four

interrelated factors: (1) the development of new, high-opportunity technology platforms such as

computer science, molecular biology and material science; (2) the more general growing scientific

15

and technical content of all types of industrial production;(3) the need for new sources of academic

research funding created by budgetary stringency; (4) and the prominence of government policies

aimed at raising the economic returns of publicly funded research by stimulating university

knowledge transfer. Factors (1) and (2) describe the change of technological content to more

science-based technologies. Beise & Stahl (1999) also identified this factor as important for the

increase in collaborative R&D. Factor (3) and (4) are policy measures by government to stimulate

knowledge flow and collaborative R&D. Factor (3) will be further elaborated in the next section.

Another factor influencing the propensity to collaborate on R&D is the firm characteristics. According

to empirical research, done by Fritsch & Lukas (2001), firms that are engaged in R&D collaboration

tend to be relatively large, have a comparatively high share of R&D employees, spend resources for

monitoring external developments relevant to their innovation activities and are characterized by a

relatively high aspiration level of their product innovation activities (Fritsch & Lukas, 2001). Like

Fritsch & Lukas, Belderbos et al. (2004a) conclude that larger firms are more likely to engage in

collaborative R&D. Larger firms have the required critical size and absorptive capacity to perform

successful collaborative R&D. The propensity to collaborate on R&D is higher for firms with stronger

absorptive capability. The existence of an internal laboratory in a firm substantially increases its

probability to collaborate because it positively influences the absorptive capacity.

Besides the firm characteristics, industry characteristics are also relevant for the propensity to

collaborate on R&D. R&D collaboration is more likely to be chosen by R&D intensive firms, in sectors

that exhibit faster technological and product development. Collaboration is aimed at innovations that

may open up entire new markets or market segments, hence innovations that create technological

breakthroughs (Belderbos et al., 2004b). On the contrary, Miotti & Sachwald (2003) argue that firms

which perform collaborative R&D are not particularly concentrated in R&D intensive sectors but they

tend to be close to science resources to innovate.

As discussed in section 2.1.2, university researcher characteristics also influence the propensity of

knowledge transfer (Bercovitz & Feldmann, 2006). Researcher characteristics also influence the

propensity to perform collaborative R&D. It seems that university researchers who are in active

dialogue with industry managers may spot emerging research issues earlier than their less active

colleagues (Hurmelinna, 2004). Hence, university researchers with (personal) industry contacts are

earlier involved in collaborative R&D projects. Lam (2005) refers to "entrepreneurial" professors

who participate both in scientific and business communities and positively influence the propensity

to perform collaborative R&D.

2.2.3 Execution of collaborative R&D

Next to the motivations and propensity to collaborate on R&D, in the literature some issues are

described that concern the way collaborative R&D is executed. These issues vary from the question

who funds the collaborative R&D to the question of the actors that are involved and how they should

interact. These issues, as stated in the literature, are explained in this paragraph.

Source of funding

The source of funding is an important factor in collaborative R&D. The question who funds the

collaborative R&D can influence the research project (Hall et al., 2001). In collaborative R&D funding

often occurs through the mechanism of sponsored research support. Sponsored research is an

agreement by which the university receives funding for conducting a research project (Bercovitz &

Felmann, 2006). Research can be sponsored by both the government as well as the industry.

16

To understand how funding can influence research done at universities and knowledge transfer, the

financial structure of the Dutch universities is explained. Dutch universities basically have three

channels for financial input. The first money flow is an annual financial input from the government.

Every university receives these funding based on certain criteria. The second money flow consists of

government subsidies which universities (individual researchers) must apply for. This can be money

from government agencies or from a combination of government agencies and the industry. The

third money flow is a financial input from the industry to perform contract research

(www.onderzoeksinformatie.nl). Besides these three money flows, universities can also receive

money from abroad and from private non-profit funds (also called the fourth money flow).

Collaborative R&D is (partly) funded by the industry and thus covers the third money flow and partly

the second money flow.

As can be seen in figure 4, Dutch universities receive most money from the first money flow. Second

money flow is 12% and only 7% of the universities financial inputs are from the third money flow.

In the U.S., the government’s rates of funding universities have slowed considerably over the past

decades (Jankowski, 1999). In that perspective, universities substitute towards other financial inputs

if it becomes more difficult to obtain federal funding (Payne & Siow, 2003). Consequently, if the first

money flow is lowered by the government, universities will compensate with more input from the

second and third money flow.

75%

12%

7%

4% 2%

1st flow of funds - 1,725 millioneuros

2nd flow of funds - 276 millioneuros

3rd flow of funds - 161 miliioneuros

from aborad - 92 million euros

private non-profit funds ("4thflow of funds") - 46 million euros

Figure 4: Investments in R&D at the Dutch universities in 2006 (www.nwo.nl)

In general, government funded research (first money flow) is more basic and less restricted while

research funded by industry (third money flow) is more focused and in a later stage (Bercovitz &

Feldmann, 2006). When collaborative R&D is sponsored by the government (second money flow),

firms are stimulated to perform uncertain, highly risk research, since a motivation for firms to

perform collaborative R&D is the sharing of research risks, if there are considerable uncertainties

related to certain areas of development and research (Hurmelinna, 2004). In addition, through

sponsored collaboration companies can aim at reducing development costs.

Public funding mainly supports the freedom that allows academics to set their own research agenda

to perform explorative, uncertain research (Balconi & Laboranti, 2006). Some authors are concerned

that a rise in the third money flow will lead to a decrease of fundamental research since academics

will perform more applied research (van Looy et al., 2006).

17

Geographic proximity

Discussion exists about the importance of geographic distance between the university and firm for

the success of collaborative R&D and knowledge transfer. Santoro & Gopalakrishan (2001) indicate

the geographic proximity between the firm and its university partner as a crucial factor for successful

knowledge transfer. Like Santoro & Gopalakrishnan (2001), Argawal (2001) describes a high

geographic distance between the university and the firms as a negative influence on the commercial

success of knowledge developed at the university. In a literature review done by Monjon &

Waelbroeck (2003), some authors describe that geographical proximity has more impact on patents

as a mean for knowledge transfer as for publications. Collaborative R&D is not geographically

confined (Monjon & Waelbroeck 2003).

Intellectual property rights

The use of patents as a mechanism for knowledge transfer is already described in section 2.1. Some

issues should be further elaborated in relation to collaborative R&D. When universities and firms are

involved in collaborative R&D, a major issue rises concerning the ownership of any intellectual

property. In general, a patent resulting from collaborative R&D can be owned by the individual

researcher, the university, or the firm that is involved in the collaborative R&D (Hellman, 2006).

There are different views in the literature concerning the question of which actor should own the

patent right to create successful knowledge transfer. Hellman (2006) concludes that patents that

evolve from university research should be owned by the university (in his model, the technology

transfer office (TTO), representing the university) and not by the individual researchers. The

involvement of the TTO increases the efficiency of the knowledge transfer process and the expected

rate of commercialization of the university research project. When the individual scientist is well

embedded in a strong network of private firms however the patent can be better owned by the

individual researcher for successful knowledge transfer (Helmann, 2006). Aghion and Tirole (1994)

deal with the ownership issue from a different perspective. In their model, a university undertakes

research for a private firm. They conclude that the innovation resulting from collaborative R&D may

have a lower (social) value if the firm would own the patent rights instead of the university.

According to Agion and Tirole (1994), when the agreement is made that a potential patent resulting

from collaborative R&D will be owned by the firm, the university strategy is to contribute minimal

research efforts. The university has an incentive to make the maximum effort only in the case that it

will own the potential patent. The firm needs to compare a shared pay-off in combination with

maximum effort from the university with a full pay-off in combination with minimal university effort.

If the marginal university effort on the project has a high impact on the results, the firm is better-of

leaving patent ownership to the university and receiving a license to use the results, otherwise

university effort would be minimal which results in less interesting research results.

Empirical research done by Crespi et al. (2007) shows that in Europe more patents resulting from

collaborative R&D are owned by firms than by universities. They also conclude that no differences

are found between university- or firm-owned patents concerning the rate of successful knowledge

transfer and commercial value of the patent. Still, like Hellman (2006) Crespi et al. (2007) conclude

that university-ownership is more efficient than individual researchers own the patent. A problem

can arise with university ownership of patents because large firms tend to resist university control

over intellectual property in order to control the rights for themselves (Rappert et al., 1999).

An important problem is the determination of the value of the patent when using patents to transfer

knowledge during collaborative R&D. Under normal market conditions the terms of the transaction

are mutually negotiated and voluntary agreed on. But in contrast to the typical goods involved in

market transactions, the value of knowledge is uncertain, with uncertainty being highest for the most

upstream, basic research activities (Bercovitz & Feldmann, 2006). It has been argued that one of the

most important points of tension between universities and firms derives from misconceptions of the

18

value of patents for small and medium-sized firms (Rappert et al., 1999). Lee (2000) specifically

points out the problem concerning the determination of the amount of university contribution in

collaborative R&D. Besides the determination of the amount of contribution, it is hard to assign a

dollar value (Lee, 2000).

Santoro & Gopalakrishnan (2001) conclude that the university policy concerning patents and

licences influences the success of knowledge transfer during collaborative R&D. The more flexible the

university’s policies for IPR, patents, and licenses, the greater the extent of knowledge transfer. In

case of an university patent and the potential knowledge flow resulting from that patent, Ziedonis

(1999, in Argrawal, 2001) shows four characteristics of a firm that increase the likelihood of

knowledge flow. These are the level of the firm’s expertise, the degree of the firm’s financial

involvement of the research that led to the university patent, the experience of the firm in licensing a

patent in the same class, and the type of relationship between the university researcher and the firm.

Firms can also stimulate universities to patent new research results. In that case, firms are not only

interested in the main results of the research, but also in codifying and protecting some particular

technical findings from academic research in order to add new bargaining chips to their patent

portfolio (Balconi & Laboranti, 2006).

Experience with collaborative R&D

The success of knowledge transfer during collaborative R&D is also depended on the experience of

the faculty at the university concerning knowledge transfer. If individual researchers at the faculty

are very active in knowledge transfer, it is more likely that knowledge transfer will successfully occur

during the project (Bercitvitz & Feldmann, 2004). From a firm’s perspective, the lack of experience

with a university partner reduces the expectation of successful knowledge transfer and therefore the

commercialization of the research results (Hall et al., 2001).

University researcher involvement

Lam (2005) points out the importance of “linked scientists” for successful knowledge flow in

collaborative R&D. Linked scientists are scientists who engage in the practices of both science and

business, and work on common projects in collaborative teams. Three types of linked scientists can

be categorized. The first type is the entrepreneurial professor, who has ongoing collaborative links

with firms but retains full university position. Balconi & Laboranti (2006) found proof that students

are recruited by firms because of the personal acquaintance between an entrepreneurial professor

and the firm. The second type is a postdoc who is formally affiliated to the university but works on

collaborative projects with firms. Third are PhD students who are selected and funded on the basis of

criteria negotiated between the firm and its academic partners, some of whom may subsequently be

employed by the firm (Lam, 2005). As discussed in section 2.1.2, cooperation of the inventor of an

embryonic invention should be considered when an exclusive license is given to a firm to generate

successful knowledge transfer (Jensen & Thursby, 2001). Firms are otherwise not able to adopt the

tacit knowledge associated with embryonic inventions. This is also the case for collaborative R&D.

Conflict of interest

A major issue in collaborative R&D derives from the fundamentally different reward and incentive

systems of universities and firms (Van Looy et al., 2006). The objective of universities is that research

results are made public through publications which create the opportunity for an open discussion

among colleagues. Companies on the other hand, have a responsibility for, and a need to, protect the

value of their investments. So it is clear that universities and firms conflict with each other

concerning interests (Adams et al., 2001; Van Looy et al., 2006). These conflicts of interest are more

likely in collaboration with small firms (Blumenthal et al., 1986). Empirical research performed by

Blumenthal et al. (Blumenthal et al., 1996, in Van Looy et al., 2006) shows a relation between

19

industry support for research (received funding from industry and being involved in

commercialization activities) and restrictions regarding the disclosure of the research performed. In

collaborative research, publications might be delayed because firms may ask universities to keep

information (temporarily) confidential which might reduce the incentive to publish (Blumenthal et

al., 1996, in Van Looy et al., 2006). Thursby & Thursby (2002) show that academics may not disclose

inventions because they are unwilling to risk publication delays associated with the necessary

patenting for the interest of firms.

Another concern in collaborative R&D is that university researchers are affected by the so called

“corporate manipulation thesis” (Noble, 1977, in Van Looy et al., 2006). From this perspective,

university research is characterized by an independence that should allow academics to freely

contribute to theories and models at the endless frontier of science, which is a (purely) curiosity-

driven approach. The corporate manipulation thesis argues that firms interfere with the normal

pursuit of science and that they seek to control relevant university research for their own ends (Van

Looy et al., 2006). In relation to this discussion, Glodfarb & Colyvas (2004) find that university

researchers become more likely to choose projects with commercial potential, funded by the

industry. In addition, some evidence is found that universities with industry funding undertook

significantly less basic research than universities with no such external funds (Geuna and Nesta,

2003, in Van Looy et al., 2006). Thursby & Thursby (2002) conclude that those faculties that are

specialized in basic research are unwilling to spend time on applied R&D, basically because of the

required licensing of the invention. On the other hand, other studies show that performing more

applied research does not necessarily imply a trade-off with basic research (Godin & Gingras, 2000;

Brooks & Randazzese, 1999; Ranga et al., 2003; Van Looy et al., 2004, in Van Looy et al., 2006).

Empirical research done by Blumenthal et al. (1986) also show that faculties involved in

collaborative research are capable of commercial as well as academic productivity. According to

Argrawal & Henderson (2002) little evidence is found that suggests that patenting distract professors

from publishing. Behrens & Gray (2001) explain that external funding, whether from government or

firms (through collaborative research), generally results in more publications. But Payne & Siow

(2003) find that more external funding will not lead to higher qualitative research.

The conflict of interests may have influence on contract agreements in collaborative R&D. In these

contract agreements, universities behave quite differently from firms since universities are often far

less experienced in bargaining than firms and universities are also subject to greater restrictions due

to their objectives and responsibilities that go well beyond profit maximization (Agrawal, 2001). On

the contrary, other empirical evidence shows that universities seem quite capable of protecting their

traditional values of openness. Only modest concessions are made to the practical needs of industry

(Brooks and Randazzese, 1999, in Van Looy et al., 2006).

Mutual trust

While it seems obvious, Santoro & Gopalakrishnan (2001) stress the importance of mutual trust in

the university and the firm. If the firm has no trust in the university (and vice versa), knowledge

transfer would be seriously hampered.

Communication effectiveness

Matkin (1994) performed a case study analysis for collaborative R&D and knowledge transfer. He

concluded that problems during collaborative R&D can be prevented by effective communication and

openness. Basically, strict guidelines and clear goals need to be set at the beginning of the project.

Universities may want to make clear to faculty and companies that they are opposed to the

protection of trade secrets resulting from collaborative R&D and that the right to publish research

results (with modest delays for companies to file patents) must be protected (Matkin, 1994;

Blumenthal et al., 1986). University researchers and industry managers should invest time to have a

20

dialogue on expected research results since one of the most important problems in collaborative

R&D is handling the output of the collaboration (Hurmelinna, 2004). Problems can be prevented if

this is set prior to the project start. Furthermore, communication effectiveness is inherent to other

factors like geographic proximity (Santoro & Gopalakrishnan, 2001).

2.3 Summary & conclusion

Now that the literature about knowledge transfer and collaborate R&D is analyzed, a summary can be

made of the issues concerning knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D. It is clear that many

publications are written about knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D. It is also clear that not all

authors agree with each other on how knowledge should be effectively transferred and what

collaborative R&D should look like. When confronting the theory concerning knowledge transfer and

collaborative R&D with STW’s policy and the case analyses, all issues and all views described in

literature should be considered. Therefore the most important issues and views are summarized in

table 2. This table will be used as a point of reference when confronting the theory with STW’s policy

and with the cases.

Table 2: Issues concerning knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D

Knowledge transfer issues

Issue Explanation

Relative importance of

mechanisms for knowledge

transfer

Knowledge transfer mechanisms considered most important are those

commonly associated with open science, like scientific publications and

(informal) contact between university researchers and firms. Also

labour mobility and formal cooperation are mentioned as important

mechanisms. The relative importance of patents as a mean of

knowledge transfer is disputable.

Patents Patents can be used for the transfer of codified knowledge. Still, this

mean of knowledge transfer is not commonly rated as highly

important. University patents can only stimulate knowledge transfer

when the development costs of an embryonic invention are non-trival

and the additional R&D work that is necessary to develop the

university discovery cannot be patented separately. The ability of

individual scientists to appropriate the value of intellectual property

rights may affect knowledge transfer outcomes. Cooperation with the

inventor of an embryonic invention should be considered when an

exclusive license is given to a firm.

Negative impact of university patents are: the impact on the culture of

open science, blockade for further research, and a potential decline of

fundamental research.

The following factors determine the propensity to patent:

• Government policy

• Rise and maturation of new technology fields

• University policy

• Prevention of pirating

• Quality control

• Raising awareness of commercially useful research

• Generating revenues

21

Firm characteristics The impact of knowledge transfer from universities to firms is greater

for larger firms as well as start-ups. Firm’s absorptive capacity and

willingness to engage in multiple knowledge transfer mechanisms will

affect the potential of effectively transferring knowledge from

universities

Knowledge characteristics The differences in knowledge transfer mechanisms can be explained

by the basic characteristics of the knowledge in question, like:

tacitness, systemicness, and expected breakthroughs. To transfer tacit

knowledge, firms need to be connected with universities. Firms and

university researchers should cooperate in teams to transfer tacit

knowledge.

University researcher

characteristics

Experience (in general terms like age and amount of publications) of

the university researcher contributes positively to the rate of

knowledge transfer. Besides the experience of the researcher, the

(national) culture and academic socialization can influence the degree

to which individual scientists participate in knowledge transfer

activities.

Disciplinary area The disciplinary origin of the knowledge influences the use of

knowledge transfer mechanism.

Collaborative R&D issues

Issue Explanation

Motives for collaborative

R&D

Industry motives:

• Access to complementary research activity

• Access to research results

• Access to key university personnel

• Recruit highly productive individuals

• Complement internal R&D

• Access to specialist technical support (experts and equipment)

• Partner for pre-competitive research

• Perform research related to product development

• Increase the firm’s ability to patent

• No commercial risk

• Maximize disclosure and spillovers (when collaborating in some

kind of consortia)

22

University motives:

• Secure funds

• Supplement own academic research

• Field-test the application of own research

• Gain insight in own research

• Undertake work that is complex and multidisciplinary

• Social responsibility to engage in the production of usable goods

• Get direction from industry to perform usable research

• Create network

Propensity to collaborate

on R&D

Factors that stimulate the propensity to patent are change of

technological content to more science-based technologies, and policy

measures by government to stimulate knowledge flow and

collaborative R&D. Firms that are engaged in R&D collaboration tend to

be relatively large, have a comparatively high share of R&D employees,

spend resources on monitoring external developments relevant to

their innovation activities, and have a relatively high aspiration level of

their product innovation activities. Larger firms are more likely to

engage in R&D collaboration because they have the required critical

size and absorptive capacity. R&D collaboration is also more likely to

be chosen by R&D intensive firms in sectors that exhibit fast

technological and product development. Collaboration can be aimed at

innovations that may open up entire new markets or market segments,

hence innovations that create technological breakthroughs.

Entrepreneurial university scientists who are active in both the

academic as the business sector positively influence the propensity to

perform collaborative R&D.

Source of funding Collaborative R&D can be sponsored by both the government as well as

the industry. Government sponsored research (second money flow)

stimulate firm to collaborate on high risk, uncertain research. Public

funding mainly supports the freedom that allows academics to set their

own research agenda to perform explorative, uncertain research. The

concern exists that a rise in the third money flow will lead to a

decrease of fundamental research since academics will perform more

applied research.

Geographic proximity Geographic proximity between the firm and its university partner

influences the efficiency of the knowledge transfer. Another view is

that collaborative R&D is not geographically confined.

Intellectual property

According to some models, the ownership of the patent influences the

success of the knowledge transfer and the value of the patent. Other

research shows no difference for the ownership of the patent.

When using patents to transfer knowledge during collaborative R&D,

the difficulty rises to determine the value of the patent and the amount

of university contribution in collaborative R&D (and its money value).

23

The more flexible the university’s policies for IPR, patents, and licenses,

the greater the extent of knowledge transfer. Firms can also stimulate

universities to patent new research results in order to add new

bargaining chips to their patent portfolio.

Experience with

collaborative R&D

The success of knowledge transfer during collaborative R&D depends

on the experience of the faculty at the university concerning knowledge

transfer. From a firm’s perspective, the lack of experience with a

university partner reduces the expectation of successful knowledge

transfer and therefore the commercialization of the research results.


involvement

The presence of linked scientists influences the success of knowledge

transfer during collaborative R&D. Cooperation with the inventor of an

embryonic invention should be considered when an exclusive license is

given to a firm to generate successful knowledge transfer.

Conflict of interest A major issue in collaborative R&D derives from the fundamentally

different rewards and incentive systems of universities and firms. The

nature of universities is that research results are made public through

publications which create the opportunity for an open discussion

among colleagues. Companies on the other hand, have a responsibility

for, and a need to, protect the value of their investments. The corporate

manipulation thesis argues that firms interfere with the normal pursuit

of science and that they seek to control relevant university research for

their own ends. On the contrary, other empirical evidence shows that

universities seem quite capable of protecting their traditional values of

openness. Only modest concessions are made to the practical needs of

industry.

Mutual trust If the firm has no trust in the university (and vice versa), knowledge

transfer would be seriously hampered.

Communication

effectiveness

Without adequate communication, knowledge transfer would not

occur. Universities may want to make clear to faculty and companies

that they are opposed to the protection of trade secrets resulting from

collaborative R&D and that the right to publish research results (with

modest delays for companies to file patents) must be protected.

Based on this overview of issues concerning knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D, the following

general conclusions can be made.

Knowledge transfer in Industry Science Relationships (ISRs) can occur through various knowledge

transfer mechanisms. However, the relative importance of these knowledge transfer mechanisms is

disputable. In the literature, four types of knowledge transfer mechanism are rated as highly

important for public-private knowledge transfer. These are publications, informal contacts, labour

mobility, and formal collaboration. Patents are also mentioned as a knowledge transfer mechanism

but the effectiveness of patents as a knowledge transfer mechanism is arguable. As stated in table 2,

various factors determine the propensity to patent. Even though the generation of revenues is

24

identified as a motive to patent, it can be concluded that licensing income will not become a major

source of income for universities. Under certain conditions, university patents can be successfully

used as a knowledge transfer mechanism (see table 2). However, university patents as a knowledge

transfer mechanism could also lead to negative effects.

The effectiveness of knowledge transfer does not only depend on the knowledge transfer mechanism

used. From the literature it becomes clear that other factors like firm characteristics, knowledge

characteristics, university researcher characteristics, and the disciplinary area influences the

knowledge transfer between universities and firms. When confronting the theory with STW's policy

and the cases, it needs to be analyzed which knowledge transfer mechanism is used during STW

projects and to what degree the firm -, knowledge-, researcher, and disciplinary area characteristics

influence the knowledge transfer in STW projects.

Since the focus in this thesis is on knowledge transfer during collaborative R&D, the literature

concerning public-private collaborative R&D is analyzed.

During collaborative R&D the ownership of the IPR is an important issue. Some models declare that

patents resulting from collaborative R&D can better be owned by the university to create successful

knowledge transfer. Other research shows no difference between university or firm-owned patents

concerning the rate of successful knowledge transfer. Patents could also generate tension between

the firm and the university. This tension is mostly based on the determination of the value of the

patent and the conflict of interest. Universities need to publish research results while firms need to

protect the results. These types of problems can be prevented if universities and firms involved in

collaborative R&D effectively communicate during the project and especially prior to the project

start. Clear rules need to be set during collaborative R&D to make sure that knowledge flows

successfully. STW’s framework will be analyzed if it takes these patent ownership issues into

account.

According to the literature, industry motives to perform collaborative R&D differ from university

motives. Industry motives are mostly based on access to university research, university researchers,

and complement internal R&D, while university motives to collaborate on R&D are based on financial

grounds and the creation of contacts in the industry sector for direction from the industry to perform

(fundamental) research. Because different motives for collaborative R&D exists, conflict of interest

can occur. Universities need to be aware of their role as public research organisation to prevent the

so called "corporate manipulations thesis".

The source of funding of (collaborative) R&D determines the type of research that is done at

universities. First money flow is basically used for fundamental research while the third money flow

is used for applied research. Government sponsored research from the 2nd money flow can stimulate

high risk, uncertain research.

Geographic proximity is by some authors indicated as a crucial factor for successful knowledge

transfer while on the other hand, collaborative R&D seems not be geographically confined.

From the literature, it can be concluded that the presence of "linked scientists" in collaborative R&D

positively influences the knowledge transfer. Furthermore, university researchers need to be

involved in the adoption process of the research results at the firm for successful knowledge transfer.

A final issue that influences the success of knowledge transfer is the mutual trust of the collaborative

partners. The theory concerning collaborative R&D will be confronted with STW’s policy in chapter 4.

Summarizing, the conclusion can be made from table 2 that for effective knowledge transfer and

collaborative R&D many issues have to be dealt with. Knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D are

diverse processes with no "one-size fits all approach".

25

3 Technology Foundation STW

In this chapter, the Dutch Technology Foundation STW is thoroughly described. Besides some

general background of STW, the main goal of this chapter is to create a clear view on STW’s policy. In

analyzing STW’s policy, special attention is given on how STW stimulates collaborative R&D and

knowledge transfer between universities and industry. By performing this analysis, the main

‘theoretical’ factors that characterize STW projects can be identified. These theoretical factors of

STW's policy will be confronted in chapter 4 with the theoretical framework. From this

confrontation, several hypotheses can be made about the working of STW in relation to knowledge

transfer and collaborative R&D in practical projects.

The content of this chapter is mainly based on information from the STW website, STW annual

reports, STW utilisation reports, an evaluation report by Dialogic1 and interviews held at STW. The

interviewees are: mr. M.M.L Konings (team leader juridical matters), dr.ir.C.L.M. Marcelis (team

leader OTP), and dr.ir.F.T.M van den Berg (program officer).

In this chapter, first a brief overview of STW's history is given. After that, the role of STW in the Dutch

innovation system is explained. Subsequently, STW's policy is broadly analyzed. Special attention in

this analysis is given to STW’s mission and vision, STW’s structure, and STW's policy regarding

knowledge transfer. In this final part, data on patent policy results is analyzed.

3.1 STW’s history

To get an understanding how STW is evolved into their present setting, the history of STW is briefly

explained.

STW is established in 1981. The creation of STW is a reaction on the Innovation White Paper from

1979. The Innovation White Paper identified a problem in the Netherlands which is known as the

"European Paradox": Europe performs well in scientific research, but is bad in commercializing it

(European Commission, 1995). Or, as stated by Bongers et al. (2003): an impressive quantity and

quality in public R&D but at the same time a less impressive performance in terms of innovation in

the private sector. Based on this paradox, the Innovation Oriented Research Program (IOP) and STW

are initiated to stimulate fundamental research in response to industry needs (OECD, 2003). STW

evolved from the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM), founded in 1946. FOM

promotes, co-ordinates and finances fundamental physics research in The Netherlands. It is an

autonomous foundation responsible to the physics division of the national research council NWO (in

that time ZWO) which stands for Pure Scientific Research (www.fom.nl). During the time that

government budget for universities were lowered, technical researchers searched for support from

FOM to perform applied research. A FOM program for applied physics was created in which research

proposals were accepted based on the physical quality and utilisation level. Because of the success of

the program, the question arose why this program should only exist for applied physics. To answer

this question and to fulfil the content of the innovation White paper, STW was created in 1981 (Knols

et al, 2006). The budget for STW in 1981 was approximately 4 million guilders (about 1,8 million

euros). A milestone in the existence of STW was the introduction of the NWO-law in 1990. In the

NWO-law the objectives of the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research are set. From that point

onwards, STW became an autonomous part of the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)

and became responsible for all technical science within the NWO. In 1990, STW’s budget rose to

approximately 35 million guilders (about 16 million euros). STW continued to grow and in 2006,

1 Dialogic is a research consultancy specialized on innovation processes and innovation policy,

(www.dialogic.nl).

26

STW existed 25 years and had a budget of 48 million euros to finance and support scientific research

(Boots, 2006).

3.2 STW in the Dutch National Innovation System

To get a clear picture of STW's function, STW's position in the Dutch National Innovation System

(NIS) has to be described.

A NIS is that set of distinct institutions which jointly and individually contribute to the development

and diffusion of new technologies and which provide the framework within which governments form

and implement policies to influence the innovation process (Metcalfe, 1997). In order to get a

graphical representation of the Dutch NIS (with the role of STW), an organizational chart in shown in

section 3.2.2. The chart (adopted from van Giessel et al., 2007) shows the main actors and supporting

policies and instruments in relation to the Dutch innovation policy. Before this chart is analyzed, with

special attention to the role of STW, the Dutch innovation policy is briefly described in section 3.2.1

3.2.1 Dutch innovation policy

Before the end of the 90s, the Dutch policy regarding economic growth was aimed at limiting labour

costs (low costs and wage restraints) also known as the “Dutch model”. This resulted in a gross

domestic product (GDP)-growth that outpaced the EU and OECD average (van Giessel et al., 2007).

The downside of the “Dutch model” is that it reached the limits of economic growth, partly because of

the aging population in the Netherlands. Therefore, the Dutch government realized that economic

growth had to be achieved through increasing the labour productivity level by strengthening the

innovation system and improving its performance. To realize this innovation driven economic

growth, the Cabinet Balkenende II launched an Innovation White paper in 2003 called the Innovation

Letter “Action for Innovation: Raising the Dutch knowledge economy to a leading position in Europe”

(van Giessel et al., 2007). According to the Innovation Letter, the Dutch innovation system has a few

strong and weak points. In general, the quality of the scientific research in the Netherlands is of a

high level and comparable with other countries. Still the weakness of the Dutch NIS is the fact that

scientific results are not commercialized sufficiently. Public-private collaborative R&D is not

stimulated enough due to the financial structure of universities. In addition, firms are not willing to

finance high risk research that can transfer “proof of principles” (results from scientific research) to

“proof of concepts” (foundation of commercialisation) (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2003). This

implies that firms will not invest in projects on the border of fundamental research and product

development. In the Innovation Letter, the weakness of the Dutch NIS is summarized in a few

bottlenecks which need to be overcome by the Dutch knowledge economy. First, the Dutch

innovation climate is not attractive enough. Second, too few businesses invest in innovation. And

third, research lacks sufficient focus and quantity. Therefore opportunities for innovations are

missed (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2003). To tackle these bottlenecks, the Dutch innovation policy

concentrates on three objectives: strengthening the climate for innovation, encouraging more

companies to be innovative, and taking advantage of opportunities for innovation by opting for

strategic areas (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2003). Since intensive collaboration is the key to

success, according to the Innovation Letter, instruments are introduced to stimulate collaborative

R&D to achieve these objectives. Knowledge transfer needs to be improved to use to potential of

companies (especially small and medium sized companies). Besides the general stimulation of

collaborative R&D, the Netherlands needs to have a strong focus in specific research areas. The

Netherlands should concentrate its research and innovation on areas in which the Netherlands can

be leading in an international perspective, and which may contribute to sustainable growth of the

Dutch economy (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2003). STW is given the function to stimulate

27

collaborative R&D and to concentrate their grants on specific focus areas. This will be further

explained in section 3.3.

Besides the Innovation Letter of 2003, the Dutch government introduced other documents related to

the stimulation of the innovation system. These are: HOOP 2004 (Higher Education and Research

Plan) and Science Budget 2004. One of the main issues in these documents are improvement of

utilisation of research results. This will be achieved (according to the government policy) by

strengthening the societal role of universities, adapting their funding model, and stimulating a

university patent policy. Other policy papers are: Peaks in the Delta, Action for Entrepreneurs, and

the Industry Memorandum “Heart for Industry” by the Ministry of Economic Affairs (2004). These

different policy documents all described the instruments supporting the innovation system (van

Giessel et al., 2007).

Since February 2007 a new coalition is active in the Netherlands (“Balkenende IV”). Stimulating

innovation through collaborative R&D is still an important point in the coalition agreement

(www.government.nl).

28

3.2.2 STW in the Dutch NIS

Now that the Dutch innovation policy of stimulating collaborative R&D is explained, one can zoom in

on the role of STW in this policy. Figure 5 shows a representation of the Dutch NIS. By analyzing this

chart, it can be concluded that the Dutch NIS is a complex system with many actors, funding

mechanisms and relations. In order to understand the figure, it is important to start with the main

actors who are located in level 2. Therefore, level 2 is described before level 1 and 3 is.

Parliment

Committees: Education, Culture

and Science; Economic Affairs;

Technology Policy

Government

RWTI

CWTI

Ministery of

Education,

Culture and

Science

(OCW)

Ministery of

Economic

Affairs

(EZ)

Other ministries

(LNV, VWS,

VROM, DEF,

V&W)

NWO

Institutes (9)

KNAW

Institutes (18)

Universities

(14)

Large

Technological

Institutes (5)

TNO centres

Leading

Technological

Institutes (4)

State owned

institutes

WUR / DLO

Institutes

Sector

Councils

KNAW

AWT CPB

Innovation

Platform

Strategic Advisory

Councils

Level 4 –

(Semi-) public

research &

innovation

performers

Level 3 –

Ministery

mission

centered co-

ordination

Level 2 – Ministery

mission centered

co-ordination

Level 1 – High-level

policy

KNAW NWO STW Syntens SenterNovem

funding flows (first flow)

funding flows (second flow)

advice flows

Advisory bodies

Policy preparation

Figure 5: Organisational chart of the innovation governance system (adapted from: van Giessel et

al., 2007).

The most important actors in the NIS are visualized in level 2 of figure 5. These are the Ministry of

Economic Affairs (from now one called EZ), and Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (from

now one called OCW). The other ministries are also placed in the model because the government

identified R&D and Innovation as the main drivers for economic growth for the Netherlands.

Therefore attention is given to research and innovation in all ministries.

Level 1 of the model consists of the decision making actors and advisory boards of the government.

The plans and decisions concerning research and innovation made by the ministries are coordinated

and prepared by the interdepartmental Committee on Science, Technology and Information Policy

(CWTI). After the agenda and the foreseen decisions are structured by the CWTI, all efforts

29

concerning R&D and Innovation are coordinated by the Counsel on Science, Technology and

Information Policy (RWTI), which is a sub-counsel of the counsel of Ministers.

The Innovation Platform (IP) is an advisory board to the Cabinet concerning especially innovation

launched by the Cabinet Balkenende II and continued by Balkenende III. The objective of the IP is to

propose strategic plans to reinforce the Dutch knowledge economy and to boost innovation by

stimulating business enterprises and organisations in the public knowledge infrastructure to work

closely together (www.innovatieplatform.nl). Other advisory boards are: Advisory Counsel for

Science and Technology Policy (AWT), Sector Counsels, Strategic Advisory Counsels, and The Royal

Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW).

On the third level, the agencies that implement the innovation policy are formulated. STW, as part of

NWO, is part of this level. For the Dutch NIS, two key agencies are very important: SenterNovem and

NWO. SenterNovem (agency of EZ with a budget of 1,3 billion euros a year) implements innovation

schemes. It manages most of the technology policy programmes, particularly those that have some

private sector input (van Giessel et al., 2007). The NWO functions as a funding agency of the ministry

of OCW with a budget of 390,7 million euros in 2006 (www.nwo.nl).

STW belongs in level 3 because it can implement the Dutch innovation policy by stimulating

collaborative R&D. The detailed structure of STW will be explained in the next section. As can be seen

from figure 5 STW receives its budget from EZ (40%) and NWO (60%), (Konings, 2007), and its

output is directly linked to universities. In that case, it “competes” with the KNAW and NWO who are

on the same level. The difference with NWO projects is that STW projects are focused on utilisation

with a certain application in sight (www.stw.nl).

The final level contains the Dutch research organisations that need to perform the innovation (in

cooperation with the industry).

30

3.3 STW’s policy

3.3.1 Mission and vision of STW

STW has a clear mission that has come forward in the annual reports, on the website and in the

interviews at STW:

Stimulation and coordination of scientific research in the Netherlands and the stimulation of knowledge

transfer to the society, industry, and science groups.

STW’s mission is carried out by (sub)financing excellent scientific research with a clear focus on

utilisation (STW annuals reports). These two factors are highly important for STW: excellent

scientific research and utilisation. The determination of these two factors will become clear

throughout this section.

In an evaluation report done by Dialogic and Technopolis B.V. under the authority of the Dutch

Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ), STW is

evaluated for the years 2001-2004. In this report, the objectives and activities of STW are

schematically stated, based on the STW statutes from 1989. The hierarchical representation of STW’s

objectives is shown in figure 6. As can be seen, STW main objectives are both of a high (ed. serve the

public interest) as well as a low (ed. staff expenses) level of abstraction. When analyzing figure 6, it

can be said that according to the statutes of STW, the goal of STW is to stimulate technical academic

research and its utilisation in society.

Figure 6: Objectives and activities of STW (adapted from Bodewes et al., 2006)

31

Remarkable is art. 4 of the STW statutes: all rights of the results of the research project (all

inventions, data, software, know-how, other information, and (possible) intellectual property rights)

are jointly owned by STW and the research institute(s) were the research is performed

(www.stw.nl). As can be seen from figure 6, this objective is directly linked to another objective of

STW: stimulation of knowledge transfer to society, industry, government, and other scientific fields.

The link between these two objectives is elaborated in section 3.3.5.

STW applies three main principles that formulate the base of STW's vision (Knols et al., 2006):

1. Open competition stimulates quality

2. Selection of scientific research proposals, equally based on excellence and utilisation,

stimulates innovation

3. Scientific excellence is a condition for successful breakthrough innovations

Based on these principles, STW designed a framework that (according to STW) encourages

valorisation. Valorisation is defined as transforming the results of scientific research into economic

value (Giessel et al., 2007).

In figure 7 a schematic representation is given of STW’s position in relation to universities and the

industry (Boots, 2006). As can be seen, universities spent more effort on fundamental research than

the industry. On the other hand, the industry spent more effort on product development than

universities. This implies that a gap exists for research that has both a high fundamental value and

also a high level of applicability, on the intersection of the university and industry effort. It is the role

of STW to finance this type of research; research with high risks but also with possible high rewards.

Technological

research

Fundamental

researchProduct

development

STWUniversities Industry

Effort

Figure 7: Positioning of STW (Boots, 2006).

3.3.2 STW’s activities

STW fund technological research and stimulates its utilisation. To achieve this goal, STW’s activities

can be divided into three main areas (see figure 8): the Open Technology Programme (OTP), Specific

Technology Programmes (STP) and knowledge trade. The OTP and STP comprise sponsored

research. The knowledge trade is an activity to obtain income and stimulate knowledge flow. The

32

OTP is the most important and main activity for STW (Interview Konings, 2007); 80-90% of STW

assets are put into the OTP (Bodewes et al., 2006). Applicants can file a research proposal to apply for

grant within the OTP. The OTP is not bounded to a certain technological field and project proposals

can be filed at any moment without any deadline. Certain research clusters “themes” are identified

within the OTP. These are the so called ex-post programmes. The ex-post programmes do not have a

separate budget; they fall under the OTP programme. The only criteria which research proposals

have to fulfil in the OTP are those of excellent scientific quality, innovation, and potential utilisation

(Bodewes et al., 2006). Because of these settings, the OTP is unique in the Netherlands (Interview

Konings, 2007). Since its open structure, the OTP can be seen as the breeding ground for innovative

research (Interview Konings, 2007; STW annual report, 2006). Every year, approximately 200

research proposals are filed for the OTP. On average, 40% is accepted.

The second area of activities is the Specific Technology Programmes (STP). STW has three types of

specific technology programmes which have separate budgets and can be co-funded by other public

institutes. The first type of the specific technology programmes are personal addressed programmes.

The programmes are aimed to cherish talent and subsidies are based on personal effort by

researchers. The second type covers programmes with a technical precondition. The last type is the

Valorisation Grant. University researchers receive subsidies for commercial activities, based on

technological research, for example spin-offs (Bodewes, 2006). These programmes are based on

themes which are identified “ex-ante” and in contrary with the OTP, research proposals must comply

with certain preconditions (Bodewes, 2006). Research projects for the STP can be proposed within

such specific theme (Interview Konings, 2007). To stay in line with the Dutch innovation policy, STW

needs to pay more attention to the specific technology programmes instead of the OTP. One of the

objects of the Dutch innovation policy (see section 3.2.1) is to have a strong focus on certain research

areas. Therefore, the budget for OTP will be halved by 2009 (interview Konings, 2007).

The third activity of STW is knowledge trade. STW is given the goal to obtain revenues from

knowledge transfer, and/or patents. Potential users of knowledge that is created during STW

projects have to pay a fee to STW before knowledge can be commercially used. This fee could be a

lump sum and/or royalties for a certain patent (STW, 2001). STW’s knowledge trade policy is

created to stimulate knowledge flow and utilisation. STW’s knowledge trade policy will be further

explained in section 3.3.5.

Figure 8: STW’s activities

33

3.3.3 Applicants

Not everybody is allowed to apply for STW grants. In principle, professors, associate professors, and

assistant professors appointed to Dutch universities can apply for STW grants. It is also possible that

universities or university departments collaborate for grants. In order to get a STW grant, the core of

the project must have a clear technical component. If applicants come from the social sciences, the

project proposal must be multidisciplinary (STW, 2004). Besides universities, research institutes can

apply for STW grants. A list of research institutes who are allowed to apply for STW grants is given in

appendix A. Because of the criteria STW uses, firms are not allowed to apply for grants by

themselves. Furthermore, it is possible that universities or university departments collaborate for

grants.

3.3.4 Project execution

To get a feeling of how STW projects are executed, an explanation is given of the project

development. First the general setting of STW projects is described, than more specific information is

given about the decision procedure and the function of the STW user committee.

A research proposal is filed by an applicant (the project leader) in a standardized format. A special

paragraph in this research proposal is the utilisation plan. In this utilisation plan, the applicant

explicates the potential utilisation of the results of the research. Furthermore, the applicant has to

attract and introduce potential users that accepted to be interested in the project and are willing to

cooperate. Users are defined as persons, companies, or institutes, outside the research area of the

applicant, who are willing to adopt the results of the research project (STW, 2007). The users will be

united in the STW user committee. More details about this user committee are given later in this

section.

After acceptance of the research proposal by the STW board (the specific decision procedure is

explained later in this section), subsidies are given to the project leader to execute the project.

Projects are financed by STW but users are also able to contribute to the project. This can be done by

direct investments or by providing an in-kind contribution. In any case, STW is the main financier;

users are not allowed to contribute more than STW. It depends on the level of interest, how much a

user is willing to co-finance. Users who contribute more to the project could have more rights to

make use of the results (more details about this are given in section 3.3.5). It is mandatory for users o

contribute into the project if total project costs are above a certain level. The requirements for co

financing under a certain project scale are given in table 3.

Table 3: Minimal required co financing under a certain project scale (STW, 2007)

Total project costs Minimal required co financing

< 0,5 million euros 0

Between 0,5 and 1 million euros 25% of the extra costs above 0,5 million euros

Between 1 and 1,5 million euros 125.000 euros plus 35% of the extra costs above 1 million

euros

Between 1,5 and 2 million euros 300.000 euros plus 45% of the extra costs above 1,5 million

euros

> 2 million euros 525.000 euros plus 50% of the extra costs above 2 million

euros

Research can be performed by PhD students, postdocs or a research team at the university. STW

projects will normally last 4 years. Subsidies are given to the project leader to perform research for

the first two years (subsidies for 4 years are reserved at STW at the beginning of the project but the

34

money is not available yet for the project leader). After two years, an evaluation is done and the

finance for the last two years is given. STW also stimulates PhD students to finish the projects in 4

years by offering a bonus if the project finishes in time. It is possible to extend the project but only if

it would lead to significant results beneficial for the utilisation. The members of the user committee

(explained later in this section) have to pay 50% of the costs needed for extension. It is also possible

to ask for extra finance throughout the project. In that case, the users have to contribute 25% of the

extra finance. Before 2004 users did not have to contribute in case of extra finance. Granting more

subsidies was less difficult during that time (interview van den Berg, 2007). The project is finished

(for STW) when STW stops financing the project. However, it is still possible that the project is

continued at the university or firm after STW stopped financing.

Decision procedure

Because more research proposals are filed than STW can grant, STW created a decision procedure to

compare all research proposals and select the most promising ones. The procedure consists of a few

important steps and is in general the same for the OTP as for the specific programmes.

Every research proposal is assigned to a STW Program Officer. The Program Officer first decides if

the research proposal meets all criteria. As described, each research proposal has to be made in a

standard format with an utilisation paragraph. Through the utilisation paragraph, a first indication of

the potential utilisation of the research results is given. After this first evaluation, a minimum of five

experts on the specific subject of the research proposal, are approached (both from the academic as

the business world) and are asked to act as referees. They give comments on the proposal based on

the scientific objectives (technical content) and methods and utilisation plan. The comments made by

the referees are sent to the applicant and he or she is asked to answer every remark (www.stw.nl).

By involving the external experts as referees, STW receives a clear view of the possible implication of

the research on society. If referees are enthusiastic, the chances of utilisation will rise. In the next

phase of the procedure, the proposal is judged by a judging-committee. The proposals are judged on

scientific quality and utilisation but not on the technical content. The judging-committee consists of

12 persons from the research world, trade and industry as well as from universities. The judges are

anonymous and they do not know who the other judges are. The judging-committee reviews 20

research proposals. For the next 20 research proposals, a new judging-committee is created. Finally,

the board of STW decides which proposal will be granted, based on the remarks of the referees and

the judging-committee (Bodewes et al., 2007).

The decision procedure for the Valorisation Grant is different. Applicants apply for a phase 1, which

is a technical/commercial feasibility study for 6 months. When phase 1 is granted and completed,

applicants can apply for phase 2 which is the creation of a business plan, prototype, customer

network and financiers. Proposals are judged by a committee of experts and a final decision is made

by the board of STW (Bodewes et al., 2007).

STW user committee

As mentioned, the possible users of the results of the project are gathered in the STW user

committee. The user committee is an important method, developed by STW, to make sure that the

research results will be adopted by the industry and to stimulate knowledge flow. Here, more specific

information is given about the STW’s user committee.

The user committee consists of the programme officer from STW, project leader (most of the time the

professor), (university) researchers, potential users, and external experts. The project leader is the

chairman and STW is responsible for the secretariat. As explained, the project leader introduces

potential users during the research proposal phase in to the user committee. Together with the

programme officer from STW, the potential users are analyzed based on their contribution to the

35

project. The firm characteristics (size of firm, absorptive capacity, position in market) determine if

they are suitable for the user committee. If necessary, the user committee is extend with other

companies or external experts to get al user committee which is in “balance”. All firms should have a

positive contribution to the project and should be able to collaborate with each other (interview van

den Berg, 2007). STW desires to have four users in the user committee from which two are from the

industry. It depends on the project if it is possible to reach this minimum of four users. With good

argumentation however, it is possible to have fewer users in the user committee. It is also possible

for a user to receive an exclusive position within the user committee. The user has to provide a

substantial effort into the project and will receive the right to choose whether the user committee

will be extended. It depends on the specific project if it is possible to receive an exclusive position.

The user committee meets twice a year during the duration of the research project. These meetings

are organised by STW. During those user committee meetings, the progress of the project is

evaluated and input can be given by the users or external experts to increase the potential usability

of the results (STW, 2001).

By being a member of the STW user committee, users have rights and duties. The members of the

user committee are privileged since they are closely involved into the project from the start. The

members receive the opportunity to get informally in touch with researchers and other users. This

creates a network in which knowledge can flow through the members of the user committee. But

being a member of a user committee implicates that all results are confidential and can not be shared

with other parties (STW, 2004). Members of the user committee can not automatically make use of

the results of the research project. This will be elucidated in section 3.3.5.

A last remark that has to be made concerning the user committee is that throughout the four years of

research, the composition of the user committee can chance. This is due to reorganisations in firms,

change of interests or new potential users that could benefit the project.

3.3.5 STW’s knowledge trade policy

As explained, utilization of the research results belongs to the mission of STW (see section, 3.3.1).

Stimulating the utilisation is done by taking utilisation, together with excellent research, as

requirements for the acceptance of research proposals. Furthermore, user committees are

established to involve potential users from the start of the project and to give them the opportunity

to influence the project for the benefit of the utilisation of the project results (see section 3.3.4).

Another important method to stimulate the utilisation of research results is STW’s knowledge trade

policy, which is one of STW’s main activities.

In the statutes of STW (in article 4) is stated that STW together with the university at which the

research is carried out, has the right to all results from the research (STW, 2001). In addition, STW

has the regulatory task to obtain income from this knowledge. In this section, STW’s knowledge

trade policy is described. Special attention is given to the results of STW’s knowledge trade policy.

Knowledge trade can be defined as all activities to protect the knowledge resulting from STW

projects and to stimulate the exploitation of this knowledge. STW gives a lot of attention to the

protection and stimulation of the exploitation of the knowledge. STW’s knowledge trade policy exists

of several parts.

According to STW, firms will only invest in the development of technology if they got any indication

that they might profit from the investments. Technology that flows out of university research is

mostly embryonic. It needs more applied research to make it commercially applicable. This implies

high investments with high risks. By patenting the innovation, and providing “exclusive” licences to

firms; firms are more willing to invest (interview Konings, 2007). The conviction that patents can

stimulate the knowledge transfer is also made visible in figure 6 in section 3.3.1. A direct link is

36

visible between two objectives of STW: file patents on behalf of STW and stimulate knowledge

transfer.

The members of the user committee (except the researchers who perform the research) are not

allowed to use or commercialize the knowledge that is created in the project. If the members of the

user committee want to make use of the results, they have to negotiate with STW (STW negotiates in

name of the research institute), which is all recorded in the option agreement. Members of the user

committee can receive a “right of first refusal” to the right of using the research results (for example,

when transferring patents to firms, patents are offered first to the user with the right of first refusal).

This “right of first refusal” can be obtained by contributing substantially to the project. The “right of

first refusal” however does not give the right to commercially use the results. The right to use or

apply results is obtained by way of a patent, a licence or a know-how agreement (STW, 2001). To

receive a patent or a licence, royalties have to be paid to STW. This is a percentage of the returns

obtained with the use of the rights acquired. The commercial value and the contribution of the user

have to be taken into account to determine the royalties. The financial revenues from transferring

patents or royalties from licenses will in principle return to the university faculty involved, after

deduction of expenses made by STW, and under the assumption that they will be spent on research

and education in an adequate way. The income, which STW acquires through payments for the

knowledge transfer, is divided between research institutes and STW pro ratio (STW, 2001).

In case of an “invention”, STW strives to patent this invention when the patent could stimulate the

utilisation of the invention. In order to detect possible patents, researchers are obliged by STW to

indicate any possible patent option during the research immediately. If a possible “invention” is

identified, an invention disclosure has to be filled by the project leader with all relevant information

about the invention. The invention disclosure form as used by STW is given in appendix B. Based on

this invention disclosure, STW decides if the invention has a potential commercial value and if a

patent must be filed. Patents are only filed if the chance is real that it can stimulate the utilisation

(interview Konings, 2007). Patents are filed by STW or by STW and universities together. Under

certain conditions, firms will patent inventions directly (Bodewes, 2006). STW constantly strives for

the transfer of patents to users. This is why, according to dr.ir.C.L.M. Marcelis, the filing of patents is

not an objective but it is a means to transfer knowledge to firms since firms can make use of the

knowledge when a patent is transferred (interview Marcelis, 2007). If necessary, STW finances the

costs of a potential patent. After the issuing of a licence of a patent to a user, these costs must be

repaid by the user (STW, 2001).

Another part of STW’s knowledge trade policy is the fact that publications can be postponed (with a

maximum of one year) to give time to the user committee to file a patent. Postponing publication has

to be done to resolve the conflict between the need of universities to make research results public

and the need for the filing of patents for utilization. Once a patent is filed, university researchers are

able to write publications without harming the firm’s interests. So, STW has the opinion that it can

satisfy both worlds by protecting the knowledge through patents (interview Konings, 2007).

After a patent is transferred to a firm or a licence is given, STW wants to make sure that the patent is

used to commercialize a certain product; otherwise utilisation failed. It could also be that the firm

uses the patent for defensive reasons. To prevent this, the STW uses anti-freezer conditions. These

conditions imply that if a minimum of royalties are not achieved yearly, the exclusive right of a firm

can be changed into a non-exclusive right (STW, 2001).

A final remark is that patents however are not always applicable to STW projects. Knowledge that is

created can be highly fundamental. In that case, there is also no risk to make this knowledge public.

37

Results from STW’s knowledge trade policy

In the years 2001 till 2006, 140 patents are filed resulting from STW projects. An annual overview is

given in figure 9. A division is made between patents filed by STW and patents filed directly by firms.

It can be seen that the amount of patents filed decreased significantly since 2005. This is partly due

to the more strict procedure of patent disclosure which is initiated since 2005 (specific, the use of

invention disclosure form), (STW, annual report 2006). No graph can be presented of the percentage

of projects that has led to a patent in the period 2001 – 2006, since relevant data is lacking from the

STW annual reports. However, in STW's utilisation reports and older annual reports, this data is

available for the period 1992 – 2000 (see figure: 10). Over the period 1992-2000, it seems that the

percentage of patents per project is rising. However, no data can be presented about the effectiveness

of these patents for the knowledge transfer.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Am

ou

nt

of

pate

nts

Patents filed by firms

Patents filed by STW

Figure 9: Patents filed during STW projects (source: STW annual reports and utilisation reports)

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Amount of patents per project

Figure 10: Amount of patents per project from 1992 – 2000 (source: STW annual reports and

utilisation reports)

38

As described, the ultimate goal of patents filed by STW is to transfer or licence them to firms. In

figure 11 the yearly amount of patents transferred to firms are shown together with the amount of

licenses given. The patent revenues are based on royalties received from licenses and lumpsum

payments for transferred patents. It can be seen from the data in table 4, in which the exploitation

degree of STW patents is presented for three periods that the amount of patents transferred to firms

is rising. The exploitation degree is the percentage of patents that is eventually transferred or

licensed to a firm.

Table 4: Annual exploitation degree of STW patents (STW utilisation report, 2006)

Period Exploitation degree of STW patents

1981-1991 33%

1992-2000 55%

2001-2004 60%

As can be seen from figure 12, the average amount of royalties received from patents is stable

(almost 0,4 million euros). Yearly revenue differences are mostly dependent on the lumpsum

payments. However, patents transferred in (for example) 2001 can generate income not only in

2001, but also in the following years, dependent on the transfer deal. Therefore, it would be better to

do a cohort analysis to get a better picture of the yearly patent revenues. However, not enough data is

presented by STW in its annual and utilisation reports to create such a cohort analysis.

In general, total patent revenues (lumpsum and royalties) are higher then patent costs (see figure

11). Therefore, the knowledge trade has a positive result for STW. If personnel costs (specialized

jurists and STW program officers) for the knowledge trade (approximately 10 FTE at STW) would be

taken into account, revenues from knowledge trade are negative for STW (Bodewes, 2006).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Years

Pa

ten

ts

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

1,40

1,60

Mil

lio

n E

uro

s

Patents transferred

Licence given

Patent revenues

Patent costs

Figure 11: Amount of patents transferred and licences given (source: STW annual reports and

utilisation reports)

39

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

1,40

1,60

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Years

Mil

lio

n E

uro

s

Lumpsum

Royalties

Figure 12: Yearly patent revenues

Not all patents can be successfully transferred to firms and not all patents can a suitable licensee be

found for. These kinds of patents will be dropped after 30 months by STW. The yearly amount of

patents dropped is presented in figure 13. If the amount of patents dropped together with the

amount of patents transferred to firms, are subtracted from the total amount of patents filed by STW,

the changes in STW’s patent portfolio are made visible. It can be seen from figure 13 that over the

years 2001 – 2006, STW’s patent portfolio is shrinking. This is mostly due to the decline of patents

filed since 2005 (see figure 9).

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Years

Pate

nts

Patents dropped

Potfolio mutation

Figure 13: Patents dropped and portfolio mutation

Analyzing this patent data, it is hard to give clear conclusions about the effectiveness of STW's

knowledge trade policy. To make conclusions, more quantitative research has to be performed which

will provide more insight in the effectiveness of STW's knowledge trade policy. However, it is

concluded that STW is not making any profit from patent revenues. This implies that STW's

ownership of patents does not result in profits for STW.

40

3.4 Summary

There are several factors that define STW’s policy. The factors, with its main implications, which

characterize STW’s policy are listed in Table 5. In general it can be stated that STW makes use of

three different methods to stimulate knowledge transfer. First, in the decision procedure, STW grants

funds to research projects that by nature (character of research) have high possibilities to eventually

be transferred and used by the industry. Second, (industrial) users are involved in the user

committee from the beginning of the project. The interaction between the firms and the university

researchers stimulates the knowledge transfer. Finally, STW’s knowledge trade policy creates

guidelines and sets conditions under which firms can make use of the created knowledge.

In the next chapter, STW’s policy as presented in this chapter is confronted with the theoretical

framework. Based on this confrontation, hypotheses are made about how STW stimulates

collaborative R&D and knowledge flow.

Table 5: Summary of STW’s policy

Factor Main implications

Decision procedure • Attention is given in the research proposal to the potential

utilisation

• Research proposals are judged by external experts on the

potential utilisation

• Degree of scientific quality is judged by anonymous researchers

Involvement of users • From the beginning of the project, users are involved by joining

the user committee

• Users can partly influence the trajectory of the project of

improving the usability

• Knowledge transfer is stimulated by the interaction of potential

users and the researchers in the user committee

Knowledge trade • STW, together with the university, has the right to all the results

which come from the research

• Patents are filed on patentable results

• Users are stimulated to take over “STW-patents”

• By paying royalties, members of the user committee can receive a

licensee to make use of the results

• Utilisation of transferred patents is stimulated by “anti-freezer”

conditions.

Open Technology

Programme

• Any researcher can apply for a grant at any time

• Open structure

Specific Technology

Programme

• Researchers can apply for a grant which is placed in a certain

theme

• Valorisation grant stimulates research spin-offs

41

4 STW’s policy confronted with theory

As described in chapter 3, STW has an important function in the Dutch innovation system to

stimulate knowledge transfer through collaborative R&D. STW's mission is the stimulation and

coordination of scientific research in the Netherlands and the stimulation of knowledge transfer to

society, industry, and science groups. Concluding from the literature review in chapter 2, knowledge

transfer and collaborative R&D are diverse processes with many issues to be dealt with.

In this chapter, STW’s policy is confronted with the theory about knowledge transfer and

collaborative R&D to analyze to what degree STW is incorporating the aspects of each of the issues as

stated in the theoretical framework. By performing this analysis, hypotheses can be made about the

practical working of STW’s policy in relation to knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D. These

hypotheses are tested, as a part of chapter 6, to find an answer to the research question on how STW

funded projects differ from non-STW projects.

In section 4.1 the general knowledge transfer issues and the knowledge transfer issues during

collaborative R&D as stated in Table 2 in chapter 2 are confronted with STW’s policy. In section 4.2, a

table is given which summarizes the confrontation of STW’s policy with the issues from the

theoretical framework. In section 4.2, also some hypotheses are made concerning the practical

working of STW in relation to knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D.

4.1 STW analysis

A confrontation between the theory and STW’s policy will reveal to what degree STW is taking the

different theoretical issues into account.

First of all, it became clear from the literature review that multiple knowledge transfer mechanisms

can be identified for public-private knowledge transfer. The relative importance of these knowledge

transfer mechanisms is argued on in literature. From STW’s policy it can be concluded that

cooperating in R&D, patents, publications, and interaction (both formal and informal) between

university and firm researchers are important mechanisms for knowledge transfer in STW projects.

These conclusions are based on the following facts. STW’s framework is built on the fact that

universities and firm collaborate on R&D. There fore, cooperation is an important knowledge

transfer mechanism for STW. As can be seen from figure 6 in chapter 3, one of STW’s main activities

is stimulating knowledge transfer by filing patents. From this, it can be concluded that STW highly

values patents as a mean of knowledge transfer. This high value on patents could be reconsidered

however by STW since according to the literature, the relative importance of patents as a mean of

knowledge transfer is disputable (Verspagen, 2006; Cohen et al., 2002). Furthermore, knowledge is

transferred in STW projects through the creation of (co)publications, which is generally considered

as an important mechanism for knowledge transfer (Cohen et al., 2002; Gibbons & Johnston, 2000;

Argrawal & Henderson, 2002). In addition, because of the involvement of firms in the STW user

committee, firm’s researchers and university researchers are forced to interact during the half yearly

meetings. These meetings stimulate both formal and informal interaction between firm’s and

university researchers, which are also key mechanisms to transfer knowledge (Crespi et al., 2007).

The mechanism of labour mobility (Zucker et al., 1998) is not per definition identified in STW’s policy

as a mean to transfer knowledge in STW projects. Still, this does not imply that knowledge transfer

through labour mobility can not occur during STW projects.

Since STW emphasizes patents as a mean for knowledge transfer and discussion exists in the

literature about the relative importance of patents, some more attention is given to this topic. After a

42

confrontation with the theory it can be concluded that the issues related to patents as a knowledge

transfer mechanism are not all incorporated by STW’s policy. The following explains how STW's

policy deals with the theoretical issues concerning patents as a knowledge transfer mechanism.

STW claims, like Jensen & Thursby (2001) that university research mostly results in “embryonic”,

generic inventions (interview Konings, 2007). According to some authors, patents provide security

for firms to invest in further research to make these embryonic inventions commercially applicable

(Shane, 2004, Colyvas et al., 2002; Berger, 2001). Theory declares that knowledge transfer would not

occur without a patent that provides sufficient security and the embryonic invention would not come

into practice (Verspagen, 2006). STW’s patent policy is partly based on this theory (interview

Konings, 2007). However, as described in chapter 2, this theory does not hold in every situation. In

the situation of an embryonic invention, patents can only be useful if a clear indication can be given

of the cost of extra development investments and if the extra development activities do not lead to a

finding that can be patented separately (Verspagen, 2006). As described in chapter 3, STW makes use

of an invention disclosure form (see appendix B) to receive more information about the invention in

order to decide if a patent should be filed. The invention disclosure form can be a useful tool to get an

indication of the extra development costs. However, the form is mainly used to get an idea of the

commercially potential. Besides a clear understanding of the extra development costs, STW needs to

be certain about the level in which the invention is embryonic. Colyvas et al. (2002) show that

patented non-embryonic inventions generates revenues but do not stimulate the knowledge transfer.

Again, the STW invention disclosure form could be used to test to which degree the invention is

embryonic. Some attention is given in the invention disclosure form to this subject; question A8 (see

appendix B), gives an indication of the phase of the invention.

According to the literature, the success of knowledge transfer of embryonic inventions does not only

depend on the use of patents. Without cooperation of the inventor, firms might have difficulty

absorbing the embryonic knowledge (Jensen & Thursby, 2001). No special attention is given in STW’s

policy concerning the involvement of the inventor at the firm after transferring the knowledge. On

the other hand, it is recognized by STW that knowledge transfer is most successful if the inventor

would be employed at the firm (interview van den Berg, 2007). Therefore, the STW program officer

will stimulate the firm involved and the inventor to continue their relationship after transfer of the

knowledge.

Colyvas et al. (2002) point out the problem of finding the proper firm for transferring a patent or

providing a licence to. This problem is covered by STW’s policy if a patent is transferred or a licence

is given to one of the members of the user committee. In that situation, STW and the university have

collaborated with the firm for a few years, which gives enough time to decide whether a firm is a

proper candidate. Furthermore, the anti-freezing condition (as explained in chapter 3) of STW makes

sure that the firm really utilises the patent and does not only own the patent for defending actions

and enlarging their patent portfolio.

Various factors are identified in the literature for the propensity to patent (see table 2, chapter 2).

Obviously, by STW being a governmental institute, the propensity to patent in STW’s policy is

influenced by government’s policy. Two other factors that according to the literature influence the

propensity to patent can also be identified in STW's policy. These are quality control and generating

revenues (table 2, chapter 2). STW controls the quality of knowledge transfer by determining who

will own patent rights by first owning the patents themselves and deciding themselves on

transferring patents or providing licenses. The propensity to patent is also influenced by the fact that

STW’s policy also strives to generating revenues (www.stw.nl). As can be seen from figure 11 in

chapter 3, STW revenues from patents exceed the patent costs. Still, patent revenues are not high

enough to cover patent costs and personnel costs (Bodewes et al., 2006). This matches with the

theory that it cannot be expected that licensing income will soon become a major source of income

for universities (Verspagen, 2006). Besides government policy, quality control and generating

43

revenues, no indications can be found in STW’s policy for other factors that influence the propensity

to patent.

In order to relate STW’s patent policy to the theoretical framework, the remark has to be made that

STW patents can be considered the same as university (or TTO owned) patents since the patent

resulted from university research. In addition, both STW and the university have ownerships rights

(interview Konings, 2007). Hence, patents are not owned by a individual researcher. STW being the

owner of the patent instead of the individual researcher increases the efficiency of the knowledge

transfer process and utilisation (Hellman, 2006). However, according to Rappert et al. (1999), STW

ownership of patents could cause conflicts with large firms since they tend to resist university / STW

control over intellectual property (Rappert et al., 1999).

The policy that STW (and the university) are owning the patent rights corresponds with the theory of

Aghion & Tirole (1994). They conclude that an innovation resulting from collaborative R&D may

have a lower (social) value if the firm would own the patent rights instead of the university or STW.

In contrast with this theory, Crepsi et al. (2007) show no difference in university (and STW) or firm

owned patents concerning the rate of successful knowledge transfer and commercial value of the

patent. In the light of their empirical research, it could be considered to revaluate STW's patent

policy.

As described in chapter 3, through their policy of knowledge trade, STW strives to transfer the patent

to the industry or to provide licences. In STW’s policy, the amount of lumpsum payments and/or

royalties need to be determined before the actual value of the patent is known. The amount of

payments depends on the commercial value and the contribution of the user (interview Marcelis,

2007). This can lead to tension between STW and firms (Rappert et al., 1999) since it is very difficult

to determine the amount of contribution in collaborative R&D and to assign a dollar value to the

patent (Lee, 2000). STW realizes that it is difficult to determine the amount of payments but

problems are mostly juridical covered (interview Marcelis, 2007).

According to Santoro & Gopalakrishnan (2001), in order to increase the potential knowledge flow

from patents, STW patent policy needs to be flexible. From analyzing STW's framework, it can be

concluded that STW's patent policy is flexible; each project is treated in a different way. For instance,

if small companies are involved, deals can be made that payments for the use of knowledge will be

done at a later stage. In that case, start-ups are not burdened with high payments. On the other hand,

large companies are treated in an opposite way (interview Konings, 2007).

According to the literature, successful knowledge transfer does not only depend on the effective use

of the different knowledge transfer mechanisms (including patents). The characteristics of the actors

involved in the collaborative R&D project, the character of the knowledge and even the disciplinary

area has influence on the knowledge transfer process.

The actors involved in STW projects are (besides STW) industrial firms and university researchers.

First the firm- then the university researchers characteristics are analyzed. A firm’s absorptive

capacity and a firm’s willingness to engage in multiple knowledge transfer mechanisms, affects the

potential of effectively transferring knowledge (Bercovitz & Feldmann, 2006). These firm

characteristics need to be considered in the creation of the user committee. The criteria for firms to

participate in a STW project are initially limited to the question if the firms are potentially willing to

adapt the results of the research project. Therefore, in STW’s policy, no criteria are defined, when the

decision is made to add the firm to the user committee, concerning the firm’s absorptive capacity and

willingness to engage in multiple knowledge transfer mechanisms. However, it is the responsibility of

the STW program officer to decide if the firm is able to adopt the knowledge. According to one of

STW's program officers (interview van den Berg, 2007), it is recognized that large firms with own

R&D capabilities are more likely to engage in further research that might be necessary to

44

commercialize the innovation. Small firms with no research facilities, on the other hand, might not be

able to adopt knowledge generated in the STW projects (interview van den Berg, 2007). So, other

firm characteristics are somewhat taken into account in STW’s policy.

Concerning the university researchers, experience (in general terms like age and amount of

publication) of the university researcher contributes positively to the rate of knowledge transfer

(Crespi et al., 2007). STW’s personal addressed technology programmes (part of the STP, see figure

8) take these researcher characteristics specifically into account. The decision procedure for the

Open Technology Programmes however, as described in section 3.3.2 does not incorporate the

experience of the university researcher. Besides experience, the culture and academic socialization

can influence the degree to which individual scientists participate in knowledge transfer activities

(Bercovitz & Feldmann, 2006). The research proposal with the utilisation section written for a STW

project reveals to some extend the interest and norms and values of the academic researcher. For

example, if the university researcher is not willing to perform a certain amount of applied research,

the project will not be funded by STW. Hence, university researchers that are granted STW funds,

probably have a positive attitude towards knowledge transfer and are willing to cooperate on the

stimulation of this knowledge transfer (if necessary through patents).

By analyzing STW's policy, it is the role of STW to finance research with high risks but also with

possible high rewards. STW’s funding for research projects is part of the second money flow

(www.stw.nl). It is stated in the literature that because of this kind of sponsored research (second

money flow), firms are stimulated to perform uncertain, high risk research with considerable

uncertainties related to certain areas of development and research (Hurmelinna, 2004). It is exactly

the role of STW to finance research with high risks and uncertainties but also with possible high

rewards (see figure 7 in chapter 3). Therefore, because STW projects are sponsored research

projects, it stimulates uncertain, highly risk research.

To transfer tacit knowledge, some kind of interaction must exist between the firm and the inventor

(Teece, 1985); more specific, firms and universities should cooperate in teams (Lam, 2005). The

transfer of tacit knowledge can occur during the STW user committee meetings and during the

collaboration in researc. By joining a STW project, firms are connected to a university-industry

network. This reduces the problem for firms to recruit scientists who will be able to connect the

firm’s internal R&D with the external academic community (Lam, 2005).

Although some authors argue that the degree and mechanisms of knowledge transfer differ per

disciplinary area (Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch, 1998; Schartinger et al., 2002; Bodas Freitas &

Bekkers, 2007), STW gives no special attention to the characteristics of the disciplinary area.

However, if the applicant comes from the social sciences, the project proposal must be

multidisciplinary since the core of the project must have a clear technical component (STW, 2004). In

the STW evaluation done by Dialogic (Bodewes et al., 2006), it is concluded that STW grants are given

to a high diversity of disciplinary areas. As can be seen from figure 14, in general from 2000 till 2004,

most STW projects are in the disciplinary areas of Technology & Engineering, Life sciences, medicine

and biology, and Physics (Bodewes et al., 2006). In appendix C, the disciplines are listed which form

the disciplinary areas as stated in figure 14.

According to Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch (1998) some disciplinary areas (like mechanical

engineering) are more focused on applied research than others (like chemistry). Mechanical

engineering falls (according to Bodewes et al., 2006) under the main disciplinary area of Technology

and Engineering and is the largest disciplinary area in the STW projects (see figure 14). Chemistry is

rather underrepresented. The weak conclusion (since only 4 years are presented in figure 14) can be

made that the disciplinary areas that are focused on applied research are higher represented in STW

projects than the areas that are focused on basic research.

45

Main disciplinary areas

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Sta

rt o

f p

roje

ct

Share of a discipline per year

Technology and Engineering Life sciences, medicine and biology Physics Computer science

Chemistry Mathematics Earth sciences Social and socio-cultural sciences

Figure 14: main disciplinary areas in STW projects (adopted from Bodewes et al., 2006)

Industry and university (theoretical) motives to collaborate on R&D have been analyzed in chapter 2.

Based on these theories, it is analyzed what drives firms and universities to collaborate on R&D

projects funded by STW. The main firm motivations to join STW projects seem to be access to

research results and key university personnel, perform pre-competitive research, and having small

financial risk. The main university motives to join STW projects seem to be securing funds,

developing products or knowledge which can be used for society and have a practical application,

and creating a network. These findings are further elaborated below.

As discussed in chapter 2, industry motives to collaborate on R&D are mostly to have access to

university research and university researchers, and to complement internal R&D. University motives

to collaborate on R&D are based on financial grounds and on the possibility of getting direction from

the industry to perform (fundamental) research. Firms that are members of the STW user committee

can (under some preconditions) get access to research results and to key university personnel. But,

since STW strives to have a minimal of four users in the STW user committee, it is not likely that

firms join STW projects to complement their own research; the risk exists that confidential

information of firm’s own research would flow to other members of the STW user committee. So,

collaborating with universities is especially useful for pre-competitive technologies (Tether, 2002)

which would not lead to competitive problems in the STW user committee. STW grants can only be

given to researchers from the Dutch universities or employees of certain research institutes (see

appendix A). Therefore, STW projects are initiated by academics and firms are attracted who might

be interested in the results of the project. Since STW projects are initiated by university researchers,

the chance is small that firms are involved only with the motivation to perform product development.

If product development is the main motivation (Lee, 2000), firms will contract universities to

collaborate on R&D without involving STW. Another motivation for firms to join a STW project is the

small financial risk (since STW finances most part of the project).

Securing funds (Lee, 2000) is a valid motive for universities to apply for STW grants. Besides this

financial motive, it is stated in the literature that universities perform collaborative R&D to develop

knowledge which has a practical application (Lee, 1996; Balconi & Laboranti, 2006; Jankowski,

46

1999). This could be an important motivation for universities to apply for STW grants, since STW

highly values the utilisation of results from STW projects. Through the STW user committee,

networks are created between academics and industry which may also be an important motivation

according to Hurmelinna (2004) for universities to collaborate on R&D.

STW’s policy influences the propensity to collaborate on R&D. This can be stated from the following.

The prominence of government policies aimed at raising the economic returns of publicly funded

research by stimulating university knowledge transfer is, according to the literature, a factor which

stimulates the propensity to collaborate on R&D (Bercovitz & Feldmann, 2006). As described in

chapter 3, the Dutch innovation policy is aimed at the stimulation of collaborative R&D to stimulate

public-private knowledge transfer and STW has an important role to achieve this. Thus STW policy

influences the propensity to collaborate on R&D since the collaborative R&D is sponsored by the

government. While firm characteristics (Fritsch & Lukas, 2001; Belderbos et al., 2004a) and

university researcher characteristics (Bercovitz & Feldmann, 2006; Hurmelinna, 2004) also influence

the propensity to collaborate on R&D according to the theory, STW's policy does not spent special

attention to these characteristics.

In the theoretical framework, attention is given to conflicts of interests when universities and firms

are collaborating on R&D. Confronting these theories with STW’s policy shows how STW deals with

conflicts of interest. It can be concluded that STW's policy reduces the chance of a conflict of interests

because firms are able to protect knowledge, universities can make research results public, the

university is not restricted by the firm in the performance of research, and STW negotiates with firms

on behalf of the university. These findings are explained below.

Universities and firms have conflicts with each other because of their different interests (Adems et

al., 2001; Van Looy et al., 2006). Universities generally want to make knowledge public through

publications while companies have a responsibility for, and a need to, protect the value of their

investments. STW’s policy deals with this problem. As described in chapter 3, results from STW

research projects will first be kept confidential within the STW user committee. If members of the

user committee are not willing to "use" the knowledge, results can be made public. But in case a

member shows interest in using the results, publications can be postponed (with a maximum of 1

year) in order for the firm to file a patent. After the patent is filed, the knowledge may be made public

without an harm to the firm (interview Konings, 2007). Some scholars are concerned that this part of

STW’s policy might reduce the incentive for universities to publish (Blumenthal et al., 1996, in Van

Looy et al., 2006). However, no indication is given that university researchers publish less in STW

projects (Bodewes et al., 2006). In fact, according to the STW evaluation report, university

researchers rate STW research projects higher than third money flow projects and equal to other

first and second money flow research projects, concerning the scientific quality (Bodewes et al.,

2006).

In the literature, the fear exists that through collaborative R&D, firms interfere with the normal

pursuit of science and that they seek to control relevant university research for their own ends (Van

Looy et al., 2006). This problem does not exist at STW projects since the university researcher (the

applicant) is the project leader in the STW user committee and the influence of the firm is inferior to

the position of the university. Firms have less control on the project, since they do not fund the

research.

It is also stated in the literature that conflicts of interest may have influence on contract agreements

in collaborative R&D since universities are often far less experienced in deal making and universities

are also subject to greater restrictions due to their objectives and responsibilities (Agrawal, 2001).

To deal with this problem, STW (which is experienced in contract agreements, especially on juridical

matters) negotiates with firms on behalf of the university.

47

To reduce conflicts of interests, STW’s policy might be confronted with social sciences theories. To

increase economic growth, it might be possible that in some cases firms should have more authority

in the user committee. It is interesting to analyze how STW’s policy deals with these certain cases.

However, this theory is not within the scope of this thesis. Hence further research could concentrate

on socioeconomic aspects of STW’s policy.

According to the theory, problems during collaborative R&D can be prevented by effective

communication and openness. Strict guidelines and clear goals need to be set at the beginning of the

project for successful knowledge transfer (Matkin, 1994). When firms and universities join in a STW

project, they fall under the guidelines and goals of STW. By joining a project it is clear that members

of the user committee can not make use of the results without any compensation. Intellectual

property stipulations are set from the beginning of the project. In addition, through the user

committee meetings, university researchers and industry managers invest time in a dialogue on the

expected research results. An important problem during collaborative R&D, handling the output of

the collaboration (Humelinna, 2004), is covered through the user committee meetings since any

possible results are directly discussed and if necessary patents are filed. The user committee is also

important to build mutual trust which is according to Santoro & Gopalakrishnen (2001) important

for the success of knowledge transfer.

4.2 Hypotheses & summary

The issues, as stated in the theoretical framework are confronted with STW’s policy. In table 6, a

summary is given of how STW takes these issues into account. First it is summarized how STW’s

policy matches with the literature. Then, hypothesizes are made concerning the characteristics of

STW projects. These hypotheses are tested in the case studies in chapter 6.

In general, the same (important) mechanisms for knowledge transfer are identified by STW’s policy

as in the theoretical framework. However, STW empathizes patents as a mechanism for knowledge

transfer while according to the theoretical framework, the role of patents as a knowledge transfer

mechanism is uncertain. STW’s patent policy matches with the theory on patents being a transfer

mechanism for “embryonic inventions”. However, STW pays little attention to the measurement of

the extra development costs and the measurement of the degree to which the invention is embryonic.

Furthermore, like in the theoretical framework, STW acknowledges that knowledge transfer is most

successful if the inventor of an embryonic invention is employed by the firm. STW’s policy covers the

problems as stated in the literature for finding the right firm to transfer the patent to. Besides

government policy, quality control, and generating revenues, no indications can be found in STW’s

policy for other factors that influence the propensity to patent. Furthermore, as expected by the

theoretical framework, it is not expected that licensing income becomes a major source of income for

STW.

While according to the theoretical framework, firm characteristics influence the knowledge transfer,

STW gives no special attention to these firm characteristics. However, it is recognized by STW that

large firms with own R&D capabilities are more likely to engage in further research and small firms

with no research facilities might not be able to adopt fundamental knowledge resulting from STW

projects.

As stated in the theoretical framework, firms and universities should cooperate in teams to transfer

tacit knowledge. STW’s user committee stimulates the transfer of tacit knowledge. It is also stated in

the theoretical framework that the general experience of the university researcher contributes

positively to the knowledge transfer. STW’s personal addressed technology programmes take these

researcher characteristics specifically into account. In relation to the relevancy of disciplinary areas,

48

disciplinary areas with focus on applied research seem more represented in STW projects than the

disciplinary areas that are focused on fundamental research.

When confronted with the theoretical framework, the main firm motivations to join STW projects are

access to research results and key university personnel, perform pre-competitive research, and little

financial risk. The main university motives to join STW projects are securing funds, developing

knowledge which can be used for society and have a practical application, and creating an industry-

academic network. According to the theoretical framework, STW (as part of the Dutch innovation

policy) stimulates the propensity to collaborate on R&D.

Since STW projects are sponsored projects, firms are stimulated to perform uncertain, high risk

research with considerable uncertainties related to certain areas of development and research

according to the theoretical framework. This matches with the role of STW according to STW´s

policy.

STW´s patent policy includes that any intellectual property will be owned by STW and the university.

From the theoretical framework it can be stated that if STW is the owner of any patent instead of an

individual researcher, the efficiency of the knowledge transfer process and the utilisation is

increased. However, according to the theoretical framework, it could be considered to revaluate

STW´s patent policy since tension between STW and firms can occur because of the difficulty to

determine the amount of collaboration and the (commercial) value of a patent. However, STW’s

patent policy is flexible which according to the theoretical framework stimulates the knowledge

transfer. Conflict of interest is limited through STW’s patent policy since patents make it possible for

university researchers to publish results without firms having to fear that they lose control over the

ownership of the invention. The problem stated in the theoretical framework that through

collaborative R&D firms interfere with the normal pursuit of science, does not exist in STW projects

since university researchers are project leaders and the influence of the firm is inferior to the

position of the university. Furthermore, mutual trust (which is necessary for effective knowledge

transfer according to the theoretical framework) is build through the STW user committee and STW’s

rules and guidelines stimulate the knowledge transfer.

Now that a summary is given about how the theoretical framework match with STW’s policy,

hypothesises are made concerning the characteristics of STW projects. The hypotheses are made

based on the confrontation of the theoretical framework with STW’s policy. These hypotheses are

tested in chapter 6 while identifying the differences between STW and non-STW collaborative R&D

projects.

• Because of the involvement of firms and universities in STW user committees, informal

interaction between university and industry researchers is stimulated, which in turn stimulates

the knowledge flow.

• It is possible that in STW projects, patents are filed while the extra development costs are trivial.

• In STW projects, the intensions of a firm in relation to a potential patent are clear because of

involvement of the firm in the STW user committee.

• STW’s patent policy can lead to tension between firms and STW, especially with large firms.

• Because of STW’s awareness that large firms with high absorptive capacity are able to utilise

results from STW project, mainly large firms are involved in STW projects with own R&D

capabilities.

• A lack of attention to firm characteristics in STW’s policy could result in the involvement of firms

in the user committee who are in principle not able to adopt the knowledge created in the

project.

• The characteristics of the knowledge in STW research projects are mainly fundamental with a

clear utilisation aspect.

49

• University researchers who are granted STW funds have a positive attitude towards knowledge

transfer and are willing to cooperate on the stimulation of this knowledge transfer (if necessary

through patents).

• Firm motivations to join STW projects are access to research results and key university

personnel, perform pre-competitive research, and little financial risk.

• University motivations to apply for STW grants are to secure funds, develop knowledge which

can be used for society and has a practical application, and create an industry-academic network.

• It is not likely that firms join STW projects to complement their own research; because STW

strives to have a minimal of four users in the STW user committee, the risk exists that

confidential information of a firm’s own research would flow to other members of the STW user

committee.

• STW projects stimulate uncertain, high risk research, because STW projects are sponsored

research projects.

• No difference between STW and non-STW project can be expected for the firm and university

researchers experience since they are not especially taken into account by STW.

• STW's framework stimulates effective communication and openness which reduces problems

during collaborative R&D. To be more precise, STW’s framework reduces any conflict of interests

between firms and universities because firms are able to protect knowledge, universities can

make research results public, the university is not restricted by the firm in the performance of

research, and STW negotiates with firms on behalf of the university.

• The STW user committee stimulates mutual trust between universities and firms.

Table 6: Summary of theoretical framework, confronted with STW’s policy

General knowledge transfer issues

Issue STW policy

Relative importance of

mechanisms for knowledge

transfer

Patents, (co)publications, informal & formal interaction between firms

and universities, and informal collaboration.

Patents as knowledge

transfer mechanism

Patents are used to transfer “embryonic inventions”. Invention

disclosure form is not used to measure the extra development costs

and to test to which degree the invention is embryonic. STW

acknowledged that knowledge transfer is most successful if the

inventor of the embryonic invention is employed by the firm. The user

committee is a useful tool to find the proper firm to transfer a patent

to. Anti-freezing conditions makes sure that a patent is used for the

right purposes.

STW’s propensity to patent is influenced by: government policy,

university policy, and quality control. Patent revenues are not high

enough to cover patent costs and personnel costs.

Firm characteristics Firm characteristics are not specifically mentioned in the policy but it

is recognized that large firms with own R&D capabilities are more

likely to engage in further research and small firms with no research

facilities might not be able to adopt fundamental knowledge.

Knowledge characteristics Knowledge is mainly fundamental with a clear utilisation aspect.

Through the STW user-committee, firms are connected to a university-

industry network in which tacit knowledge can be transferred.

50


characteristics

Personal addressed technology programmes take researcher

characteristics into account. University researchers who STW funds are

granted have a positive attitude towards knowledge transfer.

The experience of the university researcher is not specifically

incorporated in the decision procedure.

Disciplinary area STW gives no special attention to the characteristics of the disciplinary

area. However, if the applicant comes from the social sciences, the

project proposal must be multidisciplinary since the core of the project

must have a clear technical component. Disciplinary areas with focus

on applied research seem more represented in STW projects than the

disciplinary areas that are focused on fundamental research.

Knowledge transfer issues during collaborative R&D

Issue STW policy

Motives for collaborative

R&D

Main firm motivations to join STW projects: access to research results

and key university personnel. Perform pre-competitive research. Small

financial risk.

Main university motives to join STW projects: securing funds, develop

knowledge which can be used for society and have a practical

application, creation of network.

Propensity to collaborate

on R&D

STW (as part of the Dutch innovation policy) stimulates the propensity

to collaborate on R&D. No special attention is given in STW’s policy to

firm characteristics and university researcher characteristics.

Source of funding STW funds are part of the 2nd money flow. Sponsored research by STW

stimulates uncertain, highly risk research.

Geographic proximity No special attention is given by STW to the geographic proximity of

members of the user committee.

Intellectual Property

Rights

STW as owner of any patent, and not the individual researcher,

increases the efficiency of the knowledge transfer process and

utilisation. Tension between STW and firms can occur because of the

difficulty to determine the amount of collaboration and the

(commercial) value of a patent. STW’s patent policy is flexible which

stimulates the knowledge transfer.

Experience with

collaborative R&D

The chance that a research application is granted is higher for

university researchers which have experience with applying for STW

grants since they are familiar with STW’s expectations for the research

proposal.

51


involvement

No special attention is given in the STW policy to the characteristic of

university researchers.

Conflict of interest Conflict of interest is limited through STW’s patent policy. The fear that

firms take control over university research does not exist at STW

projects. University researchers are project leaders and the influence of

the firm is inferior to the position of the university.

Mutual trust Mutual trust is build through the STW user committee.

Communication

effectiveness

STW’s rules and guidelines stimulate the knowledge transfer.

52

53

5 Case descriptions

To explore how STW and non-STW collaborative R&D projects differ, an empirical analysis is done

based on six cases of projects in which the Eindhoven University of Technology and industry

collaborated in R&D. The projects in three of the cases are subsidised by the technology foundation

STW, while the other three projects are financed by the firms involved.

In this chapter, the research methodology of the cases are described and a brief overview of the cases

is given. It needs to be stressed that no company sensitive information is given throughout this

thesis. Therefore the company names of the firms involved in the cases are kept confidential. In the

appendix F (which is confidential), a more thorough summary of the cases is given. In section 5.1 it is

explained how the cases are selected and how data is gathered from the cases. Section 5.2 contains a

brief summary of each case in order to make the context of the case clear.

In chapter 6, the data gathered from the cases is analyzed and confronted with the theoretical

framework (chapter 2) and the hypotheses (chapter 4) so statements can be made concerning the

influence of STW’s involvement in collaborative R&D.

5.1 Research method

The research is performed in the context of a NWO project performed at the Eindhoven Centre for

Innovation Studies (ECIS). In this NWO project, the diversity of knowledge transfer in public-private

knowledge networks in the Netherlands is analyzed. As a part of the project, a database is created

with a large number of case studies of collaborative R&D projects. From this database, six cases are

selected for this thesis. These six cases are selected from the database on certain criteria. First, the

cases should incorporate collaborative R&D projects and second, the technology foundation STW

needs to be involved in three of the six cases. The three other cases are used as a control group to be

able to indicate any specific factors that distinguish STW-projects. To indicate any possible sector

specific differences in collaborative R&D, three different disciplinary areas are chosen: the

biomedical area, the chemical area, and the mechanical engineering area. Per disciplinary area, two

cases are analyzed: one case with involvement of STW and one case without involvement of STW. An

overview of the chosen cases is given in table 7.

54

Table 7: Case overview

Case number Case name Sponsored

by

Faculty

Case 1 – STW

Flow measurement in the

coronary artery

STW Biomedical

Engineering

Case 2 – STW

Improvement of the slurry

bubble column performance

STW Chemical Engineering

and Chemistry

Case 3 – STW

Air film cooling through laser

drilled nozzles

STW Mechanical

Engineering

Case 1 – non STW

Mechanical characterization of

the coronary artery

Industry Biomedical

Engineering

Case 2 – non STW

Rare earth activated-(oxy)

nitride materials for LED

applications

Industry Chemical Engineering

and Chemistry

Case 3 – non STW

Supervisory control of complex

manufacturing machines

Industry Mechanical

Engineering

For each case, a standardized method and framework is used to collect data. A protocol with

questions is developed as a part of the overall NWO project. In the NWO project, ten factors are

identified from literature which covers the characteristics of the whole public-private research

project from idea creation until the diffusion and impact of the results. These factors are the main

subjects in the case protocol (see table 8). By using this protocol, a structured and very detailed

insight of each collaborative R&D project is received. When using this protocol for analysing the

cases in this thesis, it is possible to compare the different cases with each other in a detailed and

complete way.

For each topic from the table, questions have to be answered on numerous variables. In this thesis,

data to answer the questions from the protocol is gathered based on the triangulation approach, in

which different sources of data are used; Seventeen interviews are held with actors from the

university and industry that participated in the collaborative R&D project2. In addition, other sources

of information such as patents, PhD theses, websites, and published articles are applied.

2 In all cases, the project leader(s) from the university are interviewed. The PhD student who performed the research

is interviewed in all cases except for case 2 - STW and case 2 non STW because the PhD student could not be reached.

No information was given by the firm in case 2- non STW, since the firm did not want to cooperate. This is probably

due to the disturbed relationship between the university and the firm during that project (more details will be given

in section 5.2). In case 1 – non STW, the firm was very reserved in providing information. This is because the project

was still running during the time of data gathering and the firm was afraid of the possible publication of any results or

information about the research project. In case 3 – non STW, the PhD student was also an employee of the firm.

Therefore the same person could cover the firm related questions as well as the university related questions. In case 2

- STW, two persons from the company are interviewed.

55

Table 8: Protocol subjects

Topic Content

Innovation Description of the technology, in particular its main

applications and potential benefits. Identifications of the

main sources of knowledge of this innovation as well as

its most likely potential users.

Origins of the innovative idea /

innovation

Description of the origins of the innovations, in

particular, how and why the idea emerged and who had

the idea. Relating the innovation with previous scientific

and technological knowledge (previous related

published papers and patents)

Development project Description of how the innovative idea evolved into a

research and development project. Description of how

the project was developed, who designed, financed and

implemented the development research project(s).

Characterisation of the implementation of the

development project and the relative role of firms and

universities in the design and performance of R&D.

Identification of the early goals and the outcomes of the

project. Identification of the nature of the major

problems of the R&D project.

University researchers involved

in the innovation development

project

Description of the experience, reputation and

internationalisation of university researchers involved

in the R&D project. Characterisation of the researchers;

experience in collaboration with industry as well as

their motivations to participate on this R&D project.

University faculties (faculty)

involved in the development and

transfer of innovation

Description of the size, financial structure, research

prestige and diversity of the university facultys

participating on the development and transfer of the

innovation. characterisation of the positioning of the

faculty towards applied research and to contract or

collaborative research.

Firms involved in the design,

development and / use of the

innovation

Characterisation of the firms in terms of size, activity,

R&D intensity, capital origin. Identification of the

experience of firms in relating with universities and in

adopting/absorbing technologies developed or co-

developed with universities. Description of the main

formal and informal sources of technological

information of firms.

Main forms of technology

transfer

Description of the process by which firms developed

capabilities and knowledge to use the innovation

developed or co-developed by the universities.

56

Identification of the different sources and forms of

accessing and absorbing the technological knowledge

developed or co-developed by the university

researchers.

Start-ups or Spin-offs Description of reasons and context of the creation of a

start-up/spin off. Small description of the start-up

(founders, products, activities and IPR liabilities).

Implications of the knowledge

transfer process

Description of the impact of the knowledge transfer

process on the performance, productivity and research

objectives of the firms as well as on the research

objectives and financial structure of university facultys.

Identification of social, industrial and scientific impact of

this knowledge transfer process.

Organisations involved on the

process of knowledge transfer

Description of the organisations and institutions

involved in this process of transfer of knowledge

developed or co-developed by universities to firms.

5.2 Case summaries

In this section, each case is briefly summarized. The most striking results of the cases are presented

to get a feeling for the content of the case. Detailed data from the cases is discusses in chapter 6. As

discussed, no information about the companies involved is given.

Case 1 – STW: Flow measurement in the coronary artery

In December 2001, the STW granted subsidy for this project called ‘assessment of the coronary

circulation by guide-wire mounted sensors’. The project was funded by STW because of the applied

nature of the fundamental research. The main goal of this project is to develop a method in which

both pressure and flow can be measured with a single wire in the coronary artery. Measuring flow in

an artery is seen by cardiologists as the "holy grail". Therefore, researchers and cardiologists

consider this project a very important step for the treatment of patients with a stenosis in the

coronary artery. The idea for the project was developed at the Eindhoven University of Technology at

the faculty of Biomedical Engineering. The theoretical ideas developed by the faculty needed

practical research to make it clinical usable. Therefore, the idea was presented to a Swedish company

which conducts applied research as well as develops, manufactures, markets and sells innovative

medical devices in the field of interventional cardiology.

Throughout the project three firms (of which one hospital) cooperated on the project but only the

Swedish firm was actively involved. The Swedish firm got involved because of the personal network

of university researchers. At the TU/e the section Biomechanics & Tissue Engineering (BMTE)

provided two PhD students to perform the research. A researcher from the firm performed research

at the university and vice versa. Besides technical knowledge, the firm provided medical equipment

to perform the research at the university.

57

To perform research, it is very for BMTE to depend partly on hospitals and medical equipment firms;

it is very common at the faculty to perform collaborative R&D. The firm is also common with

collaborative R&D.

The motivation for the university to perform collaborative R&D in this project is to perform

innovative research and to produce publications. Industry’s main motivation is to perform innovative

research which could improve the trust in the company's products. Secondly, the results of the

project could improve the products of the firm.

A good relationship between the firm and the university exists. It is stated by the firm that this

collaborative R&D project was a success thanks to the good relationship and the trust between the

two actors. Besides the STW user committee meetings, the researchers from the university, hospital

and firm met on a regular basis and presented the progress of the project to each other.

No major problems occurred during the project. The only difficulty that hampered the knowledge

transfer was the far distance (1200km) between the firm and the university. During the project two

risks were identified by the firm. First, the firm identified the risk that patentable knowledge would

get public through publications. To prevent this, publications of the university were sent to STW and

the firm before they were made public. In this case not STW but the firm directly filed a patent based

on the results of the project. Any stipulations about the intellectual property rights were discussed

between STW and the firm, which was identified as pleasant from the university perspective.

University researchers were not interested in any patent. The second risk that was identified by the

firm was that research would become too basic because it was performed at the university. Regular

meetings and intensive contact prevented this. In overall, the PhD students and their supervisors

were very positive in performing collaborative R&D in this project. They were given the freedom to

perform research without great interference of the firm.

According to the university researchers and the firm, the involvement of STW added value (besides

providing funds) to the project because of the user committee meetings and their patent policy;

university researchers did not have to be involved in juridical matters concerning the intellectual

property.

Case 2 – STW: Improvement of the slurry bubble column reactor performance

This STW project started in the year 2000. The goal of the research project was to get fundamental

knowledge and more insight of the behaviour of catalyst particles in a slurry bubble column reactor

(SBCR). The idea of the project evolved at the TU/e, based on observations from previous

fundamental research. The results of the research project can be used to improve the efficiency of a

SBCR.

Three PhD students were involved, located at three different Dutch universities: Amsterdam

University (Uva, faculty of Science), Delft University of Technology (TUD, faculty of Chemical

Technology) and Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e, faculty of Chemical Engineering and

Chemistry). The majority of the research was done at the TU/e. In total, seven firms were involved in

this collaborative research project. The seven firms involved covered the full range of technological

aspects related to the research project. For example, firms were involved that make use of SBCR's

and firms are involved who produce catalyst particles which are used in SBCR's. Therefore, the

results of the research project might be interesting for all of the firms. All firms are large

multinational firms, active in the chemical industry and highly investing in R&D. Besides technical

expertise, firms delivered an in-kind contribution to the project like materials and machines. One

firm (from now on called firm A) made a SBC reactor available to perform measurements. This firm

was more involved than the other firms. Therefore, in this case study, the collaborative R&D between

the TU/e and firm A is analysed. One PhD student has spent a half a year to perform research at firm

A under the supervision of one the firm's researchers. That researcher co-authored in publications

with the TU/e based on this research project.

58

The faculty of Chemical Engineering and Chemistry at the TU/e is very common with collaborative

R&D. The researchers at that faculty filed 35 patents in the last 5 years and published many articles.

The motivation for the universities to be part of this research project is to write publications and

perform PhD research. The benefits for firm A to be involved are two folded. First, the knowledge

that flows out of research could be used for better understanding of the processes of firm A. This

could eventually lead to more efficient processes and a cost reduction. Secondly, this research project

broadened the network of the firm with engineers and professors.

All firms and university researchers met twice a year during the STW user committee meetings.

During the STW user committee meetings, the firms could give their opinion on the project and give

direction tot the PhD students if necessary. The user committee meetings were one of the five

mechanisms of knowledge transfer that can be identified in this project. The others were

publications, PhD theses, conferences, and informal conversations and meetings.

No problems occurred during the project even though seven firms needed to collaborate. No conflicts

arose because of the generic nature of the project.

The results of the project are not commercially used. No patent is filed and all knowledge is made

public through publications and on conferences across the world. According to firm A, patenting

fundamental research results could hamper the innovation in the chemical sector.

The project is largely financed by STW. Because of the budget of approximately 1,5 million euros,

firms had to contribute financially to the project. According to the industry, the project would not

have been done without the finance of STW since the project is too fundamental to be fully financed

by the industry. Still firm A is not satisfied with the knowledge trade policy of STW, since (according

to firm A) firms have to fulfil unrealistic conditions if they want to make use of the knowledge. In this

case however, this view of firm A did not lead to a conflict with STW, because no patent was filed.

Case 3 – STW: Air film cooling through laser drilled nozzles

In 2001, STW granted a subsidy to this research project to analyze the effect of air film cooling on

imperfect drilled holes in gas turbine blades. One Dutch company was involved in this project. This

firm is a specialist in laser drilling and is active in the gas turbine industry. The firm has about 350-

400 employees and a small R&D section with three employees. Research was performed in

collaboration with the Eindhoven University of Technology. Two faculties and two PhD students

were involved; Mechanical Engineering (section Energy Technology, involved to perform the

experimental research), and Mathematics and Computer Science (section CASA, involved to perform

the numerical modelling). Both faculties are evaluated in this case study, although the faculty of

Mechanical Engineering is evaluated more thoroughly. All research is performed at the university

while the firm provided materials for performing tests. According to the university researchers, it

would have been better if a company was involved who could actively collaborate on R&D,

unfortunately no such company was found to join the user committee.

The firm had experience with previous collaborative R&D projects with universities and with STW.

Initially, the origin of the project came from the industry but it was an indirect result from former

collaborative research with the TU/e. The research project was initiated because the firm did not

have the technological capabilities to perform this research. The university faculties involved usually

collaborate actively with industry to perform research and the project leaders are very common with

industrial consultancy and performing collaborative research.

The innovation could be used at the firm to change the production process and to increase the

reputation of the firm as being an innovative firm.

According to the researchers, the user committee was one mechanism that stimulated the knowledge

flow. The STW user committee in this project consisted of external experts from other (public)

research institutes besides the firm and the university. These institutes were introduced by the STW

programme officer and joined because of the interest in the subject of the project and because they

59

could add value to the research. The contribution of these two institutes was minimal. Both STW as

the university researchers agreed that it would have been better if the user committee was extended

with (foreign) firms who were able to adopt the research results. Unfortunately it was not able to

attract those firms. Besides knowledge flow occurring through the half yearly STW user committee

meetings, knowledge flow was also generated by publications and PhD theses. Knowledge is also

transferred through the active involvement of one of the researchers of the firm. Unfortunately, this

person retired during the project and after his retirement, the firm lost the capability to absorb the

knowledge that was created by the university. Therefore, the results are not adopted at the firm and

the project did not lead to any utilisation. Scientifically, this research project led to interesting results

which are made public through publications. The possibility of a university patent was analyzed by

STW and the TTO, but eventually no patent was filed. With a patent, the university might have been

able to attract companies who are able to adopt the knowledge and are willing to continue research

on the topic. To attract these firms without a patent, the strategy was chosen to attract these

companies through publications.

The project was fully financed by STW. According to the university and firm researchers, this project

would not have been executed without the subsidies of STW because the firm was not willing to

finance the project.

Case 1 – non STW: Mechanical characterization of the coronary artery

This research project started in January 2006 and the expected time of completion is January 2010.

Since this research project is still running, the firm involved was reserved in the provision of any

information concerning the project. Classified information could become public through this thesis

which is not desired by the company.

The firm involved in this collaborative R&D project develops catheters, balloons for angioplasty, and

stents. During the treatment of patients with these medical devices, the materials used interact with

the tissue of the coronary artery. Because little structured knowledge is available about the side

effects of the interaction with the arterial wall, in this project research is performed on the technique

to measure the properties of the arterial wall and the knowledge and further understanding is

created of the mechanical properties of the arterial wall.

The idea of this project emerged from research problems at the company. The firm was triggered by

publications from previous research done at the faculty of Biomechanical Engineering of the TU/e

(section Biomechanics & Tissue Engineering - BMTE). Based on this previous research, the company

contacted the faculty to perform collaborative R&D. The research is fully executed at the TU/e; no

research is done at the firm. The project is fully financed by the firm.

It is common to perform collaborative R&D at the faculty of Biomedical Engineering. The relative size

(in number of researchers involved) of this project is small compared with other projects at BMTE,

but the financial conditions are very positive.

The benefits for the university to be part of this project are two folded. First, this project made it

financially possible to perform research on this topic. Second, this project increases the future

opportunities of collaborative R&D; it is easier to contract other companies if positive research

results are made in collaboration with a prominent company like the firm involved in this project.

The TU/e was chosen by the firm as a research partner because of the technological expertise at the

university. By involving the TU/e, the firm can make use of an experimental research set-up in which

an artery can be kept "alive", that was developed at the university. Therefore, the firm does not have

to perform any tests on arteries of animals. The results of this research project are used by the firm

as part of a larger, in-house research project.

It is hard to give an exact percentage of the division between fundamental research and applied

research in this project. From an industry perspective, the project is mainly fundamental basic

research. From the perspective of the university, the project is more applied.

60

The research project is designed (very detailed) by the university researchers and is approved by the

firm. The university and the firm have intensive contact because the firm wants to be constantly

informed how their money is used in the research. Conference calls are done every week and every

two months the firm and the university researchers meet in person. Knowledge is transferred

through these meetings and conference calls. Knowledge is also transferred through reports that

have to be written on the progress of the project. Because of the strong in-house R&D capabilities of

the firm, the firm is able to absorb the knowledge. No risks are identified that the knowledge transfer

would fail, thanks to the constant monitoring of the firm.

Case 2 – non STW: Rare earth activated-(oxy) nitride materials for LED applications

In 2001, the contract was made between the Eindhoven University of Technology (faculty of

Chemical Engineering & Chemistry, section Materials and Interface Chemistry) and a German light

manufacturer to perform contract research. The subject of the project was explorative research

concerning the luminescence properties of rare-earth-doped silicon-nitride based materials for white

LED applications. The results of the research could be used for innovative LED applications.

The idea of this project was initiated from the results of previous curiosity driven research,

performed at the TU/e. From this previous research, materials were created that could be interesting

because of their luminescence properties (that can be used in white LED applications). Because of the

wish from the industry to develop white LED applications and to the wish from the university to

perform innovative research on this topic, the TU/e decided to continue the previous research and to

contact firms to collaborate and to provide funds for this research. The option was considered to

apply for a STW grant. It was however financially more interesting to perform contract research with

the industry. In addition, applying for a STW grant took too much time.

The agreement was made to finance a PhD research for at least one year. However, enough funds

were given by the firm to perform two years of research Two other years of research were funded by

“the centre Technology for Sustainable Development” (TDO).

Before the research project started, the German company filed two patents, based on the results of

the previous research done at the TU/e. During the first year of the project, all research was done at

the TU/e. To the disappointment of the university researchers, the German firm was not actively

cooperating. Two meetings were held in which knowledge was transferred and a researcher from the

German company was a guest for one week at the TU/e to get familiar with the technology.

Although very interesting research results were generated, the German company decided to

discontinue the contract with the TU/e after one year. The rest of the years, the university performed

research without collaboration of any company. Afterwards, it became clear that the German

company designed a R&D lab to continue research on the topic of the project without the university.

Besides the problem of the dropout of the firm, another problem seriously endangered the

continuation of the research project. Because of a personal conflict between the supervisors of the

PhD student, one of the supervisors was transferred to another section of the faculty (Inorganic

Chemistry and Catalysis). The policy of the section Materials and Interface Chemistry changed which

resulted in less interest in the research project. Due to these changes the continuation of the project

was uncertain. Fortunately, the research project was continued and supervised from two different

sections.

It is not exactly clear how the German firm now is using the results of the research project. From

company presentations however, it can be derived that the firm is preparing the commercialisation

of new type of LED applications. After the company dropped out of the project, the company filed

several patents, partly based on results from the university research. The university however, did not

receive any revenues from these patents. During the time the German firm was still involved in the

project, also two patents were filed.

61

For the university, the project had a large impact; the research was considered a major breakthrough.

Many publications are written based on this project and the research project led to numerous future

research possibilities, both at the section Inorganic Chemistry and Catalysis, as in collaboration with

other faculties. Research is also continued in collaboration with another German company. Another

project in collaboration with the Applied Physics faculty started with a budget of 1,2 million euros.

Other science groups also showed their interest on the research results; The spectroscopic group in

Utrecht will perform measurements based on the results; Deft University of Technology would like to

start a collaborative project with the TU/e; The Radboud University of Nijmegen will perform first

principles calculations, probably funded by STW; A European project proposal has been filed in

which the TU/e receives a consultancy function; And the Japan National Institute for Materials

Science showed interest.

It can be concluded that scientifically, the research project was a success. It leaded to many

interesting results, publications, citations and research opportunities. On the other hand, the

collaboration was very disappointing. University researchers feel that they have been "used" by the

company involved in this project.

Case 3 – non STW: Supervisory control of complex manufacturing machines

In this research project, the Eindhoven University of Technology performed research in collaboration

with a large Dutch multinational that is active in the semiconductor industry. The project started in

January 2001 and ended in December 2004. The subject of this research project is the creation of a

formal method for the specification of supervisory control of complex manufacturing machines.

Potential users are firms that produce complex machines that consist of different tasks and

resources.

The project was initiated from an industrial problem (throughput efficiency of a machine), which a

professor of the faculty of Mechanical Engineering at the TU/e was aware of. Because of the personal

network of the professor, he could introduce a PhD student at the firm. An agreement was made that

the PhD student could perform research while being employed by the firm. In that regard, the whole

research project is financed by the firm. Research is done both at the firm and at the university.

Besides the technical expertise, the firm facilitated its research infrastructure (machines to perform

tests on) to perform the research. The firm was not able to perform this research without the

collaboration of the university.

The main idea of this project was developed by the university researchers based on a problem at the

firm. According to the professor involved in this project, the primary task of universities is not to

solve concrete problems for the industry but to perform research which could stimulate and help the

industry. He believes that in collaborative R&D projects, the industry and the university need to

identify the real fundamental academic problem. This is also the way this collaborative project was

carried out. The professor has much experience with collaborative R&D. During any project, the

professor makes concrete agreements with the industrial actor to ensure academic value of the

project, which will result in publications and which will help the industrial actor with their problem.

In this research project, the research resulted in fundamental, scientific solutions for the throughput

problem at the firm. Results of the research could be adopted by the firm to improve the efficiency of

their machines. The university benefits from the project because scientific research is done on

Supervisory Machine Control (SMC) which is one of the research activities at the section Systems

Engineering.

In this project, the PhD student acted as a bridge between the operational world at the firm and the

academic world at the university. Tacit knowledge that was present at the university could be

transferred to the firm because of this research project. This tacit knowledge is transferred through

the PhD student and through two monthly meetings between TU/e researchers and firm researchers.

Besides the transfer of tacit knowledge, knowledge is transferred throughout the project by the

62

creation of prototypes and by the many presentations given by the PhD student on the progress of

the research. By actively starting the knowledge transfer during the project, the firm could gradually

absorb the knowledge. According to the PhD student, adoption of the innovation would have been

more difficult if the knowledge was only transferred at the end of the project. The most effective

knowledge transfer however occurred through the continuation of employment of the PhD student at

the firm after the project was finished.

Based on the results of this project, publications are published and six patents are filed. At the begin

of the project, deals were made concerning intellectual property. All possible patents would be

owned by the firm. Every document that was generated during the project and that would be made

public was checked by the IP board of the company. Any information that the firm wanted to protect

was patented before a publication got published. Two other collaborative research projects started

between the TU/e and the firm after the completion of this research project.

63

6 Research results

In this chapter, the six case studies as described in chapter 5 are analyzed in depth, concerning the

differences between the STW cases and the non-STW cases. This case analysis is given in section 6.1.

Special attention is given to an analysis of the cases on the issues from the theoretical framework of

chapter 2 and the hypotheses from chapter 4. Section 6.2 contains a conclusion, summarizing the

most important differences between STW and non-STW cases found in section 6.1, and relating these

differences to the different theoretical views and hypotheses.

6.1 Case analyses

As mentioned, in this section the six cases are analysed in order to find the differences between the

STW cases and the non-STW cases. In appendix D, a table is given showing an overview of the factors

which distinguish the cases. This table is constructed by studying each case. A “long-list” was created

with all relevant factors that give distinguishing information about the separate case. After examining

this “long-list”, factors were grouped in main factors that could be identified from the “long-list”.

Some factors are eliminated since they fall under the same sub-factor. This process eventually

evolved in the “short-list” which is presented in appendix D. The main factors that distinguish the

cases are: project initiation, financing, characteristics of parties involved, industry motivations,

university motivations, character of research, project execution, knowledge transfer mechanism,

results, and conflicts. These main factors form the framework of the case analysis in this section. As

can be seen from table 16 (Appendix D), each sub-factor is market if it was characterizing a specific

case. A sub-factor can be characterizing for more than one case. By doing this, a clear overview is

presented of the difference between the cases and more specific, the differences between STW and

non-STW cases. To indicate any specific differences between STW and non-STW cases, it is chosen

that a difference of two marks or more implies a specific difference. Hence, if a sub-factor is identified

to characterize two or more cases in the STW cases and not in the non-STW cases, this sub-factor is a

distinguishing factor for STW projects. The other way around is also possible. A sub-factor is

identified to characterize two or more cases in the non-STW cases and not in the STW cases. Then

this sub-factor is distinguishing for non-STW cases. By using this method, the main differences

between STW cases and non-STW can be found and are summarized in table 9.

As can be seen from table 9, for the main factors “character of research” and “knowledge transfer

mechanism”, no (distinguishing) differences could be found. However, relating different factors with

each other might give other assumption. Therefore, the findings summarized in this table and the

findings in the case comparison table (appendix D) are used as a basis for the in-depth analysis of the

cases in this section. Within this in-depth analysis however, special attention is given to the

differences between the STW cases and the non-STW cases on the issues from the theoretical

framework and the hypotheses concerning the working of STW in relation to knowledge transfer and

collaborative R&D.

64

Ta

ble

9:

Ma

in d

iffe

re

nc

es

be

twe

en

ST

W a

nd

no

n-S

TW

ca

se

s

n

on

-ST

W c

ase

s

Pro

ject

’s i

de

a i

s m

ain

ly o

rig

ina

ted

fro

m t

ech

no

log

ica

l p

rob

lem

s a

t fi

rms

- Pro

ject

is

full

y f

ina

nce

d b

y t

he

in

du

stry

Co

lla

bo

rati

on

is

do

ne

be

twe

en

on

e f

irm

an

d o

ne

un

ive

rsit

y

Ma

inly

la

rge

fir

ms

are

in

vo

lve

d

Re

sea

rch

is

do

ne

at

on

e r

ese

arc

h g

rou

p

Siz

e o

f th

e p

roje

ct i

s co

mp

ara

ble

wit

h o

the

r p

roje

cts

at

the

re

sea

rch

gro

up

On

ly o

ne

Ph

D s

tud

en

t is

ass

ign

ed

to

sin

gle

pro

ject

s

Ind

ust

ry m

oti

va

tio

ns:

co

mp

lem

en

t cu

rre

nt

run

nin

g r

ese

arc

h, i

ncr

ea

se f

irm

’s

ab

ilit

y t

o p

ate

nt.

Un

ive

rsit

y m

oti

va

tio

ns:

ge

t d

ire

ctio

n f

rom

in

du

stry

fo

r re

sea

rch

- Av

era

ge

pro

ject

du

rati

on

is

4 y

ea

rs3

- On

av

era

ge

12

,5 p

ub

lica

tio

n a

re p

ub

lish

ed

3

On

av

era

ge

4 p

ate

nts

are

fil

ed

3

Re

sea

rch

le

d t

o t

he

de

ve

lop

me

nt

of

com

me

rcia

l p

rod

uct

s a

t fi

rms

Pu

bli

cati

on

s a

re d

ela

ye

d

Te

nsi

on

be

twe

en

un

ive

rsit

y a

nd

fir

m

ST

W c

ase

s

- Co

nta

ct i

s m

ad

e t

hro

ug

h (

pe

rso

na

l) c

on

tact

s o

f p

rev

iou

s co

lla

bo

rati

ve

R&

D

Re

sea

rch

is

spo

nso

red

by

ST

W a

nd

th

e i

nd

ust

ry

Co

lla

bo

rati

on

is

do

ne

wit

h m

ult

iple

fir

ms

in o

ne

pro

ject

Ma

inly

sm

all

fir

ms

are

in

vo

lve

d

Mu

ltip

le r

ese

arc

h g

rou

ps

are

in

vo

lve

d

- Mu

ltip

le P

hD

stu

de

nts

are

ass

ign

ed

to

sin

gle

pro

ject

s

Ind

ust

ry m

oti

va

tio

ns:

be

ing

in

vo

lve

d i

n s

po

nso

red

re

sea

rch

, pe

rfo

rm

coll

ab

ora

tiv

e R

&D

to

ge

t a

n i

nn

ov

ati

ve

im

ag

e, c

rea

te a

ne

two

rk o

f in

du

stry

an

d a

cad

em

ic r

ese

arc

he

rs

Un

ive

rsit

y m

oti

va

tio

ns:

-

- Av

era

ge

pro

ject

du

rati

on

is

5,7

ye

ars

- On

av

era

ge

6,7

pu

bli

cati

on

s a

re p

ub

lish

ed

On

av

era

ge

0,3

pa

ten

t is

fil

ed

- - -

Ma

in f

ac

tor

Pro

ject

in

itia

tio

n

Fin

an

cin

g

Ch

ara

cter

isti

cs o

f p

art

ies

invo

lved

Mo

tiva

tio

ns

Ch

ara

cter

of

rese

arc

h

Pro

ject

exe

cuti

on

Kn

ow

led

ge

tra

nsf

er

mec

ha

nis

m

Res

ult

s

Co

nfl

icts

3 Case 1 – non STW is still running (September 2007) and therefore not taken into account for the average

calculation of the project duration, amount of publications and amount of patents filed.

65

The overall analysis logically starts with analyzing who initiated (the origin) the research project. In

this, no clear difference between STW and non-STW cases can be identified. This is remarkable since

it could be expected from STW’s policy that STW cases are initiated from the university. On the other

hand, non-STW projects are expected to be initiated from the industry. Still case 3 – STW is initiated

by the industry and only case 1 – non STW is initiated by the industry. Hence, collaborative R&D

projects (STW or non-STW) are mainly initiated by the university. This is especially remarkable since

the project’s ideas in non-STW cases are mainly originated from technological problems at firms (see

table 9).

The projects are based on previous university research in four out of six cases (case 3- STW is even

based on previous research done in collaboration with the firm involved in the case). Therefore, the

statement can be made that collaborative R&D (STW or non-STW) in most cases results from

previous research performed at the university. As already mentioned, in the non-STW cases, the

projects are not only based on previous university research results but also on a technological

problem at the firm. This factor distinguishes non-STW from STW cases since most STW-cases are

not based on a specific technological problem at a firm.

It is noteworthy that the projects that are based on an existing technology present at a firm (case 1 -

STW & case 3 – non STW), are initiated by the university. This can only be explained if the university

has active contact with the industry to spot possible research opportunities based on industry

technologies, which can be confirmed from the case information.

In all cases except case 1 – non STW, contact is made between the university and firm through

contacts of a personal network of a university researcher or a firm researcher. Personal networks are

therefore highly important in both STW as non-STW cases for bringing universities and firms

together in collaborative R&D projects. In case 2 & 3 – STW the personal contact even originates from

the mutual involvement in previous collaborative R&D projects. So, even tough it was not expected

from the hypotheses, firms and universities collaborate on STW projects if they have previous

experience with each other on collaborative R&D. Only in case 1 – non STW, contact is made by the

firm after the firm read published previous research results at the university.

Financing

Concerning the financing of the research projects, in all three STW cases, the interviewees indicated

that the project would not have been done if STW did not finance the project. This confirms with the

hypothesis that securing funds is an important motivation for both the industry as the university. The

STW cases are mainly sponsored by STW and in the non-STW cases, industry financed the project.

Only case 3 – STW is completely financed by STW. The other two STW cases are both financed by

STW and the industry. In case 1 - STW, the firm financed a part of the research to receive a special

position within the user committee (right of first refusal). Case 2 – STW is partly financed by the

industry because the budget exceeded 0,5 million euros (see table 3, chapter 3). For the non-STW

cases, case 2 – non STW is partly financed by the industry and by the university (TDO). This is

because the firm was not willing to finance the complete project before any results were given. The

other two non-STW cases are completely financed by the industry.

In chapter 4, the hypothesis is made that STW projects stimulate research with considerable

uncertainties related to certain areas of development and research, since they are sponsored

research projects. However, from the case analysis no distinct difference can be identified for the

degree of uncertainty for STW cases or non-STW cases. Hence, STW funded cases stimulate uncertain

research (as expected from the hypotheses), but it is not characteristic for STW cases. Industry

funded cases also stimulate uncertain research.

66

Characteristics of parties involved

There are some differences between STW cases and non-STW cases concerning the different parties

involved. In non-STW cases collaboration is done between one research group and one (large) firm

(see appendix D,). In STW cases, collaboration is done between multiple (mainly small) firms and

multiple research groups; small-medium sized enterprises (SMEs) seem to have more interest in

STW sponsorship than large firms. This conflicts with the hypothesis that STW project prefers

involvement of large firms with own R&D capabilities. It could be that SMEs do not have the financial

means to contract research to universities without STW funding. Therefore more SMEs are possibly

involved in the STW cases.

It also seems that the characteristics of STW research projects lead to collaboration with multiple

firms. The fact that more firms are involved in the STW cases can be explained by the fact that STW

strives to have a minimal of four users in the STW user committee (see chapter 3). Still in case 3 -

STW, only one firm really is involved; the contribution of the other members of the user committee

was minimal. Furthermore, STW cases are multidisciplinary (since multiple research groups are

involved).

Since in four out of six cases, large firms with high R&D capacity are involved, large firms with high

R&D capacity seem to be inclined to collaborate on R&D. However, according to some interviewees,

cooperation with large companies can lead to difficulties since they tend to be dominant and are

often not willing to openly share their knowledge. This could lead to problems for STW projects. On

the other hand, small companies with no R&D facilities are depended of the university and are more

willing of open communication. Other interviewees point out the situation that small companies with

little R&D facilities communicate with university researchers on a different level than large

companies with academic researchers in their R&D section.

Concerning the firm’s experience with collaborative R&D, all firms are experienced, some more than

others (for specific data, see the case summary in the appendix F). The R&D sections of the firms

involved in cases 1 & 3 – STW even depend on collaboration with universities. The firm with

probably the least experience is the firm involved in case 3 – non STW. However, the interviewee

indicated that the company is very large and a complete overview of the amount of collaborative

projects could not be given. So, it is highly possible that the company has more experience than

indicated for the specific research section of the company involved.

In two out of three STW cases, the project is done in collaboration with different university research

groups. The gross of the research in one of these cases (case 2 – STW) however is performed at the

TU/e. Still, the project started with cooperation between three universities. One of the non-STW

cases (case 2- non STW) had several research groups involved. Although in this project eventually

two research groups are involved, the project initially started at one research group. Because of a

conflict between the university supervisors, the research had to be continued at two research groups.

In the STW cases, research is performed by multiple PhD students. This might have occurred because

the research in the STW cases is sponsored while at the non-STW cases, the PhD student is paid by

the firm. More university researchers can contribute to a research project if the research is

sponsored by STW.

According to the case analysis, all research groups involved in the cases have much experience with

collaborative R&D (for specific data, see the case summary in the appendix F). The following two

examples give an indication of the experience of collaborative R&D at the faculties. At the faculty of

Biomedical Engineering, projects are often done in collaboration with firms and hospitals because of

the need of clinical and technical input. At the section CASA (involved in case 3 – STW) the

67

Laboratory for Industrial Mathematics Eindhoven (LIME)4 was created which is specialized in

industrial consultancy and tries to stimulate industrial consultancy by coordinating and extending

the contact between the university and the industry.

It is remarkable that the STW cases are smaller or larger than other projects at the university section

while the non-STW cases are mainly comparable with other projects at the section. STW cases seems

to diverse in size from “normal” sized projects.

No differences can be identified between STW and non-STW cases concerning the university

researcher characteristics. In all cases, research is performed by a PhD student. In most cases, the

PhD student was relatively young and just finished his/her MSc thesis. Only in case 3 – non STW, the

PhD student was older. Consequently, most of the PhD students who performed the research did not

have a lot of experience. On the other hand, most of the supervisors of the PhD students have a lot of

experience with collaborative R&D projects, publications, and even in some cases with patenting (see

the case summary in the appendix F for more details).

No university researchers were opposed to performing applied R&D. In fact, it became clear that

university researchers believe that the university should be in contact with the industry to perform

fundamental research which could be used at the industry. It seems that the professors involved in

the cases are actively maintaining their industry network. This confirms the hypothesis from chapter

4 that university researchers who are granted STW funds have a positive attitude towards

knowledge transfer and are willing to cooperate on the stimulation of this knowledge transfer (if

necessary through patents).

According to the case analysis, geographic proximity is not a crucial factor for successful knowledge

transfer. Only in case 1 – STW, the distance between the firm and the university (1200km) was

indicated as problematic. However, knowledge transfer was not seriously hampered and all

knowledge is adopted by the firm. In case 3 – non STW, the firm was located in a close radius (7km)

of the university (TU/e). It could be expected that the firm would collaborate often with the

university since they are located close to each other. Nevertheless, that particular firm is not very

active in collaborative R&D with the TU/e.

Motivations

In table 10, an overview is given of the different industry and university motives to collaborate on the

R&D project. More information is given concerning the background of this table in the Appendix (see

appendix E).

Comparing the STW cases with the non-STW cases on the motivations that distinguish STW cases

from non-STW cases gives several interesting findings5.

It can be seen from table 10 that university motives in STW-cases or non-STW cases do not differ

much. Some motivations are mentioned in the STW-cases which are not mentioned in the non-STW

cases like the ability to perform multidisciplinary research, get access to firm’s research

infrastructure, gain insight in previous research results, and attract firms for future collaborative

R&D. However, since these motivations are only mentioned in one case each, no indication can be

given that these motivations are characterizing STW projects. Therefore, there is no specific

motivation for universities to choose for STW involvement. This is remarkable since it was

hypothesized in chapter 4 that university motives to apply for STW grants are to secure funds,

develop knowledge which can be used for society and has a practical application, and the creation of

an industry-academic network. The motive to secure funds is found both in theory as in practice but

4 http://www.win.tue.nl/lime/ 5 A difference between STW and non-STW cases of two or more marks is used as indicator for a specific

difference in motivation

68

is not a specific motive to start a STW project. The other two motives are not identified in the cases.

Hence, in practice the motives to start a STW project differs from the expected motives. Only if the

university researchers want to get direction from the industry for the performance of research, STW

is specifically not chosen.

Contrary to university motives, specific industry motives are present to choose for STW involvement.

The most obvious is the fact that STW sponsors the research. In all STW cases, the project would not

have been executed if STW did not fund the research. This corresponds with the hypothesis that

firms join STW projects because of the little financial risk. The other hypothesized motives (access to

research results and key university personnel, perform pre-competitive research) are identified in

the cases but are not specific motives for the STW cases.

Another clear observation is that firms do not involve STW if they want to immediately complement

their internal R&D (current running research). In those cases (non-STW), the firms were performing

research on the (broad) subject before the university was involved. In the STW-cases a same

observation could be made, but it is not explicitly mentioned as a motivation to perform the

collaborative R&D. In STW projects, information about internal R&D needs to be shared among the

members of the user committee. This confirms one of the hypotheses from chapter 4. Even though

this information remains confidential, it might discourage firms to get involved since they are

reluctant to give any information about their current R&D activities. Also, it seems that STW gives

firms the opportunity to create networks of industry and academic researchers.

Table 10: Motivations to perform collaborative R&D STW cases non - STW cases

case 1 case 2 case 3 case 1 case 2 case 3

Industry motivation

Access to research results x x x x x xSponsored research x x xProduct development x xAccess to specialist technical support x x x x xPerform collaborative R&D to get an innovative

imagex x

Perform pre-competitive research xCreate a network of industry and acamdemic

researchersx x

Educate PhD students xComplement internal R&D x x xIncrease firm's ability to patent x xRecruit academic scientist x

University motivation

Secure funds for research x x x x x xPerform innovative research x x x x x xPerform PhD research x x x x x xWrite publications x x x x x xField-test the application of the research x x xPerform multidiciplinary research xGet access to firm's research infrastructure xGain insight in previous research results xAttract firms for future collaborative R&D xGet direction from industry for research x x

69

Character of research

Although no direct difference can be identified, according to the university researchers interviewed,

a difference exists in the character of research between STW and non-STW cases. In table 11, the

knowledge characteristics are analyzed in depth. As can be seen from the table, most projects (in

STW cases as well as in non-STW cases) are mainly fundamental with some applied aspects. For the

STW cases, this finding was hypothesized in chapter 4. However, it is mentioned during the

interviews that it depends on the type of research, whether STW is approached for sponsoring. It is

said that if the research is highly fundamental, but might have an utilisation value, a STW research

proposal is written. On the other hand, if research is more applied and utilisation of research results

is much more obvious, projects will usually be sponsored by the industry. Although mentioned in the

interviews, no proof of these statements can be shown from table 11. In fact, in case 2- non STW it

was considered to apply for STW funds. So, the character of research in case 2 – non STW made no

difference to apply for STW grants or not.

On the other hand, as can be seen from table 9, the non-STW cases led to the development of

commercial products at the firms. This implies that a difference in character of research could be

identified between STW cases and non-STW cases; projects in which STW is not involved, seem to be

more applied.

As can be seen from table 11, it turned out that the point of perspective influenced the opinion

whether research was applied or fundamental. Most striking is case 1 – non STW, in which the

university researchers claim that the project is mostly applied and the firm claims that the research

is mostly fundamental. Even though it is very difficult to label a project as applied or fundamental

research, it can be concluded that no real differences between STW and non-STW projects can be

identified concerning the degree of applied or fundamental research.

In all cases, except for case 1-STW and case 3 – non STW, the type of knowledge that is created is

mostly general knowledge and the creation of a concept. Case 2 – STW can be classified as oriented

basic research. According to Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch (1998) oriented basic research is research

without a specific practical aim, but which is carried out with the expectation that it will produce a

broad base of knowledge likely to form the background to the solution of recognized or expected

current or future problems or possibilities. In the cases 1 - STW and case 3 – non STW, a method is

developed which can be used for product development. Again, no clear differences between STW and

non-STW cases can be identified for the type of knowledge involved. Also, no differences in the

knowledge characteristics between the disciplinary areas can be found in the cases.

As for the transfer of tacit knowledge, only in case 3 – non STW tacit knowledge is completely

transferred since the PhD student is contracted by the firm after the completion of the project. In the

other cases (both STW as non-STW), tacit knowledge is transferred (but not as completely as in case

3 – non STW) through the interaction between the firm and the university. It turned out from the

interviews that the STW user committee is an effective tool to transfer tacit knowledge which was

also hypothesized in chapter 4. So, the transfer of tacit knowledge was in general more effective in

the STW cases than in the non-STW cases.

70

ch

ar

ac

ter

of

re

sea

rch

ac

co

rdin

g t

o i

nd

ust

ry

Ma

inly

ap

pli

ed

wit

h

fun

da

me

nta

l a

spe

cts

10

0%

fu

nd

am

en

tal

Ma

inly

fu

nd

am

en

tal

Ma

inly

fu

nd

am

en

tal

Ma

inly

fu

nd

am

en

tal

50

% f

un

da

me

nta

l –

50

%

ap

pli

ed

ch

ar

ac

ter

of

re

sea

rch

ac

co

rdin

g t

o u

niv

er

sity

Ma

inly

ap

pli

ed

wit

h

fun

da

me

nta

l a

spe

cts

33

% f

un

da

me

nta

l –

66

%

ap

pli

ed

70

% f

un

da

me

nta

l –

30

%

ap

pli

ed

Ma

inly

ap

pli

ed

Ma

inly

fu

nd

am

en

tal

50

% f

un

da

me

nta

l –

50

%

ap

pli

ed

Te

ch

no

log

ica

l

br

ea

kth

ro

ug

h

Ye

s

No

No

No

Ye

s

No

typ

e o

f k

no

wle

dg

e

Cre

ati

on

of

a m

eth

od

th

at

can

be

use

d t

o u

pg

rad

e t

he

po

ssib

ilit

ies

of

firm

’s t

ech

no

log

y

Cre

ati

on

of

ne

w k

no

wle

dg

e t

ha

t is

fo

rma

lize

d i

n a

n

ap

pli

cab

le m

od

el

tha

t ca

n b

e u

sed

to

im

pro

ve

or

bu

ild

a S

BC

R

Cre

ati

on

of

a c

on

cep

t; n

ew

kn

ow

led

ge

ab

ou

t th

e

eff

ect

s o

f im

pe

rfe

ct h

ole

s to

in

cre

ase

th

e e

ffic

ien

cy o

f

the

pro

du

ctio

n o

f g

as

turb

ine

s

Cre

ati

on

of

kn

ow

led

ge

an

d m

ea

sure

me

nt

me

tho

d

Ex

plo

rati

ve

re

sea

rch

fo

r th

e c

rea

tio

n o

f a

co

nce

pt

an

d i

nn

ov

ati

ve

ma

teri

als

Cre

ati

on

of

a f

orm

al

me

tho

d f

or

spe

cifi

cati

on

of

sup

erv

iso

ry c

on

tro

l o

f co

mp

lex

ma

nu

fact

uri

ng

ma

chin

es

Ca

se n

um

be

r

1 -

ST

W

2 -

ST

W

3 -

ST

W

1 -

no

n S

TW

2 -

no

n S

TW

3 -

no

n S

TW

Ta

ble

11

: T

yp

e o

f k

no

wle

dg

e a

nd

ch

ara

cte

r o

f r

ese

ar

ch

71

Project execution

No real difference can be identified between STW and non-STW cases for the form of the research

project. Case 3- STW and case 2- non STW can be classified as contract research project; the firm did

not actively contribute to the research during those projects and knowledge transfer is primarily

one-directional from the universities. In the other cases, research is performed in collaboration (in

some cases more than the other) with the firm.

It can be noted that there is a difference between STW and non-STW cases in the project duration.

The STW projects usually take longer than the non-STW projects. This is due to the fact that in the

STW cases, multiple PhD students performed research that did not start at the same time.

In all cases, the research project is mainly designed by university researchers. Of course, in the STW

cases, the design had to be approved by STW and in the non-STW cases, the design was made in

accordance with the industry. During the case interviews, it turned out that non-STW cases needed

to be designed in more detail than in STW cases since firms need to know exactly what they are going

to finance.

In all cases, except case 3 – non STW, most of the research is performed at the university by the

university researchers. In case 3 – non STW, most research is executed at the firm by the university

researcher (since the PhD student was employed by the firm). Besides case 2- non STW, the firms

provided knowledge and technology. No distinguishing difference between STW and non-STW for

the role of the firm can be identified. However, it seems like that firms are more cooperative (in the

sense of bi-directional exchange of knowledge) in STW cases than in non-STW cases. This could be

explained by the fact that the firms and university had previous experience with each other in

collaborative R&D projects in the STW cases which strengthened the personal relationship of the

researchers involved.

Apparently, no direct indication of differences in STW and non-STW cases can be given from the

cases concerning mutual trust. But since firms can communicate openly during STW user committee

meetings without having to fear that confidential knowledge becomes public (after all, information

discussed during the user committee meetings remains confidential, see chapter 3), more mutual

trust seems to be present in the STW cases than in the non-STW cases. This confirms the hypothesis

in chapter 4.

In case 3 – STW, the university and one of the firm researchers had a good relationship. But, after the

retirement of the firm’s researcher, no successor was found that had the same vision as the former

firm researcher. The firm was (after the retirement of the firm’s researcher) not actively involved

and interested in the collaborative research project. Hence, mutual trust was affected. In case 2 – non

STW, mutual trust was not very high since the beginning of the project. If the firm and the university

trusted each other, collaborative R&D might have been extended for more than one year. In addition,

the firm was not cooperating in the provision of data concerning their internal R&D. If the firm had

trusted the university and provided this data, the project could have been more effective since

(fundamental) research could be done based on the input of the firm.

It becomes clear from the case analyses that the STW’s framework is recognized by the university

researchers as being effective in the prevention of problems, which was also one of the hypotheses in

chapter 4. In all three STW cases, the interviewees declared that STW’s contribution (not only

financial) stimulated the knowledge transfer. In particular STW contributed through the organisation

of the user committee meetings and in the negotiations with the firm concerning any intellectual

property rights.

In the non-STW cases, it is made clear to the firms that the project would lead to publications.

Especially in case 3 – non STW, clear goals were set by the involved professor. According to that

professor, the industry and the university need to identify the real fundamental academic problem

before a project starts in collaborative R&D. In all collaborative R&D projects, the professor will make

72

concrete agreements with the industrial actor to ensure the academic value, which will result in

publications and which will help the industrial actor with their problem. Hence, the primary task of

the university is not to solve concrete problems for the industry but to perform research which could

stimulate and help the industry.

Knowledge transfer mechanisms

In the cases studies, the different knowledge transfer mechanisms are analyzed. In table 12 an

overview is given of the knowledge transfer mechanisms identified in the case studies.

Table 12: Main knowledge transfer mechanisms in the cases

Knowledge transfer

mechanism

Case 1

- STW

Case 2

- STW

Case 3

- STW

Case 1 –

non STW

Case 2 –

non STW

Case 3 –

non STW

Formal interaction (meetings) x x x xx x xx

Informal interaction xx xx xx x xx

Labour mobility x x x x

Publications x x x x x x

Conferences x x x x x x

Patents x x x

The main difference between STW-cases and non-STW cases is the relative importance of informal

interaction and the frequency of formal meetings during the research project. Informal interaction is

defined as the contact between the university and the firm, outside of the formal meetings in which

knowledge is transferred. This finding confirms the hypothesis in chapter 4 that informal interaction

is an important knowledge transfer mechanism in STW project because firms and universities are

joined in the (formal) user committee and the corresponding collaboration, mutual trust and

interaction stimulates informal interaction.

Formal interaction is defined as pre-determined contact between firms and universities. This could

be meetings, conference calls, or e-mail contact. In all cases, knowledge is transferred through this

formal interaction. In the STW cases, formal interaction especially occurred during the half yearly

user committee meetings. The interviewees have the opinion that the user committee meetings,

organized by STW, actively stimulate the knowledge transfer. Besides the user committee meetings,

industry and university had regular meetings in case 1 & 2 - STW. In case 3 - STW, the firm was not

actively involved in the project. Therefore company-university meetings appeared only in the form of

the STW user committee meetings. In the non-STW cases, formal meetings occurred more often than

in the STW cases (therefore double marks are given in table 12). In case 1 & 3 – non STW, company-

university meetings were held every 2 months. In case 2 – non STW, formal meetings only occurred

during the first year (twice). In addition to these formal meetings, it seems that universities need to

keep the firm more formally informed about the research results in non-STW cases compared to STW

cases. In case 1 & 3 – non STW, weekly updates concerning the progress of the research were given

by the university to the firm. Especially in case 3 – non STW, many presentations (about early results

and possible implications for the firm) were done by the PhD student at the firm, from an early stage

of the project. This made it possible for the firm to incrementally absorb the knowledge, which

positively influenced the total knowledge transfer and adoption of the results at the firm. In case 2 –

non STW, intensive e-mail contact was maintained to inform the company about the results.

As can be seen from table 12, informal interaction is also an important mechanism for knowledge

transfer. Logically, informal interaction took place in the cases were university researchers and firm

researchers worked together at the firm or at the university on the same problem. In case 3 - STW,

knowledge flowed through informal interaction because of the active involvement of one of the firm

researchers. Still, in that case no labour mobility could be identified since university researchers did

73

not perform research at the firm or vice versa. In case 1 – non STW, all interaction took place through

formal meetings. Informal knowledge transfer might have occurred to some extent, but not close to

the same level as in the other cases. In case 3 non-STW, the PhD student had (besides the formal

interaction) much informal interaction with the firm, since he was stationed at the firm. So to

conclude on informal interaction; while informal interaction can be identified in all cases, it was in

generally more important for knowledge transfer in the STW-cases than in the non-STW cases. This

is because firm researchers of STW-cases were more involved in the research done at the university

than the firm researchers in the non-STW cases (except for case 3 – non STW). It could also be

explained by the level of mutual trust existing between firm and university. As earlier mentioned, the

STW structure provides mutual trust which makes firm researchers less afraid of providing sensitive

information and interacting informally.

Researchers of the university performed research at the firm and vice versa in case 1 & 2 - STW. In

case 2 – non STW, a researcher from the firm was trained at the university and in case 3 – non STW,

the PhD student who performed the research was employed by the firm. No real differences between

STW and non-STW cases concerning labour mobility can be identified.

In all cases, publications are written on the results of the project. In the STW cases, these publications

had to be approved by the user committee. By this, knowledge is transferred between university and

firm. In the other cases publications had to be approved by the firms, which also resulted in

knowledge transfer. In case 2 – non STW, no specific knowledge is transferred to the firm involved in

the project by (co)publications during the project. Still, through publications knowledge is

transferred to other firms and research groups (which also happens in the other cases).

In all cases (generic) knowledge is transferred during conferences. Through the conference

contributions, knowledge is also transferred outside the firm.

A final knowledge transfer mechanism that can be identified in the cases are patents. Knowledge is

transferred to the firm by codifying the knowledge into patents. In case 1 – STW and case 3 – non

STW patents are directly filed by the firm, based on the results of the project. In case 2 – non STW,

the firm filed two patents (based on previous university research) at the start of the project. Since

patents as a mean of knowledge transfer is disputable and STW emphasizes patents, the function of

patents as a knowledge transfer mechanism in the cases is deeper analyzed in the following.

Patents

Patents are used in three of the cases as a means of knowledge transfer.

In case 2 – non STW, the knowledge patented was embryonic and patenting did play a significant role

for knowledge transfer since the patents guaranteed a monopoly in which the firm could invest in

further research on the embryonic inventions. The patents in this case were filed on previous

university research and were used as a mean to attract a firm to fund the collaborative R&D project

that was needed to make the patented knowledge applicable for industry. Eventually, patents were

filed on the additional research, which implies that the initial patents did not give the needed

protection for the research results. In this case (case 2 – non STW) patenting is also used for financial

reasons. Since the university patent is transferred to the firm, the university gains some revenues.

However, the price paid by the firm to use the patents is very low compared to the revenues made by

the firm on the patents. Afterwards, it turned out that the patents were very strong but

unfortunately, the university had no rights anymore to these patents. It seemed very difficult for the

university to determine the value of the intellectual property in advance.

In case 1 – STW, a patent was filed directly by the firm (not by STW) on the knowledge created within

the STW project. The patent was not essential for knowledge transfer since all knowledge was

transferred to the firm before a patent was filed. The patent created the opportunity to protect the

knowledge that was created during the STW project. Filing this patent was influenced by STW's

policy (government policy). As explained in chapter 3, STW stimulates the patenting of inventions

74

when the patent could be commercially successful. In this case, the extra development costs of the

invention involved were non-trivial. This finding conflicts with the hypothesis set in chapter 4 about

the possibility that STW patents could be filed while the extra development costs are trivial.

In case 3 – non STW, like in case 1 – STW, patents were filed on knowledge created during the

collaborative R&D project. Again, the patents were not essential for knowledge transfer since all

knowledge was transferred through other channels. The patents are mainly used for defensive

reasons and made it possible for the PhD student to publish results without having to fear that the

knowledge was used by another firm.

The option was considered in case 3 - STW to file a patent on the results of the research project.

Together with STW and the TTO, the options of a patent were analyzed. This potential patent could

attract other firms to continue the research project. Hence, the patent would be used to create

awareness of commercially useful research results. Eventually, the choice was made to publish the

results and attract other firms through these publications instead of by means of a patent.

It is remarkable that in the two cases in which the knowledge was a technological breakthrough (case

1 –STW and case 2 – non STW), patents were used to transfer knowledge (see Table 2). So it seems

that breakthrough technologies stimulate patents as mechanism to transfer knowledge.

Patent deals are made in different ways in the cases but in all cases patents are owned by the firms

and not by STW or the university. In case 1 – STW, the firm declared that they were interested in a

potential patent. Therefore, the patent was directly filed by the firm instead of by STW. Agreements

were made between STW and the firm which made it possible for the firm to apply directly for the

patent. This underlines the flexible attitude of STW’s patent policy. In case 2 – non STW, the

university filed two patents based on the research results and transferred ownership of the patents

to the firm. According to the researchers of that faculty, university should only patent if the patent

can immediately be transferred to the firm. The six patents filed on the research results of case 3 –

non STW are all owned by the firm. These patents are filed on firm’s initiative since it wanted to

protect the knowledge before it would be published. Furthermore, the patents are used to increase

the firm's patent portfolio. None of the patents are owned by individual researchers, which is

according to the interviewees, undesirable.

In case 1 – STW, the project leader (university researcher) has a very good relationship with the firm

and he (personally) had cooperated with the firm in the past. Because of the good relationship, he is

involved in the adoption process of the knowledge at the firm. In case 2 – non STW, no such

relationships exists between the university researchers and the firm. Still, the firm was able to adopt

the transferred knowledge in an effective way because of their strong in-house R&D facilities.

In case 2 – non STW, it was difficult to choose the proper firm for transferring the patent to. Initially,

a different firm was selected to transfer the knowledge to. However, since that firm was not willing to

fund the research project, the firm involved in the case was attracted. Eventually it turned out that

the firm improperly used the university researchers and the university patent to complement their

internal R&D. In case 1 – STW, this problem was covered since the intentions of the firm were

already clear because of their involvement in the user committee. This corresponds with the

hypothesis that the intensions of the firm in relation to a potential patent are clear because of

involvement of the firm in the STW user committee.

According to the university researchers, STW’s patent policy stimulates the knowledge transfer. It is

indicated that it was very pleasant that any intellectual property stipulations are dealt with by STW.

On the other hand, some firm researchers indicated that STW’s patent policy hampers the knowledge

transfer. According to that particular firm (case 2- STW), STW uses unrealistic conditions when a

patent is filed by STW for the purpose of transferring it to the firm. An important point of critique is

75

that the determination of the lumpsum payment partly depends on the individual contribution of the

firm. According to the firm, it is very difficult to determine the amount of contribution since an in-

kind contributed could have much more value than a direct financial contribution. In addition, the

firm claims that STW gives not enough attention to the determination of the potential value of a

patent, which is very difficult (according to the firm). The opinion of the firm in case-2 STW

corresponds with the hypothesis that STW’s patent policy can lead to tension between firms and

STW, especially with large firms.

The interviewees have been asked to give their opinion about university patents as a mean to

transfer knowledge. The general opinion is that university patents are only useful when they can

directly be transferred to a firm. It is not the university’s task to gain revenues from patents and

universities should not have the ambition to create a patent portfolio. This patent portfolio would

never be big enough to compete with firms; in the long run universities will not gain from a patent

portfolio. In addition, it is difficult to financially maintain a patent.

Some of the interviewees did not believe that university patents would stimulate firms to continue

research on embryonic inventions. This research would eventually be done without a patent if the

need for the innovation is high enough for the firm. Concluding, it can be stated from the case

analyses that university researchers are not convinced that university patents should be an essential

mean to transfer knowledge.

Results

No difference between STW and non-STW cases can be identified concerning the amount of

publications written on the results of the research project. All cases led to publications and in case 1

– STW and cases 2&3 – non STW, patents were filed.

In all cases, besides case 3 – STW, the firms absorbed the knowledge generated in the project. In case

3 – STW, the results are not adopted by the firm and the research had no impact at the firm. This is

due to the fact that the firm in case 3 - STW only has a small R&D section with three employees. In

addition, the only R&D employee who was able to absorb the knowledge from the project retired

during the project. Therefore, the firm in case 3 - STW lost its capacity to absorb and adopt the

research results. This confirms the hypothesis that a lack of attention to firm characteristics in STW’s

policy could result in the involvement of firms in the user committee who are in principle not able to

adopt the knowledge created in the project. In the other cases, the firms have large R&D sections and

were easily able to adopt the research results.

It is noteworthy that no real differences between STW and non-STW cases are identified for the

degree of successful adoption of the research results. However, it may look like adoption is slightly

more successful in the non-STW cases since adoption failed in case 3 – STW.

In addition, the impact of the research results show that in all non-STW cases, the project led to the

development of commercial products at the firm, which only occurred in one STW-case. However,

some nuances have to be made here. Research is still in progress in case 1 – non STW but the results

will probably be used for the development of new product. In case 3- non STW, no direct information

is given concerning the concrete commercial application but it looks like the firm used the research

results for the improvement of their commercial products. In both the STW as the non-STW cases,

the research project led to new research opportunities at the university.

Adoption of the research results at the firm is positively stimulated by the involvement of university

researchers after the project, in both STW as non-STW cases. It is also recognized in a case (case 3 –

non STW) that the employment of the PhD student significantly stimulated the adoption process at

the firm. In that case, the PhD student was recruited by the firm because of the personal acquaintance

between the professor and the firm. In case 1 – STW, one of the university researchers (not the PhD

76

student) has a tight relationship with the firm. His involvement at the firm also stimulated the

adoption process. In case 2 – STW and case 2 – non STW, the firm was able to adopt the knowledge

without the cooperation of the university researchers.

Conflicts

Important differences between the STW cases and the non-STW cases are that in the STW-cases

more freedom is given to perform research, no publications are delayed and no conflicts occurred,

which confirms the hypothesis that STW's framework stimulates effective communication and

openness which reduces problems during collaborative R&D. In the non-STW cases, publications are

delayed but eventually all knowledge is published. In the non-STW cases also some tension in the

relationship between the firm and the university can be identified, which could not be identified in

the STW cases.

No specific conflicts can be identified in the STW cases. To reduce a conflict of interest, firms and

universities involved in the STW cases have to follow the STW guidelines which are explained in

chapter 3. As a part of the STW policy, publications can be postponed to give firms time to file a

patent. However, no publications have been postponed in the STW cases. In addition, in the STW

cases the university was given the freedom by the firms to perform research without firms enforcing

their wills. As earlier explained in the patent section, conflict of interest would have easily occurred

(and has occurred in the past) between the firm involved in case 2 – STW and STW. But since the

generic nature of the project, no patents were filed and no conflict occurred.

In all cases, the agreement is made that publications can be postponed to file a patent before

knowledge would be made public. Because of this agreement, all knowledge is eventually made

public and the firms patented the knowledge which they wanted to protect. Although publications

are delayed, the incentive to publish is not reduced. In case 3 – non STW, six patents are filed which

was essential for the PhD student, otherwise he was not allowed to publish the results. Also, some

tension can be identified between the firm and the university in case 1 – non STW. Through the

research project, the firm seeks to control relevant university research for their own ends. However,

the high level of control did no lead to any serious problems and the university was still able to

perform fundamental research. The high level of control is also showed by the attitude of the firm

towards the cooperation for this MSc thesis; the firm was very reserved in the provision of

information. Finally, tension between the firm and the university can be identified in case 2- non

STW. Collaboration in R&D was stopped after one year of research. This gave the opportunity for the

firm to continue the research without having to fear that knowledge would get public since the

university was not longer involved.

A final remark has to be made that it is indicated from the cases that small firms are more likely than

large firms to communicate openly. This implies that conflict of interest is more likely with large

firms.

77

6.2 Conclusions & discussion

Now that the STW and non-STW cases are compared, a summary can be made comprising the most

striking observations.

Even tough it could be expected that the STW cases are initiated by the university and the non-STW

cases are initiated by the firm, the collaborative R&D projects analyzed (STW and non-STW) are

mainly initiated by the university and based on results from previous research performed at the

university. In addition, in most cases, the research is mainly executed at the university, designed by

university researchers, and no real difference can be identified between STW and non-STW cases for

the formal form of the research project.

In most cases, university researchers have active contacts with the industry to spot possible research

opportunities in the industry. It became clear that university researchers believe that the university

should be in contact with the industry to perform fundamental research which could be used at the

industry. In all analyzed cases, these personal contacts are especially important for bringing

universities and firms together. This can be confirmed from the theoretical framework since

university researchers that join in an active dialogue with industry managers may spot emerging

research issues earlier than their less active colleagues (Lam, 2005; Hurmelinna, 2004).

No direct difference can be identified between STW cases and non-STW cases for the character of the

research. All cases are mainly fundamental (or at least partly) with some clear applied aspects. This

is remarkable since it is mentioned during the interviews that it depends on the type of research,

whether STW is approached for sponsoring. This difference can not be observed from the cases.

However, when analyzing the results of the projects, the non-STW cases specifically led to

commercial products at the firms. This implies that there could be a difference in the knowledge

characteristics between STW and non-STW cases.

Although Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch (1998) conclude that a difference exists in knowledge

characteristics between disciplinary areas, it can not be confirmed from the cases.

Concerning the results of the collaborative R&D projects, no difference between STW and non-STW

cases can be identified in the amount of publications written on the results of the research project.

Hence, performing collaborative R&D (STW or non-STW) does not necessarily imply a trade-off with

basic research (generating publications), which supports the view of a group of authors (Godin &

Gingras, 2000; Brooks & Randazzese, 1999; Ranga et al., 2003; Van Looy et al., 2004, in Van Looy et

al., 2006). Furthermore, in both the STW and the non-STW cases, the research project led to new

research opportunities at the university and the adoption of the research results at the firm is

positively stimulated by the involvement of university researchers after the project.

It can be observed from the case analysis that large firms with high R&D capacity seem to be more

inclined to collaborate on R&D.

Besides the previous discussed statements, that hold for both the STW as for the non-STW cases,

there are some interesting findings that distinguish the STW cases from the non-STW cases.

The idea to start a project in the non-STW cases is mainly influenced by technological problems

present at firms. This can not be identified in the majority of the STW-cases. In the STW-cases, the

idea is created from potential possibilities of a technology present at a firm, or from observations

from previous research that leads to new research possibilities. Furthermore, it is found that firms

and universities are more likely to collaborate with each other on STW projects if they have previous

experience with each other on collaborative R&D. This can explain the finding that firms are also

more actively involved in the R&D collaboration (bi-directional knowledge exchange) in STW cases

than in non-STW cases.

78

The observation is made that small firms have more interest in STW sponsorship than large firms

and the characteristics of STW research projects are more appropriate for collaboration with

multiple firms. Furthermore, STW research is multidisciplinary since multiple research groups are

involved.

Since in all STW-cases multiple PhD students are involved, it seems that more university researchers

can contribute to a research project if the research is sponsored by STW. In the non-STW cases,

research is only performed by one PhD student.

A difference between STW and non-STW cases is that non-STW cases needed to be designed in more

detail than STW cases since firms need to know exactly what they are going to finance.

In table 13, a summary is given of the performance of the cases on the issues as stated in the

theoretical framework. The way in which the cases incorporate the issues is divided into three

groups (for each issue); first, specific information is given about how the STW cases deal with the

issues; second, information is given on how all cases deal with the issues; and third, specific

information is given about how non-STW cases deal with the issues. By making this division, it

becomes clear what distinguishes the STW cases from the non-STW cases.

table 13 shows that for both STW as for non-STW cases the same channels for knowledge transfer

are identified. However, informal interaction is more important in the STW cases and the user

committee is an effective tool to transfer tacit knowledge. Informal interaction is related to labour

mobility and the active involvement of both university and firm researchers in bi-directional

knowledge transfer (possibly resulting from mutual acquaintance from previous collaborative R&D).

These findings in the STW cases support the view that working in teams (like the user committee)

stimulates the transfer of tacit knowledge (Lam, 2005).

Geographic proximity can not be identified in the cases as a crucial factor for successful knowledge

transfer which contrasts with the findings of Santoro & Gopalakrishnan (2001).

In both STW as non-STW cases, patents are used to transfer embryonic invention and it seems that

breakthrough technologies stimulate patents as a mechanism to transfer knowledge. In the STW-case

where knowledge is transferred through patents, extra development costs are non-trivial and the

intentions of the firm are clear because of the involvement in the user committee. According to

Verspagen (2006) and Colyvas et al. (2002), these are important conditions for successful knowledge

transfer through patents. In one of the non-STW cases in which patents are used for knowledge

transfer, the firm has a monopoly because of the patent, which was required to make the investments

for a new research project. However, these investments are trivial and the additional R&D that was

necessary to develop the university discovery was patented separately. Because of these conditions,

it is questionable if the patent was successful for knowledge transfer according to Verspagen (2006).

In addition, in that case it was difficult for the university to determine the value of the intellectual

property in advance which is also stated by Lee (2000).

The industry motives to perform STW funded collaborative R&D differ from the motives to perform

non-STW projects. There is no specific motivation for universities to choose for STW involvement.

Compared to the theoretical framework (table 2, chapter 2), most of the motivations are mentioned

in the cases, but some motivation were also identified in the cases that were not mentioned in the

theory. Most striking is the industry motivation to create a network of industry and academic

researchers, since this motivation is identified in the theoretical framework as a university

motivation (Hurmelinna, 2004). In addition, the industry motive to educate PhD students is not

identified in the theory as an industry motivation to collaborate on R&D. When looking at the

university motivations, performing innovative- and PhD research, and writing publications is not

specifically identified in the literature as motives to perform collaborative R&D. According to Miotti &

Sachwald (2003) the motivation to collaborate with a large number of (competing) firms and

universities is to maximize disclosure and spillovers. Even though this motivation is not particularly

79

mentioned during the interviews, all results have been made public in case 2 – STW (where seven

competing firms were involved) which confirms the theory of Miotti & Sachwald (2003).

Besides differences in the theory and cases concerning motivations, similarities can also be

identified. As can be expected from the literature (Hall et al., 2001; Lee, 2000) securing funds is an

important motive for universities in both types of cases. It is however remarkable that it is a specific

motivation for industry to be involved in STW cases. Without STW funding, the projects would not

have been performed. Thus (as for the cases) STW sponsorship stimulates collaborative R&D

projects from both the industry’s as from the university’s point of view.A specific industry motivation

to be involved in non-STW cases is to complement internal R&D. This view is confirmed by the theory

(Hall et al., 2001; Adams et al., 2001; Belderbos et al., 2004a). It is remarkable that this motivation is

not specifically mentioned in the STW-cases. An explanation for this could be that firms are reluctant

to provide information about their current R&D investments to the members of the STW user

committee. Like argued by Balconi & Laboranti (2006), university researchers need direction from

industry to perform research. This is especially identified as a university motive to be involved in the

non-STW cases.

According to Hurmelinna (2004), when collaborative R&D is sponsored by STW, firms are stimulated

to perform uncertain, highly risk research. This can be affirmed by the cases.

Patents resulting from collaborative R&D are all owned by firms (not by STW, university, or

individual researchers) and as expected by Crespi et al. (2007), no indication is found that the

university researchers performed minimal effort. The general opinion from the cases is that

university patents are only useful when it can be directly transferred to a firm. According to the

university researchers it is not the university's task to gain revenues from patents and universities

should not have the ambition to create a patent portfolio. While university researchers agree that

STW’s patent policy stimulates the knowledge flow, not all firms are convinced.

Any problems related to conflict of interest are reduced by STW’s policy because of the strict

guidelines which need to be set at the beginning of the project. This confirms Matkin’s (1994)

findings of effective communication and openness. Furthermore, in the STW cases, the university was

given the freedom by the firms to perform research without firms enforcing their will and the user

committee stimulates the mutual trust between the firms and the university.

Table 13: Summary of theoretical framework, confronted with case results

General knowledge transfer issues

Issue

STW specific

Informal interaction is more important for knowledge transfer in the STW

cases than in the non-STW cases. User committee meetings actively

stimulated knowledge transfer.

Both STW as non-STW specific

Most important mechanisms for knowledge transfer are formal & informal

interaction, labour mobility, publications, conferences, and patents.

Non-STW specific

Relative importance

of mechanisms for

knowledge transfer

Formal meetings occur more frequent than in STW cases. Universities need to

keep the firm more informed about research results in non-STW cases

compared with STW cases.

STW specific Patents as

knowledge transfer

mechanism

Patent is used to transfer the knowledge that is created during the STW

project. Extra development costs were non-trivial. University inventor

cooperates with the firm to ensure adoption of the knowledge. Intensions of

the firm were clear because of the involvement in the user committee.

Propensity to patent is influenced by STW’s policy.

80


Patents are used as knowledge transfer mechanism to successfully transfer

embryonic inventions. University researchers are not convinced that

university patents could be an essential mean to transfer knowledge.

Non-STW specific

Intention of firm which patented the knowledge was not clear. Propensity to

patent in influenced to generate revenues and to attract firm for collaborative

R&D. Value of the patent was difficult to determine in advance.

STW specific

In two cases, small firms are involved. One of these firms has little absorptive

capacity and was not able to adopt the transferred knowledge.


Large firms with absorptive capacity are able to adopt transferred knowledge.

No indication is given from the cases that the degree and mechanism of

knowledge transfer differ per sector.

Non-STW specific

Firm characteristics

In all cases, large firms with high absorptive capacity were involved.

STW specific

Tacit knowledge is transferred during the user committee meetings and

because of labour mobility.


Tacit knowledge is transferred through informal and formal meetings.

Non-STW specific

Knowledge

characteristics

In case 3 – non STW, tacit knowledge is transferred through the recruitment

of a PhD student.

STW specific

-


High level of experience of university researchers in collaborative R&D,

publications and patenting. Positive attitude towards collaborative R&D.

Non-STW specific

University

researcher

characteristics

-

Disciplinary area STW specific

-


No indication for knowledge transfer differences between disciplinary areas.

Non-STW specific

-

81

Knowledge transfer issues during collaborative R&D

Issue

STW specific

Industry motivations are to perform sponsored research, create an innovative

image, and to create an industry-academic network.

University motivations: no specific motivations.


Industry motivations: access to research results, perform research for

product development, and get access to specialist technical support.

University motivations: Secure funds for research, perform innovative

research, perform PhD research, write publications and field-test the

application of the research.

Non-STW specific

Motives for

collaborative R&D

Industry motivations are to complement internal R&D, and increase the firm’s

ability to patent.

University motives are to get direction from the industry to perform research.

STW specific

Firms indicated that they normally make use of university collaboration to

innovate.


Large firms with high absorptive capacity are inclined to collaborate on R&D.

Personal network of “entrepreneurial” professors stimulate the propensity to

collaborate on R&D.

Non-STW specific

Propensity to

collaborate on R&D

Breakthrough innovations (like in case 2 – non STW) influences the

propensity to collaborate on R&D.

STW specific

Second money flow. STW funding stimulates uncertain highly risk research.


-

Non – STW specific

Source of funding

Third money flow.

STW specific

-


Geographic proximity is not a crucial factor for successful knowledge transfer.

Non-STW specific

Geographic

proximity

-

STW specific

Intellectual property stipulations are dealt with by STW, which is positive

according to university researchers. According to one firm, STW ‘s patent

policy hampers knowledge transfer since it is difficult to determine the value

of the patent and the amount of university contribution in collaborative R&D.


Intellectual Property

Rights

Firm ownership of patents. No indication is given that patents should have

been owned by the university.

82

Non-STW specific

Patents are filed to create the possibility to publish research results. Patents

are filed to increase the firm’s patent portfolio.

STW specific

-


Both firms as the university have experience with collaborative R&D which

stimulated the knowledge transfer.

Non-STW specific

Experience with

collaborative R&D

-

STW specific

-


Adoption of the research results at the firm is positively stimulated by the

involvement of university researchers after the project .

Non-STW specific

University

researcher

involvement

-

STW specific

Conflict of interest is reduced by STW’s policy. University was given the

freedom by the firms to perform research without firms enforcing there will.

No conflicts or tension can be identified in the STW cases.


In all cases, the agreement is made that publications can be postponed to file

a patent before knowledge would be made public. All knowledge is made

public.

Non-STW specific

Conflict of interest

Publications are postponed to give firms time to file patents. Tension can be

identified between the firm and the university in two cases. Conflict of

interest is more likely with large firms.

STW specific

Since firms can communicate openly during STW user committee meetings

without having to fear that confidential knowledge becomes public, more

mutual trust is present in the STW cases than in the non-STW cases.


-

Non-STW specific

Mutual trust

In case 2 – non STW, mutual trust was not very high since the beginning of the

project. If the firm had trusted the university, the project could have been

more effective since (fundamental) research could be done based on the input

of the firm.

STW specific

STW’s framework is recognized by the university researchers as being

effective in the prevention of problems.


It is made clear to the firms that the project would lead to publications.

Non-STW specific

Communication

effectiveness

Especially in case 3 – non STW, clear goals were set by the involved professor.

83

7 Findings and discussion

The goal of this study is to explore the effects of the STW framework on collaborative R&D projects

between universities and industry. The accompanying main research question is:

How do STW funded projects differ from other collaborative R&D projects between universities and

industry?

To find an answer to this question, the extensive literature on knowledge transfer and collaborative

R&D is analyzed and a theoretical framework is created. Furthermore, the function and framework of

the technology foundation STW is described and hypotheses are made concerning the working of

STW in relation to knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D. Finally, STW projects and non-STW

projects are empirically analyzed to obtain a better understanding of the effects of STW’s policy on

knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D in projects between universities and industry. The main

findings of the empirical analysis in section 7.1 answer the main research question. Furthermore, the

implications of the findings for STW are stated in section 7.2. Finally, the limitations of this thesis as

further research recommendations are given in section 7.3 and 7.4.

7.1 Main findings

From the findings of the empirical analysis it can be identified which are the distinguishing factors

for STW projects. An important distinguishing factor is the fact that in STW cases, the idea of a

research project is created from potential possibilities of a technology present at a firm, or from

observations from previous research that leads to new research possibilities. Furthermore, it is

found that firms and universities are more likely to collaborate on STW projects if they have previous

experience with each other on collaborative R&D. In most cases (STW and non-STW), contact is made

through personal networks of university researchers. Firms are also more active in bi-directional

knowledge exchange in STW cases than in non-STW cases. Another distinguishing factor is that STW

research is multidisciplinary since multiple research groups are involved. A difference between STW

and non-STW cases is that non-STW cases needed to be designed in more detail than STW cases since

firms need to know exactly what they are going to finance. From the case data, no direct difference

between STW and non-STW cases could be found for the character of knowledge in the R&D project.

However, since the research in the non-STW cases led to commercial products at the involved firms,

it could imply that a difference in knowledge characteristics exists between STW and non-STW cases;

non-STW projects seem to be more applied, while STW projects seem to be mainly fundamental with

potential utilisation aspects. This assumption is confirmed by statements of the university

researchers involved in the cases. This does not conclude that non-STW projects can not be mainly

fundamental.

Concerning the knowledge transfer, no specific mechanism for knowledge transfer can be identified

for STW cases. However, informal interaction seems to be more important in the STW cases and the

user committee is an effective tool to stimulate this informal interaction and to transfer tacit

knowledge. In both the STW and the non-STW cases, patents are used as a mean to transfer

embryonic inventions. It seems from the cases that breakthrough technologies stimulate patents as a

mechanism to transfer knowledge. Patents resulting from collaborative R&D are all owned by firms

(not by STW, university, or individual researchers) and no indication is found that the university

researchers performed minimal effort. While university researchers agree that STW’s patent policy

stimulates the knowledge flow (mostly because STW acts as a spokesman for the university), not all

firms are convinced of this, which could lead to tension in STW projects, especially with large firms.

84

The general opinion from the cases is that university patents are only useful when it can be directly

transferred to a firm. According to the university researchers it is not the university's task to gain

revenues from patents and universities should not have the ambition to create a patent portfolio.

Distinguishing for the STW-case where knowledge is transferred through patent is that extra

development costs are non-trivial and the intentions of the firm are clear because of the involvement

in the user committee.

The industry motives to perform STW funded collaborative R&D differ from the motives to perform

non-STW projects. However, there is no distinguishing motivation for universities to choose for STW

involvement. Securing funds is an important motive for universities in both types of cases. It is

however remarkable that it is a specific motivation for industry to be involved in STW cases; without

STW funding, the projects would not have been performed. Thus (as for the cases) STW sponsorship

stimulates collaborative R&D projects from both the industry’s as from the university’s point of view.

A specific industry motivation to be involved in non-STW cases is to complement internal R&D

projects running at the firm. It is remarkable that this motivation is not specifically mentioned in the

STW-cases. An explanation for this could be that firms are reluctant to provide information about

their current R&D projects to the members of the STW user committee when they are collaborating

with each other for the first time.

Any problems related to conflict of interest are reduced by STW’s policy because of the strict

guidelines which are set at the beginning of the project. Furthermore, distinguishing factors in the

STW cases are that the university was given the freedom by the firms to perform research without

firms enforcing their will, and the user committee stimulates the mutual trust between the firms and

the university.

As shown, on several specific aspects important differences between STW and non-STW cases can be

identified. The most important differences are resulting from the specific framework STW projects

have to obey to (governmental funding, user committee, and knowledge trade). These differences

could be expected since according to the literature, sponsored research stimulates (uncertain high

risked) collaborative R&D. Furthermore, as shown in the literature, conflicts of interests can be

reduced if clear rules and guidelines are set at the beginning of the collaborative R&D project.

However, on some aspects, the STW cases and the non-STW cases have much in common. For

instance, university researchers did not mention clear distinguishing motivations to apply for STW

grants and the same knowledge transfer mechanisms are used in the STW and non-STW cases. The

only (small) distinction between STW-projects and non-STW projects on the knowledge transfer

mechanisms used is that informal interaction seems more important in STW cases (which was also

expected from the confrontation of the theoretical framework with STW’s policy). The scientific

outcome (like publications and patents) of the STW and non-STW cases are also comparable and no

clear difference can be identified for the degree of adoption of the research results between STW and

non-STW cases. This is remarkable since a difference in the degree of adoption could be expected

since STW gives much attention to the utilisation of research results.

7.2 Implications for STW

The main findings of this thesis can give more insight on the effectiveness of STW and can lead to

some recommendations for STW to adjust their policy.

Since STW projects would not have occurred without STW funding and STW’s framework creates a

setting which positively influences knowledge transfer, it can be concluded in general that STW’s

current policy positively stimulates knowledge transfer through collaborative R&D projects. So it

seems that STW is (more or less) effective in its operations.

85

From the literature review about knowledge transfer and collaborative R&D it can be concluded that

for effective knowledge transfer during collaborative R&D, many issues have to be dealt with.

Furthermore, in the literature there is not always agreement on how to deal with these issues.

Knowledge transfer is a diverse process with no “one-size fits all approach”. Consequently, it is

difficult for STW to create a policy which includes all theoretical views on effective knowledge

transfer. Therefore, STW should constantly be aware of the developments in the debate on the

theoretical issues and possibly adapt their policy to meet these developments. For instance, STW

could consider improving their knowledge policy. Patents as an effective mechanism for knowledge

transfer are disputable according to the literature. However, STW strives to patent inventions to

make sure that the invention will be used by industry. Analyzing STW’s patent data, STW is not

making profits on their patent behaviour. In addition, STW’s patent policy can lead to tensions

between firms and STW. Since patents are also used for the same reasons in STW and non-STW cases

and the outcome of the patent use is comparable, the added value of STW’s patent policy is arguable.

However, some nuances have to be made to this statement since two aspects of STW’s knowledge

trade policy are positively rated by university researchers and literature. First, the cases point out

that universities appreciate the fact that STW acts as a spokesman for the university in the patent

process. Secondly, according to the literature, the strict guidelines set by STW in their knowledge

trade policy positively influences collaborative R&D and the knowledge transfer. Concluding,

adapting STW’s knowledge trade policy requires further research.

Besides possibly revising STW’s knowledge trade policy, this thesis showed that STW is not giving

complete attention to all of the issues discussed in the theoretical framework. This can be seen in the

fact that STW pays mostly attention to the characteristics of the research project by making sure that

the project comprises excellent scientific research with a clear focus on utilisation. However, STW

could consider giving more attention in the decision procedure to other aspects that are

recommended in literature, like firm characteristics and university researcher characteristics. It

could be that problems like the failure of adoption in one of the cases could have been prevented if

firm characteristics are more taken into account by STW.

7.3 Discussion

The findings of the thesis have some limitations. These limitations are discussed in this section.

First of all, the findings of this thesis are based on “only” six case studies. Although the cases have

been extensively analyzed, it does not give enough information to make valid generic conclusions.

However, since not much in-depth qualitative analyses have been done on collaborative R&D

projects, these findings give an indication of possible bottlenecks or interesting topics that could be

further analyzed quantitatively.

Another disputable point is the fact that the case data is rather subjective. The results are mainly

interpreted from interviews done with important actors in the research projects. It became clear that

the actors had different views on the research project. Therefore, the data would have been more

valid if more interviews with different actors were done to get a complete overview of the cases.

However, due to time limitation not all relevant actors could have been interviewed. Still this is a

general problem for qualitative, in depth analyses. In addition, the quantitative data in the case

analyses (like amounts of publications) is based on databases which are updated by university

researchers. It is possible that not all relevant publications are updated which results in an incorrect

view. Furthermore, I am not a technological expert in the field of chemical engineering, mechanical

engineering, or biomedical engineering. Therefore, it could be possible that the technology and

knowledge characteristics are misinterpreted. From the case analyses, initially no difference could be

identified for the knowledge characteristics. However, because university researchers stressed out

that STW projects differ from non-STW projects on the knowledge characteristics, the assumption is

86

made that STW project actually differ on this matter. A technological expert might have been better

able to identify this difference in the knowledge characteristics in the cases.

7.4 Recommendations for further research

The results of this thesis might have given more questions than answers. Therefore, further research

could shed light on some interesting topics. It became clear from the theoretical framework that

much discussion exists about the role of patents as a knowledge transfer mechanism. In confronting

this discussion to STW’s policy, it could be interesting to perform more qualitative research on the

effects of STW’s knowledge trade policy on the knowledge transfer. The data presented in this thesis

about the amount of patents transferred by STW and about the revenues and costs is limited to a six

years overview. Furthermore, specific patent data (like the actual value of the patents) is missing and

are also not presented in STW’s annual reports. It would therefore be enlightening for both STW as

well as for the debate in the literature if extensive, qualitative research would be done on the effects

of STW patents and STW’s knowledge trade policy on knowledge transfer. A similar qualitative

research could be performed on more cases in which universities collaborated with firms. Based on

this thesis, hypotheses can be made which can be tested in further research.

As pointed out in chapter 4, analyzing STW’s policy on socioeconomic aspects could be interesting

both for STW as for policy makers.

It would also be interesting to qualitatively analyze the role of other institutes that are involved in

the valorisation of knowledge, like TNO, Syntens or SenterNovem.

Finally, in case 2 – non STW it is mentioned that the relationship between the university and the

German firm was disturbed. A possible explanation for this disturbance was the differences between

the relationship of German and Dutch universities with the industry. Further research on the

differences between public-private relationships in different European countries could enrich any

cross-border public-private research stimulation programmes.

All this data leads to a better understanding of the knowledge transfer process and will give input for

policy makers, both national as international, which can eventually result in economic growth.

87

8 References

Adams, J.D., Chiang, E.P., Starkey, K. (2001). Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers. Journal

of Technology Transfer, vol. 26, pp. 73-86.

Aghion, P., Tirole, J. (1994). The Management of Innovation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109:

1185-1209.

Agrawal, A. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered

questions. International Journal of Management Reviews vol. 3(4), pp. 285-302.

Agrawal, A. and Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from

MIT. Management Science, vol. 48 (1), 44-66.

Argyres, N., Liebeskind, J.P. (1998). Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the

commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 35, pp. 427-

454.

Balconi, M., Laboranti, A. (2006). University-industry interactions in applied research: The case of

microelectronics. Research Policy 35, 1616-1630.

Behrens, T.R., Gray, D.O. (2001). Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry

sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy, 30,

179-199.

Beise, M., Stahl, H., 1999. Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy 28,

397-422.

Bekkers, R., Gilsing, V., Steen, van der M. (2006). Determining Factors of the Effectiveness of IP-based

Spin-offs: Comparing the Netherlands and the US. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 31, pp. 545-566.

Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Dideren, B., Lokshin, B., Veugelers, R. (2004a). Hetrogeneity in R&D

cooperation strategied. International Journal of Industrial Organization. Vol. 22, pp. 1237-1263.

Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B. (2004b). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research

Policy, vol. 33, pp. 1477-1492.

Bercovitz, J., Feldmann, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial Universities and Technology Transfer: A Conceptual

Framework for Understanding Knowledge-Based Economic Development. Journal of Technology

Transfer,31: 175-188.

Berger, R.L.M. (2001). Platform Universitair Octrooibeleid, “The University Patent Policy Platform”.

www.octrooicentrum.nl, viewed on 12-10-2006.

Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E.G., Causion, N., et al. (1996). Participation of life-science faculty in research

relationships with industry. New England Journal of Medicine 335, 1734-1739.

88

Bodas Freitas, I.M.B., Bekkers, R. (2007). Exploring patterns of knowledge transfer from university to

industry: Do sectors matter? DRUID Summer Conference 2007 on appropriability, proximity, routines

and innovation, June 18 - 20, 2007, Copenhagen.

Bodewes, H.,Brennenraedts, Deuten, J., Holland, C., Kern, S., van der Veen, G. Evaluatie STW 2001-

2004. Dialogic innovatie & interactie, Utrecht, April 2006.

Bongers, F., den Hertog, P., Vandeberg, R., Segers, J. (2003). Naar een meetlat voor wisselwerking,

verkenning van de mogelijkheden voor meting van kennisuitwisseling tussen publieke kennisinstellingen

en bedrijven / maatschappelijke organisaties. Eindrapport aan AWT, Dialogic, Utrecht.

Bongers, F., den Hertog, P., Vandeberg, R., Segers, J., 2003. Naar een meetlat voor wisselwerking.

Verkenning van de mogelijkheden voor meting van kennisuitwisseling tussen publieke

kennisinstellingen en bedrijven / maatschappelijke organisaties. Utrecht: Dialogic.

Boots, N., 2006. Een “best practice” van valorisatie van wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Presentation held

at innovation market of 17 October 2006. Technology Foundation STW.

Brooks, H., Randazzese, L.P. (1999). University-industry relations: the next four years and beyond. In:

Branscomb, L.M., Keller, J.H. (Eds.), Investing in Innovation: Creating an Innovation Policy that works.

MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 361-399.

Caloghirou, Y., Ionnides, S., Vonortas, N. (2003). Research Joint Ventures. Journal of economic surveys,

17(4), 541-570.

Cohen W.M., Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.

Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P. (2002). Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on

Industrial R&D. Management Science 48(1): 1-23.

Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijn, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R.R., Rosenberg, N., Sampat, B.N. (2002). How Do

University Inventions Get Into Practice? Management Science. Vol. 48. pp. 61-72

Crespi, G.A, Geuna, A., Verspagen, B. (2007) Should Universities Own Patents for Efficient Knowledge

Transfer? Working paper, JEL Subject Classification: O3, I28.

European Commission (1995). Green Paper on Innovation.

European Commission (2003). The role of universities in the Europe of knowledge. Brussels,

COM(2003) 58 final.

Fritsch, M., Lukas, R. (2001). Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy 30, 297-312.

Geuna, A., Nesta, L. (2003). University patenting and its effects on academic research. Paper 99, SPRU

Electronic Working Paper Series. Sussex University, Falmer, Brighton.

Geuna, A., Nesta, L.J.J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging

European evidence. Research Policy, Vol. 35, pp. 790-807.

89

Gibbons, M., Johnston, R. (2000). The role of science in technological innovation in: Stephan, P.E. (ED.).,

The Economics of Science and Innovation, Vol. 2, Elgar,. Northampton, MA.

Giessel, J.F van., Heide, M. de, Hertog, P. den, Veen, G. van der, Velde, R. te., 2007. Quick Scan (on the

use of PPPs in) focus, mass and valoriation in scientific research in eight European countries. Research

performed for the Advisory Council for Science and Technology Policy (AWT), Dialogic, Technopolis,

Utrecht-Amsterdam.

Godin, B., Gingras, Y. (2000). The impact of collaborative research on academic science. Science and

Public Policy 27 (1), 65-73.

Goldfarb, B., Colyvas, J. (2004). Tacit Knowledge, Uncertainty and Startups. University of Maryland,

Stanford University.

Hagedoorn, J., Link, A.N., Vonortas, N.S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy 29. pp. 567-

586.

Hall, B.H., Link, A.N., Scott, J.T. (2001). Universities as Research Partners. NBER Working Paper.

Hall, Bronwyn H. (2004). University-industry Research Partnerships in the United States. Kansai

Conference Paper.

Hellman, T. (2006). The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap. Journal of Economic

Behavior & Organization. Vol. 63, pp. 624-647.

Henderson, R., Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A

detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 119-127.

Hurmelinna, P. (2004). Motivations and Barriers related to University-Industry Collaboration –

Appropriability and the Principle of Publicity. Presented at Seminar on Innovation, UC Berkeley.

Jankowski, E.J. (1999). Trends in Academic Research Spending, Alliances, and Commercialization.

Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, 55-68.

Jensen, R., Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The licensing of University Inventions.

The American Economic Review, Vol. 91, No.1, pp. 240-259.

Knols, S., Puijk, K., Voskamp, N., 2006. 25 jaar STW / wetenschap in bedrijf. STW, drukkerij

Mart.Spruijt bv, Amsterdam.

Konings, M., 2007. Interview done with Marjan Konings from STW. Interview with STW on 28-6-07,

Utrecht.

Lam, A. (2005). Work Roles and Careers of R&D Scientists in Network Organizations. Industrial

Relations, Vol. 44, No.2

Lee, Y.S. (1996). “Technology Transfer” and the research university: a search for the boundaries of

university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, vol. 25, pp. 843-863.

90

Lee, Y.S. (2000). The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An Empirical

Assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25: 111-133.

Lee, Yong S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: a search for the boundaries of

university – industry collaboration. Research Policy 25, 843-863.

Levin, R.C. (1988). Appropriability, R&D Spending and Technological Performance. The American

Economic Review 78(2), 424-428.

Link, A.N., Scott, J.T., Siegel, D.S. (2003). The economics of intellectual property at universities: an

overview of the special issue. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 21, pp. 1217-1225.

Marcelis, C.L.M., 2007. Interview done with Chris Marcelis from STW. Interview with STW on 28-6-07,

Utrecht.

Matkin, G.W. (1994). Technology Transfer and Public Policy; Lessons from a Case Study. Policy Studies

Journal 22(2), 371-383.

Metcalfe, S., 1997. Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework. In:

Archibugi, D. & Michie, J., 1997. technology, Globalisation and Economic Performance. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Meyer-Krahmer, F., Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: university-industry interaction in

four fields. Research Policy 27, 835-851.

Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2003. Action for Innovation. Raising the Dutch knowledge economy to a

leading position in Europe. Ministry of Economic Affairs, Den Haag.

Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2004. Summary of Innovation letter: Action for Innovation. Raising the

Dutch knowledge economy to a leading position in Europe. Ministry of Economic Affairs, Den Haag.

Miotti, L., Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework of

analysis. Research Policy 32, 1481-1499.

Monjon, S., Waelbroeck, P. (2003). Assesing spillovers from universities to firms: evidence from French

firm-level data. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1255-1270.

Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B.N., Ziedonis, A.A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing

by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, vol. 30,

pp. 99-119.

Narin, F., Hamilton, K.S., Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and

public science. Research Policy 26, 317-330.

Nelson, R. (2001). Observations on the Post-Bayh-Dole Rise of Patenting at American Universities,

Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 13-19.

91

Noble, D. (1977). America by Design: Science, Technology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism. Oxford

University Press, New York.

OECD, 2003. Public-Private Partnerships for Research and Innovation: An Evaluation of the Dutch

Experience.

Owen-Smith, J., Powell, W.W. (2001). To Patent or Not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success at

Technology Transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99-114.

Payne, A.A., Siow, A. (2003). Does Federal Research Funding Increase University Research Output?

Advances in Ecnomic Analysis & Policy, 3(1).

Ranga, L.M., Debackere, K., von Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics

of academic knowledge production: a case study of basic vs. apllied research in Belgium. Scientometrics

58 (2), 301-320.

Rappert, B., Webster, A., Charles, D. (1999). Making sense of diversity and reluctance: academic-

industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy 28, 873-890.

Santoro, M.D., Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). Relationship Dynamics between University Research Centers

and Industrial Firms: Their Impact on Technology Transfer Activities. Journal of Technology Transfer,

26, 163-171.

Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M.M., Fröhlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between

universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy 31, 303-328.

Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on

university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 19, pp. 127-151.

Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D., Links, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the

relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy,

Vol. 32, pp. 27-48.

STW, 2001. Task and Method of Working of STW-User Committees. On: www.STW.nl, viewed on 6-7-7.

STW, 2004. Taak en werkwijze van STW-gebruikerscommissies. On: www.stw.nl, viewed on 7-7-7.

STW, 2007. Richtlijnen. On: www.stw.nl, viewed on 7-7-7.

STW, 2007. STW annual report 2006. STW, Utrecht.

Teece, D.J. (1985). Multinational Enterprise, Internal Governance, and Industrial Organization.

American Economic Review, 75(2), 233-238.

Tether, B.S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why. An empirical analysis. Research Policy,

Vol. 31, pp. 947-967.

Thursby, J.G., Thursby, M.C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university

licensing. Management Science, vol.48(1), 90-104.

92

Van den Berg, F., 2007. Interview done with Frank van den Berg from STW. Interview with STW on 28-

6-07, Utrecht.

van Giessel, J.F, de Heide, M., den Hertog, P., van der Veen, G., te Velde, R., 2007. Quick Scan (on the use

of PPPs in) focus, mass and valorisation in scientific research in eight European countries. Research

performed for the Advisory Council for Science and Technology Policy (AWT). Dialogic &

Technopolis, Utrecht/Amsterdam.

Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behaviour of academic

researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Research Policy, 35, 596-608.

Van looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial

and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew effect?

Research Policy 33, 425-441.

Verspagen, B. (2006). University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation

systems. Working Paper 06.05, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, University of Technology,

Eindhoven.

Ziedonis, A.A. (1999). Inward technology transfer by firms: the case of university technology licenses.

Mimeo, University of California, Berkely.

Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Armstrong, J. (1998). Geographically localized knowledge: spillovers or

markets? Economic Inquiry 36. 65-86.

Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Armstrong, J. (2002). Commercializing Knowledge: University Science,

Knowledge Capture, and Firm Performance in Biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138-153.

Websites

www.dialogic.nl viewed on 3-7-7

website of Dialogic

www.fom.nl, viewed on 3-7-7

website of the foundation for fundamental research on matter.

www.government.nl, viewed on 18-8-2007.

Website of the Dutch government.

Full url:

http://www.government.nl/policy/balkenende4/regeerakkoord/An_innovative_competitive_and_en

terprising_economy.jsp

www.innovatieplatform.nl, viewed on 5-7-7

website of the Innovation Platform.

www.KNAW.nl, viewed on 5-7-7

website of the KNAW

93

www.minocw.nl, viewed 23-8-2007

Website of the ministry of Education, Culture, and Science.

Full url: http://www.minocw.nl/toespraken/597

www.nwo.nl, viewed on 18-7-7

website of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research.

Full url: http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/NWOP_6EYCLQ_Eng

www.onderzoeksinformatie.nl, viewed on 18-7-7

website of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, department Research Information.

Full url: http://www.onderzoekinformatie.nl/nl/oi/landschap/inhoud/financiering/

www.stw.nl, viewed on 5-7-7

Website of the technology foundation STW.

www.stw.nl, viewed 27-8-2007

Website of the Technology Foundation STW

full url:

http://www.stw.nl/Templates/Algemeen.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7bBDCE21B

E-C223-461D-B97D-

07236AB6A849%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fOver%2bSTW%2fDefault%2ehtm&NRCACHEHINT=No

ModifyGuest#Budget

94

95

Appendix A

Table 14: List of research institutes that can apply for STW grants (STW, 2004).

Abbreviation Full name

AMOLF Institute for Atomic and Molecular Physics

ASTRON Nederland’s Foundation for Research in Astronomy

CBS Fungal Biodiversity Centre

CWI Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science

ICIN Interuniversity Cardiology Institute of the Netherlands

ING Institute for Dutch Historie

KVI

Kernfysisch Versneller Instituut, KVI is a Dutch institute in the fields of

fundamental and applied subatomic and atomic physics

NCG Netherlands Geodetic Commission

NIKHEF National Institute for Nuclear Physics and High Energy Physics

NIOO Netherlands Institute of Ecology

NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research

NKI The Netherlands Cancer Institute

NSCR Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement

NIOB Netherlands Institute for Development Biology

NIN Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience

PLASMF FOM-Institute for Plasma Physics Rijnhuizen

SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research

96

Appendix B

97

98

99

100

Appendix C

Table 15 : clasification of disciplinary areas for STW evaluation (Bodewes et al., 2006)

Main disciplinary area Sub-disciplinary

Technology and engineering Vehicle technology and transport technology

Aerospace technology and engineering

Telecommunication engineering

Civil engineering

Opto electronics

Materials technology

Mechanical technology, robotics

Engines, energy converters

Measurement and control engineering

Electrical energy technology

Circuits and Systems

Nanotechnology

Technical mechanics

Technology assessment

Chemical technology, process technology

Micromechanics

Microelectronics

Life sciences, medicine and biology Oncology

Genetics

Pharmacology, toxicology

Immunology, serology

Biochemistry

Botany

Histology, cell biology

Infections, parasitology

Physiology

Bioinformatics, biomathematics, biomechanics

Radiology, radiotherapy

Ecology

Biophysics, clinical physics

Microbiology

Biotechnology

Physics Nuclear physics

Metrology, scientific instrumentation

Gases, fluid dynamics, plasma physics

Elementary particle physics

Theoretical physics, (quantum) mechanics

Electromagnetism, optics, acoustics

Atomic physics and molecular physics

Solid-state physics

Chemistry Catalysis

Macromolecular chemistry, polymer chemistry

Analytical chemistry

Physical chemistry

Theoretical chemistry, quantum chemistry

Inorganic chemistry

Organic chemistry

101

Appendix D

Table 16: Case comparison table STW Non-STW

Main factors sub-factors Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Project initiation

University initiated the project x x x xFirm initiated the project x xProject is based on existing technology of

companyx x

Project is based on previous research done at

facultyx x x

Project is based on the results of previous

collaborative R&D between the firm and the

universityx

Project's idea is orginated from technological

problems at firmx x x x

Contact is made through personal network x x x x x

Contact is made through contacts of previous

collaborative researchx x

Contact is made because of published results of

previous research x

Financing

Project is fully financed by STW x

Project is partly financed by STW and the Firmx x

Project is fully financed by the firm x xProject is partly financed from the university and

the firm x

Characteristics of parties

involved

1 firm involved x x x x3 firms involved x>3 firms involved xSmall firm (<500 employees) x x

Large firm (>5000 employees) x x x x

Firm has own R&D lab x x x x x xHigh share of R&D employees x x x x x

Common for firm to collaborate with universitiesx x x x x ?

Amount of sections (research groups) involved 1 3 2 1 1 (2) 1Size of the project is comparable with other

projects at the sectionx x

Size of the project is larger compared to other

projects at the sectionx

Size of the project is smaler compared to other

projects at the sectionx x x

Common for faculty to collaborate with industryx x x x x x

Amount of PhD students 2 3 2 1 1 1Geographic proximity 1200 km 58 km 48 Km 198 Km 571 Km 7 km

Industry motivation

Access to research results x x x x x x

Sponsored research x x xProduct development x x

Access to specialist technical support x x x x x

Perform collaborative R&D to get an innovative

imagex x

Perform pre-competitive research xCreate a network of industry and academic

researchersx x

Educate PhD students x

Complement current running research x x xIncrease firm's ability to patent x xRecruit academic scientists x

University motivations

Secure funds for research x x x x x xPerform innovative research x x x x x xPerform PhD research x x x x x xWrite publications x x x x x x

Field-test the application of the research x x x

Perform multidiciplinary research xGet access to firm's research infrastructure xGain insight in previous research results xAttract firms for future collaborative R&D xGet direction from industry for research x x

Character of research

Research is mainly fundamental x x x xResearch is mainly applied x xTechnological breakthrough x x

Project execution

Project is designed by university researchers x x x x x x

Cooperative research x x x xContract research x xProject duration (in years) 5,5 7 4,5 - 4 4Most research is done at the university x x x x xMost research is done at the firm xResearch is done both at the firm as the

universityx x x

Firm provided knowledge x x x x

Firm provided technology x x x x xMutual trust x x x x

Knowledge transfer

mechanism

Formal interaction (meetings) x x x x x xInformal interaction x x x x xLabour mobility x x x xPublications x x x x x x

Conferences x x x x x xPatents x x

Results

Publications 5 11 >4 1 18 7Patents 1 2 6New materials xNew methods x x xNew general knowledge x x x xKnowledge is succesfully transferred to firm x x x x x x

Research results are diffused outside the firm x x x

Research results are absorbed by the firm x x x x xResearch results are adopted by the firm x x x x xProject led to new research projects at the

universityx x x x

Project led to the development of commercial

products at firmx x x x

Project led to process efficiency at firm x

Conflicts

Publication delay x xTension x x

102

Appendix E

In case 1 – STW, the firm motive to be involved in the STW project was first of all the fact that STW

sponsored the project. Without STW funds, the firm had to fund the research which would have been

difficult since some fundamental research needed to be done before it would lead to any application.

Besides STW involvement, the firm’s motive was to perform research that could result in new

product developments. Because of the collaboration with the university, the firm could get access to

specialist technical support. The firm’s R&D section is too small to perform this research without

collaboration. A final important motivation for the firm to collaborate with a university was to write

co-publications which would give the firm an innovative image. In all cases, the most important

motivation for the university to perform the research project was to perform innovative research

which would lead to a PhD thesis and publications. Besides these motivations, the university could

field-test the application of their research because of the involvement of the firm that could provide

equipment and because of the involvement of the hospital. In addition, the university could perform

multidisciplinary research (both clinical as technical). It is indicated by the university that STW is

mostly involved to secure funds for the research.

In case 2 – STW, the firm motivation to be part of the research project was to find partners for pre-

competitive research. The need for the research results at the firm was not high enough to perform

the research by itself. By being part of the user committee, the firm could get access to the research

results and create a network of industry and academic researchers which is seen as a major benefit.

One of the firm’s main objectives in this research project (besides getting interesting research

results) was to educate the PhD students by collaborating on R&D. In the STW user committee,

eventually seven firms were involved which are competitors.

University motivations to collaborate with firms were to get access to firm’s research facilities and

materials. STW was mainly involved to secure finances. The project was too fundamental to be

financed from the industry. To main motivation to perform the research was to perform innovative

research which would result in PhD theses and publications.

In case 3 – STW, the firm’s main motivation to be involved in this STW project was to get access to

specialist technical support. The firm’s R&D section was not big enough to perform this research

without the cooperation of the university. Automatically, the firm could get access to research results

which could be used to increase the process efficiency. The university performs the R&D which was

needed at the firm. In addition, by performing this research, the firm could present itself as an

innovative company which could lead to more collaboration with other firms. Another motivation to

be part of this project was to create a network with university researchers and with the research

institutes who joined the STW user committee. Like in the other two STW cases, a main motivation to

involve STW was because of the finance. Without STW finance, the project would not have been done.

Other university motivations (besides the performance of innovative research and the creation of

publications) were to gain more insight in own previous research. In previous research it was

concluded that laser drilling would lead to imperfect holes. This research project could give results of

the implications of these imperfect holes. Finally, an important motivation for the university to

perform this research was to attract other firms for future collaborative R&D.

The main industry motivations in case 1 – non STW is to complement internal R&D. The project is

part of a larger research project which is done at the firm which is related to product development.

By collaborating with the university, the firm can get access to specialist technical support, both

experts as equipment and animal tests can be done which is not allowed at the firm. Main university

motive (also besides the performance of innovative research and the creation of publications) is to

103

secure funds to continue previous research. The university researchers also indicated that it is

interesting to have more insight in the potential application of their knowledge.

In case 2 – non STW, the industry motives have to be guessed since the firm was not willing to

collaborate on this thesis. By being involved in this research project the firm could complement its

internal R&D. In fact, internal R&D was revised because of the research results. Since two

(university) patents were filed by the firm at the beginning of the project, a motivation of the firm

could be to increase the ability to patent. Furthermore, by being involved, the firm got access to

specialist technical support. University motives to collaborate were mainly to secure funds to

continue previous research. Because of the involvement of a firm, the university hoped to get input

from the firm for their research.

In case 3 – non STW, the PhD student was employed by the firm. Hence, a motivation for the firm to

collaborate was to recruit a highly productive researcher. In addition, the firm got access to

complementary research activity and specialist technical support. Because of the innovative

character of the research, the project increases the firm’s ability to patent. The main motivations for

the university researchers were to perform PhD research and create publications. The goal of the

research project was not clear at the start of the project. Therefore a motivation to collaborate was to

get direction from the industry to indicate possible interesting and usable research objectives

104

Appendix F

- CONFIDENTIAL -

Documents

Influence of STW funding on public-private knowledge …From the case analyses, conclusions can be made on how STW funded projects differ from and correspond to other collaborative