Is the commercialization of European academic R&D weak?—A critical assessment of a dominant belief and associated policy responses

Public sector R&D and relative efficiency measurement of global comparators working on similar research streams

Purpose

Deriving a measure of efficiency of public-funded organizations (primarily not-for-profit organizations) and ranking these efficiency measures have been major subjects of debate and discussion. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the relative performances of public-funded research and development (R&D) organizations functioning across multiple countries working on similar research streams. The authors use multiple measures of inputs and outputs for this purpose.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors use the data envelopment analysis (DEA) as the primary methodology of analysis The keywords highlighting the major research areas in the field of non-metrology, conducted by National Physical Laboratory (NPL), India, were utilized to select the global comparators working on similar research streams. These global comparators were three R&D organizations located in the USA and one each located in Germany and Japan. The relative efficiencies of the organizations were assessed with the following output variables – external cash flow, and the numbers of technologies transferred, publications and patents; and the following input variables – amount of grants received from the parent body, and the number of scientific personnel working in these public R&D organizations. The authors follow the output-oriented measure of efficiency at constant return to scale and variable return to scale, along with scale efficiencies.

Findings

The performance of NPL, India under multiple dimensions has been evaluated relative to its global comparators – the National Institute for Materials Science, Japan; the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA; Fritz Haber Institute of the Max Planck Society, Germany; the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, USA; and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA. The study indicates suggested measures and a set of targets to achieve the best possible performance for NPL and other R&D organizations. In most cases of efficient local but not so efficient global efficiency scores indicate that, on an average, the actual scale of production has diverged from the most productive scale size.

Research limitations/implications

The approach highlights the utilization of the DEA methodology for relative R&D performance assessment of global comparators. The discriminatory analysis has brought into sharp focus the dichotomy between local efficiency and global efficiency scores of these units and issues of scale size and regional disparities. The outcome of this approach is dependent upon correct selection of input and output variables and data availability.

Practical implications

The study results have profound implications for the management of public R&D institutions across nations working on similar-focused research streams, but functioning within different societal, economic, and political contexts.

Originality/value

The present work, being perhaps one of the few multinational studies of relative performance assessment of pubic-funded R&D organizations working on similar research streams, signifies the relevance of such an approach in the field of R&D/innovation management. This has opened up new avenues for further research in this area.

Reflections on the Future of Pharmaceutical Public-Private Partnerships: From Input to Impact

Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are multiple stakeholder partnerships designed to improve research efficacy. We focus on PPPs in the biomedical/pharmaceutical field, which emerged as a logical result of the open innovation model. Originally, a typical PPP was based on an academic and an industrial pillar, with governmental or other third party funding as an incentive. Over time, other players joined in, often health foundations, patient organizations, and regulatory scientists. This review discusses reasons for initiating a PPP, focusing on precompetitive research. It looks at typical expectations and challenges when starting such an endeavor, the characteristics of PPPs, and approaches to assessing the success of the concept. Finally, four case studies are presented, of PPPs differing in size, geographical spread, and research focus.

A resource- and impact-based micro-level conceptualization of collaborative academic work

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to develop new conceptual tools for analyzing how contemporary collaborative academic work is organized on micro-level, and its social and economic impact, in broad terms. Thus it makes a contribution towards a better view on how contemporary academics organize their professional activities in light of profound changes to the framework conditions of academic work, and a better view on the productivity and potentially very wide societal impact of academia.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on previous research, the arguments are developed conceptually. The paper builds both on previous empirical findings and strong traditions in organization theory (resource dependence theory) and innovation studies.

Findings

The paper achieves a synthesized conceptual view on impact of academia, strongly related to how individual academics organize their professional activities today, given the recent profound structural changes to the academic system. The paper launches resource dependence as a key concept for understanding contemporary academic work in a collaborative context, and sequences of impact as a key tool for conceptualizing the very varied role of academia in society.

Research limitations/implications

While building strongly on previous research, the paper is conceptual in nature and thus its value lies chiefly in assisting future studies.

Practical implications

The contribution can assist in policymaking by promoting the achievement of more accurate and better balanced models and appraisal schemes.

Originality/value

The paper has theoretical originality and its synthesized argument about organizing and impact is of high value for current scholarly debate on these topics.

Researchers as enablers of commercialization at an entrepreneurial university

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore and visualize alternative ways – how and by whom – that academic research can come into commercial use.

Design/methodology/approach

This study in the Swedish context investigates one entrepreneurial university, Chalmers University of Technology. In total, 18 interviews were conducted about researchers’ views on commercialization and on how research comes into commercial use.

Findings

Five propositions are advocated in relation to researchers’ role as enablers of others’ commercialization. The concept of “need for utilization” is introduced as the critical explanation for researchers’ readiness to transfer knowledge mainly via alumni to established companies.

Practical implications

This study suggests that both universities and policy should acknowledge alternative ways of commercialization of academic research instead of putting all efforts on trying to transform unwilling academic researchers into entrepreneurs. One alternative is to foster ongoing contacts between researchers and alumni, who make commercial use of academic research in established firms.

Originality/value

This study furthers the knowledge about researchers’ individual motivation for commercialization, as driven by a “need for utilization.” By showing how researchers enable others commercialization, this study broadens the prevailing focus on researchers’ formation of university spin-offs as the essential output from entrepreneurial universities. The results also contribute to understanding the role of alumni in knowledge transfer to existing industry.