© goddard & isabelle 20061 groupe de travail jerip 03 mars 2006 john gabriel goddard imri...

© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 1

Groupe de Travail JERIP03 mars 2006

John Gabriel GODDARDIMRI (Université Paris-Dauphine)

<[email protected]>

Marc ISABELLEIMRI (Université Paris-Dauphine) & CEA

<[email protected]>

Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France


Outline of the presentation

Introduction– Public research and industry: the context

Overview– The survey– The sample– The collaborations

– Extra resources are effectively leveraged

Conclusions and perspectives


References

– PROs’ patents and licenses: the visible part of the iceberg?

– Traditional outcomes outstrip IP-related ones

– Labs’ activities significantly impacted by collaborations

Results– Probing into the invisible part of the iceberg


Public research and industry: the context

Shift since 1980s, first experienced in US (Bayh-Dole act)


– more collaboration between public research and firms

– increase in patent filing by public research organisations

– increase in licensing agreements from PROs to firms

double purpose =

In France, loi de 1999

– speed the innovation rate in the economy

– increase leveraging of resources from their activities by PROs


PROs’ patents and licenses: the visible part of the iceberg?

Most survey-based studies focus on PROs’ patenting and licensing activities (Thursby et al., 2001; Thursby & Thursby, 2003)


Very few address the issue of other channels of K&T transfer to firms (Cohen et al. work with Carnegie-Mellon survey, Levin et al. with Yale survey)

– fit with linear model– involve codified knowledge– transfer embodied technologies

Possible reasons for this bias =

– two-way interactions– involve tacit knowledge– technologies issued from PROs are embryonic

– substantive: patented inventions expected to be commercially useful

– methodological: extensive record of information / databases associatedwith patents


The survey

Focus on IP issues (protection of intangible assets, transmission / diffusion of knowledge)


Questionnaire sent to 1800 lab directors 1st semester, 2004

Questionnaire similar to Cohen (1994)

Large French government labs (CNRS, CEA, INRA, INSERM, INRIA, Institut Pasteur, Institut Curie)

Selected S&T fields: chemistry, life sciences, ICT

Targeted on public research labs


The sample

146 responses 130 labs have collaborations with firms


PROsnumber=146

regionnumber=146

sizenumber=146

S&T fieldsnumber=146

7,200 personnel wide variation, long tail (4 megalabs over 250 pers.)

fairly representative of PROs’ size (except INSERM)

life sciences dominant, ICT marginal

dominance of IDF, probable bias in favour of PACA (many chemistry labs of CEA there)


The collaborations

874 collaborations of every nature (6,9 per lab on average)


localisation of partnersnumber=874

location of collaborative worknumber=130

number of partnersnumber=130

duration of collaborationsnumber=130

weak correlation with size

mostly national, significant regional drive

predominantly long-term

essentially done in public-lab (87%)


Probing into the invisible part of the iceberg


14 pre-identified modalities of collaboration

Answers on a 4-point scale Distribution of responses for each modalitynumber=130

Interpretation

– prevalence of informal / knowledge-targeted / two-way modalities

– IP-related K&T transfer through license agreements at a distant 2nd place


Extra resources are effectively leveraged


9 pre-identified benefits of collaboration for the public lab

Answers on a 4-point scale

Rate of “Yes” for each benefitnumber=130

Interpretation

– perceived benefits closely connected to tangible / intangible inputs obtained

– development of technology transfer activities and mobility towards industry again at a distant 2nd place

“Significant” + “Decisive” “Yes”


Traditional outcomes outstrip IP-related ones


14 pre-identified outcomes of collaboration

Answers on a 4-point scale

Rate of “Yes” for each outcomenumber=130

Interpretation

– … related to dominance of research-type modalities

– patents & copyrights, licenses of all types 2 to 3 times less frequent than publications or theses…

“Frequent” + “Very frequent” “Yes”

– however, embodied technologies (new products & processes + software) as frequent as publications


Labs’ activities significantly impacted by collaborations


Significant impact on research programmes and themes (rate of “Significant” + “Decisive” = 58%)

number=130 Impact on research style answers on a 3-point scale

number=130

Impact on research practices 7 pre-identified practices answers on a 4-point scale “Significant” + “Decisive” “Yes”number=130

Interpretation

– stands out against secondary importance of IP- and technology-related modalities / benefits / outcomes?

– firms’ preferences shape collaborative labs’ activities

– exposure to skewing problem (Florida & Cohen, 1999)


Conclusions and perspectives

THANK YOU!


Lack of IP culture in French PROs (OST)

Perform in-depth comparison with Cohen, 1994

Mirror survey with subset of ERIE database

Identification of cluster effects

Collaboration build-up capabilities on top of (rather than?) transfer technologies

Collaborations revolve around knowledge production / transfer / diffusion rather than technology

Technologies transferred are embryonic require two-way interactions and tacit knowledge transfer


References


Agrawal A., (2001), “University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285-302.

Cohen W.M., Florida R., Goe R., (1994), “University-Industry Research Centers in the United States”, Report to the Ford Foundation, Mimeo, Carnegie Mellon University.

Cohen W.M., Florida R., Randazzese L., Walsh J., (1998), “Industry and the Academy: Uneasy Partners in the Cause of Technological Advance”, in Roger Noll (ed.), Challenge to the Research University, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., Walsh J., (2002), “Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D”, Management Science, 48, 1-23.

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, 80, 119-27.

Jaffe, A. (1989), “Real Effects of Academic Research”, American Economic Review, 79, 957-70.

Mowery D.C., Sampat B.N., (2005), “The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 115-27.

Thursby J.G., Jensen R., Thursby M.C., (2001), “Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59-72.

Thursby J.G., Thursby M.C., (2003), “Industry/University Licensing: Characteristics, Concerns and Issues from the Perspective of the Buyer”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 207-13.

© goddard & isabelle 20061 groupe de travail jerip 03 mars 2006 john gabriel goddard imri...

Documents