EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

A micro level study of university industry collaborative lifecycle key performance indicators

Ekaterina Albats (), Irina Fiegenbaum () and James A. Cunningham ()
Additional contact information
Ekaterina Albats: Lappeenranta University of Technology
Irina Fiegenbaum: International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM)
James A. Cunningham: Northumbria University

The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2018, vol. 43, issue 2, 389-431

Abstract: Abstract The assessment of university-industry collaborative projects has been complex and has become more prevalent in national research, educational and innovation system reviews. One criticism made about studies of university-industry collaboration (UIC) is they are too much orientated towards exclusively the outputs (Rossi and Rosli in Stud High Educ 40(10):1970–1991, 2015) and that there is a need to apply case specific metrics. To address this criticism we have taken Brown et al’s Res Technol Manag 31(4):11–15, (1988) R&D lifecycle of inputs, in-process activities, outputs and impact at micro level to examine what are the common and context specific key performance indicators of UIC. Taking a qualitative approach and using university-industry collaborative projects set in Finland and Russia our study identified a common set of micro level KPIs across the UIC lifecycle at a micro level. Namely, the amount of resources allocated by partners to collaboration; efficiency of collaboration management and clearly defined roles; as well as a number of company innovations resulting from collaboration with a university and new strategic partnerships. Our study also found contextual micro level KPIs as number of young researchers involved, fit between collaboration and organizational strategy; number of joint publications; enterprise image improvements. Our research extends the existing knowledge on UIC KPIs in the following ways. First, we define those KPIs, which are applicable by all the three actors of the triple helix, but also identify those that are not used by some of these actors. Second, we analyse the relevance of certain KPIs proposed by governmental bodies and the literature in terms of their applicability in the analysed case studies. Finally, we define those metrics, which among other existing KPIs depend on the case context (region, research area, industrial sector and partners’ goals) as well as identify additional KPIs, which have not received attention in UIC literature.

Keywords: University-industry collaboration; Indicators; Finland; Russia; Case studies; Micro level; Triple helix (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O31 O32 O33 O34 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3) Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10961-017-9555-2 Abstract (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:43:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10961-017-9555-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... nt/journal/10961/PS2

Access Statistics for this article

The Journal of Technology Transfer is currently edited by Albert N. Link, Donald S. Siegel, Barry Bozeman and Simon Mosey

More articles in The Journal of Technology Transfer from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla ().

 
Page updated 2019-11-06
Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:43:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10961-017-9555-2