University-Industry collaborative challenges

Many academic leaders agree that UIC have expanded significantly in recent years. Encouragement of such partnership is a bridging stone for universities to step forward into the reality of economic and societal needs. It helps university to conceptualise theoretical knowledge into product development. This driving factor is the rescue approach to shift academic mentality to become contributor to the nation‟s technological and economical development (Bollag, 1990).

In fact the academic literature indicates a wide range of issues may arise in the management of UIC (Rohrbeck and Arnold, 2006, Ghani, 1991, Davenport et al., 1999, Llyod and Simpson, 2005, Harris, 2007). In this work, these issues have been

compiled and classified into a number of common themes as presented in Table 3.4. Each of the themes has been categorised according to internal and external determinants. Internal determinants range from a collective group of issues abstracted from both partners such as sharing of authority, lack of trust leading to hidden agenda between partners, the level of support and the degree of involvement to be negotiated and agreed before the partnership is initiated. Apart from internal determinants, the success of collaborative projects is also affected by the external environment. There are also political pressures from governmental bodies that drive universities to generate new technologies and knowledge to increase their contribution to the society.

Table 3.4 Factors which reduces the probability of success of UIC R&D projects

Category Factors / barriers to collaboration

Internal determinants

Collective

 Fear factor (Casey, 2004)

 Hidden agenda (Barnes et al., 2002)

 Sharing of authority (Davenport et al., 1999)

 IPR & publication novelty (Dyer et al., 2006, Casey, 2004,

Saunders, 2003, Parnami and Bandyopadhyay, 2008)

 Confidentiality and privacy (Parnami and Bandyopadhyay, 2008)  Level of support & involvement (Ghani, 1991, Harris, 2007)  Selection of university-industry partner (Barnes et al., 2006, ,

2000)

 Conflicting interest (Casey, 2004, Ghani, 1991, Rohrbeck and

Arnold, 2006, Harris, 2007)

Project management

 Unclear requirements (Barnes et al., 2002, , 2000)  Project planning & progress monitoring (Ghani, 1991)  Ineffective communication channel (Casey, 2004)

 Unclear roles & responsibilities of team members (Llyod and

Simpson, 2005)

 Unclear role of project manager/lead researcher (Barnes et al.,

2000)

 Degree of commitment & motivation (Ghani, 1991, Harris, 2007)  Project manager selection (Barnes et al., 2000)

 Collaboration agreement not clearly written & agreed (Ghani,

1991)

Table 3.4 Factors which reduces the probability of success of UIC R&D projects (cont)

Category Factors / barriers to collaboration

Internal determinants

Cultural

 Distrust, lack of honesty and openness (Casey, 2004, Davenport et

al., 1999)

 Differing project objectives (Parnami and Bandyopadhyay, 2008)  Different nature of work (Rohrbeck and Arnold, 2006, Huljenic et

al., 2005)

 Structures for incentives & reward varies

External determinants

Environmental

 Technology transfer & applications (Parnami and Bandyopadhyay,

2008)

 Ever-growing forces of competitiveness (Rohrbeck and Arnold,

2006)

 Increase in technological choices to the market (Rohrbeck and

Arnold, 2006)

 Deregulation of policies (Rohrbeck and Arnold, 2006)

 Political pressure in universities as knowledge contributors

(Rohrbeck and Arnold, 2006)

 Higher demand of innovation by market  Corporate stability & continuity  Industry specific R&D interest

The following outlines several factors which reduces the probability of success of UIC R&D projects at large:

Project management obstacles

The various project management related obstacles are due to unclear requirement, poor project planning and monitoring through the project cycle and where roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined or delegated. Many of these obstacles can be traced due to inappropriate selection of project managers (Harrigan, 1986). In the management of projects, communication frequently breaks down due to unclear requirements, poor planning and unclear roles and responsibilities. These issues are more excessive when the project involves multiple organisations with widely differing perceptions (Huljenic et al., 2005). Therefore, the creation of trust, respect, openness and honesty in a collaborative partnership are an important element for successful UIC but are highly sensitive and difficult to manage (Barnes et al., 2002,

Davenport et al., 1999). There are also numerous issues related to the way projects are managed which have been identified from the literature as shown in Table 3.4.

Nature of environment

Davenport et al. (1999) identified that trust and honesty between partners are difficult to accomplish due to differing nature of work, style and objectives of each organisation which eventually creates a dual project control phenomenon (Davenport et al., 1999). This dual phenomenon leads to conflict of interest, clashes in management style and consequently allowing cultural differences to dominate in the project environment. These effects are greater if the expectations of different partners are not aligned. An example of project management perspectives (see Table 3.4), conventional university based research projects are more fundamental or abstract having loosely defined scope or requirements and typically require longer periods of investigation after which tangible products becomes the exception rather than the rule. However, commercial imperatives on the other hand force industry to strive for shorter product development cycles and are lead by well defined profit oriented objectives. Many of the issues identified are related to the dynamically different nature of a typical work environment in commercial and research driven organisations.

Differences in expectations

Next, the difference in what organisations perceived as success criteria also differs dramatically. Universities regard the advancement of knowledge and reputation as their primary element of success, while industry view success only if their end products achieve acceptance in the marketplace and accrue a significant return on investment. The differences in the financial expectations of project work have also caused issues of contention as identified in Table 3.4. Universities need to charge overhead costs to projects and by convention are given upfront grants (or more likely these days staged payments) rather than payment on delivery as the usual mode of commercial organisations. An additional challenge in the partnerships are the issues involving the ownership of IPR (Bammer, 2008). These issues are considered of such importance that even the Lambert commission structured its model agreements around IPR ownership (Department of Innovation Universities & Skills, 2008).

Other factors

Other obstacles in a collaborative partnership relate to the importance of corporate stability and continuity of personnel. These concerns are particularly important to the university which collaborates with small to medium size organisations that are more vulnerable to financial constraints, poor personnel management, downsizing, restructuring, acquisition by other organisations or even possible unexpected closure, all of which can be potential threats to the success of the collaboration (Barnes et al., 2002). As a result, universities need to consider these factors when selecting partners to ensure sufficient commitment and ability to sustain the partnership throughout the project life span.

To a certain extent, UIC R&D projects are one of the key mechanisms in fostering national competitiveness as they facilitate the development and application of national innovation potential. Yet R&D projects are inherently uncertain and therefore carry a relatively large risk of overwhelming performance or absolute failure (Quelin, 2000, Erno-Kjolhede, 2000, Gokhale and Bhatia, 1997, El-Hesnawi, 2003). As a consequence of the risk quotient and the other numerous issues discussed above, successful management of R&D collaborative projects is a challenging endeavour.