From Innovation to Implementation: A Case Study in Collaborative R&D
The role of extramural R&D in the innovation process varies by industry, stage of development, and territory, so various forms of the relationship are also found. And while the explicit links between R&D and the market are often clearly forthcoming in these partnerships, there are other external reasons for firms to contract out their research functions, particularly in the pharmaceuticals case.
The structure as well as the objectives of this relationship are becoming better understood for at least two industries in the ICT sector.
There are different modes of collaborative research, but the term typically refers, in the context of government intervention, to those cases where two or more firms work together to explore new technology for specific applications.
Government support for these efforts is intended to address various market failures - the most obvious being the incentive to free-ride on others' investments - that impede the private sector from undertaking these projects alone.
CR&D is therefore more applicable, and has received most attention, in cases of pre-competitive work with significant spillovers both between the partners and to other industry participants.
Collaborative R&D (CR&D) is an increasingly common form of public-private partnership in the innovation process. Often centered on frameworks funded by government agencies, these agreements play supporting roles in the broader range of arrangements between firms, suppliers, customers, and other actors in the economy.
This chapter explores how CR&D partnerships in specific industries actually function, shedding light on some of the untested assumptions underlying the structure and organizational innovations of these programs.
Innovative Practices in Collaborative R&D
Further evidence on good practices in innovation can be obtained by the many case studies that are scattered throughout the field of innovation. A few of the most successful and well-known "good practices" research inquiries seem to be the reports such as the Innovation Union Report 2011, the Annual Innovation Reports on individual EU Member States.
The search for innovative collaborative R&D can start by observing what is considered to be best practice in this field, for example, by referring to the most interesting earlier contributions. Rutten's study from 2012, for instance, analyzed the best practice in "open innovation" among the high-growth enterprise register in the Netherlands (118 organizations), Dutch Centers for Entrepreneurship (24 regional universities/72 universities in total), and in four of the nine leading technology colleges in higher professional education.
The main aim of the study was to understand the extent to which "entrepreneurial" collaborations among SMEs, as well as between SMEs and knowledge (public or publicly funded) institutions, are capable of realizing fundamental innovations.
There is a wide array of literature introducing innovative or cutting-edge practices in the field of R&D and innovation. These practices are also often present in case-study evaluations of successful R&D, innovation management, and the commercialization of R&D results, often funded by private firms.
The use of a similar perspective in the field of collaborative R&D, instead of drawing upon proprietary case studies, would probably be beneficial in contributing to increasing the innovative practical use of R&D and, more generally, improving the link between what is done in the labs on the network and the firms.
In any R&D setting, cutting-edge techniques, tools, and methodologies play a crucial role in driving innovation. Thus, it is no surprise that the search for innovative practices is particularly important in the collaborative R&D field.
In what follows, we move from this broader list of the top of the double STI helix twenty years after Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff's vision to the field of research on innovative practices in collaborative R&D.
Challenges and Solutions in Implementing Collaborative R&D
An analysis of the implementation of collaborative R&D projects shows several hurdles in companies who must be taken regarding the initiation, the costs, the choice of projects, and the creation of a foreign subsidiary taking over universities' patents. Several solutions to these problems are identified in the process model of commercialization.
Although experience is pending implementation, we bring up some suggestions for good practice. In particular, we will focus on seven issues: (i) initiating collaborative R&D, (ii) the involvement of companies in the projects, (iii) agreement on the way to go, (iv) the choice of projects, (v) the trials, (vi) addressing cognitive hurdles, and (vii) the preparation for spin-off. Despite the model at a certain level of abstraction, we will follow throughout the paper the logical sequence of its elements in solving the above-mentioned issues.
The case study illustrates that while emphasis is placed on the innovative aspects of the collaborative R&D process, the implementation of collaborative R&D in a commercial research and development (R&D) laboratory can be quite complex.
In general, three main problem areas can be identified that need to be addressed in order to implement collaborative R&D successfully. The first area concerns creating an open environment in which to conduct collaborative R&D. The second area concerns the contract and legal details of the projects, such as intellectual property.
The final problem area concerns the benefits to be derived from collaborative R&D. The fact that it is difficult to estimate in advance the benefits that a company can expect from collaborative R&D can throw doubt on its value.
Various independent companies view the collaborative research process differently and from different perspectives. This view becomes part of the technical or market assessment, but these differences may also reflect a different 'culture' of the company, affecting practical implementation.
We can summarize that three main hurdles must be taken when implementing collaborative R&D: problems concerning resources and intellectual effort necessary, difficulties concerning the initiation of the collaboration, and problems concerning choosing the 'proper' partner.
However, despite this seemingly negative image, extensive piggybacking takes place in the mere prescription of compounds, suggesting that more successful piggybacking might be possible. Sometimes these hinder implementations are cited as reasons to avoid collaborative R&D.
Case Study Analysis: Successful Implementation of Collaborative R&D
The "Unit for Applied Ethics" at the University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology conducted a downstream, empirically oriented case study of R&D&I funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (MISTRA). We have interviewed most of the persons involved in various ways in the M5 manipulation effort, and we have observed their very strategies to bring the project to a successful end.
Furthermore, we have taken part in several of the project's working meetings, as well as in a final workshop in December 1998. In our observations, interviews, and project document analysis, we have sought in particular to identify and describe problems and critical turning points that the participants have encountered, both in terms of content and of practical project management. Coordination and the management of collaborative problems were recurring themes.
In this section, we analyze a case study based on a process of collaborative R&D in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry, aimed at identifying commercial, social, and institutional problems. We draw on interviews, participant observation, and document analysis. This project has also been the subject of an evaluation.
The case was chosen because it is one of very few cases of successful implementation of publicly funded collaborative R&D concerning new and innovative research. Furthermore, the combination of commercial actors from big and start-up companies with ambitious social objectives sets the case apart.
Hence, the case is of particular interest in order to identify strategies, methodologies, and frameworks that support the implementation of new research conducted in partnership between commercial actors with varying interests and societal actors.
The purpose of the case study was to document the process of establishing and running 7 cooperative sub-projects, with special attention given to problems and critical turning points both with regard to the content and management, as well as to give an overview of the participating actors.
Future Directions
The work of the Urban Pollution Management research groups suggests that a coevolution in the rather formalized practices that happened in the large portfolios may be generalized. The national impetus provided by the Policy not Research agenda has the potential to provide new interesting questions for the academic research communities.
At the same time, it will require the industry to engage at an earlier stage in their research and innovate the way universities work with them. The relative success of Porter in the 1990s and the lessons from the Coevolution case studies can be seen challenges in our contemporary context.
The urban air quality coevolution process was enabled by another significant trend in the research and innovation system, the growth of research councils R&D portfolio into multi-institutional, large-scale projects. The mainstreaming of sizeable interdisciplinary R&D programs had two unique features that were conducive to the investigations of coevolution.
We hope to have demonstrated that collaborative R&D, with researchers from other organizations collaborating with the university team from the beginning of the project, has had a significant impact on innovation and implementation.
Furthermore, we have highlighted a range of factors that can influence the ability of university researchers to work in such a way. An important contribution of the novel approach outlined in this paper has been to provide insights into the way research findings from projects such as the Urban Pollution Management program can be reinstated within the university in order to improve its environmental performance.
We believe that, given current trends in environmental research funding and policy, the co-creation of knowledge, goods and services for green growth holds considerable potential and that this paper illustrates the kinds of process through which that potential may be cultivated. We suggest three particular issues as possible future directions for research in this field.
The views outlined here are indicative of our own concerns and the work of the Urban Pollution Management research team, rather than of a formal case history. However, we believe that our experience may be useful to others.