university-industry collaboration in a national …...university-industry collaboration in a...
TRANSCRIPT
University-Industry Collaboration in a National Systems of
Innovation: Generating Transition Policy Scenarios for Iran
1
By:
Dr. Gerry Edgar and Omid Ali Kharazmi
Division of Business and Marketing
Stirling School of Management
Conceptual Model
This research builds on the development of a
conceptual model of the relevant macro and micro
conditions for UIC (Edgar and Kharazmi, 2011)
This encapsulates the theoretical constructs from the
literature on systems of innovation theories including,
National Systems of Innovation, Porter‟s „Cluster‟ or
„Diamond‟ model, and the „Triple-Helix Model‟ of
university–industry-government interactions.
The role of culture and trust in different systems of
innovation theories was examined, and the role these
elements play in UIC activities was found to be
particularly important, though vague on process detail.
2
Context of the Study (Iran)
Strengths :
Second largest economy in the Middle East
population of 70 million
The literacy rate is about 90 per cent
Availability of university, different industry sectors, research institutions, Financial institutions and Stock exchange
Weaknesses:
Lack proper systems for IP protection
Lack of proper mechanism for University-Industry collaboration
Iran‟s industrial sector lacks effective competition
Unstable policy making
Embargo - Foreign trade regulations 3
Systems Modelling Technique
4
Hierarchy of Systems: Adapted from Patching, 1990.
Systems thinking is a framework developed more than fifty years ago to give a full clearer picture. Systems thinking is a tool for understanding how things work. It is a framework to look beyond events and scrutinise for patterns of behaviour (Senge, 1990).
Activities in systems thinking
Balle‟s (1994) introduced three activities for systems thinking:
Focus on the relationships rather than parts,
Detect patterns not just events,
The use of circular causality (archetypes)
According to Lee and Tunzelmann (2005) the dynamism of a
system depends on the availability of feedback (interaction),
without which, the system is static. In systems which develop
feedback mechanisms, the behaviour of an entity which includes
elements, attributes and relationships changes over time. The
intention in developing a dynamic model is to understand
possible feedback loops in the system. Such a dynamic model is
a more accurate reflection of the real-world problem situation.
5
Scenario methods
Of the many approaches in the literature for building scenarios, the
most popular are systems analysis, the Delphi technique,
projections, correlation methods, brainstorming, and decision trees.
The Delphi technique and systems thinking are widely accepted as
a methodological base for building scenarios (Garret in Slaughter,
1966; Mercer, 1995).
Scenarios might be described as a tool to project a potential future.
They are a combination of an estimation of what might happen,
with assumptions about what could happen; however, scenarios do
not forecast what actually will happen (Fahey and Randall, 1998).
Scenarios should be plausible, which means that they need to be
possible, credible and relevant. Plausible evidence should illustrate
that the projected narrative could happen in the future (be
possible), show how it could happen (be credible), and finally
indicate its meaning for the organization (be relevant) (Fahey and
Randall, 1998).
6
Scenario methods
Scenarios can be built using two methods:
The first, is the “Exploratory” scenario, and focuses on identifying
the current state of important driving forces and then analyzes the
combination of possible future trends over a period of time.
The second is “anticipatory” and starts with the future state and
the search is directed backwards as a method for uncovering the
series of events which leads to this occurrence (Ratcliffe, 2000;
Fuller-Love et al., 2006). In other words, futures are selected and
this attempts to find which path leads to them; the method is also
recognized as “future backward” (Fahey and Randall, 1998; Ratcliffe,
2000).
7
The Investigation
Develop a systems model to enable evaluation of policy
instruments for enhancement of university-industry
collaboration to transit Iran toward a knowledge-based
economy.
Methodology
The approach of this
study is structured as a
three-stage
methodology based on
the deconstructed
research question, for
developing scenarios
based on systems
thinking, to test and
evaluate policy
instruments for the
competitiveness and
UIC success and the
development of Iran‟s
economic make-up.
9
Stage one: Conceptual Model;
Literature
Stage two: Survey (logic for survey
based on first order impact factors in
conceptual model)
Stage two output (Systems
Model)
Stage three: Interview (logic for interview
instruments based on output of survey;
conceptual framework, and literature)
Stage three Output (Unified
Dynamic Systems Model and
three scenarios)
Methodology
Stage Two: Investigating UIC (Iran case)
Scope of t he study
Two industrial sectors (Automotive and Biotechnology) were selected to
focus the study on areas of the economy that are considered of national
importance for the transition of the country towards a higher technology
base. Both are Government priority growth industries, both are
economically significant with a large national demand market (Ghazinoory,
2003; United Nations, 2005), and are also strongly represented in a wide
range of industrial organizations (Ministry of Industry and Mines Portal,
http://www.mim.gov.ir/) and university research departments (Ministry of
Science, Research and Technology, www.msrt.ir, 2001)
Two regions of the country including Tehran (Capital city) and Mashhad
(second largest city) were chosen for this study due to their identified high
potential for cluster formation in both Biotechnology and Automotive-
related areas (Ministry of Industry and Mines Portal,
http://www.mim.gov.ir/). Four universities were selected in this study. 10
Methodology
Stage Two: Investigating UIC (Iran case)
The survey instrument
University collaboration with industry
Industry collaboration with universities
Individual academics collaboration with industry
Collaboration performance
Collaboration continuity
11
Methodology
Stage Two Outcomes
Analysis of questionnaires
12
Methodology
Stage Two Outcomes
Establishing the scenario logics:
Organizational Structures to Coordinate and Support Partnerships
(OS)
Asset Management (AST)
Leadership and Culture (LC)
Organizational Capabilities (OC)
Creation of an Enabling Environment by Government (GOV)
13
Methodology
Stage Two Outcomes
- Developing scenario themes:
Scenario theme A: Stagnation (current policy framework
+ 15 years)
Scenario theme B: Efficiency driven
Scenario theme C: Innovation driven
- Stage Two outcomes: Discerning patterns of
behaviour
14
Methodology
Stage Three
Dynamic modelling and scenario development
Interviewing key actors
Part 1: Dynamic Systems Model (DSM)
Part 2: What-if Questions
Key Actor Pool
15
Methodology
Stage Three Outcomes
16
Scenario one
(Stagnation)
Scenario two
(Efficiency-Driven)
Scenario three
(Innovation- Driven)
Time= 15 years. Time = 15 years
Results and Findings
Findings from the Questionnaire
A search for a simplified logical structure for the scenario led into a prolonged
discussion of the 34 out of 58 factors (for the university side) and 29 out of 45
factors (for industry) which are significant and can be grouped in the three upper
right quadrant of the Impact-Uncertainty matrix (scenario driving forces).
Organizational Structures to Coordinate and Support Partnerships (OS)
Asset Management (AST)
Leadership and Culture (LC)
Organizational Capabilities (OC)
Creation of an Enabling Environment by Government (GOV)
17
Findings from the Questionnaire
Factor groupings impact on UIC activities
18
Organizational
Structure (OS)
Asset Management
(AST)
Leadership and
Culture (LC)
Organizational
Capabilities (OC)
Creation of an Enabling
Environment by
Government (GOV)
Motivation of individuals within
universities to collaborate with
companies
Motivation of companies to
collaborate with universities
UIC
performance
Motivation of universities
to collaborate with industry
Findings from the Interviews
Constructing the Unified Dynamic Systems Model (DSM) of UIC
19
Organizational
Structure (OS)
AssetManagement
(AST)
Leadership and
Culture (LC)
Organizational
Capabilities (OC)
Creation of an Enabling
Environment by
Government (GOV)
Motivation of individuals within
universities to collaborate with
companies
Motivation of companies to
collaborate with universities
UIC
performance
Motivation of universities
to collaborate with industry
Findings from the Interviews: Unified Dynamic Systems Model (DSM)
Organizational Structure sub-system consists of 3 key forces. These forces and their
connections are shown below:
20
Efficiency of Institutional
Policy on IPR (OS1)
Efficiency of institutional
policy on royalty sharing
(OS3)
Motivation of industry to
collaborate with
universities
Motivation of individuals
within universities to
collaborate with industry
UIC
performance The structure of TTO in
universities (OS2)
Degree of trust formation
between partners (LC6)
Degree of
commitment (LC7)
Efficiency of national policy on
IPR and strength of
enforcement laws (GOV5)Degree of university
autonomy from government
(GOV4)
Black= Organizational Structure (OS)
Red= Connection Between Sub-Systems
Findings from the Interviews: Unified Dynamic Systems Model
Asset Management sub-system consists of 2 key forces. These
forces and their connections are shown below:
21
UIC
performanceAvailability of various
skills in TTOs (AST2)
TTOs' spin-off creation
support strategy (AST3)
The structure of TTO in
universities (OS2)
Efficiency of venture
capital (GOV6)
Red= Connection Between Sub-Sytems
Light Blue= Asset Management (AST)
Findings from the Interviews: Unified Dynamic Systems Model
22
Degree of trust formation
between partners (LC6)
Motivation of companies to
collaborate with universities
Motivation of individuals within
universities to collaborate with
industry
UIC
performance
Degree of
commitment (LC7)
Degree of cultural
differences between
partners (LC 1,2&3)
Degree of lack of understanding
of partners from each other's
norms (LC 4&5)
Performance of research consortia
and other similar kind of
mechanisms for collaboration
(OC1)
Performance of
intermediary agents
(GOV8)
Degree of cooperation and
team working culture
(LC8)
Style of management
in SMEs (LC9)
R27
R28
R30
R31
R33
R34
R36 R37
R41
R42
R44
R45
Red= Connection Between Sub-Systems
Brown= Leadership and Culture (LC)
Efficiency of Institutional
Policy on IPR (OS1)
Pace of trust formation
between strangers
(LC10)
R= Reinforcing Loop
Leadership and Culture sub-system consists of 10 key forces. These forces and their connections are shown below:
Findings from the Interviews: Unified Dynamic Systems Model
Organizational capabilities sub-system consists of 9 key forces. These
forces and their connections are shown below:
23
Performance of research consortia
and other similar kind of
mechanisms for collaboration
(OC1)
Motivation of universities to
collaborate with industry
partner
Motivation of companies to
collaborate with universities
UIC
performance
R1
R2
R3
R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
R9
Efficiency of national policy on
IPR and strength of
enforcement laws (GOV5)
Efficiency of institutional
policy on IPR (OS1)
Style of management
in SMEs (LC9)
Degree of cooperation and
team working culture
(LC8)
Degree of impact on
universities' capabilities
(OC3, OC4)
Degree of impact on
industry's capabilities (OC5,
OC6, OC7, OC8, OC9)
Degree of firms' absorptive
capacity on knowledge
transfer (OC2)
Red= Connection Between Sub-Systems
Green= Organizational Capabilities (OC)
R= Reinforcing loop
Findings from the Interviews: Unified Dynamic Systems Model
Government sub-system consists of 18 key forces.
24
Degree of access to
government funding
(GOV1)
Degree of embargos
imposed(GOV17)
Political situation and
probability of entry to the
WTO (GOV16)
Motivation of universities
to collaborate with industry
Motivation of companies to
collaborate with universities
UIC
performance
Efficiency of national policy on
IPR and enforcement laws
(GOV5)
Efficiency of venture
capital(GOV6)
Performance of
intermediary agents
(GOV8)
Status of cluster formation and
favourability of entrepreneurial
environment (GOV9)
Status of brain drain
(GOV10)
Degree of efficiency of
privatisation policy
(GOV11)
Degree of stability of
government regulations
(GOV3)
Degree of government
monopolies in market
(GOV12)
Degree of university
autonomy from
government(GOV4)
Status of government
financing support system
(GOV7)
Amount of government's
natural resources income
(GOV14)
Degree of government
value people creativity
(GOV15)
Export opportunities and
the risk of investment
(GOV18)
Degree of corruption in
government in allocating
resources to entrepreuners
(GOV20)
Degree of trust between
government and
entrepreuners (GOV21) Motivation of individuals
within universities to
collaborate with industry
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16a
R17a
R16b
R17b
Efficiency of
institutional policy on
IPR (OS1)
Performance of research consortia
and other similar kind of
mechanisms for collaboration
(OC1)
Style of management
in SMEs (LC9)
Degree of cooperation and
team working culture(LC8)
R18a
R18b
R19
R20
R21
R26a
R26b
R47
R48
R49
R50
R51
Red= Connection Between Sub-Systems
Dark blue= Government (GOV)
R= Reinforcing loop
Degree of access to government
funding by universities (changing
university's allocated budget) if
collaborating with companies
(GOV1*)
R12*
Findings from the Interviews
Critical Infrastructural Forces in the DSM
25
Efficiency of institutional policy on IPR (OS1)
The structure of TTOs in universities (OS2)
Degree of trust formation between partners (LC6)
Degree of team working and cooperation culture (LC8)
Style of management in SMEs (LC9)
Pace of trust formation between strangers (LC10)
Performance of research consortia (OC1)
Degree of stability of government regulation regarding UIC activities
(GOV3)
Degree of university autonomy from government (GOV4)
Efficiency of national policy on IPR and enforcement of laws
(GOV5)
Efficiency of venture capital (GOV6)
Performance of intermediary agents (GOV8)
Status of cluster formation and favourability of entrepreneurial
environment (GOV9)
Degree of efficiency of privatisation policy (GOV11)
Degree of government monopolies in market (GOV12)
Political situation and probability of entry to the WTO (GOV16)
Degree of embargoes imposed (GOV17)
Degree of corruption in government (GOV20)
Findings from the Interviews
Scenario Theme A
Scenario Theme A: Stagnation: current policy framework + 15years)
26
Inefficiency of national policy on IPR and enforcement laws (GOV5)
Lack of university autonomy from government (GOV4)
Weakness of government financing support system (GOV7)
Inefficiency of VC (GOV6)
Instability of government regulations (GOV3)
Low level of access to government funding (deficiency of government
initiatives for collaboration) (GOV1)
No change to allocated budget of universities if collaborating with
companies (GOV1*)
Lack of government support from research consortia and intermediary
agents (OC11)
High level of government monopolies in market (GOV12)
Inefficiency of privatisation policy (GOV11)
High level of corruption in government in allocating resources to
entrepreneurs (GOV20)
Deficiency of government strategy to support cluster formation
(GOV9)
Deficiency of government policy to control brain-drain (GOV10)
Increasing embargoes imposed by the Western Governments (GOV17)
Weakness in political relation and less probability of Iran entry to the
WTO (GOV16)
Related policy elements forming Scenario Theme A are as follows:
Very weak institutional policy on IPR (OS1)
Very weak institutional policy on royalty sharing (OS3)
Weak structure of TTO in universities (OS2)
Insufficient skills in the TTO (AST2)
Inefficient TTOs strategy to support spin-off companies (AST3)
Findings from the Interviews: Scenario Theme A
Organizational Structure sub-system (OS)
27
Very weak Institutional
Policy on IPR (OS1)
Very weak institutional
policy on royalty sharing
(OS3)
Motivation of industry to
collaborate with
universities
Motivation of individuals
within universities to
collaborate with industry
UIC
performance Weak structure of TTO
in universities (OS2)
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
Degree of trust formation
between partners (LC6)
-
Degree of
commitment (LC7)-
Inefficiency of national policy on
IPR and weakness of
enforcement laws (GOV5)
+
Lack of university
autonomy from
government (GOV4)
+
Black= Organizational Structure (OS)
Red= Connection Between Sub-Systems
Findings from the Interviews: Scenario Theme A
Asset Management sub-system (AST)
28
UIC
performanceInsufficient skills in
TTOs (AST2)Weak TTOs' spin-off
creation support strategy
(AST3)
-
-
Weak structure of TTO
in universities (OS2)
+
Inefficiency of venture
capital (GOV6)+
Red= Connection Between Sub-Sytems
Light Blue= Asset Management (AST)
Findings from the Interviews: Scenario Theme A
Leadership and Culture sub-system (LC)
29
Degree of trust formation
between partners (LC6)
Motivation of companies to
collaborate with universities
Motivation of individuals within
universities to collaborate with
industry
UIC
performance
+
+
+
+
Degree of
commitment (LC7)+
High level of cultural
differences between
partners (LC 1,2&3)
Lack of understanding of
partners from each other's
norms (LC 4&5)
-
-
Weak performance of research
consortia and other similar kind of
mechanisms for collaboration (OC1)
-
Weak performance of
intermediary
agents(GOV8)-
-
-
+
+
+
+
Lack of cooperation and
team working culture
(LC8)
-
Traditional style of
management in SMEs
(LC9)
R27
R28
R30
R31
R33
R34R36
R37
R41
R42
R44
R45
Red= Connection Between Sub-Systems
Brown= Leadership and Culture (LC)
-
Weak Institutional
Policy on IPR (OS1)
-
-
-
Very slow process oftrust formation
between strangers(LC10)
-
R= Reinforcing Loop
Findings from the Interviews: Scenario Theme A
Organizational Capabilities sub-system (OC)
30
Weak performance of research
consortia and other similar kind of
mechanisms for collaboration (OC1)
Motivation of universities
to collaborate with industry
Motivation of companies to
collaborate with universities
UIC
performance
+
+
-
R1
R2
R3
R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
R9
Inefficiency of national policy on
IPR and weakness of
enforcement laws (GOV5)
+
Weak institutional
policy on IPR (OS1)
+
Traditional style of
management in SMEs
(LC9)
Lack of cooperation and
team working culture
(LC8)
+
+
Low impact on upgrading
universities' capabilities
(OC3, OC4)
Low impact on upgrading
industry's capabilities (OC5,
OC6, OC7, OC8, OC9)
+
+
-
-
-
Weak impact on firms'
absorptive capacity on
knowledge transfer (OC2)
+
Red= Connection Between Sub-Systems
Green= Organizational Capabilities (OC)
R= Reinforcing loop
Lack of government
support (OC11)
Weakness of
management in
collaboration (OC10)
+
+
-
Findings from the Interviews: Scenario Theme A
Government sub-system (GOV)
31
Decrease access to
government funding
(GOV1)
Increasing embargos
imposed by the west
(GOV17)
Weakness in political relation and
less probability of Iranian entry to
the WTO (GOV16)
Motivation of universities
to collaborate with industry
Motivation of companies to
collaborate with universities
UIC
performance
Inefficiency of national policy
on IPR and enforcement laws
(GOV5)
Inefficiency of venture
capital (GOV6)
Weak performance of
intermediary
agents(GOV8)
Status of cluster formation and
favourability of entrepreneurial
environment (GOV9)
Increasing brain
drain (GOV10)
Inefficiency of
privatisation policy
(GOV11)
Instability of government
regulations (GOV3)
High level of government
monopolies in market
(GOV12)
Lack of university
autonomy from
government(GOV4)
-
-
+
-
+
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
---
Weakness ofgovernment financing
support system(GOV7)
+
--
+
-
High government's natural
resources income
(GOV14)
Decreasing government
value people creativity
(GOV15)
+
-
-
Decreasing export opportunities
and increasing the risk of
investment (GOV18)
+
-
-
High level of corruption in
government in allocating
resources to entrepreuners
(GOV20)
Decreasing trust between
government and
entrepreuners (GOV21)
+
-
Motivation of individuals
within universities to
collaborate with industry
+-
-
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16a
R17a
+ R16b
R17b
+
+
Weak institutional
policy on IPR (OS1)+
Weak performance of researchconsortia and other similar kind of
mechanisms for collaboration(OC1)
--
Traditional style of
management in SMEs
(LC9)
Lack of cooperation and
team working
culture(LC8)
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
-
R18a
R18b
R19
R20
R21
R26a
R26b
R47
R48
R49
R50
R51
Red= Connection Between Sub-Systems
Dark blue= Government (GOV)
R= Reinforcing loop
Weakness of
management in
collaboration
(GOV24)
+
Low probability of increasing
allocated budget of universities if
collaborate with companies
(GOV1*)
-
-
R12*
Conclusion
Method of Use Scenarios in this research were constructed using the DSM as a
platform.
Functional View
Structural View
Contribution ◦ Value of systems methods to incorporate behavioural elements
onto existing process and factor models.
◦ Systems method for incorporating non-quantitative behavioural
dimensions to uncover dynamical aspects.
32
Conclusion
Key Findings for Iranian Policy Development
National and institutional policy on IPR and enforcement laws
Government financial support and Venture Capital
Instability of government regulations
Autonomy of universities from government
Intermediary agents and research consortia
Political environment and Embargoes
Corruption, Monopolies, and Privatisation process
Cluster activities
33
34
THANK YOU
34