International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management

Vol. 11, No. 1 (2014) 1440005 (18 pages)

#
.c World Scientic Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0219877014400057

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN UNIVERSITY

AND INDUSTRY: THREE MECHANISMS
FOR INNOVATION EFFICIENCY

JOHANNA WALLIN* and OLA ISAKSSON

Product and Production Development
Chalmers University of Technology
Gothenburg, Sweden
Quality PD, GKN Aerospace Engine Systems
46181 Trollh
a ttan, Sweden
*johanna.wallin@gknaerospace.com

ola.isaksson@gknaerospace.com
ANDREAS LARSSON
Design Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
andreas.larsson@design.lth.se
BENGT-OLOF ELFSTRM
Advanced Engineering
GKN Aerospace Engine Systems, 46181 Trollhattan,

Sweden
bengt-olof.elfstrom@gknaerospace.com
Received 1 July 2011
Revised 18 January 2012
Accepted 28 October 2012
Published 19 November 2013
A key challenge for competence networking is the diculty of contextual understanding between people from dierent organizations. Despite close collaboration, full insight into a
company is dicult, although desirable, for university partners to achieve and vice versa. The
case study described in this paper is of a company with long experience of universityindustry
collaboration. The paper reports on a designerly approach to overcome barriers of university
industry collaboration. The approach is combined with strategic, tactic and operational
dimensions. It builds on three corresponding mechanisms: a tool to facilitate strategic understanding, workshops to facilitate tactical co-creation, and prototyping to facilitate operational
ideation.
Keywords: Network innovation; universityindustry collaboration; competence network.

1. Introduction
Individual employees carry the competence of the company that continuously strives
to achieve a state of sustainable competiveness. In order to build on a company's
organizational competence, the capabilities of the individual employees need to be
developed.
1440005-1

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

J. Wallin et al.

The business world challenges and expects successful companies to act proactively and to have the capability to oer solutions that go beyond the established
product oer. That is why companies need to adapt rapidly to new circumstances,
while at the same time understanding the risks and opportunities. This requires new
competence and skills in order to be innovative and competitive on a market in
constant transition.
Companies' external network, including the one with universities is important for
their innovation capability [Wallin et al. (2011)]. A competence network with competence suppliers can complement the in-house competence of the company and enrich
the internal environment. Innovation and insights benet from interaction between
stakeholders with dierent knowledge, experience and understanding. Actively
working together with universities has proven to be a successful strategy [European
Commission (2007)]. With the aim to increase innovative capability, it is thus attractive to improve access to resources, competences and skills that are not currently
present internally in the organization. Any learning organization needs to be open to
new ideas and to explore dierent ways to identify opportunities and solve problems.
The fundamental challenge addressed in a universityindustry collaborative
approach is to enable each organization to make use of knowledge, skills and techniques that are currently limited to one organization. Companies need to understand
how to make the best use of knowledge residing in other organizations, and universities need to gain a deep understanding of the conditions in the industrial
environment. Despite close collaboration, full insight into a company's inner workings is dicult, although desirable, for university partners to achieve. Conversely, it
is dicult for company employees to gain full insight into the way things work at
universities. One of the main challenges in universityindustry collaboration concerns the lack of contextual understanding of the other partner's organization.
This paper focuses on the following key questions: How can a company overcome
the contextual barriers and gain a mutual understanding between people who do not
work in the same organization? What are the mechanisms that contribute to a
working collaboration between universities and industry?
Unlike most studies on universityindustry relations, this paper takes on a
designerly approach. It explains both the methodology used to develop a shared
understanding between universities and industry, and presents three success
mechanisms found in a case study of an industry company. This company is known
for its successful relations with various universities and research institutes.
Designers are by denition experienced in creating and dening solutions, based
on needs and requirements where the solution is unknown. Techniques supporting
the synthesis phase in creation may be applicable to competence development as the
underlying challenges are of similar character: the solutions are not visible, although
there is an expressed need and desired eect.
This paper presents some key strategies for networked competence development
that have been used by the company with their university partners over the last two
decades. The company works closely with a network of universities to develop new
knowledge, competences and innovations. Their competence network model crosses
the border between academia and industry.
1440005-2

Bridging the Gap between University and Industry

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The shift from an industrial to an information society is now transitioning to a
knowledge society, where the knowledge economy is replacing the production
economy and where knowledge becomes the new economic resource [Gill (2002)].
Knowledge ows are necessary in order to fully commercialize knowledge and
transmission channels are needed to create the knowledge ows [Mueller (2006)].
Knowledge can be transferred to industry through a variety of channels [Agrawal
(2001)]. Universityindustry relations create such channels and serve as a channel
for innovation and economic growth [Adams (1990); Jae (1989)]. Transdisciplinarity is also seen as an essential component of innovation [Borrell-Damian (2009)].
Chesbrough [2003] discusses the principles of open innovation and how many companies can benet from exploring ways in which external technologies can ll gaps in
their businesses.
Universityindustry collaboration has been traced back to the 1800s [BorrellDamian (2009)]. Over the past decades, eorts to promote cooperation between
industry and universities have been widely supported [Behrens and Gray (2001); Lee
(2000); Meyer-Krahmer and Schmoch (1998)]. There is also an increasing awareness
of the added value of such collaboration [Borrell-Damian (2009)]. The European
Commission identied the importance of improving knowledge transfer between
public research institutions and industry as one of 10 key areas of action in the
innovation strategy for the EU [European Commission (2007)]. The university
industry partnership for doctoral education has existed for some time now in Europe.
This collaboration has established a partnership that broadens and develops the
research missions of universities [Borrell-Damian (2009)].
Clark's [1983] triangular model of higher education systems includes the state
authority, the market and the academic oligarchy. This triangle of coordination is
now known as the Triple Helix of universityindustrygovernment interaction and
increasingly provides a basis for innovation [Etzkowitz (2003); Jacob (2006)].
Poyago-Theotoky et al. [2002] describe three types of universityindustry partnerships: rst, the university can perform consultancy research on behalf of the
industry; second, the industry can provide commercialization services for ideas developed by universities; and third, an intermediate situation when the university has
conducted basic research that is developed by the industry.
Gill [2002] describes knowledge transfer as the cornerstone of innovation. The
external knowledge and R&D from the partnership between universities and industry are important for innovation [Borrell-Damian (2009)]. Successful research
collaborations in Europe and the USA show that sustainable \win-win" arrangements can be obtained that support innovation by industrial partners [European
Commission (2007)]. But there is a need for a good knowledge base of what the
universities and industries are getting out of the collaboration to understand how it
contributes to the innovation system [Lee (2000)]. Traditionally, the industrial
relations with universities have primarily been for a source of future employees, and
secondarily as a source of knowledge [Etzkowitz (1998)]. The acquisition of additional funds can be a major motive for universities to collaborate with industry, but

1440005-3

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

J. Wallin et al.

also the exchange of knowledge can explain the considerable growth of university
industry interactions [Meyer-Krahmer and Schmoch (1998)].
Even though the desire for knowledge transfer between universities and industry
has increased, many attempts have been unsuccessful [Santoro and Bierly (2006)].
The degree to which rms are capable of eectively utilizing university research vary
systematically with the degree to which the rms are connected to the university
[Agrawal (2001)]. According to Borrell-Damian [2009], there are two reasons why
long-term collaborations between academia and industry have a better chance to
succeed than short-term initiatives: rst, universities deliver better in the long term;
second, long-term collaboration reects a mature relationship that is well managed
on both sides. Lee [2000] also supports the hypothesis that the longer the duration of
a project, the greater the benets and states: \Frequent interactions spell greater
benets."
The boundaries between universities and industry need to be reduced [Siegel et al.
(2003)]. But in order to narrow the gap, the most important thing, according to
Rynes [2007], is to set up interactive sessions where people in these organizations can
work together on important problems. Research by Siegel et al. [2003] shows that
universities and the industry have a hard time understanding or appreciating the
goals, cultures or constraints of the other party. Furthermore, Lee's [2000] data show
that motivation plays a signicant role in the outcome of the collaboration. If universities and industries value their ongoing relationships more than any single
interaction, the dynamic collaboration will make mutual success possible [Burnside
and Witkin (2008)].
An evaluation carried out by Meyer-Krahmer and Schmoch [1998] found that
collaborative research and informal contacts were more important for academic research than contract research because of the bi-directional exchange of knowledge
between universities and industry.
Stephan [2001] describes both the positive eects of technology transfer (such as
updating the curriculum, linking students to jobs, providing research funds, leading
to applied research) and negative eects (such as delaying publication of ndings,
willingness to talk openly about research, delay of developing new programs). Siegel
et al. [2003] raise concerns that the collaboration may shift attention away from
fundamental research questions that do not appear likely to generate commercial
payo. However, Poyago-Theotoky et al. [2002] show that these collaborations have
at least not had a deleterious eect on the quantity and quality of basic research.
Kieser and Leiner [2009] claim that practitioners need training in theory and
methodology to collaboratively produce scientic knowledge with researchers.
Hodgekinson and Rousseau [2009] counter Kieser and Leiner [2009] and claim that
the latter deny the ongoing developments in management research and education.
Hodgekinson and Rousseau [2009] go on to illustrate how developing deep partnerships between academics and practitioners can yield outcomes without
compromising the needs of either party if supported by appropriate training in
theory and research methods.
Behrens and Gray [2001] believe that to be able to continuously meet the
challenges of balancing the demands of science and relevancy, requires us to
1440005-4

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

Bridging the Gap between University and Industry

examine the potential costs and benets of cooperative research. However, to calculate their turn on investments in the collaboration between industry and university is not generally possible because the costs and the benets can neither be
reduced to commonly agreeable economic measures, nor are they closely related in
time and space, except for perhaps costs such as dollar support and benets such as
patents [Lee (2000)].
Grimpe and Hussinger [2008] dene two types of industryuniversity collaborations: the informal, which does not involve any contractual relationship, and the
formal, which is based on such a contract. They found that the two types are
complementary: the full potential of technology transfer can only be realized if both
types are used, the formal for codied knowledge (e.g. patents) and the informal for
tacit knowledge. Grimpe and Hussinger [2008] also point out that the opportunities
for rms to collaborate with universities increases with rm size. Laursen and Salter
[2004] found that large rms with high R&D intensity in an industrial environment
were more likely to use universities as a source of innovation. The European Commission [2007] also claims that the interactions are more common when involving
large rms because the collaboration is then considered more durable and regular
than with SMEs.
The Ph.D. candidate is seen as one of the three parties in the collaboration
between university and industry and as the link between the two [Borrell-Damian
(2009)]. This creates a broad multi-tier relationship, which is invariably more successful than single-point relationships. This is because interactions among counterparts at several levels open up dierent ways of resolving impasses [Burnside and
Witkin (2008)].
2.1. Summary of literature ndings
Based on the literature studies, it is evident that the universityindustry collaboration is important for the development of competence and knowledge [Agrawal
(2001); Borrell-Damian (2009); European Commission (2007)] in both university
and industry and for the development of innovations [Adams (1990); BorrellDamian (2009); European Commission (2007); Etzkowitz (2003); Gill (2002); Jacob
(2006)]. But there are barriers to overcome for a successful collaboration: the two
parties have dierent motivations, goals, cultures and constraints that need to be
understood [Lee (2000); Meyer-Krahmer and Schmoch (1998); Siegel et al. (2003);
Burnside and Witkin (2008)]. However, few papers have suggested ways to overcome
these barriers. It is important to have interactive sessions where both parties can
work together on important problems [Rynes (2007)], and that long-term relationships between institutions of higher learning and industry have a better chance for
success than short-term relationships [Borrell-Damian (2009); Lee (2000)]. Opportunities for industries to collaborate with universities also increase with the size of
the rm and the R&D intensity [Grimpe and Hussinger (2008); Laursen and Salter
(2004)]. The link between universities and industry can be strengthened by individuals in certain positions, such as the Ph.D. candidate [Borrell-Damian (2009);
Burnside and Witkin (2008)].
1440005-5

J. Wallin et al.

This paper is based on a retrospective case study of how a Swedish manufacturing

company in the aerospace domain works with a network of universities to develop
new knowledge, competences and innovations. The paper is the result of the authors'
20 years of experience at the company with collaboration with universities.
Additionally, 10 interviews were carried out with stakeholders that had performed
research on behalf of both industry and academia, and who were connected to the
company but also to dierent universities or research institutes. The network
stakeholders were examined and the portfolio of networked activities analyzed over
time to view the long-term eects and to identify key success mechanisms. The
networked mechanisms have proven to be successful.
There are several reasons for the company to collaborate with universities: rst, it
supports the recruiting process at the company; second, it creates a stable partner for
research initiatives; and third, it is a source for innovation. Students and researchers
involved in the collaboration are seen as potential employees. Through the research
collaboration, the company gains access to skilled personnel. The universities have
large, global networks that build knowledge and competence and inspire creativity.
The industry resources provide the collaboration conditions for innovation, when the
competence and creativity can be implemented in the products and services for
customers.
The company cooperates with universities in the form of student projects, Master
thesis students, Ph.D. students and professors (based at the company and the universities). The dierent levels of collaboration working mechanisms between companies and academia were rst described by Elfstrom et al. [1997] and a later version
of these levels is shown in Fig. 1.
The company also collaborates with high schools and primary schools in projects
and courses to incorporate the needs of the industry into educational programs.

Adjunct professors
Adj professorer (5)

University PhD Students

Academia

Research
Industrial PhD students
Trainees/Young Graduates
Thesis Students
University

Cooperave educaon

Technology
and product
development

The Company

Professors

Level of knowledge

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

3. Case Study: Selected Observations from 20 Years

of UniversityIndustry Collaboration

Internships
Student projects

Level of immersion in company

Fig. 1. The dierent levels of competence collaboration between the company and academia [adapted
from Elfstr
om et al. (1997)].
1440005-6

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

Bridging the Gap between University and Industry

There are a few examples where the company is involved in clustered research areas
with universities and other companies (such as the Faste Laboratory, a VINNOVA
VINN Excellence Center at Lule University of Technology), national research areas
that involve universities and suppliers (such as science and technology parks), and
networks of international research projects involving customers and suppliers (such
as the EC Framework Programs).
The company has a long history on the military market, developing the engines of
Swedish military aircrafts. This means that the company is used to long-term R&D
funding provided by the state, and collaboration with universities and research
institutes in the country. The company has close to 3000 employees, which also
could aect their collaboration with research institutions [European Commission
(2007)].
The stakeholders in this competence network spread over various departments at
the company and collaborate with dierent universities and research institutes
depending on the research area. In some collaboration projects with universities, the
company is the sole representative from industry; others are in collaboration with
other industries. Since the company has a long tradition of collaborating with universities there is an understanding of the technical challenges concerning research
and there are not any issues regarding \wishful" expectations of early returns on the
investments, which can be the case with companies with little tradition of such
collaboration [Borrell-Damian (2009)].
All informants expressed that the company's large network of industryuniversity
collaboration is successful. One stated that, \The integrated way of working creates
a dynamic collaboration." They also agreed that the collaboration is a source of
innovation. When it comes to the collaborations between industry and university,
one informant said, \The sky is the only limit." Or as another succinctly described
what the company gains from the collaboration, \The future."
3.1. Identied needs and barriers of universityindustry collaboration
Even if the interviewed stakeholders in this universityindustry collaboration are
very positive to this way of working, the collaboration does not come without difculties and barriers were identied.
Industry and academia have dierent drivers. Industry is driven to earn a prot
and implement research ndings but has no need to publish their ndings. The
opposite is true for academia: they need to publish their ndings but they do not
need to earn money or implement their ndings. Academia has a more long-term
view of their work, while the company's is more short term. The company \vacuums
the surroundings for possible ideas", as one informant expressed it.
Previous research on the dierences between the expectations of companies and of
university researchers were described by Elfstrom et al. [1997] in general terms:
researchers want a more narrow scope as opposed to the industry's need of a wider
scope. However, Elfstr
om points out that the scientic study dened in the industrial
problem can both provide wider results on an industrial level and produce relevant
results that are scientically interesting (Fig. 2).
1440005-7

J. Wallin et al.

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

Fig. 2. Scientic contributions to industrial problems [Elfstrom et al. (1997)].

Collaboration between two dierent organizations involves people with dierent

competences, knowledge, experiences and points of view, which is important for
innovation. However, there is a gap in the contextual understanding between the
people from the two dierent organizations and there are diculties to ensure ecient communication to resolve issues, misunderstandings and preconceptions.
This points to the need to create a collaborative culture, common meeting places
and eective communication in order to understand the dierent perspectives of
the universityindustry collaboration and create a stable long-term collaborative
relationship.
4. Three Dimensions of Innovation Planning
The universityindustry collaboration has stakeholders at dierent levels as described in the previous section. But the collaboration also has dierent dimensions.
Slevin and Pinto [1987] describe the balancing of strategy and tactics as a manager's
most important job: \He or she must know how to plan eectively and act
eciently." The approach presented in this paper for networked competence innovation is divided into strategic, tactic and operational dimensions. Any competence
development initiative needs to have sound and consciously designed strategic,
tactical and operational approaches. This emphasizes the signicance of the longterm relationship between the company and the academic partners, but also the
dierent time perspectives: the long-term view of academia and the short-term view
of industry.
4.1. Strategic
Strategic planning involves the long-term direction and allocation of resources
within an organization. The strategic planning of a research initiative is important to
eectively develop the research results into innovative products and services on the
market. Specialists at the company who are adjunct professors at universities are
typically part of the initiation of research projects and supervisors of Ph.D. candidates. They have strategically signicant roles in the competence network.
The company creates a common ground for innovation with the use of the
technology readiness level (TRL) tool. Traditionally, the tool has been used for
communicating and visualizing the technology maturity with external stakeholders
1440005-8

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

Bridging the Gap between University and Industry

who lack detailed knowledge about the original context. Strategically, the tool
visualizes the current and future state of the innovative project at the company. The
concept of \technology readiness" was rst conceived by NASA [Mankins (1995)]
when they required a means of relating the development status of a prospective
system's technology to the desired level of \ight readiness". The TRL scale has nine
criterion levels that visualizes the technology readiness from research state to \ight
proven" implementation state. The importance of a graphical TRL scale is decisive
for generically communicating the maturity of a technology between people with
dierent skills and in dierent organizations. In the aerospace industry the TRL
scale is well known and used but not in academia.
The essential barrier in the strategic dimension is the dierence between universities and industry in their sense of time: a long-term perspective of research
depth for the former, and one more focused on the short-term and implementation
stages for the latter. In other words, universities conducting research are primarily
interested in coming up with scientic results, whereas companies need to use the
eects of scientic results. To cross this barrier, there is a need for a common
understanding of the collaboration goals of both long- and short-term perspectives
and how the long- and short-term goals are linked to ensure that one party is not
thinking \tomorrow" while the other is thinking \several years ahead".
4.2. Tactic
Tactics are sequenced steps toward a strategic goal, but consist of operative activities. The tactics are related to the way of working and methodologies that are used
within the organizations.
Traditionally, industries have made use of the research results from universities
by specifying their problem situation, ordering research from the university and
waiting for the results. However, this has not been satisfactory. The company sees
the importance of collaborative projects with universities and research institutes for
more successful and innovative research results. The industrial Ph.D. candidate is
one example of a joint universityindustry research project; the individuals involved
serve as a link between the two organizations, building up a network between them.
Industrial Ph.D. candidates see how the theoretical research is based on reality, can
adapt their research to the reality of the industry and follow how the industry
benets from their research.
The tactic dimension thus involves nding ways to best work together in collaborative research projects. The tactic barrier concerns collaborating with people
from dierent organizations where there is no common meeting environment. There
is a need for meeting places and collaborative activities for ideation between dierent
disciplines without one or the other party dominating.
4.3. Operational
The operational dimension involves the short-term activities that are performed in
the organization, such as problem solving activities or dealing with unexpected
1440005-9

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

J. Wallin et al.

crises. This dimension regards how to communicate ideas eciently in order to

create innovations.
The company's collaboration with universities exists on several levels, as previously mentioned, such as student projects and Master thesis students. The company
sees the value of this both in terms of potential future employees and as opportunities to explore non-conventional ideas and gain unbiased input. One example of
student assignment is from the SIRIUS project course at Lule University of
Technology, a nal-year course in product development for engineering students. It
involves teams of students carrying out a product development project in close
collaboration with an industry partner. The varying backgrounds of the students
provide a wide knowledge base in the project groups and an opportunity to gain an
understanding of the complementary relationships between dierent engineering
disciplines. The product development process in SIRIUS is based on a systematic
approach to engineering design. Computer-aided engineering (CAE) tools are key to
the process. Such projects with universities allow the students to apply their newly
found knowledge in a real company context, and they allow the company to undertake low-risk exploration studies of new concepts. The results from these projects
are three-fold: rst, the students develop their competence; second, the work is well
documented; and third




perhaps most importantly




the project always produces a prototype of some kind.
The operative barrier concerns the dierent contexts and people who come from
dierent organizations with dierent \languages". There is a need to ensure that
things are not \lost in translation", but those ideas are claried and that the positives are extracted from these dierent points of view. This can be the starting point
for innovation.

5. Adding a Designerly Approach

The described barriers indicate that there is a need for communication tools, common platforms, meeting places and creative work methods.
Cross [1982] dened a third area of education in relation to the established ones in
science and arts: that of design (or technology). Designerly activities are separate
from the typical scientic or scholarly activities. Where the scientist adopts a
problem-focused strategy and sets out specically to study the problem, the designer
adopts a solution-focused strategy and learns about the nature of the problem by
trying out solutions. A designerly approach makes the change from the logical space
of problem denition to the solution space and directly or indirectly is engaged to
provide suggestions and contributions [Morelli (2006)]. Designerly ways uses nonverbal codes and are eective when tackling the characteristically ill-dened problems of planning, designing and innovating [Cross (1982)]. The designerly way is to
work on many alternatives in parallel and iteratively [Stolterman (2008)] and, to
cite Stappers [2006], \Typical of designing is the iterative spiral of generating
and evaluation, sketching and reviewing, modeling and testing, brainstorming and
discussing."
1440005-10

Bridging the Gap between University and Industry

The approach presented in this paper is a designerly one. Its purpose is to give an
illustrative, contextual and interactive perspective to networked innovation. It not
only gives designers tools for design and analysis, but introduces design tools to
everyone in the collaboration to test and work with. This is done to facilitate understanding of the dierent perspectives, to share the competence, and encourage
ideation.

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

6. Three Mechanisms for Innovation Eciency

In this section, the three dimensions of networked competence innovation (strategic,
tactic and operational) are combined with the designerly approach principles to
describe the three mechanisms for innovation eciency: the TRL tool, workshops
and prototyping. Figure 3 highlights how the three mechanisms contribute to the
three dimensions in the outer layer, which are iterative. The next layer describes the
objectives related to the contextual barriers: facilitating understanding, co-creation
and ideation. The inner level is essentially a set of mechanisms to consistently cross
this context barrier for innovation eciency in competence networks. TRL is used to
instantly facilitate understanding between people from dierent backgrounds,
workshops are used to create a common meeting place to share competence, and
prototyping is used to facilitate ideation among people with dierent competences.
In the center is the topic, which is changeable. An example of one could be the
development of innovation capability. The mechanisms and how they are used in
universityindustry collaboration are further described in the remainder of this
section.

STRATEGIC
Facilitate
Understanding
TRL
Topic

Fig. 3. Illustration of innovation aspects.

1440005-11

J. Wallin et al.

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

6.1. The TRL tool mechanism

A designerly approach
to the strategic dimension
Since universities and industries have dierent contexts and drivers, there are needs
for mechanisms that communicate these dierent interests. The facilitation of bilateral understanding is decisive to align the dierent views and preconditions.
One such mechanism is a tool that can be used in structured reconciliations and
audits and in general discussions regarding the situation of projects: How far have we
gotten and what do we need to accomplish to reach the goals? The tool visualizes the
innovation strategies, works for quality assurance and gives awareness of the time
perspectives. The TRL tool is designed to communicate the maturity of technologies;
however, the company also uses the TRL tool to communicate the maturity of
methodologies, tools and development projects internally and externally.
The company has used the TRL concept since mid-90s and it has been adopted
and introduced to other companies within the group and for governmental research
funding. The TRL scale is being used to monitor the maturation within the technology development process and set expectations for how to categorize research
project. The TRL tool can illustrate for external partners the long-term stable
partnership and research initiatives with the company. Figure 4 shows an example of
how the company has used the TRL tool to illustrate how their national and European projects have climbed the ladder of the TRL scale from basic technology
projects to product development projects with their partners in the aerospace industry. The competences developed at low-technology-readiness levels oer input to
further development projects. The TRL tool provides a common language for the
stakeholder aected by the basic technology, the technology demo, product demo or
product development projects (Fig. 4).
The TRL scale is based on engineering assessments and is a tool for engineers to
communicate their assessments and categorization of the progress to management
and external stakeholders such as academia. Since the tool is not commonly used in
academia, it is not used in all collaborative research projects. However, the use of the
tool is spreading and those that have used it describe it as useful in communication
with academia regarding development processes and its dierent stages. The tool is

Fig. 4. Illustration of the development project's position on the TRL scale over time.
1440005-12

Bridging the Gap between University and Industry

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

intuitive: \You only need 10 min of discussion for people to get what you talk about
when you visualize it with the TRL scale," according to one informant. Another
stated, \It has clearly been a helpful tool."
The visual and communicative impressions of the TRL tool are highly rated by
the participants. It is not initially used as an analytical tool but rather as an eciency tool to facilitate common understanding in a network, which is the main focus
as the TRL tool is disseminated.
6.2. The workshop mechanism




A designerly approach
to the tactic dimension
In the tactical dimension, it is essential to facilitate co-creation and sharing of
knowledge and experience in the relevant situation. Close collaboration with universities and research institutions has proven successful and is a tactical way of
working for the company. How one interacts is decisive in this respect. There is a
need for meeting places that facilitate co-creation of new research initiatives.
A designerly approach to this dimension is to create the means to act and build on
this network, to facilitate environments and situations to enable sharing and cocreation. One way to create new meeting places is by having innovative workshops in
collaboration with universities. Multidisciplinary workshops are used to identify
areas of innovation opportunities, facilitate the sharing and co-creation of knowledge
and make it visible and traceable for both parties. They are a source of new ideas,
ways of thinking, methods and knowledge. The facilitation of various activities
ensures that the participants do not fall into the \wrong" discussions, but rather
share understanding.
One example is the Foresight and Innovation workshop [Cockayne, 2009] that
identies radical innovation opportunities. Development of competence requires
both backcasting and foresighting. Innovation is about creating alternative futures,
and since the future does not easily lend itself to a high level of certainty, innovation
teams have a tendency to gravitate toward \feasible", and arguably less desirable,
outcomes.
Immersive workshops are very eective transformation mechanisms when aiming
to allow individuals and teams to experience new modes for innovative teamwork.
Workshops of this kind seem to be particularly well suited for promoting new collaborative behaviors in cross-functional and highly diverse teams, where there is a
strong need to bridge gaps between disciplines and draw from multiple viewpoints,
without letting one perspective dominate.
One informant stated that when people meet from dierent levels and areas in a
workshop, \It creates a terric dynamic group." Participants of workshops have also
considered them to be a good way \to stay focused", \for knowledge sharing" and to
\get new perspectives" on challenges and opportunities, for example. One informant
also stated, \It is incredibly rewarding to come to a new environment and to hear
how people think and how they have tackled their diculties. And I think a workshop is a great way to create this type of exchange." Workshops create a meeting
place that brings people with dierent perspectives together.
1440005-13

J. Wallin et al.

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

There are three key characteristics crucial to achieving successful workshop

outcomes: Make it relevant. Make it visual. Make it tangible. Achieving instant
contributions from participants not previously active in the work was a key to
success. People want to contribute and the workshop method encourages and builds
on instant contribution.
The facilitation of workshops is not only a way to quickly solve a problem and
come up with solutions, but also a means of getting people to work together. It is a
means for them to gain mutual understanding through sharing and co-creation.
People who are part of the creation process will own it and defend it.
6.3. The prototyping mechanism




A designerly approach
to the operational dimension
In the operational dimension, successful collaboration can be related to how well the
ideation can be facilitated. In the operational phase the focus is on bringing forward
the visible result of the collaborative work




similar to the situation of a designer
creating and generating design concepts.
Operationally the company undertakes network activities, initiatives and projects
of universityindustry collaboration. Examples of these are student projects and
master thesis students. Often these projects involve the use of a prototype to express
and communicate design ideas and to ensure a focus in the design team. According to
the literature, physical prototyping helps the teams to make ideas tangible, iterate
them quickly and develop a shared language [Carleton and Cockayne (2009)]. Prototyping can be used for new products, services, business models, etc. and it helps to
resolve complex problems [Kelley (2001)]. Kelley further states that, \Good prototypes don't just communicate




they persuade."
At the case company, dierent types of prototypes are used in the university
industry collaboration, from simple paper mock-ups for early idea generation to
complex demonstrators for validation. The prototypes are not only of products but
of technologies, services or even business models as well.
One informant stated, regarding prototypes, that, \It's a fun thing, but it's also
more than that," and claimed that the main purpose for building prototypes in the
projects is to visualize what is otherwise just seen on the computer and to \get a feel
for the product." The prototype gives a sense of the millimeters, something that is
hard to see on the computer image. It oers a 3D view of the 2D version on the
computer. The prototype also helps in the ideation of new ideas or adjustments.
Even though some consider there to be too little prototype building, the trend
seems to be going in the other direction: projects are becoming increasingly dependent on computers. \We rely on the CAD models," states one informant, mainly
because of time and money but also because there is not enough knowledge about
what the prototypes contribute.
A prototype can be built for many reasons at the company. It can be seen as a
mechanism for validation, that the pieces actually t together as anticipated, and it
can be used for testing hypotheses. The prototype can be used in the preparation
and planning of manufacturing, for example, to see if there is tool access for welding.
1440005-14

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

Bridging the Gap between University and Industry

Time is critical during manufacturing and the prototype can help save time. The
prototype is used for marketing purposes. It is used at presentations and displayed
in the hallways of the company to inform others about what is going on in the
project. Prototypes are also used after projects have ended for inspiration future
projects.
But building prototypes is also eective for collaborating and communicating
purposes: \It is rst when you see a solution that you can ask the right questions," as
one informant described it. The company has good experience of prototype building
on both student and research levels, where the dierent parties collaborate around a
prototype. In retrospect, collaborative projects where physical prototypes are used
are eective in unifying and making complex projects successful, and they are well
remembered. The prototype naturally becomes the unifying mechanism for networked innovation.

7. Conclusion
In general, the main benet of involving external competence is the access to new
knowledge and experience




critical for improving innovative capability of participating organizations. The drawback is the time and eort involved with overcoming the barriers to a shared contextual understanding in order for both parties to
get as much value as possible out of the collaboration. Even though the dierent
stakeholders in the collaboration of this case study are very positive to this way of
working, collaboration does not come without diculties. Academia has a more longterm view of their work, and the company a more short term; they also have dierent
goals, focuses and ways of working.
This paper addresses the barriers in three dimensions: strategic, tactic and operational in order to capture both the long-term and the short-term perspective. In
combination is the designerly approach that focuses on iterative and non-verbal tools
and on solutions rather than problems in order to overcome barriers for a shared
understanding between people who are not working in the same organization. The
paper includes three designerly inspired mechanisms for facilitating understanding,
co-creation and ideation, which are considered important for a successful networked
collaborative environment between academia and industry. These mechanisms have
been developed and used in the company and contribute to a working collaboration
between universities and industry. They include a visual scale that explains abstract
maturity relations (TRL), workshops that result in an instant contribution to
communication and sharing among participants, and prototyping that visualizes and
communicates ideation.
This paper has addressed how the collaboration between universities and industry
can be further strengthened with a designerly approach, which has proven to be
successful. Other methodologies and mechanisms for innovation eciency between
higher education and industry need further research. However, the mechanisms
presented in this paper develop competence through raised awareness, problem
solving and solution seeking.
1440005-15

J. Wallin et al.

Acknowledgments
Financial support from Vinnova, through PIEp and NFFP through the PLANT
project (2010-01219), and from Volvo Aero/GKN Aerospace Engine Systems is
greatly acknowledged. The authors are also grateful for the time and participation of
interviewees and colleagues.

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

References
Adams, J. D. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of
Political Economy, 98, 4: 673702.
Agrawal, A. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 4: 285302.
Behrens, T. and Gray, D. (2001). Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of
industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy, 30: 179199.
Borrell-Damian, L. (2009). University-Industry Partnerships for Enhancing Knowledge Exchange. European University Association Publications, Belgium. ISBN: 9789078997139.
Burnside, B. and Witkin, L. (2008). Forging successful university-industry collaboration.
Research Technology Management, MarchApril, pp. 2630.
Carleton, T. and Cockayne, W. (2009). The power of prototypes in foresight engineering.
International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED'09, Stanford University, USA.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44,
3: 3541.
Clark, B. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National
Perspective. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-05892-5.
Cockayne, W. (2009). Methods Foresight and Innovation at Stanford University. http://
foresight.stanford.edu/methods.html.
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3, 4: 221227.
Elfstrom, B.-O., Isaksson, O. and Lunde, R. (1997). Integrated competence development




A
concept for company and university coordinated research. Proceedings from Sixth International Conference on Management of Technology (MOT 97), June, pp. 641650.
Available at http://pure.ltu.se/portal/les/51064737/Isaksson IAMOT1997.pdf.
European Commission (2007). Improving Knowledge Transfer between Research Institutions
and Industry Across Europe. Communication from the Commission, Belgium. ISBN: 97892-79-05521-8.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive eects of the new
universityindustry linkages. Research Policy, 27: 823833.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of universityindustrygovernment relations. Social Science Information, 42: 293337.
Gill, K. (2002). Knowledge networking in cross-cultural settings. AI and Society, 16: 252277.
Grimpe, C. and Hussinger, K. (2008). Formal and informal technology transfer from academia
to industry: Complementarity eects and innovation performance. Discussion Paper No.
08-080. Center for European Economic Research, ZEW.
Hodgekinson, G. and Rousseau, D. (2009). Bridging the rigourrelevance gap in management
research: It's already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46, 3: 534546.
Jacob, M. (2006). Utilization of social science knowledge in science policy: System of innovation, triple helix and VINNOVA. Social Science Information, 45, 3: 431462.
Jae, A. B. (1989). Real eects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79,
5: 957970.
Kelley, T. (2001). Prototyping is the shorthand of innovation. Design Management Journal,
12, 3: 3542.
1440005-16

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

Bridging the Gap between University and Industry

Kieser, A. and Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigourrelevance gap in management research is
unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 3: 516533.
Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: What types of rms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33: 12011215.
Lee, Y. (2000). The sustainability of universityindustry research collaboration: An empirical
assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25: 111122.
Mankins, J. C. (1995). Advanced concepts oce. Technology Readiness Levels, A White
Paper. Oce of Space Access and Technology, NASA.
Meyer-Krahmer, F. and Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: Universityindustry
interactions in four elds. Research Policy, 27: 835851.
Morelli, N. (2006). Industrialisation and social innovation: Design in a new context. 2006
Design Research Society International Conference in Lisbon. Available at http://www.
iade.pt/drs2006/wonderground/proceedings/fullpapers/DRS2006 0087.pdf.
Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge lter: How entrepreneurship and university
industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy, 35: 14991508.
Poyago-Theotoky, J., Beath, J. and Siegel, D. (2002). Universities and fundamental research:
Reections on the growth of universityindustry partnerships. Oxford Review of Economic
Policy, 18, 1: 1021.
Rynes, S. (2007). Let's create a tipping point: What academics and practitioners can do, alone
and together. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 5: 10461054.
Santoro, M. and Bierly, P. (2006). Facilitators of knowledge transfer in universityindustry
collaborations: A knowledge-based perspective, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 53, 4: 495507.
Siegel, D., Waldman, D., Atwater, L. and Link, A. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfer
from universities to rms: Improving the eectiveness of universityindustry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14: 111133.
Slevin, D. and Pinto, J. (1987). Balancing strategy and tactics in project implementation.
Sloan Management Review, 29, 1: 3341.
Stappers, P. J. (2006). Design as a part of research, in Proceedings of Design and the Growth
of Knowledge, November 10, eds. van der Lugt R. and Stappers P. J. Delft University of
Technology.
Stephan, P. (2001). Educational implications of universityindustry technology transfer.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 199205.
Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design
research. International Journal of Design, 2, 1: 5565.
Wallin, J., Larsson, A., Isaksson, O. and Larsson, T. (2011). Measuring innovation
capability




Assessing collaborative performance in product-service system innovation.
Proceedings of the 3rd CIRP International Conference on Industrial Product Service
Systems, Braunschweig, Germany (IPS2), May, pp. 207212.

Biography
Johanna Wallin is an industrial Ph.D. candidate in Product and Production Development at Chalmers University of Technology and GKN Aerospace Engine
Systems in Sweden. She has until 2013 been aliated to Innovation and Design at
Lule University of Technology, Sweden. Her research aims to increase the knowledge regarding the innovation capability for integrated product-service systems.
She has studied networks, methods, routines and tools for product-service system
innovation.

1440005-17

J. Wallin et al.

Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management 2014.11. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by MCMASTER UNIVERSITY on 02/03/15. For personal use only.

Ola Isaksson is a Senior Company Specialist at GKN Aerospace Engine System

and an Adjunct and Associated Professor at Chalmers University of Technology in
Sweden. He has until 2013 been aliated to Innovation and Design at Lule University of Technology, Sweden. His responsibilities at the company include methods
and process development that strengthen capabilities for product development and
innovation broadly. His research interests include product-service system innovation, knowledge- and systems-engineering and collaborative product development.
Andreas Larsson is Associate Professor at the Department of Design Sciences at
Lund University in Sweden, where he is heading the Innovation Engineering group.
His research agenda aims to create a rich blend of needs-motivated activities dealing,
among other things, with cross-functional knowledge sharing, local and distributed
teamwork and participatory innovation.
Bengt-Olof Elfstro
m is a Senior Company Researcher and a former Technical and
Research Director at GKN Aerospace Engine System and a former Adjunct and
Guest Professor at Lule University of Technology. His responsibilities at the
company are research strategy and national research programs. His research interests include product-service system innovation and development.

1440005-18