Total views : 267

Social Capital Of University Faculties, Corporate Absorptive Capacity, and Performance of University-Industry (UI) Joint R&D Project in Korea

Affiliations

  • College of Social Science, Gachon University, Republic of Korea

Abstract


Background/Objectives: Considering issues of cultural gap and transferring tacit knowledge, this paper examines impact of university faculty’s social capital and corporate absorptive capacity on performance of UI joint R&D project. Method/Statistical Analysis: Based on a survey of 338 UI joint projects in Korea, this paper tested reliability and validity of measurements by exploratory factor analysis and tested hypothesis by adopting regression analysis. Findings: The research result of this paper suggests that faculty’s social capital measured by reputation, mutual trust, and brokerage networks, has a significant impact on the project performance. Regarding the internal dimension of corporate absorptive capacity, this paper shows that firms’ technological experts and capabilities have a positive impact on the project performance. Application/Improvement: Upon selecting academic partners for joint R&D, firms should understand the significance of academic faculty’s social capital for networking and consider the corporate internal capacity to effectively internalize academic knowledge.

Keywords

Absorptive Capacity, Joint R&D Project, Performance, Social Capital

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 227)

References


  • Barney JB. Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive. 1995; 9(4):48−61.
  • Grant RM. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environment: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science. 1996; 7(4):375−87.
  • Epple D, Argote L, Devadas R. Organizational learning curves: A method for investigating intra-plant transfer of knowledge acquired through learning by doing. Organization Science. 1991; 2(1):58−70.
  • Lane PJ, Lubatkin M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal. 1998; 19(5):461−77.
  • Bercovitz J, Feldman M. Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy. 2007; 36(7):930−48.
  • Barnes T, Pashby I, Gibbons A. Effective university-industry interaction: A multi-case evaluation of collaborative R&D projects. European Management Journal. 2002; 20(3):272−85.
  • Este P, Patel P. University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy. 2007; 36(9):1295−1313.
  • Yusuf S. Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses. Research Policy. 2008; 37(8):1167−74.
  • Lee KJ. From interpersonal networks to inter-organizational alliances for university-industry collaborations in Japan: The case of Tokyo Institute of Technology. R&D Management. 2011; 42(1):190−201.
  • Ding W, Choi E. Divergent paths to commercial science: A comparison of scientists’ founding and advising activities. Research Policy. 2011; 40(1):69−80.
  • Zucker LG, Darby MR, Armstrong JS. Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science. 2002; 48(1):138−153.
  • Fontana R, Geuna A, Matt M. Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signaling. Research Policy. 2006; 35(2):309−323.
  • Ambos TC, Mäkelä K, Birkinshaw J, D’Este P. When does university research get commercialized?: Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies. 2008; 45(1):1424−47.
  • Kato M, Odagiri H. Development of university life-science programs and university-industry joint research in Japan. Research Policy. 2012; 41(8): 939−52.
  • BHEF(Business-Higher Education Forum). Working together, creating knowledge: The university-industry collaboration initiative. 2001. http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/working-together.pdf. Date accessed 15/05/2012.
  • Couchman PK, Beckett R. Achieving effective cross‐sector R&D collaboration: A proposed management framework. Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation. 2006; 24(2):151−68.
  • Bjerregaard T. Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration. Technovation. 2010; 30(2):100−08.
  • Lee KJ, Ohta T, Kakehi K. Formal boundary spanning by industry liaison offices and the changing pattern of university–industry cooperative research: The case of the University of Tokyo. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 2010; 22(2):189−206.
  • Lee KJ. Development of boundary-spanning organisations in Japanese universities for different types of university-industry collaborations: a resource dependence perspective. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation. 2014; 22(2):204−18.
  • Lee KJ. Bridging institutional divergence, corporate intellectual capital, and performance of university-industry joint R&D project in Korea. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research. 2015; 10(90),pp. 88−94.
  • Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review. 1998; 23(2):242–266.
  • Adler P, Kwon S. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review. 2002; 27(1):17−40.
  • Maurer I, Bartsch V, Ebers M. The value of intra-organizational social capital: How it fosters knowledge transfer, innovation performance, and growth. Organization Studies. 2011; 32(2):157−85.
  • Liebeskind J, Porter O, Zucker L, Brewer M. Social networks learning and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science. 1996; 7(4):428−43.
  • Agrawal A. Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal. 2006, 27(1):63−79.
  • Mora-Valentin E, Montoro-Sanchez A, Guerras-Martin L. Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations. Research Policy. 2004; 33(4):17−40.
  • Murray F. The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy. 2004; 33(3):643−59.
  • Burt RS. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology. 2004; 110(2):349−99.
  • Chen MH, Chang YC, Hung SC. Social capital and creativity in R&D project teams. R&D Management. 2008; 38(1):21−34.
  • Cohen WM, Levinthal DA. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1990; 35(2):128−52.
  • Petruzzelli AM. The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university-industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis. Technovation. 2011; 31(7):309−19.
  • Subramaniam M, Youndt MA. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovation capabilities. Academy of Management Journal. 2005; 48(3):450−63.
  • Sabour MH , Mohammadi M, Khosravian E. Challenges on technology acquisition based on absorptive capacity of composite materials in Iran’s aviation industry. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Decempber; 8(36):1−14.
  • Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, William C, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1998.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.