Technology Industry and University Research

Introduction

The knowledge base of technology usually derives from basic research. It focuses on generating scientific knowledge and deals with fundamental questions of science. Nature of the environment plays a very significant role in creation and application of knowledge. Government policy plays a very significant role in establishing a national network for research, development and commercialization.Universities need funding for adopting research and development measures.

Major funding is allocated by the government and if proper funding is allocated for R&D activities, development may be hindered. But in the new trend, major part of the R& D funding is provided by the corporate involvement at Universities in the research function. Major focus of science and technology policy is on the linkage between university-based research and industry-based commercialization. The purpose of this paper is to study university industry partnerships, their advantages and disadvantages, to exemplify it with my personal experience and to form relevant conclusion on the topic.

To foster these linkages, government has established several mechanisms in all highly developed and developing countries. Several polices were adopted to promote the establishment of university companies to market University research capabilities and commercialize research results. Many of the countries focused exclusively on the flow of research results from the university to industry and critical linkages, such as regional economic development and the transfer of technology to small and medium-sized firms, are ignored.

“Ensuring effective transparency should be a key part of an institution’s corporate responsibilities, though on occasion there will of course be legitimate commercial or security reasons for restricting information on some activities.” (Woolcock, 2008).

Changes in Technological environment may be of induced or autonomous nature. Induced changes represent the technological consequences created by social, political or economic forces. They often influence the nature and direction of technological development. Social value, directly or indirectly, influences technological development. Autonomous changes mean the changes which took place because of earlier invention.

For example invention of semiconductor and microprocessor technology have led to technological development affecting a wide variety of products, such as computers, automobiles, electronic equipment and energy control system. Advances in space-related technology frequently developed technological improvements in industrial, commercial and consumer production. Globalization has made significant changes in technological development process.

The changes involve allocation in resources, location of manufacturing firms, role of MNCs and difference in competitive advantage of nations in technology and development. The proportion of resources spent on technology development is increasing across various countries. One must expect the output of technology development efforts to correspond to the trends in R&D expenditures.

“Training and development is one of the most important investments that an organization can make, and these investments frequently result in an immediate and significant return, particularly when it comes to recruiting and retention. The Corporate Partnership Initiative is designed to provide organization with a comprehensive, easily administered education plan.” (Corporate Partnerships: An Innovative Approach to Executive Education, 2008).

During the first half of the twentieth century, technological development in the U.S. was a result of changes that occurred in the competitive and legal environment. In the US, the appropriation of technology has been accomplished through in-house research and development, and joint R&D were founded by two or more companies at different stages in the value chain of the industry. Joint R&D firms were involved in collective research and strategic alliances for developing appropriate technology.

Collective research organization may consist of

• Trade associations and research divisions or foundations;
• Industry associations;
• University-based centers;
• Company funded research institutes;
• Research Corporations.

Trade associations and research divisions or foundations

These groups conduct both technical and non technical activities. Example: The American Iron and steel Institute.

Industry associations

These are established to conduct research programs. The Program itself may be conducted at a University facility as in the case of Semiconductor Research Corporation or in the facility owned by university as in the case of Electric Power Research Institutes.

University-based centers

University-based centers may be either mission-oriented centers established with National Science Foundation seed money and phased in by industry or institutions established with a large portion of funds from interested companies. The University of Rhode Island Centre for Robotics is an example.

Company Funded Institutes

These organizations pursue technical advances and applications or researches related to the public welfare, and are non proprietary programs. The Sulfur Institute and the Chemical Industry Institutes of Toxicology are the examples.

Research Corporations

These are funded by a group of companies and perform both proprietary and non proprietary research that leads to company’s competitiveness. Examples include Micro Electrics and Computer Technology Corporation, Eugenics and American Welding Applications Centre.

Strategic Alliances can be of three types

• Corporate Venturing.
• Joint Technology Development.
• Outsourcing.

Corporate Venturing

It involves relationship between a large company and a small company. Large company provides funding and other necessary support to the small firm to bring out innovative products. For the large firm it is an advantage to have the mechanism for flow of technology from external sources and for the small firm, it is advantage to have capital and marketing aid.

Joint Technology Development

If these two or more firms come together for a limited period of time to conduct research projects, then benefits are shared mutually. Some may bring technology expertise, other may bring marketing expertise and other may bring operating or management expertise.

Outsourcing

It is the appropriation or deployment of technology. It involves one firm contracting out some activity in technology application or marketing or deployment, for example, BPOs in India.

“Many members of university communities are concerned about the increasing commercialization of their institutions. As universities become more dependent on private funds, they become increasingly subject to influence by private interests. It is possible that the academic integrity of institutions will suffer and they will waver from the path of achieving their mission.” (Corman, 2000).

Corporate involvement in the universities is very helpful for students to develop their skills, knowledge and will create more innovation and development. This is one of the successful policy measures adopted by many of the highly developed and developing countries throughout the world for stimulating technological innovation. It attributes a crucial role to recruitment of talented people into the organization without any cost. It also plays an important role in providing growth for the firm and is also very beneficial to students to attain career according to their specialization.

Government formulates rules and policies to the universities and is responsible for allocating the required funds for research and development.

General Trends

Governments are finding it difficult to increase or even maintain funding of research projects of universities worldwide including the United States. The general trend is that even the general funding is now left to the education sector to raise their own funds either through philanthropic activities or corporate involvement. The ideal scenario in such a case would be a symbiotic partnership between the corporate world and the education sector. It should be possible at least in principle to form such joint ventures because corporate objectives are to strike a balance between profitability and expenditure.

It is imperative that businesses stay competitive and for that they have to invest in research and development. But on the other hand they also have a responsibility towards their shareholders to give them the best returns for their investment. One of the ways to see that this happens is to bring down expenditure across all areas including research and development, but without compromising on competitiveness.

Universities, on the other hand, need funds for financing their own academic research in accordance with their stated missions. Universities are not created for profit but with a larger vision and objective in mind. They have a responsibility towards their students and the society with the ultimate objective of producing a of talent that is qualified to work in the very same corporations that they form partnerships with. “For the last two decades, corporations have been playing an increasingly important role in academic research, especially in engineering. Contributions have ranged from providing steering-type guidance to financial sponsorship.

A typical approach is an industry-membership research center located at a university; the center most often addresses a relatively well-defined problem area that is important to the members.” (Ashley, 2008) According to this author, such partnerships should be encouraged, even though he warns that only engineering departments will benefit. In other words, the humanities and language departments find it impossible to forma such partnerships.

Even certain areas within engineering find that they have no corporate sponsors. The paper states that the author’s own civil engineering department has no such corporate funding. This fact (departments that have no sponsors) is for information purpose only and has no direct relation to the matter at hand. It may also turn out that more and more areas will open up for such partnerships.

Coming back to the point of discussion, the author states the different forms of associations that exist now along with an ideal scenario which will be beneficial to all the parties concerned (usually, the university, the corporate house and the government). The government benefits from the fact that it needs no earmark funds for the university. The author states that there are different forms of partnerships that exist today.

The fist tie up occurred nearly fifteen years ago and was initiated by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF Engineering Research Centers and the NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers function in this model the author classifies partnerships into two main groups namely Type 1 and Type 2. In Type 1, partnerships may be many-to-many or many-to-one. The former indicates that many corporations or companies fund many universities. Many-to-one indicates that several companies focus on one university.

Single companies focusing on one university is also common. An example of type 1 partnership is Construction Industry Institute (CII) at University of Texas, Austin and the Center for Integrated Facilities Engineering (CIFE) at Stanford University. Type two partnerships involve one corporation working in partnership with one university. This is usually found in the case of smaller companies who have no research division of their own and hence, can work out a mutually beneficial agreement between themselves and the university. But it should not be restricted to small organizations. A specific instance is the grant of six million USD received by the Ohio State University department of Advanced Computing Centre for the Arts and Design (ACCAD) from an IT sector company called Alias|Wavefront.

This was for purchase of the well known graphics software called Maya ™. The University was expected to develop new products and services for its sponsors. “Ohio State has built a superior teaching and research program in computer animation and design, and this generous award will help us maintain our international stature,” says Dean Koroscik. “Our students will use the most advanced technology, and our state-of-the-art research will forge continual innovations for Alias|Wavefront and other industry leaders.” (In-depth Arts News, 1999).

The trend that can be seen nowadays is that more and more organizations are getting involved in such type of partnerships. One of the main reasons given is that companies are finding it hard to get qualified employees/engineers and hence in a way are forced to form an alliance with the universities. The author says that there is room for improvement and gives a model framework on which such partnerships can be formed.

The ideal scenario

1. Vision: The partners should work together to attract and train the best of local and international talent for research and development of state-of-the-art technology that is in the interests of both parties. A continuous quality improvement program should also be implemented.
2. Mission: The partnership should be formulated with the aim of achieving the goals of the company and the university.
3. Human Resource issues: It would be ideal if a representative of the company is accommodated in the university premises on a full time basis for the entire duration of the partnership. His primary duty would be coordination and managing the partnership in a responsible manner.
4. Curriculum: Curriculum should involve all relevant subjects and departments like electrical, IT and industrial systems engineering. (The departments mentioned above were given by the author maybe due to the fact that he is from an engineering department himself. What is intended is that neither the students nor the partnership should suffer).
5. Employment: Employment opportunities should be made available to students of participating departments. This can be made possible due to the close association of the company with the students. Students can be trained according to company needs during their tenure at the university itself instead of waiting for graduation.
6. Facilities for high school students to enroll in the University for Engineering Courses should be made possible. It would mean that the university could take in more students for such courses. A mentoring facility by the company is also advisable. Foeign students should also be considered and executive training may be provided for all students.
7. Research: Since research will be one of the key areas of focus, joint research teams consisting of company employees and students should be formed. The projects should be beneficial for the students, but should be in line with the long-term company goals. Mutual visits should be arranged especially across different geographical areas wherever possible.
8. Company focus: The university participants should be concentrated on company goals and objectives but without compromising on the quality of education.

More guidelines can be added as envisioned by Peter Likins who was president of University of Arizona. He is a well respected and his words should be taken seriously. Peter Likins even founded a ceremony where an award is given to outstanding personalities in his name. “The Peter W. Likins Inclusive Excellence Awards (IEA) recognizes individuals or groups who have demonstrated a significant contribution toward making The University of Arizona a diverse and inclusive community.” (Peter W. Likins Inclusive Excellence Award, 2008).

His suggestions are given below

1. Students are the first priority: Focusing on the goals of the Sponsor Company may result in the goals and aims of the students being compromised over. Professors should take special care to see that this does not happen. A research project could get delayed, which harms the future prospect of the students and, care that should be taken to see that this does not happen.
2. Knowledge is for society’s common good: Many research projects may develop products and services that the sponsor company may need to keep as classified due to economic and other reasons. But when they are developed with the help of the university, such information should not be kept secret for long periods. Most universities publish their research works and it should be no different here too. It may be withheld for reasonable periods in respect for company policies, but knowledge should ultimately reach the society.
3. Ethics: Research programs, once successful, can be financially rewarding for the participants. There have been cases where issues of patent rights have come up between the university and the sponsor company. It is understandable that universities should get the benefit, but there should be an understanding of the issues and that the university should not act like a business corporation regarding these issues. In other words, the educational institution should take ethical decisions keeping in mind their vision, mission and responsibilities to the outside world. “Most academic institutions have a commitment to certain principles, such as non-discrimination. Standing behind those principles occasionally means taking a hit financially, but we have to have confidence in our own value system.” (Likins, 2008). Professors should also note that any sort of discrimination in selecting student crops up.

Advantages and Disadvantages

It can be seen that setting up industry university partnerships has its benefits and disadvantages. This paper will discuss the benefits and problems with the help of two case studies along with the personal experience of the writer. The first case study is based on a published survey in the Engineering Management Journal, Septemer, 2005 by Heidrick, Ted R, Kramers, John W, Godin, Marc C. The university and department studied is the University of Alberta’s Advanced Engineering Materials (UAAEM) Centre.

The centre has a long standing tradition of encouraging partnerships with organizations in the private sector. “All the data and information were gathered from the UAAEM Centre, the affiliated professors and the related companies. The interview questionnaire was designed to cover two different segments: professors and the companies that sponsored the R&D.” (Heidrick, 2008). There were a total of twenty seven projects involving nearly eighteen companies. Three companies stopped the project and ten companies out of the balance; fifteen responded. Out of the twenty seven professors 25 responded. The total response rate as claimed by the authors was a healthy 74%. Salient points which can be construed as advantages of such partnerships are given below.

Advantages to the university, faculty and students

1. Increased funding and research: The University received assistance to the tune of nearly $600,000 to which a further $170,000 was added by the university. An increase in research activity was also possible.
2. Publications: The University was able to produce sixteen research publications. This would give the university a good name and positive image in the society.
3. Careers: The careers of the students had a positive effect due to the partnerships. To quote the authors, ‘After graduation, most of them found work as process engineers, design engineers, engineering consultants, material scientists, professors, project managers, or are still continuing doctoral work.’ (Heidrick, 2008)
4. New equipment: The University was able to purchase new equipment which proved useful for its own and other projects as well.
5. New projects: The University was able to get new partnerships as a result of its past successes. Hence, all the benefits that accrue due to this can be enjoyed by the university
6. The partnership research has been beneficial for other projects as well.
7. Increased Knowledge: Students and professors benefited from the increased knowledge as a result of the research.
8. There were opportunities to commercialize technology bringing additional financial benefits.
9. Better working relationship with the industry which is beneficial to all parties concerned.
10. Ability and awareness in using advanced materials.
11. Ability to apply derived knowledge in practical and market based applications.
12. Better reputation for the university in the public eye.
13. Increased knowledge in new and additional fields.

It is also to the credit of the success of the partnership, that all the professors who were involved were willing to work in university/industry partnerships in the future also. Even though, the benefits or advantages specified here pertain to one single university, it can be seen that other organizations too can enjoy similar benefits.

Advantages to Companies

• New Products and processes: Such projects can expect solid results as a result of joint effort.
• Cost savings: Companies enjoyed immediate cost savings or expected long and short term savings in the future.
• New qualified employees: Eight new working places were created and filled by competent persons.
• Unfeasible projects: A few of the projects were considered unfeasible. But this was an advantage since if the same thing had happened in the company’s research department, much more expenditure would have been involved.
• Many companies felt that they had become more competitive after or due to the partnerships.
• More products: Companies had more diversified product range with better quality.

Improvements in efficiency and productivity.

Value added products that could replace existing products.

Expansion opportunities for companies.

Other benefits include new patents and licenses, increased sales, technology application in other areas, exposure to international students, benefits of using university research and lab facility and good relationship with the university.

Seventy three percent of the companies were willing to invest in further partnership with the university. Like the earlier mentioned benefits, companies that are not yet involved in such partnerships can expect similar advantages.

Even though, there are a lot of obvious and hidden advantages, there will also be disadvantages in an industry – university partnerships. Before listing the disadvantages, a brief review of an article written by Linda Eyre in the Canadian Journal of Education on a collaboration that is apparently of no use to the most important beneficiaries of such a partnership, the students, will be made. The Brewer’s Association of Canada had commissioned an educational resource of the university students responsible for alcohol drinks. There were other organizations in the partnership and the education sector concerned was the New Brunswick Department of Education.

The author, the only female of the team was commissioned to write the English version of the resource. The resource was to be intended as a website for the target age group of 10 to 13. The intension, according to the Brewer’s Association, was to instill responsibility with regard to alcohol consumption. It should be noted here, that this age group is hardly the right target age for such a campaign, even though the association maintained that young people did drink alcoholic beverages. So, it would appear that the purpose of the campaign was not to discourage drinking, but to take it moderately thereby even encouraging its use.

The author writes that the resource would make it appear that it was even all right to drink but in moderation. The sponsors had agreed that they would not at all interfere in the program and the same could be designed by responsible members of the team. According to the author, manufacturers of alcoholic beverages have to see that their sales increase without causing heavy individual consumption of such beverages. The main criticisms about the content in the resource by the author was that it made no reference to social issues, gender, race etc with regard to alcohol consumption (Eyre, pp.61 – 80).

It was as if the sponsors totally directed the whole proceedings and the other members accepted everything without questioning. “Moreover, they appeared unconcerned about how teachers would deal with the pedagogical and legal issues that would, no doubt, arise in their classrooms and with parents”….. “Again, the other team members were either compliant in their silence, or as a team member once said to the CEO, “Just tell us what you want and we will do it,” leaving me to argue my case alone.” (Eyre 61-80).

What ultimately happened was that the author was told that her services were no longer required due to paucity of funds and the resource was published as planned.

Disadvantages

Taking into account what the author wrote in the above article and other published literature, the probable and actual disadvantages of industry university partnerships are given below.

1. Corporatism of the university: The University may end up in the hands of the corporate sponsor as a puppet.
2. Conflict of interests: The University may find itself caught between its own visions and ideals and sometimes conflicting interests to meet the requirements of the sponsor partner.
3. The University may end up as tool for the further promotion of commercial interests of the sponsor as it happened in the second case study.
4. Follow other agenda: Industry research and university research have different agendas. Commercial research aims at finding solutions that increase profits for the company. Academic research will follow the leads of their research findings to see what will come up. When funding was from the government or the university itself, researchers had the freedom to choose their own path. A partnership may pave the way for conflict of the two diverse interests.
5. Research can lead to discoveries that have great commercial values. There are many instances where a dispute between the university and the company on who holds the rights to such discoveries or on how to share the income occurs. Victory and benefits could go either way. But it paves the way for misunderstanding between the partners, unless a clear and unambiguous agreement has been previously made. An example of a patent dispute that went in favor of a university is given below. The University of California was awarded damages of $ 200 million from a genetic company called Genentech Inc. on a dispute over genetic research. “The settlement, the largest in biotech history though far less than the university originally sought, is seen as a victory for UC and other universities who seek revenue from innovations created with their research.” (Krieger, 1999).
6. Interdepartmental friction: It can be seen that most or all of the funding is in the field of science and research. This could cause resentment from other departments where such funding practices are non-existent.
7. Technology, language, social and race differences may create problems for the smooth conduct of the partnership.

Personal Experience with Industry University Partnerships as a student

I intend to use my experience in Engineering 310 as a case study on the cautions which need to be taken with these partnerships. This project has some very interesting STS implications and allows many dimensions of how society affects technology and study. The converse is also studied in one location with ample data from the many participating projects and students.

In order to further analyze the implications of this classroom environment, it is important to provide background on the class and how it came into existence. Engineering 310 was started in response to the growing popularity of partnerships between universities and corporations. The classes were arranged so as to reap the mutual benefits of research expertise coming from the university and manufacturing expertise coming from industry.

Currently, Engineering 310 is a class in which undergraduate and graduate students are placed into groups and assigned to work on a project for a specific company sponsor of the class. Each year the class is sponsored by ten corporations which collectively donate over a million dollars, in order to “gain access to the ideas of young minds,” as explained by Professor Robert Plummer of the Computer Science department. The student groups are mostly made up of Mechanical Engineering majors. However, as software has become more and more relevant to the research, there has been a large increase in the number of Computer Science students who have been asked to fulfill their senior requirements by taking this class.

Technology transfer is one of the most beneficial aspects of collaboration between universities and corporations. Successful technology transfer must not only take into account the technology being transferred, but must also take into account the differences between the cultures in which the technology is being transferred. There are two types of technology transfer that occur in Engineering 310. The first is between the university (Stanford) and industry (Autodesk), and the second is between the American and Columbian teams on the project. Technology and language barriers resulted in many miscommunications on this project.

The documentation and hardware explanations for the systems that we used were in English, and differences in understanding made it very difficult for the Columbian team to consistently realize what they were supposed to be doing. If technology transfer between cultures is to be completely successfully, we must be careful to ensure that cultural factors are transferred along with the technology.

Engineering 310 began as a class highly focused on mechanical engineering and has become a product development class more and more as the years progressed. Ten years ago, all project submissions were required to have a heavy mechanical engineering component. However, this year only one project is deemed to have non-trivial engineering by a survey of class members. This represents a drastic change in the faculty culture regarding how engineering should be taught to students.

Originally, I believed that this represented the natural integration of technology and design into engineering as a whole, but there does not seem to be a correlation in looking at traditional mechanical engineering classes. Has the requirement of the sponsoring corporations changed the environment of the class? If so, should this change be welcomed, considering that this reflects the current structure of the work environment many of these students will be entering in the near future?

Many engineering departments are moving towards project based classes, and those that are not, experience reduced participation due to a perceived irrelevance of what is taught. Project classes, such as Engineering 310, are precipitating these movements due to the potential industry exposure and the ability to do cutting-edge research. This raises concerns over the purpose of the university. Classes, such as Engineering 310, are perfect for programs aimed at producing graduates with industry skills and knowledge of corporate processes. However, one would argue that this is more the role of a trade school rather than that of a University. The job of the University is believed to be to expand minds of young leaders of tomorrow and to create useful, responsible and ethical citizens of tomorrow.

At the onset of the project, I wondered why all technical classes were not in the format of Engineering 310. I could not think of a better medium to gain that level of experience in corporate product design and engineering while completing an undergraduate degree. As the project continued I saw that my notions were true. We had design reviews, meetings, and conferences. We even adopted the corporate structure of change reviews and user testing of our products.

However, I quickly began to see that there were things which this corporate-like environment could not teach. The quick, iterative design process and strict budget coherence does not allow much energy to be spent on safety testing and considering the implications of the design. This creates the inherent risk of creating students who are effective at engineering, but lack the ethical foresight to be considered engineers. This presents a problem because the products created by this people include car modifications, business tools, and life support devices.

During product demonstration day, I came across a group which created a machine which produced drinkable water by absorbing the moisture out of the air. In order to do this, the process not only required non-trivial engineering, but the process utilized a mix of potentially dangerous chemicals. The resulting water from this process was extremely milky and chemically laden. Before the expo, they created an additional step which cleaned the water enough to be drinkable, and during the presentation participants were actually allowed to drink the water.

Amazed by how they accomplished this, I asked how they cleaned the water, to which they responded that they simply used a Brita filter to clean the particulates out of the water. They had not actually sent the filtered water to a lab to make sure it was drinkable. Their basis for its safety was the fact that one of the team members had tasted the water and he did not get sick. The project was created to be the source of drinkable water in arid areas and no testing was done to ensure that this retrieval method was actually safe. This is not an isolated example of the kind.

The university is the last place where academic ideals can be explored without intervention or influence from the outside environment. We must be careful when letting big business into this sterile environment. Corporations collectively pay over one million dollars to be involved in the Engineering 310 class, and thus they are entitled to a large degree of control over what is taught.

This trend of corporate sponsorship of technology research and education poses the question: Who is influencing Science and Technology? When research is funded by corporations, are researchers free to focus on whatever interests them? Or is the research guided, influenced, or otherwise influenced by the sponsoring corporation? Currently, the sponsoring corporations do not demand more than a liaison assigned to the team. Even with the limited involvement of corporations in Engineering 310, they define the scope of the project and are guaranteed whatever deliverables are created in the research.

Conclusion

Partnerships between universities and technical companies have resulted in better and broader product offerings, increased competitiveness, growth, cost savings, and increased sales for the participating companies. Moreover, these partnerships have accelerated the research programs of involved universities, created new knowledge banks within the university, created better relationships between industry and the university, and allowed for extremely relevant education models to be created for students. However, if these partnerships are to remain successful, care must be taken to mitigate the risk of these partnerships.

Work Cited

Ashley, David B. Corporate University partnerships? Introduction. NSF Construction Research Workshop. Web.

Corporate Partnerships: An Innovative Approach to Executive Education. McCOMBS School of Business. 2008. Web.

Corman, Sarah et al. A Working Paper Prepared by the Government Issues Committee of the Alma Master Society. Queen’s University. 2000. Web.

Eyre, Linda. “No Strings Attached”?: Corporate Involvement in Curriculum: Corporatism. Canadian Journal of Education. 2002. Vol. 27. No. 1. p. 61-80. Web.

Heidrick, Ted R., Kramers, John W., and Godin, Marc C. Deriving Value from Industry-University Partnerships: A Case Study of the Advanced Engineering Materials Centre: Case Study. BNET: Find Articles. 2005. Web.

In-Depth Arts News. Absolutearts. 1999. Web.

Krieger, Lisa M. Genentech to Pay University of California $200 Million in Patent Dispute. BNET: Find Articles. 1999. Web.

Likins, Peter. Corporate Partnerships: What’s in it for the University?. Culture Clash of Values. 2008. Web.

Peter W. Likins Inclusive Excellence Award. Diversity Resource Office. 2008. Web.

Woolcock, Nichola. Defence Industry Conceals University Fundings, Report Claims. Times Online. 2008. Web.