Access to expertise, skills and problem-solving capacities

Both industry and university interviewees seemed to share the view that although companies might benefit from access to the scientific frontier, university researchers are usually approached for more specific purposes. Access to university researchers’ specific skills or problem-solving capacities has been highlighted as one of the most important motivations for collaboration by several studies lately (Pavitt, 1998; Senker & Faulkner, 1994; Meyer-Krahmer & Schmoch, 2000). The interviewees in this study generally confirmed that access to university researchers’ specific skills and problem-solving capacities is often in the main motivation for collaboration. As two of the industry interviewees, from the computing and information technology and from the bio-technology sectors respectively, explained:

"Specific knowledge and projects are our main targets. We approach universities mainly if we need expert knowledge in areas where we do not have the necessary competence ourselves. They complement us in the areas where we ourselves are weak."

"Specific expertise for problem-solving is important. University competence is utilised both for predicting general trends and for specific problem-solving."

All the interviewees agreed that companies do not use universities primarily as a source of new ideas for products and processes. Rather, companies tend to approach universities for help and assistance when they run into a very specific problem that they are not able to solve themselves. Hence, university-industry collaboration often seems to involve specific problem-solving rather than long-term collaborative research. Collaboration of a “problem-problem-solving”

kind usually involves ad hoc-arrangements, and universities thus seem to be included rather late in the innovation process. This was indeed confirmed by all the interviewees, who argued that industry very seldom turns to universities without having specific projects or problems on their minds. According to the interviewees, universities are rarely the first place for companies to look for assistance when they lack internal resources and competence to solve a specific problem. Research institutes and technological consulting companies are more common partners, and these are more adjusted to industrial problems as well as to companies’

time-schedules. If university researchers are turned to for help with specific problem-solving, this is almost entirely based on personal contacts. All the interviewees strongly emphasised that personal contacts are particularly important for the delegation of specific problems and tasks.

According to the interviewees, companies very rarely engage in research just out of

"curiosity". Research of a very basic kind is an expensive and risky investment, and the interviewees argued that very few Norwegian companies are large enough and close enough to the scientific frontier to conduct such research. If research of a rather explorative character is conducted, this seems to be related to competence building in new academic fields or areas of expertise. Even though research collaboration can be a way of accessing basic research in a more cost-effective manner, the interviewees still argued that “basic” research collaboration is quite rare and heavily dependent on public support. University researchers thus seem to be approached mainly for their problem-solving skills, and rarely for collaborative “basic”

research.

However, several of the interviewees emphasised that the development of what they described as generic technologies or product concepts, is another important area of university-industry collaboration. Such generic technologies or product concepts have a wide range of potential applications. Quite a few of the interviewees argued that development of generic technologies represents a typical area of overlapping interests between universities and industry. The research activities involved are not of a very “basic” character, but they are neither as specific as most of the development activities companies usually undertake. The complementary knowledge of university and industry scientists and engineers was seen as particularly valuable for the development of such technologies (see section 3.3.3). The interviewees in the biotechnology sector emphasised that they quite often have a “product concept” rather than a specific product on their mind when approaching universities, as exemplified by the first of the following statements. The other statements further exemplify the importance of collaborative development of generic technologies, as perceived by industry interviewees from the biotechnology and the computing and information technology sectors, respectively:

"We sporadically contact universities when the company needs a solution to a particular problem. This is one form of collaboration, but more general research collaboration is more common. (…) Small tasks are delegated to the university because they have the equipment, but other collaborations are started in order to get a product concept rather than a concrete product."

"We usually collaborate with universities through larger projects that may result in general technologies. Such general technologies can be a basis for the development of several products."

"The research we do in collaboration with industry is not directed towards specific projects, it's more about developing general technologies."

As we understand from these examples, companies do not approach universities for general state-of-the-art information or for new ideas for products and processes only. Companies also seem to acknowledge academic researchers’ capacity of solving complex technological problems. This capacity is utilised both for the development of “generic technologies” and for the solving of very specific problems that companies run into during an innovation process.

The perceived importance of university researchers’ skills and problem-solving capacities suggests that scientific and technological knowledge have important tacit, or person-embodied, aspects. This is more in accordance with modern than with traditional approaches to technological innovation, and several studies have pointed to problem-solving capacity as the most important contribution of academic research to industrial innovation (see e.g. Pavitt, 1998, Senker & Faulkner, 1994, Gibbons & Johnson, 1974).