Franz Hofer

The Improvement of Technology Transfer

WIRTSCHAFTSWISSENSCHAFT
Franz Hofer

The Improvement of
Technology Transfer
An Analysis of Practices between
Graz University of Technology and
Styrian Companies

With a foreword by Univ. Prof. Josef W. Wohinz

Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at <[Link]

Dissertation Technische Universität Graz, 2007

Published with the support of the Styrian government,

Department for Science and Research

1st Edition November 2007

All rights reserved
© Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2007
Readers: Frauke Schindler / Anita Wilke
Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag is a company of Springer Science+Business Media.
[Link]

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system

or transmitted, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without prior
permission of the copyright holder.

Registered and/or industrial names, trade names, trade descriptions etc. cited in this publica-
tion are part of the law for trade-mark protection and may not be used free in any form or by
any means even if this is not specifically marked.
Cover design: Regine Zimmer, Dipl.-Designerin, Frankfurt/Main
Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
ISBN 978-3-8350-0904-2
Without the support of my wife, Elvira, I would not have
finished my doctoral thesis. She helped me to keep on
with my work.

To borrow from Lee Iacocca: Yes, I am proud to have

finished my doctoral thesis. But next to my family, it really
doesn’t matter at all.

For my wife Elvira

and my son Oliver
Foreword VII

Foreword

The positive impact of technology transfer on universities and companies in my

opinion is undisputed. Driving factors for technology transfer are the complementary
nature of research, the increasing specialization and the available vast resources
outside companies’ settings.

In that sense I welcome the work done by Franz Hofer which provides recommenda-
tions to further facilitate technology transfer. He has done a remarkable work in
examining technology transfer between Graz University of Technology and Styrian
companies. As the author shows, the results presented in this book are not only valid
for the specific setting in Styria, one of nine states of Austria, but also for other
regions dealing with this specific topic.

He based his results on detailed empirical examinations which allowed the

introduction of target groups of university researchers and companies defined by a
set of characteristics. Thus the work enables parties involved in technology transfer
to act according to the specific needs of the participants.

Formerly, this knowledge was available at best implicitly, i.e. experienced university
researchers or managers used to deal with each other thus knowing well the others’
expectations. Inexperienced fellows had to build up this knowledge gradually. Due to
his research Franz Hofer set a landmark for university researchers and managers,
representatives of governmental agencies as well as for companies dealing with
technology transfer.

I recommend this book to everyone working on technology transfer and willing to

further improve the respective framework. It is my well-founded belief that while we
are already doing great things in cooperation with each other, there is still plenty of
room for improvements. The results presented herein are an essential element to
further improve current performance and understanding of technology transfer.

Univ. Prof. Josef W. Wohinz

Head of the Institute of Industrial Management and Innovation Research
Graz University of Technology
Table of contents IX

Table of contents

1 Executive Summary 1
2 Introduction 3
3 Research approach 5
4 Desk research results 7
5 Technology transfer survey 15
5.1 General issues 15
5.2 Frequency analyses for companies and university researchers 26
5.2.1 Frequency analyses for companies 26
5.2.2 Frequency analyses for university researchers 32
5.3 Bi-variate analyses for companies and university researchers 36
5.3.1 Companies: What makes companies in- or outsiders? 36
5.3.2 Companies: Differences between companies having expenditures for universi ies,
companies not having expenditures for but contacts to universities and companies not
having contacts to universities 38
5.3.3 Companies: Differences in technology transfer features of companies with
expenditures for universi ies and companies without expenditures for but contacts to
universities 39
5.3.4 Companies: Differences between companies interested in establishing contacts to
universities and companies not being interested in establishing contacts to universities 40
5.3.5 Companies: Which companies’ characteristics, technology features, barriers, and
motives influence the amount of companies’ expenditures for universities? 41
5.3.6 Companies: Which companies’ characteristics, technology features, barriers, and
motives influence companies’ frequency in using technology transfer means? 42
5.3.7 Companies: Which companies’ characteristics, technology transfer features, barriers,
and motives influence the expected future development of companies’ expenditures for
universities? 45
5.3.8 Companies: Which companies’ characteristics and technology transfer features
influence companies’ assessment of the importance of barriers and motives? 46
5.3.9 University researchers: Which university researchers’ characteristics influence whether
or not university researchers are in contact with companies? 50
5.3.10 University researchers: Which university researchers’ characteristics, technology
transfer features, barriers and motives influence the number of monthly personal contacts
of university researchers with different companies? 51
5.3.11 University researchers: Which university researchers’ characteristics, technology
transfer features, barriers and motives influence the amount of time spend by university
researchers for collaborations with companies? 52
5.3.12 University researchers: Which university researchers’ characteristics and technology
transfer features influence the frequency of use of technology transfer means? 53
5.3.13 University researchers: Which university researchers’ characteristics, technology
transfer features, barriers and motives influence benefits of technology transfer perceived
by university researchers? 56
5.3.14 University researchers: Which university researchers’ characteristics and technology
transfer features influence barriers and motives? 58
X Table of contents

5.3.15 Companies and university researchers: Assessing the importance of technology

transfer barriers and motives from their own point of view and the view of potential partners 65
6 Typology of companies and university researchers 69
6.1 Approach to identify a typology scheme 69
6.2 Typology for companies 72
6.2.1 Companies with expenditures for universities 75
6.2.2 Companies without expenditures for but with contacts to universities 84
6.2.3 Companies not yet having contacts to universities but interested in building up
relations 90
6.2.4 Companies not yet having contacts to universities and not being interested in building
up relations 93
6.2.5 Overview of specific characteristics of companies belonging to he different groups 94
6.3 Typology for university researchers 97
6.3.1 University researchers with contacts to companies 99
6.3.2 University researchers not yet having contacts to companies but interested in building
up relations and university researchers not yet having contacts to companies and not
interested in building up relations 110
6.3.3 Overview of specific characteristics of university researchers belonging to the different
groups 112
7 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 115
7.1 Interviews with company representatives 115
7.1.1 Companies with expenditures for universities 115
[Link] Why and how did the company establish contacts to universities? 117
[Link] How satisfying are your contacts with universities? 119
[Link] Is technology transfer going to change? 120
[Link] Which support services would help to improve technology transfer? 121
7.1.2 Companies without expenditures for but with contacts to universities 122
[Link] Why and how did the company establish contacts to universities? 124
[Link] How satisfying are your contacts with universities? 125
[Link] Is technology transfer going to change? 126
[Link] Which support services would help you to improve technology transfer? 126
7.1.3 Companies not yet having contacts to universities but interested in building up
relations 127
[Link] Why did you not yet establish contacts to universities? 128
[Link] How could technology transfer start? 130
[Link] Which support services would be useful in technology transfer? 131
7.1.4 Companies not yet having contacts to universities and not being interested in building
up relations 133
[Link] Why do you not want to do technology transfer? 134
[Link] What would have to happen to do technology transfer? 135
7.1.5 Summary of the interviews with company representa ives 135
7.2 Interviews with university researchers 135
7.2.1 University researchers with contacts to companies 136
[Link] Why and how did it come to contacts to companies? 137
[Link] How satisfying is technology transfer currently? 138
[Link] Is technology transfer likely to change in the future and if yes how? 139
[Link] How could respective parties support technology transfer? 140
Table of contents XI

7.2.2 University researchers not yet having contacts to companies but interested in building
up relations and university researchers not yet having contacts to companies and not being
interested in building up relations 142
[Link] What hinders the start of technology transfer? 143
[Link] Why is the interest in technology transfer lacking? 143
[Link] What would be objectives for technology transfer? 144
[Link] How could respective parties support technology transfer? 144
7.3 Summary of interviews with university researchers 145
8 Recommendations for actions 147
8.1 Companies 147
8.1.1 Companies with expenditures for universities: Group 1 147
8.1.2 Companies with expenditures for universities: Group 2 151
8.1.3 Companies without expenditures for but with contacts to universities: Group 3 154
8.1.4 Companies without expenditures for but with contacts to universities: Group 4 156
8.1.5 Companies not yet having contacts to universities but interested in building up
relations: Group 5 157
8.1.6 Companies not yet having contacts to universities but interested in building up
relations: Group 6 159
8.1.7 Companies not yet having contacts to universities but interested in building up
relations: Group 7 159
8.1.8 Companies not yet having contacts to universities and not being interested in building
up relations: Group 8 160
8.2 University researchers 161
8.2.1 University researchers wi h contacts to companies: Group 1 162
8.2.2 University researchers wi h contacts to companies: Group 2 165
8.2.3 University researchers not yet having contacts to companies but interested in building
up relations: Group 3 167
8.2.4 University researchers not yet having contacts to companies and not being interested
in building up relations: Group 4 168
8.3 Proposal for a technology transfer design model 169
9 Technology transfer in Styria: Qualitative similarities and differences
compared to other studies 173
10 Discussion and further need for research 181
References 183
Appendix 193
Figures XIII

Figures
Figure 1: Major research steps 5
Figure 2: Overview of major characteristics, technology transfer features,
barriers, and motives chosen for the questionnaires 8
Figure 3: Comparison of composition of invited and participating university
researchers w.r.t. major participating personnel categories 18
Figure 4: Comparison of composition of invited and participating university
researchers w.r.t. university researchers’ faculties 19
Figure 5: Comparison of composition of invited and participating university
researchers w.r.t. department size 19
Figure 6: Distribution of companies of the respective groups according to their
zip codes 21
Figure 7: Distribution of companies of the respective groups according to their
industrial sectors 21
Figure 8: Distribution of companies of the respective groups according to their
number of employees 22
Figure 9: Distribution of companies of the respective groups according to their
productivity (sales divided by number of employees) 23
Figure 10: Distr bution of companies of the respective groups according to their
year of foundation 24
Figure 11: Distr bution of companies with manual entries regarding participation
in R&D programs according to their answering behavior 25
Figure 12: Distribution of companies w.r.t. their relation to the technology
transfer office at Graz University of Technology according to their
participation and answering behavior 25
Figure 13: Product and service categories companies are active in 27
Figure 14: Companies' frequency in carrying out R&D 28
Figure 15: Distribution of companies regarding different relationship poss bilities 29
Figure 16: University researchers' categories in technology transfer 33
Figure 17: University researchers’ attitude regarding an expansion of
technology transfer 35
Figure 18: Number of companies according to the three different classes 38
Figure 19: Number of companies at the time of the survey not doing technology
transfer according to their interest in whether or not collaborating with
universities 40
Figure 20: The future development of companies' expenditures for universities 45
Figure 21: Relation between participants’ age and the financial source they are
paid for 53
Figure 22: University researchers' assessment of technology transfer's impact
on their teaching 57
Figure 23: University researchers' assessment of technology transfer's impact
on their research 57
Figure 24: University researchers' assessment of barriers 60
Figure 25: University researchers' assessment of motives 61
Figure 26: University researchers' motives assessed by university researchers
and companies 65
Figure 27: Companies' motives assessed by companies and university
researchers 66
Figure 28: University researchers' barriers assessed by university researchers
and companies 67
XIV Figures

Figure 29: Companies' barriers assessed by companies and university

researchers 68
Figure 30: Approach to set up a technology transfer typology for companies and
university researchers 72
Figure 31: Typology for companies regarding technology transfer 73
Figure 32: Companies' average assessment of the importance of barriers
according to the different classes of the typology 74
Figure 33: Companies' average assessment of the importance of motives
according to the different classes of the typology 75
Figure 34: Companies of group 1 and their self-assessed development of
expenditures for universities for 2006 and 2007 77
Figure 35: Companies of group 2 and their self-assessed development of
expenditures for universities for 2006 and 2007 77
Figure 36: Companies of group 1 and 2 and their contacts to or expenditures for
universities according to the geographic locations of the respective
universities 78
Figure 37: The importance of motives assessed by companies of group 1 and 2 80
Figure 38: The importance of criteria decisive to contact specific university
departments for potential collaborations assessed by companies of group 1
and 2 81
Figure 39: The frequency of modes how collaborations with universities are
established assessed by companies of group 1 and 2 82
Figure 40: The importance of barriers out of the view of university researchers
assessed by companies of group 1 and 2 83
Figure 41: Companies of group 3 and 4 and their contacts to or collaborations
with universities according to the geographic locations of the respective
universities 85
Figure 42: The importance of motives assessed by companies of group 3 and 4 87
Figure 43: The importance of criteria decisive to contact specific university
departments for potential collaborations assessed by companies of group 3
and 4 88
Figure 44: The frequency of modes how collaborations with university
researchers are established assessed by companies of group 3 and 4 89
Figure 45: The importance of barriers out of the view of university researchers
assessed by companies of group 3 and 4 90
Figure 46: The importance of barriers out of the view of university researchers
assessed by companies of group 5, 6 and 7 92
Figure 47: The eight groups of companies and their characteristics 96
Figure 48: Typology for university researchers regarding technology transfer 97
Figure 49: University researchers' average assessment of the importance of
barriers according to the different classes of the typology 98
Figure 50: University researchers' average assessment of the importance of
motives according to the different classes of the typology 99
Figure 51: The frequency of modes how collaborations with companies are
established assessed by university researchers of group 1 and 2 101
Figure 52: University researchers of group 1 and 2 and their contacts to or
collaborations with companies according to the geographic locations of the
respective companies 103
Figure 53: University researchers of group 1 and 2 assessing the benefits of
technology transfer for their teaching activities 104
Figures XV

Figure 54: University researchers of group 1 and 2 assessing the benefits of

technology transfer for their own research 104
Figure 55: University researchers of group 1 and 2 answering to the question if
standards for technology transfer are applied 105
Figure 56: Frequency of realizing specific activities by university researchers of
group 1 and 2 106
Figure 57: University researchers of group 1 and 2 answering to the question if
they would l ke to extend technology transfer 107
Figure 58: The importance of companies’ barriers assessed by university
researchers of group 1 and 2 108
Figure 59: The importance of companies’ motives assessed by university
researchers of group 1 and 2 109
Figure 60: The importance of companies’ barriers assessed by university
researchers of group 3 111
Figure 61: The importance of companies’ motives assessed by university
researchers of group 3 112
Figure 62: The four groups of university researchers and their relations to
specific characteristics 113
Figure 63: Control loop model for technology transfer 171
Figure 64: Relations between knowledge, data, and documentation,
information, and communication processes 194
Tables XVII

Tables
Table 1: Average companies' sales for 2003 to 2005e 27
Table 2: Companies' average yearly expenditures for universities 41
Table 3: Companies' use of technology transfer means 42
Table 4: Overall assessment of the importance of barriers (1 = High importance,
2 = Medium importance, 3 = Small importance, 4 = Not important) 47
Table 5: Overall assessment of the importance of motives (1 = High importance,
2 = Medium importance, 3 = Small importance, 4 = Not important) 47
Table 6: Time spent for teaching, basic research and collaborations with
companies 52
Table 7: University researchers' annual frequency of use for technology transfer
means 54
Table 8: Comparing the two classes of companies with expenditures for
universities 76
Table 9: Reasons of companies of group 1 for having contacts to or expenditures
for universities outside Styria 78
Table 10: Reasons of companies of group 2 for having contacts to or
expenditures for universities outside Styria 79
Table 11: Additional barriers mentioned by companies of group 1 83
Table 12: Additional barriers mentioned by companies of group 2 84
Table 13: Comparing the two classes of companies without expenditures for but
with contacts to universities 85
Table 14: Reasons of companies of group 3 for having contacts to or
collaborations with universities outside Styria 86
Table 15: Additional barriers mentioned by companies of group 3 90
Table 16: Comparing the three classes of companies not yet having contacts to
universities but being interested in building up relations 91
Table 17: Additional barriers mentioned by companies of group 5 92
Table 18: Additional barriers mentioned by companies of group 6 93
Table 19: Companies not yet having contacts to universities and not being
interested in building up relations 93
Table 20: Reasons for not being interested in technology transfer stated by
companies of group 8 94
Table 21: Categories of characteristics for the correspondence analysis 95
Table 22: Comparing the two classes of university researchers with contacts to
companies 100
Table 23: Additional motives mentioned by university researchers of group 1 100
Table 24: Additional motives mentioned by university researchers of group 2 100
XVIII Tables

Table 25: Additional modes how collaborations with companies are established
mentioned by university researchers of group 1 102
Table 26: Additional modes how collaborations with companies are established
mentioned by university researchers of group 2 102
Table 27: Standards used in technology transfer by university researchers of
group 1 105
Table 28: Standards used in technology transfer by university researchers of
group 2 105
Table 29: Additional activities mentioned by university researchers of group 1 106
Table 30: Additional activities mentioned by university researchers of group 2 107
Table 31: Additional barriers mentioned by university researchers of group 1 108
Table 32: Additional barriers mentioned by university researchers of group 2 109
Table 33: Comparing the two classes of university researchers interested and not
interested in building up relations with companies 110
Table 34: Reasons for not being interested in technology transfer mentioned by
university researchers of group 4 110
Table 35: Additional barriers mentioned by university researchers of group 3 111
Table 36: Categories of characteristics for the correspondence analysis 112
Table 37: Characteristics of interviewees 1 to 4 117
Table 38: Characteristics of interviewees 5 to 8 123
Table 39: Characteristics of interviewees 9 to 14 128
Table 40: Characteristics of interviewees 15 and 16 134
Table 41: Characteristics of interviewees 1 to 5 136
Table 42: Characteristics of interviewees 6 and 7 143
Table 43: Need for support mentioned by companies of group 1 148
Table 44: Need for support mentioned by companies of group 2 152
Table 45: Need for support mentioned by companies of group 3 155
Table 46: Need of support mentioned by companies of group 5 158
Table 47: Need for support mentioned by companies of group 6 159
Table 48: Need for support mentioned by companies of group 7 160
Table 49: Need for support mentioned by university researchers of group 1 163
Table 50: Need for support mentioned by university researchers of group 2 165
Table 51: Need for support mentioned by university researchers of group 3 167
Executive Summary 1

1 Executive Summary

Technology transfer between universities and companies is important for both

parties. Universities profit through additional financial means, feedback regarding
their competencies and research performance and input to identify new research
areas. Companies profit by getting access to external knowledge for the development
of new products and processes or support to build up specific competencies with the
help of universities. Such benefits can occur. However, they are not automatically
granted.

The spectrum of technology transfer is rather large. The willingness to participate in

technology transfer can be rather different. Specific types of companies and
university researchers are unwilling in getting in contact with each other. Others are
very well networked with each other. This bandwidth leads to the assumption that
different existing needs of companies and university researchers result in different
recommendations to increase and improve technology transfer.

The present book is based on a doctoral thesis, which examined technology transfer
between university researchers at Graz University of Technology and companies in
Styria. Based on the results of an empirical study a typology was set up, which
grouped university researchers and companies according to their current technology
transfer extent and barriers. For the given typology, recommendations for actions to
improve technology transfer were identified.

The recommendations for actions enable universities, university researchers,

companies and other parties like i.e. technology transfer offices at universities or
chambers of commerce to improve technology transfer between universities and
companies. In some cases, single organizations can realize the recommendations.
The realization of others depends on the commitment of more than one party. Thus,
the time for transition of research results to applications should decrease further.
Experts see this as one of the major weaknesses of Europe in regard of the USA.
The book also provides empirical data to compare technology transfer in Styria with
other regions. This leads to new knowledge about the influence of regional conditions
in technology transfer.
Introduction 3

2 Introduction

Easy access to external knowledge becomes increasingly important for companies to

innovate (Schmoch, Licht, and Reinhard1). Universities as part of the knowledge-
generating infrastructure are ever more involved in the development of global
economy and many recent innovations could have only been achieved through
interdisciplinary teams of industrial and university researchers (Tornatzky2; Business-
Higher Education Forum3). It is widely acknowledged that companies and universities
can benefit from such activities. Still, difficulties arise from the nature of R&D and
moral hazard problems (Howells4), i.e. sharing jointly developed knowledge with third
parties, intentionally or not. This might work against the exploitation of the full
potential. Studies like the ones realized by Blume and Fromm5 or inno-regio styria6, a
subsidiary of the federation of Styrian industry, show the fallow lying potential to
increase technology transfer. Blume and Fromm identified in their study about
technology transfer between Gesamthochschule Kassel [University of Kassel] and
companies that 30 % of companies not having contacts to the university were
interested in establishing such. The survey of 24 large companies located in Styria,
one of nine Austrian states, by inno-regio styria showed that more than 50 % of
companies want to extend technology transfer with regional universities. More than
70 % plan to extend technology transfer with national and international universities.
None of the 24 companies wants to reduce expenditures for research with
universities. Another survey by Adametz, Gruber, and Ploder7 amongst the most
innovative companies in Styria revealed that the majority of participants plan to
increase expenditures for collaborations with R&D providers like universities.

1
Schmoch, Ulrich; Licht, Georg; Reinhard, Michael (Eds.): Wissens- und Technologietransfer in
Deutschland [Knowledge and technology transfer in Germany], Stuttgart 2000
2
Tornatzky, Louis G. (Ed.): Building State Economies by Promo ing University Industry Technology
Transfer, Washington DC 2000
3
Business-Higher Education Forum (Ed.): Working Together, Creating Knowledge: The University
Industry Collaboration Initiative, Washington DC 2001
4
Howells, Jeremy: The Knowledge Boundaries of the Firm and Sourcing for Innovation, in: Hosni,
Yasser; Smi h, Richard; Khalil, Tarek (Eds.), 13th International Conference on Management of
Technology, Washington DC 2004, Paper ID 1296
5
Blume, Lorenz; Fromm, Oliver: Wissenstransfer zwischen Universitäten und regionaler Wirtschaft:
Eine empirische Untersuchung am Beispiel der Universität Gesamthochschule Kassel [Knowledge
Transfer Between Universities and regional economy: An empirical study at the University
Gesamthochschule Kassel], in: Vierteljahreshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung [Quarterly economy
research journal], 69. Jahrgang, Heft 1/2000, pp. 109-123
6
inno-regio styria: F&E Kooperationen von forschungsintensiven Unternehmen der Steiermark [R&D
collaborations of research intensive companies in Styria], presented at a workshop for members of
the platform for R&D managers of Styrian companies organized by inno-regio styria on the 7th of
February 2005 in Graz
7
Adametz, Christoph; Gruber, Markus; Ploder, Michael: Innovationsmonitor Steiermark 2004
Endbericht [Monitoring innovations in Styria, final report 2004], [Link]-
[Link]/Projekte/Innovationsmonitor/Bericht%[Link] as of 11th of May 2006
4 Introduction

The present book aims at providing recommendations for actions to initiate and
further improve technology transfer. This includes facilitating companies and
university researchers to get in contact with each other and ends with increasing the
extent or improving the quality of technology transfer. An example for the latter two
cases is the provision of support for companies already collaborating with university
researchers, which want to do technology transfer more effectively and efficiently.

Current typologies for companies and university researchers are too broad to
introduce specific recommendations for actions. A ready to use typology has to be
more detailed than existing ones. In parallel, the applicability has to be considered. A
typology, which depends exclusively on publicly not available data or requires in-
depth interviews up front does not serve the need of a broader auditorium.

This book addresses different types of readership. Primarily university researchers

and company employees, but also other organizations playing a determining role
regarding the success or failure of technology transfer. Examples are technology
transfer offices at universities supporting university researchers in matters regarding
IPRs, negotiations and funding issues or companies in finding the right expert for
their enquiry. Funding agencies consulting technology transfer partners in applying
and setting up funding proposals or chambers of commerce with close contacts to
companies recommending university researchers.

Such a detailed technology transfer study is new to Styria. It provides new insights
and data to compare technology transfer in Styria with other regions. Thus, the
potential impact of regional characteristics can be examined by comparing similar
studies in different geographic regions. As the comparision with other studies show,
the results can be used as input to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
technology transfer in other regions being confronted with similar obstacles. The
recommendations can also be used by others preparing to start with technology
transfer as guideline for development. Such a detailed examination of
interdependencies between university researchers’ and companies’ characteristics,
their current technology transfer features, barriers and motives is rather the exception
than the norm.
Research approach 5

3 Research approach

The overall objective is to provide recommendations for actions customized for

specific, homogenous groups of companies and university researchers. Current
schemes do not provide poss bilities to approach companies and university
researchers with a well defined portfolio of recommendations. This results in the
need to set up a typology, which allows the identification of such recommendations.
Suited criteria, which the typology depends on, have to be determined, i.e. size of
companies, age of university researchers, barriers and motives, location of
companies and others. Additionally one has to bear in mind the usability of the
typology. The typology should be feasible with as little information as possible to
keep efforts to gather relevant data as small as possible. Based on such a typology,
recommendations for actions can be worked out.

It is assumed that a suited typology as basis to work out recommendations for

actions has to comprise a measure for the current extent of technology transfer. An
assessment of the importance of barriers regarding technology transfer forms the
extension of currently existing typologies. Thus, the typology is divided into smaller,
from each other distinct classes. This is supposed to increase the success of support
actions. This approach makes it necessary to gather empirical data to understand the
connection with university researchers’ and companies’ characteristics and their
technology transfer specific features. Figure 1: Major research steps shows the major
research steps.

Figure 1: Major research steps

6 Research approach

The first step is multi-layered. It examines the interdependency of factors influencing

technology transfer. Factors were grouped in four types: University researchers’ and
companies’ characteristics, technology transfer characteristics, barriers and motives.
Identifying relations lays the ground for the two following steps. Desk research is one
of the cornerstones. The results form the base for the first empirical part, the
questionnaires for university researchers and companies. The existing work already
done in the area of technology transfer is taken as guideline to formulate questions
and limiting possible answers. The quantitative empirical part identifies the influence
of characteristics of university researchers and companies, current extent of
technology transfer and respondents’ assessment of the importance of specific
barriers and motives out of their own view and the one of their (pot.) partners on
technology transfer. The questionnaire is used as research tool because the results
enable to set up and describe a typology for university researchers and companies.
SPSS as a standard statistic software program is used to analyze answers.

The second step focuses on the typology. It is necessary to define criteria to

distinguish the different classes from each other and describe them. The resulting
typology serves as frame for the definition of recommendations for actions to
facilitate technology transfer by offering customized support for homogeneous groups
of companies and university researchers.

The third and last step is based on the prior achieved results and defines
recommendations for actions for the different classes of typologies. The major
assumption is the different support needs of companies and university researchers.
Thus, also support should be offered accordingly. The qualitative empirical part,
personal interviews with representatives of the previous identified classes of
typology, build on results of the quantitative empirical study and examine the history
and current status of technology transfer, and recommendations for actions to
(further) increase and improve technology transfer. This part is supplementary to the
first empirical one and provides additional insights. It is important to keep in mind that
some of the recommendations for actions will aim at single organizations or
individuals like university researchers. Others will need inter-organizational efforts to
be realized.
Desk research results 7

4 Desk research results

This chapter summarizes the results of the desk research. During the desk research
phase more than 70 art kels, books and reports on technology transfer were
examined. The majority focuses primarily on technology transfer between universities
and companies. Some deal with technology transfer between public and private
research centers others than universities and companies or even technology transfer
between companies or intra-organizational technology transfer. The geographic
dimension varies too. The majority deals with regional technology transfer, but also
literature concerning national and international technology transfer was considered.
The majority of literature was written by US authors followed by contributions from
Germany, other European countries, and other parts of the world.

The succeeding empirical work tries to gather an as complete as possible picture of

university researchers’ and companies’ characteristics, technology transfer features,
barriers and motives. However, not all of the desk research results can be
considered. This would exceed the scope of the thesis. Only the ones perceived as
most important for reaching the research objective were considered for the following
examinations. The following figure provides an overview of the major factors
identified with the help of desk research and used for the technology transfer survey
between Styrian companies and Graz University of Technology.
8 Desk research results

Figure 2: Overview of major characteristics, technology transfer features, barriers, and motives chosen
for the questionnaires

Personal relations between university researchers and company employees seem to

be of major importance for technology transfer. Personal relations are more likely if
companies employ academics, who take with them their existing network. Personal
relations are also supposed to influence companies’ decision to contact specific
university departments in case of needs. Companies are supposed to contact
previously unknown university researchers only in case the ones already known
cannot provide the needed knowledge.

The influence of companies’ industrial sectors is assessed controversial. Some

studies conclude that industrial sectors influence the likelihood of doing technology
transfer. Others deny the influence of industrial sectors on technology transfer. High-
tech sectors, defined by high R&D expenditures, seem to be more likely to do
technology transfer. This is supposed to depend amongst others on factors like
readiness to change, higher absorptive capability, higher R&D expenditures, and
higher pressure from customers.
Desk research results 9

Schneeberger and Petanovitsch8 showed differences in the share of academics on

the total number of employees for different industrial sectors. These differences in
the qualification of employees are likely to affect the absorptive capacity and thus
technology transfer. This would again hint towards the importance of industrial
sectors.

The size of companies plays a major role in technology transfer. It is usually

measured in number of employees or sales. It seems to influence the extent of
technology transfer, i.e. number of companies’ contacts with university researchers
and adopted technology transfer means. It is also supposed that it influences modes
how technology transfer is established. Previous studies show that intermediaries are
especially important for smaller companies. Size is also supposed to influence
motives and barriers. Also in case of university departments, size seems to influence
technology transfer.

Export quotes and geographic markets of companies are used as indicators for
competition. It is supposed that companies with higher export quotes are more likely
to do technology transfer. Companies active in highly competitive markets like
western European countries are likely to depend more on external stimuli than
companies realizing the majority of their sales in countries economically less
developed.

R&D is considered as the most important driver for technology transfer. Internal R&D
is important for the absorptive capability of companies and seems to positively
influence technology transfer with universities outside the region companies are
located. For regional technology transfer R&D does not seem to be that important.
R&D is likely to lead to different motives, i.e. valuing access to graduates, and
barriers, i.e. fearing knowledge spillovers to competitors. Universities have to offer
high quality knowledge to support companies. This is especially important for
companies heavily active in R&D. In case of universities, it is supposed that specific
departments are more likely to do technology transfer than others because their
research areas are closer to immediate applications in companies.

Companies’ location seems to influence technology transfer. It determines the

distance to knowledge sources and other companies providing business services. It
is shown that innovation activities and technology transfer depend on each other and

8
Schneeberger, Arthur; Petanovitsch, Alexander (Eds.): Innovation und Hochschulbildung: Chancen
und Herausforderungen einer technisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Qualifizierungsoffensive für
Österreich [Innovation and academic education: Chances and challenges of science and
technology oriented qualification offensive for Austria], Vienna 2003
10 Desk research results

both are related to environmental factors like quality of life issues, existence of
companies providing business services and the like. Limits set by cultural issues, i.e.
different languages and norms, lead to special importance of regional knowledge
sources. Regional collaborations are supposed to be better suited for companies
without previous experience in technology transfer. Face-to-face meetings, which
facilitate the transfer of knowledge, especially important in case of universities’
technologies and leading edge knowledge, are easier to realize because of short
geographic distances. The ability to collaborate with partners located more distantly
seems to be influenced by various characteristics like technology transfer
experience, size, R&D capabilities, and export quotes. Studies show an evolution
pattern of technology transfer with companies firstly collaborating regionally and then
start to integrate knowledge from more distant sources to increase their
competitiveness further.

Technology transfer is also likely to be influenced by the type of products and

services offered by companies. It seems to make a difference if companies are
manufacturers or service providers. The respective categories are likely to influence
needs for external knowledge, the openness to approach universities and the
probability to be approached by academics.

Companies’ age is likely to influence technology transfer. Younger companies are

supposed to be more likely to do technology transfer. There are several possible
explanations l ke the higher availability of funds for younger companies, the
increasing share of science in products and services, the increasing knowledge
intensity of younger companies or the increasing consciousness of younger business
managers of the value of universities’ knowledge.

Management support is important for technology transfer, independently if at

companies or universities. Managers have to create a pro-active culture towards
technology transfer. In case of companies, the formal qualification of managers is
supposed to be important. Company managers with university degrees are likely to
be more apt to assess potential benefits and risks of technology transfer.
Management has to champion technology transfer and must support and enable their
employees accordingly. For both partners it is important that they understand each
other’s needs and barriers. Therefore, experiences in both environments should
support technology transfer.

Managers are also in charge to design organizations for technology transfer. This
comprises creation of a suited culture emphasizing innovations, supporting
Desk research results 11

technology transfer by providing resources and in case of universities stressing the

importance of interdisciplinary research and overcoming publishing inertia. Especially
processes seem to be important. Organizations structured in processes are
supposed to have higher absorptive capabilities. The reasons might be a higher
degree of planning capability or a higher differentiation resulting in higher
specialization.

Companies have to be aware that university researchers are rather autonomous and
their personal motivation is likely to differ. Influencing factors might be i.e. age of
university researchers, their previous working experience or their type of contract, i.e.
paid for by regular university budget or third party funds from companies. Therefore,
it is important to pay attention to the specific individual situation of university
researchers, whose knowledge companies want to tap.

Communication is often mentioned as critical in technology transfer. Both sides,

university researchers and companies, often blame each other to provide insufficient
information.

Companies’ strategies are supposed to influence technology transfer. It determines

the major motivation of companies to do technology transfer. It is supposed that
companies following a technology leadership strategy are more likely to do
technology transfer because of the importance of up to date technologies for their
own businesses. Companies focusing on cost leadership strategies on the other
hand are more likely to keep their hands off technology transfer because they focus
rather on incremental improvements of their processes and not on developing new
products or processes.

The share of newly developed or markedly improved products and processes will be
used to indicate the lifecycle of products and processes but also the innovativeness
of companies. It is supposed that companies with a higher share of newly developed
or markedly improved products and processes are more likely to do technology
transfer than other companies.

Scepticism to collaborate is likely to be one of the major barriers. This accounts for
companies and university researchers as well. University researchers want to
maintain the university a pure institution. They are afraid of potential negative effects
on faculty and students, universities’ mission, reputation and financing. It seems
controversial but university departments already attracting a high share of third party
funding might be afraid to pay for it by decreasing public funding. Companies not yet
12 Desk research results

experienced in technology transfer are likely to underestimate benefits provided by

technology transfer. They might lack confidence in the ability of university
researchers to solve specific in-house problems at reasonable costs. Other barriers
are i.e. difficulties caused by limited resources at universities and companies or
problems with translating acquired knowledge into new or improved products and
processes. This is supposed to be a function of company employees’ qualifications
and continuous support provided by university researchers. Another critical point is
confidentiality and securing research results for the own company. The danger of
spillovers might keep companies far from universities. Finally, also costs are of major
importance. Search and acquisition costs are estimated to be rather high especially
for university research. It requires companies’ expertise to identify potential benefits
for the own business. This too depends on the qualification of companies’ employees
and internal R&D activities. Another barrier might be the handling of IPRs at
universities and companies.

Motives are supposed to differ not only between different organizations like
companies and universities but also within the same organization9. This is assumed
to account primarily for universities where university researchers are rather
autonomous. Companies’ employees are more likely to be streamlined towards
companies’ motives because of the strong link between fulfilling companies’
objectives and employment. Motives are l kely to depend amongst others on the size
of companies. Larger companies might focus on learning and building up
competencies, whereby smaller companies are likely to pay more attention on
directly sellable outcomes like improving products and processes. Access to highly
trained students, graduates, and university researchers is supposed to be important
for companies carrying out R&D. Other motives are sharing risks and costs, ideas for
new products and services, which might depend on the need to innovate, i.e.
companies with a high share of revenues with products and processes being
introduced to markets a long time ago, and ideas for further research. Closely related
are the following motives: Provision of general and useful information, support in the
development and innovation process and access to problem solving capacity, access
to state of the art science, contemporary knowledge, and research networks.
Furthermore, companies might be interested in research excellence, access to
universities’ facilities and the enhancement to companies’ image and reputation by
doing technology transfer with (specific) universities.

9
Kremic, Tibor: Technology Transfer: A Contextual Approach, in: Journal of Technology Transfer,
Vol. 28, 2003, pp. 149-158
Desk research results 13

University researchers will do technology transfer if they are satisfied with their up to
date experience. This is also supposed to be valid for companies. For university
researchers it might be important to fulfill society’s expectation by demonstrating the
economic return of investment in basic research. Additional motives are additive
research funding for i.e. post-doctoral fellows, laboratory equipment and facilities,
access to companies’ technical expertise to provide i.e. students with latest
methodologies, using companies for studies i.e. operations management or logistics,
exposure of students and university researchers to practical problems, and opening
up possibilities for internships and employment opportunities for students and
graduates. The possibility to earn additional personal income is not likely to motivate
university researchers strongly. However, this might depend strongly on other
characteristics like i.e. age and function of university researchers at university
departments. In general, university researchers are supposed to be motivated by
intrinsic motives, i.e. personal prestige, curiosity of research projects and the
recognition within the scientific community10.

Technology transfer is a learning process. Experience and expertise can only be

achieved by actually doing technology transfer. Gaining experience and expertise is
necessary to learn how to exploit ideas and to get a better understanding of the
partner’s needs. Technology transfer is assumed to be influenced positively by
introducing processes, i.e. monitoring and reviewing processes. Monitoring and
reviewing processes are vital to understand how technology transfer is realized,
which supports learning. Additionally important is the question how technology
transfer is initiated. Companies perceive this as a task of universities and vice versa.

Means to do technology transfer are different regarding their purpose, costs, duration
and the involvement of company employees, university researchers and students.
Smaller companies are likely to rely on smaller projects like master theses, which are
economically and less resource intensive than doctoral theses. Also the ways how
companies finance universities and university departments influence technology
transfer means, i.e. companies short time financing universities with clear objectives
versus grants for universities with possibilities in co-designing the direction of
research without clearly defined deliverables.

Finally, technology transfer is supposed to depend on continuous support. This goes

along with a shift from linear to non-linear innovation processes. Continuous
interaction is important to ensure that i.e. actions agreed during round tables and
10
Frey, Bruno S.; Osterloh, Margit (Eds.): Managing Motivation: Wie Sie die neue
Motivationsforschung für Ihr Unternehmen nutzen können [Managing Motivation: How to use
modern research in motivation for your company], Wiesbaden 2000
14 Desk research results

workshops are actually realized. Focusing on steady interaction could also solve
problems with i.e. translating research results into business success.
Technology transfer survey 15

5 Technology transfer survey

This chapter provides an overview regarding general issues related to the survey and
its results. The analyses were done with SPSS, a standard statistic software tool. The
two major methodologies used are frequency and bi-variate analyses. The objective
of the survey was the identification of relations between university researchers’ and
companies’ characteristics, technology transfer features, barriers and motives and
served to set up the typology for companies and university researchers as basis for
identifying suited recommendations to improve technology transfer.

5.1 General issues

In the following, an overview of general issues related to the questionnaires is

provided. It deals with target groups, data sources, and the survey’s technical issues.

University researchers working at the author’s affiliation, Graz University of

Technology11, were chosen for the survey of university researchers. The university is
active in technology and technology related research. It gives place to about 1,200
university researchers employed in more than 100 departments, which are grouped
in seven faculties. The university earned in 2005 about a quarter of the overall
budget with projects with third parties, i.e. with industry, but also taking part in EU
projects and the l ke. Every single university researcher was approached to fill out the
questionnaire because university researchers are rather autonomous in their
research and the supposed dependency of technology transfer features, barriers,
and motives on individual university researcher’s characteristics. 1,511 companies12
in Styria were invited to participate in the survey. The companies are active in
different business areas. The questionnaire did not focus on specific knowledge
intensive sectors but also on sectors usually considered as low- or medium-tech
sectors. The individuals the questionnaire aimed at were either CEOs13 or R&D,
innovation, or collaboration managers. These employees are usually respons ble for
collaborations with external R&D providers like universities. The necessary data to
approach these companies were provided by Herold, a business data service

11
See [Link] for further information on Graz University of Technology
12
Company survey participants were asked to answer the questions only for the company location
named in the invitation. Companies wi h more than one location in Styria were examined
separately.
13
Especially in case of smaller companies, which are not that differentiated regarding their
organizational structure.
16 Technology transfer survey

provider14. The industrial sectors, which were chosen for the survey, are knowledge
intensive service providers15, high- and medium-tech companies16, companies being
active in other industrial sectors likely to have potential to collaborate with universities
and companies either already using services of the technology transfer office at Graz
University of Technology or marked as R&D performing companies, i.e. taking part in
regional, national or international R&D programs17.

The questionnaire for Styrian companies was realized as online questionnaire18 and
MS Word document for download. For the online questionnaire companies had to
enter individual access codes, which came along with the invitation e-mail. Thus, it
was possible to link entered data with centrally available data l ke zip code and
industrial sectors companies belong to. Answers sent back by e-mail or fax were
identified with the help of the e-mail address, fax number or companies’ name. The
questionnaire for university researcher was realized as MS Word and PDF document
for download.

Before the questionnaires were sent out four pretests were performed, two with
university researchers and two with company employees. The pretests served to
further improve questionnaires regarding time efforts to fill them out, clarity of
questions and testing the invitation function and accessibility of the online
questionnaire. The questionnaires were also discussed with colleagues experienced
in setting up questionnaires and realizing surveys within and outside the university.

14
Herold offers the Herold Business Marketing CD. It is updated regularly and provides the most
comprehensive data of companies in Austria. The data sources of which Herold collects relevant
data are insurance agencies, the Austrian Kreditschutzverband [credit assurance association],
Telecom Austria, journals and newspapers. Prior to enter data every single company is contacted
by phone to make sure the company is actually doing business and wants to be included in the
database.
15
According to the EU definition knowledge intensive service providers are companies active in the
following NACE sectors: 72, 73, 741, 742, 734 and 744.
16
According to the EU definition high- and medium-tech companies are companies active in the
following NACE sectors: 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 352, 353, 354 and 355.
17
These companies were identified by checking industrial sectors of companies already having
contacts to the central technology transfer office at Graz University of Technology, manual checks
of additional industrial sectors and their potential interest in universities’ knowledge and companies
with entries related to participation in EU framework programs and national, regional and local R&D
programs, which are regularly updated by the staff of the technology transfer office at Graz
University of Technology. Companies active in the following NACE sectors were chosen: 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 201, 202, 203300, 211, 23, 252, 2623, 2624, 2626, 264, 265, 2682, 27, 282, 283, 285,
2862, 37, 40, 41, 4521, 4523, 4524, 4525, 623, 624, 642001, 748705 and 851404.
18
The online provider [Link] was chosen because of the convenient features and the good
costs/benefits ratio. The program is rather easy to handle, even for people not familiar with online
questionnaires, and the customer support by e-mail quite good and fast. It also offers the possibility
to stop filling out the questionnaire any time, close the browser window and to continue the survey
without losing the previously entered data. Also other providers like [Link] or
customized solutions like a self programmed questionnaire were taken into considera ion, but finally
the convincing cost/benefit ratio favored [Link]. The program was also recommended by
other colleagues working in the area of statistics.
Technology transfer survey 17

The questionnaires were also presented to the university management19 and

members of the university staff association for scientific employees. Finally, also Prof.
Wohinz as the primary coach of this thesis examined the questionnaires before they
were sent out to university researchers at Graz University of Technology and
companies.

Companies’ invitations for taking part in the study were sent out by e-mail on 31st of
May and 1st of June 2005. Returned mails were checked and then sent again during
the following days. A reminder was sent out on 28th of June 2005. Companies were
asked to fill out the questionnaire until 8th of July 2005. The text of invitation and
reminder mails was similar for all companies except for some individual parts20. The
online questionnaire worked reasonable well. University researchers were
approached by the staff association for scientific employees at Graz University of
Technology. The staff association rejected the idea to invite university researchers
using the online questionnaire out of confidentiality reasons. The author approached
university researchers personally known on 26th of May 2005 announcing the
forthcoming survey. The invitation mail for university researchers was sent out by e-
mail on 2nd of June 2005 by the staff association. They sent out an e-mail attaching a
MS Word document with the invitation text and the link to download the
questionnaire. Some university researchers were not able to open the MS Word
document because they did not use MS office programs. Therefore, an additional
PDF file was created for university researchers using other software then MS office.
Compared to the answers of companies the answers of university researchers
contained more mistakes like wrongly entered data and taken convergences. On 23rd
of June 2005, an e-mail was sent to department heads reminding them to take part
and to forward the e-mail to their employees and colleagues.

The following part compares survey participants with all invited university researchers
and companies according to chosen stratification criteria. Figure 3 shows the
composition of the group of survey participants compared to the overall composition
at the university w.r.t. the major participating personnel categories. Professors,
assistant professors, and assistants (doctoral students) are the ones contributing
over the average to the results. The highest response rate is within the group of
professors. This group might have the highest response rate because they are in
charge for the strategic direction of the department, which includes technology
transfer. Therefore, their interest in improving technology transfer is assumed to be

19
Rector, vice rectors and head of the rector’s office of Graz University of Technology
20
I.e. in case the person of the company responsible for technology transfer was known by name to
the author the e-mail addressed this person personally. Additional individual parts were related to
the access code for the online questionnaire and the company’s name and loca ion.
18 Technology transfer survey

rather high. Especially project and third party funded employees have rather low
response rates. It was assumed that especially project and third party funded
employees would be interested in providing suggestions because of their
dependency on technology transfer. In total 81 questionnaires were answered out of
1,207 invited persons giving an overall response rate of 6.71 %.

Figure 3: Comparison of composition of invited and participating university researchers w.r.t. major
participating personnel categories

The faculties beginning with the largest ones in number of heads are: Chemistry,
process engineering and biotechnology, civil engineering, mechanical engineering
and economics, mathematical and physical sciences, electrical and information
engineering, architecture and computer science. University researchers of the
faculties Mechanical engineering and economics, Chemistry, process engineering
and biotechnology and Civil engineering provided the majority of responses.
Together these three faculties provided 59 responses. The faculties for Architecture
and Computer science provided the lowest response rate21.

21
Note that responses are headcounts but he reference to calculate the participation rate for
faculties is measured in full time equivalents (FTEs). The total number of FTEs is 937 5, the
number of invited university researchers 1,207. Thus, on average one person accounts for around
78 % FTEs. There might be differences between faculties but it is not possible to account for them
because of missing data. An additional restriction is the time of reference. The number for FTEs is
referenced to 2004, the number of heads to end of May 2005. However, it seems valid to compare
both values on a percentage base, especially because during 2004 and 2005 major changes in the
employment structure of faculties were not reported.
Technology transfer survey 19

Figure 4: Comparison of composition of invited and participating university researchers w.r.t. university
researchers’ faculties

Even though the majority of the more than 100 university departments of Graz
University of Technology have more than 20 employees (including administrative
staff) University researchers working at departments with 6 to 20 employees have a
far higher than average response rate. This is in line with the previous examination of
the response behavior according to the personnel categories taking into account that
larger departments are likely to have a higher than average share of project and third
party funded employees.

Figure 5: Comparison of composition of invited and participating university researchers w.r.t.

department size
20 Technology transfer survey

For the analysis of responses, companies were classified in four groups: The initial
sample of all invited companies, survey participants, dropped out companies22 and
non-responding companies23. Companies’ responding behaviour was examined
according to the following centrally available characteristics: Zip code, industrial
sector, size of companies measured in numbers of employees, year of foundation,
sales, productivity as sales divided by number of employees and notes regarding the
participation of companies in R&D programs24. Additionally responses were cross-
checked with groups established for the invitation mails: Companies, where the
author personally knew the representatives, companies having contacts to the
technology transfer office at Graz University of Technology, large and well-known
companies, and others. In total, 177 companies answered to the survey, giving a
response rate of 11.71 % of the initial sample of invited companies.

Almost 40 % of all invited companies are located in or near to the city of Graz, the
capital of Styria. The survey participants’ quote is even higher with around 50 %.
Graz University of Technology is also located in Graz. Companies within the same
geographic area might have felt more obliged to respond. Furthermore, it is likely that
due to the higher concentration of companies within the Graz region the need for
collaborations with external partners like universities is higher than in the more rural
areas of Styria.

22
Companies that dropped out are companies which started the survey but did not finish and
companies answering that i.e. they were too small or active in business areas without need to do
technology transfer.
23
These companies did not start the online survey and did not mention reasons why they were not
interested in taking part in the survey.
24
Remember that data regarding the participation in R&D programs were entered manually by the
technology transfer office at Graz University of Technology. It is not exhaustive and therefore
allows only a qualitative examination.
Technology transfer survey 21

Figure 6: Distribution of companies of the respective groups according to their zip codes

The analysis regarding industrial sectors does not show major differences. Industrial
sectors were examined very detailed. This was necessary to identify companies
potentially being interested in technology transfer with universities and to not include
companies obviously being uninterested in technology transfer. Note the number of
entries of industrial sectors (1,698) is not similar to the number of invited companies
(1,511). This is because some companies are active in more than one industrial
sector.

Figure 7: Distribution of companies of the respective groups according to their industrial sectors
22 Technology transfer survey

The participation of small enterprises is lower than expected due to their share in the
initial invitation sample. Larger companies were more willing to answer. The reasons
could be manifold like increasing interest in technology transfer or a greater
openness towards such kinds of surveys with an increasing size.

Figure 8: Distribution of companies of the respec ive groups according to their number of employees

Companies with lower sales have a lower than average response rate whereas
companies with higher sales have a higher than average response rate. This is
consistent with the table related to the number of employees where larger companies
showed a higher than average response rate.

The productivity is calculated as sales divided by the number of employees.

Companies with a productivity of up to 150,000 EUR had a lower than average
response rate. Companies with a high productivity have a higher than average
response rate.
Technology transfer survey 23

Figure 9: Distribution of companies of the respective groups according to their produc ivity (sales
divided by number of employees)

Companies founded between 1965 and 1975 have a lower than average participation
rate than expected due to their share in the invitation sample. For companies
founded after 1995 and between 1945 and 1955 the response rate is higher than the
average. The possible reasons remain unclear. For younger companies one
explanation might be that these companies could have a higher than average share
of knowledge in their products and services. This seems plaus ble because founding
companies in highly industrialized countries like Austria seems only possible if
companies operate in rather knowledge intensive business areas and such
companies are supposed to be more open towards technology transfer with
universities.
24 Technology transfer survey

Figure 10: Distribution of companies of he respective groups according to their year of foundation

About 20 % of all invited companies have manual entries regarding their participation
in R&D programs25. Their share regarding participation doubled, which is a strong
sign for the increasing interest in technology transfer due to R&D activities.

25
Remember that these entries were done manually by the technology transfer office at Graz
University of Technology. They are not exhaustive. They were entered in case the technology
transfer office noted a company taking part in R&D programs. The entries are not part of the Herold
Marketing CD. Thus, the actual number of companies having taken part in national and
international R&D programs is likely to be higher than the one in this survey.
Technology transfer survey 25

Figure 11: Distribution of companies with manual entries regarding participation in R&D programs
according to their answering behavior

The following graph shows the distribution of invited and participating companies
regarding their relations to the technology transfer office at Graz University of
Technology. The group with existing contacts to the technology transfer office at
Graz University of Technology has a higher than average response rate. The reason
might be that for these companies the importance of technology transfer with
universities is higher than for other companies. Also the existing personal relations of
the author with some of the companies might have positively supported the
answering behavior of these companies.

Figure 12: Distribu ion of companies w.r.t. their relation to the technology transfer office at Graz
University of Technology according to their participation and answering behavior
26 Technology transfer survey

5.2 Frequency analyses for companies and university researchers

In the following, the results of the two questionnaires processed with the help of
frequency analyses are presented. Frequency analyses are one of the basic tools of
SPSS and are especially well suited for a first look at a large amount of data
(SPSS26). These analyses are a major step for getting a better feeling of the
importance of specific characteristics in technology transfer.

5.2.1 Frequency analyses for companies

The majority of responding company representatives is aged between 31 and 50

years. Out of 177 replies more than one third does not have a degree from
universities or universities of applied science. 51 respondents are graduates from
Graz University of Technology, 24 from University of Graz, a classical university,
seven from University of Leoben, three from Vienna University of Technology, and
two from campus02, a university of applied science in Graz offering vocational
courses. 14 respondents graduated from universities or universities of applied
sciences located in other parts of Austria, Germany or USA.

113 respondents are CEOs, 17 R&D managers. Other respondents are department
heads, management assistants, plant or business unit managers, innovation or
liaison managers, marketing managers or CFOs.

The median value of their companies’ yearly sales is 2.5 Mio EUR. The average is
higher with around 30 Mio EUR. This shows the influence of several large
companies. The following table shows the distribution of companies according to
different sale’s classes. The numbers are based on the average for the years 2003,
2004 and 2005e.

26
SPSS (Ed.): SPSS Base 12.0 Benutzerhandbuch [SPSS Base 12 0 user manual], Munich 2003
Technology transfer survey 27

Average sales in Mio EUR for 2003 Valid Cumulative

to 2005e Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Up to 0.5 29 16.4 17.6 17.6
From 0.5 to 1 22 12.4 13.3 30.9
From 1 to 5 51 28.8 30.9 61.8
From 5 to 10 15 8.5 9.1 70.9
From 10 to 50 30 16.9 18.2 89.1
More than 50 18 10.2 10.9 100.0
Total 165 93.2 100.0
Missing System 12 6.8
Total 177 100.0

Table 1: Average companies' sales for 2003 to 2005e

The majority of companies provide custom-made specialized services. The number

of answers of the graph beneath is higher than the number of participating
companies because companies had the possibility to choose more than one
category.

Figure 13: Product and service categories companies are active in

The companies employ on average almost 150 people, the median value is 25. The
distribution according to different size categories of employees is similar to the one
for sales figures. On average one company employes 24 university graduates, on
median the value decreases to two. 18 out of 24 university graduates are on average
graduates of universities of technology. The median value decreases again to two.

The majority of companies focus on quality leadership followed by niche strategy,

technology leadership and finally cost leadership, which is mentioned rather seldom.
The average percentage share of newly developed or markedly improved products
and services on sales within the last three years is around 27 %, the median value
28 Technology transfer survey

20 %. The average export quota is around 33 %, the median value with 12 % much
lower. Germany is for more than 30 % of all companies the most important export
country followed by Slovenia and Great Britain. More than 70 % of companies are at
least partly process oriented and almost 80 % of the companies use innovation
management methods at least rarely. 97 of all participating companies continuously
carry out R&D, 29 companies rarely. In total, more than 70 % of all companies
perform internally R&D.

Figure 14: Companies' frequency in carrying out R&D

Of 51 companies not carrying out R&D, seven have at least expenditures for external
R&D services. Two thirds of companies carrying out R&D also have expenditures for
external R&D services. The median value for total R&D expenditures amounts to 5 %
of sales, about 160,000 EUR per year. Average values are higher because of large
companies’ answers. The majority of companies spend from 5 to 20 % of their annual
R&D expenditures for external R&D services. 113 companies already have contacts
to or collaborations with universities. Thereof 60 companies, more than 50 %, have
expenditures for universities. 12 of 53 companies without expenditures for
universities have regular contacts to universities, the remaining part, 41 companies,
rarely. 40 companies not yet doing technology transfer with universities are
interested in doing technology transfer. This accounts for roughly one quarter of all
responses. 24 companies not yet doing technology transfer with universities are not
interested in doing so.
Technology transfer survey 29

Figure 15: Distribution of companies regarding different relationship possibilities

Reasons for not being interested in technology transfer are lack of overlapping
activities, i.e. not carrying out R&D, fear of losing internal knowledge, negative
attitude of management towards collaborations with universities and lack of
resources.

It is supposed that motivation of companies to get in contact with universities is

multifaceted. The results show that this assumption is reasonable. The development
of new products or services is stated most often with high importance, followed by
access to potential new employees. On the other end of the scale contacts with
universities are not perceived as appropriate to access new markets and balance
capacity needs. Additionally motives are access to literature and realization of basic
research within a reasonable period. According to company representatives,
university researchers are motivated by establishing contacts for potential industrial
careers, scientific interest in research proposals, and the possibility to finance theses
and departments’ employees. Collaborations as task of universities, using
companies’ infrastructure and additional personal income are not rated as that
important. Existing personal contacts are the main reason for companies to contact
specific university departments. Other important criteria are recommendations of
others like suppliers, customers, or partners, excellence of research and geographic
prosimity. Rather unimportant are publications in scientific journals, articles in press
media and internet, Radio and TV broadcasts. Additionally mentioned factors are
30 Technology transfer survey

industrial liaison or technology transfer offices looking for and establishing contacts to
relevant university departments and projects with customers, which already have
contacts to specific university departments. The most frequently stated modus to
establish contacts with university departments is the active and direct approach of
university researchers followed by university researchers and students approaching
companies. One company mentioned that it uses conferences and events, which are
attended by university researchers to establish contacts.

Expenditures for universities differ considerably from company to company. They

range from 0.3 to 100 % of all R&D expenditures. The median value is 8.7 %. Of all
companies, which assessed the future development of their expenditures for
universities, more than 90 % stated that expenditures will either increase or stay
stable. The two groups are distributed equally regarding the numbers of answers. On
average companies spend the majority of expenditures measured in percentage for
collaborative research projects. Additional mentioned technology transfer means are
participation in projects with competence centers27 and internships.

Of 108 companies in contact with or having expenditures for universities only two do
not have contacts to or collaborations with Styrian universities, 61 often and 45
rarely. Of 90 responses, 16 have often contacts to or collaborations with Austrian
universities outside Styria, 38 rarely and 36 never. The situation for German and
Suisse universities is similar. 13 companies often have contacts to or collaborations
with universities in these countries, 34 rarely and 43 never. Of 69 companies 11 often
have contacts to or collaborations with universities in countries not yet mentioned,
seven rarely and 51 never. Of the new EU countries especially contacts to or
collaborations with universities in Slovenia are rather frequent. The reasons for
contacts to or collaborations with universities outside Styria are specific research and
knowledge, projects funded within EU framework programs with the need of different
European partners and universities actively approaching Styrian companies.
Occasionally other reasons like costs, previous bad experiences, and existing
personal contacts are mentioned.

Contacts to or collaborations with universities of technology are far more important

than to other types of universities, i.e. classical universities. Of 107 companies 57

27
Competence centers are part of structural funding programs administrated by the Austrian funding
agency FFG ([Link]). They aim at translating scientific excellence in international market
success. Competence centers are organizations, jointly established by partners from science and
industry, doing high level research with immediate economic applications. Competence centers
started in 2000 and are funded for seven years. International experts evaluating the competence
centers emphasized „their effectiveness to establish closer links between science and companies.
They have contributed considerably to creating a new culture of collaborations.“.
Technology transfer survey 31

have exclusively and 31 primarily contacts to or expenditures for universities of

technology. The majority of companies are in contact with only a handful of university
departments. Considering that many of these companies have contacts to or
expenditures for more than one university companies’ contacts at universities seem
to be rather focused. 64.1 % of companies do technology transfer since up to max.
10 years.

The majority of companies do not have systems in place to measure the impact of
collaborations with universities on the economic success of the company. Reviewing
projects with universities is done more frequently. More than half of the answering
companies enter long-term relations with relevant university departments. In almost
all companies, management supports collaborations with universities. In more than
70 % of all cases, more than one company employee has contacts to universities.
This would mean that even in case individuals with contacts to universities leave the
company contacts to universities remain.

Barriers most often assessed with high importance are: (1) Passive attitude of
universities. (2) Fear of losing confidential data and (3) insecurity regarding
exploitation and ability to secure research results. Negative attitudes of university
researchers towards collaborations with companies are not seen as important barrier.
Asked about the importance of barriers caused by companies a high workload is
most often assessed as highly important barrier followed by not knowing the whole
variety of technology transfer means and companies behaving too passive. Company
representatives do not think that university researchers would assess the negative
influence of technology transfer on research and teaching and potential conflicts
caused by third party funding as highly important barriers. Additional barriers refer to
a lack of understanding companies’ problems. In addition, arrogant attitudes of
individual university researchers, insufficient project management skills, problems in
negotiating IPRs and lack of human capital at universities are mentioned as barriers.

Asked for their need for support company representatives wish for better
presentations of universities’ competencies, skills, research and poss bilities to
realize projects. Additional entries refer to project management skills, i.e. focusing on
deliverables, paying attention to deadlines, funding, i.e. leaner bureaucracy, and
facilitating strategic collaborations.
32 Technology transfer survey

5.2.2 Frequency analyses for university researchers

University researchers of the faculty for mechanical engineering and economics

constituted the largest group of participants followed by colleagues of the faculty for
chemistry, process engineering and biotechnology. The majority of participating
university researchers work at departments with more than 20 employees followed by
departments with 11 to 20 employees. The largest group of responding university
researchers has up to 30 years. The second largest group consists of university
researchers aged from 36 to 45 years. In accordance to the age distribution
participating university researchers are mostly university assistants and scientific
employees in formation followed by professors. The vast majority of participating
university researchers is financed by the regular university budget followed by
colleagues paid for by third party funds. On average participating university
researchers entered the university in 1993. The median value is 2001. There are two
major groups. One group comprises university researchers with up to four year
experiences at Graz University of Technology. The second major group consists of
university researchers, who are at the university since 10 years and longer. The
average working experience in companies is 3.8 years, the median 1 year. More than
one third of participating university researchers does not have any working
experience in companies.

90.2 % of the 81 responding university researchers already have contacts to

companies, thereof 77.8 % regularly and 12.3 % rarely. Of eight researchers not yet
having contacts to companies three are interested in building up contacts to
companies. Five are not interested in doing so. These university researchers
emphasized their interest in basic research. In their opinion, companies are not able
or willing to engage in this kind of research.
Technology transfer survey 33

Figure 16: University researchers' categories in technology transfer

Two motives are mentioned especially often as highly important for university
researchers to do technology transfer. One is scientific interest and the other the
possibility to finance master and doctoral students and departments’ employees. On
the other end of the scale, mentioned especially often as unimportant, are Financing
your own job and Additional personal income. Additional motives are technology
transfer positively influencing the image of the university, additional finances as vital
for the survival of the university, to keep own competencies up to date, to finance
vocational trainings and doing technology transfer for the own personal (non-
financial) satisfaction. University researchers were asked to assess the importance of
companies’ motives to do technology transfer. The motive mentioned most often with
high importance is Universities as cost efficient R&D service providers. This is
followed by improving existing products and services and building up competencies
with the help of universities. On the other end of the scale, assessed as rather
unimportant, are access to new customers and markets and universities to increase
capacities temporarily.

The number of contacts to different companies per month varies strongly. The
maximum are 50 contacts, the median value is four. The median time spent for
teaching, doing basic research and technology transfer is split equally. These results
confirm the remarks made by Etzkowitz28, who stated that technology transfer is
already one of the core missions of universities besides teaching and research.

28
Etzkowitz, Henry: The European entrepreneurial university: An alternative to the US model,
Industry & Higher Education, 2003, pp. 325-335
34 Technology transfer survey

University researchers most often do consultancies for companies followed by

organizations of guest lectures and the like and coaching master and bachelor
theses commissioned by companies. Other technology transfer means are used less
frequently.

The primary mechanisms to start collaborations with companies are university

researchers directly approaching companies and companies directly approaching
university researchers. Other forms play only a minor role. Additionally mentioned
mechanisms are heads of working groups and departments and colleagues acquiring
projects, known company partners opening up new contacts to other companies,
public organizations approaching university researchers, collaborations within EU
programs and competence centers27 brokering collaborations. The project frequency
with regular customers is mentioned most often as high, the one with occasional and
first time customers is less frequently. The project size is mentioned most often high
for regular customers and becomes gradually smaller for occasional and first time
customers. This is in line with the assumption that companies start with rather small
collaborations to learn to know university researchers and to establish trust before
engaging in larger projects. University researchers collaborate most frequently with
companies in Styria followed by Austria w/o Styria, Germany or Switzerland and
other countries. This shows the importance of short geographic distances and equal
cultural background, i.e. same language. The average size for projects with
companies located in Styria is smaller than for companies of other geographic areas.
This might be linked to the importance of regional collaborations for smaller
companies and first time customers, which usually contract smaller projects. Larger,
more experienced companies also collaborate with universities in other geographic
areas and these companies usually contract larger projects.

The majority of university researchers perceive their collaborations with companies

as supportive for their own teaching and research activities. Reasons are exchanging
experiences, new points of views and companies providing data for setting up and
analyzing theories. However, there are also negative responses, i.e. time efforts for
collaborations. In some cases, collaborations are seen as interesting but also
hindering the scientific career because of losing time for basic research.

The majority of university researchers do not yet have explicit obligatory standards
for technology transfer. If they have standards in place, they refer to departments’
quality management systems, model agreements for master theses and standardized
offers for services comparable to engineering offices. University researchers most
often actively seek feedback from companies and, if necessary, set up and realize
Technology transfer survey 35

measures based on this feedback. Other activities like support until reaching market
success or providing support in identifying and submitting funding proposals are not
realized frequently.

67 % of responding university researchers would l ke to expand their collaborations

with companies.

Figure 17: University researchers’ attitude regarding an expansion of technology transfer

University researchers assessed passive companies most often as highly important

barrier followed by high workload in companies. A negative influence of
collaborations on teaching and research is not seen as important barrier. University
researchers also assessed the importance of barriers out of the viewpoint of
company representatives. The barrier Difficulties in finding the right contact person at
universities is mentioned most often with high importance. This is followed by high
workload at university departments and the fear of confidential data leaking to
competitors. Skeptical attitude of university researchers and high costs of
collaborations with universities are judged as rather unimportant. University
researchers mentioned additional barriers: Competition via costs with other
universities and universities of applied sciences, lack of resources, lack of
understanding how companies work and what they need, lack of incentives to do
technology transfer and lack of understanding benefits of basic research on side of
companies.

The main assistance needs for technology transfer mentioned by university

researchers are additional personnel resources, leaner administration within the
university and in applying for external funding, opening up new contacts and
increased marketing for the university.
36 Technology transfer survey

5.3 Bi-variate analyses for companies and university researchers

The following results are based on bi-variate analyses. The primary methods used
are cross tables, bi-variate correlations und T-tests, see the SPSS user manual
12.026 for guidelines and examples for the different methods.

5.3.1 Companies: What makes companies in- or outsiders?

The following examination analyzes differences of companies’ characteristics with

reference to their current technology transfer status29. It does not yet matter whether
companies actually have expenditures for universities or not. The majority of
participating companies already have contacts to or expenditures for universities,
63.8 %.

Insiders usually carry out R&D and have rather high absolute R&D expenditures. The
higher the absolute R&D expenditures the higher the probability that these
companies already have contacts to or expenditures for universities. The share for
external R&D services does not play a statistically significant role regarding contacts
to or expenditures for universities. It was supposed that companies follow a specific
sequence for collaborations with external R&D service providers. This did not prove
true in case of this survey.

Insiders are in general manufacturers. Service providers are less likely to have
contacts to or expenditures for universities, independently if offering standardized or
customized specialized services. Companies being part of a group of companies
rather have contacts to or expenditures for universities. However, this result might be
influenced by other variables like the number of employees. The correlation between
the number of employees and being part of a group of companies is statistically
significant. If a company is part of a group of companies, the company has in general
more employees. A higher number of employees leads to a higher probability of
being an insider. The same accounts for sales figures. Besides the total number of
employees, also the qualification of employees plays a role. The higher the share of
highly qualified employees the higher the probability of companies having contacts to
or expenditures for universities. Companies with a higher share of in the last three
years newly developed or markedly improved products and processes on sales
rather have contacts to or expenditures for universities. Insiders have on average a
29
Insiders are companies already doing technology transfer. Outsiders are the ones not yet doing
technology transfer; see Beise, Marian; Spielkamp, Alfred (Eds.): Technologietransfer von
Hochschulen: Ein Insider-Outsider Effekt [Technology Transfer from Universities: An Insider-
Outsider effect], ZEW Discussion Paper 96-10, Mannheim 1996
Technology transfer survey 37

share of 30.7 %; the median value is 25 %. For outsiders the values decrease to 21
% (average) and 10 % (median). The export quote shows the same tendency.
Companies with higher export shares rather have contacts to or expenditures for
universities. For outsiders the average export share is 18.3 % (average) and 1 %
(median). For insiders values increase to 42.4 % (average) and 32.5 % (median).

Companies focusing on the following strategic options have a higher probability to

have contacts to or expenditures for universities: Quality and technology leadership
and niche strategy. The majority of companies following cost leadership strategies do
not have contacts to or expenditures for universities. Companies being partly or
totally process oriented as well as companies applying innovation management
methodologies are more likely to be insiders. Again, this is likely to depend on i.e. the
total number of employees. And in fact, with a higher number of employees
companies are more likely to be process oriented and to apply innovation
management methodologies. Companies with academics from universities being
responsible for contacts to or expenditures for universities are more likely to be
insiders. On the second place are companies with employees graduated from
universities of applied sciences. Companies with employees being responsible for
contacts to or expenditures for universities, who did not graduate from universities or
universities of applied sciences, have the lowest probability to have contacts to or
expenditures for universities.

The only sector with statistically significant influence on the classification of

companies in in- or outsiders is the construction sector. More than 68 % of
companies belonging to this sector do not have contacts to or expenditures for
universities. This is rather different to companies of other sectors, where usually a
rather large share has contacts to or expenditures for universities. The year of
foundation provides a mixed picture. The median value of the year of foundation for
all participating companies is 1992, the average value 1984. Companies founded
1992 upwards have a statistically significant higher probability of being insiders.
Calculated with the mean value, 1984, a statistically significant relation does not exist
anymore. However, it is likely that due to cultural changes like universities and
companies becoming more open for technology transfer companies are more
motivated to collaborate with universities and vice versa. Younger companies are
more likely to embrace such changes faster than older, more traditional companies.

The companies’ location and the age and function of employees being responsible
for contacts to or expenditures for universities are not statistically significant related
to the question of being an in- or outsider. However, the larger companies are the
38 Technology transfer survey

more likely that the responding individuals within the companies chose the option
R&D manager. This forebodes to a more differentiated organizational form of the
company. Such companies show a higher likelihood of being insiders than
companies where CEOs or individuals holding other functions than CEOs answered.

5.3.2 Companies: Differences between companies having expenditures for

universities, companies not having expenditures for but contacts to
universities and companies not having contacts to universities

The initial typology is now further detailed. While for the above analyses insiders
were not divided in companies with expenditures for universities and companies not
having expenditures for but contacts to universities the following analyses consider
this fact. Thus, companies are now divided in three groups. This is necessary to
identify differences between companies with expenditures for universities, companies
not having expenditures for universities but contacts to and companies not having
contacts to universities. The following graph displays the number of companies
according to the different classes.

Figure 18: Number of companies according to the three different classes

Companies with expenditures for universities continuously carry out R&D. They have
rather high R&D expenditures and are manufacturers. They are likely to be part of a
group of companies, have rather high sales, high export quotes, and a high number
of employees with a high share of highly qualified employees. These companies are
likely to be technology leaders in their respective business areas. They are process
Technology transfer survey 39

oriented and continuously use innovation management methods. In these companies

the organization is differentiated enough to have a function R&D manager, which is in
general hold by an academic, who is responsible for technology transfer issues.

Companies without expenditures for but with contacts to universities rarely carry out
R&D. Thus, they also have smaller R&D expenditures. These companies are either
manufacturers or service providers. They are likely to have smaller sales, medium
export quotes and an overall smaller number of employees compared to companies
with expenditures for universities. They are usually not technology leaders. The
companies are only partly process oriented and rarely use innovation management
methods. Individuals being responsible for technology transfer are graduates from
university of applied sciences, who hold functions others than CEO or R&D manager
within the company.

Companies not having contacts to universities usually do not carry out R&D. They
either have none or only small expenditures for R&D. These companies are likely to
be service providers and/or active in the construction sector. They have small sales,
small export quotes, and small numbers of employees. They too are not technology
leaders. These companies are not process oriented and usually do not use
innovation management methods. These companies are managed by CEOs without
academic education, who are also directly responsible for technology transfer with
universities.

5.3.3 Companies: Differences in technology transfer features of companies with

expenditures for universities and companies without expenditures for but
contacts to universities

Companies with expenditures for universities are in the following compared to

companies without expenditures for but contacts to universities regarding technology
transfer features like i.e. extent or universities’ location companies work with. The
objective is to identify differences related to technology transfer between these two
different groups.

Companies with expenditures for universities use all technology transfer means far
more often than companies without expenditures. In addition, the geographic
dimension of technology transfer is different. Companies with expenditures for
universities also collaborate frequently with universities outside Styria and even
Austria. These companies pay special attention to research excellence at university
departments. Compared to companies without expenditures for universities
40 Technology transfer survey

companies with expenditures for universities more often contact university

researchers directly and are more often contacted by university researchers. They
review more often projects with universities to find out what went good and what
wrong. Finally yet importantly companies with expenditures for universities enter
more often long-term relationships with relevant university departments,
management supports technology transfer, and contacts to universities are usually
distributed on several people within these companies. All these characteristics are
weaker pronounced for companies without expenditures for universities.

5.3.4 Companies: Differences between companies interested in establishing

contacts to universities and companies not being interested in establishing
contacts to universities

The following analyses examine how companies, which are interested in doing
technology transfer, differ in their characteristics from companies not being interested
in doing technology transfer with universities. Both groups did not have contacts to
universities at the time of the survey.

Figure 19: Number of companies at the time of the survey not doing technology transfer according to
their interest in whether or not collaborating with universities

The figure above shows that more than 60 % of the companies not yet having
contacts to universities are interested in establishing contacts to universities.
Opening up these companies would be one poss bility to increase technology
transfer between universities and companies. In relation to the total number of
surveyed companies, this share accounts for almost one quarter. Even though
Technology transfer survey 41

companies stated to be interested in collaborating with universities, one has to

consider that not all companies might have the capabilities and possibilities to
collaborate. However, their motivation to do technology transfer can be regarded as a
prerequisite.

Companies not yet doing technology transfer but being interested in collaborations
with universities carry out R&D and already have expenditures for R&D services
provided by other parties, i.e. other companies of their group, universities of applied
sciences, public or private R&D labs and the like. The companies are likely to be
active in mass production and to focus on technology leadership. Other
characteristics do not play a statistically significant role. However, sales and number
of employees seem to influence the decision at least slightly. Companies with higher
sales and a higher number of employees are more likely to be interested in
establishing contacts to universities.

5.3.5 Companies: Which companies’ characteristics, technology features, barriers,

and motives influence the amount of companies’ expenditures for universities?

This part examines factors influencing the amount of companies’ expenditures for
R&D services provided by universities. The following table shows the average yearly
expenditures for universities in absolute and percentage values.

Average yearly expenditures in % of total

Average yearly expenditures in EUR R&D expenditures
N Valid 45 48
Missing 132 129
Mean 117,455.96 15.00
Median 40,000.00 8.71

Table 2: Companies' average yearly expenditures for universities

Companies’ expenditures for universities are influenced by various factors. Besides

suspected ones like the companies’ size measured in sales and number of
employees as well as the employees’ qualification also other criteria play a role.
Companies with rather high expenditures for universities are likely to be
manufacturers and technology leaders with high overall R&D expenditures. They
already spend a high share of their R&D budget for external R&D services. They are
in contact with universities since many years. These companies focus on research
excellence at university departments, use specific technology transfer means,
focusing on collaborative research projects, and judge university researchers’ attitude
42 Technology transfer survey

towards technology transfer rather positive. All of these companies except one
carried out R&D within the last three years. This confirms the view of i.e. Blume and
Fromm5 about the complementary nature of universities’ and companies’ research.
Universities’ research does not seem to substitute companies’ research. Other
factors l ke motives, barriers export quotes, or industrial sectors are not statistically
significant.

5.3.6 Companies: Which companies’ characteristics, technology features, barriers,

and motives influence companies’ frequency in using technology transfer
means?

Only companies with expenditures for universities were examined for this question.
Companies without expenditures but with contacts to universities use technology
transfer means far less frequently. Therefore, they were not considered for this
examination. The table beneath shows the frequency of use of technology transfer
means for mean and median values for the last three years.
for seminars, lectures

not actively work with

projects (Companies
giving guest lectures

master and bachelor

(Companies actively
Commissioning joint
Taking in consulting
and expert opinions

Using infrastructure
work with university
Providing cases or

contract research

research projects
and construction

Commissioning

Commissioning

Commissioning
doctoral theses

(i.e. for tests)

researchers)

researchers)
university
exercises

theses

N Valid 33 33 43 31 21 47 29
Missing 28 28 18 30 40 14 32
Mean 15.12 3.64 6 91 1.74 1.14 6.51 6.24
Median 3.00 2.00 2 00 1.00 .00 3.00 3.00

Table 3: Companies' use of technology transfer means

Some of the characteristics influence the frequency of use of all technology transfer
means statistically significant. Technology transfer means are used more often if

o Companies have expenditures for universities

o Total R&D expenditures and absolute expenditures for external R&D services are
high and
o Companies have high sales
Technology transfer survey 43

In the following, characteristics influencing the frequency of use of single technology

transfer means are displayed. The analyses showed that companies seem to use
means specifically according to their needs and circumstances.

Providing cases or giving guest lectures for seminars, lectures and construction
exercises as technology transfer means are used more frequently in case:

o Companies are in contact with universities since many years

o Companies are active in mass production, manufacture prototypes or offer
standardized services
o Companies have a large number of employees with a rather high share of
university graduates and graduates from universities of technology

Taking in consulting and expert opinions as technology transfer means are used
more frequently in case:

o Companies assess the motives Improving existing products and processes,

Universities as economic R&D service providers (outsourcing) and Access to pot.
new employees rather important
o Companies enter long-term partnerships with relevant university departments
o Companies are not active in mass production
o Companies are service providers offering custom made specialized services
o Companies employ university graduates
o Companies are technology leaders

Companies using this technology transfer mean rather frequently often measure the
impact of collaborations with universities on the economic success of the company
with the help of indicators.

Commissioning master and bachelor theses as technology transfer means are used
more frequently in case:

o Companies are in contact with universities since many years

o Companies are active in mass production, small production, manufacturing
prototypes or service providers offering standardized services
o Companies have a large number of employees with a rather high share of
university graduates and graduates from universities of technology
44 Technology transfer survey

Commissioning doctoral theses as technology transfer means are used more

frequently in case:

o Companies are in contact with universities located in other countries than Austria,
Germany or Switzerland
o Companies are in contact with a high number of university departments
o Companies are in contact with universities since many years
o Companies are active in mass production or manufacture prototypes
o Companies have a large number of employees with a rather high share of
university graduates and graduates from universities of technology
o Companies which do not follow niche strategies

Companies using this technology transfer mean often measure the impact of
collaborations with universities on the economic success of the company with the
help of indicators.

Commissioning contract research projects (Companies not actively work with

university researchers) as technology transfer means are used more frequently in
case:

o Companies assess the barrier Internal knowledge of the company leaks to

competitors with which university departments are in contact too rather important
o Companies are not active in small production but service providers offering
standardized services
o Companies follow the strategy technology leadership

Commissioning joint research projects (Companies actively work with university

researchers) as technology transfer means are used more frequently in case:

o Companies are active in small production, manufacture prototypes or are service

providers offering standardized services
o Companies have a rather high share of graduates from universities of technology

Using infrastructure (i.e. for tests) as technology transfer means are used more
frequently in case:

o Companies assess the motive Balancing capacity shortages rather important

o Companies manufacturing prototypes
o Companies follow the strategy cost leadership
Technology transfer survey 45

If companies follow the strategies quality or technology leadership they use this
specific technology transfer mean less frequently.

5.3.7 Companies: Which companies’ characteristics, technology transfer features,

barriers, and motives influence the expected future development of
companies’ expenditures for universities?

Companies with expenditures for universities had to estimate the development of

these expenditures for the years 2006 and 2007. The answering options were
Increasing, Stable, and Decreasing.

Figure 20: The future development of companies' expenditures for universities

More than 40 % of companies want to increase their current expenditures for

universities. About half of the responding companies want to hold their expenditures
for universities stable. Only a small part of companies wants to decrease their
expenditures. It is supposed that the decision regarding the future development of
R&D expenditures for universities depends on the current level. However, the results
show the relation is not statistically significant but the trend confirms the assumption.
Companies with currently small expenditures for universities are more likely to want
to increase their expenditures for universities than companies with larger
expenditures for universities. This accounts for percentage as well as absolute
values.
46 Technology transfer survey

Companies regularly carrying out R&D and wanting to build up competencies with
the help of universities are statistically significant more likely to further increase their
expenditures for universities. The examination shows also the trend that companies
with an already high share of expenditures for external R&D services are more l kely
to hold their expenditures for universities stable.

5.3.8 Companies: Which companies’ characteristics and technology transfer

features influence companies’ assessment of the importance of barriers and
motives?

The two variables being examined in the following are the importance of barriers and
motives of companies related to technology transfer with universities. The variables
were examined with the original, ungrouped ratings, high, medium and small
importance and not important, and with two grouped ratings, high importance
together with medium importance and small importance together with not important.
Note that only companies already doing technology transfer with universities had to
answer the importance of motives. Companies not yet doing technology transfer but
being interested in establishing contacts to universities only had to answer the
importance of barriers.

Barriers mentioned most often with high or medium importance are: (1) Universities
are too passive regarding the information and presentation of their research results
and collaboration possibilities. (2) The results of collaborations with university
departments are rather insecure or difficult to realize in companies (i.e. exploitation,
patenting). (3) Know-how of the company or confidential data leaks to competitors
with which the university departments also have contacts. (4) It is hard to find the
right people at universities. University researchers being skeptical regarding
collaborations with companies do not seem to play a major role.
 N
N

Mean
Mean

Median
Median

Valid
Valid

Missing
Missing
Developing new products
and processes

73
104

2.00
1.88
Difficulties in finding the right contacts

31
146

2.00
2.48
Technology transfer survey

seem to play a major role.

Improving existing products Universities are passive in providing
and processes informa ion and presenting their

74
103

2.00
2.05
research results and possibilities to
Building up specific collaborate

30
147

2.00
2.16
competencies with
universities’ support Results of collaborations with

2.00
2.26
73
104
university departments are rather
Universities as economic insecure or difficult to exploit for and
R&D service providers integrate in the company (i.e.

importance, 3 = Small importance, 4 = Not important)

importance, 3 = Small importance, 4 = Not important)
(outsourcing)

3.00
2.59
76
101
protection against spill-overs)
2.00
2.27
31
146

Collaborations with Internal knowledge of the company

universities increase the leaks to competitors with which
likelihood of success to university departments are in contact
acquire additional external too
2.00
2.40
32
145

funding

3.00
2.56
78
99
High work load at university
Access to new customers departments hinder collaborations
with companies
3.00
2.68
35
142

and markets

3.00
3.25
78
99
Balancing capacity Collaborations with university
shortages departments are too expensive

78
99

3.00
3.21
compared to benefits
33
144

3.00
2.51

Access to pot. new

Table 4: Overall assessment of the importance of barriers (1 = High importance, 2 = Medium

Table 5: Overall assessment of the importance of motives (1 = High importance, 2 = Medium

employees University researchers are rather

75
102

2.00
2.32
skeptical towards collaborations with
companies
3.00
2.85
33
144

improving existing products and processes, (3) building up specific competencies

with support from universities and (4) access to potential new employees. Motives
like balancing resource bottlenecks or access to new customers and markets do not
The four major motives are (1) the development of new products and processes, (2)
47
48 Technology transfer survey

Companies assessing the motive Developing new products and processes rather
important have high absolute R&D expenditures and spend a relatively high share of
R&D budget for external R&D services. They frequently commission doctoral theses
and focus on collaborative R&D projects. They highly value publications in scientific
journals and the excellence of research. Usually they actively approach university
researchers and do not turn to industry near organizations to identify suited university
researchers. These companies engage in long-standing relations with relevant
university departments and the companies’ management supports technology
transfer. The companies’ estimated future sales growth is at least + 10 % for the
period 2006 to 2007.

Companies assessing the motive Improving existing products and processes rather
important frequently take in consulting services and expert opinions of university
researchers and commission frequently contract research projects. These companies
judge the barrier Difficulties in finding the right contacts rather important. Also in this
case publications in scientific journals and the excellence of research are important.
The estimated future sales growth ranges from + 5 to + 10 % for the period 2006 to
2007.

Companies assessing the motive Building up specific competencies with universities’

support rather important spend a rather high share of their total R&D expenditures for
external R&D services. They frequently commission joint research projects and
engage in collaborations with universities in other countries than Austria, Germany,
and Switzerland. They are usually in contact with a relatively high number of
university departments and assess the barrier Internal knowledge of the company
leaks to competitors with which university departments are in contact too as rather
important. They too engage in long-standing partnerships with universities and have
a rather high export share.

Companies assessing the motive Universities as economic R&D service providers

(outsourcing) as rather important pay attention to the excellence of research at
university departments. They welcome short geographic distances to universities.

Companies assessing the motive Collaborations with universities increase the

likelihood of success to acquire additional external funding as rather important realize
projects with regional (in this case Styrian) universities and assess the importance of
existing personal contacts rather high.
Technology transfer survey 49

Companies assessing the motive Access to new customers and markets as rather
important realize also projects with universities in other countries than Austria,
Germany, and Switzerland.

Companies assessing the motive Balancing capacity shortages as rather important

rarely carry out R&D and rarely use innovation management methods.

Companies assessing the motive Access to pot. new employees as rather important
usually carry out R&D and have rather high R&D expenditures measured as
percentage share of sales. They often use the technology transfer means Providing
cases or giving guest lectures for seminars, lectures and construction exercises,
Commissioning master and bachelor theses and Commissioning doctoral theses.
These companies realize also projects with universities in Germany or Switzerland
and pay attention to the excellence of research. Access to pot. new employees is
rather important for service providers offering custom-made specialized services and
rather unimportant for low volume manufacturers.

Companies assessing the barrier Difficulties in finding the right contacts as rather
important often do not have expenditures for universities. Companies following
technology leadership strategy, being process oriented and having R&D managers in
charge for technology transfer assess this barrier as rather unimportant.

Companies assessing the barrier Universities are passive in providing information

and presenting their research results and possibilities to collaborate as rather
important judge publications in scientific journals and articles in magazines or internet
about research rather unimportant. They usually turn to central university
departments to find suited university researchers. These companies are often low
volume manufacturers.

Companies assessing the barrier Results of collaborations with university

departments are rather insecure or difficult to exploit for and integrate in the company
(i.e. protection against spillovers) as rather important usually are not yet differentiated
enough to have functions like R&D managers.

Companies assessing the barrier Internal knowledge of the company leaks to

competitors with which university departments are in contact too as rather important
frequently commission contract research projects and engage in projects with Styrian
universities. They pay attention to Presentations of university researchers at
meetings and to the excellence of research. They often turn to central university
50 Technology transfer survey

departments to identify university researchers and measure the impact of

collaborations with universities on the company’s performance with help of indicators.
Often these companies are part of a group of companies.

Companies assessing the barrier High workload at university departments hinder

collaborations with companies as rather important often have expenditures for
universities. They frequently commission joint research projects, are approached by
central university departments for potential projects, and measure the impact of
collaborations with universities on the company’s performance with help of indicators.
Usually these companies are not cost leaders.

Companies assessing the barrier Collaborations with university departments are too
expensive compared to benefits as rather important are often low volume
manufacturers.

Companies assessing the barrier University researchers are rather skeptical towards
collaborations with companies as rather important in general directly approach
university researchers, turn to central university departments to identify university
researchers, or are approached by students for potential projects. The companies
are usually not part of a group of companies and do not follow strategies like cost
leadership or focusing on niches.

With other characteristics like the number of years companies are already in contact
with universities reasonable statistically significant relations do not exist.

5.3.9 University researchers: Which university researchers’ characteristics influence

whether or not university researchers are in contact with companies?

The following examination analyses which characteristics of university researchers

play a role whether or not university researchers have contacts to companies.
Remember that the study was realized with university researchers at Graz University
of Technology. The results for similar studies at other universities might differ. In total
about 90 % of the university researchers already have contacts to companies, almost
80 % regularly.

Researchers of the faculty for mechanical engineering and economics head the
analysis. More than 96 % of university researchers of this faculty already have
contacts to companies. The faculty for construction engineering with more than 93 %
closely follows this faculty. The other faculties follow with a relatively small gap. The
Technology transfer survey 51

different financial sources do not statistically significant influence the question

whether or not university researchers have contacts to companies. However, the
direction seems reasonable. University researchers financed by third party funds
from companies are the ones having most likely contacts to companies followed by
colleagues financed by the regular university budget. On the third and last place are
university researchers paid for by third party funds from other sources than
companies, i.e. national scientific funding programs. In case of examining answers
regarding working experience in industry reduced to yes and no a statistically
significant relation exists. Also the examination with metrical data shows the same
direction even though the relation is not statistically significant anymore: The more
working experience in industry the more likely university researchers have contacts to
companies.

Answers to other questions like university researchers’ age or function at university

departments do not statistically influence if university researchers have contacts to
companies or not.

5.3.10 University researchers: Which university researchers’ characteristics,

technology transfer features, barriers and motives influence the number of
monthly personal contacts of university researchers with different companies?

University researchers were asked for their average number of personal contacts per
month with different companies. This is one possible measure for the extent of
technology transfer. In the following, the influence of other variables on this question
is examined. On average university researchers have contacts to 6.9 companies per
month. The median value is four.

University researchers with a high number of personal contacts to companies per

month spend rather much time for collaborations with companies. They are often
approached by industry near central organizations for projects with companies.
Interestingly, central university departments like technology transfer offices seem to
approach university researchers not yet having a high number of personal contacts to
companies per month. The frequency of use of technology transfer means is rather
high because of their high number of personal contacts to companies and the
amount of time they spend for collaborations with companies. These university
researchers have a stock of regular customers and realize projects with companies
located in other countries than Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. They perceive
collaborations with companies as supportive for own research and provide
companies with information of suited funding poss bilities and support them in setting
52 Technology transfer survey

up proposals for external funding. These university researchers in general already

have working experience in companies.

5.3.11 University researchers: Which university researchers’ characteristics,

technology transfer features, barriers and motives influence the amount of
time spend by university researchers for collaborations with companies?

Instead of the number of personal contacts with companies per month the amount of
time spend for collaborations with companies is examined in the following. The
average time spend for collaborations with companies amounts to 38.5 %, the
median value is 30 %. Compared to the two other major tasks of university
researchers, doing basic research and teaching students, time spend for
collaborations with companies is on a similar level.

Time spent for Time spent for basic Time spent for collabora ions
teaching research with companies
N Valid 72 72 72
Missing 9 9 9
Mean 33.8 27.7 38.5
Median 32.5 30.0 30.0

Table 6: Time spent for teaching, basic research and collaborations with companies

University researchers spending rather much time for collaborations with companies
are primarily aged between 31 and 35 years, have not yet finished their Ph.D. and
are funded by third party funds from companies. They are usually not approached by
other university departments for projects with companies and rather frequently do
consulting for companies. They also realize larger projects with companies in Austria
except Styria. One of the reasons for the high share of time spend for collaborations
with companies of university researchers aged between 31 and 35 years might be a
high share of employees funded by third party funds from companies.
Technology transfer survey 53

Figure 21: Relation between participants’ age and the financial source they are paid for

As shown, the share of university researchers funded by third party funds from
companies is highest in the group of 31 to 35 years. The relation between university
researchers’ age and financial sources they are paid for is statistically significant.

University researchers spending rather little time for collaborations with companies
are either up to 30 years old or older than 35 years. The majority of these university
researchers already have finished their Ph.D.; they are approached by other
university departments brokering projects and realize projects with regular
customers.

Answers to other questions do not statistically significant influence the amount of

time spent for collaborations with companies.

5.3.12 University researchers: Which university researchers’ characteristics and

technology transfer features influence the frequency of use of technology
transfer means?

University researchers were asked to indicate the frequency of use of technology

transfer means. Besides the poss bility to enter additional means in a free text box
university researchers had to respond for the following technology transfer means:
54 Technology transfer survey

o Organization of guest lecturers, practical cases of companies for seminars and

lectures, construction exercises and the like
o Doing consultancies and providing expert opinions
o Coaching master and bachelor theses commissioned by companies
o Coaching doctoral theses commissioned by companies
o Contract research projects for companies (Companies do not actively work
with university researchers)
o Joint research projects with companies (Companies actively work with
university researchers)
o Providing infrastructure (i.e. for tests)

The table shows the range of annual frequency of use for technology transfer means.
Some university researchers use specific forms rather often. Responses for not
applicable were added to missing data. For specific technology transfer means like
Coaching doctoral theses commissioned by companies the number of these
responses were rather high. Only two university researchers used the free text box.
One entered doing tests for companies and the other construction exercises and
doing tests relevant for companies. The small number of entries shows that the given
table already included the major technology transfer means.
of companies for seminars

Contract research projects

(Companies actively work

and lectures, construction

Coaching doctoral theses

providing expert opinions
lecturers, practical cases

Doing consultancies and

Providing infrastructure
university researchers)

Joint research projects

exercises and the like
Organization of guest

Coaching master and

(Companies do not
actively work with
commissioned by

commissioned by
bachelor theses

with companies

with university
for companies

(i.e. for tests)

researchers)
companies

companies

N Valid 59 60 66 39 59 63 52
Missing 22 21 15 42 22 18 29
Mean 3.30 4.18 2.65 1.10 2.03 2.03 1.96
Median 2.00 2.50 2.00 1 00 1.00 1.50 1.00
Minimum .00 .00 .00 00 .00 .00 .00
Maximum 25.00 50.00 15.00 5 00 15.00 10.00 15.00

Table 7: University researchers' annual frequency of use for technology transfer means

The technology transfer mean Organization of guest lecturers, practical cases of

companies for seminars and lectures, construction exercises and the like is not
statistically influenced by university researchers’ characteristics and technology
transfer features.
Technology transfer survey 55

The technology transfer mean Doing consultancies and providing expert opinions is
influenced by one of the modes to establish collaborations with companies.
University researchers often being approached by central industry near organizations
use this technology transfer mean more frequently.

University researchers frequently being approached directly by companies use the

technology transfer mean Coaching master and bachelor theses commissioned by
companies often. University researchers frequently using this technology transfer
mean realize projects with occasional customers and often collaborate with Styrian
companies. They in general use standards like master contracts, support companies
in integrating and exploiting research results, and set up measures based on
feedback from companies to improve collaborations with companies. The rather
frequent use of master contracts is plausible because of the high absolute number of
bachelor and master theses at Graz University of Technology. Per year around 800
students graduate, around the half realizes their theses in collaboration with
companies. In this case, standards help to save time and secure the homogeneity of
contracts. The university departments university researchers work at are in general
small. These university researchers are either up to 30 years old or older than 35
years and have working experience in companies.

University researchers frequently approaching already known collaboration partners

often use the technology transfer mean Coaching doctoral theses commissioned by
companies. They realize projects with regular and occasional customers and
frequently work with companies from Germany or Switzerland. They often support
companies by providing information of suited funding programs and actually help
them in setting up funding proposals.

The technology transfer mean Contract research projects for companies (Companies
not actively work with university researchers) is frequently used by university
researchers often being approached by companies. These university researchers
usually have a Ph.D. and support companies by providing information of suited
funding programs and actually help them in setting up funding proposals.

The technology transfer mean Joint research projects with companies (Companies
actively work with university researchers) is frequently used by university researchers
often approaching potentially new and already known customers. University
researchers often doing joint projects with companies in general realize projects with
companies in Austria except Styria. They often realize following activities: Information
for companies of suited funding programs, Supporting companies in setting up
56 Technology transfer survey

proposals for funding programs, Supporting companies in integrating and exploiting

research results (i.e. accompanying companies until new products or processes are
introduced in markets and the like) and Setting up measures based on feedback from
companies to improve collaborations with companies.

The mean Providing infrastructure (i.e. for tests) is frequently used by professors.
University researchers often using this technology transfer means in general already
have working experience in companies. They rather frequently realize the following
activities: Information for companies of suited funding programs and Supporting
companies in setting up proposals for funding programs.

It was supposed that specific technology transfer means like i.e. doctoral theses or
collaborative research projects are especially well suited to provide valuable input for
university researchers and their own teaching and research activities. However, the
supposed influence is not confirmed by these analyses.

5.3.13 University researchers: Which university researchers’ characteristics,

technology transfer features, barriers and motives influence benefits of
technology transfer perceived by university researchers?

In the following benefits for teaching and research due to technology transfer are
examined. This was measured by asking university researchers to assess benefits
for their teaching and research. The analyses show that university researchers at
Graz University of Technology assess their collaborations with companies rather
supportive for their teaching and research.
Technology transfer survey 57

Figure 22: University researchers' assessment of technology transfer's impact on their teaching

Figure 23: University researchers' assessment of technology transfer's impact on their research

Some university researchers stated that their collaborations with companies are both
positive and negative. University researchers positively assessing technology
transfer stated following reasons: New challenges and insights, different points of
view, gaining experience, access to data and empirical knowledge, linking theory and
practice, gaining financial means, learning to work in interdisciplinary projects, input
for own research and ideas for new research areas and hypotheses. University
researchers perceiving collaborations with companies as obstructive for their own
research stated following reasons: Time exposure, enquiries outside the university
58 Technology transfer survey

researchers’ research area and low scientific content. It is interesting that the two
questions are not statistically significant related with each other.

University researchers assessing collaborations with companies as positive for their

teaching and research are more willing to extend their collaborations with companies.
University researchers positively assessing collaborations with companies for their
teaching frequently realize projects with Styrian companies. The closer collaboration
partners are located the more likely university researchers get positive impulses for
their teaching. These university researchers often realize the activity Supporting
companies in integrating and exploiting research results (i.e. accompanying
companies until new products or processes are introduced in markets and the like).
Faculties and their research areas seem to influence the perception of benefits by
university researchers. University researchers from the faculties civil engineering and
mechanical engineering and economics assess collaborations with companies more
often positively than their colleagues from other faculties. University researchers
positively assessing collaborations with companies for their research establish their
collaborations above average by Other departments at my university broker projects
for me and Companies approach me directly. They frequently realize following
activities: Information for companies of suited funding programs, Seeking feedback
from companies regarding collaborations (i.e. benefits for companies and the like),
and Setting up measures based on feedback from companies to improve
collaborations with companies. These university researchers are usually paid for by
regular university budget.

The answers to other questions do not statistically significant influence the perceived
support provided by collaborations with companies for teaching and research.

5.3.14 University researchers: Which university researchers’ characteristics and

technology transfer features influence barriers and motives?

In the following the influence of university researchers’ characteristics and technology

transfer features on barriers and motives are examined. The following barriers were
listed in the questionnaire:

o Companies are passive and do not ask for research projects and results
o Companies do not know the potential collaboration means with universities like
consultancy, licensing commission seminar theses and the like
o Companies cannot name their needs and problems
o Companies have limited professional capabilities to collaborate with universities
Technology transfer survey 59

o Companies’ aggressive behavior regarding formal protection rights like IPRs

hinder collaborations with universities
o High work load in companies hinder collaborations with universities
o Companies are rather skeptical towards collaborations with universities
o Collaborations with companies negatively influence teaching and research at the
university department
o Too much third party funding negatively influences the university department (i.e.
dependencies, limiting the possibilities to be unbiased, decreasing funding from
public sources)

The following motives were listed in the questionnaire:

o It is one of the tasks of universities to collaborate with companies

o Scientific interest
o Building up contacts for a latter career in companies
o Using companies’ infrastructure
o Financing investments in university department’s infrastructure
o Financing master and doctoral students or university department’s employees
o Financing your own job
o Additional personal income

University researchers also had the possibility to enter additional motives and
barriers freely. The following graphs show the general assessment of the importance
of barriers and motives.
60 Technology transfer survey

Figure 24: University researchers' assessment of barriers

Technology transfer survey 61

Figure 25: University researchers' assessment of motives

Barriers assessed most often with high importance are passive companies and the
high workload in companies. Remember that also companies assessed the
passiveness of university researchers as major barrier. Motives assessed most often
with high importance are gaining financial means to finance master and doctoral
students or employees at the university department and scientific

The barrier Companies are passive and do not ask for research projects and results
is not statistically significant influenced by university researchers’ characteristics,
technology transfer features and motives.

The barrier Companies do not know the potential collaboration means with
universities like consultancy, licensing commission seminar theses and the like is
judged rather unimportant by university researchers realizing projects with occasional
customers.

The barrier Companies cannot name their needs and problems is not statistically
significant influenced by university researchers’ characteristics, technology transfer
features, and motives.
62 Technology transfer survey

The barrier Companies have limited professional capabilities to collaborate with

universities is judged rather unimportant by university researchers realizing projects
with first time customers and by university researchers stating to get new inputs for
their teaching activities due to their collaborations with companies. Professors assess
this barrier in general as rather important, project employees and employees funded
by third parties as rather unimportant.

The barrier Companies’ aggressive behavior regarding formal protection rights like
IPRs hinder collaborations with universities is judged rather unimportant by university
researchers realizing frequently projects with companies in other countries than
Austria, Germany and Switzerland.

The barrier High workload in companies hinder collaborations with universities is not
statistically significant influenced by university researchers’ characteristics,
technology transfer features, and motives.

The barrier Companies are rather skeptical towards collaborations with universities is
assessed rather important by university researchers realizing projects with Styrian
companies and rather unimportant by university researchers realizing projects with
companies outside of Styria. University researchers stating to get new inputs for
teaching usually assess this barrier rather unimportant. In case the barrier is
assessed important university researchers do not want to extend their collaborations
with companies. University researchers with working experience in companies,
independently from the duration, assess the barrier as less important than university
researchers without working experience in companies.

The barrier Collaborations with companies negatively influence teaching and

research at the university department is assessed rather unimportant by university
researchers collaborating more frequently with regular customers and companies in
Austria except Styria. If the barrier is assessed as important university researchers
state to not get new inputs for teaching, perceive collaborations with companies
negatively for their own research and as a result do not want to extend their
collaborations with companies.

The barrier Too much third party funding negatively influences the university
department (i.e. dependencies, limiting the possibilities to be unbiased, decreasing
funding from public sources) is assessed rather unimportant in case university
researchers realize projects with first time customers. Also university researchers
stating to get new inputs for teaching usually judge this barrier rather unimportant.
Technology transfer survey 63

The motive It is one of the tasks of universities to collaborate with companies is

influenced by the barrier Companies cannot name their needs and problems. If
university researchers assess this motive important also the barrier is rather
important. The motive is judge important in case university researchers collaborate
frequently with occasional and first time customers and have a higher project
frequency with Styrian companies. In case university researchers assess their
collaborations with companies positively for their own research, they assess the
motive as rather important. If the activities Supporting companies in integrating and
exploiting research results (i.e. accompanying companies until new products or
processes are introduced in markets and the like), Seeking feedback from companies
regarding collaborations (i.e. benefits for companies and the like) and Setting up
measures based on feedback from companies to improve collaborations with
companies are realized rather frequently the motive is judged rather important.
University researchers assessing this motive rather important are more likely to want
to extend their collaborations with companies.

The motive Scientific interest is influenced by the barrier Collaborations with

companies negatively influence teaching and research at the university department.
In case the motive is judged important, the barrier is assessed unimportant. If
university researchers assess this motive important they spend rather much time for
collaborations with companies and realize frequently projects with regular and
occasional customers. In case university researchers assess their collaborations with
companies positively for their own research, they assess the motive as rather
important.

The motive Building up contacts for a latter career in companies is assessed rather
important in case university researchers realize frequently projects with companies
located in other countries than Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. University
researchers assessing this motive rather important spend much time for
collaborations with companies. They usually neglect benefits for their own research.
In case the motive is important, they usually realize the activity Seeking feedback
from companies regarding collaborations (i.e. benefits for companies and the like)
rather frequently. In general, third party funded university researchers, university
researchers without a Ph.D. and university researchers being at the university only
recently judge this motive more important than others.

The motive Using companies’ infrastructure is assessed more important by university

researchers funded by companies than by university researchers paid for by other
sources.
64 Technology transfer survey

The motive Financing investments in university department’s infrastructure is

influenced by the barrier Companies’ aggressive behavior regarding formal protection
rights like IPRs hinder collaborations with universities. In case university researchers
assess this motive important, they also judge the barrier important. Usually these
university researchers frequently realize projects with occasional customers.

The motive Financing master and doctoral students or university department’s

employees is influenced by the barrier High workload in companies hinder
collaborations with universities. In case university researchers assess this motive
important also the barrier is judged important.

The motive Financing your own job is influenced by the barrier Companies do not
know the potential collaboration means with universities like consultancy, licensing
commission seminar theses and the like. In case the motive is assessed important,
the barrier is assessed unimportant. University researchers assessing this motive as
important spend much time for collaborations with companies and realize frequently
projects with companies in Germany or Switzerland and the activity Seeking
feedback from companies regarding collaborations (i.e. benefits for companies and
the like). Third party funded university researchers have a higher interest in acquiring
financial means to finance their own jobs. In addition, the age, the formal
qualification, and the time university researchers are employed at the university play
a role.

The motive Additional personal income is not statistically significant influenced by

university researchers’ characteristics, technology transfer features, and barriers.

With answers to other questions, statistically significant relations with barriers or

motives do not exist.
Technology transfer survey 65

5.3.15 Companies and university researchers: Assessing the importance of

technology transfer barriers and motives from their own point of view and the
view of potential partners

The following analyses show the assessment of motives and barriers from different
points of view. Companies and university researchers were asked to assess not only
the importance of their own motives and barriers but also the ones encountered
generally by their technology transfer partners. The following analyses refer to the
median values. The two major motives for university researchers to collaborate with
companies are scientific interest and financing master and doctoral students or
university department’s employees. The assessment of the importance of the motives
by university researchers is more differentiated than the one by companies.
Companies assessed the importance of the motives in median with a medium
importance.

Figure 26: University researchers' motives assessed by university researchers and companies
66 Technology transfer survey

Regarding companies’ motivation to do technology transfer, especially the gap for the
motive Universities as economic R&D service providers (outsourcing) is interesting.
Companies do not assess this motive that important. The assessment of university
researchers is different. University researchers think this motive is especially
important for companies.

Figure 27: Companies' motives assessed by companies and university researchers

The assessments of the importance of barriers eventually encountered by university

researchers are quite similar.
Technology transfer survey 67

Figure 28: University researchers' barriers assessed by university researchers and companies

Except the different assessments of the barrier Results of collaborations with

university departments are rather insecure or difficult to exploit for and integrate in
the company (i.e. protection against spill-overs) the median values of the
assessments of the importance of barriers eventually encountered by companies are
equal.
68 Technology transfer survey

Figure 29: Companies' barriers assessed by companies and university researchers

Typology of companies and university researchers 69

6 Typology of companies and university researchers

This chapter presents the typology for companies and university researchers suited
to provide custom-made recommendations for actions for the single classes. The first
part describes the approach to identify a typology scheme. The second part presents
the different classes resulting from the chosen approach.

6.1 Approach to identify a typology scheme

Even though technology transfer is already a mature research area, many typologies
for companies and university researchers do not exist. If such schemes exist, they
often refer exclusively to companies. Schemes for university researchers are not
common. Three examples for existing typologies are presented in this thesis. They
serve as input to identify a suited typology. The examples are provided by
Etzkowitz30, who does not only consider companies but also university researchers,
Beise and Spielkamp29, who shaped the terms insiders and outsiders and Hanel31,
who examined small and medium sized companies in detail and showed differences
regarding their openness towards innovation activities and collaborations with
external partners.

Etzkowitz set up a typology for companies and university researchers. The author
drew his conclusion from about 150 interviews with company and university
representatives in different waves starting as early as in the 1980s. He classified
companies in four groups. The first one is made up of large multinational companies.
They usually carry out R&D on their own but have a window of opportunity to
collaborate with universities through i.e. participation in liaison programs and
consultancies. The second group is made up of smaller companies usually based on
low- and medium tech technologies. They engage with universities for trouble
shooting like i.e. testing purposes and the like. These companies have little to no own
R&D capabilities. The third group of companies is made of academic spin-offs. These
companies spun out of academic research and still maintain their close relations with
universities. The fourth and last group is made up of older, more traditional
companies with the need to in-source technologies. They increasingly externalize

30
Etzkowitz, Henry: The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-
industry linkages, in: Research Policy, Vol. 27, 1998, pp. 823-833
31
Hanel, Gunter: Typen des Technologienachfrageverhaltens kleiner und mittlerer Unternehmen: ein
Segmentierungsversuch als Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische Maßnahmen [Types of Technology
Demanding Behaviour of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: A try to Classify for Policy
Economics measures], doctoral thesis, Vienna University of Economics and Business
Administration, 1996
70 Typology of companies and university researchers

R&D and engage in collaborations with universities. Etzkowitz also set up a typology
for university researchers. Again, the author sketched four classes. The first group is
made up of university researchers, who leave technology transfer entirely to
technology transfer offices. They are interested in commercialization of their results
but not willing to directly take part in this process. The second group is made up of
university researchers aware of the potential impact of technology transfer and ready
to play a significant role in market their results. The third group is made up of
university researchers already heavily engaged in technology transfer. These
university researchers are seamlessly networked with companies. University
researchers not being interested in engaging in technology transfer make up the
fourth group.

Beise and Spielkamp deal in their paper with technology transfer from universities to
companies. Companies being in contact with university researchers and able to
derive innovations from universities are so-called insiders. Companies not yet being
part of such networks are named outsiders. Insiders are companies already in
contact with university researchers and they usually use the whole range of
technology transfer means available. They also realize larger projects with
universities and in general do not use services provided by intermediaries. Outsiders
are companies, which in general are aware of the potential positive impact of
university research on their business but barriers are too high to actually get in
contact with university researchers. In such cases, regional intermediaries and
multiplicators are important to establish links and support companies in gaining trust
in the capabilities of university researchers. According to the authors, the success of
technology transfer is not a question of overcoming market failure but of socio-
economic networks. The market approach handles universities’ research results like
goods being offered to companies for specific prices. Companies can take up these
technologies by paying prices negotiated with universities. The network approach
focuses on relationships between university researchers and companies as important
issue for technology transfer. It is supposed that especially in case of university
research implicit knowledge plays a major role. This component makes the market
approach rather difficult by resulting in above average transaction costs.

Hanel introduced a typology for small and medium sized companies regarding their
ways to in-source technologies. With the help of telephone interviews of around
1,000 small and medium sized companies in Austria the author set up three major
groups: Conservatives, companies ready to innovate and change and the innovation
elite. Conservatives are rather traditional companies not being aware of the positive
impact of innovations. They are rather closed. Companies ready to innovate and
Typology of companies and university researchers 71

change are in general open for changes and communicate regularly with external
groups. However, they need external help to start innovation projects. Companies
belonging to the innovation elite have rather high innovation levels. They usually
operate in high-tech areas and get information from a variety of different sources.
The suited approach is to let them operate freely without putting obstacles in their
ways.

The three presented typologies provide a rather good feeling for differences of
companies and university researchers. However, the typologies are not yet suited to
set up personalized recommendations for actions to improve technology transfer.
One has to keep in mind that except Hanel, who focused on economic measures to
improve innovation activities of companies, the others did not explicitly focus on
providing recommendations for actions to improve technology transfer. The following
approach to set up a suited typology for the aim of this thesis combines all three
previously described approaches. Firstly, the original sample is subdivided according
to the current extent of technology transfer. Already the previous analyses showed
that differences exist due to different extent of technology transfer. The next step
uses the importance of barriers of companies and university researchers to further
split the groups. This is one important extension regarding existing typologies. Thus
companies and university researchers can be approached in a personalized way by
emphasizing issues of high importance to representatives of the different groups.
Also answers regarding motives were considered to be used for this second step.
However, the number of answers for motives is smaller than for barriers because
companies and university researchers not yet doing technology transfer but being
interested in doing so were only asked to assess the importance of barriers. It did not
seem reasonable to ask them to assess the importance of motives. Anyway, motives
and companies’ and university researchers’ characteristics were used to describe the
different classes in detail. Thus, it is possible to classify companies and university
researchers by knowing their characteristics and current extent of technology transfer
and to approach them by emphasizing barriers and motives most likely being of high
importance for them. Such an approach should increase the success rate of
technology transfer. For i.e. regional development managers the scheme can serve
as starting point to design suited support services for a group of companies of special
interest to the region. In the same way, it could be used to specifically approach
newly entering university researchers and to support them in building up
collaborations with companies. The following figure shows the approach to define
different classes of university researchers and companies according to their current
technology transfer extent and their assessment of the importance of barriers for
setting up recommendations of actions.
72 Typology of companies and university researchers

Figure 30: Approach to set up a technology transfer typology for companies and university
researchers

6.2 Typology for companies

Companies in the initial step were classified in four groups related to their current
technology transfer extent:

1. Companies with expenditures for universities

2. Companies without expenditures for but with contacts to universities
3. Companies not yet having contacts to universities but interested in building up
relations
4. Companies not yet having contacts to universities and not being interested in
building up relations

This is a suited scheme for measuring the extent of technology transfer. To further
detail the scheme, the importance of barriers is used to subdivide the groups into
smaller subgroups. This was done by cluster analyses provided by SPSS. This led to
eight groups.
Typology of companies and university researchers 73

Figure 31: Typology for companies regarding technology transfer

Prior to describe the subgroups in detail the following two graphs provide an
overview of the importance of barriers and motives assessed by the different groups.
Note that not all groups had to answer questions regarding barriers and motives.
74 Typology of companies and university researchers

Figure 32: Companies' average assessment of the importance of barriers according to the different
classes of the typology
Typology of companies and university researchers 75

Figure 33: Companies' average assessment of the importance of motives according to the different
classes of the typology

6.2.1 Companies with expenditures for universities

This group is divided in two subgroups, which are rather diverse in their assessment
of the importance of barriers. Both groups have a similar trend but on two different
levels. The first group assesses all barriers on average less important than the
second group. The motives are rather similar except Access to new customers and
markets. The first group assesses this motive rather unimportant. The second group
rates it far more important.

Companies of the first group are the technology transfer elite. This group is a mix of
large and small companies. The second group consists primarily of smaller
companies, which are also R&D intensive. Companies of the first group use
collaborative technology transfer means more frequently, companies of the second
group rather contractual technology transfer means. However, group 1 and 2 belong
to the most innovative companies of all examined ones. They are also used to
international competition seeing their high export quotes. The major difference is the
size of companies measured in number of employees and sales. This is also in line
76 Typology of companies and university researchers

with the assessment of the importance of barriers and motives. Smaller companies,
even though they are rather R&D intensive, are more likely to be confronted with
skeptical attitude of university researchers and to be motivated to use universities as
door openers for new customers and markets than their larger counterparts.

Group 1 (N=47) Group 2 (N=6)

Carrying out R&D Continuously
R&D expenditures in % of sales 4/12 2.75/16
(Median/Average)
Yearly R&D expenditures (Median/Average) 390,000 EUR/13,452,557 334,200
EUR EUR/240,000 EUR
Expenditures for external R&D services in % of 20/31 12.5/28
the total R&D expenditures (Median/Average)
Being part of a group of companies Companies of group 1 are more likely to be part
of a group of companies
Sales in Mio EUR (Median/Average) 17/102 2.4/8.4
Number of employees (Median/Average) 100/377 42/87
Share of in the last three years newly developed 30/31 11/23
or markedly improved products and processes on
sales in % (Median/Average)
Export quote in % (Median/Average) 75/58 60/52
Number of all academics (Median/Average) 6/77 5/22
Number of graduates from universities of 3/50 3.5/19
technology (Median/Average)
Use of innovation management methods Companies of group 1 use such me hods more
often. Companies of group 2 ra her rarely.
Use of technology transfer means Companies of group 1 use he following
technology transfer means more often than
companies of group 2: Guest lectures and input
for seminars and workshops, bachelor, master
and doctoral theses, collaborative research
projects and using infrastructure. Companies of
group 2 use experts’ opinion and consultancies
as well as contract research projects more
frequently.
Classical universities vs. universities of Companies of group 1 exclusively have contacts
technology to universities of technology. Companies of group
2 are more likely to have also contacts to
classical universities.
Number of university departments companies are 4/16 6/6
in contact with (Median/Average)
Number of years companies are already in 10/16 12/16.8
contact with universities (Median/Average)

Table 8: Comparing the two classes of companies with expenditures for universities

The following two graphs show the estimated future development of expenditures for
universities.
Typology of companies and university researchers 77

Figure 34: Companies of group 1 and their self-assessed development of expenditures for universities
for 2006 and 2007

Figure 35: Companies of group 2 and their self-assessed development of expenditures for universities
for 2006 and 2007

The graphs show that companies of group 2 are more likely to further increase
expenditures for universities. However, also about a third of companies of group 1
want to further extent their expenditures.
78 Typology of companies and university researchers

Companies of both groups have contacts to or expenditures for universities outside

of Styria. The trend is similar for both groups. The more distant universities are the
less likely companies have contacts to or collaborations with universities.

Figure 36: Companies of group 1 and 2 and their contacts to or expenditures for universities according
to the geographic locations of the respective universities

Companies of group 1 state the following reasons for having contacts to or

expenditures for universities outside of Styria:

Specific research (N=16)

Research projects with companies located outside of Styria (N=3)
International company with good access to other institutions (N=3)
Other universities actively approaching company (N=2)
Exchange of experience (N=2)
Alternative offers
EU projects
Personal vocational training
Availability of capacity

Table 9: Reasons of companies of group 1 for having contacts to or expenditures for universities
outside Styria
Typology of companies and university researchers 79

Companies of group 2 state the following reasons for having contacts to or

expenditures for universities outside of Styria:

Specific research (N=4)

Costs (N=2)
Local markets
Often easier access
EU projects
Personal contacts

Table 10: Reasons of companies of group 2 for having contacts to or expenditures for universities
outside Styria

In both cases, companies primarily turn to universities outside their region because
they need specific research competencies. Other reasons are not that frequently
mentioned. In case of companies belonging to group 2 costs seem to be rather
important. This might be due to their limited budget for universities compared to
companies of group 1. It would be interesting to discuss more in detail the fact of
lacking competencies. It might even be that the needed knowledge is available, but
companies do not have the necessary contacts. Universities are located mainly in
Western Europe, some in Slovenia, a neighbor of Styria and some overseas, i.e. in
the USA and Canada.

Almost 50 % of companies belonging to group 1 have contacts to up to three

university departments. 80 % have contacts to up to 10 university departments. Only
seven companies of group 1 have contacts to more than 10 university departments.
One company of group 2 has contacts to two university departments. Two companies
have contacts to five university departments, two companies to seven university
departments and one company has contacts to 10 university departments.
Considering that many of the companies have contacts to more than one university,
the number of university departments per university companies are in contact with is
small.

Half of the companies belonging to group 1 are in contact with universities since at
least 10 years. About 80 % are up to 17 years in contact with universities. Only a
minor part of companies is in contact with universities since more time than 17 years.
The median for companies belonging to group 2 is nine years. Only slightly less
compared to companies of group 1.
80 Typology of companies and university researchers

The motive Access to new customers and markets is rather different for companies of
the two groups. Companies of group 1 assess this specific motive as rather
unimportant, companies of group 2 as rather important.

Figure 37: The importance of motives assessed by companies of group 1 and 2

One company of group 2 mentioned as additional important motive the possibility of

doing basic research within a reasonable period. The company would not have the
possibilities on its own because of the limited knowledge regarding basic sciences.
Universities can build on already existing knowledge, thus being able to offer
qualitative support within a rather small period.

Companies had to assess the importance of reasons for contacting specific university
departments. Companies of both groups assessed existing personal contacts and the
excellence of research as rather important. Differences exist in the importance of
scientific publications and publications in magazines or internet. Companies of group
2 assess the importance of these reasons slightly higher than companies of group 1.
Typology of companies and university researchers 81

Figure 38: The importance of criteria decisive to contact specific university departments for potential
collaborations assessed by companies of group 1 and 2

One company of group 1 stated that usually technology transfer offices establish the
needed contacts. The company turns to technology transfer offices in order to find
the right experts for their needs. This company is rather small. Therefore, this contact
mode fits well in the overall picture.

Companies of both groups usually approach university researchers directly. Major

differences are shown by students actively approaching companies. The relation is
different than supposed. Companies of group 2, usually smaller ones, are often being
approached by students. Students rarely approach companies of group 1. However,
one possible explanation might be different absolute levels. For companies of group
1 the same number of students actively approaching the company might seem less
frequently compared to other modes. Secondly, in case of companies of group 1
CEOs or R&D managers might not be informed of all enquiries made by students for
potential projects. Usually companies of group 1 are larger, therefore such enquiries
might be handled differently than in case of smaller companies, where such
information is usually centralized.
82 Typology of companies and university researchers

Figure 39: The frequency of modes how collaborations with universities are established assessed by
companies of group 1 and 2

Regarding questions if companies enter long-term relations with relevant university

departments and if contacts to universities are anchored within companies on various
people companies of both groups answered similarly.

Barriers eventually encountered by university researchers are assessed rather

differently. Usually they are assessed more important by companies belonging to
group 2 than by companies of group 1.
Typology of companies and university researchers 83

Figure 40: The importance of barriers out of the view of university researchers assessed by companies
of group 1 and 2

Companies of group 1 stated following additional barriers:

Research is done almost exclusively on a basic level at universities. Applied research and thus
collaborations with companies have little to no meaning. (N=7)
Lack of communicate skills (One talks first about costs, then about content of projects) (N=2)
Inflexibility, lack of project management skills (i.e. deadlines) (N=2)
Patent law, IPR rules at universities
Lack of resources (university researchers and students) in specific research areas at universities

Table 11: Additional barriers mentioned by companies of group 1

84 Typology of companies and university researchers

Companies of group 2 stated following additional barriers:

Fear of losing company internal knowledge to competitors and other companies

Lack of resources within company
Universities are too slow, too inflexible, and too pragmatic. They are not interested in
collaborations.
High pressure to successfully finish research projects

Table 12: Additional barriers mentioned by companies of group 2

6.2.2 Companies without expenditures for but with contacts to universities

Companies without expenditures for but with contacts to universities were divided in
two subgroups. Companies of group 3 assessed the importance of barriers slightly
more important and the importance of motives rather similar to companies of group 1.
Group 4 assessed the importance of barriers and motives on average least important
compared to all other groups except the barrier High workload at university
departments hinder collaborations with companies. Another group assessed this
barrier even less important.

Group 3 consists of larger and smaller companies. Group 4 consists mainly of

smaller companies. This is similar to the groups 1 and 2. According to the
characteristics companies being part of the groups 3 and 4 are slightly less R&D
intensive and use less frequently innovation management methods, have lower
export quotes and a far lower number of university departments they are in contact
with. In addition, the share of academics in the companies is already substantially
below the values of the first two groups. Companies of group 4 have smaller absolute
R&D expenditures than companies of group 3 and employ less academics than
companies of group 3. Other characteristics are rather similar.

Group 3 (N=39) Group 4 (N=8)

Carrying out R&D Rather continuously Rather rarely
R&D expenditures in % of sales (Median/Average) 5/11 10/12.5
Yearly R&D expenditures (Median/Average) 102,700 EUR/ 10,000 EUR/
682,303 EUR 279,200 EUR
Expenditures for external R&D services in % of he 19/27 100 (N=1)
total R&D expenditures (Median/Average)
Being part of a group of companies Rather not
Sales in Mio EUR (Median/Average) 1.7/17.1 1.3/1.8
Number of employees (Median/Average) 15.5/80 33.5/30
Share of in the last three years newly developed or 25/30.8 20/24
markedly improved products and processes on sales
in % (Median/Average)
Export quote in % (Median/Average) 18.5/27 15/28
Number of all academics (Median/Average) 2.5/4.3 0 5/4.6
Typology of companies and university researchers 85

Number of graduates from universities of technology 2/3 0/3.6

(Median/Average)
Use of innovation management methods Rather rarely
Use of technology transfer means The use is ra her similar for all technology
transfer means except using infrastructure.
Companies of group 4 use this far more
often.
Classical universities vs. universities of technology Both groups are similar and have primarily
contacts to universities of technology han to
classical universities.
Number of university departments companies are in 3/3 2/2.5
contact with (Median/Average)
Number of years companies are already in contact 7/9 7.5/8.2
with universities (Median/Average)

Table 13: Comparing the two classes of companies without expenditures for but with contacts to
universities

Companies of both groups have less frequently contacts to universities outside Styria
than companies of groups 1 and 2. The trend is similar for both groups. The more
distant universities are located the less frequently do relations exist.

Figure 41: Companies of group 3 and 4 and their contacts to or collaborations with universities
according to the geographic locations of he respective universities

Companies of both groups have contacts to universities from Great Britain to Russia.
Compared to the two other groups, 1 and 2, these companies do not have contacts
to universities from overseas.
86 Typology of companies and university researchers

Companies of group 3 mentioned following reasons for having contacts to

universities outside of Styria:

Specific knowledge (N=11)

(Setting up) projects within EU FP, where partners of different EU countries are necessary (N=2)
Company is internationally active
Recommendations and existing contacts of company’s customers
Ph.D. studies

Table 14: Reasons of companies of group 3 for having contacts to or collaborations with universities
outside Styria

One company of group 4 mentioned EU projects as reason for having contacts to

universities outside of Styria.

80 % of companies of group 3 are in contact with up to three university departments.

The highest number of university departments companies of group 3 are in contact
with is 10. The median for companies belonging to group 4 is two. The highest
number of university departments companies of group 4 are in contact with is six.

The median number of years companies of group 3 are in contact with universities is
seven, for companies of group 4 7.5.

Group 3 assessed motives similar to group 1. Group 4 assessed the majority of

motives slightly less important except Improving existing products and/or services
and Collaborations with universities increase the likelihood of success to acquire
additional external funding. Compared to the first two groups an outstandingly
important motive does not exist. In case of group 1 the outstanding motive was
Developing new products and processes, for companies of group 2 the most
important motive was Improving existing products and processes. Instead of single
motives a bunch of motives are of medium importance for companies of group 3 and
group 4.
Typology of companies and university researchers 87

Figure 42: The importance of motives assessed by companies of group 3 and 4

Three companies of group 1 mentioned additional motives: Acquisition (universities

as customers), consulting and expertise (this could have been counted to one of the
listed motives) and access to literature.

Existing personal contacts are the most important reason for companies of group 3
and 4 to turn to specific university departments. For companies of group 3 the
second most important reason is recommendations from others. Companies of group
4 value short geographic distances second most important followed by
recommendations from others.
88 Typology of companies and university researchers

Figure 43: The importance of criteria decisive to contact specific university departments for potential
collaborations assessed by companies of group 3 and 4

Two companies of group 3 additionally mentioned projects with customers and

information events, where university departments present themselves in front of
interested company representatives, as important possibilities to get in contact with
relevant university departments.

The two most frequent modes how companies of group 4 establish contacts to
university departments are The company approaches university researchers directly
and University researchers approach the company directly. Other modes are less
frequently or not at all used. Companies of group 3 use all modes.
Typology of companies and university researchers 89

Figure 44: The frequency of modes how collaborations with university researchers are established
assessed by companies of group 3 and 4

One company of group 3 mentioned public events as additional possibility to

establish contacts.

Companies of group 3 are more likely to have anchored their contacts to universities
on various people within the company than companies of group 4. On the other hand,
companies of group 4 are more l kely to enter long-term relations with relevant
university departments. However, the differences are rather small.

Major differences regarding the assessment of barriers eventually encountered by

university researchers are the aggressive behavior of companies regarding IPRs and
companies being skeptical towards technology transfer. Companies of group 4
assessed all barriers less important than companies of group 3. Compared to the two
groups, 1 and 2, barriers are in general assessed less important by group 3 and 4.
90 Typology of companies and university researchers

Figure 45: The importance of barriers out of the view of university researchers assessed by companies
of group 3 and 4

Companies of group 3 mentioned additional barriers:

Time does not exist in companies. Deadlines for projects are often too short for collaborations. (N=3)
Lack of understanding companies’ problems. Universities are too theoretically. (N=3)
Formalisms, high bureaucracy, lack of flexibility at universities (N=2)
University researchers being arrogant

Table 15: Additional barriers mentioned by companies of group 3

Companies of group 4 did not mention additional barriers.

6.2.3 Companies not yet having contacts to universities but interested in building up
relations

This group is divided into three subgroups. Group 5 has a similar assessment of
barriers like group 2 except the barrier University researchers are rather skeptical
towards collaborations with companies, which is assessed less important by
Typology of companies and university researchers 91

companies of group 5. In overall companies of group 5 assessed all barriers as

rather important. Group 6 is similar to group 1; barriers are assessed as rather
unimportant. Group 7 shows a very different trend. Especially the barriers Difficulties
in finding the right contacts and Universities are passive in providing information and
presenting their research results and possibilities to collaborate are assessed rather
important. Groups 5 to 7 did not have to assess the importance of motives to do
technology transfer.

Group 5 is composed of rather small companies. Companies of group 6 are in

general slightly larger than the ones belonging to group 5. Group 7 consists of larger
but not R&D intensive companies. Companies of the groups 5 to 7 are likely to be
service providers.

Group 5 (N=17) Group 6 (N=14) Group 7 (N=5)

Carrying out R&D Rather rarely
R&D expenditures in % of sales 5/6.4 7.5/14 2.25/5
(Median/Average)
Yearly R&D expenditures 88,750 EUR/ 95,500 EUR/ 100,000 EUR/
(Median/Average) 148,693 EUR 1,516,475 EUR 90,000 EUR
Expenditures for external R&D 75/75 30/30 15/15
services in % of the total R&D
expenditures (Median/Average)
Being part of a group of companies Rather not
Sales in Mio EUR (Median/Average) 1.5/6 2/8.4 7.5/11
Number of employees 8/28 35/49 80/120
(Median/Average)
Share of in he last three years newly 12.5/20 15/25.5 3/6
developed or markedly improved
products and processes on sales in
% (Median/Average)
Export quote in % (Median/Average) 5/14 0/24 10/23
Number of all academics 0/1.3 2/4.8 3/5
(Median/Average)
Number of graduates from 0/0.6 1/1.3 2/4
universities of technology
(Median/Average)
Use of innovation management Rather rarely
methods

Table 16: Comparing the three classes of companies not yet having contacts to universities but being
interested in building up relations

Group 5 assesses the importance of the barrier High workload in companies hinder
collaborations with universities highest. They are convinced that collaborations do not
influence teaching and research at universities negatively. This is valid also for
companies of group 6 and 7. Additionally companies of group 6 assessed the
barriers Companies are passive and do not ask for research projects and results and
Companies do not know the potential collaboration means with universities like
92 Typology of companies and university researchers

consultancy, licensing, seminar theses and the like as important. Companies of

group 7 assessed the barriers Companies are passive and do not ask for research
projects and results and Companies are rather skeptical towards collaborations with
universities as important.

Figure 46: The importance of barriers out of the view of university researchers assessed by companies
of group 5, 6 and 7

Companies of group 5 stated following additional barriers:

People should talk the same language and be willing to approach each other.
Arrogant attitude of university employees, especially professors. Often they do not have a realistic
view of practical problems.
Lack of resources

Table 17: Additional barriers mentioned by companies of group 5

Typology of companies and university researchers 93

Companies of group 6 stated following additional barriers:

Lack of knowledge how to collaborate with universities to obtain exploitable solutions

University researchers lack a realis ic view of practical problems.
Output depends on individuals at universities
Company lacks internal awareness that projects with universities could be realized.
Supposed problems with confidentiality

Table 18: Additional barriers mentioned by companies of group 6

Companies of group 7 did not state additional barriers.

6.2.4 Companies not yet having contacts to universities and not being interested in
building up relations

These companies did not have to assess the importance of barriers and motives.
Therefore, this group could not further be divided in subgroups. The majority of
companies are service providers, similar to companies of the groups 5 to 7. These
companies are rather small and not R&D intensive. They have a small number of
academics and rather small export quotes.

Group 8 (N=24)
Carrying out R&D Rarely to never
R&D expenditures in % of sales (Median/Average) 0.25/1.1
Yearly R&D expenditures (Median/Average) 10,000 EUR/ 19,333 EUR
Expenditures for external R&D services in % of the total R&D (N=0)
expenditures (Median/Average)
Being part of a group of companies Rather not
Sales in Mio EUR (Median/Average) 1.2/2
Number of employees (Median/Average) 11 5/18
Share of in the last three years newly developed or markedly 15/23
improved products and processes on sales in % (Median/Average)
Export quote in % (Median/Average) 0/14.6
Number of all academics (Median/Average) 0.5/0.9
Number of graduates from universities of technology 0/0.5
(Median/Average)
Use of innovation management me hods Rarely

Table 19: Companies not yet having contacts to universities and not being interested in building up
relations
94 Typology of companies and university researchers

Companies belonging to group 8 mentioned the following reasons for not being
interested in technology transfer:

No need (i.e. being service provider, not carrying out R&D, company is too small, universities are
too far away from practical issues, lack of overlapping activi ies) (N=12)
Results of internal R&D shall remain within the company
Lack of time
Decision by the head quarter

Table 20: Reasons for not being interested in technology transfer stated by companies of group 8

6.2.5 Overview of specific characteristics of companies belonging to the different

groups

The following figure, Figure 47: The eight groups of companies and their
characteristics, offers the possibility to compare the different groups of companies
with the help of specific characteristics. It presents the graphical result of a so-called
correspondence analysis; see Moser, Reicher, Rosegger, De Frantz, and Havel32 for
a description of correspondence analysis. It shows the eight groups of companies
and describes them with the help of R&D intensities, number of employees, sales,
export quotes, and shares of within the last three years newly developed or markedly
improved products and processes in percentage of sales. These characteristics form
an n-dimensional room. The figure splits this n-dimensional room in two dimensions.
The two axes display the dimensions, axis 1 and 2. These two axes explain most of
the variations of the used characteristics. This is represented by the percentage
values in brackets. The higher these values the better the variations of characteristics
are described. The various characteristics were grouped according to the categories
presented in the table beneath.

32
Moser, W.; Reicher, D.; Rosegger, R.; De Frantz, M.; Havel, M.: Was ist so schön am Eigenheim –
Ein Lebensstilkonzept des Wohnens [What is so beautiful with the own home – A life style concept
of living], 2002, [Link]/download/endbericht_eigenheim_1702.pdf as of 23rd of
May 2006
Typology of companies and university researchers 95

Small Medium Large

R&D intensity (R&D Up to max. 5 % > 5 to max. 10 % More than 10 %
expenditures in % of
sales)
Number of employees Up to 29 From 30 to 100 More than 100
Sales Up to max. 2.5 Mio > 2.5 to max. 10 Mio More than 10 Mio EUR
EUR EUR
Export quotes Up to max. 15 % > 15 to max. 30 % More than 30 %
Share of within the last Up to max. 10 % > 10 to max. 20 % More than 20 %
three years newly
developed and markedly
improved products and
processes in % of sales

Table 21: Categories of characteristics for the correspondence analysis

The graph offers two possibilities of use. Firstly, dependencies between

characteristics can be identified graphically. The metrical distance between different
characteristics and their values is a measure for their dependency from each other. If
values of characteristics are near to each other, respondents usually give the same
answers to these questions. In case of the graph beneath take the number of
employees and sales figures. A large number of employees usually correlates with
large sales, whereas a small number of employees relates to a small number of
sales. Secondly, the graph also shows which characteristics describe the respective
groups best. Therefore, one has to draw a line linking the group to be described with
the intersection of the two axes. Characteristics nearest to the line measured in
radian degrees are the ones describing the group best. The metrical distance to i.e.
the coordination center or the group does not play a role. For example, companies of
group 1 are described better by rather small R&D intensities than by large R&D
intensities. This is because companies of group 1 are on average rather large with
large sales figures. Therefore, even high absolute R&D expenditures result in rather
small figures for R&D intensities.
 96

Figure 47: The eight groups of companies and their characteristics

Typology of companies and university researchers
Typology of companies and university researchers 97

An additional regression analysis did not reveal statistical significant relations

between the different groups and characteristics used for the graph above.

6.3 Typology for university researchers

University researchers were classified in three groups related to their current

technology transfer extent:

1. University researchers with contacts to companies

2. University researchers not yet having contacts to companies but interested in
building up relations
3. University researchers not yet having contacts to companies and not being
interested in building up relations

To further detail this classification answers to the importance of barriers were used to
split the groups in smaller subgroups. This led to four groups of university
researchers with differences regarding their current technology transfer extent and
their assessment of the importance of barriers.

Figure 48: Typology for university researchers regarding technology transfer

98 Typology of companies and university researchers

Answers of the various groups regarding barriers and motives are displayed beneath.
Note that not all groups had to assess the importance of barriers and motives.

Figure 49: University researchers' average assessment of the importance of barriers according to he
different classes of the typology
Typology of companies and university researchers 99

Figure 50: University researchers' average assessment of the importance of motives according to the
different classes of the typology

6.3.1 University researchers with contacts to companies

University researchers already having contacts to companies are further split in two
subgroups. The trend of barriers is similar for both groups. However, group 1
assessed all barriers on average more important than university researchers of group
2. Regarding motives group 1 and 2 are similar regarding the trend as well as the
level of importance. The major difference of university researchers of group 1 and
group 2 is their working experience in companies. University researchers of group 1
have far more working experience in companies than their colleagues belonging to
group 2.
100 Typology of companies and university researchers

Group 1 (N=44) Group 2 (N=29)

Size of department From 11 to 20 employees
Age of university researchers Between 36 and 45 years
Function at department Assistants
Financed by Regular university budget
At university since (Median/Average) 2000/1993 2001/1995
Working experience in companies 2 years/6 years 0.04 years/0.81 years
(Median/Average)
Number of personal contacts with different 4/7.6 3/5 9
companies per month
Time spend for company collaborations 30 %/39.5 % 30 %/37 %
(Median/Average)
Use of technology transfer means Rather similar

Table 22: Comparing the two classes of university researchers with contacts to companies

Regarding motives group 1 and group 2 are similar related to the trend as well as the
level of importance. Looking at the median values differences exist with the motives It
is one of the tasks of universities to collaborate with companies, Using companies’
infrastructure, Financing investments in university department’s infrastructure and
Financing your own job. The motive It is one of the tasks of universities to collaborate
with companies is assessed more important by university researchers belonging to
group 2 than by colleagues of group 1.

University researchers of group 1 mentioned following additional motives:

Practical insight for research and teaching (N=6)

Personal sa isfaction if practically applying research results
Acquiring third party funds vital for the survival of the university

Table 23: Additional motives mentioned by university researchers of group 1

University researchers of group 2 mentioned following additional motives:

It is positive for the image of the university

To finance vocational trainings
Practical insights for research and teaching

Table 24: Additional motives mentioned by university researchers of group 2

The value of practical insight for research and teaching through collaborations with
companies is mentioned rather often by university researchers of group 1. These
university researchers have on average worked six years in companies. University
researchers with little or even no working experience in companies do not mention
Typology of companies and university researchers 101

this motive often. It is only mentioned once compared to six entries by university
researchers of group 1.

Modes how contacts to or collaborations with companies are established are rather
similar. Central organizations, independently if at the university or by industry near
intermediaries like i.e. cluster organizations or others, do not frequently broker
projects. University researchers of group 1 frequently approach companies with
which they are already in contact. Other forms to establish contacts do not differ
widely.

Figure 51: The frequency of modes how collaborations with companies are established assessed by
university researchers of group 1 and 2
102 Typology of companies and university researchers

University researchers of group 1 mentioned following additional modes to establish

contacts to companies:

Department head or project manager orders to take over projects (N=3)

EU projects (N=2)
Governmental organizations and the like
Competence centers27
Brokering by colleagues
Personal relations
Projects with partners introducing new previously unknown industrial partners

Table 25: Additional modes how collaborations with companies are established mentioned by
university researchers of group 1

University researchers of group 2 mentioned following additional modes to establish

contacts to companies:

Department head establishes contacts and projects (N=2)

New projects with already known companies (N=2)
Conferences, fairs, exhibitions

Table 26: Additional modes how collaborations with companies are established mentioned by
university researchers of group 2

The following graph shows that both groups of university researchers are equal
regarding the origins of the companies they collaborate with.
Typology of companies and university researchers 103

Figure 52: University researchers of group 1 and 2 and their contacts to or collaborations with
companies according to the geographic locations of the respective companies

The distribution of answers regarding the question Do you learn something from your
collaborations with companies for your teaching activities is rather similar for both
groups.
104 Typology of companies and university researchers

Figure 53: University researchers of group 1 and 2 assessing the benefits of technology transfer for
their teaching activities

Differences in assessing the benefits of technology transfer for university

researchers’ own research do not exist.

Figure 54: University researchers of group 1 and 2 assessing the benefits of technology transfer for
their own research

University researchers of group 1 and group 2 do not show differences regarding the
use of standards in technology transfer.
Typology of companies and university researchers 105

Figure 55: University researchers of group 1 and 2 answering to the question if standards for
technology transfer are applied

University researchers of group 1 mentioned following standards regarding

technology transfer:

Certified laboratory is part of the university department (i.e. quotation of prices etc.)
Reporting, project management
Collaborations like i.e. master theses are visualized as process including templates, check lists
and forms
Standards according to quality management system
Contracts and information brochures for companies and students interested in doing their theses
Similar standards like consul ing engineers

Table 27: Standards used in technology transfer by university researchers of group 1

University researchers of group 2 mentioned following standards regarding

technology transfer:

Rules of the university department and Graz University of Technology (N=2)

Information brochures regarding master theses for companies
Guideline for the realization of master theses
Contracts and project management
Answering enquiries within 5 working days
Standard contracts and offers
Quota ion of prices and project management

Table 28: Standards used in technology transfer by university researchers of group 2

The general trends for the realization of specific activities are similar except
supporting companies in applying for external funding. University researchers of
group 2 do this far less frequently than university researchers of group 1. There might
106 Typology of companies and university researchers

be different reasons for this difference. I.e. university researchers of group 1 with a
higher working experience in companies might have more experiences in applying for
funding. They might be more aware of the need of companies for support in setting
up funding proposals. Alternatively, they might view such overlaps between
universities and companies as more natural than university researchers of group 2
with little to no working experiences in companies.

Figure 56: Frequency of realizing specific activities by university researchers of group 1 and 2

University researchers of group 1 mentioned following additional activities:

Maintaining existing relations and networks through visiting conferences, events etc.
The use of internet (open source software, www, accessibility), important to be contacted
Transfer of know how to companies
Free consultancies in case of enquiries
Regular contacts with project partners (project reviews) during projects

Table 29: Additional activities mentioned by university researchers of group 1

Typology of companies and university researchers 107

University researchers of group 2 mentioned following additional activities:

Analyzing and solving problems

Flexibility and customer orientation
Presentations and mee ings

Table 30: Additional activities mentioned by university researchers of group 2

University researchers of group 1 are more likely to be interested in extending

technology transfer than university researchers of group 2.

Figure 57: University researchers of group 1 and 2 answering to the question if they would like to
extend technology transfer

University researchers of both groups assessed companies’ barriers rather similar.

Only the barrier Universities are passive in providing information and presenting their
research results and possibilities to collaborate shows differences.
108 Typology of companies and university researchers

Figure 58: The importance of companies’ barriers assessed by university researchers of group 1 and 2

University researchers of group 1 mentioned following additional barriers:

Industrial production and R&D centers are outsourced to foreign countries

Cost competition with other universi ies and universities of applied sciences
Lack of research budget
Companies are arrogant and do not believe in universities being able to provide support
Professors are often not participating in opera ive collaborations
Fluctuation of university researchers complicates long-term collaborations
Research at universities often takes too long (i.e. doctoral theses)
Companies do not want or are not able to take over full costs of one research post
Large number of currently running projects complicates further acquisition
University of applied sciences are better in marketing and offer comparable services
University departments cannot calculate sales taxes but have to pay them
Bad infrastructure at the university and the department, not suited for large research projects
Companies being afraid to contact universities
Bad marketing at the university
University departments only thinking on their own profits, which results in problems if trying
interdisciplinary research
Lack of incentives to do more technology transfer
University researchers often do not understand the language and needs of companies

Table 31: Additional barriers mentioned by university researchers of group 1

Typology of companies and university researchers 109

University researchers of group 2 mentioned following additional barriers:

Cost competition with universities of applied sciences, especially in case of master theses
Lack of capacity is the only barrier
Freedom of basic research
Clear rules regarding competencies and resources
Lack of understanding of companies for basic research
Large geographic distances
Especially smaller companies do not even think of collaborating with universities, do not recognize
the potential benefits or even are afraid of universities

Table 32: Additional barriers mentioned by university researchers of group 2

The following graph shows the importance of motives. Differences regarding median
values are interesting, especially in the case of building up competencies. University
researchers of group 1 assess this far more important than university researchers of
group 2. Similarly important is the motive Universities as economic R&D service
providers (outsourcing) and in case of group 2 the support of universities in
Improving existing products and processes.

Figure 59: The importance of companies’ motives assessed by university researchers of group 1 and 2
110 Typology of companies and university researchers

6.3.2 University researchers not yet having contacts to companies but interested in
building up relations and university researchers not yet having contacts to
companies and not interested in building up relations

The two groups are examined together for two reasons. Firstly, the number of
answers is rather small in both groups. Secondly, a direct comparison of these two
groups is interesting for further actions. University researchers of group 3 assessed
the importance of barriers slightly different compared with their colleagues of group 1
and 2. However, the major trend is grosso modo similar. University researchers of
group 4 did not have to answer the importance of barriers. The major difference
between university researchers of group 3 compared to group 4 is their age.
University researchers of group 3 are without exception younger. Group 4 consists of
younger and older university researchers.

Group 3 (N=3) Group 4 (N=5)

Size of department From 11 to 20 employees
Age of university researchers Up to 36 years Between 36 and 45 years
Function at department Between project, hird party Rather assistants
funded employees, scientific
employees in formation and
assistants
Financed by Financed by regular university budget and third party funds
At university since (Median/Average) 2004/2003 2001/1995
Working experience in companies 0 years/0 years 0 years/1.7 years
(Median/Average)

Table 33: Comparing the two classes of university researchers interested and not interested in
building up relations with companies

University researchers of group 4 were asked for their reasons not to do technology
transfer. The following reasons were mentioned:

Basic research (provides little possibilities to do technology transfer) (N=3)

Contract ends soon and the post will be cancelled
For basic lectures the possibilities are limited.
No interest in working for industry. It is wrong to co-finance private industry by offering economic
support by universities.

Table 34: Reasons for not being interested in technology transfer mentioned by university researchers
of group 4

University researchers of group 3 judged the barrier Results of collaborations with

university departments are rather insecure or difficult to exploit for and integrate in
the company (i.e. protection against spill-overs) encountered by companies as most
Typology of companies and university researchers 111

important. The barrier University researchers are rather skeptical towards

collaborations with companies is not assessed as important.

Figure 60: The importance of companies’ barriers assessed by university researchers of group 3

University researchers of group 3 mentioned following additional barriers:

Industry unwilling to invest in research without promises that results can be useful
The existing bad equipment, infrastructure and lack of personnel risk future research and
collabora ions
The main part of resources will be needed to keep teaching going

Table 35: Additional barriers mentioned by university researchers of group 3

The major motives for companies assessed by university researchers are

Universities as economic R&D service providers (outsourcing) and Collaborations
with universities increase the likelihood of success to acquire additional external
funding. Building up specific competencies and access to new customers and
markets are assessed as unimportant.
112 Typology of companies and university researchers

Figure 61: The importance of companies’ motives assessed by university researchers of group 3

6.3.3 Overview of specific characteristics of university researchers belonging to the

different groups

For the explanation of how to read the following graph see chapter 6.2.5. The four
groups are described with the help of the following characteristics: Function at the
university department, sources university by which university researchers are
financed, age, and working experience at the university and in companies.

Function at he Professors Assistants Scientific employees in

department formation, project
employees, third party
funded employees
Source university Regular university Third party funds from Other third party funds
researchers are financed budget companies
by
University researchers’ Up to 35 years (young) From 36 to 45 years Older than 45 years
age (medium) (old)
At the university since Since 2002 From 1995 to 2001 Before 1995
Working experience in Up to max. 1 year From 1 to max. 5 years More than 5 years
companies
Table 36: Categories of characteristics for the correspondence analysis
 Typology of companies and university researchers

Figure 62: The four groups of university researchers and their relations to specific characteristics
113
114 Typology of companies and university researchers

The regression analysis shows statistically significant relations in case of the groups
1 and 2 and the characteristic Working experience in companies, thus confirming the
descriptive results.
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 115

7 Interviews with company representatives and university

researchers

The questionnaires’ results are now enhanced with personal interviews with at least
two representatives of each typology class where possible. Interviews were kept
rather short, up to half an hour on average, and aimed at getting further information
regarding potential recommendations for actions for the respective needs. This
approach is suited to discuss technology transfer more in depth and draw
conclusions for potential recommendations for actions.

7.1 Interviews with company representatives

All interviewees were asked to their current technology transfer, the history, i.e. how
did it come to contacts to universities, and the future of technology transfer out of
their point of view. Additionally they were asked to indicate relevant
recommendations for actions to improve technology transfer. The interviews are
comparable to case studies, from which the reader can draw additional insights.

7.1.1 Companies with expenditures for universities

Companies with expenditures for universities were divided in two groups. Two
company representatives of each group were interviewed. Interviewees 1 and 2
belong to group 1, interviewees 3 and 4 to group 2.

Group 1 Group 2
Interviewee 1 Interviewee 2 Interviewee 3 Interviewee 4
Yearly R&D Roughly 25 Around 15 About 3 1
expenditures in % of
sales
Development of yearly From 0 to + 10 % From + 11 to + 25 From + 11 to + 25 From 0 to + 10 %
R&D expenditures for % %
2006 and 2007
Expenditures for About 1 20 50 10
external R&D services
in % of all R&D
expenditures
Expenditures for n/a 10 20 Less han 1
universities in % of all
R&D expenditures
Development of Remaining stable Increasing Increasing Increasing
expenditures for
universities
116 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

% distribution for Bachelor and Certifications and Bachelor and Cer ifications and
technology transfer master theses (10 consultancy (20 master theses (10 consultancy (80
means %), doctoral %), contract %), collabora ive %), using
theses (20 %), research projects R&D projects (80 infrastructure (20
collaborative R&D (20 %), %), using %)
projects (70 %) collaborative R&D infrastructure (10
projects (30 %), %)
using
infrastructure (30
%)
Origin of universities Austria and Austria, Germany Austria, Germany Austria, Germany
company collaborates central eastern and Switzerland and Switzerland and Switzerland
with Europe
Reasons for The company has Specific research Existing personal Specific research
collaborating with several sites in activities contacts activities
universities outside Austria, specific
Styria research activities
Universities of Primarily Exclusively Primarily Exclusively
technology vs. universities of universi ies of universities of classical
classical universities technology technology technology universities
No. of departments 25 3 5 2
companies are in
contact with
Major motives to Developing new Developing new Enables Basic Improving existing
collaborate with products and products and research within a products and
universities processes, processes and given processes and
building up improving existing manageable time universities as
specific products and span economic R&D
competencies processes providers
and access to
potential new
employees
Major mechanisms to Existing personal Existing personal Existing personal Existing personal
get in contact with contacts, contacts contacts, contacts, TV and
universities recommendations excellence of radio broadcasts,
from others (e.g. research, short short geographic
customers, geographic distance to
suppliers, distance to universities
partners etc.) and universi ies
excellence of
research
Companies’ categories Mass and low Low volume Low volume Mass and low
volume production production volume
produc ion, production,
prototypes, customized
customized and services
standardized
services
Part of a group of Yes No Yes No
companies?
Sales in Mio EUR More than 50 About 5 Around 38 Around 3
Development of sales More than + 10 % More han + 10 % From 0 to + 5 % From 0 to + 5 %
for 2006 and 2007
Share of products and 50 50 20 15
processes newly
developed or markedly
improved wi hin the
last three years in % of
sales
Export quote in % 48 60 70 3
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 117

Most important export n/a Germany, China Germany, France Germany, Croatia
countries in terms of and USA and Sou h Corea and Hungary
sales
No. of employees More than 250 20 211 24
Share of university 30 60 10 10
graduates in % of all
employees
Share of graduates 70 75 More than 90 0
from universities of
technology in % of all
university graduates
Strategies Quality and Technology Quality and Niche strategy
technology leadership and technology
leadership niche strategy leadership, niche
strategy
Respondent’s almer Vienna University None University of University of Graz
mater of Technology Leoben
Current position at University liaison CEO CEO CEO
company officer

Table 37: Characteristics of interviewees 1 to 4

[Link] Why and how did the company establish contacts to universities?

In case of interviewee 1, contacts to universities exist since the foundation of the

company back in the 19th century. The foundation of the company coincides roughly
with the establishment of universities of technology in Austria and as far as
interviewee 1 knows technology transfer developed simultaneously. The company
focused since the beginning on technologies. University graduates were and still are
one of the major mechanisms for technology transfer. They take with them their
contacts to former colleagues, university assistants, and professors. Since
interviewee 1 is in charge for relations with universities technology transfer
developed rather incrementally than radically because technology transfer already
had a high importance in the past. Interviewee 1 has a coordinating role within the
company. The person does not want to be the bottleneck. The tasks are i.e. providing
a platform to exchange experiences and information like who is collaborating with
which university, consulting company employees in case of entering collaborations
with universities, designing suited standardized processes, and providing information
about research interesting for employees. Such information is prior processed to
experts in the specific field of research to assess the potential impact. In general, the
network of the company is open for new universities. However, a core group of
universities and research providers exist. Others are approached only if existing
contacts do not have the necessary knowledge. Members of the existing core group
usually provide such new contacts. The benefits of such a core group are that the
118 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

people know each other personally. In these cases master contracts exist which do
not make it necessary to negotiate i.e. every single master thesis.

The company represented by interviewee 2 is a very good example of how

individuals can lay the ground for technology transfer. A university liaison officer
visited the company in the mid nineties two or three times. At that time, the company
had four employees. For a restructuring process, the university liaison officer
established a contact to an external expert not being a university researcher. And in
fact, the company realized the project with this person, the results were very positive
for the company. This first contact did not even involve universities. However,
through to the good experience the company discovered collaborations and turned
again to the same university liaison officer. Nowadays, collaborations are daily
business for the company and with every collaboration experience increases. The
first time contact with university researchers was a small contract with 1 or 2 hours
efforts for one university researcher. This worked quite well. According to the
company, it is l kely that the support provided by the university liaison officer ensured
the realization of the contract by the university researcher. Gradually collaborations
increased and the company started to use support by universities more frequently. At
that time relations with other partners, mainly companies, existed already. However,
such relations were mostly customer-supplier relations.

Contacts between the company represented by interviewee 3 and universities were

not established out of specific reasons. Rather because university graduates from
different institutions employed by the company took with them their contacts.
Interviewee 3 for example built up contacts to the university the person graduated
from. Contacts to this specific organization did not exist prior. The company’s
employees also share experiences with each other, i.e. with whom collaborations
work rather well, who is doing research in specific areas and the like. Through the
growing number of contacts, the current network with universities in Austria and
beyond is still expanding.

The company represented by interviewee 4 contacts universities to solve specific

problems. First it tries to solve the problem internally with the help of its own
laboratory and by doing desk research. If this does not work, the company turns to
external sources l ke universities. 15 years ago the company did not have a
laboratory. Due to the increasing need the company established one. Thus, also the
requirements for universities changed. In the beginning universities had to solve
standard routine analytical tests for the company. Now tests are usually more
specifically. The owner-manager graduated from University of Graz. The person
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 119

established contacts relevant to the business area. Now the contacts are widely
distributed within the company and in case problems cannot be solved internally
company employees jointly discuss whom best to contact externally. From the
beginning the company had expenditures for universities. With the own laboratory
relations changed and are now more often focused on the exchange of experiences.
Thus, not all enquiries automatically lead to expenditures. Contacts to other R&D
organizations, i.e. suppliers of raw material or equipment providers, exist and are
used in case questions are related to these areas.

[Link] How satisfying are your contacts with universities?

Interviewee 1 is in general satisfied with current technology transfer. However, the

person is convinced that potential for improvements exists. Challenges universities
and companies are facing are rather different and it is necessary to overlap interests
on both sides and to agree on joint objectives. The major motive to do technology
transfer is to get access to unique and special knowledge and to try to build up this
knowledge internally. In some cases, technology transfer also takes on a form of
outsourcing, i.e. commissioning a master thesis for risk assessments of specific
technologies.

Interviewee 2 assessed the professional part of technology transfer as very good.

This is also a result of a thorough process regarding the identification of suited
partners before actually starting collaborations and the good brokering by existing
partners. Regarding project management, the company has more success with other
companies, which are used to fulfill objectives. The major difference is that
companies have a project manager responsible for keeping projects on track. At
universities, dates often pass by without the delivery of results. It seems that
university researchers are not aware what it means if results are not delivered on
time. They do not focus on the interests of their customers. It would be helpful if there
were someone responsible for such activities, someone who focuses on the delivery
of results and keeps track of projects. According to the company in about 50 % of all
projects with universities dates for i.e. deliverables have to be renegotiated.

Interviewee 3 also confirmed that professionally technology transfer works very well.
The company does not have the knowledge to realize ideas universities can realize.
Interviewee 3 is not personally involved in the project management of technology
transfer. However, due to the already existing contacts the set up and management
of projects runs rather smoothly. Important are short geographic distances to
research organizations. It is not important to collaborate with world leading experts.
120 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

Average smart people with creativity nearby are even more important. Especially in
case projects are about to finish and stress increases because projects seem to run
wrong. If partners are located nearby, the team can meet easily. This is impossible if
partners are located farther away. Usually the company delivers ideas to i.e. improve
machinery or processes and external research organizations l ke universities realize
these ideas within the necessary time. This would be impossible for the company
because of the lack of basic research expertise.

Also for interviewee 4 technology transfer works rather well, both on the professional
as well as management level; especially in case of existing contacts. However, there
are sometimes topics the company wants to work on but university researchers do
not seem to be interested. In some cases, simply knowledge is lacking, in other
cases university researchers do not want to specialize in the specific kind of
research. In addition, the lack of interest of university departments is surprising to the
company. I.e., they seldom ask for new topics for i.e. doctoral or master theses.
However, in any case the actual need for professional support provided by
universities is rather low, because most of the analytical work is done internally.

[Link] Is technology transfer going to change?

The personal judgment of interviewee 1 is that technology transfer must change to

even better use external resources and improve access to ideas. Resources
internally are constraint but externally vastly available. The theoretical potential to
further improve and expand business is huge. This attitude has to be promoted within
the company. However, daily business and a strong marketing and sales orientation
within the company make it difficult.

In case of the company represented by interviewee 2 technology transfer will not

change significantly. The use will increase because more projects will be realized.
However, this will be in line with the company’s overall growth.

Interviewee 3 stated that currently the company focuses on increasing internal

efficiency. The company is not yet so far to i.e. scan regularly external R&D
organizations for interesting technologies. It is not likely that this will change in the
near future. New contacts to R&D organizations currently happen rather by chance
than through systematically screening external organizations.
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 121

Interviewee 4 stated that technology transfer is not going to change. Even though the
company mentioned to have topics potentially interesting to realize with the support
of universities these topics are not of immediate importance. If these topics would
become important interviewee 4 would have the necessary contacts to either realize
them with the help of existing partners or existing partners could name other
researchers being able to provide support. The company tries to keep in contact with
relevant departments and to have personal contacts to relevant university
researchers, i.e. getting in contact with newly appointed department heads and
successors of specific university researchers.

[Link] Which support services would help to improve technology transfer?

For the company represented by interviewee 1 funding as a stand-alone topic is not

of major importance. It must leverage technology transfer. One support service would
be support in realizing technology fairs. The company has experiences in realizing
fairs to provide possibilities to establish collaborations with university researchers. In
one case it needed about a year to motivate university researchers to take part in
such a fair. Even though the set up was difficult, the feedback after the fair was very
positive. Interviewee 1 emphasized the role of universities out of an economic point
of view: Universities transform money into knowledge and companies re-transform
knowledge into money. Some university researchers do not seem to be willing to
justify their research by presenting results and to show potential applicability. This
has to be improved. The company tries to stimulate technology transfer by internally
providing necessary resources.

Reasons why the company represented by interviewee 2 is approached rarely by

university researchers and students are that no one of the management graduated
from universities in Styria and the small size of the company. However, the company
now recruits university graduates from universities in Styria. These people will take
with them their contacts and thus naturally expanding collaborations with regional
universities. In case of projects with universities, it would be helpful having someone
responsible for such projects at universities, someone who focuses on the delivery of
results and keeps track of projects. Finally yet importantly also relevant information
regarding research would be important. It would be necessary to personally meet
university researchers to actually discuss research. This is also the major reason why
finally collaborations are realized.
122 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

Interviewee 3 emphasized the complementary nature of universities and private R&D

organizations like i.e. engineering offices. Universities do not have the economic
pressure to i.e. finish projects with having set up a stable production process.
University researchers are satisfied if it works once in the laboratory but making
processes stable is not research anymore. Private companies are better in this
perspective. They have the economic pressure to deliver results and are better suited
to work out stable processes to make university research results fit for large-scale
production or industrial applications. Interviewee 3 values informal meetings highly.
I.e., lunches are a perfect possibility to exchange information usually not talked about
during formal meetings. In the beginning of technology transfer with universities,
funding for collaborative projects was rather important. Collaborations with
universities were welcomed because of increasing the funding quote. Nowadays it is
not that important anymore. Even if funding is not available, projects are still realized.

Interviewee 4 is rather satisfied with technology transfer. None of the current

activities needs to be changed. Existing collaborations work fine and the company
already has the necessary range of partners.

7.1.2 Companies without expenditures for but with contacts to universities

The following companies do not have expenditures for but contacts to universities.
Interviewees 5 and 6 belong to group 3, interviewees 7 and 8 to group 4.

Group 3 Group 4
Interviewee 5 Interviewee 6 Interviewee 7 Interviewee 8
Yearly R&D 5 None None 5
expenditures in % of
sales
Development of yearly From 0 to + 10 % From 0 to - 10 %
R&D expenditures for
2006 and 2007
Expenditures for 20 0
external R&D services
in % of all R&D
expenditures
Use of transfer means No technology No technology Certifications Taking part or
transfer means transfer means and consultancy providing input
used; exchange used; exchange for seminars or
of knowledge of knowledge workshops,
collaborative
R&D projects
Origin of universities Styria, Germany Styria Styria Styria
and Switzerland
Reasons for EU project
collaborating with proposals
universities outside
Styria
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 123

Universities of Primarily Exclusively Exclusively Exclusively

technology vs. universities of universities of universities of universities of
classical universities technology technology technology technology
No. of departments 2 3 2 1
companies are in
contact with
Major motives to Developing new Developing new No major No major
collaborate with and improving and improving motives mo ives
universities existing products existing products
and processes, and processes,
building up building up
specific specific
competencies, competencies,
helpful for access to pot.
external funding, new employees
access to pot.
new employees
Major mechanisms to Presentations of Existing personal No major Existing personal
get in contact with researchers at contacts, mechanisms contacts
universities events, short recommendation
geographic s of others, short
distance to geographic
universities distance to
universities
Companies’ Customized Customized and Prototypes, Customized and
categories services standardized customized standardized
services services services
Part of a group of Yes Yes Yes No
companies?
Sales in Mio. EUR 2,3 About 6 3,5 0,14
Development of sales More than + 10 From + 6 % to + From + 6 % to + From 0 to – 5 %
for 2006 and 2007 % 10 % 10 %
Share of products and 50 10 n/a 5
processes newly
developed or markedly
improved within the
last three years in %
of sales
Export quote in % 17 0 3 30
Most important export Germany Bulgaria Germany,
countries in terms of Sweden and
sales Netherlands
No. of employees 23 70 47 7
Share of university 33 5 0 Roughly 50
graduates in % of all
employees
Share of graduates 100 100 66
from universities of
technology in % of all
university graduates
Strategies Quality and Cost and quality Niche strategy Niche strategy
technology leadership
leadership
Respondent’s almer None BOKU Vienna None Graz University
mater of Technology
Current position at CEO Authorized CEO CEO
company signatory

Table 38: Characteristics of interviewees 5 to 8

124 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

[Link] Why and how did the company establish contacts to universities?

The company represented by interviewee 5 is an engineering office and works

primarily for the automotive industry. Some of the customers act as role models
regarding collaborations with universities. For a future project, the integration of
universities is planned. This collaboration could be rather intensive. The company
management usually establishes the contacts. Some of the contacts were
established by chance through i.e. taking part in delegations, others because of short
geographic distances to universities. Collaborations with private consultants and
universities of applied sciences already exist. Some of the collaborations are driven
by financial objectives because through outsourcing specific services the company
can apply for funding from funding agencies, others are driven by the need for
specific knowledge.

Interviewee 6 is the one who initially built up contacts between the company and
universities. He was the first academic in the company. In the beginning he tried to
establish collaborations with the university he graduated from, which is located about
1.5 hours by car from the company’s location. This did not work, thus interviewee 6
turned to universities located nearby, which worked better. Now the company has
more academics with different educational background. This implies that also
contacts to universities are more broadly distributed. However, interviewee 6 still is
the major contact point for universities. Contacts to public R&D labs without teaching
activities do not exist because the company uses existing contacts also for recruiting
purposes.

The company represented by interviewee 7 rarely has contacts to universities. These

contacts are limited to employees of central university departments and were
established because of university employees directly approaching the company. The
business of the company is not R&D intensive. In case of necessary development
activities the company realizes the work together with customers. However, the input
of the company is usually relatively small. It does not have contacts to R&D
organizations others than universities.

The company represented by interviewee 8 is a kind of academic spin-off. The

professor coaching the master thesis and the beginning of the doctoral thesis, which
remained unfinished, of interviewee 8 supported the foundation of the company.
However, the development of the company ran differently than expected. The major
reason to found the company in the first place was the lack of finances to keep on
working on the doctoral thesis. After founding the company additional services
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 125

besides the originally planned ones had to be offered to make profits. Contacts and
collaborations with university departments interviewee 8 was in contact with during
his career as university researcher still exist. With the help of these contacts,
relations to other R&D institutions active in this research area are established. The
majority of contacts are mere customer-supplier relationships.

[Link] How satisfying are your contacts with universities?

Up to date interviewee 5 has made good experiences with universities. However,

current contacts are not intensive. In the near future contacts will be intensified and
then the company will get a better feeling how such collaborations could work. The
major technology transfer means used by the company in the past were recruiting
services and support for feas bility studies.

Interviewee 6 mentioned potential for improvements. This potential lies within the
universities’ organizations as well as the professional knowledge of university
researchers. Interviewee 6 criticized that university researchers often are not
available. They are simply not present at their university departments. This results in
rather weak professional quality at university departments where engineers working
in companies often know more than university researchers. In general, the company
realizes the major part of the problem solving process on its own because university
researchers do not want to engage in identifying solutions and setting up tests. In
such cases, university researchers are contracted exclusively to actually realize
necessary tests.

For interviewee 7 it was at the time of the interview not poss ble to comment on this
question because the company only has loose contacts to central university
departments but not to university researchers at departments. Currently the company
thinks about the development of own products. In this case, support by universities
would be needed.

Because of the existing personal contacts between interviewee 8 and university

researchers current collaborations work rather well.
126 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

[Link] Is technology transfer going to change?

In case of interviewee 5 technology transfer will intensify. It is rather likely that for the
next projects, where universities will be integrated, also expenditures for universities
will occur.

Beginning with January 2006 the company of interviewee 6 got a new proprietor. In
the past, an investment house without direct interest in the business area of the
company was the proprietor. With the new proprietor, technology transfer is likely to
intensify because the new proprietor already collaborates intensively with
universities.

In case the company focuses on the development of own products it could become
possible that technology transfer increases. Interviewee 7 mentioned another
company heavily engaged in technology transfer as role model for the own company.

Interviewee 8 would be interested to work also with other university departments as

service provider. However, it is difficult for the company to get in contact with the
various university departments because immediate professional links as well as
knowledge of their specific research are missing.

[Link] Which support services would help you to improve technology transfer?

Interviewee 5 could not name specific recommendations for actions to improve

technology transfer. One service the company could use would be a pool of students
with their competencies to be used in case of capacity constraints. A major barrier for
the company is confidentiality. According to interviewee 5, it is impossible to
collaborate with universities for radical innovations, i.e. new product development. Up
to date the company has not made bad experiences. However, partners have
complaint about universities regarding confidentiality and their inability to deliver
project results on time. Also university researchers leaving projects because of
teaching activities and their preference of larger companies are barriers mentioned
by interviewee 5.

Interviewee 6 criticized the behavior of university researchers regarding the definition

of projects. If companies contact universities, they usually want support to solve
specific problems. If university researchers do not give feedback within a reasonable
time, companies get nervous. Interviewee 6 knows this behavior and is used to it but
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 127

others are not. It is important to consider longer time frames if working with
universities. Learning to collaborate is important to understand the modus operandus
of universities and to develop such understanding. It would be helpful to realize
regular events at university departments to establish contacts. These events should
have a rather informal character where research is presented. Also suited information
brochures should be provided to get an overview of specific services and knowledge.
University researchers should also take care of not over committing their resources. It
is not comprehensible if university researchers delay meetings and project dates
because of teaching or attending conferences. Compared to universities like Oxford
university researchers in Austria invest rather little time for students according to
interviewee 6. This should change in order to provide highly qualified employees for
companies.

Interviewee 7 did not have a clear picture of potential recommendations for actions.
According to the previously provided input, the following services would be helpful:
Focus on own products on side of the company, universities actively approaching the
company with ideas for collaborations and support regarding funding.

Interviewee 8 did not name any specific needs either. It would be good if others like
university researchers have ideas and ask the company to provide support in the
realization process. In case ideas are developed and the company is chosen for
realization it would be positive to have support regarding funding, i.e. identifying
suited funding programs and setting up and formulating proposals.

7.1.3 Companies not yet having contacts to universities but interested in building up
relations

The following interviews were led with company representatives whose companies
did not have contacts to universities at the time of the survey but were interested in
establishing contacts. Interviewees 9 and 10 belong to group 5, 11 and 12 to group 6
and 13 and 14 to group 7.

Group 5 Group 6 Group 7

Interviewee Interviewee Interviewee Interviewee Interviewee Interviewee
9 10 11 12 13 14
Yearly R&D None 5 Around 5 10 0.5 Around 3
expenditures in %
of sales
Development of From 0 to + From 0 to + From + 11 From 0 to + From 0 to –
yearly R&D 10 % 10 % % to 25 % 10 % 10 %
expenditures for
2006 and 2007
128 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

Expenditures for 50 0 0 10 0
external R&D
services in % of all
R&D expenditures
Companies’ Mass Customize Customize Customize Mass Customize
categories production d services d services d services production d services
Part of a group of Yes No No No No Yes
companies?
Sales in Mio EUR Almost 20 n/a Around 3 0.6 25 2.8
Development of From + 6 More than From 0 % From 0 % From 0 % From + 6
sales for 2006 and % to + 10 + 10 % to + 5 % to – 5 % to + 5 % % to + 10
2007 % %
Share of products 0 30 15 0 0 1
and processes
newly developed or
markedly improved
within the last hree
years in % of sales
Export quote in % 97 20 15 0 10 10
Most important Germany, Slovakia Germany Germany, Poland,
export countries in Italy and and Italy and Croatia and
terms of sales USA Hungary Slovenia Slovenia
No. of employees 105 1 30 3 325 35
Share of university 0 0 3 66 0.3 Almost 50
graduates in % of
all employees
Share of graduates 100 100 0 Around 95
from universi ies of
technology in % of
all university
graduates
Strategies Cost and Niche Quality Niche Cost and Quality
technology strategy leadership strategy quality leadership
leadership leadership and niche
strategy
Respondent’s almer None None Graz Graz None Graz
mater University University University
of of of
Technology Technology Technology
Current position at Location CEO CEO CEO CEO CEO
company manager

Table 39: Characteristics of interviewees 9 to 14

[Link] Why did you not yet establish contacts to universities?

Interviewee 9 already tried to establish contacts to university researchers. However,

the problem solving capacity did not meet company’s requirements. Years ago, the
company location was rather strong in R&D. Many of the current products were
developed internally in collaboration with the R&D department of the mother
company located in another part of Austria. Also nowadays, the company faces
regularly problems where universities could be of help. However, problems are rather
specialized. Interestingly the company does not turn to universities outside Styria to
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 129

ask for support. If regional universities cannot help, the company tries it on its own by
trial and error and asks the central R&D department of the mother company for help.
This R&D department is also working on European and international standardization
issues and the like.

Interviewee 10 represents a one-person-company. Like interviewee 9 also

interviewee 10 already had contacts to universities. These contacts focused
exclusively on the realization of standard tests for own customers. The contacts did
not lead to increasing interest in technology transfer but hindered interviewee 10 from
getting in contact with departments doing research potentially interesting to the
company. According to interviewee 10 responsibilities at university departments are
not clear and prices for the same service differ according to the person one asks.
This experience throws a bad light on other university departments too.

Interviewee 11 mentioned that the company currently lacks a clear strategic

orientation, experience, and resources for collaborations with universities. In the past,
the company had students of universities of applied sciences. The delivered practical
work was rather good but the students were not that independently as the company
wished them to be. The company expects university students who are in general
older than their colleagues of universities of applied sciences to be more
independently and able to prepare and realize their work in a way that finally
decisions can be taken. In addition, an interest for business activities of the company
would be necessary for fruitful collaborations. Even though interviewee 11 graduated
from one university of technology, he does not have a detailed overview of
possibilities for collaborations between companies and universities. This might be
because the person realized a master thesis without company participation.

Interviewee 12 is a university graduate and held lectures at universities. Still,

interviewee 12 stated to lack information regarding research at university
departments. Even though the company has contacts to university researchers
collaborations are never realized as collaborations with universities because
university researchers usually participate in such projects through their private
companies. Interviewee 12 did not judge this negatively but thus collaborations with
universities would not result. The person mentioned other R&D organizations like the
German Fraunhofer Gesellschaft as positive example for their way to present
research. Interviewee 12 gets regularly information regarding new studies and if
needed pays online and downloads them. The company itself is not specialized.
Therefore, it is difficult to establish long-term partnerships with specific departments.
130 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

However, questions arise regularly which could be solved together with universities
because of their potential positive long-term impact.

Interviewee 13 named the lack of overlapping activities as reason for not having
contacts to universities. The company is active within an area where regional
universities do not realize specific research. If the company talks about R&D, it
mainly means decreasing production failures. In case of problems, it is often
sufficient to contact suppliers of machinery.

Interviewee 14, an academic, already knows many university researchers personally.

However, the contacts are all outside the university researchers’ activities at
universities, i.e. university researchers as certified referees. He meets university
researchers also regularly at events for university students and graduates of specific
studies and is invited to give presentations on such occasions. Out of the point of
view of interviewee 14 universities have to do the first step. The company
represented by interviewee 14 mainly applies standards. Therefore, the need to
collaborate with universities is not that strong.

[Link] How could technology transfer start?

Costs are not the major criteria for interviewee 9. The company would rather pay
than to try to solve problems internally. The major barrier is to find someone willing or
being professionally able to support the company in its specific areas.

Interviewee 10 would start with small and non-critical projects. If experiences with
university researchers were positive, interviewee 10 would intensify contacts. In
general, interviewee 10 could think of long-lasting relations with universities, i.e.
regularly commissioning master theses. Such projects would also be a matter of
costs and therefore subject to external funding. The company currently has contacts
to one university of applied sciences and engineering offices. These relations are
primarily for i.e. using infrastructure and commissioning tests for company’s
customers. Contacts are mainly established by other people with whom interviewee
10 is already in contact with.

Interviewee 11 thought already about potential topics for collaborations. The

company would start with a pilot project and in case collaborations work well relations
could be extended, i.e. building up competencies with help of universities. The
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 131

company highly values concrete deliverables. Currently the company does not have
external R&D partnerships.

Interviewee 12 is interested specifically in publications interesting for the company’s

business area, i.e. specific calculations, current standards, and specific research
potentially useful to the company. The company does not have external R&D
partnerships.

Interviewee 13 mentioned during the interview one concrete topic, where the
company would need support from universities. However, the company did not have
a plan how contacts to universities could be established.

Interviewee 14 did not have concrete thoughts of how to start technology transfer.
However, most likely would be small studies or master theses. Important are
concrete measures and benefits resulting from such activities. All current
developments are done internally. Partnerships with R&D providers do not yet exist.

[Link] Which support services would be useful in technology transfer?

Interview 9 misses university researchers and students actively approaching the

company with interesting project proposals. However, since shortly this is getting
better. The lack of expertise and interest especially in the area of the company is an
important barrier for more intensive contacts.

Interviewee 10 stated that the company is principally interested in collaborations.

Universities should provide more information about research and services offered by
their departments including contacts and prices where suitable. In most of the cases,
interviewee 10 does not know what university departments offer. It is likely that many
services could be useful for either the company itself or other companies with which
interviewee 10 is in contact with. Additionally university researchers should
recommend funding instruments. University researchers would not have to prepare
the proposals on their own but they should consult companies which funding
instruments would be suitable for respective projects. Also other services l ke i.e.
using library services should be more oriented towards business needs. Furthermore,
universities and their departments should think about i.e. events l ke open doors and
similar formats. Entry barriers for companies must be lowered, especially for the ones
not employing academics and not being experienced in collaborations with
universities.
132 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

Interviewee 11 mentioned that the company would not be ready to start

collaborations. First of all the company would have to define objectives for
collaborations with universities. This is a strategic decision. Currently the company
focuses on realizing daily business without thinking much about the future. For
technology transfer the company would have to build up one or two employees
primarily responsible for contacts to universities. If the company is ready interviewee
11 expects universities to act by providing suited information about research and
collaboration possibilities. Universities should start and initiate actions because
otherwise it is likely that the company again focuses too much on daily business.
Interviewee 11 mentioned the presentations of best practice examples of
collaborations as one way to make technology transfer interesting for companies.
The company is experienced regarding funding instruments. Anyway, interviewee 11
mentioned several times that the company would not like to realize projects only
because of the available funding. The research topic and objectives are more
important. The company would prefer if university researchers recommend funding
instruments suited for specific projects. It does not make sense if funding agencies
present instruments for collaborative research projects without a given occasion.

Interviewee 12 stated that even the company is not highly specialized in specific
areas sometimes questions arise where universities could dock on. The company
would have to give impulses for university researchers being able to provide
solutions. Universities should take on comments and enquiries from companies,
process them, and provide suited input for companies. Furthermore, research and
results should be better displayed. Interviewee 12 mentioned one good example of
collaborations between industry and science. It is collaboration in the area of wood
where university researchers offer services and expertise for companies and
companies use this network to exchange experiences. In addition, vocational training
is offered according to the needs of companies. Such positive examples depend
primarily on the commitment of companies and university researchers willing to push
such networks.

Interviewee 13 mentioned the need to have entry gates at universities. Especially in

case of not yet having contacts, it would be difficult to know whom to approach at
universities.

Interviewee 14 emphasized the importance of management support in companies.

Top and middle management posts of the company are held by academics. If they
would stress the need and importance of collaborations with universities, the
company would likely engage in collaborations. Management could establish
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 133

necessary contacts because of their own history and contacts. However, universities
should initiate technology transfer by actively contacting companies. One way would
be to strengthen links with their alumni in order to ensure ongoing contacts. Also
events accompanied by marketing activities to attract companies are a good
measure to establish contacts between university researchers and companies. Third
parties like i.e. governments and funding agencies should stress benefits of
collaborations and focus on collaborative projects. Despite increasing third party
funding of universities, interviewee 14 emphasized the need for a stable level of
basic funding for universities. Otherwise, danger exists that universities compete with
companies in order to acquire additional finances. There must be a clear border
between basic research and application. Many politicians think that such universities
do not need that much basic funding because they have the potential and track
record that through projects with companies and others they can acquire the needed
financial means on their own.

7.1.4 Companies not yet having contacts to universities and not being interested in
building up relations

The interview serial with company representatives concludes with two interviews with
representatives of companies not yet having contacts to universities and not being
interested in establishing such. Interviewees 15 and 16 belong to group 8.

Group 8
Interviewee no. 15 Interviewee no. 16
Yearly R&D expenditures in % of Less than 1 None
sales
Development of yearly R&D From 0 % to + 10 %
expenditures for 2006 and 2007
Expenditures for external R&D 0
services in % of all R&D
expenditures
Companies’ categories Prototype manufacturer and Standardized and customized
customized service provider service provider
Part of a group of companies? Yes No
Sales in Mio EUR 4 8.6
Development of turnover for From 0 % to + 5 % From 0 % to + 5 %
2006 and 2007
Share of products and 10 0.5
processes newly developed or
markedly improved within the
last three years in % of sales
Export quote in % 70 0
Most important export countries Slovenia, Poland and
in terms of sales Russia
No. of employees 23 48
Share of university graduates in 10 0
% of all employees
134 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

Share of graduates from 100

universities of technology in % of
all university graduates
Strategies Quality leadership and Quality leadership
niche strategy
Respondent’s almer mater Graz University of None
Technology
Current position at company CEO CEO

Table 40: Characteristics of interviewees 15 and 16

[Link] Why do you not want to do technology transfer?

Interviewee 15 stated as reason for the company not being interested in technology
transfer that currently problems can be solved with internal capacities. Therefore,
external R&D partnerships are not necessary. The industrial sector of the company
does not face trends like knowledge based products and services as well as the
necessity for collaborations with i.e. universities. It is mainly a competition via costs.
In the past, other companies have tried to justify higher prices with new innovative
products but they failed. The company is active in B2B where low investment costs
and reliability of products are valued highly. Usually only the investment costs are
important and not the life cycle costs because parties, which invest, and the ones
running the machinery are not the same.

The company of interviewee 16 too is not engaged in external R&D partnerships. The
company itself introduced business development measures around the year 2000 to
ensure the future well being of the company. The respective measures already
began to affect the business positively. I.e., the company decided to specialize on
offering holistic solutions out of one hand to customers by subcontracting other
companies. Marketing expenditures were drastically reduced because the company
focuses on a small number of key customers who recommend the company by word
of mouth. This approach seems to be successful. The family owned company has an
above average equity ratio compared to similar companies. The organization itself is
rather lean and the size is according to interviewee 16 just right to operate within this
business. The company also has a rather good working atmosphere. The fluctuation
of employees is low. Higher prices can be justified because of the offered quality and
flexibility.
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 135

[Link] What would have to happen to do technology transfer?

Introducing new regulatory by governmental institutions could motivate the company

represented by interviewee 15 to contact universities to work out solutions to meet
requirements. However, in case of regional universities expertise in the company’s
business area is not that strong.

Interviewee 16 mentioned that if the company is asked to tender projects and

encounters limits potential solutions are developed internally. The company does not
actively offer new solutions to customers but responds strictly following customers’
needs. The company already thought about screening externally for new
developments and solutions in order to offer this actively to customers. However, this
is not feasible because of the currently lean organizations. If the company would
realize this activity, it would be necessary to recruit additional employees. This would
increase overheads, thus decreasing profits.

7.1.5 Summary of the interviews with company representatives

Companies with expenditures for universities do technology transfer. The extent

varies according to the absolute expenditures. The quantitative results and interviews
show that these companies are well linked to universities. The other groups, even in
case of companies with contacts to but without expenditures for universities, are not
that heavily or not at all engaged in technology transfer. In case contacts exist, they
are in general rather weak and centralized. These relations resemble rather supplier-
customers relations than research collaborations. Thus, these companies do not
really tap the knowledge available at universities. The interviews revealed the
importance of technology transfer via heads by recruiting academics and enabling
and facilitating personal meetings between company representatives and university
researchers to discuss research possibilities and actually start projects.

7.2 Interviews with university researchers

All interviewees were asked to their current technology transfer, the history, i.e. how
did it come to contacts to companies, and the future development of technology
transfer out of their point of view. Additionally they were asked to indicate relevant
recommendations for actions to increase and improve technology transfer.
136 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

7.2.1 University researchers with contacts to companies

This group consists of two subgroups. In total five interviews were realized, four with
university researchers belonging to group 1, interviewees 1 to 4, and one interview
with a university researcher belonging to the second group, interviewee 5. This
university researcher was the only one being at the author’s disposal for an interview.

Group 1 Group 2
Interviewee 1 2 3 4 5
Faculty Technical Construction Mechanical Technical Construction
chemistry, engineering engineering chemistry, engineering
process and process
engineering economics engineering
and and
biotechnology biotechnology
Size of More than 20 More than 20 From 11 to 20 More than 20 From 11 to 20
department in no.
of employees
Age From 36 to 45 Up to 30 From 36 to 45 From 46 to 55 Up to 30
years years years years years
Employee Professor Scientific Assistant Professor Scientific
category employee in employee in
formation formation
Academic degree Dipl.-Ing. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Dipl.-Ing.
techn.
Posi ion financed Regular Regular Regular Regular Regular
by university university university university university
budget budget budget budget budget
Since when do 2003 2002 2000 1980 2003
you work at the
university?
Working 15 years 0 years 4 years 0 years 0.5 years
experience in
companies
Number of 50 5 2 2 4
different
companies with
which university
researchers is
personally in
contact with per
mon h
Time spend for 60/5/35 20/10/70 50/5/45 25/45/30 50/30/20
teaching, basic
research and
collaborations
with companies
Supportive for Yes, very Yes, rather Yes, very Yes, rather Yes, very
learning/teaching much/supporti much/supporti much/supporti much/supporti much/suppor i
ve ve ve ve ve
Wanting to extent Yes No Yes Yes No

Table 41: Characteristics of interviewees 1 to 5

Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 137

[Link] Why and how did it come to contacts to companies?

Interviewee 1 is the head of the university department. The primary motivation to do

technology transfer is to finance employees. The minimum financial objective is to
hold currently employed third party funded university researchers and to ensure the
quality of infrastructure. Contacts from the predecessor from which interviewee 1 took
over the position some years ago are still used. Additionally interviewee 1 brought in
new contacts from his own personal working experience. Interviewee 1 focuses
strongly on technology transfer with companies from foreign countries. He is also the
one usually establishing contacts to companies because the department lacks a
middle management. Interviewee 1 motivates employees to publish at conferences,
magazines, and scientific journals to market services and capabilities of the
department and to acquire new company partners. He too is active in different
associations at European level in order to open doors to participate in EU projects.
New entries at the department are usually integrated quickly in projects with
companies and learn from their more experienced colleagues.

Colleagues introduced interviewee 2 to technology transfer. Already two weeks after

starting working at the department, the person had the first small project with a
company. Collaborations with companies at the department are common. Now at the
end of the four year contract the person has finally acquired an own company partner
by actively approaching it to exchange experiences regarding the area of his doctoral
thesis. The department has a large network of graduates and former colleagues.
Additionally the department has unique infrastructure not commonly available in
industry, which additionally motivates companies and other organizations to contact
the department.

Interviewee 3 acquires most of the companies for technology transfer via an

association closely related to the respective university department and students
wanting to realize master theses for their family owned companies. The department
has a mentoring system in place where an older colleague is being put together with
a younger colleague. These two people share an office, work together on projects,
and make joint company visits. The department systematically documents
companies’ data together with tasks like who calls next and the like. Additionally the
department realizes a yearly event together with other departments where chosen
master theses commissioned by companies are presented. This event serves to
establish new contacts and cultivate established ones.
138 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

Interviewee 4 entered the university via a basic research project and was then
afterwards recruited by the department on a full time job basis paid for by regular
university budget. At the time of his entry, the former head of the department did not
strongly focus on technology transfer with companies. Technology transfer started
when interviewee 4 was contacted directly by companies because of published
research results. Many collaborations result from existing personal relations with
former employees of the department and students. A plan to systematically build up
technology transfer did not exist.
Interviewee 5 is a rather young university research fellow. The person entered the
university in 2003. The head of the department who is finally responsible for all
projects establish the majority of technology transfer. The university researcher can
acquire additional projects whereby the department head usually follows the
recommendations of the university researcher about whether or not to realize joint
activities. According to interviewee 5, technology transfer works well because of the
individual efforts of the head of the department.

[Link] How satisfying is technology transfer currently?

Interviewee 1 is very satisfied with current technology transfer out of the professional
as well as organizational point of view. However, currently all research at the
department is realized jointly with companies. The university researcher mentioned
that it is one of the objectives to realize also research projects without companies’
participation to strengthen the basic research base. The department also uses
project management tools like regular project meetings to control the development of
projects, which ensures the success of technology transfer.

Interviewee 2 is also satisfied with technology transfer. Remember that the majority
of current technology transfer is realized with one single partner, a company active in
the same research area. Besides the professional overlap, also the personal relation
has developed well. The university researcher provides the company also with the
possibility to present itself in front of an academic auditorium to i.e. recruit new
employees and to make the company known within the university.

Interviewee 3 assessed technology transfer also beneficially regarding teaching and

research. The university researcher works primarily with companies already known.
The only problem is the lack of students to realize master theses.
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 139

Interviewee 4 also rates technology transfer positive. Company representatives who

know the person from conferences or due his scientific publications primarily contact
the university researcher. The companies are in general rather large and mainly
located in Germany. Regional companies interested in the specific research area do
not exist. Because of the size and research intensity of the companies, they usually
directly contact interviewee 4 and do not turn to central university departments to
establish necessary contacts. The university researcher focuses mainly on research
projects with potential for scientific publications. Sometimes interviewee 4 realizes
contractual work like tests or coaching master theses because of the interest to get to
know other industrial sectors, the potential of future collaborations or to finance
laboratory equipment. However, usually the university researcher does not realize
projects without the option to get more into detail and to publish scientific articles.

Also the representative of group 2, interviewee 5, assessed technology transfer

positive for teaching and research. Current contacts to companies enable the
university researcher to realize tests and access to necessary data for research.

[Link] Is technology transfer likely to change in the future and if yes how?

Interviewee 1 wants to strengthen the basic research at the department and

increasingly join European projects as partner. Therefore, the university researcher
engages in various European associations to establish necessary contacts. The
quantitative objective regarding technology transfer is to hold the current level of third
party funded employees and infrastructure. Missing infrastructure like room space
hinders an absolute increase of technology transfer.

Interviewee 2 does not have free capacities until September 2006. After September
2006, the university researcher will focus on finishing the doctoral thesis. Therefore,
technology transfer will run out with September 2006.

Interviewee 3 plans to establish a pool of students to act as consultants for projects

with companies. This would be similar to so-called junior enterprises. This should
help to overcome the shortage of students to realize more projects with companies.

Interviewee 4 does not expect technology transfer to change. The university

researcher stressed the need to ensure a certain level of finances provided by the
university. In case of laboratory material and equipment, many items nowadays have
to be financed by other sources than regular university budget.
140 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

Interviewee 5 currently does technology transfer with Austrian partners. Half of them
are from Styria. An internationalization of technology transfer might happen by joining
international project consortia. However, the university researcher does not strongly
work in this direction because of limited time resources.

[Link] How could respective parties support technology transfer?

Interviewee 1 stressed central university bureaucracy. I.e., the current controlling

system is too complex and blown up for universities and on the other hand misses
features like the controlling of personnel efforts, i.e. hours per person per project. The
university researcher also stressed the need to focus on core competencies. This
would be interesting for companies and out of the university researcher’s point of
view, a university of technology would be especially well suited to realize such an
approach. The university researcher notes such a change in case of tests. Ordinary
tests are increasingly outsourced to countries, which can realize such tests more
economically because of cheaper labor costs. Also the shear amount of university
researchers at other research organizations makes it necessary to specialize and
focus. Following the core competence approach, it is necessary to establish a suited
career model at universities, which allows university researchers to stay longer than
the usual four years. In addition, the change from third party funded to university
funded status should be easier. The payment must increase to remain competitive. A
performance dependent model, where university researchers increase their personal
income if acquiring and realizing projects with companies and other organizations,
could be introduced. Besides the professional know how also requirements of
companies regarding service orientation and speed have to be fulfilled. The
university should try to motivate university researchers to engage in interdisciplinary
projects. Interviewee 1 already made bad experiences with other university
departments. They either calculate extraordinary high costs or are not interested in
projects with companies because of focusing on basic research. On the other hand, it
has to be said that with other university departments collaborations run smoothly.
The university researcher criticized the personnel costs introduced by the university,
which are rather high for companies the university department works for. Such costs
cannot always be realized. Even if the university researcher would have the
possibility to increase third party funding from companies infrastructure is lacking and
administration would increase further, making additional projects more difficult.

Interviewee 2 is quite satisfied with current services and technology transfer. The
university researcher would like to further extend technology transfer but time for own
research is precious. This limits possibilities to acquire new customers.
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 141

Interviewee 3 would appreciate increased awareness activities of the university by

i.e. publishing ads in magazines and regional or even sectoral media. The university
researcher would focus on real cases demonstrating benefits of technology transfer.
Also for central university departments like industrial liaison offices increased
marketing should be done. Also interviewee 3 stressed the lack of interdisciplinary
research. If the university wants to act as one research institution instead of an
agglomeration of university departments management should enable and facilitate
interdisciplinary research. Because of the necessity of financial support for smaller
companies, funding agencies should provide suited information. They should provide
such information actively also for university researchers and others working in the
field of technology transfer. Additionally the university researcher mentions a high
workload at companies and the lack of students at the university department as
barriers for increased technology transfer.

Interviewee 4 emphasized high bureaucracy at the university and companies’ lack of

capabilities. One beneficial service for the university researcher would be
professional support in acquiring external funding for projects. Only gathering
information already available online would not be sufficient. The university researcher
would need support if a company proposes projects, i.e. where to submit and how to
phrase the proposal. The university researcher stressed that central university
departments opening up new contacts may be suited for others but not for university
researchers at the interviewee’s faculty. In this specific research area, companies are
highly specialized and company researchers know which university researchers work
in relevant fields. The university researcher collaborates strongly with German
companies because regional companies active in areas interesting for interviewee 4
do not exist. The university researcher also stressed the importance of students for
the scientific output of the university department. Only thanks to them performing
tests and doing analyses a high scientific output is possible. Also the efforts for
coaching master theses is rather high compared to other faculties. Like interviewee 3
also interviewee 4 stressed the need for more students to realize more projects. The
university researcher also mentioned the rather high bureaucracy regarding projects
and the need to ensure a certain level of university funding to secure basic research.
Besides the necessity of research intensive companies also a suited cultural attitude
was mentioned by interviewee 4, i.e. companies in the USA are more active in
research and more open towards exploiting research results from universities. The
university researcher is also concerned about the current technology exploitation
strategy, which might be too aggressive. One of the main reasons for German
companies to collaborate with interviewee 4 is such aggressive strategies in
Germany.
142 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

Interviewee 5 currently works alone within his research area. Usually there is another
colleague but due to personal reasons, the colleague is temporarily off the job. This
situation limits chances to exchange ideas and for fruitful discussions. Also this
university researcher complains about high central university bureaucracy. In
addition, the support provided by central university departments is rather weak. Even
with other university departments, interviewee 5 made already bad experiences.
Once a vocational training course offered by another university department was
booked. Even though the course fees were cheaper than in case of private
companies they still were quite high. The university researcher would appreciate a
centrally available documentation of university’s external links in the form of
university department x is in contact with company y. Thus, already existing contacts
could be used to enter collaborations with companies. It would be necessary to reach
a common culture at the university, where all university departments work together
towards the same objectives.

7.2.2 University researchers not yet having contacts to companies but interested in
building up relations and university researchers not yet having contacts to
companies and not being interested in building up relations

Interviews of university researchers of group 3 and 4 are presented jointly.

Unfortunately, only one interview per group could be realized because other
colleagues were not at the author’s disposal. Remember that these two groups are
rather small compared to the groups 1 and 2. This too restricted chances for
interview partners. Both interviewees were asked what they would expect from
technology transfer with companies and what services could be offered by other
parties to support technology transfer. Interviewee 6, group 3, was asked why the
university researcher did not yet do technology transfer and interviewee 7, group 4,
was asked for the reasons not being interested in doing technology transfer.
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 143

Group 3 Group 4
Interviewee 6 7
School Informatics Electronic and information technology
Size of department From 11 to 20 From 11 to 20
in no. of employees
Age Up to 30 years More than 55 years
Employee category Scientific employee in formation Professor
Academic degree DDipl.-Ing.
Position financed by Regular university budget Regular university budget
Since when do you 2004 1969
work at the
university?
Working experience 0 years 0 years
in companies

Table 42: Characteristics of interviewees 6 and 7

[Link] What hinders the start of technology transfer?

The main reason for interviewee 6 not to engage yet in technology transfer is the
current funding of the university researcher by regular university budget. Therefore, it
was not yet necessary to build up contacts to companies. Even if the university
researcher wanted to do technology transfer, he did not have the necessary time until
now. The university researcher also stated that the knowledge of how do to it was
lacking, i.e. how to approach companies and which companies to approach. The
university researcher was not yet asked by colleagues to join company visits or
meetings. Additionally the university researcher mentioned that the research topic of
the doctoral thesis is rather theoretically without immediate applications in industry.

[Link] Why is the interest in technology transfer lacking?

Interviewee 7 is very well networked with other researchers of whom the majority
works at universities. Only a minor part works in research centers others than
universities. One of the colleagues even has founded a private company in the
respective research area. At Graz University of Technology, the university researcher
is unique regarding the research topic. The university researcher stated that earlier
he could have focused on other topics which are nowadays more interesting for
private companies. Now it would be too late to change. According to interviewee 7,
companies active in the specific area do not realize R&D and this is the major reason
for the university researcher for not doing technology transfer.
144 Interviews with company representatives and university researchers

[Link] What would be objectives for technology transfer?

Interviewee 6’s main motivation for technology transfer are career perspectives in
companies following the formation at the university or acquiring funds to have the
possibility to remain at the university even after the funding by regular university
budget is finished.

Interviewee 7 stressed the importance of highly scientific questions. The university

researcher emphasized not to be strictly against technology transfer with companies.
The decision whether or not to engage in such collaborations depends on the
scientific content measured in publications. This is also the reason why the university
researcher is responsible for two thirds of all publications in highly ranked journals of
the university department per year.

[Link] How could respective parties support technology transfer?

Interviewee 6 identified potential support within the university department, at the

university as well as within companies. Support within the university department
could be provided by colleagues acting as door-openers and invite interviewee 6 to
join company visits and meetings with company representatives. Furthermore, it
would be positive if companies interesting for the university researcher would be
presented to know more about the company landscape within the specific research
area. Additionally the university department could organize events like companies’
presentations or open door days, inviting companies to the university department to
present current research. Centrally the university researcher mentioned services like
blackboards, where companies’ enquiries could be published as well as companies’
presentations and open door days. Activities like open door days and companies’
presentations could also be organized by companies inviting university researchers
to visit the company and discuss potential research collaborations.

Interviewee 7 emphasized the need for sufficient funding of basic research. It does
not make sense to build up research areas based on third party funding where if
necessary all enquiries have to be taken to guarantee sufficient money for research.
On the other hand is it difficult to quickly recruit suited staff in case of collaborative
research proposals. Basic funding should provide the poss bility to establish and run
research and to have staff at hand in case collaborations are about to start. Such
university researchers could also act as anchor for the research topic and keep
developing the research area. The university researcher would also welcome efforts
from others in establishing and developing contacts to companies, which do research
Interviews with company representatives and university researchers 145

at a comparable level. The university researcher expects companies to be willing to

engage in basic research. One of the major problems is the need for high competitive
salaries. In case of graduates from universities of technology, starting salaries are
already quite high and it is difficult to increase the number of i.e. doctoral students or
female university researchers without paying competitive salaries. It also takes long
until one knows whether a project proposal is approved or not. In the meantime, staff
has to be paid for by other sources. Therefore, it is necessary to start very early to
plan for such situations.

7.3 Summary of interviews with university researchers

The majority of university researchers already have contacts to companies. The

extent varies widely. University researchers not yet having contacts to companies but
being interested in building up such relations are usually younger. Doing technology
transfer was not yet necessary for them. University researchers not yet having
contacts to companies and not being interested in building up such relations argue
that companies do not do basic research; technology transfer would not meet
requirements of these university researchers. The interviews reveal that differences
in potential support services not only depend on the age of university researchers but
also their research area and their objectives. Many arguments touch central
university bureaucracy, companies’ R&D capabilities, and the facilitation of
interdisciplinary research at the university.
Recommendations for actions 147

8 Recommendations for actions

The following chapter summarizes recommendations for actions for the previously
defined groups of companies and university researchers. These proposals also
include suggestions, which organization should primarily drive these actions. The
following chapters start with a summary of suggestions important for a major part or
even all survey participants and then go deeper into detail for the different groups.

8.1 Companies

All companies wish for more and better information about research and possibilities
of collaborations. However, different R&D strengths call for different approaches in
communicating R&D competencies of universities. High export quotes have a similar
influence on technology transfer l ke carrying out R&D. Companies with higher export
quotes are more likely to have expenditures for universities. They usually also have
contacts to or collaborations with universities outside their home region. This results
in the high importance of research excellence at universities for these companies.
Throughout all groups of companies, personal relations to university researchers are
important. This shows the necessity to realize events where company
representatives can meet university researchers personally and vice versa. There
should also be room for informal meetings. Especially companies with expenditures
for universities often approach university researchers actively. Nevertheless,
university researchers also frequently approach them. In comparison with companies
with expenditures for universities, university researchers rarely approach companies
without expenditures for universities. Recruiting academics is one of the most
important means to start technology transfer. In the interviews employment of
university graduates was mentioned as important to establish contacts to universities.
Companies also have to be aware that they must prepare themselves for technology
transfer. Management support as well as a distribution of contacts to university
researchers on various employees within the company are important issues in this
regard.

8.1.1 Companies with expenditures for universities: Group 1

Companies of group 1 are supposed to be of major interest for university researchers

because of their resources for universities and their R&D capabilities, which make
them interesting out of a scientific point of view. In general, these companies do not
seem to need support in establishing contacts to universities. They do not need to be
148 Recommendations for actions

motivated to use external knowledge providers. They are well aware of possibilities
and benefits provided by technology transfer. Intermediaries are only of importance
for some of the smaller companies of this group, which are not yet that known at the
campus. Research near intermediaries could play a role in designing new products
and services and realize them with the support of university management. Especially
the areas of interdisciplinary research and setting up poss bilities to meet each other
would be suited for central technology transfer units at universities. Other
intermediaries do not seem to be that important because of their loose links to
universities. The area of master contracts and IPRs are also an issue of universities.
Especially in cases where governments already set up laws how such issues at
universities should be handled. Central university departments dealing with legal
issues, technology exploitation and transfer should work out suited contracts and
rules regarding these issues and ensure the use within the university. Companies of
group 1 already have links to universities outside their home region. Universities
should be aware that they have to offer high quality support and research in order to
attract these companies. Otherwise, they are likely to turn to other universities and
research centers, which can better satisfy their needs.

Companies of group 1 stated following need for support in the questionnaire:

Universities actively approaching companies (i.e. realizing events and presentations, projects for
individual sectors), better presenting current research projects and possibilities to collaborate (i.e.
standardized information exchange) and asking companies for current research questions (N=5)
Comparable contracts and standards for master and doctoral theses. Master contracts for
collaborations. Clear rules regarding IPRs. (N=5)
Higher and less bureaucratic funding of R&D, which are contracted to universities (N=3)
Studies are often more welcomed than actually realizing research results. Not working on every
question in form of doctoral theses because it prolongs the project duration. (N=3)
Interest of single university departments are too important (this leads to problems in doing
interdisciplinary research). A more entrepreneurial hinking necessary. (N=2)
Personal contacts for small and medium sized companies at universities are necessary. Otherwise
projects are unlikely to be realized (N=2)
Strategic collaborations (i.e. to build up employees) (N=2)
Focusing on research areas, which are realized continuously without the need for funding from
companies
Setting up praxis semesters for students
University departments do not understand the way of working in small and medium sized
companies.

Table 43: Need for support mentioned by companies of group 1

As is shown by the answers especially presenting research projects, results and

possibilities to collaborate, standardized contracts and clear rules for IPRs are asked
for by companies. Some also stated the need to build up professional areas at
universities interesting to them.
Recommendations for actions 149

The interviews with two company representatives of group 1 showed following needs
for support: (1) Providing possibilities to establish personal relations and to present
current research, i.e. events, fairs. (2) Increasing motivation of university researchers
to show potential applications of their research. (3) Supporting employment of
graduates from regional universities. (4) Project managers at universities for projects
with companies. (5) Awareness that also companies have to take their turn in
enabling and facilitating technology transfer.

The results show that even though these companies are R&D intensive and
experienced in technology transfer potential for improvements exists. If university
researchers approach these companies, the capabilities in developing new and
improving existing products and processes should be emphasized. These two
motives are of major importance for companies belonging to group 1. The most
important barrier is Universities are passive in providing information and presenting
their research results and possibilities to collaborate. Companies expect universities
to become more active in providing information about current research projects and
possibilities to collaborate. Communication does not only include suited brochures
and web sites but also events where companies can directly establish contacts with
university researchers and vice versa. Considering the strong R&D capabilities of
these companies such events should be rather specific and provide detailed
overviews of current research done at the university. It seems also important to
consider suited follow up activities to ensure sustained results.

Equally important to the need for better information is the wish for master contracts
and clear rules regarding IPRs. This is not surprisingly considering that the majority
of companies of group 1 commission a rather high number of master and doctoral
theses and realize a rather high number of R&D projects with university researchers.
Master contracts are supposed to speed up negotiations and clear rules regarding
IPRs give companies the safety about further steps regarding exploitations33.
Companies also wish to play a role in defining research questions to be worked on at
universities. This is reasonable because in general companies of group 1 are strong
in R&D. Companies also stated the need for higher funding of projects with
universities. This might be because such projects frequently deal with basic research
issues where success in terms of new products or processes for companies is not
necessarily guaranteed. In case of funding companies also emphasized the need for
less bureaucracy. In some cases, companies also criticized the excessive use of
doctoral theses to solve research questions. According to the companies, doctoral
33
Note that Austrian universities are entitled to patent inventions made by their employees only since
the beginning of 2004. At the time of the questionnaire the set up of agreements and rules
regarding IPRs was still underway.
150 Recommendations for actions

theses are too time consuming for companies’ setting. Out of the view of universities,
doctoral theses are a major instrument to ensure the university’s research
performance and such theses are appropriate to fund young university researchers
for a given number of years.

Also the lack of interdisciplinary research was mentioned. Currently benefits of

technology transfer are closely associated to single university departments.
Technology transfer with more than one university departments seem rather the
exception than the norm. University management should introduce measures to
enable and facilitate interdisciplinary projects to ensure that universities can support
companies in the best way.

Especially for smaller companies, even though R&D intensive, specific support
seems necessary. Unlike their better-known and larger counterparts, smaller
companies feel disadvantaged regarding technology transfer. These companies
complain about university researchers not understanding the way how they have to
operate and emphasized that without personal contacts projects would not be
realized. Because of competition in technology transfer in case demand exceeds
offers university researchers can choose with whom to collaborate. In such cases
companies are selected which best suit the motivation of university researchers. In
cases where offers exceed demand, it is unlikely that such situations arise. In the first
case, where demand exceeds offers it might be the case that additional capacities at
universities are not available or that university researchers are not in the need to do
technology transfer. In such cases, it might be most likely that projects with better-
known and larger companies are preferred to projects with small and medium sized
companies. In such cases a university wide installed quality management system
taking into account technology transfer issues could lead to improvements. Thus,
university researchers would be forced to answer and document such enquiries
independently from the size of companies. Such activities would bring forward more
transparency.

In addition, strategic collaborations and praxis semesters for students to i.e. build up
future employees were mentioned34. With the help of such activities, it is supposed
that students would be even better prepared for their work after graduation. Out of
the view of technology transfer, praxis semesters could also be used to acquire new
technology transfer partners and to strengthen ties with existing ones. Strategic
collaborations could be understood as the need to more closely determining common

34
In case of praxis semesters the discussion already started at Graz University of Technology. The
start date is not yet determined.
Recommendations for actions 151

areas of interest between university departments and companies. The benefits of

strategic collaborations for university departments are the usual longer durations,
benefits for companies would be the long-term support by university researchers in
basic research issues with potential impact for the companies’ business. Such
technology transfer means could be designed by central university departments like
technology transfer offices, especially in the case where more than one university
department is involved. University management should also think about ways to
motivate university researchers to display their research results. Usually this is not
seen as one of the tasks of university researchers. However, without their
involvement efforts to increase technology transfer will fail. Interviews showed the
importance of university graduates in establishing links between companies and
universities35.

Besides possibilities of universities to support companies of group 1 in doing

technology transfer, also companies are aware that they have to do their share in
technology transfer. Many of the large internationally active companies already have
special departments dealing with technology transfer issues. Thus, they try to
optimize their efforts. However, not only large companies are aware of such issues
also smaller ones know that technology transfer depends on efforts of both sides.

Finally yet importantly also the issue of funding for university research areas was
mentioned. It seems important that universities have the necessary public funds to do
research in areas even where companies are not willing or able to pay for research. It
should be secured that research is done even without companies paying for it. This is
clearly addressed to governments but also to university management ultimately
responsible for distributing the budget. This requires a transparent and objective
system to assess the strengths and weaknesses of universities by considering
threats and opportunities imposed by the environment.

8.1.2 Companies with expenditures for universities: Group 2

Companies of group 2 are usually smaller than companies of group 1 and even
though they still are R&D intensive a gap between these two groups exists. Motives
and barriers are different, thus resulting in different need for support services. The
motivation of universities to collaborate with these companies might already be lower
compared to companies of group 1. Because of their smaller size and their limited
visibility, such references do not account for that much as their larger counterparts.

35
Currently efforts at Austrian universities are underway to establish and keep in contact with alumni
and to work with them for i e. life long learning and technology transfer.
152 Recommendations for actions

Still, expenditures for external research organizations are substantial. Even though
also these companies have contacts to universities outside their home region,
regional universities are supposed to be of major importance to them. Therefore,
universities acting professionally in favor of these companies are supposed to be in
advantage compared to universities located farther away. Again, these companies do
not seem to need special support in getting in contact with universities. However,
technology transfer managed based on the principles of key account management
should support companies’ efforts to set up and realize projects with university
researchers. This would counteract barriers like the perceived skeptical attitude of
university researchers. They could also be invited to take part in lectures and
seminars to gain better visibility, thus making students aware of these companies
located right in their region. For these companies also support in identifying and
applying for suited funding instruments should be provided. This can be done either
directly by single university researchers or together with research near intermediaries
or regional or national funding agencies. Even though companies of group 2 still have
expenditures for universities and want to further increase these expenditures the
competition by universities for these companies is supposed to be weaker than for
companies of group 1, which are in general better known internationally and
therefore interesting also for other universities.

Companies of group 2 stated following need for support in the questionnaire:

Competent personnel at universities

Funding and support in applying for funds
Focusing on deliverables
Easier access to university students for master theses

Table 44: Need for support mentioned by companies of group 2

Interviews with two representatives of companies from group 2 showed the following
needs for support: (1) Emphasizing what universities can do and what they cannot,
i.e. research vs. preparing production. (2) Providing possibilities for informal
meetings. (3) Setting up and providing information about suited funding instruments.

Unlike group 1 group 2 consists mainly of smaller companies. Even though these
companies still are R&D intensive and have expenditures for universities, they are
rather different from companies of group 1 regarding technology transfer. The
different size classes could explain some of the differences. If one supposes that
smaller companies are in general less known than larger companies, regionally,
nationally and internationally, the higher importance of the barrier University
Recommendations for actions 153

researchers are rather skeptical towards collaborations with companies and motive
Access to new customers and markets seems reasonable. As already mentioned in
certain situations university researchers are likely to prefer larger companies to
smaller ones. Gaining access to new customers and markets is in general seen as
rather unimportant compared to other motives. However, companies of group 2
assess this motive as rather important. The smaller size and thus limited visibility are
likely to make it necessary to use references like universities to acquire new
customers and successfully enter new markets.

One area for improvement is related to funding. Companies wish an active

participation of university researchers in identifying suited funding possibilities and in
applying for these funds. Such support could be delivered directly by university
researchers but also being supported by central university departments36 or even
private consultants.

Two other statements refer to the need for competent personnel at universities and
the need to focus on deliverables. In case of the first statement, it is not clear what
led to this statement. Research and the outcome of collaborations depend heavily on
university researchers and companies. It might be that bad personal experiences or
collaborations with i.e. university researchers at the time of collaboration not yet
being expert in this field caused such statements. In case of the second statement
regarding deliverables, the relation to statements made by companies of group 1 are
obvious. Also these companies mentioned that university researchers are happier
with doing studies than actually applying their research in practice. This discussion
mirrors the differences between research and development and traditional tasks of
universities and companies.

One company also mentioned the need of easier access to university students for
master theses. Smaller companies are likely to be disadvantaged compared to their
larger counterparts. In situations with a general shortage of students for master
theses commissioned by companies, the bottleneck is more likely to painfully hit
smaller companies than larger ones.

Interviews identified additional areas for improvements out of the sight of two
companies belonging to group 2. The areas are related to communication, formal and
informal, and funding. The two representatives of companies stressed the need for
clear communication of universities’ strengths and weaknesses as frame for

36
Recently Graz University of Technology introduced such centrally provided consultation services for
university researchers.
154 Recommendations for actions

companies what could be realized and what should better be done with other
partners than universities. Also the need for possibilities to meet each other on
informal occasions was mentioned. During i.e. business meetings, people usually
stick rather straight to the agenda. Such meetings leave little place for discussions
besides the current professional topics. In case of informal meetings, other kind of
information is exchanged. This might lead to new ideas for collaborations or at least
to a better understanding of the needs of each other and thus to better relations.

Also the need for suited funding instruments was mentioned. This again is the task of
governments and funding agencies dealing with such enquiries. Companies of group
2 should be supported in gaining better awareness at the campus. Even though they
have expenditures for universities, they still have the handicap of being rather
unknown. By providing possibilities for these companies to become known within
universities and students these companies might overcome one of their most
important barriers, University researchers are rather skeptical towards collaborations
with companies. Suited communication measures emphasizing poss bilities and
strengths of universities should further motivate these companies in choosing
universities for the right tasks and thus increasing the success of technology transfer.

8.1.3 Companies without expenditures for but with contacts to universities: Group 3

In general, these companies perform R&D, not continuously like companies of group
1 or 2 but at least rarely. Their expenditures for R&D and for external R&D services
are already rather small compared to companies of group 1 and 2. These companies
have contacts to universities but these contacts do not lead to expenditures. The
companies seem to be rather skeptical towards benefits due to technology transfer.
The current situation for these companies seems to be satisfying. Therefore, the
need to collaborate and use existing knowledge at universities is not yet necessary.
In such cases, companies must define their objectives and areas of interest before
actually establishing collaborations with universities. Regional universities are of
major importance for these companies. Unlike the previous two groups, this group
does not focus on research excellence but on short geographic distances. Out of the
view of single university researchers, these companies are not of high interest
because of their rather small R&D expenditures, their inexperience in collaborating
with universities and thus the resulting high efforts to initiate technology transfer
projects. Assuming that these companies would have the potential to collaborate and
that technology transfer could be beneficial, regional governments could be
interested in facilitating collaborations between companies of group 3 and
universities. Governments could collaborate with intermediaries and funding
Recommendations for actions 155

agencies to enable and facilitate meetings between companies and university

researchers or technology transfer officers. These companies should be addressed
personally to increase the awareness of benefits due to technology transfer. The
companies are aware of possibilities but lack the last step towards technology
transfer. Due to the importance of initial successful collaborations, companies should
be supported during the first projects.

Companies of group 3 stated following needs for support in the questionnaire:

More transparency of qualification and content of studies (N=3)

Comparable contracts (with professional cost structure and standards to enable first steps, in case
of success possibility of larger projects) (N=3)
Financial support for research (collaborations) (N=2)
Balancing different needs and processes (N=2)
Professional project and funding management (N=2)
Up to date information (i.e. current doctoral theses and potential research questions, innovation
reports, contact addresses for more information) (N=2)
Establishing a pool where competencies of students are listed (similar to CVs)
Enabling and facilitating strategic collaborations
Ac ive company visits done by universities to check potential for collaborations together with
companies’ managers
Concrete projects
Enabling and facilitating interdisciplinary research

Table 45: Need for support mentioned by companies of group 3

During the interviews following additional support services were identified: (1)
Ensuring confidentiality. (2) Ensuring that university researchers do not leave
projects because of i.e. teaching. (3) Promoting projects with smaller companies. (4)
Defining standards for i.e. giving feedback and introducing project management. (5)
Realizing regular informal events at university departments to establish contacts. (6)
Providing information material like i.e. brochures.

Like their counterparts belonging to group 1 companies of group 3 emphasized the

barriers Universities are passive in providing information and presenting their
research results and possibilities to collaborate and Results of collaborations with
university departments are rather insecure or difficult to exploit for and integrate in
the company (i.e. protection against spill-overs). Also the most important motives are
similar, namely the development of new products and processes and the
improvement of existing products and processes. Approaching companies, which do
not yet have expenditures for but contacts to universities, should be done by
emphasizing ways to overcome these barriers and capabilities of universities
regarding the development and improvement of products and processes. However,
additional mentioned needs for support show differences between companies of
156 Recommendations for actions

group 1 and 3. Companies of group 3 need an approach for technology transfer,

which focuses rather on the set up and initial development of technology transfer.

Like other groups, also companies of group 3 wished for better communication.
Examples are i.e. qualifications, contents of studies, current possibilities for
collaborations and information about current master and doctoral theses. However,
even though this group wants to better informed about current research it should be
different than the one provided for companies of group 1 and 2. Companies of group
3 are supposed to need more general information than companies with expenditures
for universities. This is also indicated by mentioned needs for support like universities
actively approaching companies and information regarding explicit entry points and
contact addresses at universities. Companies also ask for contracts with transparent
cost structures and support in funding.

Companies without expenditures for but with contacts to universities seem to be

skeptical towards engaging more in depth with universities. Clear and transparent
projects, support in acquiring funding and professional project management is
supposed to facilitate companies in upgrading technology transfer. These activities
are primarily tasks of universities and partly funding agencies. Other suggestions are
related to strategic collaborations, facilitating interdisciplinary research and
establishing a pool of students with their competencies.

The two interviews revealed additional need for support like ensuring confidentiality,
promoting projects with smaller companies, introducing standards and realizing
events with the possibility to meet each other on a rather informal base. Again, this
shows the possibilities for new means to establish contacts. Central university offices
could support university departments in designing and realizing such events as well
as work out standards for technology transfer.

8.1.4 Companies without expenditures for but with contacts to universities: Group 4

Because of the rather small size of companies of group 4 and their inexperience in
technology transfer contacts to university researchers are rather centralized. In
general, this group is comparable to group 3. The major difference is the on average
smaller size of the company and the even smaller R&D expenditures. The
recommendations for companies of group 4 are similar to the ones for companies of
group 3, emphasizing even more direct company visits, and possibilities for additional
external funding.
Recommendations for actions 157

Companies of group 4 did not mention any possible need for support during the
questionnaire. During the interviews, following support services were identified: (1)
Universities actively approaching companies. (2) Support if applying for funding. (3)
Transparently displaying needs and offers of universities. Companies belonging to
group 4 wish for universities actively approaching companies to identify potential
areas for collaborations. In case of overlapping areas also support in applying for
funding would be helpful. Again suited communication measures would be helpful to
transparently display universities strengths and services.

8.1.5 Companies not yet having contacts to universities but interested in building up
relations: Group 5

Like companies of group 3 and 4, also companies of group 5 are supposed to be

relatively uninteresting for individual actions of university researchers. These
companies are not R&D intensive, they are not having many academics, little export
shares and a small share of newly developed or markedly improved products and
processes. Therefore, they operate in areas often uninteresting for university
researchers. If these companies should be motivated to do technology transfer with
universities one cannot hope that university researchers will do this out of their own
interest. Therefore, other parties would have to take in the lead. In case of these
companies, it seems important to support them in upgrading their internal knowledge
base by i.e. recruiting academics prior to engage in technology transfer. In such
cases, it is recommended that intermediaries closely work together with funding
agencies to provide synthesized solutions. For these companies especially industry
near intermediaries are supposed to play a major role. It is likely that industry near
intermediaries have better links to these companies and could support technology
transfer with universities by establishing contacts if needed. For companies of group
6 and 7 the same measures seem to be suited. Even though they differ from each
other by i.e. the size measured in employees and their R&D intensity the groups
have similar needs. Because of their general skepticism towards universities, they
should be contacted by organizations with which they are used to be in contact like
industrial chambers or chambers of commerce. In case of necessity, they could
establish contacts to university researchers or technology transfer officers.
158 Recommendations for actions

Companies of group 5 stated following need for support in the questionnaire:

Clearly defining financing of collaborations (smaller companies cannot carry these costs additionally
to their own costs)
Long-term collaborations are hard to realize
Enabling and facilitating the establishment of contacts
Enabling interdisciplinary research projects
Regional collaboration days in collaboration with start up and technology centers
Enabling and facilitating technological developments

Table 46: Need of support mentioned by companies of group 5

Interviews revealed following support needs: (1) University researchers and students
actively approaching universities. (2) Interest and competence in specific research
areas. (3) Better information about research areas at universities and their services,
i.e. open doors. (4) Information about suited funding instruments. (5)
Professionalizing services, i.e. accessibility of libraries.

Companies not yet having contacts to universities but being interested in establishing
such relations are concerned about giving away their knowledge to companies also
collaborating with universities. Universities have to react to these concerns and apply
industry standards like material transfer agreements. The second most important
barrier, Results of collaborations with university departments are rather insecure or
difficult to exploit for and integrate in the company (i.e. protection against spill-overs),
is reasonable. Companies with little R&D capabilities are unlikely to have necessary
competencies to fully exploit universities’ knowledge. Such companies have to be
supported to fully exploit technology transfer benefits. University researchers have to
consider this in case of projects. Such companies should be supported in upgrading
their internal R&D competencies by i.e. recruiting academics.

The companies are also afraid of the costs they would face in case of collaborations.
Especially for smaller companies it is hard to finance additional costs for universities.
Additionally companies wish for presentations of technological developments,
facilitation of interdisciplinary projects, long-term collaborations, and possibilities to
make contacts with university researchers. Especially the need for interdisciplinary
and long-term projects is somewhat surprisingly. Remember that these companies do
not yet have contacts to universities. Thus, these companies can only have heard by
word of mouth that other companies had difficulties regarding these issues.
Possibilities to make contacts with university researchers can be realized by i.e.
active company visits, regional collaborations days, open door events and targeted
marketing measures.
Recommendations for actions 159

Overlapping areas of interest and competencies are necessary to increase

motivation of companies to make use of universities’ knowledge. Like other
companies, also companies of group 5 would like to be better informed about suited
funding instruments. One of the interviewed company representatives criticized the
bad accessibility of libraries. This shows the need to professionalize all areas of
interest for companies to fully exploit technology transfer.

8.1.6 Companies not yet having contacts to universities but interested in building up
relations: Group 6

Companies of group 6 are the first ones assessing the barrier Difficulties in finding
the right contacts on average most important followed by the passive attitude of
universities. This is emphasized by the wish for better and more information
regarding research and collaboration possibilities. Companies of group 6 are also
self-critical. They are aware that they have to define objectives for collaborations for
universities and to provide stimuli for universities, which can then be taken in by
university researchers for further developments.

Companies of group 6 stated following needs for support in the questionnaire:

Better and more information about activities at universities, i.e. establishing a platform with
transparent offers at universities. (N=4)
Specific research support like market research and produc ion site analysis

Table 47: Need for support mentioned by companies of group 6

The interviews revealed the following additional support needs: (1) Companies
working out objectives for collaborations with universities. (2) Impulses from
companies for university researchers and university researchers reacting to impulses
from companies. (3) Funding recommendations provided by university researchers.
(4) Transparency of offers.

8.1.7 Companies not yet having contacts to universities but interested in building up
relations: Group 7

Companies of group 7 are similar to companies of group 6. These companies again

have difficulties with finding the right contacts at universities and wish for better
presentations of research at universities and possibilities to collaborate. As a result,
companies would l ke university researchers actively approaching them to present
relevant research and possibilities for technology transfer. However, companies are
160 Recommendations for actions

aware that they too have to contr bute to technology transfer by i.e. providing
management support. These companies are also open to actions introduced by
governments and funding agencies emphasizing collaborative research projects. The
likelihood of technology transfer increases with existing personal relations, which
stresses amongst others the need to establish and keep in contact with alumni. Even
though technology transfer is assessed as important, universities should still get
sufficient funding for basic research. Companies of group 7 did not emphasize this
because of their need for basic research knowledge but the fear that university
departments might enter competition with private companies to acquire third party
funds. The lack of practical knowledge of assistants was mentioned as barrier too.

The two most important barriers for companies of group 7 are similar to the ones of
group 6. Only the order has changed. The barrier Universities are passive in
providing information and presenting their research results and possibilities to
collaborate is assessed as most important followed by Difficulties in finding the right
contacts.

Companies of group 7 stated following needs for support in the questionnaire:

Offers and research in specific sectors (N=2)

Universities actively approaching companies, not waiting until companies come to universities
Lack of practical knowledge of university assistants
Support in realizing strategic projects

Table 48: Need for support mentioned by companies of group 7

The interviews revealed following additional support needs: (1) Central entry gates.
(2) Commitment of company management. (3) Strengthening contacts to alumni. (4)
Governments and funding agencies emphasizing the need to collaborate. (5)
Ensuring basic research funding for universities. (6) Building up personal relations.

8.1.8 Companies not yet having contacts to universities and not being interested in
building up relations: Group 8

Also these companies are not a priori interesting for university researchers. These
companies do litte to none R&D and have little to no experiences in doing R&D with
external organizations. It does not seem to make sense to approach these
companies actively to motivate them to do technology transfer. It would cost rather
many efforts to bring them together with university researchers and the likelihood of
success would be rather small. These companies primarily have to change their
Recommendations for actions 161

attitude towards technology transfer and their internal knowledge base before actions
should be taken.

The interviews revealed following support needs: (1) Governmental actions, i.e. by
introducing limits, which lead to necessary innovations. (2) Specific research areas
and competencies. (3) Customers’ attitudes and industrial sector. (4) Resources to
establish and realize collaborations with universities.

The interviews suggested that companies of group 8 are not strictly against
technology transfer. However, they do not feel the need to get in contact with
universities. Regulatory actions introduced by governments or research done at
universities within their specific business areas could lead to establish contacts to
relevant universities. Reasons why these companies are not interested in technology
transfer are i.e. the innovation and risk adverse nature of their industrial sectors and
customers and the lack of resources to establish contacts to universities.

8.2 University researchers

The results of the questionnaire show that faculty and working experience in
companies influence whether university researchers have contacts to companies or
not. The importance of barriers and motives for the four different groups do not differ
that much as in the case of companies. Also the stated needs for support are grosso
modo similar, even though differences between the different groups exist. The
examination shows the potential to optimize existing and to introduce new services.

The major need for support relates to opening up contacts, marketing of the
university as reliable partner for companies, consulting in funding related issues and
taking over administrative tasks. University researchers not yet having contacts to
companies also wish to be introduced to technology transfer, i.e. which companies to
approach and how to actually approach companies. The following sub chapters
present the results in detail.
162 Recommendations for actions

8.2.1 University researchers with contacts to companies: Group 1

This group of university researchers is the best lever for increasing technology
transfer. They are interested in increasing technology transfer and have good
knowledge of companies’ working routines. Possibilities to support them are manifold
and could be realized by heads of their departments, central university departments
like technology transfer offices, other intermediaries, companies and governments.
Intermediaries could support this group by opening up new contacts to potentially
interested companies. Again, intermediaries like technology transfer offices or
associations focusing on specific industrial sectors could set up and realize
measures to increase possibilities for direct personal contacts between university
researchers and companies. Universities should support these researchers
successfully doing technology transfer by diminishing their administrative duties, thus
freeing some of their resources. Additionally, they could introduce payment models,
where some of the acquired finances are used to increase the income of university
researchers responsible for the respective acquisition. Heads of departments with
researchers successfully doing technology transfer should promote and enable
projects for companies together with other departments of their university by using
their established contacts. Thus, they would also act as role models for other
university departments. However, it is supposed that only due to a systematic
approach by universities in collaboration with other external groups full benefits could
be exploited.
Recommendations for actions 163

University researchers of group 1 stated following needs for support in the

questionnaire:

Additional personal resources, i e. pool to finance personnel for shorter contracts, additional
resources at university departments. (N=8)
Opening up new contacts (N=8)
Marketing, i.e. realizing events, symposiums, marketing for the university and not for individual
university departments. (N=7)
Better (leaner and easier) administra ion. Current system is rather inflexible. (N=3)
Better and more infrastructure, i.e. buildings, available space, equipment (N=2)
Incentives, i.e. considering technology transfer performance for career at the university or for internal
benchmarks between university departments, additional personal income for university researchers
acquiring and successfully realizing projects. (N=2)
Organizational and administrative support in case of large projects (N=2)
Higher budget
An industrial liaison office offering suited support.
Possibilities to finance technology transfer
Time for basic research
Vocational trainings for professional and soft skills
Support for IPRs, i.e. trademarks
Quality management
Facilitating projects wi h industrial partners and more than one university department

Table 49: Need for support mentioned by university researchers of group 1

One participant mentioned that possibilities would be limited because of existing

agreements with companies regarding confidentiality. This shows the importance of
negotiating agreements, which respect needs of companies by simultaneously
considering the needs of university researchers. During interviews with
representatives of group 1 following additional needs for support were mentioned: (1)
Leaner university bureaucracy and offering support, i.e. project controlling and
support in case technology transfer is extended. (2) Focusing on core competencies.
(3) Incentives to do technology transfer. (4) Introducing a suited career model for
university researchers. (5) Offering competitive salaries for university researchers. (6)
Fulfilling industry standards regarding service orientation and speed. (7) Facilitating
interdisciplinary projects. (8) Introducing realistic personnel costs per hour per
university researcher. (9) Providing sufficient basic resources, i.e. infrastructure,
personnel. (10) Ensuring more public awareness for universities, their services, and
possibilities to collaborate. (11) Suited information of funding instruments for
technology transfer and support in applying for funding. (12) Decreasing the high
workload at companies. (13) More students for i.e. master theses. (14) Initiating and
realizing a cultural change, which values universities and collaborations.

Similar to companies, which criticized frequently the passive attitude of university

researchers, also university researchers critized the passive attitude of companies.
164 Recommendations for actions

This is followed by the supposed high workload in companies. University researchers

of group 1 did not assess technology transfer as negatively for teaching and
research. They are more likely to rate too much third party funding as negatively for
the university department by i.e. decreasing funding from public sources or limiting
the freedom of academic research. Doing technology transfer to acquire additional
financial means is of major importance. It is used to finance master and doctoral
theses, employees at university departments and investments in the university
department’s infrastructure. Additional motives are scientific interest and technology
transfer as a task of universities. This already shows the broad range why university
researchers of group 1 do technology transfer.

University researchers of group 1 mentioned three recommendations for actions most

often: (1) Additional resources like i.e. a pool to finance university researchers for
shorter contracts. (2) Support in opening up new contacts and (3) marketing for the
university, not necessarily for single university departments. Especially opening up
new contacts and university wide marketing measures could be realized with the
support of central university departments. Additional personnel resources for
university departments are not easy to realize, especially in times of stable public
funding.
Another group of support services deals with organizational and administrative
issues. It is related to support in case of large projects, project controlling like i.e.
documentation of personnel hours and up to date infrastructure and equipment. This
includes also consultancy to apply for funding. Also incentives for technology transfer
were mentioned. This could be done by distributing a share of acquired third party
sums within the group of university researchers who acquired these funds and
considering the performance of university researchers in acquiring third party funds
for the career at the university.

Last but not least, also vocational training for professional and soft skills, support in
IPRs related issues, sufficient time for basic research, a technology transfer oriented
quality management system and facilitating interdisciplinary projects were mentioned.
A technology transfer quality management system should consider standards
common within companies regarding speed and service orientation.

One important point made by one university researchers during an interview is the
core competence approach. Like companies, also universities should focus
increasingly on their core competencies. This seems especially important if university
departments would like to do technology transfer with companies of group 1, the
ones with strong internal R&D capabilities. In order to offer these companies added
Recommendations for actions 165

value universities have to be rather strong in their specific research areas. Closely
linked to research excellence is also the need to be able to pay competitive salaries
for university researchers. Otherwise, the brightest are lost to other universities or
companies.

Especially in some cases, a lack of students to work on master theses exists. In such
cases, more master theses could be realized for companies if a sufficient number of
students were available. This calls for efforts to increase the number of students at
universities of technology. This is related to a general wish for a cultural change,
where issues related to sciences and technology get more awareness and are
regarded within companies and society as important.

8.2.2 University researchers with contacts to companies: Group 2

Characteristics of this group of university researchers are rather similar to the ones of
group 1. However, the share of researchers wanting to extend technology transfer is
smaller than in group 1 even though the frequency of use of technology transfer
means is on a similar level. Overall recommendations and the proposal to integrate
different parties to improve technology transfer are similar to the ones of group 1 and
would increase technology transfer. Nonetheless, the overall potential impact is l kely
to be smaller.

University researchers of group 2 stated following needs for support in the

questionnaire:

Additional personnel resources; i.e. extending technology transfer depends on adjusting the structure
of the university department. An additional management level would be necessary. (N=6)
Opening up contacts, i.e. by realizing CRM. (N=4)
Funding for collaborative projects, i.e. leaner bureaucracy in case of funded projects, support by
central university departments, support in applying for funding, possibilities to apply for funding. (N=4)
Marketing, i.e. specific for university department but also for university as a whole. (N=4)
Additional financial resources (i.e. capital to start with, financial support in general, better
infrastructure) (N=3)
More students being interested in topics covered by the university department (N=2)
Additional personnel resources to outsource standard tasks which cost substantial amount of time
Information of similar problems in different industrial sectors

Table 50: Need for support mentioned by university researchers of group 2

The interviewed university researcher of group 2 mentioned the following needs for
support: (1) Colleagues in the same research area to exchange ideas. (2) Leaner
bureaucracy. (3) Introducing a more collaborative culture within the university.
166 Recommendations for actions

(4) Centrally available documentation of existing contacts of all university

departments with companies.

Barriers and motives are similar to the ones of university researchers of group 1. The
order is almost the same, only the level is at least in the case of barriers different.
Also university researchers of group 2 mentioned the need of support for i.e. applying
for funding. Examples are leaner bureaucracy and support by central university
departments. Additional resources were mentioned too. This accounts for personnel
resources but also for i.e. competitive equipment and capital to start with technology
transfer.

University researchers of group 2 would also appreciate if i.e. central university

departments and other university departments would provide support in opening up
new contacts. One way would be a central CRM system where all contacts are
centrally documented and accessible. Thus, other university departments could
eventually use existing contacts between university departments and companies too.
University researchers of group 2 would also like to have additional resources for
taking over standard administrative tasks. Central university departments could also
provide such support. Again marketing for the university as a whole would be
welcome. This should increase the motivation of companies to contact university
researchers and it is supposed that it would increase the number of students.

Technology transfer in some cases depends also on the current structure at

university departments. In some cases, it would be necessary to install a sort of
middle management. This depends also on the support provided by public funding
because of the need of i.e. additional personnel, additional offices, equipment, and
the like. University researchers would also like to get information of potential
applications of their research in industrial sectors they do not yet think of. One
example is the area of computer vision. This is a cross section technology. Without
good knowledge of industrial sectors, it is difficult to sort out potentially interesting
applications. One university researcher mentioned also the wish to have colleagues
working in the same area of research. This is important to exchange ideas and to
share knowledge. This is related to the previously mentioned core competence
approach. If university departments focus on their core, competencies it is more likely
to have a sufficient number of university researchers working in related areas, which
facilitates the sharing of ideas and experiences. Finally, the need for a more
homogeneous culture at the university was mentioned. Thus, interdisciplinary
projects would become easier and companies could be served more professionally.
Recommendations for actions 167

8.2.3 University researchers not yet having contacts to companies but interested in
building up relations: Group 3

Universities could support their researchers to start with technology transfer.

University researchers of group 3 are mainly younger colleagues with little to no
working experience in industry. They seem to have starting problems. Usually they
do not yet have the need to do technology transfer to i.e. acquire additional finances.
However, supporting them to start technology transfer would likely lead to positive
results. One example would be presentations of examples how younger university
researchers could be supported by their more experienced colleagues. Some of the
university departments have a kind of mentoring system in place, which seems to
work rather well. Other university departments could take over such practices and
implement them for their departments. Universities should gather such examples and
set up a systematic approach to be used by university departments recruiting young
research fellows to support them in getting started with technology transfer.

University researchers of group 3 stated following needs for support in the

questionnaire:

Systematic marketing
Opening up contacts to companies
Stimula ing interest of industry in basic research
Additional personnel
New equipment
Efficient and functioning structures at he university

Table 51: Need for support mentioned by university researchers of group 3

Only one university researcher of group 3 was interviewed because the number of
university researchers of group 3 is rather small and others were not willing to act as
interview partners. The interviewed university researcher of group 3 mentioned the
following needs: (1) Support within the university department by colleagues, who act
as door-openers and invite the interviewee to join company visits and meetings with
company representatives to learn how technology transfer works. (2) Information
about companies interesting to the university researcher to know more about the
company landscape within the specific research area. (3) Events like companies’
presentations or open door days inviting companies to present current research
activities, i.e. at the university department, the university or companies. (4)
Blackboards, where companies’ enquiries are published.
168 Recommendations for actions

Unlike the previously examined group of university researchers, the ones of group 3
have a rather balanced assessment of the importance of barriers. The most
important one is Companies are rather skeptical towards collaborations with
universities. Other barriers are similar to the ones already mentioned previously.

The major need of support relates to central university services, equipment,

additional resources, stimulating the interest of companies in basic research,
marketing, and opening up new contacts. The needs are not different from the ones
already mentioned by university researchers of group 1 and 2. The interviewed
university researcher of group 3 would like to have a sort of mentoring system at the
university department. In some cases, such a system is already in place. Enabling
and facilitating university departments to share their experiences with each other
would thus be helpful to eventually realize similar activities at other university
departments.

The university researcher would also appreciate an overview of the landscape of

companies potentially being interested in services being provided by the university
researcher. Central documentation of companies’ enquiries l ke black boards and
accompanying events like open doors at companies but also the university
department would further facilitate technology transfer.

8.2.4 University researchers not yet having contacts to companies and not being
interested in building up relations: Group 4

The group of university researchers not being interested in doing technology transfer
is rather small. The interviewee stated to be open towards collaborations as long as
they fulfill criteria like i.e. the necessary scientific content. The interviewee does not
want to engage in projects, which are not scientifically interesting. In such cases, the
interviewee together with the university and central departments could systematically
search for and open up contacts to companies operating in such areas and being
active in basic science issues. However, the motivation is rather small because
usually these university researchers are already rather good placed within their
research area and do not need to acquire additional financial means for their
research area or other colleagues.

During the interview following needs for support were identified: (1) Sufficient public
funding for basic research. This is necessary to keep on with research areas without
the need to take on all enquiries from companies or to have university researchers at
hand in case interesting enquires come in. (2) Support in establishing and developing
Recommendations for actions 169

contacts to companies doing research at a comparable level. (3) Companies being

interested in doing basic research. (4) Career model and respect for university
researchers.

It is important to note that the interviewed university researcher is not a priori against
technology transfer. Technology transfer has to meet specific requirements like the
necessary scientific content. In such cases, it is necessary to support university
researchers in establishing contacts to companies being interested in the basic
research areas and not trying to push the research area versus more applied areas.
Here again the need for sufficient public funding is mentioned as necessary to have
university researchers working in research areas even without funding from
companies. Also the career model of university researchers has to be updated to
keep talented university researchers at the university. Last but not least, the
performance of the university should be better communicated to society and
companies to increase the awareness of achievements of university researchers.

8.3 Proposal for a technology transfer design model

The prior comments showed that actions to improve and increase technology transfer
are manifold and depend on the respective target group. The potential support
provided by parties others than university researchers and companies differ
according to their respective objectives. Assuming that universities do technology
transfer to acquire additional financial means to strengthen their scientific output they
are likely to focus on the first two groups of companies. Both groups are R&D
intensive, used to technology transfer and have the necessary financial means.
However, especially in case of companies belonging to group 1 universities have to
be aware that they are competing with other universities aiming at the same target
group. Companies of the groups 3 to 7 depend more on regional universities. This is
one advantage for regional universities in case they offer knowledge in the respective
business areas. These Companies do not yet have expenditures for universities. In
some cases, only a tiny step might be missing to turn these companies into insiders,
in other cases companies might still be far away from being able to successfully
exploit universities’ knowledge. In these cases, regional universities are of major
importance. Due to the short distances, they can act as starting points for technology
transfer. However, the interest of universities is likely to be rather weak, especially in
case of universities already experienced in technology transfer. Therefore, in case
parties are interested to link such companies with universities they have to work out
programs and support measures to realize suited activities. Choosing the right
170 Recommendations for actions

partners and ensuring the necessary financial means and coordination is vital for
such endeavors.

Companies on the other hand should ensure that they are internally capable to
exploit universities’ knowledge before starting technology transfer. Also the process
of choosing the right university researcher should be thoroughly planned. Even
though the majority of university researchers already do technology transfer
differences exist. Services of intermediaries located at universities as well as
recommendations by others can be helpful. Companies can also access central
services for i.e. funding, master contracts and other services provided by many
universities. Results show that motivation of university researchers can be rather
different from individual to individual. It is necessary for companies to ensure that
they consider the right mix of incentives, thus increasing chances for successful
projects.

The following control loop model for technology transfer shows a possibility how to
structure technology transfer independently of the organization and its objectives.

Figure 63: Control loop model for technology transfer

Recommendations for actions 171

The control loop model shows different steps in managing technology transfer.
Technology transfer comprising realizing projects, marketing activities,
documentation etc. constitutes the control area. Input l ke knowledge and money is
transformed by the operative technology transfer process in i.e. new or improved
products or new competencies within companies and universities. Comparing output
with the original objectives shows the need to eventually change the framework or
input variables’ characteristics. The overall strategy determines the strategy for
technology transfer and this lays the ground for objectives. The model is suitable for
single organizations but also for regions or other units of examinations. In case of
examining technology transfer for a whole region it is l kely that different control loops
for technology transfer exist, depending on the objectives for technology transfer.

Results of the thesis provide input for the connection between organizations’ or
regions’ overall strategy and the strategy and objectives for technology transfer, for
the realization of technology transfer processes and eventual corrective measures. It
is well suited to serve as starting point to set up technology transfer, to coordinate
different technology transfer processes for different target groups and to manage
technology transfer.
Technology transfer in Styria: Qualitative similarities and differences compared to other studies 173

9 Technology transfer in Styria: Qualitative similarities and

differences compared to other studies

The following chapter compares qualitative results obtained by questioning university

researchers at Graz University of Technology and Styrian companies with the ones
of the literature review, which examined technology transfer in other regions of
Europe, the USA and other parts of the world. To provide the reader with a better
understanding of the context, this section starts with a short overview of the general
situation in Styria.

Styria, the second largest Austrian state, has a population of about 1.2 million. The
main industries are automotive, mining and metallurgy, pulp and paper,
environmental engineering and electronics and information and communication
technology related industries. The mining and metallurgy industry is located mainly in
the northern part of Styria, whereas the automotive sector is located around the city
of Graz, the state capital. Styria become in the last decade one of the most R&D
intensive states of Austria. In 2002, about 3.67 % of the regional GDP in Styria was
spent on R&D activities – well above the Austrian average. Industry contributed the
major part of the R&D expenditure. Styria has five universities and two universities of
applied science. This high concentration of higher education institutions provides
regional companies with a highly educated workforce. Ploder, Schleich, and
Adametz37 noted an above average number of highly qualified employees within
Styrian companies. To summarize, Styria is an economically well-developed region
with an average high number of small and medium sized companies and large
internationally active companies. Companies are rather strong in R&D and active in
traditional industries like mining but also in sectors like electronics and IT. The
qualification of employees is rather good, thanks to the education system. Based on
these indicators Styria is comparable to other well-developed regions in Western
Europe and the USA.

The overall results do not display large differences in technology transfer in Styria
compared to results of publications based on studies in other, similar industrialized
countries. Most of the individually available results from studies of companies and
university researchers in other parts of the world are confirmed by the results
obtained by questioning Styrian companies and university researchers at Graz
University of Technology. This strengthens the assumption that economically

37
Ploder, Michael; Schleich, Michaela; Adametz, Christoph: Innovationsmonitor 2005: Endbericht
[Innova ion Monitor: Final Report], September 2005
174 Technology transfer in Styria: Qualitative similarities and differences compared to other studies

comparable regions seem to face the same challenges and have similar technology
transfer patterns. In the following, the major results are exemplary summarized.

The importance of personal contacts is confirmed by the empirical results, i.e.

interviews’ results and the importance of working experience of university
researchers and the role of academics within companies. This refers not only to
possibilities for discussions regarding eventual collaborations but also to formal and
informal meetings. The influence of companies’ industrial sectors as measure for
their knowledge intensity and therefore their need to collaborate with external
partners like universities is controversial. There are statistical significant relations with
single sectors like construction and regarding the categories of companies,
manufacturers vs. service providers. However, the overall influence seems to be
rather weak. Other characteristics like realizing R&D, export share or the qualification
of employees are far more important.

Organizations as role models for technology transfer are important. Several

interviewees mentioned this. They can act as motivation to actually start technology
transfer. In addition, the importance of cultural issues is confirmed. Results show that
especially companies inexperienced in technology transfer often have exclusively
contacts to regional universities whereas experienced companies often have
contacts to universities in other countries too. Technologies and their completeness
influence technology transfer. This can be seen by the importance of internal R&D of
companies. Remember that most of the companies engaged in technology transfer
do R&D. This shows the importance of having necessary absorptive capabilities.

Companies’ and universities’ external factors play a role. This starts with the need for
overlapping activities at universities and the need for financial support provided by
funding agencies and governments and ends with legal issues regarding IPRs and
the employment of researchers at universities. It seems to be important to use the
right technology transfer mean. The current range of instruments seems to be
satisfying for companies and university researchers except for strategic
collaborations and interdisciplinary research, which was criticized by university
researchers and company representatives as well. The need for specific support
services for smaller companies is justified. However, results show that it is not
sufficient to divide companies solely by their numbers of employees. The typology
presented in this thesis is one possibility how to consider the different technology
transfer stages independently of companies’ numbers of employees.
Technology transfer in Styria: Qualitative similarities and differences compared to other studies 175

Results show the different motives for university researchers and companies. It is
important to consider such differences to approach partners accordingly. Especially
for university researchers motivational differences should be considered because of
their relative autonomy in choosing with whom to collaborate. For technology transfer
to be successful one should consider different types of currencies for partners. It
depends amongst others on factors like age, position at the department and sources
of current payment. At universities in the USA researchers are paid for nine months,
the gap has to be filled with projects financed by third parties l ke companies. In
Austria, university researchers paid for by the regular university budget are similar to
public servants. The need to make up part of the salary with third party projects does
not exist. Still, as results show, they are heavily committed to technology transfer. In
cases of university researchers paid for by third party projects the motivation exists to
engage in such projects. Companies too are motivated by a variety of different
motives. I.e., technology transfer experienced R&D intensive companies value the
excellence of research highly whereby for companies inexperienced in technology
transfer short distances to universities are important. Contacts to companies for a
latter career in industry are more often important for younger university researchers
than for older ones. Gaining additional financial means to finance the own job is rated
rather unimportant by university researchers except the ones aged from 31 to 35
years. This group contains the majority of third party funded university researchers
participating in this study.

To learn how to exploit ideas from universities seems to be important. This is

supported by a high qualification of companies’ employees. Being an academic helps
in getting in contact with university researchers and to discuss potential areas of
interest because of the knowledge how universities work. Interviews confirmed the
importance of knowing strengths and weaknesses of universities. Many of the
companies, especially the more experienced ones, know these strengths and
weaknesses and choose partners accordingly. Inexperienced companies approach
universities, initiate projects, and are disappointed afterwards because outcomes are
different than expected.

Especially the pressure provided by the daily business seems to be a major barrier
on side of companies. This was valued highly important by university researchers.
Engineering and consulting companies mentioned potential conflicts of interest at
universities. They fear that universities by being forced to turn even more to
companies for additional finances could become competitors. Due to the availability
of students, universities can offer cheap but qualitative services, thus competing with
unfair means. Both groups, university researchers and company representatives,
176 Technology transfer in Styria: Qualitative similarities and differences compared to other studies

stated the need to enable and facilitate interdisciplinary projects. This concerns not
only collaborations between departments of different universities but also within one
university. Management support, clear objectives, and measurement systems were
initially supposed to positively influence technology transfer. Results show that
management support is usually provided and it is perceived as critical. I.e., one
interviewee mentioned that if the management would support technology transfer it
would take place. Measurement systems are not frequently used in practice.
Companies seem to rely more on their guts feeling than on objective measurable
criteria.

Results of the study show that the size of university departments does not greatly
influence technology transfer. Some dependencies exist in case of i.e. frequency of
use of specific technology transfer means. However, the overall influence of the
departments’ size does not seem to play a major role. Blume and Fromm5 showed in
their technology transfer study that 30 % of companies not having contacts to the
university were interested in establishing such. The results for Styria show that more
than 60 % of the companies not yet having contacts to universities are interested in
establishing such. Reasons can be manifold, i.e. different dates studies were realized
and changing attitude of companies over time, different examined company
landscape, or different development situation of technology transfer in the two
regions. University researchers’ working experience in industry seems to be of major
influence. University researchers with working experience in companies are more
likely to do technology transfer. It is supposed that due to their working experience
they have a better understanding of companies’ working routines and are better in
offering companies suited support.

Especially important are companies’ internal R&D capabilities. Results show that
companies without own R&D capabilities usually do not do technology transfer.
Reasons might be the necessary adsorptive capabilities and the knowledge to
understand potential impact of universities’ research on the own business. This is
underlined by the need of highly qualified employees, academics, who know how
universities work and take with them their contacts from their universities. This clearly
points out the limits of outsourcing R&D to universities. Universities’ research can be
used complementary to companies’ research, but it will not substitute companies’
research. This is also being expressed in the high share of newly or markedly
improved products and services on sales of companies doing technology transfer.
The resulting high export share is a result of continuous R&D activities and the
innovativeness of these companies.
Technology transfer in Styria: Qualitative similarities and differences compared to other studies 177

Manufacturers still have more frequently contacts to or expenditures for universities

than service providers. However, the gap is closing. Service providers are often
interested in building up contacts to universities. Especially companies active in the
construction sector are reluctant to do technology transfer. The study revealed that
more than two thirds do not do technology transfer. Interestingly, even though not
strongly marked, companies founded after 1992 are more likely to do technology
transfer than their counterparts founded earlier. Reasons might be that management
of younger companies is more open towards collaborations because of changing
circumstances. Winning a company as regular customer is not an easy task for
university researchers. Results show that two thirds of companies have contacts to
up to four different university departments. Taking into consideration that in general
companies have contacts to more than one university contacts per university are
rather limited. Especially in case of R&D intensive companies, research excellence is
the most important reason to establish contacts to specific university departments,
independently of the location of the university.

The longer companies already are in contact with universities the higher are absolute
R&D expenditures for universities. The study also shows that only three of 51
companies want to decrease expenditures for universities. The rest will increase this
share or hold it stable. Companies with currently high expenditures for universities
want to hold them rather on the current level; the ones with currently small
expenditures rather want to increase them. The amount of expenditures depends
also on the motives, i.e. wanting to build up competencies likely leads to higher
expenditures. The majority of expenditures for universities companies invest in
collaborative R&D projects followed by bachelor and master theses and contract
research projects. This again shows the rather strong R&D capabilities of companies
doing technology transfer. The frequency of use of the respective technology transfer
means relates logically to i.e. the location of the university companies collaborate
with or companies’ strategies.

For university researchers technology transfer is rather standard than exception.

Even though the belonging to specific faculties slightly influences the rate of
technology transfer differences are rather small. Interestingly the source of finances
university researchers are paid for is not decisive whether or not university
researchers do technology transfer. There are differences but they are not big. One
reason might be that usually department heads paid for by the regular university
budget are responsible for collaborations with third parties at the university
departments. Thus, they are often actively involved in technology transfer due to their
178 Technology transfer in Styria: Qualitative similarities and differences compared to other studies

existing contacts. The extent and intensity of technology transfer is therefore

comparable to university researchers paid for by industry.

One of the major reasons to do technology transfer and to increase such activities
are the perceived benefits provided for university researchers’ teaching and research
activities. University researchers learning from collaborations with companies for their
teaching and research activities are more l kely to want to extend their collaborations.
In total about 75 % of university researchers assess technology transfer as beneficial
for their teaching and research activities. University researchers judging technology
transfer as positive for their own research have twice as many contacts to companies
per month than colleagues assessing collaborations as hindering their own research
activities. Interesting differences can be noted by comparing the answers regarding
benefits for teaching and learning with the three different personnel categories
professors, assistants and project employees and scientific employees in formation.
The group of professors in general state that they do not learn from their
collaborations with companies for their teaching. The two other groups indicated far
more often to learn from their collaborations with companies for their teaching.
Regarding research the picture changes. Now professors answered most often to
perceive collaborations with companies as supportive for their own research followed
by assistants and the group of scientific employees in formation, project, and third
party funded employees. Also the location of companies university researchers
collaborate with seems to have an influence. University researchers learning from
their collaborations with companies for their teaching activities collaborate above
average often with Styrian companies. Thus, there seems to be a link between
learning for teaching and the geographic origin of collaboration partners. The closer
the companies’ location the higher the chances those university researchers get new
input for their teaching. The decision whether or not to extend technology transfer
does not depend on the current number of contacts to companies per month and not
on the amount of time spend for technology transfer.

The average time spend for collaborations with companies amounts to 38.5 %, the
median value is 30 %. Compared to the two other major tasks of university
researchers, doing basic research and teaching students, time spend for
collaborations with companies is on a similar level. The examination for the three
time categories teaching, basic research, and collaborations with companies shows
that university researchers paid for by regular university budget almost exclusively
perform teaching. The two other groups have a rather limited time budget for
teaching. The examination supports the suspicion that the geographic origin of
companies university researchers collaborate with influences their preference of
Technology transfer in Styria: Qualitative similarities and differences compared to other studies 179

specific technology transfer means. University researchers having more frequently

projects with companies in Germany or Switzerland use coaching doctoral theses
commissioned by companies more frequently. The same accounts for collaborative
research projects and companies in Austria except Styria. University researchers
having more frequently projects with Styrian companies more frequently coach
bachelor or master theses commissioned by companies. This is in line with the
results that especially smaller inexperienced companies often have their first-time
contacts with regional universities and depend on financially smaller projects like
bachelor and master theses.
Discussion and further need for research 181

10 Discussion and further need for research

The results regarding recommendations for actions for the different groups of
companies and university researchers can help companies, university researchers
and others working in the area of technology transfer to further increase and improve
technology transfer. Setting up recommendations of actions was the main objective
of this thesis. The present results can also be used to i.e. single out specific target
groups interesting for universities or organizations working on behalf of the
development of regional development. Still, the recommendations are not as detailed
as needed to be realized without major efforts. Further research is necessary to
detail suited support services. Such an examination regarding operational details was
beyond the scope of this thesis. In case specific target groups are singled out, it is
recommended to specify support services based on the herein presented
recommendations with the help of interviews, workshops, or pilot projects.

Further research could also be done in technology transfer in regions with other
economic circumstances and professional areas. For this thesis a wide variety of
industrial sectors were considered, on side of university researchers only the ones
working at Graz University of Technology. A study for other types of universities and
geographic regions with other economic framework would shed additional light on the
influence of regions and research areas on technology transfer. However, the results
of this thesis show that Styria is qualitatively comparable with other, similar
developed regions.

The results also show that out of the view of single companies and individual
university researcher technology transfer is dynamic. Companies and university
researchers build up knowledge and experience in technology transfer. Such
developments have to be accounted for by i.e. providing continuous suited support.
In such cases, it is necessary that companies and university researchers are
accompanied continuously and support services take into account the accumulated
knowledge and experiences.
References 183

References

ABRAMSON, N. H.; ENCARNACAO, J.; REID, P. P.; SCHMOCH, Ulrich (Eds.):

Technology Transfer Systems in the United States and Germany: Lessons and
Perspectives, Washington DC 1997

ADAMETZ, Christoph; GRUBER, Markus; PLODER, Michael: Innovationsmonitor

Steiermark 2004 Endbericht [Innovation Monitor Styria 2004, final report],
[Link]/Projekte/Innovationsmonitor/Bericht%[Link] as
of 11th of May 2006

ARTLEY, R. J.; DOBRAUZ, G.; PLASONIG, G. E.; STRASSER, R. R. (Eds.): Making

Money out of Technology: Best Practice in Technology Exploitation from Academic
Sources, Zurich 2003

ASHEIM, Björn T.: Learning regions as development coalitions: partnerships as

governance in European welfare states?, in: Concepts and Transformation, Vol 6, No
1, 2001, pp 73-101

ASHEIM, Björn; ISAKSEN, Arne: Regional Innovation Systems: The Integration of

Local 'Sticky' and Global 'Ubiquitous' Knowledge, in: Journal of Technology Transfer,
Vol. 27, 2002, pp. 77-86

AURIL: Continuing Professional Development Framework for Knowledge Transfer

Practitioners, 2003, [Link]/publications/[Link] as of 11th of May
2006

AURIL: Continuing Professional Development Survey results, 2005, [Link]-

[Link]/downloads/download-docs/[Link]/download as of 11th of May 2006

AUTIO, Erkko; BIANCHI-STREIT, Marilena; HAMERI, Ari-Pekka (Eds.): Technology

Transfer and Technological Learning Through CERN's Procurement Activity, Geneva
2003

BEISE, Marian; LICHT, Georg; SPIELKAMP, Alfred (Eds.): Technologietransfer an

kleine und mittlere Unternehmen: Analysen und Perspektiven für Baden-Würtemberg
[Technology transfer to small and medium sized companies: Analyses and
perspectives for Baden-Würtemberg], Baden-Baden 1995
184 References

BEISE, Marian; SPIELKAMP, Alfred (Eds.): Technologietransfer von Hochschulen:

Ein Insider-Outsider Effekt [Technology Transfer from Universities: An Insider-
Outsider effect], ZEW Discussion Paper 96-10, Mannheim 1996

BESSETTE, Russell W.: Measuring the Economic Impact of University-Based

Research, in: Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 28, 2003, pp. 355-361

BLUME, Lorenz; FROMM, Oliver: Wissenstransfer zwischen Universitäten und

regionaler Wirtschaft: Eine empirische Untersuchung am Beispiel der Universität
Gesamthochschule Kassel [Knowledge Transfer Between Universities and regional
economy: An empirical study at the University of Kassel], in: Vierteljahreshefte zur
Wirtschaftsforschung [Quarterly economy research journal], 69. Jahrgang, Heft
1/2000, pp. 109-123

BOURGEOIS, François.: Basic Science and Technology Transfer: Means and

Methods in the CERN Environment, workshop records, 28th and 29th of November
1997 in Geneva

BOZEMAN, Barry: Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and
theory, in: Research Policy, Vol. 29, 2000, pp. 627-655

BUSINESS-HIGHER EDUCATION FORUM (Ed.): Working Together, Creating

Knowledge: The University Industry Collaboration Initiative, Washington DC 2001

CARAYANNIS, Elias G.; ALEXANDER, Jeffrey: Winning by Co-Opeting in Strategic

Government-University-Industry R&D Partnerships: The Power of Complex, Dynamic
Knowledge Networks, in: Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 24, 1999, pp. 197-210

CZARNITZKI, D.; LICHT, G.; RAMMER, C.; SPIELKAMP, A.: Rolle und Bedeutung
von Intermediären im Wissens- und Technologietransfer [Role and importance of
Intermediaries in knowledge and technology transfer], in: ifo Schnelldienst, 54.
Jahrgang, Vol. 4, 2001, pp. 40-49

CZARNITZKI, Dirk; RAMMER, Christian: Technology Transfer via the Internet: A

Way to Link Pubic Science and Enterprises?, in: Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol.
28, 2003, pp. 131-147

DACHS, Bernhard; EBERSBERGER, Bernd; PYKA, Andreas: Why do Firms Co-

operate for Innovation? A comparison of Austrian and Finnish CIS 3 results, in:
References 185

Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsreihe des Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der

Universität Augsburg [Economic Discussion Series of the Department for Economics
at the University of Augsburg], 2004, No. 255

DAVENPORT, Thomas H.; PRUSAK, Laurence (Eds.): Working Knowledge: How

Organizations Manage What They Know, Boston Massachusetts 1998

DE JUAN, Veronica: Comparative study of technology transfer practices in Europe

and the USA, in: Industry & Higher Education, October 2003, pp. 337-349

EDLER, Jakob; SCHMOCH, Ulrich: Wissens- und Technologietransfer in öffentlichen

Forschungseinrichtungen [Knowledge and technology transfer at public research
organizations], in: ifo Schnelldienst, 4/2001, 54. Jahrgang, pp. 18-27

ETZKOWITZ, Henry: The European entrepreneurial university: An alternative to the

US model, Industry & Higher Education, 2003, pp. 325-335

ETZKOWITZ, Henry: The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the

new university-industry linkages, in: Research Policy, Vol. 27, 1998, pp. 823-833

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (Ed.): SMEs and co-operation, Observatory of European

SMEs, No. 5, Luxembourg 2003

FREY, Bruno S.; OSTERLOH, Margit (Eds.): Managing Motivation: Wie Sie die neue
Motivationsforschung für Ihr Unternehmen nutzen können [Managing Motivation:
How to use modern research in motivation for your company], Wiesbaden 2000

FROMHOLD-EISEBITH, Martina; SCHARTINGER, Doris: Universities as agents in

regional innovation systems. Evaluating patterns of knowledge-intensive
collaboration in Austria, in: ACS, Zoltan J.; DE GROOT, Henri; NIJKAMP, Peter
(Eds.), The Emergence of the Knowledge Economy: A Regional Perspective,
Heidelberg 2002, pp. 173-194

GOMEZ DA CRUZ, Emanuel; HERZOG, Robert; SIRAGE, Emir: From purchasing

goods & services to pro-active Technology Transfer & Partnerships, final report for
the Master program Master of Technology at EPFL Lausanne based on an internship
at CERN, 2004
186 References

HÄHNLE, Michael: R&D Collaborations between CERN and Industrial Companies:

Organizational and Spatial Aspects, doctoral thesis, University of Economics Vienna,
1997

HAMBLIN, David; WILLCOCK, John: Assessing the l kely effectiveness of

intervention programmes in small manufacturing companies, in: Industry & Higher
Education, October 1999, pp. 349-355

HANEL, Gunter: Typen des Technologienachfrageverhaltens kleiner und mittlerer

Unternehmen: ein Segmentierungsversuch als Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische
Maßnahmen [Types of Technology Demanding Behavior of Small and Medium Sized
Enterprises: A try to Classify for Policy Economics measures], doctoral thesis, Vienna
University of Economics and Business Administration, 1996

HARMON, B.; ARDISHVILI, A.; CARDOZO, R.; ELDER, T.; LEUTHOLD, J.;
PARSHALL, J.; RAGHIAN, M.; SMITH, D.: Mapping the University Technology
Transfer Process, in: Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, 1997, pp. 423-434

HARPER, Jeffrey S.; RAINER, R. Kelly Jr.: Analysis and Classification of Problem
Statements in Technology Transfer, in: Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 25,
2000, pp. 135-156

HARTLIEB, Erich: Zur Rolle der Wissenslogistik im betrieblichen Wissens-

management [The Role of Knowledge Logistics for the Knowledge Management of
companies], doctoral Thesis, Graz University of Technology, 2000

HERSEY, Karen: MIT as catalyst for high-technology start-up companies, in: Industry
& Higher Education, December 1999, pp. 409-501

HOFER, Franz: Knowledge Transfer Between Academia and Industry, in: Schwartz,
David (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management, New York 2005

HOFER, Franz; ADAMETZ, Christoph; HOLZER, Franz: Technology and knowledge

transfer in the Graz region: Ten years of experience, in: Industry & Higher Education,
June 2004, pp. 177-186

HOLZER, Franz; ADAMETZ, Christoph: TUG-AbsolventInnenbefragung 2003

Endbericht [Graz University of Technology Alumni survey 2003 final report], 2003,
References 187

[Link]/tt/projekte/pdf/TUG_AbsolventInnenbefragung-[Link] as of 12th
of May 2006

HOWELLS, Jeremy: The Knowledge Boundaries of the Firm and Sourcing for
Innovation, in: Hosni, Yasser; Smith, Richard; Khalil, Tarek (Eds.), 13th International
Conference on Management of Technology, Washington DC 2004, Paper ID 1296

INNO-REGIO STYRIA: F&E Kooperationen von forschungsintensiven Unternehmen

der Steiermark [R&D collaborations of research intensive companies in Styria],
presented at a workshop for members of the platform for R&D managers of Styrian
companies organized by inno-regio styria on the 7th of February 2005 in Graz

JANKOWSKI, John E.: Trends in Academic Research Spending, Alliances, and

Commercialization, in: Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 24, 1999, pp. 55-68

JASSAWALLA, Avan R.; SASHITTAL, Hemant C.: Accelerating technology transfer:

Thinking about organizational pronoia, in: Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, Vol. 15, 1998, pp. 153-177

KREMIC, Tibor: Technology Transfer: A Contextual Approach, in: Journal of

Technology Transfer, Vol. 28, 2003, pp. 149-158

LAIGAARD, Karen: Establishing a TTO: A Thrilling Experience, presented at the

ASTP Workshop, 14th and 15th of October 2004 in Lisbon

LAMBE, C. Jay; SPEKMAN, Robert E.: Alliances, External Technology Acquisition,

and Discontinuous Technological Change, in: Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 14, 1997, pp. 102-116

LAMBERT, Richard: Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration: Final

Report, 2003, [Link] as of 10th of April 2006

LANGMANN, Philipp: Motivation zum Wissenstransfer [Motivation to transfer

knowledge], master thesis, University of Graz, 2002

LARGE, David; BELINKO, Keith; KALLIGATSI, Katerina: Building Successful

Technology Commercialization Teams: Pilot Empirical Support for the Theory of
Cascading Commitment, in: Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 25, 2000, pp. 169-
180
188 References

LI-HUA, Richard: From Technology Transfer to Knowledge Transfer - A Study of

International Joint Venture Projects in China, presented at the 2003 International
Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT) Conference in Nancy,
[Link]/resources/Richard%20Lihua%[Link] as of
11th of May 2006

LIPSCOMB, Marguerite; MCEWAN, Anne Marie: Technology Transfer in SMEs: The

TCS Model at Kingston University, in: Proceedings of the Fourth SMESME
International Conference, Aalborg, 2001

LUNA, Matilde; VELASCO, José L.: Bridging the gap between firms and academic
institutions: The role of 'translators', in: Industry & Higher Education, October 2003,
pp. 313-323

LUNDVALL, B. A.; JOHNSON, B.; ANDERSEN, E. S.; DALUM, B.: National systems
of production, innovation and competence building, in: Research Policy, 31, 2002,
pp. 213-231

MACPHERSON, Alan D.: The role of external technical support in innovation

performance of scientific instruments firms: Empirical evidence from New York State,
in: Technovation, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1997, pp. 141-151

MANIMALA, Mathew J.: Managing R&D in SMEs: Taking advantage of the giants'
shoulders, in: Industry & Higher Education, June 2002, pp. 177-190

MARTINSON, Brian C.; ANDERSON, Melissa S.; DE VRIES, Raymond: Scientists

behaving badly, in: nature, Vol. 435/9, June 2005, pp. 737-738

MCCULLOUGH, John M.: Technology transfer: creating the right environment, in:
Industry & Higher Education, April 2003, pp. 111-117

MESERI, Ofer; MAITAL, Shlomo: A Survey Analysis of University-Technology

Transfer in Israel: Evaluation of Projects and Determinants of Success, in: Journal of
Technology Transfer, Vol. 26, 2001, pp. 115-126

NICOLAY, Rainer; WIMMERS, Stephan (Eds.): Kundenzufriedenheit der Unterneh-

men mit Forschungseinrichtungen: Ergebnisse einer Unternehmensbefragung zur
Zusammenarbeit zwischen Unternehmen und Forschungseinrichtungen [Customer
Satisfaction of companies with R&D organizations: Results of an company survey
References 189

regarding collaborations between companies and R&D organizations], Berlin Bonn,

2000

NORDBERG, Markus; VERBEKE, Alain: The Strategic Management of High

Technology Contracts: The Case of CERN, in: McGee, John; Thomas, Howard
(Eds.): Technology, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Competitive Strategy Series,
Oxford 1999

OUGHTON, Christine; LANDABASO, Mikel; MORGAN, Kevin: The Regional

Innovation Paradox: Innovation Policy and Industrial Policy, in: Journal of Technology
Transfer, Vol. 27, 2002, pp. 97-110

PEACOCK, Nicola; LADKIN, Adele: Exploring relationships between higher

education and industry, in: Industry & Higher Education, December 2002, pp. 393-
402

PLODER, Michael; SCHLEICH, Michaela; ADAMETZ, Christoph: Innovationsmonitor

2005: Endbericht [Innovation Monitor: Final Report], September 2005

POLYANI, Michael (Ed.): The Tacit Dimension, Gloucester-Massachusetts 1966

REINHARD, Michael: Wissens- und Technologietransfer in Deutschland: Ein langer

Weg zu mehr Effizienz [Knowledge and Technology Transfer in Germany: A long
way to increased Efficiency], in: ifo Schnelldienst, 54. Jahrgang, Vol. 4, 2001, pp. 14-
17

RIIS, Jens O.: University-Industry Interaction: A Means for Stimulating Manufacturing

Excellence, in: Proceedings of the Fourth SMESME International Conference,
Aalborg, 2001

MOSER, W.; REICHER, D.; ROSEGGER, R.; DE FRANTZ, M.; HAVEL, M.: Was ist
so schön am Eigenheim – Ein Lebensstilkonzept des Wohnens [What is so beautiful
with the own home – A life style concept of living], 2002,
[Link]/download/endbericht_eigenheim_1702.pdf as of 23rd of May
2006

SACKETT, Peter J.: Towards concurrent processes technology transfer, in: Industry
& Higher Education, October 2000, pp. 288-296
190 References

SAMMER, Martin: Vernetzung von Wissen in Organisationen: Gestaltung von

Rahmenbedingungen [Linking Knowledge in Organizations: Designing the frame], in:
Bauer, Ulrich; Biedermann, Hubert; Wohinz, Josef W. (Eds.), Techno-ökonomische
Forschung und Praxis [Techno-economic research and practice], Wiesbaden 2000

SANTORO, Michael D., GOPALAKRISHNAN, Shanthi: Relationship Dynamics

between University Research Centers and Industrial Firms: Their Impact on
Technology Transfer Activities, in: Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 26, 2001, pp.
163-171

SCHARTINGER, Doris; SCHIBANY, Andreas; GASSLER, Helmut: Interactive

Relations Between Universities and Firms: Empirical Evidence for Austria, in: Journal
of Technology Transfer, Vol. 26, 2001, pp. 255-268

SCHIBANY, Andreas; SCHARTINGER, Doris: Benchmarking Industry-Science

Relationships: Main Results and the Austrian Positioning, presented at the TIP
workshop Benchmarking Science and Technology Policy, 11th and 12th of April 2002
in Vienna

SCHMOCH, Ulrich; LICHT, Georg; REINHARD, Michael (Eds.): Wissens- und

Technologietransfer in Deutschland [Knowledge and technology transfer in
Germany], Stuttgart 2000

SCHNEEBERGER, Arthur; PETANOVITSCH, Alexander (Eds.): Innovation und

Hochschu bildung: Chancen und Herausforderungen einer technisch-
naturwissenschaftlichen Qualifizierungsoffensive für Österreich [Innovation and
academic education: Chances and challenges of science and technology oriented
qualification offensive for Austria], Vienna 2003

SCHNEIDER, Ursula: Management in der wissensbasierten Unternehmung, in:

Schneider, Ursula (Ed.): Wissensmanagement, Frankfurt/Main 1996

SCHREINER, Melanie; FAHRNI, Fritz (Eds.): Partnering for Success: Creating Win-
Win Constellations for long-term Industry-Academia Collaboration, Zurich 2001

SCHULZE, Anja: Wissensmanagement: Räume fördern Austausch [Knowledge

Management: Space supports exchange], in: TECHNOVATION 3/02, 2002, pp. 35-
37
References 191

SHERMAN, J. Daniel; OLSEN, Eugene A.: Stages in the project life cycle in R&D
organizations and the differing relationships between organizational climate and
performance, in: Journal of High Technology Management Research, 1996, pp. 79-
90

SIEGEL, D. S.; WALDMAN, D. A.; ATWATER, L. E.; LINK, A. N.: Commercial

knowledge transfer from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of
university-industry collaboration, in: Journal of High Technology Management
Research, Vol. 14, 2003, pp. 111-133

SIEGEL, Donald S.; WALDMAN, David A.; LINK, Albert N.: Assessing the Impact of
Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer
Offices: An Exploratory Study, 2000, [Link]/sam/stabssem/[Link] as of 11th
of May 2006, a previous version of this paper appeared as NBER Working Paper
#7256 in July 1999

SPSS (Ed.): SPSS Base 12.0 Benutzerhandbuch [SPSS Base 12.0 user manual],
Munich 2003

STARBUCK, Elizabeth: Optimizing University Research Collaborations, in: Research

Technology Management, January/February 2001, pp. 40-44

THOMAS, Brychan; PACKHAM, Gary; MILLER, Chris: A temporal model of

technology diffusion into small firms in Wales, in: Industry & Higher Education,
August 2001, pp. 279-288

TICHY, Gunther; WULZ, Heribert: Notwendigkeiten, Möglichkeiten und Kosten eines

Technologietransfers an österreichische Klein- und Mittelbetriebe nach dem
Steinbeis-Modell: Gutachten für die Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte Wien
[Necessities, possibilities and costs by realizing technology transfer according to the
Steinbeis model to Austrian small and medium sized companies: Study for the
Vienna chamber of labor], in: Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien [Vienna
chamber of labor] (Ed.), Beiträge zur Wirtschaftspolitik [Contributions to economic
policy], Vol. 1, Vienna 1996

TÖDTLING, Franz; KAUFMANN, Alexander: SMEs in Regional Innovation Systems

and The Role of Innovation Support: The Case of Upper Austria, in: Journal of
Technology Transfer, Vol. 27, 2002, pp. 15-26
192 References

TORNATZKY, Louis G. (Ed.): Building State Economies by Promoting University

Industry Technology Transfer, Washington DC 2000

VAN EGMONG-DE WILDE DE LIGNY, Emilia L. C.; KUMARASWAMY, Mohan M.:

Determining the success or failure of international technology transfer, in: Industry &
Higher Education, February 2003, pp. 51-57

VOCK, Patrick: University Technology Transfer in Switzerland: Organization, Legal

Framework, Policy and Framework, in: OECD (Ed.), Turning Science into Business:
Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organisations, Paris 2003, pp. 189-201

WASHBURN, Jennifer: Why Universities Need to Recommit Themselves to Serving

the Public Good, in: InnovationMatters, June 5, 2005, Vol. 3, Issue 11

WILLFORT, Reinhard: Innovationsdienstleistungen im wissensorientierten

Management von Innovationsprozessen [Innovation Services in Knowledge Oriented
Management of Innovation Processes], doctoral thesis, Graz University of
Technology, 2000
Appendix 193

Appendix: Definition of terms

To provide a common understanding the thesis’s key terms are specified in the
following.

Knowledge, data, documentation, information and communication processes

The following definitions of knowledge, data, documentation, information, and

communication processes are based on the ones used by Willfort38. In this case,
knowledge is exclusively bound to individuals. It does not exist without them. A
written paper does not contain knowledge but simply data. The distinction of
knowledge in explicit and implicit forms introduced by Polyani39 is not that relevant for
this thesis even though it is important to consider in case of realizing single
technology transfer projects. Data comprise signs, chains of signs, graphs, and
pictures. Data usually can be stored and processed with the help of information and
communication technologies. The processes information, documentation, and
communication link data with knowledge and vice versa. Examples for the processes
are reading a paper for an information process, writing a paper for a documentation
process, a telephone conversation for a communication process. The information
process is one possibility for individuals to generate knowledge. The documentation
process generates data based on the knowledge of individuals, which again can
serve as starting point for the generation of knowledge through the information
process. Communication processes describe interactions between at least two
individuals. It comprises verbal and non-verbal forms. Communication can take place
either personally, i.e. face-to-face conversations, or being supported by information
and communication technologies like phones, online-chat, or videoconferences to
name just a few. By using up to date technologies communication can take place
virtually independent from time and location.

38
Willfort, Reinhard: Innovationsdienstleistungen im wissensorientierten Management von
Innovationsprozessen [Innovation Services in Knowledge Oriented Management of Innovation
Processes], doctoral thesis, Graz University of Technology, 2000
39
Polyani, Michael (Ed.): The Tacit Dimension, Gloucester-Massachusetts 1966
194 Appendix

Figure 64: Relations between knowledge, data, and documentation, information, and communication
processes

Technology transfer related terms: Knowledge transfer, knowledge induction

Knowledge transfer is often being used synonymous for technology transfer because
in many cases technology transfer does not refer exclusively to the transfer of
technologies in the sense of artifacts. Abramson, Encarnacao, Reid, and Schmoch40
define technology transfer as the movement of technological and technology-related
knowledge amongst partners. Also for this thesis, the term technology transfer refers
to such a broader view. Sammer41 introduced the term knowledge induction. The
author refers to the misleading image provoked by using terms like knowledge and
technology transfer. Knowledge cannot be transferred, only signals and stimuli.
Knowledge can only be generated by absorbing stimuli. Two models introduced by
Schneider42 describe the differences between transfer and induction. The two
presented models show the principal views regarding knowledge: The package
model and the interaction model. The mechanism of the package model with
knowledge as a picture of the reality and being ready to be transferred like a package
from sender to receiver corresponds with the term transfer. The second model, the
interaction model, views knowledge as something being created by interaction and
being an interpretation of the reality and not the reality itself. This is in line with

40
Abramson, N. H.; Encarnacao, J.; Reid, P. P.; Schmoch, U. (Eds.): Technology Transfer Systems
in the United States and Germany: Lessons and Perspectives, Washington DC 1997
41
Sammer, Martin: Vernetzung von Wissen in Organisa ionen: Gestaltung von Rahmenbedingungen
[Linking Knowledge in Organizations: Designing he frame], in: Bauer, Ulrich; Biedermann, Hubert;
Wohinz, Josef W. (Eds.), Techno-ökonomische Forschung und Praxis [Techno-economic research
and practice], Wiesbaden 2000
42
Schneider, Ursula: Management in der wissensbasierten Unternehmung [Management in
knowledge based organizations], in: Schneider, Ursula (Ed.): Wissensmanagement [Knowledge
Management], Frankfurt/Main 1996
Appendix 195

Sammer’s view of knowledge induction. The fundament of this thesis corresponds

with Sammer’s view about the impossibility to transfer knowledge. However, for this
thesis the term technology transfer is preferred because of the widely use in science
and practice, independently all the potential misunderstandings.

Technology transfer

In general, technology transfer between universities and companies stands for

universities and companies interacting with each other for reasons like i.e. joint
developments, improving existing products or sharing knowledge. Not necessarily,
both sides interact directly and personally. In addition, publications available online
for download or theses accessible at libraries are potential sources for knowledge.
Technology transfer can happen either intentionally or unintentionally. Examples for
intentional technology transfer are industrial liaison programs. In such cases,
companies pay for specific services provided by universities. MIT for examples offers
for companies paying to take part in their industrial liaison program services like
university researchers visiting companies and discussing potential new
developments, access to new research results, reduced fees for conferences and
support in issues related to business development based on research at the
university. Technology transfer is often perceived as one way where universities
make and companies take. This might be true in some cases. However, companies
with excellent research capabilities are likely to be equivalent research partners for
universities. Companies’ input, i.e. practical problems and need for further research
can be important for universities. Technology transfer does not have to take place
exclusively between universities and companies within a certain geographic region
but also at the national as well as international level. Technology transfer can include
exclusively university researchers and companies but also others like i.e. university
technology transfer officers. The creation of spin-offs based on universities’
inventions or licensing universities’ IPRs to companies can be part of technology
transfer. Technology transfer can vary in intensity. It spans from university
researchers and companies having occasionally contacts with each other to
companies having expenditures for collaborations with universities and university
researchers realizing collaborative research projects with companies.
196 Appendix

Appendix: Questionnaire for companies

1. Did the company carry out R&D within the last three years?

Yes, continuously Yes, rarely No

Go to question 2
 
Go to question 3

2. Did the company have expenditures for external R&D services within the last three years?
I.e. for other companies of the group, universities, public research centers, other companies and
the like.

Yes, continuously Yes, rarely No

Go to question 8
 
3. Please indicate R&D expenditures for the following years.

2003 2004 2005e

R&D expenditures as share of turnover in %
OR in EUR

4. Please indicate the expected development of R&D expenditures for the years 2006 and
2007.

More than From +11% to From 0 to From 0 to From -11% to More than
+25% +25% +10% -10% -25% -25%

If you have answered question 1 with no please go to question 7. Otherwise proceed with
question 5.

5. Did the company have expenditures for external R&D services within the last three years?
I.e. for other companies of the group, universities, public research centers, other companies and
the like.

Yes No
Go to question 8

6. How large is the share of current expenditures for external R&D services of the total R&D
expenditures? %

7. Did the company have expenditures for collaborations with universities within the last
three years?

Yes No
Go to question 8

Go to question 11

8. Did the company have contacts to universities in the area of R&D within the last three
years?

Yes, continuously Yes, rarely No

Go to question 9
 
Go to question 13
Appendix 197

9. Would you principally be interested in collaborating with universities?

Yes No
Go to question 10

Go to question 24

10. Please name the reason(s) why you are not interested in collaborating with universities.


After answering question 10 please go to question 29

11. Estimate the yearly expenditures for universities for the last three years and the expected
development of these expenditures for the years 2006 and 2007.

Expected development for 2006 and 2007

Yearly expenditures Increasing Stable Decreasing
for universi ies
Yearly expenditures in EUR
OR
In % of all R&D expenditures
(question 3)

12. Please indicate how the current expenditures for universities are split between the
following means.

Sum = 100 %
Taking in consulting and expert opinions
Commissioning master and bachelor theses
Commissioning doctoral theses
Commissioning contract research projects (Companies not ac ively work
with university researchers)
Commissioning joint research projects (Companies actively work with
university researchers)
Using infrastructure (i.e. for tests)
Others:

13. Estimate how often the company used the following means within the last three years.
Enter the respective numbers in the corresponding fields. I.e. if the company commissioned four
master theses wi hin the last three years enter the number four in the respective field.

Number
Providing cases or giving guest lectures for seminars, lectures and construction
exercises
Taking in consulting and expert opinions
Commissioning master and bachelor theses
Commissioning doctoral theses
Commissioning contract research projects (Companies not ac ively work with
university researchers)
Commissioning joint research projects (Companies actively work with university
researchers)
Using infrastructure (i.e. for tests)
Others:
198 Appendix

14. Please indicate how often the company had contacts to or collaborated with universities
located in the following geographic areas within the last three years.

Often Rarely Never

Styria
Austria w/o Styria
Germany and Switzerland
Other countries:

15. If necessary please name the reason(s) why the company had contacts to or collaborated
with universities located outside Styria. I.e. need for specific research, capacities, costs, bad
experiences with regional universities.

16. Estimate how contacts to or collaborations with universities are split between universities
of technology and other universities. Universities of technology are i.e. Graz University of
Technology or University of Leoben. Other universities are i.e. University of Graz or Vienna
University of Economics, medical universities and the like.

Exclusively universities Contacts and collaborations are Exclusively other

of technology equally distributed universities

17. Estimate with how many university departments the company is in contact with.

18. Since how many years the company is already in contact with universities?

19. How important are the following reasons for the company to establish contacts to and
initiated collaborations with universities?

Importance
High Medium Small Not
important
Developing new products and processes
Improving existing products and processes
Building up specific competencies with universities’
support
Universities as economic R&D service providers
(outsourcing)
Collaborations with universities increase the likelihood
of success to acquire additional external funding
Access to new customers and markets
Balancing capacity shortages
Access to pot. new employees
Others:

20. How important are the following factors for choosing university departments the company
finally contacts?

Importance
High Medium Small Not
important
Existing personal contacts
Publications in scientific journals
Publications about research in newspapers, magazines
and the internet
TV and radio broadcasts about research
Presenta ions of university researchers at meetings
Recommendations from others (i e. customers,
suppliers, partners etc.)
Research excellence
Appendix 199

Geographic nearness of university

Others:

21. Please indicated how usually your contacts to or collaborations with universities are
established.

Often Rarely Never

The company approaches university researchers directly
The company turns to central university departments, which find the right
university researchers.
The company turns to central industry near organizations like chamber of
commerce, industry associations or clusters, which find the right university
researchers.
University researchers approach the company directly
Students approach the company directly
Central university departments approach the company directly
Central industry near organizations like chamber of commerce, industry
associations or clusters approach the company directly
Others:

22. Please indicate how often you carry out the following activities.

Often Rarely Never

Measuring the impact of collaborations with universities on the economic
success of the company wi h the help of indicators
Review of collaborations with universities to find out potential for
improvement

23. Please indicate if the following characteristics apply to the company.

Yes No
The company enters long-term partnerships with relevant university departments
The management supports collaborations wi h universities
Contacts with universities are anchored on several people within the company

24. Which support would help the company to improve and increase collaborations with
universities? I.e. facilitating strategic collaborations, master contracts, equal standards at
university departments and the like.

25. How important are the following barriers for (pot.) collaborations between your company
and universities? Please judge the actual importance for your company.

Importance
High Medium Small Not
important
Difficulties in finding the right contacts
Universities are passive in providing information and
presenting their research results and possibilities to
collaborate
Results of collaborations with university departments are
rather insecure or difficult to exploit for and integrate in the
company (i.e. protection against spill-overs)
Internal knowledge of the company leaks to competitors with
which university departments are in contact too
High work load at university departments hinder
collaborations with companies
Collaborations with university departments are too
expensive compared to benefits
University researchers are rather skeptical towards
collaborations with companies
200 Appendix

26. Try to take in the viewpoint of university researchers and to judge the following barriers for
collaborations with companies.

Importance
High Medium Small Not
important
Companies are passive and do not ask for research projects
and results
Companies do not know the potential collaboration means
with universities like consultancy, licensing, seminar theses
and the like
Companies cannot name their needs and problems
Companies have limited professional capabilities to
collaborate with universities
Companies’ aggressive behavior regarding formal protection
rights like IPRs hinder collaborations with universities
High work load in companies hinder collaborations with
universities
Companies are rather skeptical towards collaborations with
universities
Collaborations with companies negatively influence teaching
and research at the university department
Too much third party funding negatively influences the
university department (i e. dependencies, limiting the
possibilities to be unbiased, decreasing funding from public
sources)

27. If necessary name additional barriers being important for your collaborations with
universities.

28. Judge the importance of following motives for university researchers to collaborate with
companies.

Importance
High Medium Small Not
important
It is one of the tasks of universities to collaborate with
companies
Scientific interest
Building up contacts for a latter career in companies
Using companies’ infrastructure
Financing investments in university department’s
infrastructure
Financing master and doctoral students or university
department’s employees
Financing your own job
Additional personal income

Finally please answer some questions regarding the company and your person.

29. Please indicate which product and service categories apply to the company. Multiple
answers possible. „Standardized services“ are services without major customer specific changes.
“Custom made specialized services“ are designed and sold individually, i.e. R&D services and the
like.

Mass production Small production Prototype Standardized Custom made

production services specialized
services
Appendix 201

30. Is the company part of a group of companies?

Yes No

31. Please indicate company’s sales for the given years. In case the company does not have
sales because it exclusively realizes R&D for others, please indicate an equivalent, i.e. the amount
of R&D expenditures contracted by others.

2003 2004 2005e

In Million EUR

32. Estimate the expected development of company’s sales for the years 2006 and 2007.

More than From +6% to From 0 to From 0 to From -6% to More han
+10% +10% +5% -5% -10% -10%

33. Please indicate the share of in the last three years newly developed or markedly improved
products and processes on sales. %

34. Please indicate the company’s export quota. %

35. Please indicate the three most important export countries. Important in the sense of sales.

Export country with the highest share on sales

Export country with the second highest share on sales
Export country with the third highest share on sales

36. How many employees are employed at the company?

37. How many thereof are university graduates?

In number of people OR
In % of all employees

38. How many of all university graduates are graduates from universities of technology?

In number of people OR
In % of all university graduates (Question 37)

39. Please indicate which strategy the company follows. Multiple answers possible.

Cost leadership Quality leadership Technology leadership Niche strategy

40. Please indicate if the company is process oriented. I.e. applying standards like VDA or ISO. It
is not necessary hat the company is granted he respective certificates.

Yes, continuously Yes, rarely No

41. Please indicate if the company applies innovation management methods. I.e. CIP
(continuous improvement processes), creativity techniques like brainstorming, 635 and he like.

Yes, continuously Yes, rarely No

202 Appendix

42. How old are you?

Up to 30 From 31 to 40 From 41 to 50 From 51 to 60 Older than 60

years years years years years

43. Please indicate if and if yes from which universities or universities of applied sciences you
graduated. Multiple answers possible.

I do not have an academic degree from universities or universities of applied sciences

Graz University of Technology
University of Leoben
University of Graz
FH JOANNEUM (university of applied science)
campus02 (university of applied science)
Vienna University of Technology
Others:

44. Please indicate your current position in the company.

CEO
R&D manager
Others:

Thank you very much for your support. Please send the questionnaire per e-mail or fax to:

Franz Hofer, [Link]@[Link], (Fax) 0316/873-8397

In case you send back the questionnaire per fax, please indicate the name of your company to ensure
the assignment of your answers to centrally available data for the following analysis:

Appendix: Questionnaire for university researchers

1. Do you have contacts with companies during your work at Graz University of Technology?
I.e. master theses, presentations, lectures, collaborative projects, consultancies and the like.

Yes, regularly Yes, rarely No

Go to question 2
 
Go to question 4

2. Would you be interested in entering collaborations with companies?

Yes No
Go to question 3

Go to question 16

3. Please state why you are not interested in collaborations with companies?


Go to question 21.

4. Assess your personal motivation why you collaborate with companies.

Importance
High Medium Small Not
important
It is one of the tasks of universities to collaborate with
companies
Appendix 203

Scientific interest
Building up contacts for a latter career in companies
Using companies’ infrastructure
Financing investments in university department’s
infrastructure
Financing master and doctoral students or university
department’s employees
Financing your own job
Additional personal income
Other reasons:

5. Estimate with how many different companies you are in contact with during an average
month. „Being in contact with“ stands for personal communication independen ly if face-to-face,
via e-mail or phone.

6. Estimate how much of your time you spend on average for teaching, basic research and
collaborations with companies. It is only a rough estimation. Basic research stands for not
applied research without involvement of companies and without concrete exploitation objectives.
Collaborations with companies comprise research ac ivities with companies and also
presentations for companies and the like. Activities not belonging exclusively to one of the three
categories should be divided in three similar shares.

Teaching Basic research Collaborations with companies

Sum = 100 %

7. How are your collaborations with companies usually be established?

Often Rarely Never

I approach companies, which I already know from previous collaborations
directly
I approach companies, which might be interested in my research and
which I do not yet know personally directly
Companies approach me directly
Central university departments broker projects for me
Central industry near organizations like chamber of commerce, clusters or
industry associations broker projects for me
Other departments at my university broker projects for me
Others:

8. Estimate how often you personally use the following means in collaborations with
companies per year. If i.e. you do not coach doctoral students because you do not have the
formal authority please check the box „n/a” for not applicable. The same accounts for if you are
employed at the university since shortly and cannot yet provide information for the means.

Number n/a
per year
Organization of guest lecturers, practical cases of companies for
seminars and lectures, construction exercises and he like
Doing consultancies and providing expert opinions
Coaching master and bachelor theses commissioned by companies
Coaching doctoral theses commissioned by companies
Contract research projects for companies (Companies do not actively
work with university researchers)
Joint research projects with companies (Companies actively work with
university researchers)
Providing infrastructure (i.e. for tests)
Others:
204 Appendix

9. How many of your collaborations with companies do you do with companies according to
the following categories and how do average project sums differ? Regular customers are
companies regularly collaborating with you or your department. First time customers are
companies for the first time collaborating with you or your department. Occasional customers are
companies occasionally collaborating with you or your departments but less frequently than
regular customers.

Number of projects Project sums

High Middle Small None High Middle Small
Regular customers
Occasional customers
First time customers

10. How many of your collaborations with companies do you do with companies according to
the following geographic areas and how do average project sums differ?

Number of projects Project sums

High Middle Small None High Middle Small
Styria
Austria w/o Styria
Germany or Switzerland
Other countries:

11. Do you learn something from your collaborations with companies for your teaching
activities? Examples are ideas for new input for seminars and lectures, new points of view or
possibilities to solve problems and the like. If you do not teach please check the box “n/a” for not
applicable.

Yes, very much Rather much Rather little Not at all N/A

12. How do you judge your current collaborations with companies for fulfilling your scientific
research objectives?

Supporting Hindering

 
Please state your reason(s) for your judgment:

13. Do you have explicit obligatory standards for collaborations with companies like xx days to
respond to external enquiries or standardized contracts and the like?

Yes No
Go to question 14

Please describe the standards shortly:

14. How often do you realize the following activities in case of your collaborations with
companies?

Often Rarely Never

Information for companies of suited funding programs
Supporting companies in setting up proposals for funding programs
Supporting companies in integrating and exploiting research results (i.e.
accompanying companies until new products or processes are introduced
in markets and the like)
Seeking feedback from companies regarding collaborations (i e. benefits
for companies and the like)
Setting up measures based on feedback from companies to improve
collaborations with companies
Appendix 205

Other activities important for collaborations with companies:

15. Would you like to increase your collaborations with companies?

Yes No
Go to question 17

Go to question 16

16. Which support would help you in increasing your collaborations with companies? I.e.
additional personnel resources, systematic marke ing, opening up contacts to companies and the
like.

17. Do following barriers hinder your (potential) collaborations with companies? Please judge
the actual importance of barriers for your collaborations with companies.

Importance
High Medium Small Not
important
Companies are passive and do not ask for research projects
and results
Companies do not know the potential collaboration means
with universities like consultancy, licensing commission
seminar theses and the like
Companies cannot name their needs and problems
Companies have limited professional capabilities to
collaborate with universities
Companies’ aggressive behavior regarding formal protection
rights like IPRs hinder collaborations with universities
High work load in companies hinder collaborations with
universities
Companies are rather skeptical towards collaborations with
universities
Collaborations with companies negatively influence teaching
and research at the university department
Too much hird party funding nega ively influences the
university department (i.e. dependencies, limiting the
possibilities to be unbiased, decreasing funding from public
sources)

18. Try to take in the view point of company managers (CEOs or R&D managers) and judge the
importance of following barriers.

Importance
High Medium Small Not
important
Difficulties in finding he right contacts
Universities are passive in providing information and
presenting their research results and possibilities to
collaborate
Results of collaborations with university departments are
rather insecure or difficult to exploit for and integrate in the
company (i.e. protection against spill-overs)
Internal knowledge of the company leaks to competitors with
which university departments are in contact too
High work load at university departments hinder
collaborations with companies
Collaborations with university departments are too
expensive compared to benefits
University researchers are rather skeptical towards
206 Appendix

collaborations with companies

19. If necessary name additional barriers being important for your collaborations with
companies.

20. Judge the importance of following motives for companies to collaborate with universities.

Importance
High Medium Small Not
important
Developing new products and processes
Improving existing products and processes
Building up specific competencies with universities’ support
Universities as economic R&D service providers
(outsourcing)
Collaborations with universities increase the likelihood of
success to acquire additional external funding
Access to new customers and markets
Balancing capacity shortages
Access to pot. new employees

Finally please answer some questions regarding your person.

21. At which faculty are you employed? In case you are employed at more than one faculty please
indicate the one where you work for most of your time. Please chose faculty

22. How many employees in total are employed at the department you work for?

Up to 5 employees From 6 to 10 employees From 11 to 20 employees More than 20 employees

23. How old are you?

Up to 30 years From 31 to 35 years From 36 to 45 years From 46 to 55 years Older than 55 years

24. Please indicate the personnel category you belong to. Multiple answers possible. In case of
different options regarding the following questions (Go to question 25 or 26) please take the lower
one. In case you are not sure which category you belong to consult TUGonline.

Category Abbreviation
in TUGonline
Professor UP, VP
University assistant professor (title „[Link].-Prof.“) UD
Contract assistant professor (title „[Link].-Prof.“) VD Go to question 26
University assistants (title “Assistant professor“ UA
University assistants – temporary UA  Go to question 25
Contract assistants VA
Staff Scientist – unlimited ST  Go to question 26
Assistants according to § 49 VBG AS  Go to question 25
Scientific employees (in formation) and scientific WM, WA
assistants
University assistants – new UA  Go to question 26
Civil servants, employees for scientific use WB, VW, AN
Project employees PM  Go to question 25
Third party funded employees DP
Appendix 207

25. Please indicate your current academic title, i.e. Dipl.-Ing. or Dr. In case you do not have an
academic degree please tick the box “No academic degree”.

Current academic degree No academic degree

26. Please indicate how your position is financed. Multiple answers possible. In case your position
is financed by third party funds please distinguish in third party funds from companies (i.e.
competence centers, CD labs, EU projects with companies and the like) and from other sources
without companies’ involvement.

Regular university Third party funds from companies Third party funds from other sources
budget without companies’ involvement

27. Since which year are you employed at Graz University of Technology? (yyyy)

28. Please indicate your working experience in companies: (yyyy)

The questionnaire is the first empirical part of my doctoral thesis. In autumn this year the results will be
complemented with personal interviews. Please write down your e-mail address if you want to be at
my disposal for an interview. Your answers will be treated confidential like all the others.

e-mail address:

Please keep a copy of the questionnaire to compare your answers with the results of all
questionnaires. These will be published probably in the middle of September this year.

Thank you very much for your support. Please send the questionnaire with the internal post to:

Franz Hofer
Department no.: 9303