15.4. UNIVERSITY–INDUSTRY LINKAGE

As participants in a technological innovation symposium savored the food and drink in the Fellows' Dining Room at Churchill College (Cambridge University), Maurice Goldsmith (1970, p. xiii) stated, "it was easier to accept why the 'educational purists' of the past, in such a cloistered, cultivated atmosphere, had been able to contribute to Britain's slow decline in industrial efficiency by insisting on the separation between the university, technology and industry."

If a university can contribute to the decline of a major world industrial power like Great Britain, presumably the same university has the potential to contribute to the rise of a nation to a world industrial power. This would further point to the importance of the university community contribution to innovation and industrialization. Cambridge University provides an example of university–industry cooperation that is worth noting.

15.4.1. The Cambridge Phenomenon

Notwithstanding Goldsmith's comments, the fact is that few universities, if any, have contributed so much to Britain's industrial efficacy, economic well-being, and technological leadership as has Cambridge University. During World War II, Cambridge scientists helped develop technologies such as radar, telecommunications, and nuclear physics that helped provide the allies with a winning edge. At present, the well-known "Cambridge phenomenon," which has helped foster development of many science parks around Cambridge, has resulted from the collaboration between the Cambridge University community and industry. Capital investment for the infrastructure (land, buildings, and laboratory facilities) for one of the largest science parks around Cambridge was provided by one of the colleges of Cambridge University (Wicksteed, 1985). In fostering university–industry links, Cambridge University consciously avoided a structured and detailed policy governing these ties. On the issues of intellectual property rights, risk and liability, and industrial liaison, the university position evolved as follows.

Cambridge believes that the ownership of intellectual properties rests with the individual university member, unless the contract governing the work in which the know-how is acquired specifies otherwise. The university does not exercise any control over, or have a financial interest in, the exploitation of an academic's knowhow, unless the academic asks the university to play such a role. It is felt that successful exploitation must ultimately depend on the motivation and skill of the academic.

Cambridge University has consistently taken a relaxed and liberal attitude toward the time spent by faculty on outside work. It is presumed that outside activities will be beneficial to teaching and research activities. The university does not accept any legal liability for work done by faculty members for outside organizations. Naturally, if the rewards accrue to the academics, the latter must accept the risks too and make their own arrangements for professional liability, and so on.

The Cambridge experience shows that a relaxed attitude and the simplicity of this industrial liaison arrangement have helped nurture a culture that encourages and is supportive of university links with industry (Wicksteed, 1985, p. 77). As exemplified by the Cambridge phenomenon, the university–industry link positively affects the institution's responsibilities for teaching, research and public service. In addition to direct economic benefits to the nation, this link enhances the faculty's intellectual and technical capabilities.

15.4.2. Science Parks

In the United States, high-technology enclaves include Silicon Valley in California, Route 128 in Boston, the Research Triangle Park in North Carolina, and others. In 1940 Santa Clara County, where Silicon Valley is located, was a peaceful agricultural region with a population of only 175,000. It is now one of the densest concentrations of high-technology enterprises in the world and has reached a population of over 1 million. A 1984 estimate put the number of high-technology firms in Silicon Valley at a little over 1,200, employing around 190,000 persons (Washington Post, December 3, 1984). This development has been fostered by the presence of major universities such as Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley. Similarly, the Route 128 phenomenon has been helped by the proximity of MIT and other universities in the Boston area. The size and scope of spin-off industries in both Silicon Valley and Route 128 are far more extensive than the industrial parks around Cambridge. In the United States there are other university locations as well where there is a concentration of high-technology industry, though none on the scale of Silicon Valley or Route 128.

Discussing the lessons from establishing science parks, Saxenian (1994) writes that California's Silicon Valley and Boston's Route 128 attracted international acclaim in the 1970s as the world's leading centers of innovation in electronics. As traditional manufacturing sectors and regions fell into crisis, policy makers and planners around the world looked to these fast-growing regions as models of industrial revitalization, seeking to replicate their success by building science parks, funding new enterprises, and promoting links between industry and universities. In the years following the high-tech manufacturing slump of the 1980s, Silicon Valley rebounded strongly while Route 128 did not. Silicon Valley's experience shows that, paradoxically, some regions offer an important source of competitive advantage even as production and markets become more global.

A case study of the Connecticut Technology Park near the University of Connecticut was used to examine the question of whether such university-related high-technology parks represent an effective development tool for the university and the region (Lewis and Tenzer, 1992). Findings indicated:

• These ventures require time and money to succeed.

• The choice of methodology for implementation is critical.

• Poor relations with governments at the national, state, and local levels inevitably cause bureaucratic delays and political dissention.

• There must be some reasonable expectations that market demand for the project exists or will exist in the society and economy.

• Projects should have clearly defined objectives and goals.

Increasingly, industry is looking to outside sources for conducting research and for technology development. Maintaining in-house high-quality personnel and laboratory facilities is becoming increasingly expensive. Leveraging industry investment in research by collaborating with academic institutions is likely to become more prevalent than ever before.

Roberts (1995) conducted a study looking at university–industry linkages in the United States, Europe, and Japan as related to four areas: collaborative research efforts, obtaining innovative ideas, determining technology trends, and training company personnel. In all of these categories, European and Japanese firms displayed far greater commitment to university–industry linkages than did the U.S. firms. For example, university collaborative research activities were 2.5 times greater for Japanese firms than for U.S. firms.