© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 1
DRUID Summer ConferenceJune 18th, 2006
John Gabriel GODDARDIMRI (Université Paris-Dauphine)
Marc ISABELLEIMRI (Université Paris-Dauphine) & CEA
Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 2
Outline of the presentation
Introduction– Public research and industry: the context
Overview– The survey– The sample– The collaborations
– Part II
Conclusions and perspectives
References
– PROs’ patents and licenses: the visible part of the iceberg?
Results– Part I
Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 3
Public research and industry: the context
Shift since 1980s, first experienced in US (Bayh-Dole act)
– more collaboration between public research and firms
– increase in patent filing by public research organisations
– increase in licensing agreements from PROs to firms
double purpose =
In France, loi de 1999
– speed the innovation rate in the economy
– increase leveraging of resources from their activities by PROs
Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 4
PROs’ patents and licenses: the visible part of the iceberg?
Most survey-based studies focus on PROs’ patenting and licensing activities (Thursby et al., 2001; Thursby & Thursby, 2003)
Very few address the issue of other channels of K&T transfer to firms (Cohen et al. work with Carnegie-Mellon survey, Levin et al. with Yale survey)
– fit with linear model– involve codified knowledge– transfer embodied technologies
Possible reasons for this bias =
– two-way interactions– involve tacit knowledge– technologies issued from PROs are embryonic
– substantive: patented inventions expected to be commercially useful
– methodological: extensive record of information / databases associatedwith patents
Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 5
The survey
Focus on IP issues (protection of intangible assets, transmission / diffusion of knowledge)
Questionnaire sent to 1800 lab directors 1st semester, 2004
Questionnaire similar to Cohen et al. (1994)
Large French government labs (CNRS, CEA, INRA, INSERM, INRIA, Institut Pasteur, Institut Curie)
Selected S&T fields: chemistry, life sciences, ICT
Targeted on public research labs
NB: information about the collaboration portfolio of public labs, NOT about collaborations themselves
Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 6
The sample
146 responses 130 labs have collaborations with firms
PROsnumber=146
regionnumber=146
sizenumber=146
S&T fieldsnumber=146
7,200 personnel wide variation, long tail (4 megalabs over 250 pers.)
fairly representative of PROs’ size (except INSERM)
life sciences dominant, ICT marginal
dominance of IDF, probable bias in favour of PACA (many chemistry labs of CEA there)
Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 7
The collaborations
874 collaborations of every nature (6,9 per lab on average)
localisation of partnersnumber=874
location of collaborative worknumber=130
number of partnersnumber=130
duration of collaborationsnumber=130
weak correlation with size
mostly national, significant regional drive
predominantly long-term
essentially done in public-lab (87%)
Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 8
Probing into the invisible part of the iceberg
Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France
14 pre-identified modalities of collaboration
Answers on a 4-point scale Distribution of responses for each modalitynumber=130
Interpretation
– prevalence of informal / knowledge-targeted / two-way modalities
– IP-related K&T transfer through license agreements at a distant 2nd place
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 9
Extra resources are effectively leveraged
Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France
9 pre-identified benefits of collaboration for the public lab
Answers on a 4-point scale
Rate of “Yes” for each benefitnumber=130
Interpretation
– perceived benefits closely connected to tangible / intangible inputs obtained
– development of technology transfer activities again at a distant 2nd place (and mobility towards industry)
“Significant” + “Decisive” “Yes”
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 10
Traditional outcomes outstrip IP-related ones
Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France
14 pre-identified outcomes of collaboration
Answers on a 4-point scale
Rate of “Yes” for each outcomenumber=130
Interpretation
– … related to dominance of research-type modalities
– patents & copyrights, licenses of all types 2 to 3 times less frequent than publications or theses…
“Frequent” + “Very frequent” “Yes”
– however, embodied technologies (new products & processes + software) as frequent as publications
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 11
Labs’ activities significantly impacted by collaborations
Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France
Significant impact on research programmes and themes (rate of “Significant” + “Decisive” = 58%)
number=130 Impact on research style answers on a 3-point scale
number=130
Impact on research practices 7 pre-identified practices answers on a 4-point scale “Significant” + “Decisive” “Yes”number=130
Interpretation
– stands out against secondary importance of IP- and technology-related modalities / benefits / outcomes?
– firms’ preferences shape collaborative labs’ activities
– exposure to skewing problem (Florida & Cohen, 1999)
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 12
4 pre-identified ways of allocating IP
Answers on a 4-point scale
Rate of “Yes” for each allocationnumber=130
Interpretation
– 40% of the labs interact under several ownership rules flexibility, but in response to what?
– joint ownership as frequent as separate ownership…
“Frequent” + “Very frequent” “Yes”
– possible correlation with the modalities of collaboration (ex. technical assistance tends to be associated with exclusive ownership of the firm)
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Balanced allocation of IP stemming from collaboration
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 13
10 pre-identified legal mechanisms for results’ appropriation by firms
Answers on a 4-point scale
Rate of “Yes” for each mechanismnumber=130
Interpretation
– possible correlation with S&T field (ex. much confidentiality but no patents in brain-related research and nuclear research)
– confidentiality and patents dominate: ex ante / ex post complements?
“Frequent” + “Very frequent” “Yes”
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Firms gain various legal rights over collaborative results
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 14
Contractual right to suppress specific information before publication 52% of labs
Actual suppression of information in publications 26% of labs
Interpretation
– 2,0 x more actual suppressions in chemistry than in life sciences (significan--ce to be tested…)
– stronger contractual information control than in prior survey (52% vs. 35% for Cohen et al., 1994)
Secrecy over all of the results 25% of labs
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Tight information control ex ante and ex post
– right to suppress information often associated with contractual provisions for publication delay (32% of labs 31% for Cohen et al.)
– occasional suppressions while not specified in the contract
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 15
Contractual provision for publication delay 55% of labs
Delay > 6 months in about half cases
Interpretation
– delays 1,6 x more harmful in life sciences than in chemistry (significance to be tested…)
– consistent with prior survey results (55% 53% for Cohen et al.)
Delay not harmful or only marginally so for 78% of labs
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Publication delays: widespread but not too worrying
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 16
4 pre-identified levels of barriers to scientific communication
Interpretation
– limitations harmful to the cumulative process of S&T knowledge building (barriers with public research organisations)
– Firms build tight fences around knowledge because it spills over so easily – from possible competitors up to the larger public
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Pervasive limitations concerning scientific communication
Answers on a 4-point scale
Rate of “Yes” for each levelnumber=130
“Frequent” + “Very frequent” “Yes”
– natural locus of S&T production torn apart in the case of limitations towards colleagues in the same lab (8% of labs)
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 17
Conflict or discord with a partner about IP issues in 2003 15% of labs
Interpretation
– probabilistic effect (more partnerships more conflicts) seems to prevail over capacity effect (more effective management of collaborations by big labs)
– many disputes between supposedly “collaborating” partners… but rapidly settled for the most part
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
IP as a source of (short-lived) conflict between partners
Mostly big labs (median = 60 employees vs. 28 for the sample) with many partners (median = 6 vs. 4)
Disputes had been resolved in 2004 (i.e. by the time of the survey) for 74% of labs
– possibly because of strong incompleteness of R&D contracts
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 18
Interpretation
– patents and secrecy (firms’ preferred mechanisms) at a distant second place… although not marginal
– multiple protection is a common strategy (71% of labs)
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Public labs protect their intellectual assets through distinctive strategies
6 pre-identified mechanisms of intellectual assets protection by labs
Answers on a 4-point scale
Rate of “Yes” for each mechanismnumber=130
“Frequent” + “Very frequent” “Yes”
– prevalence of contractual protection mechanisms
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 19
THANK YOU!
… but they must be carefully managed to avoid negative consequences on knowledge circulation and diffusion
Perform in-depth comparison with Cohen et al., 1994
Identification of cluster effects
Regression analysis
Public labs are already implementing distinctive strategies to protect their intellectual assets (as compared to firms)
Conclusions and perspectives
Technology management in this context is only of limited use: most technologies are embryonic, calling for two-way interactions and tacit knowledge transfer
Collaborations with firms allow public labs to leverage additional resources and thereby to increase their scientific output
Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
© Goddard & Isabelle 2006 20
Agrawal A., (2001), “University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285-302.
Cohen W.M., Florida R., Goe R., (1994), “University-Industry Research Centers in the United States”, Report to the Ford Foundation, Mimeo, Carnegie Mellon University.
Cohen W.M., Florida R., Randazzese L., Walsh J., (1998), “Industry and the Academy: Uneasy Partners in the Cause of Technological Advance”, in Roger Noll (ed.), Challenge to the Research University, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., Walsh J., (2002), “Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D”, Management Science, 48, 1-23.
Henderson R., Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M., (1998), “Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 1965–1988”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119-27.
Jaffe, A. (1989), “Real Effects of Academic Research”, American Economic Review, 79, 957-70.
Mowery D.C., Sampat B.N., (2005), “The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 115-27.
Thursby J.G., Jensen R., Thursby M.C., (2001), “Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59-72.
Thursby J.G., Thursby M.C., (2003), “Industry/University Licensing: Characteristics, Concerns and Issues from the Perspective of the Buyer”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 207-13.
References
Part I / How do Public Laboratories Collaborate with Industry? New Survey Evidence from France
Part II / Managing Intellectual Assets Within Knowledge-based Partnerships: Insights from a Survey of Public Laboratories
Top Related