1 / 37

Industry-Science Relationships: evidence from Portugal

Industry-Science Relationships: evidence from Portugal. Worked carried out in the scope of MSc Thesis in Engineering and Management of Technology. Roadmap. Roadmap Motivation Research Question & Hypothesis Methodology Case studies Conclusions Research question & Hypothesis General

wilmet
Download Presentation

Industry-Science Relationships: evidence from Portugal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Industry-Science Relationships:evidence from Portugal Worked carried out in the scope of MSc Thesis in Engineering and Management of Technology Nuno Ávila

  2. Roadmap • Roadmap • Motivation • Research Question & Hypothesis • Methodology • Case studies • Conclusions • Research question & Hypothesis • General • Policy issues Nuno Ávila

  3. Motivation (I) • Portuguese context: • Hourly productivity = 50% of OCDE avg, 2001 • Low technology intensity sectors • Low value added products • Bottom of the value chain (components) • Product innovation is an absent practice • Ratio of product to process innovative firms = 1/3 (CIS2 data) • Low R&D expenditure • GERD = 0,9% GDP (OECD avg, 2001 = 2,2%) • BERD/GERD = 20% (OECD avg, 2001 = 70%) Nuno Ávila

  4. Motivation (II) • Ultimate goal: • long term sustained productivity growth • Strategy: • Product innovation • Qualification of the industrial sector • Moving up in the value chain Nuno Ávila

  5. Motivation (III) • Partnerships are • Fundamental tools for firms to achieve gains in absortive capacity • Internalization of knowledge intensive activities: • R&D, engineering design, product development • Partnership effectiveness • The ability to generate learning dynamics between the partners Nuno Ávila

  6. Research Question Whichfactorspromote the generation of learning dynamics in partnerships ? Nuno Ávila

  7. Hypothesis • H1: Informal learning mechanisms • effective learning dynamics call for strong circular interaction betweentime (duration), informal interaction and trust. • Important part of the absorptive capacity of the firm consists of tacit forms of knowledge. • H2: Presence of S & T actors • learning systems generating systematic innovation materialized into new and added complexity product development, should incorporate fundamental sources of knowledge in the collaboration network, such as science and technology actors. Nuno Ávila

  8. Institutional framework Legislation, regulation, support programmes, interface structures Human Capital Social Capital–Trust Absortive Capacity Learning Dynamics Individual and organizational Benefits to society Social, economic, scientific Partnerships Channels of interaction Formal/informal, direct/indirect, deliberate/casual Study Framework • Partnerships are complex institutional arrangements • Trajectory, • Context (internal & external) • Actors culture • Channels of interaction Nuno Ávila

  9. Context Dependent variable Independent variables Impact Partnership i Outputs Methodology Limitation: Lack of analysis methodologies and indicators for systemic and structured comparison of partnerships. Parallel cross-interacting iterative approach: developing and validating the model while characterizing a battery of diversified case studies. Model: Nuno Ávila

  10. Input variables Model – Variables (I) Nuno Ávila

  11. Output Impact Context Model – Variables(II) Dependent variable Nuno Ávila

  12. Case Studies • 5 types of linkages • Diferent duration (1,5 to 20 years) • Mostly large companies (only one SME) • Mostly product innovation (only one process innov.) Nuno Ávila

  13. Case 1: Bombardier Transportation – IST(IDMEC)Long term university based partnership for R&D in train crashworthiness • Long-term (20 yrs), science-based, large collaborative network • Strong informal relationships • High mobility • Massive production of skills, products and codified knowledge • Company: • Engineering design, system integration, development and manufacturing of rail stock • Parnership: • Mechanical engineering, structural mechanics, non-linear dynamics, numerical simulation. Nuno Ávila

  14. Case 2: Vulcano – INEGIMedium term engineering design partnership for water heaters development • Product-development oriented, through large firm • Based on formal agreements with firms and S&T actors, giving rise to internal product development capabilities • Reduced mobility, codified knowlegde, patents • State-of-the art products, move to top of value chain Nuno Ávila

  15. Case 3: OGMA - CASAConcurrent engineering vertical relationship for aircraft component manufacturing • Vertical integration, licensed-based, short term (1,5 yrs) • Commercially-governed; • All IPR for Dornier • Some knowledge internalization: project methodologies and manufacturing tools Nuno Ávila

  16. Case 4: CaetanoBus – Alma DesignMedium term consulting partnership for automotive design • Medium term sub-contracting of design capabilities (6 yrs) • No sciencebase • Increase of firm innovating capacities: Improved project methodologies. Modularisation and standardization of products Nuno Ávila

  17. Case 5: MotoraviaSME network for Very Light Aircraft development and manufacturing • Diversified horizontal partnerships with companies and S&T actors • High intensity of skill formation, advanced technologies • Graduate flow • Several new products (airplanes/ aero-engines) Nuno Ávila

  18. Conclusions – Learning Dynamics • Ways of firms accumulating know-how • Cases 3, 4 and 5 • directly refering to sources of know-how • learning-by-doing, learning-by-experimenting • Case 1 • developing internal creative work, increasing firm knowledge basis • learning-by-research • Case 2(but also, Cases 1 and 5) • interacting with those doing research, directly or through interface type partners • Learning-by-interacting Nuno Ávila

  19. long deep numerous & diversified rich Hypothesis 1 - Evidence Nuno Ávila

  20. Absorptive capacity Know-how Know-who Informal learning mechanisms Informal learning mechanisms L-by-doing L-by-interacting L-by-experimenting L-by-doing L-by-interacting L-by-experimenting Time Tacit knowledge Tacit knowledge Informal Interaction Trust Graduate flow Mobility Co-location / facilities sharing Meetings Trainning Personal ties Hypothesis 1 - Conclusions Nuno Ávila

  21. Hypothesis 1 - Conclusions • H1: Informal learning mechanisms are critical • Accumulation of tacit knowledge is a long term process relying on trust and high levels of face-to-face interaction. • ICTs are not all ! • Case 1 and 2. Nuno Ávila

  22. “Scale intensive” Design & Product Development S+T Hypothesis 2 - Evidence Nuno Ávila

  23. Hipothesis 2 - Conclusions • H2: Science actors should be there? • Usually yes, but networking with science partners may not be needed in some cases. The hypothesis can not be extrapolated to every context. • The choice of partner and the collaborative arrangement is very much dependent on the characteristics of the firm. Nuno Ávila

  24. Hipothesis 2 - Conclusions • Two main contexts (Pavitt) • “Science-based” sectors (e.g. biotech) • Innovation is a linear process, originated at R&D (internal or external to the firm) • Products very close to original concepts • “Scale-intensive” sectors (e.g. our sectors !) • Innovation is an iterative, multidisciplinar and time bounded process, with inputs at all stages • Arises from an internal process of design and production learning • Useful knowledge results from empirical learning processes and is incorporated at the product as incremental changes Nuno Ávila

  25. Hipothesis 2 - Conclusions • Two different sources of knowledge • “Science-based” • Knowledge gathered from research actors (e.g. universities) • Know-why directly fed “as is” into innovation chain • “Scale-intensive” • Knowledge gathered from specialized suppliers • Firms (Case 3 and 4), technological centers (Case 2), interface structures (Case 2), universities (Case 5) • Objective is in mastering the development of the product (system) and not its technologies Nuno Ávila

  26. Hipothesis 2 - Conclusions • How can be framed the interaction of firms and science so that R&D knowledge is diffused to the design board ? • Fast devel. cycles, risk, IPR dependency • Universities lack the skills • Generation of high level knowledge needed for complex product design • Out if the scope of firms activities Nuno Ávila

  27. Hipothesis 2 - Conclusions • Critical factors • Time (see Hypothesis 1) • Case 1: Over 20 years of close interaction (two-way mobility) for set of skills generated (MSc, PhD) on non-linear dynamics converted into crasworthiness design features at Bombardier trains • Case 2: Over 8 years of joint product development resulted in the consolidation of PD capabilities at Vulcano • IPR • Acts as stimulus to the firm (appropriates results) • Protects against possible disclosure of its knowledge • Explicit in most cases (except Case 1) Nuno Ávila

  28. Hipothesis 2 - Conclusions • Which partners? • Structuring effects in terms of internalisation of high skills in the creative phases of the innovation process – design and PD • Interface structures (Case 2 - INEGI) • IPR: ok • Mobility: difficult • Universities (Case 1 - IST) • IPR: ok • Mobility: ok Nuno Ávila

  29. Final Conclusions • The subject is highly context dependent • Technological path • There are structuring dimensions • Time • Trust development, tacit knowledge accumulation • Scope • Complex product design, large colaboration networks • Value • Market objectives. High value added product develop. • Space • Proximity, clusters, learning regions Nuno Ávila

  30. Policy issues • Some critical issues are widely accepted (OECD, 2003) as having a structuring effect: • Inter-sectorial mobility • Corner stone oftacit knowlegde dissemination E.g Case 1 • Entrepreneurial actions on high-tech sectors • Naturally wide in scope and value generators. E.g. Case 5 • IPR • Implicit in all cases (Case 1, exception). Nuno Ávila

  31. Thank you Nuno Ávila

  32. Annex – partners & partnerships activities Nuno Ávila

  33. Bombardier - IST • Bombardier: • Design, integration, and manufacturing of rail stock • IDMEC (IST): • Research in mechanical engineering • Parnership: • Mechanical engineering, structural mechanic, non-linear dynamics, multi-body dynamics, crashworthiness. Nuno Ávila

  34. Vulcano - INEGI • Vulcano: • Design, integration, development and manufacturing of domestic water heaters • INEGI: • Mechanical engineering, prototyping, combustion • Parnership: • Mechanical engineering, combustion control/optimization, heat transfer, materials processing. Nuno Ávila

  35. OGMA - CASA • OGMA: • Aircraft component manufacturing • CASA: • Aircraft design and integration • Parnership: • Industrialization processes. Nuno Ávila

  36. CaetanoBus - Alamadesign • Caetano Bus: • Bodyworks manufacturing • Almadesing: • Parnership: • Bodyworks design, Ergonomics. Nuno Ávila

  37. Motoravia • Motoravia: • Engineering design, system integration, development and manufacturing of advanced recreational airplanes • Robin: • Same as Motoravia (larger scale) • Parnership: • Airplane and aero-enghines design, carbon fiber manufacturing Nuno Ávila

More Related