Page 17 - Rižnar, Igor, and Klemen Kavčič (ed.). 2017. Connecting Higher Education Institutions with Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 17
Collaboration between . . .
researchers as they allow them to exceed the basic (governmental) fi-
nancing of universities and, furthermore, are often far less demand-
ing (and certainly less strict) in terms of regulations that have to be
met, compared to the demands that accompany governmental fund-
ing. However, for many departments or disciplines, the access to larger
concerns is limited, for which reason sme s are popular partners. In ad-
dition, third-party funding brings good publicity and a good standing
within the university (Attia 2015).
Despite these advantages, the costs of a collaboration can be greater
than the potential savings if the partners have different opinions about,
and approaches to how to work together (Banal-Estañol, Macho-Stad-
ler, and Pérez-Castrillo 2013). Therefore, universities and sme s are well
advised to consider this before entering into a partnership.
Equipment
Besides the monetary aspects, the access to laboratories, libraries and
other highly expensive university equipment is another reason why
firms are interested in collaboration with universities (Flores et al.
2009). This infrastructure is often unaffordable for companies, espe-
cially for sme s, which may not have sufficient r&d budgets to acquire
this equipment otherwise. Universities often have expensive and rare
special tools whose acquisition value can exceed millions of euros (e.g.
equipment in natural sciences, like m r i scanners). s m e s are often
unable to invest so much money in research infrastructure. Likewise,
universities may well be dependent on the specific manufacturing fa-
cilities of companies. This may be the case in highly specialised niches,
where an sme could be a big player.
Consequently, the mutual use of equipment has some advantages for
both sides. Firstly, it allows a knowledge and technology transfer (see
also the sections below) between practical questions and theoretical so-
lutions or vice versa. Secondly, it ensures the better utilisation of expen-
sive infrastructure. And thirdly, it enables, as a consequence, the shar-
ing of running costs when a long-term relationship is planned. Another
less common possibility is the shared acquisition of equipment, which
primarily makes sense for enclosed or independent long-term projects.
Staff
Another important factor that positively impacts on the benefits of a
collaboration is staff. In a quantitative analysis, Myoken (2013) found
that about 70 of the analysed companies saw highly qualified human
15
researchers as they allow them to exceed the basic (governmental) fi-
nancing of universities and, furthermore, are often far less demand-
ing (and certainly less strict) in terms of regulations that have to be
met, compared to the demands that accompany governmental fund-
ing. However, for many departments or disciplines, the access to larger
concerns is limited, for which reason sme s are popular partners. In ad-
dition, third-party funding brings good publicity and a good standing
within the university (Attia 2015).
Despite these advantages, the costs of a collaboration can be greater
than the potential savings if the partners have different opinions about,
and approaches to how to work together (Banal-Estañol, Macho-Stad-
ler, and Pérez-Castrillo 2013). Therefore, universities and sme s are well
advised to consider this before entering into a partnership.
Equipment
Besides the monetary aspects, the access to laboratories, libraries and
other highly expensive university equipment is another reason why
firms are interested in collaboration with universities (Flores et al.
2009). This infrastructure is often unaffordable for companies, espe-
cially for sme s, which may not have sufficient r&d budgets to acquire
this equipment otherwise. Universities often have expensive and rare
special tools whose acquisition value can exceed millions of euros (e.g.
equipment in natural sciences, like m r i scanners). s m e s are often
unable to invest so much money in research infrastructure. Likewise,
universities may well be dependent on the specific manufacturing fa-
cilities of companies. This may be the case in highly specialised niches,
where an sme could be a big player.
Consequently, the mutual use of equipment has some advantages for
both sides. Firstly, it allows a knowledge and technology transfer (see
also the sections below) between practical questions and theoretical so-
lutions or vice versa. Secondly, it ensures the better utilisation of expen-
sive infrastructure. And thirdly, it enables, as a consequence, the shar-
ing of running costs when a long-term relationship is planned. Another
less common possibility is the shared acquisition of equipment, which
primarily makes sense for enclosed or independent long-term projects.
Staff
Another important factor that positively impacts on the benefits of a
collaboration is staff. In a quantitative analysis, Myoken (2013) found
that about 70 of the analysed companies saw highly qualified human
15
