University—industry collaboration in research projects has received little attention in studies on the performance of universities in bringing knowledge to market. This situation holds also true for the differences between regions and for understanding the hampering factors in collaboration, including regional ones. To fill this gap, in this paper I attempt to characterize the outcomes of technology projects—in terms of market introduction, continuation, stagnation, and failure—and to identify the barriers, particularly regional ones. I also propose an extended use of a tool that facilitates and accelerates market introduction—that is, living labs. The study draws on a database of 370 technology projects covering two different regions in the Netherlands and on in-depth data of 51 of such projects in a limited number of technologies.
AsheimBCoenenLVangJ, 2007, “Face-to-face, buzz, and knowledge bases: Sociospatial implications for learning, innovation, and innovation policy”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy25655–670
2.
AudretschD BFeldmanM P, 1996, “R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production”American Economic Review86630–640
3.
AudretschD BKeilbachM, 2008, “Resolving the knowledge paradox: Knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth”Research Policy371697–1705
4.
BatheltHMalmbergAMaskellP, 2004, “Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation”Progress in Human Geography2831–56
5.
BekkersRFreitasBodas I, 2008, “Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?”Research Policy371837–1853
6.
BekkersRFreitasBodas I, 2010, “Catalysts and barriers: Factors that affect the performance of university—industry collaborations”, paper presented at the 13th International Schumpeter Conference, Aalborg, Denmark; copy available from I Bodas Freitas, Grenoble Business School, Grenoble
7.
BitardPEdquistCRickneA, 2008, “The paradox of high R&D input and low innovation output”, CIRCLE Paper 2008/14, Lund
8.
University, Lund Bjerregaard T, 2010, “Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration”Technovation30100–108
9.
BruneelJd'EstePSalterA, 2010, “Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university, industry collaboration”Research Policy39858–868
CharlesDHowellsJ, 1992Technology Transfer in Europe: Public and Private Networks (Belhaven Press, London)
12.
ChesbroughH, 2003Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA)
13.
ChristensenC, 2003The Innovators Dilemma (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
14.
CombesP PDurantonGGobillonL, 2010, “The identification of agglomeration economies”, WP 2010–38, Groupement de Recherche en Economie, Aix-Marseille University
15.
CookePHeidenreichMBraczykH J, 2004Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Governance in a Globalised World2nd edition (Routledge, London)
16.
D'EstePIammarinoS, 2010, “The spatial profile of university—business research partnerships”Papers in Regional Science89335–350
17.
D'EstePPatelP, 2007, “University—industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?”Research Policy361295–1313
18.
EC, 2010Advancing and Applying Living Lab Methodologies: An Update on Living Labs for User-driven Open Innovation in the ICT Domain (Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg)
19.
EtzkowitzH, 2008The Triple Helix: University—Industry—Government Innovation in Action (Routledge, London)
FahyCde LeonPonce MStåhlbröstASchaffersH (Eds), 2007Services of Living Labs and their Networks: Expanding the Knowledge Economy (IOS Press, Amsterdam)
22.
FeldmanM, 1999, “The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration”Economics of Innovation and New Technology85–25
23.
FølstadA, 2008, “Living labs for innovation and development of communication technology: A literature review”The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks1099–131
24.
GeelsF W, 2004, “From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory”Research Policy33897–920
25.
GeunaAMuscioA, 2009, “The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature”Minerva4793–114
26.
GuldemondNvan GeenhuizenM, 2012, “Critical factors in ‘livings labs’ for new health concepts and medical technology”, CESUN International Engineering Systems Symposium, Delft, http://www.cesun2012.tudelft.nl
27.
HugginsRJohnstonA, 2009, “The economic and innovation contribution of universities: A regional perspective”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy271088–1106
28.
HughesAKitsonMProbertJBullockAMilnerJ, 2011, “Hidden connections: Knowledge exchange between the arts and humanities and the private, public and third sectors”, Centre for Business Research, Cambridge University
29.
HusslerCPicardFTangM F, 2010, “Taking the ivory from the tower to coat the economic world: Regional strategies to make science useful”Technovation30508–518
30.
Innovation Platform, 2009, “From aims to a position ahead: Enhancing knowledge circulation”, Innovation Platform, The Hague (in Dutch)
31.
Innovation Platform, 2010, “The Netherlands back in the top-5”, Innovation Platform, The Hague (in Dutch)
32.
KeebleDLawsonCMooreBWilkinsonF, 1999, “Collective learning processes, networking and ‘institutional thickness’ in the Cambridge region”Regional Studies33319–332
33.
LagendijkABoekemaF, 2008, “Global circulation and territorial development: Southeast-Brabant from a relational perspective”European Planning Studies16925–939
34.
LagendijkALorentzenA, 2007, “Proximity, knowledge and innovation in peripheral regions: On the intersection beween geographical and organizational proximity”European Planning Studies15457–466
35.
MaskellPMalmbergA, 1999, “Localised learning and industrial competitiveness”Cambridge Journal of Economics25167–185
36.
MEAI, 2011, “Policy to boost 'top sectors”, Ministry of Economics, Agriculture and Innovation, The Hague
37.
MoweryDNelsonRSampatBZiedonisA, 2004Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University—Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh—Dole Act (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA)
38.
MustarPWrightMClarysseB, 2008, “University spin-off firms: Lessons from 10 years of experience in Europe”Science and Public Policy3567–80
39.
NooteboomB, 2009A Cognitive Theory of the Firm: Learning, Governance and Dynamic Capabilities (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos)
PondsRvan OortFFrenkenK, 2007, “The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration”Papers in Regional Science86423–444
42.
PorterM, 2003, “The economic performance of regions”Regional Studies37549–578
43.
PriemR LLiSCarrJ, 2012, “Insights and new directions from demand-side approaches to technology innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management research”Journal of Management38346–374
TödtlingFTrippleM, 2005, “One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach”Research Policy381203–1219
52.
UtterbackJ, 1996Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA)
53.
van GeenhuizenM, 2007, “Knowledge networks of young innovators in the urban economy: Biotechnology as a case study”Entrepreneurship and Regional Development20161–183
54.
van GeenhuizenM, 2013, “Bringing university knowledge to market: Experiences in the Netherlands”, in Universities, Cities and Regions: Loci for Knowledge and Innovation Creation Eds CapelloROlechnickaAGorzelakG (Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon) pp 210–227
55.
van GeenhuizenMNijkampP, 2006, “Learning regions in an evolutionary context: Policymaking for high-technology firms”International Journal for Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management6265–282
56.
van LooyBLandoniPCallaertJvan PottelsbergheBSapsalisEDebackereK, 2011, “Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs”Research Policy40553–564
57.
van OortF, 2002, “Agglomeration, economic growth, and innovation”, Erasmus University, Rotterdam
58.
van PraagMSelkerCTangPTeismanGvan VoorthuizenDVosG, 2011, “Entrepeneurship update; Motivations for valorization: Careers at university”, Amsterdam Center of Entrepreneurship, Amsterdam
59.
von HippelE, 1986, “Lead users: A source of novel product concepts”Management Science32791–805
60.
VSNU, 2013A Framework Valorization: Indicators (VSNU Association of Universities in the Netherlands) The Hague (in Dutch)
61.
WestnessPGjelsvikM, 2010, “The linkages of firms, universities and research institutes in innovation processes: A conceptual framework”, in Energy and Innovation: Structural Change and Policy Implications Eds van GeenhuizenMNuttallWGibsonDOftedalE (Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, IN) pp 213–232
