Collaborative university-industry linkages in Pakistan

Abstract

To assess the current situation of collaborative university-industry (U-I) linkages in Pakistan, a questionnaire was disseminated to both public and private universities and industries, checking the propensity for such linkages. The results show multiple constraints imposed on collaborative U-I linkages from both sides. Factor analysis allows comparing whether both universities and industries identify the same constraints or not. Apparently, engineering departments exhibit more collaborative U-I linkages than other disciplines, while humanities departments are awarded the minimum of such linkages. The paucity of proper arrangements, procedures, mechanisms, and structures for collaboration seems to be one of the most important impediments to collaborative U-I linkages. Furthermore, on the one hand, university people see the lack both of time, owed to a heavy workload, and of laboratory facilities for research and development work, as predominant constraints to U-I interactions. On the other hand, industry people cite as prominent barriers the low commercialization potential of university research and the lack of interest among academics to collaborate with the industry. Despite its qualifications, the study concludes with practical policymaking recommendations and future research suggestions.

Keywords

University-industry linkages constraints improvements Pakistan

Rana Umair Ashraf is a PhD Candidate at School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology China. His area of interest are Management Science and Transportation Economics. He has published 8 research papers and 5 conference papers in well-reputed journals.

Dr. Fujun Hou is an Associate Professor and Doctoral Advisor in the School of Management & Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology. He has published over 40 papers in his research field. He has Ph.D. in Management Science and Engineering from Beijing Institute of Technology.

Syed Ali Ashiq Kirmani is a PhD Candidate at Department of Management Science, Superior University, Lahore. His area of interest is University Industry Linkages. He is also working as a Lecturer in COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Sahiwal.

Dr. Muhammad Ilyas is Research Director in University of Gujrat, and he is also an Associate Professor at Superior University, Lahore. He has completed his PhD degree from Superior University. His research interest includes Economics and University Industry Linkages.

Syed Anees Haider Zaidi is a PhD Candidate at School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology China. His area of interest is Financial Economics. He has published five research and 7 conference papers. He has 12 years of experience in public sector as finance and procurement head. He is presently works as Deputy Treasurer at COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Pakistan.

Muhammad Saeed Ashraf is a PhD Candidate at School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology Beijing, China. His area of interest includes Human Resource and Strategic Management. He has five years of experience as Manager in Textile industry in Pakistan.

1 Introduction

University Industry linkages (U-I) stimulate new scientific and technological research activities when mutual bonding between the two becomes stronger. Research in universities can enhance technology (we define technology as a statically complicated and dynamically complex unity of 1) hardware, 2) software, 3) brainware and 4) support network or net. These mutually interactive components express each and every technology physical, informational and socio-economic relations and relationships. Their functions support each other in the use of a technology, to achieve its stated intentions and purposes [1]. Etymologically stemming from the union of the “art” and “logos” notions, technology is indeed a statically complicated and dynamically complex human system that entails self-organization and self-governance) [2]; knowledge and can produce skilled labor according to the industrial demand of the region [3]. Resultantly, knowledge, technology and innovation have contributed to the economic success of the countries in the globalized world [4]. Therefore, governments of both developed and developing countries are concerned to develop and improve research through innovation policies in the higher education institutions [5]. As a result, research and development gained heighten attention of policy makers especially in the knowledge based economies [6, 7].

From industry perspective, U-I is very fruitful in terms of technological development, lower cost of research, cheap labor, and pool of expertise at one place. From university perspective, academicians get to know the latest demand of the local, national and international market, according to which, they grab and improve the knowledge and transfer it to the students through improved pedagogy [8]. Other benefits universities can attain are; the research and development funding from public and private institutions and new income through patenting and licensing etc. Thus U-I creates a win-win situation between universities and industries [9, 10].

The concept of university industry linkage is not new rather it has become more streamlined, focused and planned since 1970 [11]. In the present time, this concept has attracted the governments, institutes and policy makers in most of the developing countries. Policy makers and governments still believe it to be one of the most unexploited areas [12, 13]. However, institutes in developed countries and transition economies are on a verge to develop strong university-industry relationships [14]. In Pakistan, the importance of U-I is being realized by the academia and policy makers. Resultantly, Pakistan in the South Asia is far behind China and India, in producing quality products through research and development [15].

Recognizing this university industry gap in Pakistan’s R&D milieu, in November, 2012, Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) drafted Pakistan’s first innovation policy, in which university-industry linkages are stressed upon [16]. Though universities and industries have very weak links of interaction, still both entities feel hesitant to share information with each other. Predominantly the linkage is limited to internships, sporadic seminars and workshops they interact in the form of internships (because it is requirement in the curriculum of most of the graduate programs), workshops and seminars. This shows the dearth of university-industry linkages among the firms in Pakistan. Therefore, this study is undertaken to address the gap of knowledge in university industry linkages in Pakistan.

University and industry have different intentions and purposes but somehow, they are related to each other. Universities are more student and faculty focused through research and technological innovation while industries are more concerned to achieve their sales and revenues. But due to competition, industries need skilled labor and technological innovation in their products while universities want to research in the areas of market demand. In Pakistan, government has recently developed its innovation policy in which university industry linkages is highlighted. It means the interaction between both the actors was missing [17].

The overall purposefulness of the study is to explore the present status of the university-industry linkages and give recommendations for the durable linkages in Pakistan. The specific purposes are:

To explore the characteristics and operational structures of the existing university-industry linkages

To explore the potentials and constraints in establishing sustainable university-industry linkages.

To identify the ways to improve the university-industry linkages in Pakistan.

1.1 Significance of study

This study is important as certain authors feel that linkages between university and industry are missing in Pakistan. It means there are some barriers from both university and industry side, due to which sustainable linkages are yet not formed. Therefore, to explore the barriers, we have to explore the existing characteristics and operational structures of U-I.

From university perspective, this study is significant because it is important to explore the present status of the channels that universities are interacting with industry. Therefore, it is important to check whether those channels are sufficient, or we need to explore more channels for the operational structure of university industry linkages.

From industrial perspective, this study is important as industrialists are facing problems in making quality products and services. And for that, they are importing products from different countries. So, a big market of indigenous products is missing, mainly due to expensive research and incompetent employees.

2 Literature review

Universities have emerged as central actors in knowledge based economies and are expected to play pivotal role in sprucing technological change and innovation. The concept of ‘teaching university’ has far gone in developed countries, and they have augmented towards ‘entrepreneurial university’ [18]. For instance, American universities, which are considered to be one of the leading universities of the globe entitled with ‘green university’, means that a student must implement the curriculum been taught by the university. Then they shifted towards ‘entrepreneurial university’ that helps in the development of university-industry linkages. During this regime, technology is at its peak. Many European, Asian and Latin American universities are still following the same pattern and are at different stages in different countries. But still in many countries, their importance has not yet exploited [18]. For example, researchers say that Silicon Valley is repercussion of Stanford university, Oxford University have started building their own electric car, University of Waterloo Canada are still focusing on software engineering and most of the students are hired by Microsoft itself. Moreover, at the national level, governments of most the countries highlights the role of university-industry relations in their innovation policy.

Because of this university industry linkage, universities started getting funds from the companies as they use get the funds for the product development and innovation, plus, they earned much more money from consultancy, licensing, spin-off firms, incubators, technology transfer and intellectual property rights [19, 20]. From university point of view, they use to train their faculty and students and use to get at the heights of innovation. On the other side, firms get an innovative idea, technology or product at much cheaper rate. Therefore, it is a win-win situation from both sides. Furthermore, many of researchers suggested that the process from knowledge to technology transfer is one of the important fragments which can never be underestimated. By the development of university industry linkages, it helps not only the local economy, but global linkages can also help university to transfer technology at its best. For all this, [21] claimed that entrepreneurial culture within university should be developed. Now most of the American universities are moving towards ‘innovation universities’.

In Pakistan, most of the curriculum and education model was adopted by Oxford University which mainly focuses on the theoretical part. So a research culture was never been established up till now. As a result, in universities, there are only few teachers limited to just basic research. Since 2009, there was not even a single incubator in Pakistan, which develops and transfer technology to Pakistan. Higher Education Commission (HEC) claims five universities having started incubators within their agglomeration. These are COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), National University of Science & Technology (NUST), University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad and University of Veterinary Animal Sciences (UVAS). Pakistan still has not developed its innovation policy but in November 2012, Ministry of Science and Technology, Pakistan (MoST) has published its Innovation Policy in which huge concentration is on U-I for the entrepreneurial activities. Some authors in Pakistan suggested adopting ‘Triple Helix Model’ but still no work has been done in this area. CIIT has recently developed its University Industry Linkages center and some of the incubation centers are graduated which result from knowledge transfer to technology transfer. They also use to arrange Business plan competition for the innovative ideas where they call different companies, but still no comprehensive work on Intellectual Property rights and funding is done yet. Many of the universities are focusing on internships but still propensity of linkages has not been explored yet [16, 17].

So, a huge area regarding identifying levels of university-industry linkages, impediments and improvements in developing cohesive U-I and relationship between knowledge transfer and U-I are missing.

2.1 U-I in Pakistan

Pakistan in the south are far behind in producing quality, their competitive products, infrastructure and, research and development than China and India. So industries, because of World Trade Organization, must perform well to compete with the modern world. For research and development in Pakistan, industries need human capital, laboratories and structure. Efficient human capital with the knowledge to operate laboratories in a deliberate structure comes from universities. So to become knowledge based society and producing indigenous technology, there is a dire need of university industry linkages in Pakistan [17].

Ironically, there was a single university at the time of independence. Dr. Innayat ullah [22] laden dearth of available funds on science and technology to government because of the 1965 and 1971 wars against India. Furthermore, he says that most of the attention derived to our nuclear programs due to which, our education in schools and universities are not competitive. As a result, industries unable to get efficient human capital. According to HEC, there are five universities (COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, National University of Sciences and Technology, UET Peshawar, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad and University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore) that are focusing in the development of Incubation Centers but still there is lot more to go.

In the process of industrial development in Pakistan, mostly large-scale plants were imported and erected on a turnkey basis, and very little emphasis was laid on developing indigenous capability for upgrading the technology and the skills for improving productivity. Hence there is no mentionable interaction between academia and industry. Due to weak or absent linkages, Pakistan has faced tremendous challenges and has remained unable to overcome the technology-related problems, and therefore leans towards those solutions which mostly rely on acquisition of embodied technologies. This limitation leads to a lack of socio-economic development and therefore it needs serious attention.

The innovation policy has not been developed in Pakistan before 2012 [17]. So it was recommended to shift policy from science and technology (S & T) to science, technology and innovation (ST & I). For such shift, three categories were proposed which include: linkages and networks of university and industry, diffusion of innovative knowledge and technology, and management of innovative knowledge. Furthermore, she reveals that there is paucity of attention of innovation at higher education level. Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) drafted Pakistan’s first innovation policy in November 2012, in which plan for strong university-industry linkages is proposed to strengthen national innovation system [16, 22].

2.2 Constraints

Academics and industries raised with two different mind sets, as they are born to achieve their different intentions and purposes. Having difference in terms of intentionality and mind sets, it resultantly creates friction and restrict the restrictions. The following table shows the difference in different aspects between university and industry (see Table 1).

Table 1
Difference between academic and industrial research

Typical aspects University Industry

Focus of the R&D Basic research; curiosity-oriented Applied research; exp. develop.

Basic rationale Advance knowledge Increase efficiency

Intents New ideas Profits

Characteristics Idea-centered Practical, product-centered

Framework Open Close, confidential

Evaluation By peers By the boss

Schedule Open-ended Tight, predetermined

Recognition Scientific honors Salary increases

Typical aspects	University	Industry
Focus of the R&D	Basic research; curiosity-oriented	Applied research; exp. develop.
Basic rationale	Advance knowledge	Increase efficiency
Intents	New ideas	Profits
Characteristics	Idea-centered	Practical, product-centered
Framework	Open	Close, confidential
Evaluation	By peers	By the boss
Schedule	Open-ended	Tight, predetermined
Recognition	Scientific honors	Salary increases

Source: Vedovello (1998).

Perkmann (2011) mentioned constraints of university and industry linkages are their difference in preferences, incentives and difficulties related to the project management [23]. The problem among organizational and institutional collaboration in a way that organization is inclined to solve their own pragmatic problems while instructions are more theoretical based and try to spread information [24].

Ssebuwufu et al. (2012) while identifying African U-I constraints is of the view that joint research work for financial support is missing due to which some universities have laboratories, but faculty is not motivated for the contract research. Many universities’ teaching staff is just limited to teaching and they are not capable to have a liaison with industry. Due to paucity of funds, teachers are fraught with administrative work due to which collaboration is not effective because of the time availability [25].

Perkmann and Walsh (2007) mentioned a problem of IP policies which government do not aligned, as these policies help in making techno-parks, spin-offs and incubators [26]. Further he mentions that IP policies are especially important in the absence of national policy frameworks. In African universities that ‘entrepreneurial skills development’ has been included in curriculum yet. He also demonstrates some of the African universities’ constraints like (1) low no. of qualified faculty, (2) paucity of degree holders (3) brain drain (4) ageing faculty (5) staff retention (6) low enrollment in mathematics, engineering and science related disciplines (7) inadequate research infrastructure at many universities (8) lack of access to up to date facilities (9) funding rather than research focused mandates [25].

The constraints of the developing countries in which they mentioned that it is important for the UI linkages to have focused on applied research and technological knowledge in the private sector. Such barriers are hindering cooperation between private and public actors.

3 Research methodology

The questionnaire (see Table 2) is made to target university and industry. The survey initiated by the end of January 2016 and concluded by the end of October 2016. In this time period, 3 reminders were sent to university respondents and two, to industrial sector, and collected valid questionnaires. The questionnaire was disseminated to both public and private universities and industries to check the propensity of university industry linkages in Pakistan. Initially, 217 lecturers, assistant professors, associate professor, professor, head of departments, deans and university representative were targeted and requested to fill the questionnaire for university industry linkages. But 59 respondents from 21 universities submit the questionnaire. The response rate for the emailed questionnaire from universities was less than 31% while the rate in terms of respondents was 27%. From Industrial sector including public listed, private limited liability, state owned companies, 317 questionnaires were sent to certain representatives of different industries (Manufacturing, trading, service, construction, information technology) through mail, email and in person. If they find any difficulty in comprehending the questionnaire, it was resolved at the earliest.

Table 2
Contents of the questionnaires*

University questionnaire Industry questionnaire

Department information and details of respondent Company information and details of respondents

Services offered to industry Types interaction with university

Industrial sectors with which interactions were undertaken Usefulness of interactions with Universities

Coordination of interactions Research and development activities

Constraints to U-I interactions Constraints to U-I interactions

Suggestions for improving U-I Interactions Suggestions for improving U-I Interactions

University questionnaire	Industry questionnaire
Department information and details of respondent	Company information and details of respondents
Services offered to industry	Types interaction with university
Industrial sectors with which interactions were undertaken	Usefulness of interactions with Universities
Coordination of interactions	Research and development activities
Constraints to U-I interactions	Constraints to U-I interactions
Suggestions for improving U-I Interactions	Suggestions for improving U-I Interactions

*Authors Contribution.

The data collection turned out to be one of the most difficult phases in this whole research conducted. From university perspective, researcher gets the email addresses of Deans, Head of Department, Professors, Assistant Professors, Lecturers and Nonacademic staff (of different universities) from Higher Education Commission (HEC) and university websites. An email was sent 217 respondents from the university side but only responses were received from respondents. After few reminders from the researchers, and involving HEC and CIIT administration, researcher gained 59 respondents. Whereas from the Industrial perspective, CEOs, General Managers (GMs), Head of Department/Division, Senior and Junior Managers were selected as respondents.

3.1 Data

Data for the research is collected in two phases by the researcher from both university and industry side. In first phase, exploratory survey was done through emails, mails, and in person. In mentioned mediums, basic reason for the research was discussed. While in the second phase of research, questionnaires from university and industry side were sent to be filled.

4 Results analysis

4.1 Validity and reliability

Cronbach’s Alpha is the coefficient used to check the reliability and consistency between items. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is the best measurement used for item with likert scale. In reliability analysis, Cronbach’s shows the validity and reliability from both university and industry perspective. It shows that data is highly reliable (Table 3).

Table 3
Validity and reliability from U-I perspective

University Perspective Constraints Validity 93.8

Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) 0.987

Improvements Validity 100%

Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) 0.997

Industry Perspective Constraints Validity 83.7%

Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) 0.854

Improvements Validity 94.5%

Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) 0.924

4.2 Demographics of study

The study consists of 22 universities. This questionnaire was sent to 69 universities which includes both public and private, out of which 22 universities responded after 3 reminders.

Most of the departments are engineering but management related departments are included because universities interact with industries either through internship too (Table 4). There is a high response rate of management science department which is 20%. The reason is that most the private universities are management related degrees. As far as engineering is concerned, they are closely related because they work or produce technology and industry more likely to interact because of the new technology.

Table 4
Departments of academia

Sr. No. Areas Departments Percentage

1 Engineering Electrical Engineering 8.00%

2 Mechanical Engineering 8.47%

3 Aeronautical Engineering 3.38%

4 Mechanical Engineering 8.47%

5 Chemical Engineering 10.16%

6 Aeronautical Engineering 5.08%

7 Sciences Department of Applied Sciences 1.69%

8 Environment Science 15.00%

9 IT Computer Science &IT 5.08%

10 Management Science Economics 10.16%

11 Management Science 20.33%

12 Commerce 11.86%

Sr. No.	Areas	Departments	Percentage
1	Engineering	Electrical Engineering	8.00%
2		Mechanical Engineering	8.47%
3		Aeronautical Engineering	3.38%
4		Mechanical Engineering	8.47%
5		Chemical Engineering	10.16%
6		Aeronautical Engineering	5.08%
7	Sciences	Department of Applied Sciences	1.69%
8		Environment Science	15.00%
9	IT	Computer Science &IT	5.08%
10	Management Science	Economics	10.16%
11		Management Science	20.33%
12		Commerce	11.86%

In academia side, most of the population includes lecturers, others (administration staff related to university industry linkages etc) and assistant professors because there is paucity of Ph.Ds in Pakistan and it is quite difficult to approach head of departments and deans of certain universities. The deans and head of departments shows their interest to contribute in this research.

In project funding (Table 5), results show that most of the funds are received by universities through Higher Education Commission (HEC), which is 52%. Other than that, 33% of the universities do not receive any funds from any source. The reason being that is most of these universities are private.

Table 5

External funding

	No. of Projects	Percentage
Industry (private)	16	18%
Industry (public)	4	5%
Private foundations	8	9%
International agencies	5	6%
NGOs	3	3%
HEC	45	52%
Other	6	7%
Funds not received	0	33%

Furthermore, 18% of the private industries keen to collaborate with the universities for different research products. Also, international agencies, NGOs and public industry interact with certain departments of universities but the strength is not at that level. Most of the funding from international agencies comes in the form of equipment, research funding and donations while industry support mainly comes in the form of sponsoring various events such as symposiums, seminars and exhibitions. It is rare to find instances where industry has provided funds to conduct joint research or to purchase laboratory equipment.

In survey, we asked whether university interact with the industry or not, 78% of the universities have the collaboration and industries (Table 6). While 22% of the respondents said there is no collaboration between university and industry. It means that the interaction exists but still we need to find out significant ways of interaction among them.

Table 6

Interaction of universities with industries

Interaction of University with Industry
Consultancy	11	19%
Contract research	7	12%
Internships	41	70%
Workshops	31	53%
Meetings	18	31%
Conferences	28	47%
Seminars	24	41%
Use of laboratory facilities	7	12%
University patents	3	5%
Prototypes developed by you	3	5%
Mobility of resources for Human development	16	27%
Training programs	21	36%
Others	5	9%

We asked different modes of interaction with industry in which it is realized that internships are one of the most important part through which most of the departments send their students to different industries. So, 70% of the universities are offering to industry. Other than that, 53% of the universities are offering workshops and 47% of the data collected universities are offering conferences but only 5% of the universities are offering university patents.

Internships are one of the most important part through which most of the departments send their students to different industries. Some, 70% of the universities are offering their students internships to industry. Other than that, 53% of the universities are offering workshops and 47% of the data collected universities are offering conferences but only 5% of the universities are offering university patents.

Among purposefulness of this study, one was to identify the constraints from university perspective while interacting with industry (Table 7). Therefore, 16 different constraints were asked on a five point to Liker scale ranging from very great extent to not at all. Then mean of those constraints were identified which are as follows:

Table 7

Constraints: University perspective regarding U-I

Sr. #	Items	Varimax loading	Oblimin loading
1	Our research capabilities are not relevant to the industry	0.662	0.613
2	Academics don’t feel confident enough to undertake industry oriented research	0.470	0.400
3	Lack of motivation and entrepreneurial spirit among faculty	0.720	0.814
4	Time constraint due to heavy teaching and administrative work	0.713	0.751
5	It is not the mission of the academic researcher to collaborate with industry	0.172	0.196
6	Academics are not aware of the possible channels for getting sponsored research and consultancy assignments	0.812	0.851
7	Collaboration with industry has a negative influence on the pedagogic mission of a university	0.265	0.249
8	Industry is not interested to collaborate with universities	0.781	0.807
9	Collaboration with industry limits the free choice of research topics	0.637	0.707
10	Inadequate infrastructure (communication, transport, journals, books)	0.815	0.890
11	Inadequate laboratory facilities	0.814	0.824
12	Lack of autonomy to work with industry	0.866	0.917
13	The university structure is not adapted to the needs of industrial collaborations	0.751	0.874
14	University norms and procedures hamper collaboration with industry	0.782	0.793
15	The university has no policy towards collaborations with industry	0.685	0.712
16	Geographical location of the university results in less access to the industry	0.743	0.793

Extraction method: principal component analysis. rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

When factor analysis was applied on the constraints regarding linkages between university and industry following factors with values greater than 0.7 (Inadequate laboratory facilities, Lack of autonomy to work with industry, Inadequate infrastructure, Industry is not interested, Academics awareness, Motivation and entrepreneurial spirit, University structure, University norms and procedures and Geographical location of University) were extracted to be more influential.

Above mention Table 8, explains the factor analysis of suggestions from university perspective. The results show that the effective steps to promote interaction as perceived by academics are improvement of laboratory facilities, encouragement of industrial visits by academics and students and giving publicity to university activities relevant to industry and setting up of university-industry interaction cells in universities. Further analysis of the improvement measures by factor analysis presented in table also confirms the above findings.

Table 8

Factor analysis of suggestions from university perspective

Questions	Component 1
Include industrial internship in the curricula	0.827
Encourage industrial visits by students	0.931
Encourage regular industrial visits by staff	0.860
Improve laboratory facilities	0.921
Involve staff from industry in teaching programs	0.892
Setup U-I interaction cells in universities	0.942
Publicize university activities relevant to industry	0.939
Conduct seminars, workshops for staff from industry	0.868
Tax concessions for companies collaborating with universities	0.920
Make it obligatory for academics to undertake a certain amount of work with industry	0.871
Provide consultancy/collaboration linked increments and promotions	0.903
Give more autonomy for academics to work with industry	0.862
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. 1 components extracted.

Open ended questions and discussion with academics reveal that personal contacts of academics have been instrumental in establishing links with the industry. Further team work, on time delivery and quality of work were found to be instrumental in establishing sustainable interactions.

4.3 Industry perspective of U-I interactions

The sample for the study consisted of 32 firms of which majority were private sector firms of which 74% were private limited liability firms. The sample mainly covered service, manufacturing and information technology sectors. Majority of firms had employee strength of more than 100–1000 employees and more than Rs 500 million annual turnovers i.e. 56.3.

When factor analysis was applied on the constraints regarding linkages between industry and university only two factors (Business is not big enough and University structure is not adapted to the needs of industrial collaboration) were extracted to be more significant (Table 9).

Table 9
Constraints from industry perspective regarding U-I

Sr # Varimax Loading Oblimin Loading

1 Academics are not competent enough to undertake consultancy/ industry oriented research 0.317 0.335

2 Lack of motivation and entrepreneurial spirit among academics 0.092 0.038

3 Low commercialization potential of university research 0.383 0.384

4 There is no proper mechanism to collaborate with universities 0.305 0.362

5 Poor communication between universities and us 0.162 0.153

6 Most universities lack adequate research facilities 0.170 0.179

7 Universities are not interested to collaborate with us –0.136 –0.036

8 We are not aware of expertise/ facilities available at universities 0.549 0.606

9 We do not know whom to contact at universities to initiate collaborative activities 0.601 0.611

10 Our business is not big enough to seek assistance from universities 0.790 0.826

11 Lack of funds to initiate collaborative work with universities 0.635 0.705

12 The university structure is not adapted to the needs of industrial collaboration 0.725 0.722

13 Geographical location of our facilities results in less access to universities 0.474 0.414

Sr #	Varimax Loading	Oblimin Loading
1	Academics are not competent enough to undertake consultancy/ industry oriented research	0.317	0.335
2	Lack of motivation and entrepreneurial spirit among academics	0.092	0.038
3	Low commercialization potential of university research	0.383	0.384
4	There is no proper mechanism to collaborate with universities	0.305	0.362
5	Poor communication between universities and us	0.162	0.153
6	Most universities lack adequate research facilities	0.170	0.179
7	Universities are not interested to collaborate with us	–0.136	–0.036
8	We are not aware of expertise/ facilities available at universities	0.549	0.606
9	We do not know whom to contact at universities to initiate collaborative activities	0.601	0.611
10	Our business is not big enough to seek assistance from universities	0.790	0.826
11	Lack of funds to initiate collaborative work with universities	0.635	0.705
12	The university structure is not adapted to the needs of industrial collaboration	0.725	0.722
13	Geographical location of our facilities results in less access to universities	0.474	0.414

4.3.1 Perception of industry on promotional measures of U-I interaction

In order to mentally grasp the effectiveness of measures to improve interactions, the respondents were asked to evaluate twelve different suggestions for improvement on a five-point Likert scale ranging from not at all effective to very effective (Table 10).

Table 10
Suggestions from industrial perspective

Sr. # Questions Varimax

1 Academics are not competent enough to undertake consultancy/ industry oriented research 0.782

2 Lack of motivation and entrepreneurial spirit among academics 0.746

3 Low commercialization potential of university research 0.565

4 There is no proper mechanism to collaborate with universities 0.737

5 Poor communication between universities and us 0.616

6 Most universities lack adequate research facilities 0.153

7 Universities are not interested to collaborate with us 0.278

8 We are not aware of expertise/ facilities available at universities 0.066

9 We do not know whom to contact at universities to initiate collaborative activities –0.047

10 Our business is not big enough to seek assistance from universities 0.066

11 Lack of funds to initiate collaborative work with universities 0.174

12 The university structure is not adapted to the needs of industrial collaboration 0.782

Sr. #	Questions	Varimax
1	Academics are not competent enough to undertake consultancy/ industry oriented research	0.782
2	Lack of motivation and entrepreneurial spirit among academics	0.746
3	Low commercialization potential of university research	0.565
4	There is no proper mechanism to collaborate with universities	0.737
5	Poor communication between universities and us	0.616
6	Most universities lack adequate research facilities	0.153
7	Universities are not interested to collaborate with us	0.278
8	We are not aware of expertise/ facilities available at universities	0.066
9	We do not know whom to contact at universities to initiate collaborative activities	–0.047
10	Our business is not big enough to seek assistance from universities	0.066
11	Lack of funds to initiate collaborative work with universities	0.174
12	The university structure is not adapted to the needs of industrial collaboration	0.782

Among the promotional measures encouragement of students to visit industry is the most effective measure from the view point of the industry followed by setting up of mechanisms to promote interactions. Involvement of staff from industry in academic programs and regular visits by academics, informal meetings and industry representation in university committees are some of the other major promotional measures.

5 Conclusions

We divided conclusion into three main parts.

5.1 University perspective

Universities have senior faculty members but still they are not aware of the importance of university industry linkages.

More than 50 % of the academics are of the view that there is lack of laboratory facilities, due to which they are unable to start research.

The most dominant types of university industry linkages are consultancies and training programs. In which, the most of the interactions were found in Engineering department while the most least amount is found in Humanities department.

Most of the coordination and management of interactions in academics are the individual efforts. Departments do not facilitate or encourage such efforts.

Academics feel that the most important constraints included lack of time due to heavy workload, lack of proper procedures/mechanisms, lack of research culture, less access to industry, no U-I liaison office and conducive structure for collaboration.

According to the academics upgrading of laboratory facilities, encouragement of staff and student visits to the industry and promotion of university activities relevant to industry are important for promotion of U-I interactions.

5.2 Industry perspective

The study revealed that a considerable number of firms did not have any kind of interactions with the universities.

The predominant types of interactions with the universities were university student internships, informal contact with academics and attendance at seminars, symposiums, workshops and conferences.

The research and development (R&D) within industry was not satisfactory as majority of firms invested less than 0.5% of annual turnover on R&D. Further, more than 60% of the firms did not have separate facilities or personnel to undertake R&D.

According to the industry, the most important benefits of U-I interaction are recruitment of high quality graduates followed by obtaining access to new ideas and know-how and useful for continuing education for staff. Research and development related benefits were given low priority.

The prominent barriers to U-I interaction cited by industry are lack of proper procedures and mechanism, low commercialization potential of university research and lack of interest among academics to collaborate with industry.

Industry suggestion for improvement of U-I interactions include setting up of mechanism to promote interactions and involvement of staff from industry in academic programs and regular visits by academics to the industry.

5.3 Limitation of study

This study evaluates the current U-I situation in Pakistan, by elaborating the perspective of both university and industry sides. Although this study is very important, still it has some limitations. Research data comes from the very limited number of universities and sectors from industry, which is one of the limitations of this study. To make sense of this study results, researchers need to expand the research data for future.

6 Theoretical and practical implications

The study has highlighted the issues and constraints of the two main stakeholders in U-I interactions. As both the academics and industrialist have emphasized the need to setup a strong mechanism to facilitate U-I interactions. There is an urgent need to setup such mechanism with involvement of all the stakeholders to create a conducive environment to enable closer collaboration between the universities and industry. Since the Higher Education Commission (HEC) has already taken some positive steps towards this end it would be appropriate to use it as a base to develop this mechanism.

Since University-industry interactions in Pakistan is a relatively new phenomenon, it is unlikely to receive proper leadership direction and monitoring from within the university. Therefore, it would be appropriate to have higher level body to provide direction to interaction cells setup at the Higher Education Commission. This apex body could be named as UICIC (University Industry Community Interaction Center) setup under the guidance and supervision of the University Grants Commission. The center should comprise representatives from both the universities and the industry in advisory capacities and should recruit personnel with strong leadership qualities and experience in industry and university affairs to provide the much need guidance to the cells at universities.

As far as industry is concerned given the scale of local industries, it is highly unlikely for each firm to come up with a liaison office of its own to interact with universities. Therefore, the more feasible approach would be to setup liaison offices with the involvement of the industry association like the chambers of commerce and industry. The Federation of Chamber of Commerce and Industry of India has already taken some positive steps in this direction by establishing the industrial relations forum to bring academics and industrialist into one forum. Similar forums could be setup by other industry associations and upgraded to U-I liaison offices by improving industry and university participation, physical and human-development resource capacity to forge strategic partnerships with UICIC and Cells at universities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.71571019.

References

Zeleny

, High Technology Management, Human Systems Management 6(2) (1986), 109–120.

Georgantzas

N.C.

, Politeia: A High-Technology Human System, Human Systems Management 34(2) (2015), 91–104.

Bruneel

, D’Este

and Salter

, Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration, Research Policy 39(7) (2010), 858–868.

Lissoni

, Academic inventors as brokers, Research Policy 39(7) (2010), 843–857.

Cassiman

, Di Guardo

M.C.

and Valentini

, Organizing links with science: Cooperate or contract?: A project-level analysis, Research Policy 39(7) (2010), 882–892.

Kodama

, The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university–industry linkages—An empirical study of TAMA in Japan, Research Policy 37(8) (2008), 1224–1240.

Perkmann

, Neely

and Walsh

, How should firms evaluate success in university-industry alliances? A performance measurement system, R&D Management 41 (2011), 202–216.

Perkmann

, King

and Pavelin

, Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on industry engagement across disciplines, Research Policy 40 (2011), 539–552.

Wright

, et al., Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries, Research Policy 37(8) (2008), 1205–1223.

10.

Azagra-Caro

J.M.

, et al., Dynamic interactions between university-industry knowledge transfer channels: A case study of the most highly cited academic patent, Research Policy 46(2) (2017), 463–474.

11.

De Fuentes

and Dutrénit

, Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit, Research Policy 41(9) (2012), 1666–1682.

12.

B.-Å. Lundvall, et al., Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries: Building Domestic Capabilities in a Global Setting. 2009: Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

13.

Perkmann

, et al., Accounting for universities’ impact: Using augmented data to measure engagement and commercialization by academic scientists, Research Evaluation 24 (2015), 380–391.

14.

Mihyo

P.B.

, University–industry linkages and knowledge creation in Eastern and Southern Africa: Some prospects and challenges, Africa Review 5(1) (2013), 43–60.

15.

Lei

X.-P.

, et al., The inventive activities and collaboration pattern of university–industry–government in China based on patent analysis, Scientometrics 90(1) (2012), 231–251.

16.

M.O.S. Technology, Year Book 2012-13. 2012, Ministry of Science & Technology Islamabad.

17.

Bhutto

, Rashdi

P.I.

and Abro

Q.M.

, Indicators for science and technology policy in Pakistan: Entering the science, technology and innovation paradigm, Science and Public Policy 39(1) (2012), 1–12.

18.

Clark

B.Y.

, Influences and conflicts of federal policies in academic–industrial scientific collaboration, The Journal of Technology Transfer 36(5) (2011), 514–545.

19.

Pauw

, Oosthuizen

and Van Der Westhuizen

, Graduate Unemployment in the face of skills shortages: A labour market paradox1, South African Journal of Economics 76(1) (2008), 45–57.

20.

Boersma

F.K.

, Reinecke

C.J.

and Gibbons

, Organizing the University–Industry Relationship: A case study of research policy and curriculum restructuring at the North-West University in South Africa, Tertiary Education and Management 14(3) (2008), 209–226.

21.

Gomulya

, et al., Entrepreneurship in Singapore: Growth and Challenges, in The Entrepreneurial Rise in Southeast Asia: The Quadruple Helix Influence on Technological Innovation, Sindakis

and Walter

, Editors. 2015, Palgrave Macmillan US: New York. pp. 35–67.

22.

Inayatullah, Towards Understanding the State of Science in Pakistan. 2003: Council of Social Sciences Pakistan.

23.

D’Este

and Perkmann

, Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations, Journal of Technology Transfer 36 (2011), 316–339.

24.

Etzkowitz

, The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages, Research Policy 27(8) (1998), 823–833.

25.

Ssebuwufu

, Ludwick

, Béland

, Strengthening University-Industry Linkages in Africa: A Study on Institutional Capacities and Gaps. 2012: Ghana.

26.

Perkmann

and Walsh

, University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda (review article), International Journal of Management Reviews 9 (2007), 259–280.

University Perspective	Constraints	Validity	93.8
		Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha)	0.987
	Improvements	Validity	100%
		Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha)	0.997
Industry Perspective	Constraints	Validity	83.7%
		Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha)	0.854
	Improvements	Validity	94.5%
		Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha)	0.924