The range of mechanisms for supporting cooperation between universities and industry is extremely varied. In some cases the mechanisms are driven mainly by universities. In other cases they are driven more by industry. In many cases government is involved in some way or another. Cooperative links are therefore sometimes motivated primarily by industry, sometimes by universities and sometimes by incentives introduced by government.
Because there are clearly different factors motivating factors in each sector, there are also different perceptions of barriers and difficulties. The following section summarises the different experiences and expectations of the two sectors in developing and maintaining cooperative links.
Academics' Perspectives on the Formation of Industry Links
Recent survey data indicate that individuals in general are perceived as the most important factor in the initiation of links (National Board of Employment, Education and Training 1993, 1996a). However, the evidence also suggests that informal links are a separate but necessary part of institutionalised or more formal linkage mechanisms. In other words, informal, personal links can emerge and endure without structured relationships, but the reverse is not the case. On the other hand, government initiatives and funding can provide a major spur to cooperation, serving to cement existing, informal contacts. The following summary outlines the main ways that formal and informal links can be interrelated:
These personal and informal links can lead to more structured links through:
In the Australian situation, the character of industry partners (large or small companies) appears to be an important factor in the mechanisms through which collaboration occurs (see National Board of Employment, Education and Training 1993, Part IV). Further, the role of government as industry proxy is important in Australia.
The geographic focus of linkages is also an important feature. Across the university system as a whole, it seems that universities often have research, consultancy and teaching links with industries primarily in their local area. The importance of locality stems largely from the role of personal contacts between individuals in universities and industry in successful, on-going research relationships.
From the university perspective the greatest barriers to productive cooperative links can be summarised as follows:
These sorts of structural differences are often subsumed under the catch-all term 'cultural difference'. It is clear that there are deeply embedded differences in perceptions about issues such as time frames, status and reward for work completed in the two sectors. But the emergence of new organisational forms incorporating the needs of both sectors is generating new integrated sets of expectations that have both an academic and a commercial focus.
Industry Responses to the Formation of Cooperative Links with Universities
From an industry perspective, the most important benefits are often described in terms of gaining access to specialised skills and equipment provided by universities. Overall the outcome ranked most highly by firms in recent Australian studies concerns the establishment of a strategic relationship with specialised research and development teams or the resolution of particular technological problems. The former tends to involve long-term and formalised cooperative relationships and the latter tends to involve short-term but highly personalised networks.
At present only a relatively small proportion of university research involves industry linkages. While most companies expect, and hope, that linkages will increase in the future, they recognise that it will remain well in the minority of institutions' research activities. They do believe, however, that where such interaction and linkages take place then institutions should appreciate that, for that segment of their activities, they need to adopt different attitudes and approaches from those appropriate to their mainstream activities (i.e. to take a 'commercial' attitude to commercially sponsored work).
Companies realise that they too will need to modify their methods from those generally utilised in their major in-house mainstream activities, but believe the need for change is generally greater on the university side of the relationship.
In terms of barriers, most industry studies have emphasised the difference between the administrative structures in universities and those in industry. These emerge most often in relation to issues such as intellectual property and expectations about time-lines.
The following list summarises the main barriers usually identified by industry respondents as inhibiting effective academic cooperation.
...the sorting out of intellectual property has, and continues to be, a
'nightmare'.
(Interview, Case Study 1)
Short term consulting with high industry expectations creates a significant degree of frustration for universities. Industry often wants a problem without necessarily wanting to understand the system of knowledge behind a particular problem. Universities, on the other hand want to know the 'why' and 'how' of the problem and tackle it on a more intellectual level. This is where friction develops and we can understand the universities being bewildered by the lack of curiosity. However, that gap is narrowing. Both parties are attempting to understand the other's perspective and knowledge requirements - a step which both also recognise as necessary if successful collaboration is to continue.
(Interview, Case Study 1)
Based on the case studies, it may be suggested that industry in Australia does recognise that university cooperation is most effective as a long-term relationship. CSIRO and other government research agencies may be alternative suppliers of short-term consultancy services and testing.
Barriers to Cooperative Training
Problems in cooperative education are largely associated with the lack of understanding of deeply held assumptions by 'the other side', and initiatives that were seen as threatening to these values. Thus, a recent survey of industry partners identified:
a perception that higher education and TAFE were difficult to work with
because of bureaucratic impediments, academic attitudes, a lack of flexibility
in course design and delivery, an unresponsiveness to workplace needs, and
a belief that academic standards and the real mission of universities would
be eroded
(Davies and Hase 1994:vii).
On the basis of a number of case studies, the authors concluded:
Most of the problems associated with cooperative education ventures arose from the fact that the dominant language, concepts and forms of funding and organisation that service cooperative education reflect the older paradigms of work, education and training. As a result, many of the new arrangements were treated as exceptions and created genuine problems for managers because they inherently increased costs and decreased the efficiency and quality of the existing systems designed for different circumstances.
(Davies and Hase 1994:vii - our emphasis)
Among the case studies investigated for the present project, it was clear that many firms were exploring new ways for integrating training with workplace practices. While these were not altogether satisfactory they do illustrate a process of adaptation to alternative, more cooperative modes of technical training.
The problem is that for academics working out of the industry system, it is very difficult to identify where the day-to-day problems occur for employees. They are simply not familiar with this level of work environment, and while what they teach may be sound at a theoretical level, it often does not translate in practical terms.
(Interview, Case Study 1)
Several university centres, such as the Australian Graduate School of Engineering Innovation, are targeting short courses specifically for graduates with industry work experience.
One of the most noticeable features of industry and university cooperation in teaching programs concerns the emergence of customer driven training. In the telecommunications case study, training linkages have been managed through a steering committee with representation from both Telstra and the university. In addressing its training needs; however, the industrial enterprise is already moving beyond cooperative training and seeking to develop full in-house delivery. An outcome of this development is that industry is now moving toward delivering training into the commercial market in its own right. While this is not a barrier it does raise the possibility of industry eventually delivering training to the extent that it is in competition with universities.
There is a range of benefits for industries in their research interaction with universities; it is not just solving a particular research problem that is the core concern of links between industry and university researchers, but a whole range of activities, from product improvement through to new ideas and training. The case studies suggest that the relationship is important for both sectors, and that the way to maximise benefit for both is to promote research strategies that give both depth and flexibility to the activities at the immediate interface between university researchers and their industrial counterparts. Overall, however, the message is that the most productive research links are those that draw on and enhance the different strengths and objectives of the two sectors, rather than those that generate competition between them.
The different objectives and driving forces behind cooperation between universities and industry provide considerable strength for the overall system. The management task ahead appears to be to foster an even balance between the expectations, resource and environmental demands on each sector across the system.