1. Slide 1 Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Who will join and who will decline? An analysis of factors predicting a firm’s decision to join a university- based industrial consortia Denis O. Gray, Ph.D. Drew Rivers, M.S. Psychology in the Public Interest Program North Carolina State University

2. Slide 2 Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Study Purpose Help center directors and others understand which firm characteristics (sub-organizational and personal) and center marketing approaches have the biggest impact on a firm’s decision to join a center, so that the center can:Help center directors and others understand which firm characteristics (sub-organizational and personal) and center marketing approaches have the biggest impact on a firm’s decision to join a center, so that the center can: –More clearly define the target market –Adjust the marketing approach –Structure the research program to optimize industry support Add to the scholarly understanding of the factors that support and/or undermine cooperative researchAdd to the scholarly understanding of the factors that support and/or undermine cooperative research

3. Slide 3 Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Study Plan 1.Literature Review 2.Assessment of marketing practices at NSF- supported cooperative research centers 3.Qualitative interviews with industry representatives: joiners & decliners 4.Quantitative survey of industry representatives  Completed  Underway  Design begins early this year

4. Slide 4 Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Marketing Study- Overview MotivationMotivation –It is the part of the membership process that Center Directors have the most control over –No literature! PurposesPurposes –Identify which advertising, marketing and recruiting strategies directors use –Perceived effectiveness (best practices) –Explore empirical relationship of practices to “success”: leads; new members –Perceived facilitators and barriers to membership Web-based survey of CRC directors & site directorsWeb-based survey of CRC directors & site directors –Response rate: 55% (n=47), 41 different centers –Analyses: Descriptive, predictive

5. Slide 5 Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Factors perceived to drive member acceptance / rejection 11) Consider those organizations that have decided to join the center/site recently. In your opinion how important were the following factors to their making an affirmative decision? Percent citing factor as one of the top three issues: – –78.7%: Relevance of research to organization needs – –61.7%: High probability of future knowledge and technology transfer benefits – –40.4%: Success of past Center/PI research accomplishments 14) Consider those organizations that explicitly turned down membership or remain undecided. In your opinion, how important do you think the following factors were in their failure to join? Percent citing factor as one of the top three issues: – –51.1%: Cost of membership fee – –38.3%: Lack of relevance of research to organization needs – –38.3%: Concerns about IP and licensing rights

6. Slide 6 Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Exploratory Factor Analysis: Perceived acceptance 11. Consider those organizations that have decided to join the center/site recently. In your opinion how important were the following factors to their making an affirmative decision? Factors & Loadings Item1234 Future knowledge and technology transfer benefits.89 Past research accomplishments.76 Relevance of research to organization needs.66 Opportunity to showcase center equipment.74 Quality of facilities and equipment.72 High financial leveraging provided by the center.71 Existing relationship with the university.73 Proximity of the organization to the center.65 Quantity and/or quality of graduate students to recruit.50 Complimentary interests with IAB members.89 Opportunity to participate in setting industry standards.81 Tech Transfer & Research Equipment & Leverage Proximity & Students Mutual Interests & Standards

7. Slide 7 Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Santoro & Chakrabarti, 2001 Types of firm interactions with I/UCRCsTypes of firm interactions with I/UCRCs Collegial players –Lower levels of interactions –Long-term time horizons –Large firms –Focus on relationship building –Interested in affecting direction & application of new technology –Want to influence university’s curriculum Aggressive players –Highest level of interactions –Balance long and short-term –Mix of firm sizes –Focus in advancing new technologies, both core and non-core. – Interested in building wide array of skills –Want access to university facilities, and link to cutting-edge technologies Targeted players –high levels of interactions –Short-term time horizon –Small firms –Focus on advancing core technologies –Interested in addressing immediate needs –Want supplemental consulting

8. Slide 8 Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Research Similarities Santoro & Chakrabarti, 2001 Collegial PlayersCollegial Players »Relationship building »Affecting tech directions Aggressive PlayersAggressive Players »Access to facilities »Building KSA’s »High interaction Targeted PlayersTargeted Players »Immediate needs »Advancing core techs Gray & Rivers, 2005 Tech Transfer and ResearchTech Transfer and Research Equipment and LeverageEquipment and Leverage Proximity & StudentsProximity & Students Mutual Interests & StandardsMutual Interests & Standards

9. Slide 9 Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Next stage: Interviews with Industry Exploratory qualitative interviews (in progress)Exploratory qualitative interviews (in progress) Getting industry contact information from directors: Not difficultGetting industry contact information from directors: Not difficult Getting industry contacts on the phone: DifficultGetting industry contacts on the phone: Difficult Working with Denis: PricelessWorking with Denis: Priceless Early findings suggest a heterogeneous processEarly findings suggest a heterogeneous process

10. Slide 10 Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Interview with an Acceptor Drew: [How did a paper company end up in a non-wovens center?] The reason for that was that many of the technical issues that are germane in paper and board manufacturing are the same in textiles; in fact there are many overlaps in the industries.Dave: The reason for that was that many of the technical issues that are germane in paper and board manufacturing are the same in textiles; in fact there are many overlaps in the industries. Drew: Did anyone from the center come out to your work site…? Dave: No. Most of us have degrees from universities in that area, so we like to go there. Drew: [How was the final decision made?] Dave: Basically what it amounted to was me writing a couple paragraphs, justifying why I thought it was beneficial for the company to engage in trying to learn something that was going on in the nonwovens arena, and the decision was made to go ahead and sponsor it. Drew: Now who was that letter sent to inside your company? Dave: It would have been primarily reviewed by my boss…the CTO. His response was basically go ahead and do it. Drew: … what were some of the key arguments that were in that letter? Dave: … Well, we as a company and an industry are I think looking at externally harvesting innovations from sort of parallel industries. …[T]here are many technologies and products that could be married to our products that we see that are available that we’d like to pay more attention to, and thought this would be a good forum to engage on that.

11. Slide 11 Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Interview with a Rejector Denis: …So from that initial point forward, what other steps happened from the standpoint of you working forward to evaluate the center and to you trying to get a decision to join the center. David: I contacted the director of university alliances for our sector… [He] essentially is the contact point and the manager of the university alliances for the [Company]. …My objective was to get Ray here to test the waters and of possibly adding [the Center university] to be a focus university… And that’s really what I’m doing here. I’m trying to keep us tied in to the cutting edge, and the cutting edge is not industry anymore its in universities because they’re doing the basic stuff, and we need to support that and participate in it. Denis: …So from that point forward what happened? David: From there we went to the agreement. The agreement included the IP agreement, which I was told was an NSF document. My legal people in Space Park in California did not recommend that we sign up for that agreement. Denis: What was the aspect of that they objected to? David: What’s referred to as the typical university grab involved in IP. If we put dollars into it then that was not the kind of agreement that we want to sign up for, and since that time we’ve negotiated an agreement with the university. It’s a work- around to the [Center] agreement. Denis: So you guys have developed a separate agreement to do work with [the University], and what’s the nature of the IP for that? David: In general it’s a way that we can work with professors and support students, and have better access to the IP created by the funds that we invest.

12. Slide 12 Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Remaining work Revisions to the interview guideRevisions to the interview guide Continue with industry interviewsContinue with industry interviews –Recent joiners –Recent decliners –Undecided Conduct quantitative study (12 mos. timeframe)Conduct quantitative study (12 mos. timeframe)