Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy 201

Castiaux, Annick

Hermans, Julie

English

Scholarly Materials And Research @ Georgia Tech

Coordination through power in University-Industry R&D projects  Julie Hermans, Julie.hermans@fundp.ac.be Annick Castiaux, Annick.castiaux@fundp.ac.be University of Namur, Member of the Louvain School of Management Keywords: Power, R&D collaboration, University-Industry links  Abstract:  Nowadays, organizations are encouraged to develop R&D partnerships that cross multiple economic sectors and institutions. Individuals from universities, big firms and SMEs are brought together to carry out joint innovative projects with more or less aligned goals and with a more or less stable consensus about the means to reach them. In those projects, the underlying research agenda is an important stake for the partners: they compete to shape it, enrolling allies to their cause even if those allies comes from a different world with apparently diverging interests. The joint R&D project is therefore a privileged empirical field to explore knowledge transfer as a political process: to explore how partners shape knowledge creation and sharing at their advantage by continuously competing about the (re)identification of the R&D problem tackled in the project, the selection of the relevant exploration paths and their implementation.   In this work, we focus on power exercise as a coordination mechanism used to shape the direction and outcome of the joint R&D project. The goal is twofold: to propose a methodological tool – the observation of “critical events” – to explore the phenomenon of power exercise and to illustrate this approach with an in-depth case study, a joint R&D project followed from June 2007 to May 2010.  In this case study, we observed power exercises as materialized through “critical events” during plenary meetings. We define the critical event as an observable incident which starts when an actor of the project makes himself heard through a “voice” attitude. This event comes from an increasing feeling that “something has to be done differently” (Holmqvist 2003) : it opens a negotiation space in which each partner can propose a solution and thereby activate a power relationship. Indeed, this episodic power exercise involves actors with diverging interests who compete to shape the possible conducts and outcomes of the project. Finally, the closure or stabilization of the critical event is triggered by the imposition of a solution followed by Exit, Loyalty or Neglect (Hirschman 1970). For Holmqvist, this stabilization leads to the “selection and modification by a dominant group (Nelson and Winter 1982; Mintzberg 1983), where one group gains the opportunity to consciously control the learning process. Thus, from the power struggle emerges a winner that, based on its authority, steers the learning into exploitation” (Holmqvist 2003 p. 110). As a result, this analysis draws a particular attention to the interests that are served - and disserved - by such arrangements, the strategy deployed as well as the modalities that were mobilized by the actors to impose their solution: the focus on critical events allows for observing the modalities (goals, roles, scripts, etc.) that are the most relevant in the project as well as their qualification through closure. Informed by the Structuration Theory (Giddens 1984), those modalities are drawn from the interpenetrating structures that are relevant for the project and that the social researcher can infer through their superficial manifestations (Nizet 2007). Moreover, their mobilization implies an impact on the structural properties of the project: relevant structures are challenged, reinforced or modified by the project’s interactions.  The critical events were witnessed in real-life settings during plenary meetings and team building events. They were also remembered by respondents during semi-structured interviews of partners, allowing a focus on behaviors rather than impressions (Hargadon and Fanelli 2002). Their effects were traced through the minutes of the meetings, especially through the “further actions” section, as well as during subsequent interactions. Especially, the comparison between the observation of meetings and their associated minutes was very insightful. Through the analysis of critical events, we identify four main strategies deployed by project managers and academic professors to coordinate knowledge exchanges: bonding, the reinforcement of a link between participants in the framework of the collaborative research; spinning-out, the creation of a peripheral research with an existing participant; bridging towards external actors for the access to complementary resources and, finally, assimilating through the integration of new human resources to the project. Such linkages are brought to the collaboration through the closure of critical events. They address dissatisfactions about the conduct of the project by stimulating knowledge exchanges but are also used by actors to shape the direction and usefulness of the flows by taking organizational interests into account. Specific risks and stakes ensue.  REFERENCES  Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society : Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hargadon, A., & Fanelli, A. (2002). Action and possibility: Reconciling dual perspectives of knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 13(3), 290-302. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty; responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Holmqvist (2003). A dynamic model of intra-and interorganizational learning. Organization Studies, 24, 95-123. Nizet, J. (2007). La sociologie d'Anthony Giddens (Repères). Paris: La Découverte. 

Coordination through power in University-Industry R&D projects

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/42470/1/425-1508-1-PB.doc

Coordination through power in University-Industry R&D projects

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholarly Materials And Research @ Georgia Tech