Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

Nelson, A. Gene

English

Research Papers in Economics

Partnership Opportunities
Between Academia and the Private Sector:
Examples From the Texas A&M University System
A. Gene Nelson
Partnerships are becoming a commonly used
tool for the engagement of universitiesfollowing the
admonition of C. Peter Magrath, President of the
National Association of StateUniversities and Land-
Grant Colleges (NASULGC). Engagement refms to
the redesign of “teaching, research, and extension
and service functions to become even more sympa-
thetically and productively involved with their
communities, however community may be defined”
(Kellogg Commission 1999). Traditionally, we
have emphasized a one-way process through which
the university transfers its expertise to key constitu-
ents. The engaged university pursues partnerships,
two-way streets defined by mutual respect among
the partners for what each can contribute to the
problem-solving process.
Partnerships include a range of organizational
structures from informal unwritten agreements to
more formal arrangementscodified withmemoranda
of understanding. The basic idea of a partnership,
however, involves two or more entities working
together and doing so because they can accomplish
more by working together than they canby working
independently. The parties involved in the partner-
ship sharethe benefits andprofits aswell asthe risks
and costs of the arrangement.
Partnerships are not anew idea in academia.
The land-grant university system itself is a part-
nership involving federal, state, and county gov-
ernments. This partnership engages the state uni-
versities with federal and county governments and
works through an array of cooperative relation-
ships. Some examples of partnerships in academia
include exchange programs between U.S, univer-
sities and universities in other countries, university
and industry partnerships to carry out joint re-
search interests, and relationships in which
A. Gene Nelson is associate vice chancellor, Texas
A&M University System Agriculture Prograrq and
head, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX.
extension services partner with trade associations
to deliver educational programs.
Vice Chancellor Edward A. Hiler has been
emphasizing the use of partnerships as a device to
engage. The Texas A&M University System
(TAMUS) AgricultureProgram.’ To demonstrate his
commitment a Vice Chancellor’s Excellence Award
was established to “recognize an individual or team
for their efforts in extending the mission of the
Agriculture Program through the promotion, devel-
opment, and support of partnership efforts.” Ac-
cording to the Award’s criteri% this includes the
development of programs, partnerships, or alliances
with communities, industry, professional associa-
tions, other state/federal agencies, and universities
that have demonstrated benefits for all partners.
Leadership for maintaining these strong, viable
external partnerships should come horn faculty
within the Agriculture Program. The benefits real-
ized through these partnerships might include prod-
ucts, patents, copyrights, and programs with industry
and other groups.
Examples from The TAMUS Agriculture Pro-
gramwill be used to discussthe effective use of part-
nemhipsin institutionsofhighereducation.The factors
that make the M3krence between the success and
ftiure of thesepartnershipsalso will be reviewed.
Partnerships: A Preponderance of Possibilities
The possibilities for partnering within
academia are numerous, and The TAMUS Agri-
culture Program has probably tried most of
them at one time or another. A 1997 report lists
‘The Texas A&M Universi& System Agriculture Program
includes the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas
Agricultural Experiment Statioq Texas Agricultural Extension
Serviee, Texas Forest Serviee, Texas Veterimuy Medical Diag-
nostic Laboratory, Texas WildlifeDamage Management Service,
the College of Veterky Medicine,andteaehingprograms at
fiveother universities in the System: Prairie View A&M UNver-
siW,Tarleton State University Texas A&M University-Com-
merce; Texas A&M University-Kingsville; and West Texas
A&M University. See <http://agprogram.tamu. edu/>.Nelson, A. Gene Partnership Opportunities Between Academia and the Private Sector 69
more than 60 examples of such partnerships
(The TAMUS Agriculture Program, 1997).
Before discussing some of the unique aspects of
partnerships between academia and private
industry, here are some examples of various
types of partnerships in which the Agriculture
Program is engaged.
l
l
l
l
Partnerships with Other Universities. Three
types of arrangements are involved: (1) Part-
nerships with universities in other countries
usually involve MOUS to establish student
and faculty exchange programs, research col-
laboration, and technology transfer. (2) Part-
nerships with universities in other states usu-
ally involve the coordination of research and
extension programs. These arrangements are
becoming more common. As subject matter
becomes more specialized, individual states
can no longer afford to maintain a fidl stable
of specialists. (3) Partnerships with other uni-
versities within the same state include re-
search collaboration and joint degree pro-
grams. With distance education, these types of
university partnerships to offer degree pro-
grams will become more common.
Conmnmi@ Parmerships. Examples within The
TAMUS include volunteer programs, such as
AgriFood Masters and Master Marketers. Agri-
Food Masters is an extension program designed
to train volunteers to educate the public about
the food system and related issues. The Master
Marketers program is designed to train agricul-
tural producers in marketing skills so that they
can lead local marketing clubs.
Government andAgency Partnerships. TAMUS
examples include an MOU with the USDA
Natural Resource Conservation Service to im-
prove water conservation and quality and re-
search collabomtionwith the USDA Agriculture
Research Service(ARS) through the location of
ARS scientists in TAMUS facilities.
Partnemhip withSchools and Youth Oqymizations.
Examples include4-H school enrichment where
students learnabout production cycles for major
agricultural commodities, and the Pizza RanclL
a circular display of living plants and animals
showing the origins of pizza ingredients.
Academia-Industry Partnerships
These public-privatepartnerships are among the
most recent organizational innovations in higher
education. They also may be the most problematic.
What are the motivations for these partnerships?
What are the reasons for forming these public-
private, academia-industry partnerships?
l
l
l
l
University-industry partnerships can be used to
bring together the different pieces of the re-
search puzzle. This might include different areas
of expertise, pieces of knowledge, or even re-
search equipment. The partnership brings to-
gether these components that neither party could
assemble on its own.
University-industry partnerships can facilitate
the transfm of technology fkomthe laborato~ to
the marketplace.
University-industry partnerships foster experi-
ential learning opportunities for students and ac-
cess to prospective employees for industry. In-
ternships, co-op work-study programs, and pro-
fessor-for-a-day programs are examples.
University-industry partnerships are used to
deliver extension education programs in which
the extension specialist develops the training
materials and a trade association delivers the
program to the trainees (adult learners).
A Food Indust~ Partnership Example
This 13-yearpartnershipinvolves the Frito-Lay,
Inc.product development group and the Department
of Agricultural Engineering (The TAMUS Agricul-
ture Program, 1997). Through the partnership,
Agriculture Program faculty members contribute
expertise to Frito-Lay in areas such as advanced
process control, raw material understanding, low-fat
products and non-invasive sensing. As a result,
Frito-Lay has improved the quality consistency of
snack products, developed new low-fat products
(Sunch.ips), and enhanced the understanding of
Iiying, baking and extrusion processes. Two senior
scientists at Frito-Lay are adjunct faculty members
at Texas A&M University. The partnership has
received almost $1 million in funding from the
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s
Advanced Technology Program. The Agriculture70 March 2000 Journal of Food Distribution Research
Program has benefited through internships and co-
op work-study programs for undergraduates, support
for graduate assistantships, and the placement of
graduates as scientists, engineers, and production
managers with Frito-Lay. Communications are
emphasized with monthly technical meetings.
A Partnership to Build Partnerships
The Institute of Food Science and Engineering
was formed to build partnership arrangements be-
tween The TAMUS and industry. The Institute itself
is based on a partnership involving the Agriculture
Program, the College of Veterinary Medicine, and
the Engineering Program. Furthermore, the Institute
includes four centers that partner to provide a re-
search and programmatic focus to food science
activities related to food safety, food processing,
nutritio~ and consumer demand. The Institute’s
mission is to strengthen and expand research, edu-
catio~ and outreach programs related to all aspects
of food by utilizing dynamic initiatives to establish
priorities that meet present and future challenges
through interdisciplinary efforts of The TAMUS, the
citizens of Texas, the natio% and the world.z
A Unique Partnership with Texas Stakeholders
The Agriculture and Natural Resource Summit
Initiative is a partnership between the Agriculture
Program and Texas agriculture and natural resource
stakeholders. Its purpose is to serve as an apolitical
forum based on the principle that Texans can find
workable solutions to any challenge. The Summit
Initiative held its eighth summit dealing with bio-
technology in September 18, 1999. Previous sum-
mits have dealt with issues relating to foo~ federal
farm programs, natural resources, rice, forestry, and
agricultural fmance.3
The Summit Executive Committee (SEC)
serves as the “board of directors” for the process
representing the stakeholders, who are the “owners”
of the Initiative. Members of the SEC represent
diverse stakeholder groups. The SEC provides the
2For more ti0mhn7 refer to the IFSE websitc at
<http://ifse.tamu.edub.
3For more information on the Biotechnology Summit, which
emphasized the use of partnerships to build centers of research
excellence and to facilitate technology transfer, see <http://
agsummit.tamu.eduibiotechb.
organizational structure for continuing the work,
identifies the high-priority issues for fhtu.resummits
and conferences, and recommends action plans and
implementation procedures.
What Makes PartnersKlps Work?
This was the topic of a 1998 symposium spon-
sored by the Council on Foot Agriculture, and Re-
sourceEconomics(C-FARE)in Washingtm DC. The
prolifmation of agriculturaland environmentalissues,
tighterbudgets,andpressurefor accountabilityempha-
sizesthe vitalroleof partnershipsinvolvingland-grant
universities and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The symposiumidentifiedthefollowingcharacteristics
of successfidpartnerships(C-FARE, 1999):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Successfidpartnerships involve talented people
performing different roles. In other words, the
partners eaehbring different resources or capa-
bilities that, when combine~ allow for a pro-
ductive joint venture.
Successfulpartnershipshaveclearlydeilnedgoals
andeachpartneriseommitkd to thesegoals.
Successfid partnerships have effective leader-
ship to facilitate communications and to build
trust among the partners.
Successfid partnerships provide for rewarding
andrecognizingtheindividualpartnersaccording
to their contributionsto the partnership.
The fwsttwo points are important for success-
fi.dlyinitiating a partnership; the latter two are cru-
cial for sustaining the partnership. Developing a
reward system is particularly challenging. Rational
individuals will continue to participate in the part-
nership so long as they feel they are receiving back
as much or more as they areputting into the partner-
ship. If they start to worry about slackers or fiee-
riders, however, the trust that is so vital to sustaining
the partnership may be eroded.
Impediments to Partnerships
Several organizational and behavioral factors
within our institutionsmust be overcome to improve
the prospects for developing partnerships. Four of
these generalftiors were identified during the Sym-
posium as significantimpediments (C-FARE, 1999):Nelson, A. Gene Partnership Opportunities Between Academia and the Private Sector 71
(1) Traditional incentive and reward systems in
academia are designed to rewardindividualpro-
ductivity, creativity, scholarly capacity, and in-
tellectualeffom and thus,they oflen do not sup-
port partneringactivities.Theseincentiveandre-
ward systems are disciplinary-bas~ reflecting
the substantialroleofpeerreviewbyprofessional
societiesinjournal publicatio~ scholarlyrecog-
nitio~ and otheractivities,To overcomethis im-
pediment we mustbe more creativein develop-
ing incentive systems that reward multidimen-
sional accomplishments, with less reliance on
peer review andpublications.
(2) Theprofissional culture, especially in academiq
favorsindependentscholarshipovermuhidimen-
sionalcollaboration.Anexampleoftheinfluence
of this culture is that graduate stadents receive
little or no experiencewithworking on teams or
opportunitiesto developinterpersonalskills. To
overcome this impedirnen~ we should place
greater emphasis on developing teamwork and
interpersonalskillsin graduatetraining and pro-
fessionaldevelopmentprograms.
(3) The administrators of disciplina~-based units
tend to undervaluemultidimensional partnering
activities. Consequently, meeting facilities,
communication mechanisms, and support sys-
tems needed to sustain partnering are ofien
lacking. The old adage is that people have
problems but universitieshave departments. To
overcome this organizational impediment,
partnering entities-such as institutes, centers,
and consortia-should be provided with addi-
tional authority, resources (for example, seed
money), and incentivesbased on outcome and
issue-based approaches. We also should
streamline approval processes for partnerships
to maintain trust, credibility, initiative, and
enthusiasm among participants.
(4) The lack of accoz.mtabili~that is, clearly-
definedgoalsandeffketive,measurableperform-
ance criteria-and concerns about intellectual
property rights-especially involvingpublic and
private sector initiatives-results in partnership
failures. To overcome these impediments, we
need better criteria for evaluating mukMirnen-
sionrdperllormaneeof partnershipsand for allo-
catingfinds. Also needed are equitableways to
resolveintellectualpropertyrights disputes.
Special ChaUenges
for Public-Private Partnerships
A recent report to Congress provides some
important guidelines for public-private partner-
ships involving research and scientific discovery
(U.S. House of Representatives, 1998). These
guidelines include:
l
l
l
l
l
l
Maximhing success through research partner-
ships. Partnerships can be valuable tools for lev-
eraging the public’s research investment and are
being encouraged by state and federal agencies.
These partnerships can take on many different
forms including university and industry labora-
tories.
Trust and communication between university
and industry partners is crucial andmust be cul-
tivated. This starts with common goals and
complementary skills.
The independence of the university and industry
partners must be protected and their differing
missions respected.
Universitiesmust not lose sight of their missions
of teaching students and performing basic sci-
entific and engineering inquiry. They should
work synergistically with industry but must not
become industry.
University researchers,who benefit from public
fading, should not be constrained from pub-
lishing or otherwise disseminating any research
results due to proprietary claims of industry
partners.
Industry should not substitute university part-
nerships for their own “in-house” research
programs.
What If the Partnership Is Not Working?
I.neffectaalpartnerships are often lefl to floun-
der. In bureaucratic organizations, they may be
carried on the books for years with no action. This
becomes an embarrassment for the parties involved
and can be a deterrent to the building of new part-
nerships. Hold a fb.neral;have a ceremony to cele-
brate what was accomplished; try to learn why it
failed; and then move on.72 March 2000
Checklist for Institutions
Considering Partnerships
To summarize these fmtors affecting partner-
ship successes and failures, here is a checklist of key
questions to ask when considering the formation of
a partnership.
l
l
l
Why do we want this partnership? Will the out-
comes be consistent with institutional goals? Do
the gods of the prospective partners overlap?
Do we have the commitment of resources, time,
talent and leadership to make it work and to
sustain the relationship?
What will we learn? Will the participants learn
new approaches and methods that ml improve
long-term performance?
Conclusion:
Partnerships as Learning Experiences
Too often in universities, we do not take time
to learn. This is particukirly true when it comes to
the building, nurturing, and terminating of partner-
ships. We need to take time to identifi what con-
tributed to the success, or resulted in the f~ure, and
Journal of Food Distribution Research
then to develop systems for passing this knowledge
along to new partnership participants. Building the
partnering skills of our faculty should be a goal of
continuing professional development programs. We
have much to learn about building responsive, pro-
ductive, and sustainable partnerships. Universities
can build better partnerships by becoming more like
learning organizations,using partnershipsas learning
opportunities (Senge, 1990).
References
C-FARE (Couucil on F@ Agricultural, and Resource Eeo-
nornics). 1999.PartneringinAgricultural Research and
Education: Symposium Highlights. Washington,DC.
<http://www.cfare.org/publicationsb.
Kellogg Commission ontheFuture ofStateandLand-Grant Univer-
sities.1999.Returning to OurRoots: TheEngagedInstitu-
tion. NationalAssociationof State Universities and L~d-
Grant Colleges.Febrwq. -+ttp://www.nastdgc.or@-.
Senge, Peter M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and
Practice of the Learning Organization. New York NY:
Doubleday.
TAMUS (The Texas A&M University System) Agrieukure
Program. 1997. “Partnerships: Putting Knowledge to
Work for Texans.” College Stationj TX. September.
U.S. House of Representatives. 1998. “Unlocking Our Future:
Toward a New National Scienee Policy.” A Report to
Congress by the Committee on Science, 24 September.
-4ttp://www.house.gov/science/science@iq_report.btm>.

House of Representatives.

Kellogg Commission ontheFuture ofStateandLand-Grant Universities.1999.Returning to OurRoots: TheEngagedInstitution. NationalAssociationof State Universities and L~dGrant Colleges.Febrwq.

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES BETWEEN ACADEMIA AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR: EXAMPLES FROM THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics