Figure 1: Classification of University-Industry Research (parties and external funding) In the academic literature some authors focus on the funding aspect (Hall et al., 2001, 2003; Cohen et al., 2002; D’Este, 2007), others on the parties involved in the project (Schu- bert and Fisher, 2009; Osterle and Otto, 2010). We felt that a classification scheme for par- ties involved and external funding sources would be helpful. We decided to only include external funding (industry partner or government agency) although the University, in most cases, contributes to the overall cost either as “in kind contribution” (e.g. their already employed staff) or in the form of additional financial resources. The primary motivation to start the research project was “an interesting research ques- tion” (4). Two respondents were looking for additional funding of research staff and three were approached by the industry partner. Table 1: Types of industry collaboration projects that were mentioned in the study The successful projects had an average of 1.6 universities and 3.8 industry partners. This suggests that most projects that are ranked as “successful” are run by only one university (6) but include more than one industry partner. The “industry consortium” seems to be a popular model (5); only three respondents selected a 1:1 relationship as their most suc- cessful project. Peer reviewed conference publications (45 %) were the most frequent academic output of projects with industry followed by peer-reviewed journal articles (23 %). The high num- ber of articles in the AIS senior scholar basket of eight (14 %) demonstrates clearly that findings from industry projects can be used to produce high quality publications (cf. Fig- ure 4). Where Ph.D. students were involved in the projects the senior researcher tried to make sure that there was a high synergy between the project outcomes and the findings of the Ph.D. thesis (15 %). make sure that there was a high synergy between the project outcomes and the findings of Figure 5: Output for practitioners The perceived value to the industry partners from collaborative projects varies substan. tially (cf. Figure 6). Most respondents felt that the partners received a value that was greater than what they had invested. In two cases, however, the respondents felt that the value was much less than expected. Both researchers said in the interview that such re search projects carry the risk of failure and that in many cases the industry partner might pay for the development of an artefact that will never be successful on the market (re. spondent #5 and #6). However, the perceived satisfaction level is high with only one ex: ception and companies are likely to engage in another industry project with this university OToUnN ac_ain. ception and companies are likely to engage in another industry project with this university Figure 7: Most important drivers for academics Figure 8: Most important barriers for academics in obtaining funding and several report on scepticism in industry towards academics. Op- portunities in the environment, unfavourable reputation and lack of access are not seen as obstacles. Finally, the respondents did not feel at all that they lack neither the necessary practical knowledge nor the ability to speak the practitioners’ language. All in all, the find- ings show that there is no lack of personal ability to work with industry but that collabora- tion is rather impeded by environmental factors such as _ attitude of col- leagues/practitioners and funding/acquisition costs. obstacles. Finally, the respondents did not feel at all that they lack neither the necessary
