BARRIERS RELATED TO COMMUNICATION

Communication – or lack of communication – is frequently mentioned in the review publications as a barrier to the dissemination of scientific knowledge (Decter et al., 2007; Lakpetch & Lorsuwannarat, 2012; Mora-Valentin et al., 2004; Nielsen & Cappelen, 2014; Ranga et al., 2008; Schofield, 2013;

Siontorou & Batzias, 2010; Szejko, 2002; Vaidya & Charkha, 2008; Wang &

Lu, 2007). The perspectives on this category are many. Some find that the problem is a lack of interpersonal relations and communication (Alexander &

Childe, 2013; Fukugawa, 2013; Gertner, Roberts, & Charles, 2011; Lee &

Win, 2004; Wang, 2013). Others point out that contractual and sporadic con-tact, rather than long-term concon-tact, is problematic (Alves et al., 2007; Chen, 1994; Nielsen & Cappelen, 2014; Santoro & Bierly, 2006; Wang & Lu, 2007).

In a qualitative study involving representatives from both universities and en-terprises, Boehm and Hogan (2013) find that the existence of open, honest, personal and especially frequent communication is believed to be a success factor for collaborations for all partners. Alexander and Childe (2013) con-clude that face-to-face communication is the richest form of media, and that knowledge dissemination must be based on this form in order to be as success-ful as possible. On the other hand, Bruneel et al. (2010) and Liu and Sharifi (2008) find that several different channels must be used to ensure successful communication. Despite different recommendations in the review publica-tions, the point is that it must be easy for enterprises to access scientific knowledge and to get in contact with the university. However, this is often not the case (Acworth, 2008; Bodas Freitas et al., 2013; Decter et al., 2007).

Bodas Freitas et al. (2013) suggest that SMEs involved in open technology and innovation development strategies use personal contractual interactions rela-tively more than institutional interactions. Contrary to this, the study by de Zubielqui et al. (2015) found that for SMEs collaborating with research

insti-tutes, knowledge is most likely to be acquired using generic, tangible transac-tional university-to-industry knowledge dissemination pathways, in the form of published research results and employment of new graduates. The authors point out that using generic pathways suggests weak ties in the search for useful knowledge, and that it is actually the relational pathways that require more developed and stronger ties that will engender higher trust levels and therefore lead to more effective knowledge dissemination. If this is accepted, it must be concluded that the most efficient knowledge dissemination happens between universities and larger enterprises. Related to the thesis’ research question (Section 1.6), this is a valuable insight, seeing as it points out some fundamental conditions to be taken into consideration when developing the dissemination processes.

A relevant understanding of the situation of SMEs is found in Ranga et al.

(2008), who cite Woolgar et al. (1998) when defining the SME-centric universe. In this approach, SMEs appear to be at the centre of their own world, not iso-lated, but relating most intensively with their suppliers and customers. Univer-sities fall well outside SMEs’ focus of attention, the reason being that SMEs have very specific and specialised concerns, to which the notion of ‘research needs’ is largely remote. Because of this, communication between universities and SMEs often fails to happen. A similar understanding is found in de Zubielqui et al. (2015), who state that SMEs will tend to form expressive ties with those organisations and people within their supply or value chain. Such organisations are primarily customers and suppliers. Universities, conse-quently, fall outside SMEs’ focus of attention in relation to knowledge acqui-sition. This relates to what several publications term a lack of a ‘pull’ from enterprises (Bearden et al., 1995; Decter et al., 2007; Siontorou & Batzias, 2010; Szejko, 2002; Wang & Liu, 2007). A lack of motivation to acquire ex-ternal knowledge results in passivity: The enterprises simply do not experience a need for scientific knowledge. On a similar note, enterprises often experience a lack of common interests and they find that scientific knowledge is not in sync with their needs (Alves et al., 2007; Barbosa & Romero, 2012; Bearden et al., 1995; Bellefeuille & Rice, 2002). Others mention that enterprises have a hard time identifying their own needs in relation to scientific knowledge (Alves et al., 2007; Bodas Freitas et al., 2013). Because science and technology are intangible factors for enterprises, they have difficulties identifying compet-itive advantages and to commit themselves to invest in them (Alves et al., 2007;

Bearden et al., 1995; Bellefeuille & Rice, 2002; Lock, 2010; Nielsen &

Cappelen, 2014; Ranga et al., 2008). Also, a lack of administrative resources can prevent SMEs from engaging in knowledge dissemination (Fukugawa, 2013; Gilsing et al., 2011; Lock, 2010). Besides limited resources, Lock (2010) explains that SMEs cannot assess the value of the process and that they find costs, together with university timescales, incompatible with their schedules.

Collectively, these circumstances imply that the university can be deemed ir-relevant to SMEs’ existence and success. This is fundamentally a communica-tion problem. Bellefeuille and Rice (2002) point to the importance of enter-prises being able to translate their organisational needs into the language of the other organisation, i.e. scientific language. The authors conclude that if industry is to be successful at learning from and leveraging the university’s re-search capabilities (and vice versa), they must learn to change and be willing to move a little closer to one another. By this, they imply that knowledge dis-semination demands something of enterprises that are an active part in the interaction. Now, an interesting question is, how do we get the enterprises to be willing and capable of change? On that note, Yusuf (2008) claims that un-less enterprises proactively pursue innovation as a part of their competition strategy and seek out usable knowledge from universities, fruitful linkages will be slower to materialise. Furthermore, SMEs are less likely than large enter-prises to initiate knowledge dissemination, although neither fully exploits the potential of universities in generating knowledge and technology.

Alves et al. (2007) conclude that the scientific community tends to be closed, having an introverted orientation and leaving little room for external interven-tion. Furthermore, they claim that universities usually lack proper mechanisms (channels) to disseminate scientific and technological offers. They point at ‘co-ownership interfaces’ as part of the solution. Owned by both university and enterprises, such interfaces can become cooperation platforms meant to im-prove the relationship between university and industry by helping universities to communicate more easily with enterprises, while simultaneously helping the enterprises to acquire competences and enlarge the knowledge base required to develop new technologies and products (Alves et al., 2007). Note that this idea of a co-owned interface is an example of how a generic pathway can be used as an intermediary, which I briefly discussed in Section 4.2.2. Others, (Ankrah & AL-Tabbaa, 2015; Decter et al., 2007; Kelli, Mets, Jonsson, Pisuke,

& Adamsoo, 2013; Massingham, 2015) conclude that the lack of a functional interface or system for knowledge dissemination between university and enter-prise is a central part of the problem. Kelli et al. (2013) find it to be essential that universities proactively contribute to the development of different orative arenas/platforms. Furthermore, universities cannot expect the collab-oration with enterprises to just happen, which relates to the earlier point about SMEs lacking initiative. For dissemination of scientific knowledge to be suc-cessful, a systematic and continuous effort by universities and support of col-laborative arenas are required.

Another relevant point frequently mentioned in the review publications is that universities are bad at marketing their scientific knowledge and that they need to do more in order to make industry aware of the possibilities is this regard

(Decter et al., 2007; Draghici et al., 2015; Philbin, 2012; Ranga et al., 2008;

Schofield, 2013; Siegel et al., 2004). As a consequence, enterprises often do not even know that scientific knowledge from universities is available to them.

This is an important barrier. Ranga et al. (2008) state that although SMEs only rarely interact with universities and similar organisations, it is not the re-sult of a lack of interest but rather the consequence of poor or lacking commu-nication and information about the opportunities offered by government and knowledge institutions, i.e. universities.

4.2.4 BARRIERS RELATED TO ORGANISATIONAL