Big Science is a fertile learning environment for the transfer of knowledge and technology to suppliers since it boosts economic performance, innovation and reputation. However, despite the growing importance of this topic in the literature, empirical evidence is still limited. This paper investigates technology transfer from Big Science through procurement relationships related to the need to develop front-end technologies for Big Science research infrastructures. The results show that the benefits generated for companies include intangible dimensions, such as the acquisition of technical knowledge and improved reputation. In addition, this procurement relationship leads to organizational changes such as the introduction of new specific organizational units and improved investment in R&D. In turn companies are able enter new markets thanks to the newly acquired competencies.
AlexanderAMartinDPManolchevC, et al. (2020) University-industry collaboration: using meta-rules to overcome barriers to knowledge transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer45: 371–392.
2.
Al-TabbaaOAnkrahS (2016) Social capital to facilitate ‘engineered’ university–industry collaboration for technology transfer: A dynamic perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change104: 1–15.
3.
AncaianiAAnfossiAFBarbaraA, et al. (2015) Evaluating scientific research in Italy: the 2004–10 research evaluation exercise. Research Evaluation24: 242–255.
4.
AschhoffBSofkaW (2009) Innovation on demand—Can public procurement drive market success of innovations?Research Policy38(8): 1235–1247.
AutioEErkkoBianchi-StretiMHameriAP (2005) Technology transfer, technological learning and innovation from the large hadron collider procurement activities: main outcomes and recommendations for future projects. International Journal of Technology Management2005: 1–14.
7.
AutioEHameriAPBianchi-StreitM (2003) Technology transfer and technological learning through CERN's Procurement Activity. (No. CERN-. 2003-005).
8.
AutioEHameriAPNordbergM (1996) A framework of motivations for industry-big science collaboration: a case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management13(3–4): 301–314.
9.
AutioEHameriAPVuolaO (2004) A framework of industrial knowledge spillovers in big-science centers. Research Policy33(1): 107–126.
10.
BastianinADel BoCF (2021) Public procurement in big science: politics or technology? The case of CERN. Industrial and Corporate Change30(3): 740–761.
11.
BastianinACastelnovoPFlorioM, et al. (2022) Big science and innovation: gestation lag from procurement to patents for CERN suppliers. The Journal of Technology Transfer47: 531–555.
12.
BonaccorsiAPiccalugaA (1994) A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university-industry relationships. R&D Management24(3): 229–247.
13.
BozemanB (2000) Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy29(4–5): 627–655.
14.
BruneelJD’EstePSalterA (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the Barriers to University–Industry collaboration. Research Policy39(7): 858–868.
15.
CaloghirouYGiotopoulosIKontlamouA, et al. (2021) Industry-university knowledge flows and product innovation: how do knowledge stocks and crisis matter?Research Policy50: 104195.
16.
CalvertJMartinBR (2001) Changing conceptions of basic research. In: Brighton, England: Background document for the Workshop on Policy Relevance and Measurement of Basic Research. Oslo SPRU, Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RF, UK 29–30.
17.
CastelnovoPDal MolinM (2021) The learning mechanisms through public procurement for innovation: The case of government-funded basic research organizations. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics92(3): 411–446. DOI: 10.1111/apce.12311
18.
CastelnovoPFlorioMForteS, et al. (2018) The economic impact of technological procurement for large-scale research infrastructures: Evidence from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. Research Policy47(9): 1853–1867.
19.
ChengHZhangZHuangQ, et al. (2020) The effect of university–industry collaboration policy on universities’ knowledge innovation and achievements transformation: based on innovation chain. Journal of Technology Transfer45: 522–543.
20.
CocciaMRolfoS (2008) Strategic change of public research units in their scientific activity. Technovation28: 485–494.
21.
CzarnitzkiDThorwarthS (2012) Productivity effects of basic research in low-tech and high-tech industries. Research Policy41(9): 1555–1564.
22.
D’EstePDPatelP (2007) University–industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?Research Policy36(9): 1295–1313.
23.
Dal MolinMPrevitaliE (2019) Basic research public procurement: the impact on supplier companies. Journal of Public Procurement19(3): 224–251.
24.
EdquistCZabala-IturriagagoitiaJM (2012) Public procurement for innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Research Policy41(10): 1757–1769.
25.
EdquistCZabala-IturriagagoitiaJM (2015) Pre-commercial procurement: a demand or supply policy instrument in relation to innovation?R&D Management45(2): 147–160.
26.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Academy of Management Review14(1): 57–74.
27.
FlorioMForteSSirtoriE (2016) Forecasting the socio-economic impact of the large hadron collider: a cost–benefit analysis to 2025 and beyond. Technological Forecasting and Social Change112: 38–53.
28.
FlorioMGiffoniFGiuntaA, et al. (2018) Big science, learning, and innovation: evidence from CERN procurement. Industrial and Corporate Change27(5): 915–936.
29.
FlorioM (2021) La privatizzazione della conoscenza, La Terza. ISBN 978-88-581-4537-1.
30.
FreitasIMBMarquesRASilvaEMP (2013) University–industry collaboration and innovation in emergent and mature industries in new industrialized countries. Research Policy42(2): 443–453.
31.
GeorghiouLEdlerJUyarra, et al. (2014) Policy instruments for public procurement of innovation: choice, design and assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change86: 1–12.
32.
GerbinADrnovsekM (2016) Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework. The Journal of Technology Transfer41: 979–1076.
33.
GhisettiC (2017) Demand-pull and environmental innovations: estimating the effects of innovative public procurement. Technological Forecasting and Social Change125: 178–187.
34.
HeVFvon KroghGSirénC, et al. (2021) Asymmetries between partners and the success of university-industry research collaborations. Research Policy50(10): 104356.
35.
HobbsKGLinkANScottJT (2017) Science and technology parks: an annotated and analytical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer42(4): 957–976.
36.
IsaevaISteinmoMRasmussenE (2021) How firms use coordination activities in university–industry collaboration: adjusting to or steering a research center?The Journal of Technology Transfer47: 1308–1342. DOI: 10.1007/s10961-021-09886-x
37.
LeeYS (1996) Technology transfer and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy25(6): 843–863.
38.
LeeYS (2000) The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer25(2): 111–133.
39.
LinkANSiegelDSBozemanB (2007) An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change16: 641–655.
40.
Li-YinJSofkaWTuertscherR (2022) Managing innovations ecosystems around Big Sciece organizations. Technovation116: 102253. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102523
41.
MansfieldE (1980) Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing. The American Economic Review70(5): 863–873.
42.
MansfieldE (1981) Composition of R and D expenditures: relationship to size of firm, concentration, and innovative output. The Review of Economics and Statistics: 610–615.
43.
MansfieldE (1991) Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy20(1): 1–12.
44.
MansfieldE (1998) Academic research and industrial innovation: an update of empirical findings. Research Policy26(7–8): 773–776.
45.
MartinBRTangP (2007) The benefits from publicly funded research. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series NO161(161): 44.
46.
MascarenhasCFerreiraJJMarquesC (2018) University–industry cooperation: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Science and Public Policy45(5): 708–718.
47.
MeyerCB (2001) A case in case study methodology. Fields Methods13(4): 329–352.
PerkmannMWalshK (2009) The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change18: 1033–1065.
51.
PerkmannMNeelyAWalshK (2011) How should firms evaluate success in university-industry alliances? A performance measurement system. R&D Management42(2): 202–2016.
52.
PivaERossi-LamastraC (2013) Systems of indicators to evaluate the performance of university-industry alliances: a review of the literature and directions for future research. Measuring Business Excellence17(3): 40–54.
53.
PuligaGManziniRBatistoniP (2019) An industry and public research organization joint effort for ITER construction: Evaluating the impact. Fusion Engineering and Design146 (PartA): 187–193. DOI: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2018.12.015
54.
RådbergKKLöfstenH (2022) Developing a knowledge ecosystem for large-scale research infrastructure. The Journal of Technology Transfer29: 209–220. DOI: 10.1007/s10961-022-09945-x
RybnicekRKönigsgruberR (2019) What makes industry-university collaboration succeed? A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Business Economics89: 221–250.
57.
SalterAJMartinBR (2001) The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy30(3): 509–532.
58.
ScanduraA (2016) University–industry collaboration and firms’ R&D effort. Research Policy45(9): 1907–1922.
59.
ScarràDPiccalugaA (2020) The impact of technology transfer and knowledge spillover from Big Science: a literature review. Technovation116: 102165.
60.
SchaefferVÖcalan-ÖzelSPéninJ (2020) The complementarities between formal and informal channels of university–industry knowledge transfer: a longitudinal approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer45: 31–55.
61.
SiegelDSWaldmanDAAtwaterLE, et al. (2003) Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research14(1): 111–133.
62.
SilvermanD. (2000) Analyzing talk and text. In: DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 821–834.
63.
SteimnoMRasmussenE (2018) The interplay of cognitive and relational social capital dimensions in university-industry collaboration: Overcoming the experience barrier. Research Policy47(10): 1964–1974.
64.
TellisWM (1997) Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report3(3): 1–21.
65.
TsengFCHuangMHChenDZ (2020) Factors of university–industry collaboration affecting university innovation performance. Journal of Technology Transfer45: 560–577.
66.
YinRK (1993) Applications of case study researchApplied Social Research Series. London, UK: Sage, Vol. 34.
67.
YinRK (1994) Case Study Research – Design and Methods. 2nd edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
68.
WeimbergAM (1961) Impact of large-scale science on the United States. Science134(3473): 161–164.
