In an open innovation (OI) paradigm, universities are considered as important sources of external scientific knowledge for industry, and comparative study of such collaboration can result in more effective and efficient employment of OI. Within this framework, this study explores how the determinants of collaboration between industry and universities in an open context of innovation are addressed by firms within industrial areas. For this purpose, a conceptual framework of industry–university determinants in an open context of innovation is developed from the related literature. Taking into consideration the determinants integrated into the framework, this study compares motives, barriers, channels of knowledge transfer, benefits and drawbacks of such collaboration in two Italian and Romanian industrial areas. Comparative differences in each OI determinant between the firms from the two Italian and Romanian industrial areas are analysed. The associations among the study determinants are also investigated based on correlation matrices among the five determinants in both Italian and Romanian firms. An artificial intelligence approach based on fuzzy logic was developed to predict the impact of the study determinants on the perception of universities as a source for OI activities of firms.
AlexanderA. T., & ChildeS. J. (2013). Innovation: A knowledge transfer perspective. Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, 24(2–3), 208–225.
2.
AlexanderA. T., & MartinD. P. (2013). Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(1), 38–49.
3.
AnkrahS., & Al-TabbaaO. (2015). Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387–408.
4.
AnkrahS. N., BurgessT. F., GrimshawP., & ShawN. E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33(2–3), 50–65.
5.
Annique UnC., Cuervo-CazurraA., & AsakawaA. (2010). R&D collaborations and product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(5), 673–689.
6.
BabanC. F., & BabanM. (2018). Main dimensions of open innovation between industry and university: An exploratory approach in a Romanian environment. Proceedings of ICERI2018 Conference, Seville, Spain, pp. 9726–9734.
7.
BabanM., BabanC. F., & SuteuM. D. (2019). Maintenance decision-making support for textile machines: A knowledge-based approach using fuzzy logic and vibration monitoring. IEEE Access, 7, 83504–83514.
8.
BeckerW., & DietzJ. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms-evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, 33(2), 209–223.
9.
BellandiM., & De ProprisL. (2015). Three generations of industrial districts. Investigaciones Regionales–Journal of Regional Research, 32, 75–87.
10.
BennetD., & BennetA. (2004). Organizational survival in the new world: the intelligent complex adaptive system. KMCI Press.
11.
BuganzaT., & VergantiR. (2009). Open innovation process to inbound knowledge: Collaboration with universities in four leading firms. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2(3), 306–325.
12.
CassimanB., & VeugelersR. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.
13.
ChesbroughH. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
14.
CrawleyM. J. (2015). Statistics: An introduction using R (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
15.
De MarchiV., LeeJ., & GereffiG. (2014). Globalization, recession and the internationalization of industrial districts: Experiences from the Italian gold jewellery industry. European Planning Studies, 22(4), 866–884.
16.
de SilvaC. W. (1995). Intelligent control: Fuzzy logic applications. CRC Press.
17.
Dei OttatiG. (2018). Marshallian industrial districts in Italy: The end of a model or adaptation to the global economy?Cambridge Journal of Economics, 42, 259–284.
18.
DodescuA., & ChirilăL. (2012). Industrial parks in Romania: From success stories to emerging challenges. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 2(4), 331–335.
19.
EgbuC. O. (2004). Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organizational innovations in the construction industry: An examination of critical success factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(5), 301–315.
20.
FontefrancescoM. F. (2013). The end of the city of gold? Industry and economic crisis in an Italian jewellery town. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
21.
GassmannO., & EnkelE. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: Three core process archetypes. R&D Management Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 1–18.
22.
GeunaA., & MuscioA. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114.
23.
GrecoM., GrimaldiM., & CricelliL. (2016). An analysis of the open innovation effect on firm performance. European Management Journal, 34(5), 501–516.
24.
HertzogM. A. (2008). Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 31, 180–191.
25.
HinkleD. E., WiersmaW., & JursS. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
26.
HowellsJ., RamloganR., & ChengS.-L. (2012). Universities in an open innovation system: A UK perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 18(4), 440–456.
27.
HyndmanR., & KoehlerA. B. (2006). Another look at measures of forecast accuracy. International Journal of Forecasting, 22(4), 679–688.
28.
JangJ.-S. R., SunC. T., & MizutaniE. (1997). Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing: A computational approach to learning and machine intelligence. Prentice-Hall.
29.
JohansonG. A., & BrooksG. P. (2010). Initial scale development: Sample size for pilot studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(3), 394–400.
30.
JohnstonL., RobinsonS., & LockettN. (2010). Recognising “open innovation” in HEI-industry interaction for knowledge transfer and exchange. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16(6), 540–560.
31.
KafourosM. I., & ForsansN. (2012). The role of open innovation in emerging economies: Do companies profit from the scientific knowledge of others?Journal of World Business, 47(3), 362–370.
32.
KovácsA., Van LooyB., & CassimanB. (2015). Exploring the scope of open innovation: A bibliometric review of a decade of research. Scientometrics, 104(3), 951–983.
33.
LamA. (2007). Knowledge networks and careers: Academic scientists in industry-university links. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 993–1016.
34.
LazzarottiV., ManziniR., & PellegriniL. (2011). Firm-specific factors and the openness degree: A survey of Italian firms. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), 412–434.
35.
Lengnick-HallC. A., & GriffithR. A. (2011). Evidence-based versus tinkerable knowledge as strategic assets: A new perspective on the interplay between innovation and application. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 28(3), 147–167.
36.
LewisC. D. (1982). Industrial and business forecasting methods: A practical guide to exponential smoothing and curve fitting. Butterworth Scientific.
37.
LiuZ., AdamsM., CoteR. P., GengY., & LiY. (2018). Comparative study on the pathways of industrial parks towards sustainable development between China and Canada. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 128, 417–425.
38.
MorettiF., & BiancardiD. (2020). Inbound open innovation and firm performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2018.03.001
39.
Padilla-MelendezA., & Garrido-MorenoA. (2012). Open innovation in universities. What motivates researchers to engage in knowledge transfer exchanges?International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 18(4), 417–439.
40.
PERA (2009). Facilitating open innovation: Landscape and feasibility study. JISC Business and Community Engagement.
41.
PerkmannM., TartariV., McKelveyM., AutioE., BroströmA., D’EsteP., FiniR., GeunaA., GrimaldiR., HughesA., KrabelS., KitsonM., LlerenaP., LissoniF., SalterA., & SobreroM. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.
42.
PerkmannM., & WalshK. (2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.
43.
RossiF. (2010). The governance of university-industry knowledge transfer. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(2), 155–171.
44.
SavitskayaI., & PodmetinaD. (2013). Environmental influences on open innovation: Evidence from Russia. International Journal of Business Excellence, 6(3), 310–330.
45.
SchiliròD. (2017). Italian industrial districts: Theories, profiles and competitiveness. Management and Organizational Studies, 4(4), 1–57.
46.
StriukovaL., & RaynaT. (2015). University-industry knowledge exchange: An exploratory study of open innovation in UK universities. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(4), 471–492.
47.
TomlinsonP. R., & BranstonJ. R. (2017). Firms, governance and development in industrial districts. Regional Studies, 52(10), 1410–1422.
48.
TödtlingF., LehnerP., & KaufmannA. (2009). Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions?Technovation, 29(1), 59–71.
49.
UrbancováH. (2013). Competitive advantage achievement through innovation and knowledge. Journal of Competitiveness, 5(1), 82–93.
50.
WestJ., & BogersM. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814–831.
51.
WestJ., & BogersM. (2017). Open innovation: Current status and research opportunities. Innovation: Organization & Management, 19(1), 43–50.
