Collaborative research programmes: building trust from difference

Abstract Many technology policies support collaborative research, particularly involving small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), in the hope such projects will result in economically productive relationships. However, collaborative projects bring with them their own inherent management problems because of the dual nature of project control. When the collaboration partner is a research institute or university, the mixing of the different organizational cultures can also result in conflicting attitudes towards the management of the project. These factors combine to provide a barrier to the establishment of trust between the project partners. This study addresses the importance of collaborative policy instruments in establishing different levels of trust, by looking at one such intermediary scheme, the Technology for Business Growth (TBG) programme which supports collaborative R&D projects between New Zealand industry and research institutions. Contractual and competence trusts were facilitated by the TBG application procedures. Cultural differences were found to have some positive impacts on the development of competence trust. However, in general, goodwill trust evolves only if repeat collaborative relationships occur. It is proposed, therefore, that a hierarchy of policy mechanisms could provide the platform for research partners to progressively develop a goodwill trust based relationship that will endure beyond the support of the intermediary programme.

[1]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of Management Review, : . , 1995 .

[2]  Sally Davenport,et al.  Research collaboration and behavioural additionality: A New Zealand case study , 1998 .

[3]  Pat Walsh,et al.  Public Management: The New Zealand Model , 1996 .

[4]  Robert V. Bloedon,et al.  Making University/Industry Collaborative Research Succeed , 1994 .

[5]  R. Gulati.  Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances , 1995 .

[6]  Eliezer Geisler,et al.  Industry–university technology cooperation: a theory of inter-organizational relationships , 1995 .

[7]  S. Shapiro.  The Social Control of Impersonal Trust , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[8]  Michael F. Wolff,et al.  Building Trust in Alliances , 1994 .

[9]  M. Dodgson.  Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures , 1993 .

[10]  Mark Dodgson,et al.  Technological collaboration in industry , 2018 .

[11]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[12]  M. Dodgson.  Learning, Trust, and Technological Collaboration , 1993 .

[13]  Mari Sako,et al.  Price, Quality and Trust: Inter-firm Relations in Britain and Japan , 1992 .

[14]  H. Rush,et al.  Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer , 1995 .

[15]  P. Senge,et al.  The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook , 1994 .

[16]  P. Simpson.  The Place of Faith in Management Learning , 1997 .

[17]  Jacqueline Senker,et al.  Transferring technology and expertise from universities to industry: Britain's Teaching Company Scheme , 1994 .

[18]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[19]  L. Zucker.  Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. , 1986 .

[20]  Helen Mitchell,et al.  Strategic management of interactions at the academic-industry interface , 1994 .

[21]  Jacqueline Senker,et al.  Organizational Learning in Cooperative Alliances: Some Case Studies in Biotechnology , 1997 .

[22]  John Bessant,et al.  Effective Innovation Policy: A New Approach , 1997 .