Entrepreneurial Universities Seeking New Ways to Commercialize Science: The case of Uppsala University’s AIMday

Swedish universities’ attempt to improve their commercialization of science is inspired by the US model – a model relying on TTOs to direct the transfer of science to market. The Swedish system is however characterized by the “teachers’ exemption”, a regulation giving all rights to the inventor. Thus, the Swedish system leaves a restricted room of maneuvering to universities: only after a disclosure by faculty is made, can commercialization activities be undertaken. Uppsala University, one of Sweden’s major universities, recently introduced an alternative “proactive” model where structured and organized cooperation platforms aim to create efficient interactions between academic research and industry. In the present study a conference called AIMday, which acts as a tool for researchindustry interactions within one of these proactive platforms, has been analyzed to (1) explain how the event and its activities function, and (2) how the event is perceived by the participants, and finally (3) what effects the participants recognize by attending this kind of proactive event. The empirical study is based on the combination of three main sources of data; written documentation concerning AIMday, interviews with participants (researchers and industry representatives) and organizers, and observations by attending two AIMday events. All participants, both researchers and industry, are satisfied and experience AIMday as an important event to create and broaden long-term networks, gain new knowledge and screen for competences for both future collaboration and employment. From the companies point of view the creation of long-term collaborations at AIMday is not a priority. At the same time organizers of AIMday have, in more recent events, incorporated the possibility of seed funding in order to support and catalyze new research projects between academic research and industry.

[1]  Michael Burda,et al.  Revolutionizing product development , 1993 .

[2]  V. Bush Science, the Endless Frontier , 1999, Science, the Endless Frontier.

[3]  Firms’ R&D Activity and Intensity and the University–Enterprise Partnerships , 1998 .

[4]  D. Mowery,et al.  The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments? , 2004 .

[5]  A. Salter,et al.  The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review , 2001 .

[6]  M. Feldman,et al.  Entpreprenerial Universities and Technology Transfer: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Knowledge-Based Economic Development , 2006 .

[7]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology , 1996 .

[8]  C. Plewa,et al.  Relationship marketing and university-industry linkages: A conceptual framework , 2005 .

[9]  M. Wright,et al.  Spinning Out New Ventures: A Typology of Incubation Strategies from European Research Institutions , 2005 .

[10]  Koenraad Debackere,et al.  The Role of Academic Technology Transfer Organizations in Improving Industry Science Links , 2005 .

[11]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Designing Efficient Institutions for Science-Based Entrepreneurship: Lesson from the US and Sweden , 2007 .

[12]  B. Clarysse,et al.  A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a research-based spin-off , 2004 .

[13]  H. Etzkowitz The evolution of the entrepreneurial university , 2004 .

[14]  C. Vedovello Science parks and university-industry interaction: Geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force , 1997 .

[15]  L. Orsenigo,et al.  In Defence of the Linear Model: An Essay , 2010 .

[16]  U. Schmoch,et al.  Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields , 1998 .

[17]  B. Lundvall,et al.  National systems of production, innovation and competence building , 2002 .

[18]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[19]  David C. Mowery,et al.  The Bayh-Dole Act and High-Technology Entrepreneurship in U.S. Universities: Chicken, Egg, or Something Else? , 2005 .

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

[21]  M. Santoro Success breeds success , 2000 .

[22]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Towards a systemic framework for capturing and explaining the effects of academic R&D , 2010, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[23]  Lars Bengtsson,et al.  Transfer of academic research: uncovering the grey zone , 2010 .

[24]  Pablo D'Este,et al.  University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? , 2007 .

[25]  M. Feldman,et al.  Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances , 2007 .

[26]  Pascale G. Quester,et al.  Key drivers of university‐industry relationships: the role of organisational compatibility and personal experience , 2007 .

[27]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[28]  Magnus Henrekson,et al.  Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down Policies Towards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property , 2003 .

[29]  Vannevar Bush,et al.  Science, the endless frontier : A report to the President , 2011 .

[30]  J. March Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.