University-software industry collaboration: an empirical study based on knowledge management

ABSTRACT

The current environment that characterises the software industry is extremely dynamic and somewhat complex demanding high-performance solutions, rapid development, and cost-efficiency. Given this scenario, industry is forced to search for new partners, with the university-industry collaboration representing a fundamental resource in promoting innovation and technological development. This study aims to obtain and analyse the perceptions and experiences of representatives of this industry and the university, in order to identify a set of factors that could enhance and/or be the source of a sustainable collaboration, based on knowledge management. In nutshell, the results show that motivations are associated with the immediate opportunities or needs of each of those directly involved in the collaboration take priority, without building a sustainable collaboration. This collaboration is generally conducted through informal communication channels, which makes it difficult to capture and disseminate knowledge to other members of each of the related organisations.

KEYWORDS:

• Tacit knowledge
• software industry
• knowledge management
• collaboration
• university-industry

1. Introduction

The software industry (SI) plays a fundamental role in today’s modern society because its products can be found in every field and in diverse sectors (Aurum et al., 2008). This fact contributes to the current extremely dynamic and somewhat complex environment that characterises this type of industry (Huzita et al., 2012), leading companies in the field to suffer the pressure for high-performance solutions, rapid development, and cost-efficient processes (Mead et al., 2016; De Vasconcelos et al., 2017).

Given this scenario, and for companies to respond to the new challenges, they are forced to search for new partners, with the university-industry collaboration (UIC) representing a fundamental resource in promoting innovation (Calvo et al., 2019) and technological development. In fact, the literature points out several strong advantages for this type of collaboration, including a positive impact on the competitiveness and productivity of the related organisations (Freitas et al., 2013; Teixeira et al., 2019).

In this study, the term “UIC” is defined as an activity that involves the interaction between teams composed of people from academia (teachers, researchers, and students) and company professionals (Ankrah et al., 2013; Schubert & Bjør-Andersen, 2012). The objective of this collaboration is to create and share knowledge and technology, with neither party being relegated to a simple case study (Daria & Kostiantyn, 2018; Schubert & Bjør-Andersen, 2012). This collaboration is expected to benefit the related members and teams (teachers, researchers, students, and professionals), the organisations that establish the collaboration and, consequently, the surrounding society (Boyarchuk et al., 2018).

According to Philbin’s approach (Philbin, 2008), this type of collaboration relies heavily on knowledge sharing (KS), especially tacit knowledge (TK), thus valuing the role that knowledge has in its success and, above all, in its sustainability. Knowledge management (KM) provides mechanisms to create, capture, analyse, and act on knowledge. This helps to manage the volatility of products and the dynamics that characterise most organisations in these sectors. Having a knowledge base allows university and industry members to see their needs met and thus strive to develop stronger collaborations (Daria & Kostiantyn, 2018).

Although the literature suggests that this theme as quite relevant, there is an evident lack of empirical studies that properly investigate the factors that can contribute to the sustainable promotion of collaboration between SI and university (Feng et al., 2015). In addition, it is almost non-existent or little significant literature related to the SI in Portugal (Sousa, 2013). In a recent study, Subramonian and Rasiah (2016, p. 84) claim that UIC are “context dependent, and hence, are demarcated nationally, regionally, sectorally, or according to the technology or knowledge base. Thus, consideration by contexts in empirical analysis would help provide an in-depth understanding of sectoral variations.

Additionally, there are few studies that address KM in collaborations (Hansen et al., 2017; Teixeira et al., 2019). The few that do exist, focus on outcomes or structures of success of the collaboration (Hansen et al., 2017), on reports of lessons learned (Bjørnson & Dingsøyr, 2008) or, as some authors have pointed out, identify universities as the only providers of knowledge and technology (Hermans & Castiaux, 2017). In addition, the scientific community has paid little attention to the role of knowledge in collaborations and the consequent impact on the promotion of innovation and on society (Hansen et al., 2017).

Therefore, understanding how a collaboration can be conducted becomes important, since it is essential not only for the success of the collaboration but also to ensure its sustainability (Salimi & Rezaei, 2018). Taking this into consideration, the main objective of this study, using qualitative analysis with a group of actors belonging to the aforementioned industries, is to identify and analyse a set of factors that enhance and/or facilitate the collaboration between university and SI, in a sustainable way, taking KM into account. Thus, the following main research question emerges: “How to leverage the collaboration between university and SI in a sustainable way, based on KM?”

In terms of structure, this article is divided into five sections. Section 2 presents the theoretical framework, starting with a brief characterisation of the studied industries, followed by topics that address the collaboration between the organisations belonging to those industries. Section 3 details the study objectives and presents the methodology used in the research. Section 4 presents the main results of the study, with Section 5 being devoted to conclusion and future work.

2. Theoretical background and related work

2.1. The UIC

The UIC represents a fundamental resource in promoting innovation (Lee, 2000) and technological development. This will have a positive impact on productivity and the competitiveness of organisations (Cohen et al., 2002; Freitas et al., 2013; Lee, 2000). This collaboration is currently crucial for both industry and university and is an important indicator of the level of innovation of an economy. It has also been an incentive measure, integrating the policies of governments of industrialised countries (Schuetze, 2000).

The UIC is complex; it can vary according to the scope, duration, geographical location, and expected results and impacts (Schofield, 2013). A successful collaboration requires an appropriate balance between university and industry objectives and that each party can realise that their objectives have been met in terms of this collaboration (Wohlin, 2013).

In general, the collaboration is associated with the level of involvement from organisations and the types of resources used. It may be associated with problem solving, technology development, idea testing, or knowledge creation (KC) (Perkmann & Walsh, 2009). Each phase of the collaboration may vary over time and require different types of intervention, sometimes occurring simultaneously or in some cases depending on the other (Nilsson et al., 2010).

It is important to understand the main drivers of the UIC and their articulation. It will allow to mitigate barriers, overcoming of differences and creating of an environment of trust and commitment (Kauppila et al., 2015), and consequently to achieve success in UIC. Several studies highlight three main drivers related to collaboration – motivation, channel of interaction and outcome (Ankrah & AL-Tabbaa, 2015; Arza, 2010; Wallin et al., 2014).

Universities and industries seek, through the collaboration, to have access to resources, skills, and experiences, often limited in their organisation, yet present in the organisation with which it is intending to establish the collaboration (Wallin et al., 2014). The characteristics of the university and industry, the experience in this type of collaboration and the specific areas of interest, are factors that differentiate the motivation for the establishment of the collaboration. Considering that the motivation to establish an UIC is different between the university and the industry (Ankrah & AL-Tabbaa, 2015), understanding the real meaning of motivation in the different parts, becomes extremely important (Freitas & Verspagen, 2017).

The channels of interaction are the forms of communication existing between the university and the industry that allow for the establishment of an collaboration (Perkmann et al., 2013).

The various authors in the literature consider a variety of channels of interaction that can be established in the collaborations. It may even involve more than one channel (Franco & Haase, 2015). Some studies focus on university and industry perspectives (e.g., Ankrah & AL-Tabbaa, 2015), while others focus on industry perspectives (Freitas et al., 2013). However, the majority of the studies focus on university perspectives (e.g., Perkmann et al., 2013).

In the literature it is possible to identify six main groups to classify the interaction channels (Ankrah & AL-Tabbaa, 2015): (i) knowledge – publications, conferences, informal contacts; (ii) R&D projects – contract R&D, consulting, and joint R&D; (iii) licences and patents; (iv) business – joint or cooperative ventures, purchase of prototypes developed at science, creation of physical facilities, university spin-offs; (v) training – supervision of PhDs and Masters theses, training of employees of enterprises, students working as trainees; and, (vi) human resources – personnel mobility, hiring of recent graduates.

Regarding the possible outcomes and benefits achieved by both universities and industry, the literature identifies a varied list. These include financial benefits, business expansion, KS, and experience, fulfilment of the mission of educating/training, improved organisational reputation, source of human resources, etc. (Ankrah & AL-Tabbaa, 2015). The main results provided by the UIC differ between their partners and are strongly associated with the initial motivation and the interaction channel used for this purpose (Arza, 2010). However, several studies report that the main benefit is generally based on the search for external competences and is associated with access to new knowledge and experiences. This is a critical factor in improving the innovative capacity of the organisations involved in this type of collaboration (Wallin et al., 2014).

2.2. The university-software industry collaboration (USIC)

The SI is characterised as being a “high technology, knowledge intensive, highly mutable industry – with weak entry-barriers and short innovation cycles – which demands continuous adaption, learning and access to knowledge” (Salavisa et al., 2009, p. 1). However, most of the existing companies in this sector are small and medium-sized, operating in a resource scarce scenario, with limited access to finance, specialised personnel, and knowledge networks; facing competition from large national and international companies (Savolainen & Ahonen, 2015). Many of these companies have been created in the last decades as start-ups or spin-offs from universities, and a significant portion of these still maintains this link (Salavisa et al., 2009).

In a rapidly changing scenario with increasingly disruptive innovation processes, the SI needs more technology-based solutions to ensure its competitiveness. Companies in this industry have generally sought collaborations with universities, in order to have access to specific knowledge, which allows them to complement the skills that they already possess (Ehrismann & Patel, 2015). On the other hand, universities driven by technological progress and social pressure have also sought solutions to some of their problems by establishing collaboration with the SI (Coccoli et al., 2011). It should be noted, that businesses and universities have faced a common problem related to the lack of professionals in emerging technological fields. This problem is exacerbated by the mismatch/misalignment between the profiles that the market demands and the qualifications that graduates obtain from their university education (Mead et al., 2016). According to Mead et al (2016, p. 29), this mismatch is currently “too high, with significant adverse consequences for employers and jobseekers”.

Given this scenario, Boyarchuck et al (2018, p. 667) states that, “successes in this field are impossible without the fruitful collaboration between universities and the software industry.” However, several authors believe that the traditional models of collaboration are not adequate to the dynamics of these types of industries (Boyarchuk et al., 2018). The importance of factors related to new collaboration strategies, with new approaches based on the convergence of technologies, teaching, and research, as well as on the increasing importance of knowledge, are also highlighted (Boyarchuk et al., 2018).

Although it seems obvious and that the parties involved recognise the need for collaboration, the difference between their individual expectations may make the opportunity for collaboration impossible, and/or even eliminate it completely (Wohlin, 2013). A collaboration between these industries can help address these challenges by bridging their interests and converging the expected objectives and benefits. In Ehrismann and Patel’s point of view (Ehrismann & Patel, 2015, p. 2), “a clear understanding on common but also diverging interests is the most truthful and realistic negotiation basis”; which may lead to a successful collaboration. The same authors also point out that understanding and respecting one’s organisational culture and combining existing intellectual and technological resources to respond to emerging issues can accelerate and improve the quality of their collaboration relationship (Ehrismann & Patel, 2015).

2.3. KM in the USIC

Given the intensive knowledge nature of these two types of organisations, the collaborative strategy requires the integration of specialised knowledge, often multidisciplinary, and highly specialised, dispersed throughout each member of the work teams (Boyarchuk et al., 2018). Hansen et al. (2017) add that it is not enough just to save the results of collaborative projects, but rather that it is necessary to transform the results into knowledge and make it accessible. According to Hermans and Castiaux (2007), the knowledge obtained from a collaboration can represent an excellent starting point for new collaborative projects. Gill (2002, p. 263) states that “it is the sharing of a common knowledge base that continuously builds upon local knowledge bases which is at the heart of a collaboration process.” These facts, evidenced by the literature, indicate that possible solutions aimed at the sustainability of USIC should be explored and evaluated from a KM standpoint (Daria & Kostiantyn, 2018; Philbin, 2008).

Thus, KM assumes an important role for organisations in delivering the best performing solutions (Tippins, 2003). Particularly in the case of TK, which requires considerable managerial resources, its value can ensure a more efficient and effective solution creation process (Bierly et al., 2009), and the ability to manage such knowledge will define the difference between a good and a better performance (Kidwell et al., 2000).

3. Methodology

Based on the literature review and starting from the objective that was the basis of this study – how to leverage the collaboration between university and SI in a sustainable way, based on KM –, the use of a semi-structured interview was considered. This kind of instrument represents one of the most appropriate methods to explore participants’ experience and/or reconstruct past events (Quivy & Van Campenhoudt, 1998). In order to conduct the interview, a previously prepared script was used, based on the literature review and document analysis, and structured according to the research question.

3.1. The data collection instrument

Given the exploratory nature of the study, a qualitative approach using interviews was adopted for the collection of data. The interviews were semi-structured, since it is the most appropriate method for exploring each participants’ experience and reconstructing past events (Quivy & Van Campenhoudt, 1998).

To conduct the interview, a previously elaborated script was used, and structured according to the specific objectives mentioned above. All the interviews were conducted by the researcher and audio-recorded with the consent of the interviewees. Note that only one interview was not recorded, because it did not have the author’s consent. Due to the individual conditions of availability, two interviews were conducted through the Skype communication software and the rest of the interviews were carried out at the interviewees’ premises.

At a later stage, the interviews were transcribed verbatim and subjected to content analysis at a subsequent stage with the help of the webQDA software. It should be noted that the software served only to facilitate the analysis and representation of the results, not in portraying the active role of the researcher in the interpretation of the results (Duriau et al., 2007).

3.2. The sample

The semi-structured interview was applied to a group of participants considered relevant, since they assumed positions with decision-making powers and, on the other hand, able to provide the opportunity to obtain different and complementary visions and experiences related to collaboration activities.

The chosen University is organised into 16 departments, 4 polytechnic schools, and 18 research units (RU)s and is in the Portuguese central region. Thus, the University sample was composed of professors and researchers responsible for RUs. The criterion for choosing these RUs was related to their involvement in software development activities.

The criterion for the companies belonging to the SI sample was that they needed to belong to the same region as the University. Company leaders that had, among their activities, some involvement in software development projects, were interviewed.

A sampling procedure appropriate to the objectives of the instrument in question was defined for each of the populations (SI and university), as detailed in the following subsections.

3.2.1. The SI sample

For the industry, the non-probabilistic technique called snowball (network or chain) was used. It uses the interviewees’ contact network to indicate other contacts that have interesting characteristics to the study (Adams et al., 2007).

The theoretical saturation criterion was used to determine the appropriate end point of the empirical data collection (Guest et al., 2006).

As can be seen in Table 1, nine interviews were conducted over a period of 3 months. The point of saturation appeared in the eighth interview, where it was possible to perceive that the interviewees’ discourses on the relevant topics did not add new contributions. A final interview (ninth) was carried out, confirming the saturation.

Table 1. Characterisation of the respondents belonging to companies related to the SI.

Interview	Interviewed profile	Type of company*	Company age (years)	Main economic activity	Interview duration (min.)#
SI01	Partner	Small	19	Software development	80
SI02	Partner	Small	3	Software development	80
SI03	Partner	Small	7	Software development	105
SI04	Partner	Medium	22	Electronics and telecommunications	75
SI05	Chief Technical Officer	Small	17	Electronics	70
SI06	Partner	Small	11	Energy	30
SI07	Head of Knowledge Management and Exploratory Innovation	Large	23	Telecommunications	60
SI08	Director of Development	Small	25	Electronic security systems	40
SI09	Director of Institutional Relations	Large	12	Software development	40

*According to the European Commission’ definition (2015).

In order to anonymise the results, the interviews were coded, with SI01 referring to the first interviewee representing the SI (Table 1).

3.2.2. The university sample

For the university, a non-probabilistic sample, referred to as purposive, was used, where the participants that composed the sample were intentionally selected according to certain representative criteria for the research objective (Adams et al., 2007). Thus, four RUs that could bring greater contributions to the developing theory were chosen; simply put, units with an effective participation in the development and/or use of software in their activities.

Five interviews were conducted over 2 months for the four RUs, which belonged to two different scientific areas. Participants were selected according to their role in the unit (responsible for the unit or per research group). The fact that these interviewees have an active participation in the decision-making processes in these RU makes it possible to classify them as privileged informants for this study.

To maintain the anonymity of the interviewees, the interviews are coded similarly to the previous sample, with RU01a referring to the interview with the head of the first RU and interview RU01b referring to the interview with the group leader of the same unit (Table 2).

Table 2. Characterisation of the respondents belonging to the university sample.

Interview	Interviewed profile	Scientific Area	Interview duration (min.)
RU01a	Professor and Coordinator of RU	Science and Engineering	40
RU01b	Professor and Vice-Coordinator of RU	Science and Engineering	40
RU02	Professor and Coordinator of RU	Social and Humanities	40
RU03	Professor and Coordinator of RU	Science and Engineering	70
RU04	Professor and Coordinator of RU	Science and Engineering	70

4. Analysis and discussion of results

The content analysis approach was used for the analysis of the qualitative data obtained through the interviews.

In this study, the analysis took place over two main phases. In a first phase, the recorded interviews were carefully transcribed, generating 46,401 words and 56 pages. Afterwards, the unit of registry was defined based on the thematic criterion, which according to Bardin (2002) is used “to study the motives for opinions, attitudes, values, beliefs, leanings, etc.”. The selection of the categories emerged from the study objectives and the evidences present in the literature. Thus, two central themes arose: (1) the collaboration between the university and the SI; and (2) KM. With the support of webQDA software, the structure was constructed using tree codes, into categories and their respective subcategories, for each of the central themes (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Representation of the tree code structure used in the webQDA software in the present study.

The results are then presented, based on those evidences.

4.1. USIC

In this central theme, the following categories were analysed: (1) motivations that underlie the establishment of an UIC; and (2) collaboration management mechanisms, which allow for the governance of the collaboration.

4.1.1. The main motivations that lead to the decision of establishing a collaboration

In this category, we sought to understand what motivations are identified by the interviewees as essential in making the decision to establish a collaboration.

Regarding the motivation category, the main subcategories that emerged from the interviews were: (1) KC; (2) hiring of people; (3) fund raising for project financing; (4) graduate internships leading to end-of-course projects and/or master’s dissertations.

4.1.2. Knowledge creation

The KC category represents an important aspect of the motivation that leads to the establishment of a collaboration. The difference observed between the university institution and the participating companies is highlighted. The answers obtained from the university show a certain individualistic motivation (i.e. centred on the options of the main protagonists of the process); while in the industry, the creation of knowledge arises naturally due to the need to search for new solutions for its customers (i.e. according to market preferences).

These results are associated with the existence of a more individualistic work culture in higher education institutions, as some studies in this area have revealed. One of the interviewees clearly expresses the existence of this culture when stating that:

(…) we have our own projects (…) the university career is very individualistic, both in terms of people and in terms of projects. (RU01b)

On the other hand, companies emphasise that the creation of knowledge represents a mission naturally incorporated into the existing work processes, systems, and infrastructures. This result corroborates evidences already reported in the literature (Howell & Annansingh, 2013).

The continuous approach to the needs, difficulties and suggestions of the customers and the constant search for differentiating technologies, allowed for the acquisition of knowledge in various areas of activity. (SI06)

4.1.3. Industry main motivation – hiring of people

As the main motivation for establishing an UIC, the SI identifies the people dimension; in other words, the possibility of hiring experts in the field. The fact that the main motivation of the industry is centred on this factor may perhaps be justified by the increasing difficulty that technology companies have faced when hiring qualified personnel with skills in the technological fields that matches their needs (Guellec et al., 2018).

We have a shortage of people in this market, especially in software (…) the company has to go to universities to get the best talent (…). (SI02)

Although the main motivation for the industry is based on access to specialists in the field, companies resent the gap between the market needs and the knowledge of recent graduates. For companies, a modernisation or update of the curriculum in a way that the needs of the market are met, is a pressing necessity.

(…) all students have jobs, that isn’t the issue, but a lot of them are doing things that they have to relearn, because they did not learn it at university. (SI04)

4.1.4. University main motivation – fund raising for project financing

The university’s motivation for seeking an UIC seems to be rooted in the need imposed by certain programs which lead to the raising of financial funds. This motivation seems to become increasingly more important due to the reduction of resources by the government; a result of the economic situation of recent years (Carvalho & Videira, 2019), which has caused major changes in the funding structure of Portuguese universities (Feijó & Tamen, 2017).

We have had good results (…) with projects in conjunction with companies, regarding the 2020 funding programs. The [Portugal] 2020 project strengthens this university-company integration a bit. (RU04)

In fact, the objectives that underlie the establishment of a collaboration in this study have been proven to be distinct; having the purpose of responding to different needs. The university is predominantly interested in research that can later be turned into papers. The industry prioritises the search for solutions that lead to the rapid development of new products.

(…) partnerships with external entities to universities for the purposes of research (…) what we seek in these partnerships with external entities is essentially concrete problems to which there is justification, a basis for working and developing research and creating new knowledge. (RU02)

(…) we went in search of them [RUs] when we thought we should release something into the market within those fields [health and KM]. (SI02)

This study also reveals differences in timings associated with gains, which in most cases contribute to the establishment of an UIC, or lack thereof. While companies work with short gain timings, because they are embedded into a very volatile market, universities are working on more time-consuming processes, which are characteristic of the research itself.

(…) what makes us hesitate from contacting universities is that we do not have immediate answers and the research and development process is often something that takes time, which the IT market doesn’t have much margin for. (SI09)

The interviewee highlights that the success of collaborations by a RU is based on the preparation of an attractive strategy for the industry. Its structure should not only be dedicated to capturing new partners, but mainly focused on maintaining current partners.

(…) any company that is really interested in doing a project in our field will be able to deal with us (…) I have it all already structured for the company (…) the company cannot be led into thinking that we are very different (…) Above all else, we have to realize that the company’s speed is not the same as ours. (RU03)

Another issue pointed out by the companies refers to situations where the development of new products or solutions for clients requires the total or partial confidentiality of the results. One of the main motivations of collaboration for the university is associated with the possibility of publishing the results of the produced knowledge, thus promoting the public disclosure of the obtained data. Therefore, projects where the confidentiality has to be maintained until the product’s launch, are often of no interest to the academic community. Jongbloed (2015) points out that this is often a point of tension between academia and industry, where academics resist accepting these conditions.

We mainly focus on papers, because that’s what builds our curriculum. (RU03)

The objective of universities or university research nowadays is mainly on the production of papers; we have to be realistic (…) the university focuses heavily on publishing a paper and not so much on creating a final product. (SI05)

4.1.5. Management mechanisms used in the governance of collaborations

The UIC is characterised as a collaboration between partners with different organisational and cultural models. This requires special attention to the definition of systematic management procedures, in order to produce results for both parties (Kauppila et al., 2016). According to Clauss and Kesting (2017, p. 186), these mechanisms “serve to define mutual objectives, facilitate coordination, and reduce uncertainties and opportunism”.

From the management mechanisms category, the subcategories were: (1) communication channels; (2) trust; (3) type of partner and; (4) long-term collaboration.

4.1.6. Communication channels

A collaboration’s result is associated with the form of interaction chosen by the parties involved in it (Edmondson et al., 2012). As such, the communication channels play an important role in the approach to motivation, which is reflected in the results. Chen et al. (2013) add that choosing effective communication channels also has an impact on the quality of the shared knowledge. However, despite the importance attributed to the communication channel in the literature, in the context of this study, SI and university are practically unanimous in identifying what they consider to be the best channels. Regardless of motivation, contact occurs through informal channels, using personal contacts derived from past events, more specifically, from former teachers and/or former students.

(…) when I want a project, I call a specific company (…) we know certain companies and we go to them. (RU03)

[when identifying the best communication channel with the university] I always go to someone I know [at the university] (SI08)

When considering the industry interviewees’ perspective, it is possible to point out that one of the reasons associated with the high demand for informal channels is due to formal/institutional channels being more time-consuming and highly bureaucratic.

According to nearly unanimous responses by RUs, the use of informal channels, based on networking, is the most effective means for collaborations. The university’s opinion matches that of Edmondson et al. (2012, p. 9), when they suggest that “people determine the success or failure of industry-university partnerships”.

Usually they are informal channels based on networks that we accumulate over the years (…) relationships are not institutional (…) Therefore, they are ultimately relationships between people (RU01b)

It should be noted that industry interviewees demonstrate a lack of knowledge towards the collaboration interfaces existing in the university. It is assumed that if they exist, they serve to identify groups of competencies within the institutions. On the other hand, RUs report that the use of these interfaces is aimed at responding to specific needs related to certain types of collaborations – such as the creation of protocols or the registration of intellectual property. While recognising the value of these interfaces, they point out the need for a better integrated institutional strategy for more efficient operations.

If not for personal relations, the normal process is not fluid, it is very complex (…) I don’t think that the university’s official channels are working well (SI08)

(…) websites and platforms are fundamental. The idea is good (…) but it is fundamental that it has a more institutional vision (…) an institutional policy to promote this collaboration (RU04)

4.1.7. Trust

Formal channels often lead to meeting previously unknown partners, and the trust factor emerges as an element to be considered in the collaboration. This means that trust plays a positive role when defining such a collaboration (Ehrismann & Patel, 2015).

[when contacting a university] we do it through a friend, because it is an easier and more controlled process. Normally we avoid institutional channels, so as to not run the risk of working with people we do not know (SI04)

Several authors emphasise the importance of developing a relationship of trust and the fact that it plays a key role in the success of the process (Sjöö & Hellström, 2019). Furthermore, it is common sense to these authors that trust becomes an important issue when the shared knowledge in this type of collaboration presents itself in a more tacit, rather than explicit, form. Despite the opinion expressed by several authors regarding the importance of trust, current business models with geographically dispersed companies – which focus on digital communication rather than communicating face-to-face – have been a challenge for the development of trusting collaborations.

4.1.8. Type of partner

Although the UIC is recognised as positive by both parties, when it comes to identifying their best partner, they still seem to be far apart. Both prefer partners in the same field, as can be seen in the following transcribed testimonies:

(…) we make [collaboration] agreements with other companies (…) companies are getting together, instead of doing so with the university (…) the university is important when it comes to getting money, getting projects, getting students (SI04)

(…) there has been more collaboration with academic institutions and less with companies (…) mainly with other RUs (RU01b)

When the interviewees were questioned about their previous or current collaborations, particularly regarding their management and creation of value, both sides agreed that there is still some work to be done in this area. They also mentioned the lack of evaluation of the result of an UIC as an aspect that could compromise future collaborations. The existence of an evaluation process promotes the opportunity to learn more and identify strengths and weaknesses of each experience (Wilson, 2012). Thus, new measures that allow for the strengthening of the link between industry and university can be proposed.

4.1.9. Long-term collaboration

With the study, it was still possible to observe that the industry and the university share the same opinion regarding the importance of a long-term collaboration – which is also shared by several authors. Sustainable long-term collaborations promote a deep dialog of collaboration, which “constructs a space for joint academic-practitioner knowledge creation, thus solving the knowledge production and transformation problem in management research” (Chen et al., 2013, p. 582) and “create a symbiotic relationship that support the competitive advantage of the organisations involved (Calvo et al., 2019, p. 1).

University and industry are also unanimous in recognising that long-term collaborations require some investment, mainly time and effort, from each party.

4.2. Culture and principles of KS and of KM

Universities and companies in the SI are recognised as organisations based on intensive knowledge. Considering that teams are multidisciplinary in collaborations, TK becomes more important in the relations between these types of organisations. Edmondson et al. (2012) argue that the true value of collaborations is often associated with the TK that is shared. Taking this into account, several authors point to the importance of having adequate KS and capture processes. This will allow them to be reused while saving time, effort and cost, with consequent efficiency gains in future projects (Huzita et al., 2012).

The topic of KM aimed to examine and identify the culture and principles of KS present in the university and enterprises belonging to the SI.

Initially, considering that people play an important role in KM initiatives, it was possible to observe that university and industry are aware of the relevance of their teams.

On the other hand, technology is the instrument by which knowledge is easily made available to the teams, since it offers a technological base that allows capturing, storing, and sharing the explicit knowledge. The sharing of TK is also facilitated as it provides the necessary means of communication. Industry results point to the existence of some tools that support KM, such as wikis, databases, and web applications with support for videos and audio. However, it was noted that these tools are more geared towards project management (e.g., JIRA software, the FMEA method) or required certifications related to company activities (e.g., ISO 27001, ISO 13485, NP 4457), and not so much for KM across the organisation. University results of the study point to the existence of formal mechanisms that are a little more fragile.

When it comes to KS among collaborators, the results indicate that it is a common practice among the studied organisations. There does not seem to be a KS problem between the RUs. The process becomes harder and less frequent when involving other areas within the university and outside the RU.

(…) internally, I do not think there are obstacles when knowledge is shared among the people of the organization (…) we could have more methods to guarantee more KS (…) I think it becomes much easier to continue with what exists, because those teams have enough turnover. (SI02)

Sometimes, internally [in the university], the researchers have difficulty, (…) adopting an interdisciplinary attitude, an interdisciplinary thinking (…) we had the possibility and obligation to go much further in these interdisciplinary crossings (RU02)

It should be noted that both the SI and universities are knowledge-intensive organisations, where the work is mainly of an intellectual nature and its members hold a large component of TK (Tzortzaki & Mihiotis, 2014). However, it is possible to verify that the management of this type of knowledge by the organisations belonging to the study requires some attention, so as to be able to take better advantage of its use in future situations.

In the software field, it [TK management] is not an easy problem, it is undoubtedly a big problem (…) [aggravated by] the difficulty of recruitment and turnover in the field (…) because the main knowledge, in the software field, is still in people’s heads. (SI08)

There are no records [of TK] (…) we are a group of people (…) each professional has a specialty (…) if one goes away (…) [we lose this knowledge] (…) we are not prepared for this. (RU03)

In conclusion, it should be noted that the parties involved in the study did not have mechanisms to support the management of TK, in situations of loss or mobility of their collaborators (Bosua & Scheepers, 2007). As it is not fully recorded, a good part of all TK would be lost with the exit of its holders, creating a potential gap in organisational knowledge (De Vasconcelos et al., 2017). Liebowitz (2009) had already stated that when an employee leaves the organisation, it is not simply the knowledge that they possess that is lost, but also their whole network.

[If my employees decided to leave] (…) this scenario would be very bad for my company and I don’t even want to think about it. (SI09)

[If my collaborators decided to leave] I would also disappear (…) restoring this knowledge becomes quite difficult. We have previously lost some researchers to other universities and this has already caused some hassle. (RU01a)

5. Conclusion and future work

5.1. Conclusion

The changes in the SI have been ever more rapid and more substantial. Towards that scenario, it is possible to suppose that the collaboration between university and SI will become increasingly important for both organisations.

As discussed in the present study, USIC offers numerous benefits for both parties. As a result of this mutually beneficial collaboration, SI firms can achieve solutions for most of their problems, since university offers firms a wide knowledge base of different scientific domains (pedagogical and scientific), specialists (teachers and researchers), training, etc. On the other hand, the university can get involved with specialised professionals and the real world of this industry, which can help its research and educational processes. These potential benefits reinforce the importance and the need to encourage and structure such collaboration.

The findings of this present study indicate that some kinds of the collaboration established between the university and SI are set-up only as a “connection”. Motivations associated with the immediate opportunities or needs of each of those directly involved in the collaboration take priority, with only one of the parties usually benefiting from the results. This “connection” is characterised by being a simple exchange, without building a sustainable collaboration; although, those involved do point out advantages in its existence. This relationship is generally conducted through informal communication channels, which makes it difficult to capture and disseminate knowledge to other members of each of the related organisations. In addition to that, the university and SI miss some opportunities to leverage existing relationships. A more structured and less individual approach can expand opportunities for intra and inter-organisational collaborations.

In order to leverage the collaboration between the university and the SI in a sustainable way, based on the key findings and the body of knowledge resulting from this study, it is possible to suggest the following recommendations for its sustainability:

The university needs a clearly formulated strategy to engage with industry: develop an institutional strategy to promote and encourage internal and external collaboration. This institutional strategy should play a leading role in defining the focus areas for collaboration, designing formats, selecting partners, evaluating collaborations, and continually managing the interactions between the university and the industry. This strategy should also establish an institutional channel providing relevant communication between university and industry and creating a collaboration environment in a holistic way. However, this institutional strategy should also consider the importance of the informal channel. Once most collaboration are initiated and established through already established contacts. These contacts are often personal formed in university or through educational and/or professional networks or previous collaboration. This institutional channel can help overcome some issues addressed in the research:

• Better alignment of expectations and understanding of partners;

• Developing mutual trust and common motivation to collaborate;

• Reducing the distance between organizations and bringing them closer together;

• Allowing both organizations to understand the added value of a collaboration relationship;

• Reducing the time-consuming and bureaucracy of channel formal/institutional.

The results of this study also highlighted the importance of providing incentive and supporting structures that encourage collaborations with industry. It became apparent from the qualitative study that existing platforms have been under-utilised or are unknown for both academics and industries. Social media have the potential for supporting different KM processes and encouraging on participation, KS, and collaboration. Social media may also help in creating a platform where academics and practitioners can network work together.

The results point to the importance of providing a dedicated and appropriate strategy for KS. Since the increase of knowledge is one of the principal focus of knowledge intensive organisations, such as the university and SI, KS can be viewed as a primary process. This situation contributes to richer interactions, reducing the ability to enhance KS and collaboration.

The results also identified, on both the university and on the SI, a lack of systematic approach for capturing the full potential of collaboration. A more systematic and less individualistic approach allows organisations to capture and to enhance opportunities that can derive from collaborations. In this regard, the university should create and build up a collaboration knowledge base. The existence of a knowledge base, among other aspects, will enable:

• The collaborations move towards a stable, long-term, mutually beneficial partnership, thanks to the lessons learned in previous collaboration and their utilization in the subsequent ones;

• The record of successful collaboration with industry can provide resources to motivate internal university academics to work together on a project that might not otherwise be possible;

• The implementation of a whole-of-university engagement strategy;

• The capture and dissemination of shared knowledge during the several interactions of groups of work to other members of each of the related organizations;

• The establishment of a competence portfolio based on situations of business practices.

Figure 2 summarises the main results that have highlighted throughout this study, as well as the main factors that may contribute to leverage the collaboration relationship between university and SI in a sustainable way, based on KM.

Figure 2. Main results of the study.

5.2. Scientific and managerial implications

The literature suggests that this theme is quite relevant and that there is an evident lack of empirical studies that properly investigate this type of relationship. In addition, as argued by Subramonian and Rasiah (2016, p. 84), UIC is “context dependent, and hence, are demarcated nationally, regionally, sectorally, or according to the technology or knowledge base”. In a scientific perspective, this study contributed to the advancement of knowledge in the area, specifically based on empirical results.

In a managerial perspective, this work contributes to the identification of relevant facts related to the USIC. The results obtained can support the organisations’ management in the strategies definition and development of future actions, in order to promote an organisational culture based on KM that significantly leads to sustainable KS and collaboration.

5.3. Limitations and future work

Although this study has important contributions, it is not exempt from limitations. Concerning the collaboration between university and SI, in addition to the inherent limitations of the qualitative research method and the subjective perceptions of the interviewees, the approach explores only a few, though important, issues of this collaboration. Future work should involve other universities and companies in the SI, in order to increase the body of knowledge in this area. Identifying other issues that may influence the development of this type of collaboration will also be important.

Given the exploratory character of this study, several observations have come light which can be identified as further areas to research. Some directions of further studies could be associated with the need to understand better the UIC.

• Although the UIC being a collaboration between organizations with fundamental differences in their characteristics, generally, the studies emphasize the impact of the university on the industry. Future studies are needed to examine the contributions and impacts of this collaboration on each partner.

• Universities are complex organizations with diversity and conflicts. The major part of the studies in UIC has treated university as a single unit. The development of a systematic model of procedures of governance and management from a holistic perspective is essential for capturing the full potential of such collaborations.

The limitations of the work presented here may shorten future research lines that, in a reasoned way, may deepen the analysis of the issues raised in this exploratory study and thus help to identify causes of problems, guiding factors, and solutions to establish a sustainable collaboration.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.