Managing interorganisational collaborations to develop medical technologies: the contribution of interpersonal relationships

References

• Perkmann M, Salandra R, Tartari V, et al. Academic engagement: a review of the literature 2011-2019. Res Policy. 2021;50(1):104114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias C, Escoval A. The open nature of innovation in the hospital sector: the role of external collaboration networks. Heal Policy Technol. 2012;1(4):181–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BEIS D for BE and IS. Science and Innovation Audits: Wave 2 [Internet]. University of York; [cited 2017]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/647784/BEIS_Document_Template_SIA.W2_Summary_Final.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Savory C, Fortune J. From translational research to open technology innovation systems. J Health Organ Manag. 2015;29(05):200–220.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vick TE, Robertson M. A systematic literature review of UK university- industry collaboration for knowledge transfer: a future research agenda. Sci Public Policy. 2018;45(4):579–590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewitt-Dundas N, Gkypali A, Roper S. Does learning from prior collaboration help firms to overcome the ‘two-worlds’ paradox in university-business collaboration? Res Policy. 2019;48(5):1310–1322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tartari V, Salter A, D’Este P. Crossing the rubicon: exploring the factors that shape academics’ perceptions of the barriers to working with industry. Cambridge J Econ. 2012;36:655–677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentin E. University-Industry cooperation: a framework of benefits and obstacles. Ind High Educ. 2000;14(3):165–172.
   Google Scholar
• Bruneel J, D’Este P, Salter A. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Res Policy. 2010;39(7):858–868.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santoro MD. Success breeds success: the linkage between relationship intensity and tangible outcomes in industry-university collaborative ventures. J High Technol Manag Res. 2000;11(2):255–273.
   Google Scholar
• Villani E, Rasmussen E, Grimaldi R. How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: a proximity approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2017;114:86–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullen JB, Johnson JL, Sakano T. Success through commitment and trust: the soft side of strategic alliance management. J World Bus. 2000;35(3):223–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galán-Muros V, van der Sijde P, Groenewegen P, et al. Nurture over nature: how do european universities support their collaboration with business? J Technol Transf. 2017;42(1):184–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swan J, Goussevskaia A, Newell S, et al. Modes of organizing biomedical innovation in the UK and US and the role of integrative and relational capabilities. Res Policy. 2007;36(4):529–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Behr C-M, Semple GA, Minshall T. Rapid setup and management of medical device design and manufacturing consortia: experiences from the COVID-19 crisis in the UK. R&D Mang 2022;52(2):220–234.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkire MS, Rane SB. Evaluation of success factors for medical device development using grey DEMATEL approach. J Model Manag. 2017;12(2):204–223.
   Google Scholar
• Boschma RA. Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg Stud. 2005;39(1):61–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston A, Huggins R. Networks, SMEs, and the university: the process of collaboration and open innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston A. Open innovation in science: assessing the formation and function of SME-University collaborations through the proximity matrix. Ind Innov. 2022;29(2):310–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuttim M. The role of spatial and non-spatial forms of proximity in knowledge transfer: a case of technical university. EJIM. 2016;19(4):468–491.
   Google Scholar
• Steinmo M, Rasmussen E. The interplay of cognitive and relational social Capital dimensions in university-industry collaboration: overcoming the experience barrier. Res Policy. 2018;47(10):1964–1974.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gossling T, Knoben J. Proximity and duration in temporary organisations. IJSBA. 2011;2(3):207–220.
   Google Scholar
• University of Nottingham, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. Centre for Healthcare Technologies [Internet]. Website. [cited 2022 Mar 16]. Available from: http://www.healthcaretechnologies.ac.uk/cht-homepage.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• University of Manchester, Manchester Science Partnerships, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Health Innovation Manchester. Christobel Pankhurst Institute for Health Technology and Innovation [Internet]. Website. [cited 2022 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/launch-of-multimillion-pound-institute-for-health-technology-research-and-innovation-in-manchester/.
   Google Scholar
• Maskell P, Bathelt H, Malmberg A. Building global knowledge pipelines: the role of temporary clusters. Eur Plan Stud. 2006;14(8):997–1013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balland P, Boschma R, Frenken K. Papers in evolutionary economic geography proximity and innovation: from statics to dynamics. J Reg Stud. 2015;49(6):907–920.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foss NJ, Pedersen T. Foss and pedersen. Strateg Manag J. 2016;37(13):22–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davey T, Meerman A, Galan Muros V, et al. The State of University-Business Cooperation in Europe [Internet]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Mora-Valentin EM, Montoro-Sanchez A, Guerras-Martin LA. Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations. Res Policy. 2004;33(1):17–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rampersad G, Quester P, Troshani I. Managing innovation networks: exploratory evidence from ICT, biotechnology and nanotechnology networks. Ind Mark Manag. 2010;39(5):793–805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plewa C, Korff N, Johnson C, et al. University-industry linkage evolution: an empirical investigation of relational success factors. J Eng Technol Manag. 2013;30(1):21–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adobor H. The role of personal relationships in inter-firm alliances: benefits, dysfunctions, and some suggestions. Bus Horiz. 2006;49(6):473–486.
   Google Scholar
• Dooley L, Gubbins C. Inter-organisational knowledge networks: synthesising dialectic tensions of university-industry knowledge discovery. J Knowl Manag. 2019;23(3):2113–2134.
   Google Scholar
• Palmatier R, Dant R, Grewal D, et al. A comparative longitudinal analysis of theoretical perspectives of interorganizational relationship performance. J Mark. 2007;71(4):172–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen-Smith J, Riccaboni M, Pammolli F, et al. A comparison of U.S. and european university-industry relations in the life sciences. Manag Sci. 2002;48(1):24–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galan-Muros V, Plewa C. What drives and inhibits university-business cooperation in Europe? A comprehensive assessment. R&D Manag. 2016;46(2):369–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zineldin M, Vasicheva V. Strategic alliances, total relationship management (TRM) and 5 QS - Why most of the marriages and strategic alliances are not sustainable? Nang Yan Bus J. 2014;2(1):140–150.
   Google Scholar
• Wittmann CM, Hunt SD, Arnett DB. Explaining alliance success: competences, resources, relational factors, and resource-advantage theory. Ind Mark Manag. 2009;38(7):743–756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NIHR. MedTech and In-Vitro Diagnostics Co-Operatives (MICs) [Internet]. [cited 2022 Mar 14]. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/partners-and-industry/industry/access-to-expertise/medtech.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Medilink UK. Medilink National Health Technology Business Support Network [Internet]. Website. [cited 2022 Mar 14]. Available from: https://www.medilink.co.uk.
   Google Scholar
• The AHSN Network. Academic Health Science Networks [Internet]. [cited 2022 Mar 4]. Available from: https://www.ahsnnetwork.com.
   Google Scholar
• Medipex. Medipex Healthcare Innovation hub [Internet]. [cited 2022 Mar 14]. Available from: http://www.medipex.co.uk.
   Google Scholar
• NIHR Children and Young People MedTech Co-Operative. Child Health Technology Conference – CHT 2022. [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jan 31]. Available from: https://cypmedtech.nihr.ac.uk/child-health-technology/.
   Google Scholar
• NIHR Children and Young People MedTech Co-Operative. NIHR CYP MedTech Support and Services [Internet]. [cited 2022. Jan 31]. Available from: https://cypmedtech.nihr.ac.uk/support/.
   Google Scholar
• Brown A, Dixon D, Eatock J, et al. A survey of success factors in new product development in the medical devices industry. 2008 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference. 2008. p. 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Eatock J, Dixon D, Young T. An exploratory survey of current practice in the medical device industry. J Manuf Technol Manag. 2009;20(2):218–234.
   Google Scholar
• NIHR Children and Young People MedTech Co-Operative. Meet the Team [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jan 31]. Available from: https://cypmedtech.nihr.ac.uk/about/.
   Google Scholar
• Lucke LE, Mickelson A, Anderson D. Proving experience speeds medical device time to market. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009;2009:7057–7060.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pietzsch JB, Shluzas LA, Paté-Cornell ME, et al. Stage-gate process for the development of medical devices. J Med Device. 2009;3(2):021004.
   Google Scholar
• Medina LA, Kremer GEO, Wysk RA. Supporting medical device development: a standard product design process model. J Eng Des. 2013;24(2):83–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams P. The life and times of the boundary spanner. J Integr Care. 2011;19(3):26–33.
   Google Scholar
• Albats E, Bogers M, Podmetina D. Companies’ human Capital for university partnerships: a micro-foundational perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2020;157:120085.
   Google Scholar
• Ebers M. The formation of inter- organizational networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang C, Viswanathan S, Henke JW. The boundary spanning capabilities of purchasing agents in buyer-supplier trust development. J Oper Manag. 2011;29(4):318–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams P. The competent boundary spanner. Public Adm. 2002;80(1):103–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chau VS, Gilman M, Serbanica C. Aligning university–industry interactions: the role of boundary spanning in intellectual Capital transfer. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2017;1123:199–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter A, Parboteeah KP, Riesenhuber F, et al. Championship behaviors and innovations success: an empirical investigation of university spin-offs. J Prod Innov Manag. 2011;28(4):586–598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanter RM. Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances. Harv Bus Rev. 1994;72(4):96–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markham SK, Green SG, Basu R. Champions and antagonists: relationships with R&D project characteristics and management. J Eng Tech Manage. 1991;8(3-4):217–242.
   Google Scholar
• Burgelman RA. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Quarterly. 1983;28:223–244.
   Google Scholar
• Tsai W, Ghoshal S. Social Capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks [internet]. Acad Manag J. 1998;41(4):464–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma A, Garg A. Knowledge transfer: an empirical study on factors yielding the effectiveness of the academia–industry interface (with special reference to moradabad city). Manag Econ Res J [Internet]. 2019;5:1.
   Google Scholar
• Barbolla AMB, Corredera JRC. Critical factors for success in university-industry research projects. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2009;21(5):599–616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauvås T, Steinmo M. The role of proximity dimensions and mutual commitment in shaping the performance of university-industry research centres. Innovation. 2021;23(2):182–208.
   Google Scholar
• Plewa C, Quester P. Satisfaction with university-industry relationships: the impact of commitment, trust and championship. Int J Technol Transfer Commercialisation. 2006;5:79–101.
   Google Scholar
• Owens M, Ramsey E, Loane S. Resolving post-formation challenges in shared IJVs: the impact of shared IJV structure on inter-partner relationships. Int Bus Rev. 2018;27(3):584–593.
   Google Scholar
• Krishnan R, Martin X, Noorderhaven NG. When does trust matter to alliance performance? [internet.]. AMJ. 2006;49(5):894–917.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston A, Huggins R. Partner selection and university-industry linkages: assessing small firms’ initial perceptions of the credibility of their partners. Technovation. 2018;78:15–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachmann R, Inkpen AC. Understanding institutional-based trust building processes in inter-organizational relationships. Organ Stud. 2011;32(2):281–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakos G, Brouthers KD. International alliance commitment and performance of small and medium-size enterprises: the mediating role of process control. J Int Manag. 2008;14(2):124–137.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan RM, Hunt SD. The Commitment-Trust theory of relationship marketing. J Mark. 1994;58(3):20–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxton T. The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes. Acad Manag J. 1997;40(2):443–461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galán-Muros V, Plewa C. What drives and inhibits university-business cooperation in Europe? A comprehensive assessement. R&D Manag. 2015;46(2).
   Google Scholar
• Muscio A, Pozzali A. The effects of cognitive distance in university-industry collaborations: some evidence from italian universities. J Technol Transf. 2013;38(4):486–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee K-J. From interpersonal networks to inter-organizational alliances for university-industry collaborations in Japan: the case of the Tokyo institute of technology. R&D Manag. 2011;41(2):190–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusch RF, Brown JR. Interdependency, contracting, and relational behavior in marketing channels. J Mark. 1996;60(4):19–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter A. Relationship promoters driving forces for successful customer relationships. Indus Market Manag. 1999;28(5):537–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dekker H, Donada C, Mothe C, et al. Boundary spanner relational behavior and inter-organizational control in supply chain relationships. Ind Mark Manag. 2019;77:143–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doney PM, Cannon JP. An examination of the nature of trust in Buyer-Seller relationships. J Mark. 1997;61(2):35–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jap SD. Pie-Expansion efforts: collaboration processes in Buyer-Supplier relationships. J Market Res. 1999;36(4):461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lussier B, Grégoire Y, Vachon MA. The role of humor usage on creativity, trust and performance in business relationships: an analysis of the salesperson-customer dyad. Ind Mark Manag. 2017;65:168–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tangpong C, Hung KT, Ro YK. The interaction effect of relational norms and agent cooperativeness on opportunism in buyer-supplier relationships. J Oper Manag. 2010;28(5):398–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lifshitz-Assaf H. Dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA: the critical role of professional identity in open innovation. Adm Sci Q. 2018;63(4):746–782.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlile PR. Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ Sci. 2004;15(5):555–568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson A, Charleton K. Making partnerships work: a practical guide for the public, private, voluntary and community sectors. York: YPS for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Bell ST. Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(3):595–615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenna E. Business psychology and organizational behaviour. 5th ed. Hove: Psychology Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Emre Yildiz H, Murtic A, Klofsten M, et al. Individual and contextual determinants of innovation performance: a micro-foundations perspective. Technovation. 2021;99:102130.
   Google Scholar
• Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM. Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Adm Sci Q. 2011;56(2):159–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okhuysen GA, Bechky BA. Coordination in organizations: an integrative perspective. Annals. 2009;3(1):463–502.
   Google Scholar
• Aiken M, Hage J. The organic organisation and innovation. Sociology. 1971;5(1):63–82.
   Google Scholar
• Park SH, Ungson GR. Interfirm rivalry and managerial complexity: a conceptual framework of alliance failure. Organ Sci. 2001;12(1):37–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Wohlgezogen F, Zhelyazkov P. The two facets of collaboration: cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. Annals. 2012;6(1):531–583.
   Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Lawrence PR, Puranam P. Adaptation in vertical relationships: beyond incentive conflict. Strat Manag J. 2005;26(5):415–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohr J, Spekman R. Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Manag J. 1994;15(2):135–152.
   Google Scholar
• Gittel JH. Paradox of coordination and control. Calif Manage Rev. 2000;42(3):471.
   Google Scholar
• Homans GC. Social behaviour: its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace; 1961.
   Google Scholar
• Grant RM. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strat Manag J. 1996;17(S2):109–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez RVD. Innovative performance of project teams: the role of organizational structure and knowledge-based dynamic capability. J Knowl Manag. 2022;26(5):1164–1186.
   Google Scholar
• Wang C, Cen Y, Sun R, et al. Optimal distribution of profit and leadership for a sustainable collaborative R&D projects. J Clean Prod. 2021;313.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cortes AF, Herrmann P. Strategic leadership of innovation: a framework for future research. Br Acad Manag. 2020;23(2):224–243.
   Google Scholar
• Fryxell G, Dooley R, Vryza M. After the ink dries: the interaction of trust and control in US-based international joint ventures. J Manag Stud. 2002;39(6):865–886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das TK, Teng B-S. Between trust and control: developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances [internet]. Acad Manag Rev. 1998;23(3):491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ring PS, Van De Ven AH. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships [internet]. Acad Manag Rev. 1994;19(1):90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao Z, Lumineau F. Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational governance: a qualitative and Meta-analytic investigation. J Oper Manag. 2015;33-34(1):15–42.
   Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Luo Y, Liu T. Governing buyer-supplier relationships through transactional and relational mechanisms: evidence from China. J Oper Manag. 2009;27(4):294–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szczepański R, Światowiec-Szczepańska J. Risk management system in business relationships-Polish case studies. Ind Mark Manag. 2012;41(5):790–799.
   Google Scholar
• Filippetti A, Savona M. University–industry linkages and academic engagements: individual behaviours and firms’ barriers. Introduction to the special section. J Technol Transf. 2017;142(4):719–729.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arza V, Carattoli M. Personal ties in university-industry linkages: a case-study from Argentina. J Technol Transf. 2017;42(4):814–840.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennart J-F, Zeng M. Structural determinants of joint venture performance. Eur Manag Rev. 2005;2(2):105–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Singh H. The architecture of cooperation: managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Quarterly. 1998;43(4):781–814.
   Google Scholar
• Yan A, Gray B. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in US-China joint ventures: a comparative case study. Acad Manag J. 1994;37:1478–1517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheffield Hallam University (Lab4Living), Sheffield Teaching Hospital, Sheffield Children’s Hospital, Medipex, Devices4Dignity. Non-invasive customised ventillation mask for children [Internet]. Website. [cited 2022 Mar 16]. Available from: https://lab4living.org.uk/projects/non-invasive-ventilation/.
   Google Scholar
• University of Nottingham, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Tioga Ltd. Neonatal heartrate monitoring [Internet]. Website. [cited 2022 Mar 16]. Available from: http://www.healthcaretechnologies.ac.uk/case-studies/critical-care/newborn-baby-monitoring.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Dxcover. Early detection of cancer through liquid biopsy and artificial intelligence [Internet]. Website. [cited 2022 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.dxcover.com.
   Google Scholar
• National Health Service. NHSX [Internet]. Website. 2022. [cited 2022 Mar 10]. Available from: https://www.nhsx.nhs.uk.
   Google Scholar