Dynamics of industrial relationships in a public research organization

Profile of laboratories, industrial partnerships and organization of R&D

Introduction

Some evidences about economics of science

• Fundamental research versus applied research

• Public research versus private research

Empirical materials

• the use of bibliometric tools to assess the production of scientists in public research organizations;

• the use of financial data bases to analyse laboratories' funding;

• the use of interviews to assess laboratories' degree of autonomy in determining their research themes.

a data base of 182 contracts between public laboratories and industry in which we have information about origine of the contract, fundings, coordination and results.

Hypothesis tested

• H1 : the field of scientific options is not independent of a laboratory's relations;

• H2 : a laboratory's independence vis-à-vis industry cannot be measured in terms of its financial independence, but rather in terms of its autonomy in its choice and definition of research themes.

1. Laboratories at the core of networks

Compatibility between thematic independence and financial dependence

Typology of labs and dynamics

The second type (strong independence concerning choice of themes; contracts with institutions: foundations, public authorities, etc.) is composed by laboratories which are oriented towards fundamental research and work on themes rather than on species. The declared objective is often to make fundamental research or generic tools available to SMEs and industry associations. We shall call these laboratories the "designers of generic tools and methods".

In the third type of laboratory, most of their contracts are bilateral and research is generally fundamental. We call them "basic and specialised laboratories".

Variables	Research centres for the profession	Designers of generic tools	Basic and specialised labs
Number of observations	4	9	4
Academic recognition and visibility (scientometric data base)	Weak, the main objective is to improve vegetal material and procedures	It is a highly visible objective. Recognition can be for both fundamental and applied research.	It is the basis of this type of laboratory. Academic recognition is essentially for fundamental research.
Financial dependence (financial data base)	Relatively insignificant	The laboratories are financially dependent but control external funds	Financial dependence
Critical resources (interviews with researchers)	Strong need for personnel for performing experiments	Strong need for qualified personnel (engineers)	Mostly PhD students
Themes (interviews with researchers about the contracts they manage; contracts survey)	Multiple themes; general improvement of plants available to everybody is more important than the pursuit of a scientific logic	The scientific logic predominates but the laboratories remain attentive to the preoccupations of SMEs and industry associations	Retranslation of questions in scientific terms
Contracts (contracts survey)	Multilateral, accompanied by subsidies	Multilateral (in a leading position) and bilateral (easy access to subsidies)	Bilateral. Few subsidies
Foreign relations (contracts survey)	Relatively insignificant	Relatively insignificant	Insertion in international academic networks

2. Industrial relationship logics

1. "logics" can first be understood as a high level of coherence between the different variables characterising relationships; it is then a synchronic aspect of the analysis;

2. "logics" can also refer to an evolution, relative notably to the learning processes involved in different types of relationship. This second dimension of the concept refers to the diachronic aspect of the analysis.

	Proximity logic	Club logic	Market logic
Research centres for the profession	Frequent	Frequent	Very rare
Designers of generic tools and methods	Rare	Frequent	Rare
Basic and specialised laboratories	Very rare	Rare	Very frequent

3. Which learning dynamics

Co-ordination and learning in industrial relationships

1. In the logic of proximity, learning by relationships is very important.
   1. Learning by relationships which reduces “ transaction costs ”.
   2. The partners share the work according to their respective areas of expertise.

2. In the market logic there is very little learning by relationships
   1. The relationship generally makes it possible to co-ordinate complementary expertise without pooling it.
   2. The partners' profits are embodied in different outputs (publications, patents, genetic material etc.). This second characteristic explains a high level of strategic complementarity.

3. In a club logic, partners learn about the regulation of multilateral relationships.
   1. Given the multilateral nature of these relationships, trust plays a marginal role in co-ordination. The establishment of rules corresponds to effective collective learning.
   2. Despite the collective nature emphasised above, the contents of individual learning vary considerably according to the position of the various partners.

Learning in networks

---

Octobre 1996 - Contact : Roger.Coronini@upmf-grenoble.fr ou delooze@grenoble.inra.fr

---