دانلود ترجمه مقاله همکاری صنعت و دانشگاه و ابتکار در صنایع بالغ و نوظهور در کشورهای تازه صنعتی شده

2. University–industry interaction and the technological challenges in mature and emergent industries In this section, we review the differences between mature and emergent industries in terms of the process of building industrial innovative capabilities, and discuss and develop expectations about the specific role of the university in the development of technological and innovative capabilities in industry, in light of these differences. The innovative environments of mature low and medium technology industries and emergent high-technology industries differ considerably in terms of market and technology turbulence, and the characteristics of knowledge inputs. Consequently, search strategies for innovation inputs, the role of networking and collaboration for innovation development, and eventual innovative outputs also differ (Utterback and Abernathy, 1975; Tushman and Anderson, 1986; Strebel, 1987; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). The emergent industry environment is characterized by strong competition in technology and product developments and strong market turbulence. As industries mature, and a dominant industry design emerges, technological uncertainty decreases and competition increasingly is based on cost, and incremental product innovations (Utterback and Abernathy, 1975; Strebel, 1987). Thus, technologies and markets evolve more quickly in emergent than in mature industries (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000), but there is no evidence that innovation is more frequent in the former compared to the latter (McGahan and Silverman, 2001; Robertson and Patel, 2007). Also, the types of knowledge inputs required for firms’ innovation development, ways of accessing knowledge sources, and the results of firms’ innovative efforts may be quite different across the industry lifecycle. Tacit and disembodied knowledge would seem particularly important for innovative activity in the early stages of the industry lifecycle and, consequently, personal contacts (i.e. telephone calls, participation in meetings, demonstrations) may be decisive for knowledge transfer (Audretsch, 1998; Mangematin and Nesta, 1999; Furman and MacGarvie, 2009). Furman and MacGarvie (2009) show that in the early years of the US pharmaceutical industry, US universities supported the development of firms’ research and development (R&D) labs via training of scientific and technical staff and collaborative research. Given the importance of disembodied knowledge and personal contacts for innovative activity, geographic proximity often characterizes emergent industries (Prevenzer, 1997). In the early stages of an industry life cycle, new knowledge inputs and resources, such as university research, may enhance the agglomeration of innovative activity, while the new knowledge embodied in skilled workers favours clustering in all phases of the industry cycle (Audretsch and Stephan, 1996; Audretsch, 1998). Regardless of the characteristics of the knowledge, however, low absorptive capacity makes firms reliant on personal contacts (and thus proximity) to absorb external codified knowledge not related to its core competencies (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Mangematin and Nesta, 1999).