Center for Science, Technology, and Economic Development (CSTED) > Selected Reports

VIII. THE PERSPECTIVE OF OTHER ERC PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIRMS

As noted previously in our discussion of the methodology used in this study, respondents to the primary participant questionnaire, who were identified by the ERCs, were asked to identify up to two additional individuals within their companies to whom a somewhat shorter version of the questionnaire could subsequently be mailed. On the assumption that the ERCs had, as requested, provided the name of the individual within the firm who was most likely to be the main point of contact with the ERC -- the most likely ERC "champion" -- we asked these respondents to the primary participant questionnaire to provide the names of the person who reviews or approves the company unit's support for the ERC and one other individual who had interacted fairly extensively with the ERC. We were interested in this information in order to ascertain whether perspectives on the nature and extent of outcomes and impacts of ERC participation differed for individuals in the firm that were less likely to be at the very core of the company's relationship with the ERC.

One of the questions we had, for example, was whether the individuals responsible for approving budgets for their company's ERC participation -- the "approvers" -- differed significantly in their perspectives on the value of the ERC relationship from those who were the main points of contact with the ERC for their firm. As discussed in the section of this report dealing with factors underlying benefits derived from participation in an ERC, we ended up with such a small number of "approvers" who were not at the same time the main points of contact between the ERC and the firm -- and that from the primary and follow-on or "secondary" questionnaire combined -- that we were only able to compare perceptions at the very broadest level. Another question we had was whether the impact of ERC participation on the firm diluted or otherwise changed significantly as the views of individuals in the firms who were perhaps further removed from the core relationship with the ERC were taken into consideration. Tables 39 through 48 in this section are designed to address that question.

In each table, means or percentage breakdowns of respondents to the primary participant questionnaire are shown along with the comparable numbers for respondents to the secondary questionnaire. T-tests were run on all numbers to determine where there was a significant difference. Where the respondents to the secondary participant questionnaire differed significantly on a particular item from the respondents to the primary participant questionnaire, this is indicated on the table with an asterisk.

As anticipated, there were a number of ways in which respondents to the secondary questionnaire differed significantly from respondents to the primary questionnaire in terms of the role that they play in their companies' relationships with an ERC (see Table 39). More than twice as many respondents to the primary participant questionnaire (81.9% compared to 39.8%) view themselves as the main point of contact between their company units and the ERC (a matter of perception, after all); more than one and three-fourths times as many respondents to the primary participant questionnaire (34.1% compared to 19.5%) are voting members of an ERC advisory committee, council or board that makes recommendations regarding ERC management plans or research; and almost one and three-fourths times as many respondents to the primary participant questionnaire (68.8% compared to 41.4%) are responsible for preparing budgets and/or justifications or recommendations for their company's membership or other form of participation in the ERC.

Other than the fact that a greater percentage of respondents to the primary participant questionnaire had reviewed ERC research results or publications (67.9% compared to 57.1%), there were no significant differences between the primary and secondary questionnaire respondents in terms of the types of their personal involvement with the ERC (see Table 40).

In scanning through the remaining tables for significant differences, one might notice that there is an astonishing absence of asterisks. There are no significant differences between respondents to the primary and secondary participant questionnaires in terms of how they perceived the value of results or outcomes from their participation in the ERC, how ERC students hired as regular company employees compare with students from non-ERC programs, the factors that contribute to ERC derived benefits, the barriers to receiving benefits from participation in an ERC, or how the ERC compares with their other university-industry research collaboration experiences.

The few items on which there is a statistically significant difference between respondents to the primary and secondary questionnaire include the following: (1) Respondents to the secondary participant questionnaire tended to assign greater importance to the opportunity for joint projects and the ability to license inventions and/or software developed by the ERC among their original reasons for participating (see Table 41); (2) Respondents to the secondary participant questionnaire were more likely to believe that their companies had obtained access to new ideas, know-how or technologies through ERC interaction, had patented or copyrighted technology or software developed by the company based on ERC interaction, or had hired an ERC student (see Table 43); (3) Respondents to the secondary participant questionnaire seemed to think that their companies had a greater degree of influence on the ERCs' research agendas (see Table 42); (4) Respondents to the secondary participant questionnaire had a higher opinion of overall company benefits from ERC participation and of the effect of ERC participation on the overall competitiveness of their companies (see Table 42); (5) Respondents to the secondary participant questionnaire viewed it as more likely that their companies would continue their participation in the future (see Table 48).

That's it. Contrary to our expectations, respondents to the secondary participant questionnaire, who include many fewer individuals who believe themselves to be the main points of contact between their company units and the ERCs and many fewer voting members of ERC advisory committees, technical committees, or boards that make recommendations regarding ERC management plans or research, are, if anything, more positive about the overall impact of ERC participation on their companies than respondents to the primary participant questionnaire, who undoubtedly include many more "champions". On all other items, the lack of a significant difference in the respondents to the secondary participant questionnaire from the respondents to the primary participant questionnaire tends to confirm or add confidence to the primary survey findings as reported in the preceding sections of this report.